TedM

I guess there are 2 camps of HJrs. One that believes the NT Canon is true and is interested in the historical actions of Jesus of the NT. The other that believes the NT Canon contains some historical truths about Jesus. These threads are typically referencing the second HJr, as does the remaining of this OP:

My view is that there is NO significance of the immaculate conception claim for the position of the HJr since the HJr rejects this claim. Obviously if the claim were true it would be highly significant, but that isn't the HJ position typically held in these forums.

aa has posted hundreds of times the reminder that Jesus, in the NT, had no earthly father, having been conceived by the Holy Ghost.

He seems to think that somehow is relevant to the HJ position that Jesus had been a mere human being, perhaps a gifted one in some way, but surely born to a human father and human mother. The 'relevancy' apparently is that Jesus was not presented in such a manner in the Canon. But, who cares? For those who reject the supernatural there are only 3 possible TRUTHS regarding who Jesus was:

1. A 100% made up being
2. A fully human man which 'believers' elevated to a being who wasn't fully human.
3. A combination of more than one fully human men which also involved elevation to a being who wasn't fully human.

Since HJrs take the second view, of what value is it to point out (repeatedly) that the original believers believed in what those who reject the supernatural would call a 'myth' of the immaculate conception? Don't we already understand that?

aa has been unable to explain this so far. Perhaps he can try again. Or, perhaps someone else can explain it.

If there is NO reasonable explanation for the repeated reminders of the NT mythical(to HJrs) claim, I am hoping against hope that this thread will result in the cessation of this practice by aa.

If it turns out such posts are meaningful to the HJ debate, then perhaps someone here can enlighten me.

Adam

Somebody change the title please.
Ted said "Immaculate Conception", but that's the Roman Catholic dogma that the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin. Ted means "Virgin Birth". It's a common mistake, even the Rosicrucians get confused.

Ted is also confused about the possibilities to enlighten aa.

Toto

This is the problem.

The gospels are plainly myth - the describe impossible things. You can hypothesize that there were actual historical persons behind the myths, but there is nothing that actually serves as evidence of that historical person, Jesus.

In his own repetitious way, aa5674 is hung up on the first point. He won't move beyond that to discuss the likelihood of the hypothesis of a historical basis for the myth.

I imagine that aa5874 asks why should he? There is no evidence for this historical person. The idea that you can extract historical data from myths has been soundly refuted and all but abandoned in most fields of study.

The answer, of course, is that there is game going on, and to play you have to accept the premise of a possible historical Jesus and try to pretend to find some probabilities of what he was like.

But maybe aa5874 doesn't play that game.

So where do you go from there?

aa5874

You are basically promoting propaganda.

You have no intention of discussing the fact that Jesus had NO human father in the Bible and was claimed to be God the Creator.

You have no intention of addressing the claims by Apologetics for hundreds of years that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost.


The Quest for an Historical Jesus was initiated because Jesus of the Bible is a Jesus of Faith--Not a Jesus of Facts.

You very well know that the claim that Jesus had a mother does NOT make him a figure of history.

Romulus, the mythological Founder of Rome, was born of a woman and had a human brother--See Plutarch's Romulus.

What HJers believe is irrelevant when they have ZERO evidence for an HJ of Nazareth.

TedM

What's to discuss? Explain please.

So what? Explain please.


So what? Explain please.

Scholars would scoff at such an extremist position. The TRUTH is that the evidence that we DO have is not conclusive, not proof. But there is plenty of it, and scholars overwhelmingly reject your claim.

Are you trying to tell me that we have to have someone from 2000 years ago saying that Jesus was a 'mere man' in order for the HJ view to be relevant? Explain please.

aa5874

Please, you do not know what you are talking about.

Why do you not claim Doherty or Ehrman are hung up with their arguments?

I am presenting the evidence from antiquity.

I am arguing that the Jesus stories are Myth Fables.

Is it not claimed that Jesus was born after his mother was made PREGNANT by a Ghost in the Bible?

Is it not claimed that Jesus was the Logos and God the Creator in the Bible?

It is not claimed that Jesus was a Transfiguring Sea Water Walker who resurrected in the Bible?

Well, the Jesus story matches the Mythology of the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

Jesus was a Myth Character and was UNKNOWN by non-Apologetics in the 1st century.

TedM

oops. sorry to the thread on the title goof.


double oops.

outhouse

yes and no

You may be confusing that with biblical Jesus, in which they follow a HJ as well


the three camps are

BJ biblical jesus
HJ historical jesus
MJ mythical jesus

TedM

Do you think ANYONE on these threads doesn't know about the myth-like claims found within the NT?

If you don't, then why do you continually annoy us with such reminders?


Your opinion. Scholars would dispute this.

outhouse

The gospels do contain mythology, that's a fact.

But where AA screws up is claiming it is all mythology.


The NT also gets a few things factually correct, and it is not all mythology, it is factually theology as well.



I think where OP will find the solution to his problem is the ignore function, AA is the only one I have on ignore and I find it blissful without all the nonsense and noise. He may make a case in certain areas that I would agree, but in large its so much better just washing my hands of it all.