aa5874

It is evident that the HJ argument is hopeless. No new evidence has surfaced to support HJ of Nazareth and Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" has been an utter failure both in "logic and facts".

The HJ argument has only confirmed that the NT and Apologetic sources are NOT credible and cannot be relied on as historical sources for HJ of Nazareth.

Ehrman has demonstrated that virtually every story about Jesus of Nazareth is either fictional, implausible or cannot be reconciled.

The HJ argument has FAILED every criteria.

1. HJers have FAILED to show that any author of the Canon SAW Jesus of Nazareth.

2. HJers have FAILED to show that non-apologetics SAW Jesus of Nazareth.

3. HJers have FAILED to show that non-apologetics SAW anyone directly associated with Jesus of Nazareth.

4. HJers have FAILED to show that non-apologetics SAW Saul/Paul before c 68 CE.

5. HJers have FAILED to show that the NT Canon is Credible.

6. HJers have FAILED to show that Apologetics are historically reliable.

7. HJers have FAILED to show any corroboration for Pauline letters BEFORE c 68 CE.

8. HJers have FAILED to show that the Jesus stories are historical accounts from Conception to Ascension.


It is clear to me that HJers cannot ever overcome their FAILURES based on the Existing evidence.

Effectively, the HJ argument has come to a devastating end.

wordy

Most believers don't care which could indicate
that what is important to them are their feelings
they have for the Jesus Christ in Heaven?

Atheists seems to not care either.

Some atheists are very sure of that the HJ has existed.
I fail to get why that is so important to them. Very odd IMO.

I shall not participate in these kinds of thread
due to me know nothing. But is it okay to ask
Did the Nicaea council meeting exist then?

Can one not agree that the reliable? Christian history begin there?
or are that too mythic too.

Duvduv

Personally, I am an individual who takes with a grain of salt the historical place markers espoused by the apologists. Nicaea may or may not have happened, but the Creed and subsequent events claimed by the apologists at least give a sense of what was BELIEVED to have been going on in that century.

As I posted in another thread, the Chi-Rho religion may very well not yet have even had a Jesus faith incorporating a nativity early in the 4th century, suggesting that the gospels were not consigned to paper yet.

The question also arises whether the nativity was originally intended to be taken seriously in the first place - i.e. if the nativity story was to be taken SERIOUSLY (rather than a parody or lampoon) why would the authors purposely identify the Jesus figure with people named Mary and Joseph when these names were already identified with Yeshu Pandera, an accused magician in the first century BCE according to Talmudic accounts when this identification would simply evoke the question of the legitimacy of the birth of the person considered the messiah of the gospels?

aa5874

The HJ of Nazareth argument can ONLY expose that the NT is NOT credible.

Bart Ehrman wrote a book called "Did Jesus Exist?"--the Historical Argument For Jesus of Nazareth and he did Expose the NT as source of discrepancies, contradictions and accounts of Jesus that most likely did NOT happen.

At page 238 of "Did Jesus Exist?", Ehrman declares that gMark is the earliest Gospel.

If one examines the short gMark it is essentially a book of fiction filled with IMPLAUSIBLE miracles.

There are about three events that appear to be plausible in all of gMark.

1. The Baptism event.

2. The Triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

3. The Crucifixion event.

Ehrman will show that all those events contain information that was MADE up.

Essentially the WHOLE of gMark is NOT Credible.

Examine page 203 of Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman argues that parts of the Baptism story are "beyond historical plausibility".

Examine page 202 of Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman argues that the "Triumphal entry story" was MADE up.

Examine page 184 of Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman argues that parts of the crucifixion story "did NOT happen".

Ehrman has destroyed the Credibility of the authors of the Jesus story.

The HJ of Nazareth argument has been destroyed--NOT from Without but from Within.

Ehrman has demonstrated that there is NO credible Jesus story in the very Canon of the Church itself.

Chili

Surely you mean to say that the credibility Ehrman is looking for was the historical Jesus as read by the so called Christian that only proves himself wrong as literalist, or he would never say.

And so then the Canon of the Church will stand, or Ehrman could not have been wrong (a double negative proves positive here).

To give you food for thought here, let me say again that the Gospels take place in Purgatory where the transition takes place that Paul called "the race," and so the Gospel is where the race is ran, that so should never be a part of life until the race is on.

This so makes Jesus real, but only as the agent to transform the mind of human into man, and hence the word Jesus should never even be a part of our vocabulary until we are 'the man' that they called Jesus there.

aa5874

Albert Schweitzer in "The Quest of the Historical Jesus" claimed Jesus was EITHER Literary Fiction or an Escathological Concept.

Esssentially, once anyone looks for Jesus they will NOT find any history but either Fiction or a mere Concept.

This is PRECISELY what is discovered in Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?".

Bart Ehrman over and over demonstrated that the NT accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies, contradictions and events that most likely did NOT happen from Conception to Ascension.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer


Albert Schwietzer's The Quest of the Historical JesusSee http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

Now, examine "Did Jesus Exist?"--The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

At page 42, Ehrman declares that there is no hard evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

At page 43, Ehrman states that no 1st century Greek or Roman author mentioned Jesus of Nazareth.

At page 46, Ehrman stressed that there are NO contemporary eyewitness of Jesus of Nazareth by anyone--Pagan, Jew or Christian.

At page 49, Ehrman again admits the Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts of Jesus of Nazareth.

Immediately, we can see that Ehrman has serious problems in his QUEST for his Jesus.

Ehrman will depend upon the very Fictional accounts in the NT in the Quest for his Jesus of Nazareth.

At page page 180, Ehrman in an act of Vandalism of his own works will OPENLY declared that the Gospels are among the best attested books from the ancient world even though he does NOT really know what the authors originally wrote.

By making a most absurd statement Ehrman will use sources of admitted Fiction to assemble his Jesus of Nazareth.

The very claim by Ehrman that Jesus was of Nazareth exposed that the Gospels are sources of Fiction because it is claimed that Jesus was born in BETHLEHEM.

At page 189, Ehrman argues that Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem.

Ehrman's Jesus of Nazareth is derived from the very Gospels which he argues are sources of Fiction.

Albert Schweitzer is correct---After a Quest for an historical Jesus one will find either a Jesus of Literary Fiction or an eschatological concept.

Ehrman found the Jesus of Literary Fiction.

"Did Jesus Exist?" page 182 "Did Jesus Exist?" page 184.

aa5874

In Bart's Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" the author appears to have made deliberate erroneous statements in his "historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth".

At page 180, he claimed the Gospels are among the best attested books from the ancient world but also claimed MULTIPLE times in the very same book that the accounts of Jesus in the Gospels contain events that most likely did NOT happen.

Ehrman knowingly and openly contradicts himself.

Examine page 269 of "Did Jesus Exist?", again Ehrman claims that "the Canonical Gospels are at odds with one another in one detail after the other and their portrayals of Jesus differ from one another, sometimes radically".

In effect, Ehrman argues against himself in an act of "vandalism".

Page after page, Ehrman openly destroys himself.

The Gospels are among the very least attested writings from the ancient world--Nothing about Jesus of Nazareth is attested by any non-Apologetic source of antiquity.

Non-Apologetic sources did NOT mention Nazareth and Jesus of Nazareth.

Why did Ehrman make such a blatant erroneous claim at page 180 of "Did Jesus Exist?"

The HJ of Nazareth argument is NOT about evidence it is about propaganda.

Chili

It is an eschalogical concept that in detail explains the difference between right and wrong. So it is not fiction for sure.

First thing to understand is that when Jesus went to heaven also hell came crashing down in a world of opposites where both good and bad are needed to make each other known.

Accordingly, this makes the Gospels not synoptic, but opposites and complimentary to each other in both the metaphysical first and physical accounts that follows so that the reader will know. They now become an intricate weave wherein the first difference to note is that in Luke and John Jesus goes to heaven and in both Matthew and Mark Jesus returns back to Galilee from where he came.

From here the four Gospels are easy to read, and it is wrong for Ehrman to write that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem for whatever reason he may find because the evidence will be contained in the four Gospels to make this all known.

Firstly, Christ was born and not Jesus, and second Beth-le-hem means house-of-bread for which there was a manger in Luke but not in Matthew and so Bethlehem is the right place for Christ to be born . . . and that is also confirmed by the words Son of Man in Matthew, ie. 8:20, as opposed to Son of God in Luke already in 1:35, and is all over John.

Efficiently, the difference here is Nazareth as that big-little-city-of-God inside the mind of Joseph where Mary was from to make the Jesus of Luke and John a Nazorean-by-nature, and contrary then, his brother James of Matthew and Mark is presented as an empowered stranger from Egypt, and so back to Galilee he goes to poke-the-fire some more (passage reading we call it), and make converts to fuel-the-fire that is burning within (that Luke would call victims with no tradition of their own).

I mean get real folks: "Eloi, eloi, lama sabachtani" really means: WTF have you done to me now!

However, the good thing about Erhman is that his fuzziness makes people only wonder, while if he could be as clear is a bell in the mind of his reader, every preacher would get shot and every church burned in the whole USA.

aa5874

Bart Ehrman the author of "Did Jesus Exist?" is probably the most illogical HJer that I have heard.

Bart Ehrman claims that the existence or non-existence of Nazareth is IRRELEVANT to the historicity of Jesus of NAZARETH.

See page 197 of "Did Jesus Exist?"--the historical argument for Jesus of NAZARETH.

This is most remarkable. This is terrifyingly bizarre

How could Ehrman be so absurd??

Erhman argues that his Jesus was from NAZARETH.

Page 197 -"Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman appears to have completely forgotten that his very book "Did Jesus Exist?" is The historical argument for Jesus of NAZARETH.

Ehrman appears to be so illogical that he cannot understand that if there was NO place called NAZARETH up to c 41 CE that there was NO Jesus of NAZARETH.

Chili

The historic Jesus argument exist only in the mind of the believer that in the 3R's of memetics: receive, recall and retrieve only gets bigger as we get older, just as the big fish we once caugth.

So it really is an argument unto himself, that I thought he was trying to walk away from as well.

It is a must that Jesus was from Nazareth, which is that little-big-city-of-God inside the mind of a Jew-by-tradition, and so Nazareth should never be a physical place, just as Israel should never be a piece of land, nor, btw, should "Christchurch" ever be a name of a city, as the first thing that Jesus did is abandon religion so he could become a Christian in the freedom from religion, now as a water-walker only so that the New Heaven and New Earth will be the same, when the [celestial] sea is converted to solid rock for him to walk on (in Rev.21:1 the sea is no longer). And so finally then, a Christian should never be called Christian, or he might be looking for Jesus as doubter himself.

Water walking here is going by intuition, which itself is the memory of our soul that is based on 'pathways' existing there as truths to encounter in real life as outsider to it. And so the trick in the Gospels is become an intuitionist and fully explore the 'thousand year reign' of God inside our own mind.

Notice that John the Baptist was born from the subconscious mind that is called Nazareth in Luke where Mary was from, and was captive there as her Canticle shows, and then of all people, who would Zechariah be to write a canticle of his own? . . . while they were skinning Joseph so that 'his' John could make his public appearance as the true Israelite later (who once was known as Joseph now turned inside out).

The Infancy narratives in Luke are there to validate causation from the innermost depth of the being who is called Joseph. Notice that Mary was from Nazareth, leading Joseph to Bethlehem with the resign of Elizabeth as the determinate cause in the mind of Joseph so She could lead him. Now that she could lead him is significant as a sign of having reached the end of his world so that darkness would prevail in his life in evidence that he was 'beyond theology' (as Watchman Nee, used that phrase), and hence the passified ox and the mule in the stable are a must to evidence the absense of light).

Notice also that Mary was from Nazareth where she was the virgin of 'this age' known to Joseph in the line of David in Luke, that was also missing in Macbeth where Lady Macbeth was just Lady Macebth and so another duffy Macduff was born in Matthew where Mary was a stranger to Joseph and hence, no manger for him.

So it is totally absurd to look for a historical Jesus, and though I will accept that he was born as the transformer in charge, his job was to consciously sort and select that which was to be the mansion of John in the fullness of time.