Toto

Ted - we have been over this too many times before. There is no real evidence for a human non-divine historical Jesus. Scholars have constructed such an entity, and it is not unreasonable to believe that there was a historical man behind the myth. But there is no real evidence that stands up to minimal scrutiny.

outhouse

There is plenty, you just discount it. That is only your personal opinion.



Correct


Personal opinion that goes against most trained professionals on this topic.

Toto

No, it is the result of years at this issue. Read RT France.


It is your unfounded personal opinion that this is only my personal opinion. I really don't care one way or the other.

The only trained professional historian of the classical era who has looked into the questions of the historicity of Jesus is Richard Carrier, and he disagrees with you.

The people who like to claim that there is a professional consensus for a historical Jesus tend to be trained as theologians or as apologists.

TedM

If true, that is astonishing.

aa5874

Well, why have you opened a thread to discuss the myth-like claims found within the NT about Jesus??


Are you implying that all Scholars have the same opinion on Jesus or the Pauline letters?

We all know that there are Scholars who dispute the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. In any event, there is NO dispute that in the Bible Jesus of Nazareth was born AFTER his mother was made PREGNANT by a Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:18 CEB2. It is NOT disputed that it is claimed in the Bible Jesus WALKED on the Sea for about 3-4 miles [25-30 furlongs].

John 6:19 KJV Matthew 14:25 KJV Mark 6:48 KJV3. It is NOT disputed that in the Bible Jesus Transfigured and that his FACE shone like the Sun.

Matthew 17 Mark 9:2 KJV4. It is NOT disputed that Jesus was the Logos and God the Creator in the Bible.

John 1.1-2 It is undisputed that the Jesus of the Bible was NOT human.

No human being can do the things Jesus did or was born of a Holy Ghost.

It is undisputed that the anatomy, biology and specific gravity of a human being do NOT allow sea water walking for 25-30 furlongs.

It is undisputed that the anatomy and biology of human beings do NOT allow for transfigurations where their faces shine like the Sun.

It is undisputed that Human beings are NOT reproduced by Holy Ghosts and Virgins.

It is undisputed that Jesus of the Bible was NOT human.

The Bible is a compilation of Myth Fables like those of the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

aa5874

Please stop your propaganda. Please, I am sick and tired of all these fallacies.

Don't we have posters who can even repeat what I have written perhaps a "THOUSAND" times?

In the Bible and outside the Bible it is claimed and BELIEVED for Hundreds of years that Jesus was Born of a Ghost.

The Jesus cult of Christians PUBLICLY CIRCULATED and DOCUMENTED their teachings that was accepted by the Romans--Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the same.

Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and other writers of the Jesus cult ARGUED that Jesus was born of a Ghost or was the Logos and God the Creator.

It is FACTUAL that the Jesus cult BELIEVED in a Jesus who was a God born of a Holy Ghost.

It is factual that no human beings are products of Ghosts and Virgins.

outhouse

He is not as bright as you think he is on this topic. If you followed much of his work you would know much of his energy in past years has been in debating religious topics much more then a focus on a HJ.

His whole MJ is rather weak, its when I lost interest in his work. Not because of where he stands, just the strength he lacks compared to what ive seen of him in the past.

Now if I wanted a front man to run a debate, he would be my boy.

Boloney, I like it with mayo on white wheat.

Toto

Why?

Are you aware of the Jesus Project, a short lived effort headed up by R. Joseph Hoffman? It's stated purpose was to examine the historicity of Jesus, because this had not been done in modern times.

The NT guild, consisting primarily of people trained at seminaries, had written off the question of the historicity of Jesus. They declared that the question had been settled by the work of Shirley Jackson Case in 1927 (amazon link (or via: amazon.co.uk), although you can find free copies on the web as it is out of copyright.) If you read that book, Case uses the gospels as his source - but he wrote before most of the modern analysis of the gospels had made them seem less that reliable historical sources.

So no one had brought modern historiographic methods to the question of the historicity of Jesus until Richard Carrier got some backers to finance his research.

Toto

He has written two books based on his research, and published at least one peer reviewed article. :huh:

OK - name the professionally trained historians who have written on this topic.

Bart Ehrman? From wikipedia: ???

steve_bnk

Virgin birth in mythology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_(mythology)\

'...The Gospel of Luke includes an account of John's infancy, introducing him as the son of Zachariah, an old man, and his wife Elizabeth, who was sterile.[32] According to this account the birth of John was foretold by the angel Gabriel to Zachariah, while Zachariah was performing his functions as a priest in the temple of Jerusalem; since Zachariah is described as a priest of the course of Abijah, and his wife, Elizabeth, as one of the daughters of Aaron[33] this would make John a descendant of Aaron on both his father's and mother's side..'

The angel Gabriel gets around...

Looks like there are precedents for divine intervention in births in the Torah.

In the link the interpretation and translation as meaning a literal virgin is in dispute.

I don't have a link, I read somewhere of Jewish married coupes living apart and the women referred to as virgins. The orthodox Jewish separation of the sexes.

Someone in a past thread pointed out a Jewish bustard son as messiah would be scandalous.