aa5874

No. We have not previously been through your claim that Mark is a primary source and the least manipulated.

You claim you rely on Mark.
I have shown you what is found in Mark.

Mark is fundamentally non-historical .

You RELY on Fiction.

You claimed Mark is the least manipulated but sources of antiquity claimed that Mark got his ALL the information in gMARK from Peter the 1st bishop of the Roman Church, bishop of the very same Imperial Organisation.


So you are actually RELYING on a set of documents known to be EDITED by the Roman Church, REDACTED and MANIPULATED by the same Imperial Organisation.

It was the writers of very same Imperial Organisation, the Roman Church, that provided the information about the death of Peter.

This is Eusebius of the Roman Church, the very same Imperial Organisation in Church History 3.1.2 So, your own post is applicable to yourself.

"Your claims are made based on a set of documents known to be edited by the Roman Church, redacted and amended by the same Imperial Organization. You fire random out of context verses as if they were shotgun pellets aiming at nothing and hoping to hit everything".

You are just merely making wild unsubstantiated claims that are really applicable to you yourself.

So far, you have claimed that Jesus was non-historical but real and that you RELY on Mark when you have admitted that it was manipulated.

Your position does not look good.

Now, please tell me of the historical records of the births, activities and deaths of George Washington, Davey Crockett and Jesus of Nazareth.

kcdad

Does History have to be 100% factual to be non-fiction?

Would you like to cite one generally accepted example of 100% factual history for me to critique?

aa5874

Just give me the historical records of George Washington, Davey Crockett and Jesus of Nazareth. Just give whatever you have.

You can start with the historical accounts of their births and the events that occurred when they were children.

We can examine them and see which one was most likely non-historical.

By the way, I almost forgot you claimed Jesus was non-historical but real.

kcdad

Would you like to cite one generally accepted example of 100% factual history for me to critique?

aa5874

This is part of a previous post. I made no claim about any document being 100% factual history. You may be imagining things.

So far you have made some extremely strange claims. You claim that Jesus was non-historical but real and that you RELY on Mark.

Can you name the real things about Jesus in Mark?

kcdad

Oh.... I thought you were saying that because some of stuff in Mark was unbelievable and fictional that the whole thing was....

Sorry. My bad.

aa5874

Now that you have admitted your error or sorrow, please tell me, what things are real about Jesus in Mark?

After all you RELY on Mark and believe Jesus was REAL.

And how could you not know what I have been saying?

I have been saying that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition and that the Jesus story in gMark as found canonised is fundamentally unreliable or non-historical.

I have painstakingly went through gMark chapter by chapter and have pointed out many of the things that I found unreliable or non-historical about Jesus already.

Why CAN'T or WONT you provide a list of the REAL aspects of Jesus in Mark?


Look at my list again of unreliable or non-historical events with respect to Jesus in gMark.

I now NEED your list of REAL events in Mark with respect to Jesus.

Can you HEAR me now?

kcdad

Suffering is not the same, and in fact has no relationship to evil... and vice versa.

aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

After being in discussion with some posters it must be clear now that HJers have nothing to offer of historical value to support an historical Jesus or a REAL Jesus.

HJers have simply made a suggestion which they have no way of confirming with any DATA from antiquity.

In effect, these are the claims of the HJer.

"I believe Jesus was REAL therefore he LIVED".

"I believe Jesus was REAL therefore he DIED".

"I believe Jesus was REAL therefore he did what I believe ".

The historical Jesus is a philosophical fallacy.

The evidence of the historical Jesus are the myths and legends about him.

It cannot be that the very same information that show Jesus was a myth can be used to show Jesus was REAL.

HJers cannot show what is historical or real about Jesus since there is no external credible historical source of antiquity for Jesus.

No supposed contemporary of Jesus, even in the NT, wrote that they saw Jesus while he was alive during the time of the procurator Pilate.

The Pauline writer wrote that he and over 500 people saw Jesus after he was raised from the dead.

The Pauline writer saw Jesus in a non-historical state and claimed that the non-historical state of Jesus was the basis for the salvation of mankind.

Myths and legendary details are VERY STRONG indications that Jesus was MYTHOLOGICAL.

Myths and legendary details are VERY WEAK indications that Jesus was real.

The HJ is not rational once the evidence or information of antiquity is examined.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition or a philosophical fallacy since the history of Jesus is based on myths and legends.

kcdad

Not even close... but way to intellectually infantilize your opponent


I witness great cultural and social change because of the man named Jesus...so I believe he was real

I see the historical proof of individuals and entire civilizations changed by the teachings of this man and his followers and so I believe he was real

I see tremendous conflicts arising in different points of view about this man and his teachings, therefor it seems logical that if he were not real, these disagreements would amount to nothing. There for I believe he was real.

I see people willing to die, to stand up to emperors and face their own death because of the man and his teachings, so I believe

I experience a different, better way of seeing history, nature, the universe, the world, others and myself because of the teachings of this man, so I accept the teachings as truths

I discover documents, some accepted and some rejected by the mainstream religious thinkers of the time... indicating that there were many groups of people interested in recording their thoughts and experiences with the man and his teaching, so I believe he was real

I find comments from skeptics, non-believers and enemies of this man who not only refer to him, but praise him, and so I believe he was real.

I see the course of civilization changed by the teachings, life and death of this single man, and his followers, so I believe.