aa5874

Elijah understood me perfectly well, and have admitted that he cannot fully explain his theory on suicide man.

I have quoted numerous passages from the NT that were in English like Matthew 1.18, Acts 1.9, John1, and Mark16.6, that are very easily understood.

I quoted passages from Origen, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, all in English.

It is not really true that I did not articulate my position clearly. Perhaps you were not following my posts but Elijah did not complain at all about understanding my posts.

Elijah asked me a question repeatedly which he has not realised up to now, it would seem, that I have answered already

I have already stated that I wrote what I saw in the NT and the church writings, that these writers presented a myth, an offspring of the Holy Ghost called Jesus, born without sexual union, who was transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

I need no theory about the myth, it is right there in the NT and the church writings.

If anyone does not understand my articulation, please read the four versions of the myth as found in the gospels and then read the church writings, perhaps the myth would be seen clearly then.

Maybe Elijah can explain to us where to find suicide man. I know he is not in the writings of Josephus or Philo.

Elijah

The fact that unbiased information can’t be recovered for him isn’t any reason to believe in a mythical origin.
How so? What do you interpret the story of Jesus to be and how does it relate to the defeat of the Jews?
Yea there are tons of them out there with all kinds of variations. Unfortunately none of them seem to be coherent or rational enough to gain any traction with the skeptic community. I’m sure at some point someone will come up with a sound theory.
Not my problem at all. It’s not my belief that can’t be articulated properly.

aa5874

So, why did you write this earlier?

Elijah

That's from your obvious bias. You're not trying to understand this, you're trying to destroy it. How a man sacrificing himself can lead to belief in that man I think is pretty easy to understand except when you don't want to.

dog-on

1. Irrelevant, but you can ask the Mormons the same question.
2. Once again, irrelevant.
3. Unknown. Oh and guess what?
4. You would have to ask Mark, what he was thinking.
5. The name given to the author of the Gospel to which that name was given.
6. Ask Mark...
7. You tell me...and irrelevant.
8. Unknown, you can make a conjecture, but unless you can support it, it is only a guess.
9. and this is relevant, how?
10. Once again, how is this relevant, exactly?

You have failed. If you like, you can try to support any of the positions you posed as questions, above.
:wave:

Toto

It's no reason to believe in a historical core either. In the face of a lack of reliable evidence, you should remain agnostic.

Isn't it rather obvious? Jesus is called by a title, Christ, that was usually reserved for a Jewish military leader. He preaches non-violence, but alludes to violence. He predicts the destruction of the Temple.

What are you talking about? Please list the mythicist theories that you are familiar with and explain why each is not rational or coherent. Please give your experience with their rejection by the skeptic community.

What is your belief?

Elijah

You answered 0 out of 10 questions! Good job!!! :thumbs:

dog-on

True, but none of your questions were actually relevant to our discussion, as it stands.

If you want to try to make them relevant, you must actually support your questions with evidence and, secondly, tell me why you believe that they are relevant and do, actually, poke holes in the "theory" that I have proposed.

Elijah

No coherent/rational mythical theory being put forward despite an obvious desire to produce one should be a reason to believe in a historical core.
Not obvious at all actually. So you think that since you can interpret a prophecy of Jesus’ with something that actually happened, that indicates the source of the story came after the event? A prophecy he made of the inevitable destruction of buildings isn’t anything to be impressed with or used to date the source of a story.

I’m not sure what the title has to do with the dating. Are you saying that they weren’t awaiting a messiah at the supposed time of Jesus?

Is there any more reason to believe the story of Jesus originated after the fall of the temple?
I’m not listing all the myth theories I’m familiar with... waste of time. You list the one that you think is coherent and rational.
A guy sacrificed his life and told others to do the same and they did which convinced people that the original sacrifice was of significance.

Elijah

They are relevant to whether you have holes in your theory or it is thought out. I need to support my questions about your theory with evidence??? :huh: