The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

In UNIVERSITIES the discredited Christian Bible is used as the MAIN source for the HJ argument.

According to Bart Ehrman, a UNIVERSITY professor, the Gospels are among the best ATTESTED books of the ancient world.

See page 180 of "Did Jesus Exist?"

So far, it is seen that the Gospels are really among the best ATTESTATION of mythology and fiction.

1. The Gospels ATTEST the fiction that Jesus WALKED on the sea.

2. The Gospels ATTEST the fiction that Jesus Transfigured.

Let us what else they ATTEST.



In the ancient Gospel according to gMatthew it is claimed Jesus was born AFTER his mother was found with child of a Holy Ghost [a pure Ghost].

Matthew 1:18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Who in the ancient world would ATTEST the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus in gMatthew?

The Holy Ghost conception is TOTAL fiction.

Who in the ancient would ATTEST the fiction.

But, somebody in the ancient world did ATTEST the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus which could have not have happened.

An ancient author of the Gospel according to gLuke did ATTEST that Jesus was born AFTER his mother had an "overshadowing" encounter with a Holy Ghost [an undefiled Spirit].

Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The Gospels are really among the best ATTESTED books of mythology and fiction of the ancient world and even today.

The ancient books of the Gospels do ATTEST that Jesus of Nazareth was a myth/fiction character.

Virtually every piece of fiction and mythological account of Jesus of Nazareth is ATTESTED by the ancient authors of the Gospels.

 

[maximara]

Bart Ehrman is a professor at a University in America and he argues for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Anyone who has a copy of "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman will see that at page 179 it is admitted that the authors of the Gospels were not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that the Gospels are FULL of discrepancies and contradictions and the Gospels report historical events that can be shown not to have happened.

In effect, as PROFESSOR of a University, Bart Ehrman has shown that the Gospels are NOT historically credible.
But, examine the very next page of "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

Examine the very first sentence of page 180 of "Did Jesus Exist?".

Bart Ehrman declared ....."the Gospels are among the best attested books in the ancient world".....

And here we have a prime example of the Horace Miner problem I have been talking about. Attested also means 'provide or serve as clear evidence of, and 'declare that something exists or is the case' which are true but that applies to the existence of the Gospels NOT their content.

As I pointed out in one of the pre merger threads in terms of non supernatural content the Gospels and Acts are historically a mess:

* The Sanhedrin trial account being totally at odds with the records on how that court actually operated in the 1st century.

* The whole Judas betrayal making no sense. What was preventing somebody from sending guards to get this guy?

* Pontius Pilate is totally out of character based on other accounts. Josephus relates two accounts where Pilate's solution to mobs causing a disturbance was brutally simple--have Roman soldiers go out and kill them until they dispersed. Moreover it is never really explained in the Bible why, if Jesus' only crime was blasphemy, Pilate would need to be involved. If Jesus' crime has been sedition, then there would be no reason for Pilate to involve Herod Antipas--or for the Sanhedrin to be involved for that matter.

* The crucified were left to rot as a warning to others unless there was intervention on the behalf of an important person per The Life of Flavius Josephus

* Given Jesus' short time on the cross and reports of him being out and about afterwards, certainly the Romans might have wondered if they had been tricked, yet there is nothing in the reports about the Romans acting in this matter. In one of his lectures Carrier describe how the Romans would have handled the situation and it is totally at odds with the account in Acts.

As I have also pointed out the Robin Hood stories are a better fit for events that happened some 300 years earlier then the Gospels which were supposedly written down 40 to 70 years after the events.

 

[IanS]

And your historical data, seemingly above question and just what the world has been waiting for would be . . . . . .

The "data" is all the same biblical and non-biblical texts that have always been used by bible scholars, theologians and Christian church leaders to claim overwhelming evidence of Jesus. It's the same sources and the same texts used by everyone (believer or sceptic).

The difference is that for most of the past 2000 years the general public did not know what any of those texts actually said. And for all that time bible scholars, theologians and church leaders insisted that they knew the contents and the contents proved Jesus as a matter of unarguable certainty.

But for about 100 years now, an increasing number of academics have written publicly available books showing that those original texts were very far from being credible evidence of a human Jesus. And in more recent years that has increasingly come to public attention with books from academics such as Wells, Ellegard, Avalos, and now Carrier and others.

 

[Peregrinus]

The "data" is all the same biblical and non-biblical texts that have always been used by bible scholars, theologians and Christian church leaders to claim overwhelming evidence of Jesus. It's the same sources and the same texts used by everyone (believer or skeptic (sic)).

Except that the corpus of manuscripts has been steadily increasing over time; the provenance of some earlier-known texts is now known to be problematic to one degree or another. For example, the texts used in producing the KJV are now known to be NOT the best although the scholars of that time had little choice.

The difference is that for most of the past 2000 years the general public did not know what any of those texts actually said. And for all that time bible scholars, theologians and church leaders insisted that they knew the contents and the contents proved Jesus as a matter of unarguable certainty.

As that body of manuscripts has grown, the number of discrepancies amongst them has grown; whether they say this or that on a great many topics is perplexing to scholars and the public alike. On that basis, "the data" represents an ever-shifting field of study.

But for about 100 years now, an increasing number of academics have written publicly available books showing that those original texts were very far from being credible evidence of a human Jesus. And in more recent years that has increasingly come to public attention with books from academics such as Wells, Ellegard, Avalos, and now Carrier and others.

It's become clear those texts are far from reliable on pretty much anything, but their not being reliable is not in and of itself any assurance of this particular text or that one being the one "in the wrong."

 

[maximara]

Except that the corpus of manuscripts has been steadily increasing over time; the provenance of some earlier-known texts is now known to be problematic to one degree or another. For example, the texts used in producing the KJV are now known to be NOT the best although the scholars of that time had little choice.

Except as I have pointed out before at best only 48 pieces of that increasing corpus predate our oldest bibles (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) which date from the 4th century.

Based on the c180 CE date for Irenaeus Against Heresies we know the Gospels existed in some form long before those works and NOTHING that has been found since the KJV has had a date range that excludes that c180 as the latest they could have been written

As that body of manuscripts has grown, the number of discrepancies amongst them has grown; whether they say this or that on a great many topics is perplexing to scholars and the public alike. On that basis, "the data" represents an ever-shifting field of study.

While true we must note the range those discrepancies cover: some 14 centuries

It should be works older then our oldest bibles (like Papyrus 75 or Papyrus 66 and the non-canonal Egerton Papyrus 2) that should be our focus not stuff roughly contemporary with them like the 4th century stuff in the Nag Hammadi Library.

It's become clear those texts are far from reliable on pretty much anything, but their not being reliable is not in and of itself any assurance of this particular text or that one being the one "in the wrong."

You are talking about textual reliability which has its own sort of problems and has minimal effect on historical reliability.

Like how on earth can an 11th century copy of Josephus tell us about a possible forgery thought to have occurred in the 4th?

Anyone remotely familiar with the historical method would look at that nonsense and wonder if who ever was claiming this was out of their freaking mind...if did NOT involve a document that supposedly showed Jesus existed. And that in a nut shell is the problem.

 

[dejudge]

The "data" is all the same biblical and non-biblical texts that have always been used by bible scholars, theologians and Christian church leaders to claim overwhelming evidence of Jesus. It's the same sources and the same texts used by everyone (believer or sceptic).

The difference is that for most of the past 2000 years the general public did not know what any of those texts actually said. And for all that time bible scholars, theologians and church leaders insisted that they knew the contents and the contents proved Jesus as a matter of unarguable certainty.

The general public did KNOW the contents of the manuscripts with stories of Jesus of Nazareth.

Versions of the Gospels have been written hundreds of years ago since at least the late 2nd century and supposed Christian evangelists did actually preach the stories of Jesus to people around the Roman Empire.

The general public did KNOW that manuscripts of the Jesus story stated that Jesus the Lord from heaven, was born of a Ghost and was God WITHOUT a human father.

We have Papyri 4 [gLuke], Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] and Papyri 46[the Pauline Corpus] dated to c175-225 CE which is evidence that suggest the general public did KNOW the texts with stories of Jesus for at least 1800 years.

But for about 100 years now, an increasing number of academics have written publicly available books showing that those original texts were very far from being credible evidence of a human Jesus. And in more recent years that has increasingly come to public attention with books from academics such as Wells, Ellegard, Avalos, and now Carrier and others.

Christian writers of antiquity actually ARGUED AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father].

The existing texts of the Jesus stories show that it was known to the general public that Jesus was or believed to be born of a Ghost and was God Incarnate.

We have "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, "Refutation Against All Heresies", "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen, "On the Flesh of Christ", "The Apology" attributed to Aristides and "First Apology" attributed to Justin Martyr.

If the writings of those Christians were circulated in the Roman Empire since the 2nd century then the general public in ANTIQUITY knew that the historical Jesus [a man with a human father] was a LIE--a fiction of men.

Since at least the 2nd century the people of antiquity [the general public] had NO historical data for Jesus of Nazareth and accepted the story that Jesus was truly born of a Ghost and was God WITHOUT a human father.

Essentially, the general public of antiquity knew the HJ argument was ALWAYS WITHOUT historical data.

The argument for an HJ [Jesus with a human father] was a KNOWN Heresy [ a known lie] since the writing of "Against Heresies".

 

[Craig B]

The argument for an HJ [Jesus with a human father] was a KNOWN Heresy [ a known lie] since the writing of "Against Heresies".

I see again that, as befits a True Believer, you deplore the Heresies and Blasphemies uttered by proponents of a natural born human Jesus. Perhaps the Blessed Virgin has vouchsafed unto you, to ensure your salvation after the minimum possible time suffering the tortures of Purgatory, this belief that heresy = lie. Thus, the Doctrine of Holy Mother Church = Truth.

 

[maximara]

Bart Ehrman, says that almost every properly trained scholar on the planet agrees with his views about the historicity of Jesus. And whilst Ehrman concludes that Jesus "certainly existed", he openly admits that neither the biblical writing nor the non-biblical writing is anywhere near being a reliable credible source of evidence for nearly every mention that anyone at the time made about the Jesus stories.

That highlighted part looks like a No True Scotsman argument. Given how much Ehrman throws out I have ask just what does he define "historicity of Jesus" as.

That is 99% in agreement with what Carrier also says. Carrier, and all well known academic sceptic authors, agree with Ehrman and his biblical colleagues when they admit that almost everything said about Jesus in both the biblical writing and in the non-biblical writing, is either demonstrably untrue fiction, or else highly unlikely religious speculation from authors who produced no evidence at all for their beliefs about Jesus.

Carrier in OHJ pg 12 states that

"Historicists have a lot of work to do before they can claim to have their house in order [...] They have routinely overstate what the evidence can actually prove, conflating conjectures with demonstrable facts almost as often as the mythicists do, and they lack anything like a coherent methodology"

"They have also frequently ignored, denied or somehow remained ignorant of key facts"

Less you think Carrier is using this to support the MJ arguments he bluntly states "But all that still does not entail the mythicist are right"

So what is taught in bible studies dept's about Jesus, the gospels, letters, and work like Josephus and Tacitus, Clement, Pliny, Philo, Irenaeus etc., is 99% the same as Carrier and all other sceptics say about how hopelessly unreliable those sources are.

And further, when Carrier and Doherty explain that from about 300BC Greek influence in Jewish society had introduced to that region, all manner of changed religious beliefs, inc. the belief that the gods operated through layers of the heavens just above the earth, I expect that "fact" is indeed taught in university courses that deal with that period of ancient history, albeit not necessarily taught by those dept's as anything to do with a biblical description of Jesus. But it is, afaik, a "fact" of history that such descriptions of heaven were at that time commonplace in that region.

So, IOW, afaik what those university history dept's teach, is almost all exactly the same as Carrier and other sceptic authors have always said about the nature, content, meaning, and unreliably of the biblical and non-biblical writing about Jesus.

Based only what Carrier is saying even some university history depts have fallen into the same tar baby trap the mythists have been stuck with - incorrect and or out of date information that has been passed down over the decades without being checked to see if it is still accurate.

"Another wrong way to argue the case for a historical Jesus is to simply make stuff up" - OHJ 12 and gives Bruce Chilton was an example of this kind of nonsense.

Carrier relates the same problem Price did - everybody has their own idea of what the historical Jesus was really like and the evidence for it is basically nil. Carrier isn't as blunt as Price but the tone is there; the Historical Jesus has become a glorified Captain Scarlet puppet, an empty vessel to be unconsciously filled by what the researcher believes to be true.

As Carl Sagan said using the case of Percival Lowell's Martian canals as an example "Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."

 

[IanS]

Except that the corpus of manuscripts has been steadily increasing over time; the provenance of some earlier-known texts is now known to be problematic to one degree or another. For example, the texts used in producing the KJV are now known to be NOT the best although the scholars of that time had little choice.



As that body of manuscripts has grown, the number of discrepancies amongst them has grown; whether they say this or that on a great many topics is perplexing to scholars and the public alike. On that basis, "the data" represents an ever-shifting field of study.



It's become clear those texts are far from reliable on pretty much anything, but their not being reliable is not in and of itself any assurance of this particular text or that one being the one "in the wrong."

Well you just seem to be agreeing with what I said above. Except that in your final sentence you are setting a requirement of "assurance" on whether any "particular text or that one being the one "in the wrong." ". We cannot talk about things as an "assurance". There is no such "assurance" here, as if the stories in the bible are known as "fact"....we cannot have that "assurance".

The relevant criteria is not any claims of having "assurance". The actual criteria is "evidence".

And that's the entire problem - there is actually no evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone in any of that biblical writing. Instead, that biblical writing is now agreed by everyone to be drowning in evidence of how completely unreliable and packed with fiction all of that biblical writing is.

The only way to decide whether Jesus probably did live, or probably did not live, is by reliable evidence of his existence as a human person known to anyone. But we don't ever get to the stage of deciding whether he probably lived or not, because before you even get to that consideration you bump into the fact that there is actually no evidence of his human existence known to anyone at all ...

... the problem is the total and complete lack of any credible evidence.

And against that, there is of course an absolute mountain of evidence showing how seriously unreliable all those biblical sources are for anything they say at all. And beyond that there really are no other sources that are independent of that biblical writing.

 

[dejudge]

I see again that, as befits a True Believer, you deplore the Heresies and Blasphemies uttered by proponents of a natural born human Jesus. Perhaps the Blessed Virgin has vouchsafed unto you, to ensure your salvation after the minimum possible time suffering the tortures of Purgatory, this belief that heresy = lie. Thus, the Doctrine of Holy Mother Church = Truth.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty. I have stated the NT is a compilation of forgeries, false attribution with ATTESTED fiction and mythology.

You believe the very same Christian Bible which states Jesus was born of a Ghost and Holy Mother is an historical source for your Jesus and make references to gMatthew, gMark, gJohn and the Pauline Corpus to argue that Jesus was a man with a human father.

The Christian Bible was used in the Ancient world to argue AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father]

The historical Jesus [ a man with a human father] was a known lie since the 2nd century.

This is the TRUTH.

Existing writings about Jesus state he was born of a Ghost or was God from the beginning.

Jesus of Nazareth was a MYTH/Fiction character from the start.

 

[IanS]

Just in regard to my comment above saying that for most of the past 2000 years most ordinary Christians would not have known what the gospels and letters had really said about Jesus, I'll explain that (in particular for any readers who may follow threads like this whilst rarely if ever posting replies or comments) -

- for the first few centuries after the gospels and letters were written down, hardly any ordinary Christians would have been able to read. And even in Europe most people were unable to read or write before about 1400-1600AD (which is remarkably recent times).

But even for those privileged few who could read, and even in relatively more recent centuries when more of the general public could read their bibles, they were unaware that the contents of their bibles had been altered by centuries of early change, addition, alteration, "interpolation, and even wholesale outright fabrication. Nor, afaik were most people aware that the gospels were anonymously written and not the actual words of evangelist apostles Mark, Mathew, Luke and John who were thought to have actually known Jesus. And similarly, not even the words of Paul either. Because apart from anything else, their copies of the bible had been pieced together from much later copies of gospels and letters, for which no original early versions actually existed.

Up until quite recent times, most Christians were unaware of that. They believed not only the words written in their bibles as original very early personal accounts of Jesus, but more significantly they all believed the explanation of those biblical words as told to them by the local and national church hierarchy who explained what the words and parables etc. all actually meant. People took it upon trust that the bible said whatever the most important preachers and clergy of their day said about the contents and meaning of the biblical message of Christ.

Nor of course did any of them know that all the words were the result of translations which were often poorly made and which have subsequently been the subject of disagreement as to what the correct meaning and translation should be for certain crucial words. The entire meaning of a biblical passage could be changed by a very small translation error. But for most of the past 2000 years the average Christian was of course unaware of such problems.

Even now, in this very thread, just 10 pages back, we had the two ever-present HJ posters arguing in the strongest possible terms that Paul's letters were certainly describing a real human Jesus because in one letter Paul described the seemingly human interaction of a "lords supper" with people eating and drinking. The two HJ posters were absolutely sure that was proof that Paul at least believed that Jesus was a real person at that supper. But then it was pointed out to them that in that very same passage of Paul's letter, the author explicitly prefaces his supper story by saying he obtained it by divine revelation from the heavens! IOW - he got it from his imagination, not from any knowledge of any real people saying or doing anything. It was story obtained from religious faith.

And people actually misunderstood that even here and now in this thread just a few weeks ago. How could they fail to see that the story was derived from divine revelation of faith? The answer is that they had completely overlooked it, because they were repeating what has been said for centuries in books about the historical human Jesus, where those books have simply copied one-another in saying that a lords supper meant that Jesus must have been real on the basis that only real people sit around eating and drinking! And yet, even the most casual reading of the actual sentence in Paul's letters, shows that Paul was "passing on" to his readers a story of divine revelation.

 

[Peregrinus]

Well you just seem to be agreeing with what I said above. Except that in your final sentence you are setting a requirement of "assurance" .

Except I am not "setting a requirement," but stating (perhaps awkwardly) there are, so far as I can see, no assurances worthy of that attribute to be found in any camp.

 

[dejudge]

Up until quite recent times, most Christians were unaware of that. They believed not only the words written in their bibles as original very early personal accounts of Jesus, but more significantly they all believed the explanation of those biblical words as told to them by the local and national church hierarchy who explained what the words and parables etc. all actually meant. People took it upon trust that the bible said whatever the most important preachers and clergy of their day said about the contents and meaning of the biblical message of Christ.

Christians of antiquity must have known the stories that Jesus was born of a Ghost and was God from the beginning before they were Canonised and before the Roman government took control of the Christian religion.

Were not Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, the authors of the Gospels and Epistles, and the so-called Heretics part of the general public of antiquity?

The Christian Canon was NEVER used to argue that Jesus was human with a human father.

The Christian Canon has ALWAYS been used in antiquity to argue AGAINST an historical Jesus.

The Roman Church used the Christian Canon to produce the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Christian Canon is in agreement with the Church that Jesus of Nazareth was God of God and born of a Ghost.

Manuscripts of the Jesus stories that were known to the general public since the 2nd century or later have been found and they do state that Jesus was God of God and born of a Ghost which is in agreement with the Christian Canon today.

The Christian Canon has NEVER supported the argument that Jesus was human with a human father.

 

[IanS]

Except I am not "setting a requirement," but stating (perhaps awkwardly) there are, so far as I can see, no assurances worthy of that attribute to be found in any camp.

Worthy of what attribute? You mean the word "assurance"?

Sure, but no sceptics here are claiming anything so certain as "assurance" about any of this.

For my part what I have stressed from page one (in fact from years before that in several other directly related HJ threads, both here and on two other sites, mostly with the same participants at various stages), is that it comes down to a question of reliable evidence.

The claim is that Jesus existed. And the burden of "proof", i.e. reasonable reliable evidence, rests entirely with those who have for 2000 years insisted that the evidence shows Jesus was real.

But the truth is, as this thread has demonstrated beyond any doubt, that there actually is no evidence at all of a human Jesus ever known to anyone. And in fact to the contrary, there is an absolute mass of undeniable evidence showing how and why all the primary writing about Jesus in the bible, is either certain fiction (that accounts for nearly all of it!), or else nothing more than the unsubstantiated un-evidenced religious superstitions of people in an age of almost unimaginable ignorance.

It's not that it would be impossible for Jesus to have existed. That's clearly possible, if only because many religious street preachers did apparently exist at that time. But the issue is whether there is actually any reliable evidence to show he existed. And the answer to that is apparently, No! ... no, there actually is no evidence of a human Jesus ever known to anyone.

 

[dejudge]

The claim by Christians of antiquity for at least 1800 years is that Jesus was REALLY born of a Ghost and was really God Creator.

Jesus in the NT was ALWAYS a figure of FAITH [God Incarnate]

We have manuscripts which show what is stated by the authors of gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline Corpus.

Christians were not arguing that Jesus existed as a man with a human father they were preaching and teaching that Jesus was God from heaven and was made inCarnate by a Ghost and a Virgin.

Christians of antiquity who used the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus NEVER argued that Jesus existed man with a human father.

The HJ argument is not that Jesus existed but that he existed as a man with a human father.
After all Jews, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians claimed God existed but that does not mean God was a man with a human father.


In antiquity, people of the Roman Empire believed Ghosts and Gods were actual figures of history.

The Canonised NT was NEVER used to ARGUE that Jesus was an actual man with an actual human father.

In effect, there was NEVER any historical data in the Christian Canon which shows Jesus was a man with a human father since at least the 2nd century.

 

[Craig B]

Christians were not arguing that Jesus existed as a man with a human father they were preaching and teaching that Jesus was God from heaven and was made inCarnate by a Ghost and a Virgin.

Christians of antiquity who used the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus NEVER argued that Jesus existed man with a human father.

I see again how you venerate the True Christian Message, free of all taint of Heresy. You don't tell us what Paul says, or the various Gospel sources, about a human paternity of Jesus. You are concerned only with the Christian Truths told about these sources by the venerable Fathers and Doctors of Holy Mother Church.

By believing in this implicit manner, you will ensure your own salvation and enjoyment of the Beatific Vision for all Eternity, after a short sojourn in Purgatory in which all your sins will be burned away in the cleansing fires.

 

[dejudge]

I see again how you venerate the True Christian Message, free of all taint of Heresy. You don't tell us what Paul says, or the various Gospel sources, about a human paternity of Jesus. You are concerned only with the Christian Truths told about these sources by the venerable Fathers and Doctors of Holy Mother Church.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

I have shown images of manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus Papyri 46 where Jesus has the very same NOMINA SACRA as the LORD GOD of the Jews.

I have shown that 1 Corinthians 15 state the Jesus is the Lord from heaven.

By the way, you are not concerned about the evidence from antiquity. You admit your Paul was an auditory Hallucinator who may have been off his nut.

Your Paul NEVER SAW the resurrected Jesus, the Lord from heaven.

By believing in this implicit manner, you will ensure your own salvation and enjoyment of the Beatific Vision for all Eternity, after a short sojourn in Purgatory in which all your sins will be burned away in the cleansing fires.

Your posts display intellectual dishonesty and are void of logic.

It is people who BELIEVE Jesus existed WITHOUT evidence who may be attempting to go to heaven when they die.


I have stated that the NT is a compilation of forgeries, false attribution, fiction, falsehood and events which could not and did not happen.

You believe the discredited Christian Canon contains the history of your Jesus.

It was an established Lie that Joseph was the father of the Son of God called Jesus.



In the myth fables, the pack of fiction called gMatthew and gLuke it was a Prophesied Ghost who was the father of Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

I see again how you venerate the True Christian Message, free of all taint of Heresy. You don't tell us what Paul says, or the various Gospel sources, about a human paternity of Jesus. You are concerned only with the Christian Truths told about these sources by the venerable Fathers and Doctors of Holy Mother Church.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

I have shown images of manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus Papyri 46 where Jesus has the very same NOMINA SACRA as the LORD GOD of the Jews.

I have shown that 1 Corinthians 15 state the Jesus is the Lord from heaven.

By the way, you are not concerned about the evidence from antiquity. You admit your Paul was an auditory Hallucinator who may have been off his nut.

Your Paul NEVER SAW the resurrected Jesus, the Lord from heaven.

By believing in this implicit manner, you will ensure your own salvation and enjoyment of the Beatific Vision for all Eternity, after a short sojourn in Purgatory in which all your sins will be burned away in the cleansing fires.

Your posts display intellectual dishonesty and are void of logic.

It is people who BELIEVE Jesus existed WITHOUT evidence who may be attempting to go to heaven when they die.


I have stated that the NT is a compilation of forgeries, false attribution, fiction, falsehood and events which could not and did not happen.

You believe the discredited Christian Canon contains the history of your Jesus.

It was an established Lie that Joseph was the father of the Son of God called Jesus.


In the myth fables, the packs of fiction called gMatthew and gLuke it was a Prophesied Ghost who was the father of Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

It was an established Lie that Joseph was the father of the Son of God called Jesus.

In the myth fables, the packs of fiction called gMatthew and gLuke it was a Prophesied Ghost who was the father of Jesus.

So when Paul and the Gospels tell us that Jesus had a human father (as they do) that is a lie ("established" by whom?) and when they say it was a prophesied ghost, that was fiction. Mmm. Let's see ...
What if he was Son of God in the Davidic sense, as plainly stated by Paul (Carrier's absurdities aside), but this didn't prevent him from having a human father, like Jesse for David and David for Solomon.

And who "prophesied" that Jesus was to be fathered by a ghost?

 

[dejudge]

So when Paul and the Gospels tell us that Jesus had a human father (as they do) that is a lie ("established" by whom?) and when they say it was a prophesied ghost, that was fiction. Mmm. Let's see ...
What if he was Son of God in the Davidic sense, as plainly stated by Paul (Carrier's absurdities aside), but this didn't prevent him from having a human father, like Jesse for David and David for Solomon.

And who "prophesied" that Jesus was to be fathered by a ghost?

Again you display intellectual dishonesty.

The Pauline Corpus and the Gospels do not state that Jesus was human with a human father.

1. gMark does not mention Joseph and stated Jesus Transfigured After he WALKED on water.

2. gMatthew states Jesus was born AFTER his mother was found WITH CHILD by a Holy Ghost. Joseph ADOPTED the child of Ghost by taking Mary as his wife.

3. gLuke states Jesus the Son of God was the product of an "overshadowing" Ghost and a Virgin. Joseph ADOPTED the Son of God by taking the Virgin as his wife.

4. gJohn states Jesus was the Logos, God, God Creator from the beginning.

5. The Pauline Corpus states Jesus was God's Own Son, the Lord God from heaven.

6. Jesus has the same NOMINA SACRA as the LORD God of the Jews in the NT.

7. The Christian cults of antiquity which used the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus preached and wrote that Jesus was born of a Ghost, God of God and was God Incarnate.

8. The Christian cults of antiquity which used the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus admitted the historical Jesus [a man with a human father] was a LIE.

9. "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus used the Gospels and Pauline Corpus to show that the historical Jesus [a man with a human father] was a LIE.

10. "Refutation Against All Heresies" used the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus to show that the historical Jesus [a man with a human father] was a LIE.

11. Justin Martyr used the Gospels [the Memoirs of the Apostles] and stated Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union.

12. The Ignatian Epistles mention Paul and state that Jesus was GOD a product of a Holy Ghost.

13. "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian used the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus to show that Jesus was GOD from the beginning and was born of a Ghost without a human father.

14. "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen used the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus to show that the historical Jesus [a man with a human father] was an EXPECTED Falsehood.

15. The Christian Church of the Roman Empire which used the Gospels and Pauline Corpus publicly declared that Jesus was God of God and born of a Holy Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

It is complete intellectually dishonest for you to state the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus support an historical Jesus [a man with a human father] when it is a known heresy for at least 1800 years.