Larkin31

I was not ignoring anything. You simply made a claim about Christians in the present tense (not "Christians of antiquity"). I followed your implications precisely.

I see no reason that Jesus could not be both of the flesh (mortal, individual) and of the spirit (divine, immortal). And nothing you have quoted here controverts that. I am not even a believer, and I see this. I don't know why you are pushing this absolute claim. I don't even see its relevance to whether there was a man named Jesus who performed some "miracles," developed a movement, was killed, and lead to a religion.

Larkin31

There is no better term. To suggest that several top government persons decide together to create a false religion around a fictional persona in order to consolidate rule and then to enlist writer(s) to aid in this ruse is to engage in conspiracy.
:huh:

kcdad

The depth of your thinking is truly amazing... is there a difference between being raised from the dead and being resurrected?

Do you think the Jews with Jesus actually thought Jesus was John the Baptist come back to life... or Elijah? Do you think... just maybe... they meant it metaphorically and were being complimentary in their speculations?


Did Jesus ever say only he could forgive sins? Did his disciples go to Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins? With few notable literary exceptions, did anyone treat Jesus like a god, let alone the ONE GOD?

He is writing 450 years AFTER Jesus' death. Tell me all you know about my great great great whatever living in Austria 450 years ago. I guarantee there was a real truly histrorical man.

"He has a beginning and an end, and he is born and dies." Right on! You described him a "T".

ONLY from another human being can there be forgiveness and therefor salvation... you can only receive forgiveness from someone you have wronged.


Which may explain why Greeks and Romans were so quick to worship Paul's Christos, and the Jews weren't. And yet, of those that followed Jesus for three years, they were ALL Palestinian Jews.

kcdad

I am gonna play an awful game by asking you to prove your assertion, or I shall simply dismiss it as your peculiar religious belief.

aa5874

But, that is exactly what you are doing. You are ignoring that I am dealing with what Jews and Jesus believers believed in antiquity. I have repeatedly referred to sources of antiquity. I have not mentioned information of the belief about Jesus from a christian source of today.


I am not dealing with what you believe when you have NO REASON. I can't deal with a belief in a one-off bizzarre event.

How come you see things that you don't even believe of which there are no credible records of being seen or was proven to be historical?

Show me what you see in black and white from sources of antiquity not what you imagine you see. People used to "see" Zeus now they can't. What happened to their "sight"?


So, why are you pushing your notion that, even though you doubt some history of Jesus, you still think he was historical?

You must see relevance in your position that is why your are posting here.

Now, I have no absolute claim.

My claims are based on extant information.

My claims are SOLIDLY SUPPORTED by SOURCES of ANTIQUITY.

If you can produce credible sources of antiquity that can show Jesus did indeed exist entirely as a man and was deified in Jerusalem then I MUST REVIEW my position that the HJ is a most SENSELESS position.

That is all I have been waiting for since the last 50 or so days. I am patiently waiting for HJers to produce credible sources of antiquity.

You have only made weak assertions and without any sources of antiquity to support you.

HJers are bankrupt for sources of antiquity but are highly liquid with imagination.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition since there are no sources of antiquity that can show that there was a character called Jesus who was actually human and was deified in Jerusalem by Jews who lied about every aspect of his life on earth, even claiming he was God and could forgive the sins of mankind and that his death and resurrection meant that the Laws of Moses could be abandoned.

Toto

There's no evidence of these alleged early followers outside of the Bible. The "three years" is from gJohn, which is the least likely of all the gospels to contain any history.

Perhaps you should list your sources.

aa5874

Do you understand that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition?

Do you read the NT? Please look at Matthew 9:2 - So why do you think that you can tell me about the Jesus story after 1900 years?

By the way, Aristides is placed in the 2nd century not the 6th century.

You read about a man. Man has a beginning and end.

Now read about Jesus, offspring of the Ghost of God. Matthew 1.18-21

And now read about his life without end.

Mark 9:31 - Well, tell that to Jesus the offspring of the Ghost of God.
Joh 3:16 - Joh 10:28 - Jesus the Ghost of God didn't know what you are talking about.



How come you know that ALL Palestinian Jews followed Jesus WHEN you are writing about 1900 years after the supposed events?

If Aristides was not expected to know about Jesus even though he alledgely wrote in the 2nd century, you most certainly must be in a far worse position.

I prefer to take information from a 2nd century writer of antiquity than a 21 century poster.

Now, in the canonical NT, Jews supposedly worshipped Jesus but there are no external historical records to show that Jews would have deified another Jew who was crucified after being deemed to be a blasphemer by Jews.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

arnoldo

I also prefer information from Aristedes.

Clearly, the MJ position is SENSELESS.

aa5874

So, the Jesus story makes no sense whatsoever.

arnoldo

To a flatlander a "story" of a spherical orb would make no sense, yet it exists. .