mountainman

Hi TedM,

As I see it this seems to be an issue of protocol that I myself have been guilty of abusing, and in restrospect I wish I'd had more patience and understanding in the communication, because I may have learnt a little more about why people think differently about various aspects of the whole picture. That is why Toto is so valuable to this forum.

Anyway thanks for displaying more than an open tolerance.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

OMG.

Toto

The basis for the dispute is whether the gospel texts describe a man or a god.

mountainman

This discussion was split from Earl's Jesus: Neither God Nor Man , therefore I am not sure that you are correct here Toto. I think it runs a little deeper than you state it. You need to add myth (and thus fiction) to complete the picture.

What do you make of aa5874's claim that "If you think that MYTHS cannot talk or walk on earth then you SADLY mistaken". As I see it, the basis of the dispute is about historical possibilities and likelihoods, and whether or not the books of the NT canon are of any use in this exercise, and if so, how.

Toto

It was split because it was off topic in that thread.

aa5874 insists that a description of supernatural events necessarily means that the source describes a mythical entity, with no possibility of a historical core. Every one else is tired of this assertion.

That is the dispute in many other threads. This was split because aa5874 does not agree.

aa5874

You make me LAUGH. Does EARL DOHERTY INSISTS that "PAUL" described a MYTHICAL ENTITY?

Sometimes I wonder if I am dealing with real people?

You invent your claims about me.

Please state where I sated that there is NO possibility of an historical core?

I DETEST inventions. And you KNOW very well that MJers do NOT ever argue that Jesus has an historical core.

It is HJers that argue that Jesus had an historical core.

Does EARL DOHERTY argue that JESUS possibly had an historical core?

I have the same opinion has any MJer that Jesus was MOST likely a mere myth and have used SOURCES of ANTIQUITY and NOT imagination.

Please do NOT EVER make any more mis-leading statements about my position.


Do you want to start a cult where everybody must agree? Does EARL DOHERTY agree with BART EHRMAN about Jesus?

This is an OPEN discussion. What really is your problem?

My position is that Jesus was a MYTH fable like Marcion's PHANTOM and INVENTED AFTER the FALL of the Temple and I think I have a SOLID position based on the evidence from antiquity. That is ALL.

TedM

First time I EVER heard you use a qualifier when discussing Jesus. If you allow for the possibility that he was more than pure myth (ie some historical core), you sure have not made that clear and you have argued ad-nauseum for a different position.

Why do you argue so persistently that the writers had no belief in an entity who had been a human being when you just now have admitted that there is a possibility that he could have been? If YOU admit this, then why do you not allow for the writers to have believed it? That seems a glaring contradiction.

Or do you? Do you think the gospel writers believed Jesus had been a human being, a man, when they describe him as such or do you think they were even more skeptical than you on the matter?

Von Bek

One thing I wanna bring up. Christians, such as Arius, who denied that Jesus was a man did not deny that he was an historical "actor". They thought there was an historical Jesus, he just wasn't a man of flesh and blood.

aa5874

What NONSENSE you post.

Why don't you ARGUE that Jesus was possibly MYTH based on Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.34-35, John 1, Mark 6.49, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1.1-12 and 1 Cor.15.

You are CONSTANTLY and CONSISTENTLY arguing that Jesus was a man and now EXPECT me to HELP you. You are NOT ready.

Do you not UNDERSTAND that there are TWO opposing VIEWS in the HJ/MJ argument.

1. HJ---Jesus of the NT was a mere MAN.

2. MJ---Jesus of the NT was a mere MYTH.

I am arguing that Jesus of the NT was a MERE MYTH and I have TONS and TONS of EVIDENCE from antiquity. I won't be wasting a single minute on HJ for there is NOTHING there.

aa5874

The HJ argument is that Jesus was a MAN. You must understand that the HJ argument is NOT merely about belief of existence but that Jesus was ACTUALLY a human being born of the seed of man and had real human parents.

Even Marcion claimed his PHANTOM did exist and could be SEEN with the NAKED eye even though it came down from heaven to Capernaum WITHOUT BIRTH.


"Against Marcion" 4.7 People of antiquity BELIEVED their MYTH Gods did actually exist but the HJ argument is that Jesus was a MAN with a human father that was KNOWN to be a man by the very disciples of Jesus and people all over Galilee and in Jerusalem with Jewish and Romans records that he was a man who did virtually NOTHING as described in the NT.