figuer

I have nothing to prove. There is nothing extraordinary about the conception that Jesus was human, and myths developed around him.

There being fictional/mythical elements to the Jesus story, does not establish that there wasn't a human being named Jesus. You can not prove that Jesus, the non divine human, did not exist.

There is evidence for Achilles: The Iliad. The ruins of troy. It just happens that such evidence is not conclusive.

False, the historical basis for many myths have been identified.

I can see evidence, just not conclusive.

That is not the question, the question regards if the myth is based on an actual person or not. I don't see any conclusive evidence regarding that question.

aa5874

But, you can't you see that you are just blatantly contradicting yourself.

Read what you just posted. The question is simple whether or not Jesus was a myth. Look, can't you see what you just posted.

The question is two-fold.
1. Is the myth based on an actual person.
2. The myth is NOT based on an actual person.

There is no historical evidence for Jesus of the NT, except for forgeries in Josephus. The internal information claimed he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, resurrected and ascended.

Well, I can conclude that Jesus was a myth without fear of contradiction. Only evidence can contradict my position and so far there is none.

And, please don't waste my time telling me what you think is possible if you are never going to produce any historical evidence for possibilities.

Possibilities are always infinite when you don't have evidence.

A person was found dead, there are billions of suspects if you don't have any evidence.

figuer

There is no contradiction. Jesus can be a myth based on an actual person, or a myth not based on an actual person.

False, the NT is historical evidence, just not reliable, precisely because of the magical added elements, which makes the whole matter inconclusive.

But the issue under discussion is not if Jesus is a myth or not, but if such a myth has its origin in an actual person that was mythified. That is the JH, JM debate.

There are ample historical evidence for possibilities. That is why they are possibilities.

You don't have evidence to prove that there was not a human named Jesus, who fancied himself the Jewish messiah, was crucified, who had followers which developed a cult around him and added notions such as the virgin birth, resurrection, miracles etc.

aa5874

So, the question is whether ot not Jesus was a myth, or whether or not Jesus was historical, or whether or not the gospels was based on a historical Jesus, or simply was Jesus a myth?

How many times are you going to repeat over and over the same question. Everybody knows what the HJ position is.

Everybody knows that there is no historical evidence for Jesus only passages like Matthew1.18, Luke 1.35, Acts 1.9 and 1 Corinthians 15

It is absurd to claim the NT is historical evidence but not reliable. Once you claim the NT is not reliable it is ridiculous for you to pretend to know what was added.

You have presented a most bogus argument. Absolutely ridiculous.

Everybody knows what HJers are trying to prove. Everybody knows.

Where is the evidence to support their beliefs.

Your source for information was declared to be UNRELIABLE. You are becoming unreliable yourself.

You have ample unreliable evidence, like rumors or mythical anecdotes.


That is why it is was so easy to have concluded Jesus was a myth or fiction. There is nothing historically reliable on Jesus.

It is absurd to argue history when you have nothing, far easier to argue myth, especially when Jesus was described like Achilles, offspring of the Holy Ghost and offspring of a sea-goddess.

arnoldo

In the Book of Acts (5:34-37) Luke quotes Gamaliel as comparing early christians to various "cults" in the following verse:

However since we don't have absolute historical proof of Gamaliel, Theudas, or Judas of Galilee they must all be fictional characters :huh:. . . which is about as absurd as believing that if a tree fell in a forest with no one around there was no sound produced by the falling tree. . .

figuer

The above is incoherent. I don't understand your need for fanatical rambling.


I don't pretend to know what was added or not. That is the whole point: Some of it seems perfectly credible, some of it seems fantastic, so perhaps some is factual information while other isn't, perhaps all of it is fiction. Since I don't know, and I see no conclusive evidence on either side, I refrain from choosing a definite position in the argument, until I see the necessary conclusive evidence.



A source being unreliable means it provides inconclusive evidence. It doesn't mean that all its claims are false. The Iliad is an unreliable source, and yet most scholars consider it is based on some remote factual event which was later became mythified.


I don't see any problem with the notion that Jesus could be a mythified human. Your position is exaggerated.

It was Alexander who was claimed as the offspring of a Holy Ghost (Zeus-Amon), and yet Alexander is considered a real person. Likewise Achilles could have been a real person mythified, and so could Jesus. I don't see any basis for certainty in this matter. It could be a complete myth, it could be a mythified person. I don't understand your objection to my non-committed position.

aa5874

I hope you realise that the above is your own fallaciuos argument.

No-one here so far has made any findings on Gamaliel, Theudas, or Judas of Galilee.

Now, can you show me where it was stated in Josephus or in Acts where Gamaliel, Theudas, or Judas of Galilee were born without sexual union, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven?

Or can you show me where any one of them walked on water, or saw Moses and Elijah alive after there were supposed to be dead for hundreds of years, and ate fish and bread with a man who was resurrected after the third day?

If you can show me such information, then these characters, Gamaliel, Theudas. and Judas of Galilee must be thoroughly investigated to determine their historicity or mythology.

Toto

Gamaliel is a legendary Jewish Pharisee. I don't know that there is any independent confirmation of his existence, but what difference would it make if he were fictional? None to me.

Theudas and Judas of Galilee were written about in Josephus, who appears to be Luke's source for this passage.

These are three characters in standard history, with no supernatural or legendary aspects to them, and no religions that depend on their existence.

aa5874

Are you claiming that there is no historical information of Alexander the Great?

And, please show me what source claimed Alexander the Great was the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

Please show me where it is claimed that Alexander the Great had no earthly mother or father.

The NT claimed Jesus of the NT had no earthly father.


It seems as though you are living in a world of imagination. I have already told you that possibilities are infinite without evidence.

You have no reliable evidence for your Jesus, yet you appear to be certain that Jesus was not a myth.

If you never get any reliable evidence, your certainty that it is possible Jesus of the NT existed will remain fixed and unchangeable.

Your position will be the same whether the evidence is reliable or not. You are committed to the position that it is possible Jesus existed.

Look at your committment now. It is fixed and locked forever.

1. The evidence is not reliable but it is possible Jesus existed.
2. The evidence is reliable so it is possible Jesus existed.

Historical evidence maintains your position. It is infinitely fixed and locked.

Look at my position, again.

I conclude that Jesus of the NT is mythical or fictional until historical evidence can be found.
Do you see until?

Historical evidence can make me alter my position. It is not fixed at all.

Your imagination controls your position.

figuer

Do you lack reading comprehension? I don't have a Jesus. My position, very clearly expressed in previous posts, is not that Jesus was not a myth, my position is that it is possible that there was a historical person named Jesus, who was mythified by his followers.

You display no capacity to carry a bona fide rational discussion. There is no reason for you to object to my non committed position except ideological fanaticism or crass intellectual incapacity (or both as is becoming apparent).

Consider yourself ignored hence on.