outhouse

im with you on this one lol


remember

historical jesus
biblical jesus
mythical jesus



and adam has more BJ hybrid traits, many of these "traits" I personally dont see the link to either.

aa5874

Concession without evidence is the very worse way to resolve any matter. Visions and dreams are NOT accepted methods of collecting historical Data.

When did Paul write his letters??? Who received a Pauline letter??? None of the Pauline letters are dated to the 1st century. None of Paul's companions can be found in any credible sources outside the Jesus stories and Apologetic sources . They VANISHED without a trace

If you want to be resolve the Pauline writings you MUST establish the veracity and historical accuracy of the Pauline writings.

Failure to do so may mean you are NOT serious.

Presumptions about Paul are NO longer acceptable--let us do history.

aa5874

Such statement is not accurate.

We know that things that do NOT exist have NO evidence of existence.

This is extremely important.

Absence of Evidence MAY be evidence of Absence since ALL things Non-existing have NO evidence of existing.

In Court trials People are EXONERATED when they can show ABSENCE of evidence that they commited a crime.

In effect if the Evidence does NOT exist then you MUST acquit.

Please, REMEMBER that once there is NO evidence then there can be NO argument.

It cannot be argued that Jesus son of Ananus was beaten and dedclared a mad man if there was NO evidence or statement from antiquity.

No-one will argue that Jesus the Son of Ananus was the Son of a Ghost that lived in Nazareth because there is absence.

But, people will always argue that Jesus was a Myth Fable because there is ABSENCE OF HISTORY for Jesus.

LegionOnomaMoi

It's been a while since I amused myself by commenting on your...colorful assertions.

So "We know that things that do NOT exist have NO evidence of existence." This is, of course, tautologically true. If something does not exist, by definition there can be no evidence of its existence. The pertinent question is how you know whether somethings exits or not. Suppose I tell you I saw a unicorn. You may scoff and disregard my claim, but your ability to "know" that what I claim exists actually does not is limited. In fact, for many things which likely do not exist, such as ghosts, spirits, magic, psychic abilities, etc., there is "evidence" that they do. So either you statement is trivially true (and therefore meaningless), or simply wrong.

What is the logical connection between these statements? For example, imagine I assert that psychic powers exist. You state that there is an absence of evidence for such powers. But unless you have already determined that psychic powers don't exist, then the fact that non-existing things have no evidence of existing says nothing at all here. In other words, the only interpretation under which the statement "ALL thing Non-existing have NO evidence of existing" has any meaning is when the "thing" in question is known/proven/unquestionably "Non-existing". Otherwise, your statement has no meaning.

Quite true. And as any judge, lawyer, or similar expert will tell you, the absence of evidence doesn't in any way, shape, or form indicate that the person charged is innocent. It simply means that either the jury wasn't allowed to see the evidence, or the evidence was convincing but not beyond a reasonable doubt, or both. In court trials, guilty people are exonerated all the time.

Wrong. Utterly, completely, thoroughly, and wonderfully incorrect. There is no court in which the jury must acquit "if the Evidence does NOT exist". Only if it does not meet a legal standard, which has nothing to do with history.


You do realize you just contradicted yourself, right?

Grog made a statement about absence of evidence, and you claimed that such a statement about no evidence is not accurate. However, you state above that "once there is NO evidence then there can be NO argument." So which is it? Is absence of evidence meaningful, as you assert by stating "once there is NO evidence then there can be NO argument", or is "Such statement is not accurate" ?

dog-on

Does the text of Mark infer that John recognizes Jesus, in your opinion?

It seems to me that Mark casts an Elijah figure and then, comically, makes the Elijah figure completely miss the fulfillment of his own prophesying. Almost like a Python sketch. So if there is any embarrassment here, it has got to be John's, I suppose.

aa5874

Your response is typical of those who use Myth Fables in the NT as credible history while at the same time ACKNOWLEDGE the Canon is NOT reliable.

I already know that you are TERRIFIED to respond to my post.

Yes, anything which did NOT exist or NEVER existed will have NO evidence of existence. That is the TRUTH.

Yes, No evidence will ever, ever, ever be found for Non-existing things.

No evidence has ever been found and DATED by Paleography or C 14 in the 1st century or before c 70 CE for an historical Jesus.

We have THOUSANDS of Jesus stories and Apologetic sources that mention Jesus, the disciples and Paul but ZERO, NIL and NO dated evidence from the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Please, you must have known all along what that means.

The Non-existing evidence supports a NEVER existed Jesus.

No credible argument at all can be made for an historical Jesus before c 70 CE.

No credible argument can be made against the theory that Jesus NEVER Existed.

This is so basic.

There can be NO argument--No theory without Supporting DATA.

The Past cannot be reconstructed without evidence.

A person cannot be accused and charged without SUPPORTING evidence.

The Evidence is ABSENT for an argument for an historical Jesus during the time of Pilate the governor, and Caiaphas the High Priest.

I EXPECTED ABSENT of evidence for an historical Jesus and that is PRECISELY what has been found.

I EXPECTED FORGERIES to place Jesus in the time of Pilate and that is PRECISELY what has been found.

The argument that Jesus NEVER existed is the ONLY argument that can be maintained at this time due to ABSENCE of evidence and Forgeries.

ApostateAbe

There are a lot of historical characters that bear striking similarities to many other historical characters. If we have good evidence that two such historical characters are actually one, then, OK, we can fill in the gaps of the accounts using the theory, and we can conclude that the differences in the accounts can be explained as bad information or irrelevant. In this case, there seems to be no good reason to suspect that Jesus of Nazareth was a derivative of Jesus ben Ananias, and the differences serve to discredit the hypothesis. The similarities would be somewhat expected merely by those two characters sharing a message and a social environment. Very solid arguments would be required, since the hypothesis works against the other solid arguments of multiple independent Christian traditions and writings that seem to predate the fall of Jerusalem, including the writings of Paul.

Grog

Fair enough.

What differences can you point to? What can we say about Jesus of Nazareth affirmatively that falsifies the proposition that the source for the story was Jesus ben Ananias? You said he was a preacher of the apocalypse, and here we have just such a preacher documented by a contemporary historian. Yet you have a problem considering THIS Jesus to be THAT Jesus.

--same name
--same event (more or less)
--same sequence and structure to the story

on an on. Your assertion is not a statement based on evidence. IF there is a human at the basis of the Jesus story, I can't find a concrete reason to eliminate Jesus ben Ananias as a candidate.

As you know, there are problems with correlating Paul's Jesus with the Synoptic Jesus. I happen to think Paul is referring to a different Jesus-belief than what is found in the Synoptics.

Again, using your "solid arguments" and "multiple traditions," what can you say about Jesus? What "facts" do you base your judgment that gMark's Jesus of Nazareth could not have been based on Jesus ben Ananias?

aa5874

Well, you have identified the problem with your own HJ. Your HJ have a STRIKING RESEMBLANCE to Jesus of Nazareth the Son of a Ghost.

The Son of a Ghost is the ONLY character known to mankind to have been BELIEVED to have lived in Nazareth, baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

It is well documented in Existing Codices and Multiple attested in Apologetic sources that it was BELIEVED Jesus of Nazareth was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Your historical Jesus of Nazareth was DERIVED from the very same sources as Son of the Ghost.

Your Jesus has a STRIKING resemblance to MYTH Jesus.

You must fill in the Gaps.

ApostateAbe

"Again, using your "solid arguments" and "multiple traditions," what can you say about Jesus? What "facts" do you base your judgment that gMark's Jesus of Nazareth could not have been based on Jesus ben Ananias?"

OK, I will give you one such argument. Paul's epistle to the Galatians describes Paul's encounter with Peter and James in the Council of Jerusalem. In this letter, Paul writes of the crucifixion of Jesus (as in every letter), and he writes of a bitter theological dispute with Peter. No Christian would have reason to forge this letter, because they were interested in portraying Paul and Peter to be unified behind the same doctrines, as in the book of Acts. For this reason, scholars are unified on the point that Paul genuinely wrote the epistle to the Galatians. This letter necessarily predates the fall of Jerusalem, which means the Christian character of Jesus existed well before the popularity of Jesus ben Ananias.