aa5874

The Christian Bible claims to be true, the word of God. All characters in that book are claimed to be historic. Some have even claimed to be the Creator of the Universe. Finding fraud in that book is not just of a theological nature, but destroys its historicity. If God is found not to exist in the Christian Bible, He cannot have a Son, therefore Paul could not have any doctrine to write about Jesus..

RUmike

*sigh* whatever man. You really have no business posting in a historical discussion if the above is your opinion.

aa5874

I am happy to know that the Christian Bible has no historical value. The characters inside that Book are based on sorcery.To claim a person, whose birth was fictitious, to be historic is beyond me. It is impossible for a non-extant Ghost to have a child. It is not possible for Paul to have visions of this God. The Christian Bible is fallacy.

The fictitious Jesus and Paul can be realised immediately if historians were to examine the Book called the Christian Bible. God, His Son, the Holy Ghost and Paul are made from paper by unknown authors.

RUmike

The birth stories in the bible are largely fictitious (I would argue that at the least Mary was his mother), but that does not mean Jesus' birth as a historical event was fictitious, just the records that we have of it are. I can invent a ridiculous story about how my mother was born (and I'll guarentee you can't find any other to contradict it, because no other story exists anywhere about it), but that doesn't mean she never existed. It just means the circumstances surrounding her birth might be unknown. You seem to be unable to make such a distinction, which is sad.

This has NO bearing on whether a person named Yeshu (= Jesus) actually existed that is ultimately at the core of the gospel stories. If you can't see why then there is no point debating you further. You're rejecting Jesus as a historical figure on purely theological grounds. I cannot think of anything more fallacious.

aa5874

No Ghost can have a child. Paul could not have been blinded by the child of a Ghost. A child of a Ghost can not do physical acts. No such actual occurences have ever been recorded by any historian. The Christian Bible is a Book of Ghost stories. Paul created the Doctrine of a Ghost. Jesus and Paul are Ghost stories.

RUmike

You are not helping the mythicist case by being stubborn and using fallacious logic. You're like a Christian fundy apologist that everyone cringes at when they hear him speak.

aa5874

The historicists are cringing. Jesus is the child of a ghost. Ghost do not have children. Fallacious logic is abundant in the Christian Bible, the mythycists knows that. Read the the most sophisticated Ghost story in history. Mark3:28-29, 'Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 'But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation'.

These statements do not depict historicity, they depict fiction. The child of a ghost does not forgive blasphemy against another ghost, and this ghost is sitting on the right hand of another ghost. It is beyond me that a historian would like to think that he can find documents, early writings and archaelological findings of all these ghosts.

aa5874

Luke1:35, 'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God'.

Matthew1:18,'Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost'.

RUmike

You are not making historical arguments. You are making theological arguments. PLEASE STOP. No one cares.

Chris Weimer

Sorry pal, neither Luke nor Matthew were written in English. Try again.