The Historical Jesus III

[Leumas]

Ladies and gentlemen (not just one man) of the ISF I give you a representative specimen of imbecilic illogic often offered on this forum in lieu of an argument.

Ladies and Gentleman of the ISF.
...
Save for the yellow highlight and the cute dog gif they're indentical!

In the above post, save for the HILARIOUSLY IRONIC demonstrations of an inability to even spell the word 'identical', the statements exhibit absolutely no inkling of any comprehension of what the word means in the first place.

Unless of course any actual English language definition has been long ago abandoned and substituted for the Apologetics Ministries one in the service of casuistic sophistry.

A wall'o text.

Ladies and gentlemen of the ISF I also give you above yet more sophistry ridiculing the fact that evidence, in order to be presented eruditely and comprehensively, often requires more than the Twiters' 140 words or less version of shallowness.

...I rest my case.

Yes... if that is what you call a case then it most evidently needs to rest since it is quite blatantly a disheveled prostrated whacked and tortured case in desperate need of rest... perhaps even retirement altogether.

 

[Belz...]

Divesting people of falsities and illogic may seem destructive for those who hold close to their hearts those vitiating fallacies and untruths.

See what I mean ? You can't discuss the issue without discussing the poster.

I am done trying to debate with you...

You never even tried, which is the problem.

I tried, and will try again: let's say you find a bloody knife next to a dead victim. Blood on the knife's the victim's. Knife's the husband's. Is it evidence against the husband ?

YES.

Thing goes to trial. Turns out the husband was out of town on the day of the murder. Acquitted. Is the knife still evidence against the husband ?

YES.

Doesn't matter if it turns out the theory is incorrect. My point is that there _is_ evidence for the historical Jesus outside of the bibble. It might not be convincing to you, or to me, but it is evidence.

 

[Belz...]

The Josephus passages as they stand are pretty flimsy evidence

Absolutely. It doesn't make it not evidence, however, which was my entire point to Leumas.

 

[Belz...]

Again, you continue to prove you have NO actual evidence for an historical Jesus.

I asked you to stop lying, and you went on and lied again.

You will NEVER EVER present any actual evidence for an historical Jesus IN or OUT the Bible.

I already have.

What ACTUAL evidence have you mentioned?

Read the thread rather than dismiss everything out of hand.

Jesus was the son of a Ghost in and out the myth fables called the New Testament.

Only if you believe the bible. Do you believe the bible ?

 

[Mcreal]

Absolutely. It doesn't make it not evidence, however, which was my entire point to Leumas.

The fact the later writers felt the need to 'pad out' the evidence says quite a bit

 

[maximara]

Depends what you consider 'evidence'.

Are the Josephus passages evidence ? Even if they are not genuine ?

If the Josephus passages are NOT genuine how could they remotely be called evidence of a human Jesus?

Is Christianity itself not evidence ? Even if it turns out to be based on a total myth ?

Again the second part make no flipping sense. If Christianity is a philosophical myth with no more apparent basis in reality then the belief of Heaven's Gate how can it remotely be called evidence of a human Jesus?

After all, the motions of the stars is evidence for geocentrism. It's just that the preponderence of evidence points to heliocentrism.

This is total nonsense. Occam's razor showed that heliocentrism should have best model as you needed quite a few "fiddly bits" to get the solar system to work with a geocentrism (near the end the total was up to 97!). In fact, a non geocentrism system was suggested by Philolaus a contemporary of Aristotle.

As near as I can put together was egotism that Earth must be the center of the universe that the Aristotle system got the green light though even the most basic observations showed in other parts it was talking rubbish (straight line motion on Earth but circular motion ONLY in heaven? WHAT? Any archer knew that was garbage)

Also though the Greeks couldn't see it there is a parallax shift of stars. In fact was this parallax shift that was used to confirm the orbit of the Earth in the 19th century.

The bibble is the major part of the evidence, but I disagree that it is the whole of it, under any definition of 'evidence' that I know of. Do I find said evidence convincing ? To a degree; probably not to Craig's degree, but more than Maximara's. However, what I won't do is either deny categorically that the evidence is there, nor will I categorically claim that it's solid.

The "evidence" for Jesus is on par with that for John Frum, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Ned Ludd and many others. To even suggest is is on par with the Holocaust or the Moon Landing is not only intellectually silly but gives a hint of desperation that one saw with the efforts to save Newtonian cosmology when observation were not agreeing with what it predicted..

Even though he felt there was enough to show Jesus existed a human being John Remsburg devastated all the "evidence" for the the Jesus of the Gospels.

 

[Leumas]

Yes indeed.

Please answer my question.

....

So please answer my question. Where does Paul state that Jesus is God?

I already did twice... read this post and this post.

I don't know whom you think you are fooling... maybe you really believe it???

Do you think Paul considered Jesus as an "observant Jewish preacher" who was a carpenter the son of a carpenter and who was baptized by John B and that is it?

Here are some more questions previously posed to you but out of which you conveniently cherry picked only one to answer… and even that answer fails totally (see below).

…
How many "observant Jewish preachers" you know of have appeared to Paul in a light brighter than the sun and blinded him for three days and then cured him again?

How many "observant Jewish preachers" gave revelations to Paul and yet he thought they were not men?

How many "observant Jewish preachers" have you seen who are LORDS of the dead and living?

How many "observant Jewish preachers" do you know of are sitting on judgment seats in the afterlife judging people?

How many "observant Jewish preachers" have appeared to Paul in visions to convince him of things and he got convinced?

Yes. I have heard of that. It is a common religious belief that the living can contact the spirits of dead people and receive information, advice or other benefits from them. The dead people who are supposed to interact with the living are not believed to be Gods.

What artful obfuscation!!! We are not talking about just any religion... Paul was an observant strictly Jewish Pharisee.

Did observant strictly Jewish Pharisees often call spirits LORD (κυρίῳ)?

Did observant strictly Jewish Pharisees think spirits were LORDS of the dead and living?

Did observant strictly Jewish Pharisees also think that spirits will sit on judgment seats judging people resurrected in their bodies after the end of the world has occurred?

Romans 14:8-14

• 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
  
• 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
  14:9 εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἔζησεν ἵνα καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων κυριεύσῃ.
  
• 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
  
• 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
  
• 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
  
• 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
  
• 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
  14:14 οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι' ἑαυτοῦ: εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι, ἐκείνῳ κοινόν.

How often did observant strictly Jewish Pharisees call spirits Lord Christ and consider them to be SONS OF YHWH (κυριος)?

Galatians 1:3-4

• 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
  1:3 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
  
• 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

How could an observant strictly Jewish Pharisee get PERSUADED by a spirit to abandon the FOREVER and ever LAWS OF YHWH and start preaching BLASPHEMIES?

Galatians 1:11-12

• 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
  
• 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Romans 14:14

• 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
  14:14 οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι' ἑαυτοῦ: εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι, ἐκείνῳ κοινόν.

Deuteronomy 4:39-40

• 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.
  4:39 και γνωση σημερον και επιστραφηση τη διανοια οτι κυριος ο θεος σου ουτος θεος εν τω ουρανω ανω και επι της γης κατω και ουκ εστιν ετι πλην αυτου
  
• 4:40 Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever.

Deuteronomy 6:4-18

• 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
  6:4 ακουε ισραηλ κυριος ο θεος ημων κυριος εις εστιν
  
• 6:12 Then beware lest thou forget the LORD, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
  6:12 προσεχε σεαυτω μη επιλαθη κυριου του θεου σου του εξαγαγοντος σε εκ γης αιγυπτου εξ οικου δουλειας
  
• 6:18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers.
  6:18 και ποιησεις το αρεστον και το καλον εναντιον κυριου του θεου υμων ινα ευ σοι γενηται και εισελθης και κληρονομησης την γην την αγαθην ην ωμοσεν κυριος τοις πατρασιν υμων

 

[Craig B]

I already did twice... read this post and this post.

I don't know whom you think you are fooling... maybe you really believe it???

Do you think Paul considered Jesus as an "observant Jewish preacher" who was a carpenter the son of a carpenter and who was baptized by John B and that is it?

Here are some more questions previously posed to you but out of which you conveniently cherry picked only one to answer… and even that answer fails totally (see below).







What artful obfuscation!!! We are not talking about just any religion... Paul was an observant strictly Jewish Pharisee.

Did observant strictly Jewish Pharisees often call spirits LORD?

Did observant strictly Jewish Pharisees think spirits were LORDS of the dead and living?

Did observant strictly Jewish Pharisees also think that spirits will sit on judgment seats judging people resurrected in their bodies after the end of the world has occurred?

Romans 14:8-14

• 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
• 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
  14:9 εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἔζησεν ἵνα καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων κυριεύσῃ.
• 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
• 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
• 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
• 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
• 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

How often did observant strictly Jewish Pharisees call spirits Lord Christ and consider them to be SONS OF YHWH?

Galatians 1:3-4

• 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
  1:3 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
• 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

How could an observant strictly Jewish Pharisees get PERSUADED by a spirit to abandon the FOREVER and ever LAWS OF YHWH and start preaching BLASPHEMIES?

Galatians 1:11-12

• 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
• 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Romans 14:14

• 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
  14:14 οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι' ἑαυτοῦ: εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι, ἐκείνῳ κοινόν.

Deuteronomy 4:39-40

• 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.
  4:39 και γνωση σημερον και επιστραφηση τη διανοια οτι κυριος ο θεος σου ουτος θεος εν τω ουρανω ανω και επι της γης κατω και ουκ εστιν ετι πλην αυτου
  
• 4:40 Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever.

Deuteronomy 6:4-18

• 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
  6:4 ακουε ισραηλ κυριος ο θεος ημων κυριος εις εστιν
  
• 6:12 Then beware lest thou forget the LORD, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
  6:12 προσεχε σεαυτω μη επιλαθη κυριου του θεου σου του εξαγαγοντος σε εκ γης αιγυπτου εξ οικου δουλειας
  
• 6:18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers.
  6:18 και ποιησεις το αρεστον και το καλον εναντιον κυριου του θεου υμων ινα ευ σοι γενηται και εισελθης και κληρονομησης την γην την αγαθην ην ωμοσεν κυριος τοις πατρασιν υμων

No. Tell me where Paul says that Jesus is God. None of this, not any of it, says Jesus is God. God is called Lord, among other things, in the Tanakh. But that does NOT mean that because Paul calls Jesus "Lord" he believes him to be God.

Kings and other rulers and persons of authority are also called Lord, both in the Old and New Testaments, as they have been more recently.

How on earth can you say this means that Paul believed Jesus to be God?

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

It is not reconcilable with the existence of more than one person in the Divinity, eg a Father and a Son. And it is the basic declaration of Jewish faith, the Shema. So it is EXACTLY the sort of thing we might expect from a strictly observant Pharisee.

Try again.

 

[Belz...]

The fact the later writers felt the need to 'pad out' the evidence says quite a bit

Well, that's ideologues for you.

 

[Belz...]

If the Josephus passages are NOT genuine how could they remotely be called evidence of a human Jesus?

See my bloody knife analogy.

This is total nonsense.

Please, Max. Don't pull a Dejudge on me.

Occam's razor showed that heliocentrism should have best model as you needed quite a few "fiddly bits" to get the solar system to work with a geocentrism (near the end the total was up to 97!). In fact, a non geocentrism system was suggested by Philolaus a contemporary of Aristotle.

Yes. But the motion of the stars _was_ evidence for geocentrism. To boot: it fit with the theory until we got a better one.

The "evidence" for Jesus is on par with that for John Frum, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Ned Ludd and many others. To even suggest is is on par with the Holocaust or the Moon Landing is not only intellectually silly but gives a hint of desperation that one saw with the efforts to save Newtonian cosmology when observation were not agreeing with what it predicted.

Where have I ever suggested this ?

 

[Leumas]

No. Tell me where Paul says that Jesus is God. None of this, not any of it, says Jesus is God. God is called Lord, among other things, in the Tanakh. But that does NOT mean that because Paul calls Jesus "Lord" he believes him to be God.

Kings and other rulers and persons of authority are also called Lord, both in the Old and New Testaments, as they have been more recently.

How on earth can you say this means that Paul believed Jesus to be God? It is not reconcilable with the existence of more than one person in the Divinity, eg a Father and a Son. And it is the basic declaration of Jewish faith, the Shema. So it is EXACTLY the sort of thing we might expect from a strictly observant Pharisee.

Try again.

So an observant strictly Jewish Pharisee becomes persuaded to ABANDON the FOREVER LAWS of YHWH by a blinding light which he thought was just a spirit of a previously normal ordinary observant Jewish preacher carpenter son of a carpenter who died a few decades previously and whom he never met and knows nothing about and all this in utter CONTENTION with YHWH and the people who actually supposedly did meet him and one of whom was in fact his supposed brother?

• Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Did Pharisees maintain that ordinary people will one day sit in judgment seats in the afterlife to judge resurrected people after the end of the world?

• Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Did Pharisees believe that an ordinary human spirit became LORD of the dead and the living?

• Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

Whom are you trying to fool?

 

[maximara]

See my bloody knife analogy.

The bloody knife analogy has a fatal flaw. If the husband was out of town on the day of the murder then the knife is NOT evidence against the husband anymore but evidence of something else.

By the loopy bloody knife analogy if someone was killed today by a gun that was last owned by Edward Teach then that would be evidence that Edward Teach did the crime despite Edward Teach being dead since 1718.

To even consider such a position is

If one has to resort to logic that makes Jack Chick's stuff look rational you know the position has problems.

The bloody knife analogy is akin to saying ALL the evidence presented for the Bermuda Triangle or Ancient Astronauts is still valid even after all the flaws, misrepresentations, and fraud are revealed. Might as well say The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is valid evidence of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.

Heck, here is "evidence" of a secret meeting between FDR and Hitler in 1934:

http://orig00.deviantart.net/d84e/f/2013/033/7/d/hitlerandfdr_by_animadefensor-d5tnphi.png

 

[dejudge]

See what I mean ? You can't discuss the issue without discussing the poster.

You never even tried, which is the problem.

I tried, and will try again: let's say you find a bloody knife next to a dead victim. Blood on the knife's the victim's. Knife's the husband's. Is it evidence against the husband ?

YES.

Thing goes to trial. Turns out the husband was out of town on the day of the murder. Acquitted. Is the knife still evidence against the husband ?

YES.

Your logic is absurd.

If the husband is ACQUITTED then the KNIFE is NOT evidence against the husband.

That is so basic.

Any person at any level, including the illiterate, would know that the husband's attorney would show that the KNIFE is NOT evidence against the husband to secure his acquittal.

Doesn't matter if it turns out the theory is incorrect. My point is that there _is_ evidence for the historical Jesus outside of the bibble. It might not be convincing to you, or to me, but it is evidence.

Again, your logic is absurd.

The evidence in the NT supports the TEACHINGS of the Church that Jesus of Nazareth was a water walking transfiguring GOD Creator and born of Ghost

You have NO ACTUAL evidence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth IN or OUT the Bible.

No non-apologetic contemporary writer of antiquity identified a character called Jesus of Nazareth.

No manuscript dated to the 1st century identifies Jesus of Nazareth.

The DSS do NOT have any evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[maximara]

Well, then. This thread has devolved to the point that every opportunity to insult other posters is taken, as if this is a savage war and not a simple discussion.

Having irrational "logic" pointed out as being irrational is not insulting.

The evidence Obama was born in Kenya is case in point case in point especially Kenyan birth certificate that Taitz presented. The efforts to salvage this clear forgery would be hysterical if they weren't so pathetic.

Yet by the loopy insane position we are given with the bloody knife it is STILL evidence Obama was born in Kenya despite being a clear forgery.

Do I really have to going in to why that is so intellectually off the wall goofy that it makes Jack Chick's stuff look rational by comparison?

Think about it. If evidence for Jesus being at the scope he is depicted in the Gospels was so good why would Christians have to forge things like Pilate's letter to Tiberius, why would the part of Annals that covered the time Jesus ministry supposedly happen not be preserved by these very same Christians, and so many other points that have repeatedly been brought up.

"In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris."

Last I checked Buddhism, Shinto, and Taoism were all religions so the atheist card is not even in play. Never mind I have seen atheists accept Jesus as an actual human being and deists say he didn't exist at all.

 

[Leumas]

...
To even consider such a position is

If one has to resort to logic that makes Jack Chick's stuff look rational you know the position has problems.
...

I think your problem here is that you do not understand what evidence means according to the dictionary of the Apologetics Ministries Seminary.

Depends what you consider 'evidence'.

You see in their dictionary evidence means any bloody thing they wish it to be so as to keep alleviating their cognitive dissonance with as much chicanery and skullduggery as they could possibly get away with.

Semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen. The bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from their attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking.

That is the last refuge remaining for sky daddy wishful thinkers; to patrol skeptic and atheist sites and warp all meaning of words and logic and reality to the point where their god will make sense only because there is nothing but nonsense left after all that bedazzling magic of utter warping of reality and language and logic and any sense of rationality.

Warp reality to make it possible for their irrational illogical wishful thinking and delusions to become just yet another claptrap buried in the middle of piles of crap which no one will even detect as hogwash because they have been blindsided by the underhanded sophistry.

And if anyone who is still holding on to sanity starts pointing out the loony world that would result from applying their definitions to situations other than the Buybull and Jesus and their God, they immediately switch them back to mean something else that suits their purposes in "proving" black is white and white is black and up is down and down is up and the Mad Hatter is Einstein and of course he is then "proven" to be crazy.

I think this post expresses it in a nutshell (with a slight rephrasing)

Arguing with casuists and apologists is like playing chess with a pigeon, In the end the pigeon will just knock over all the pieces, crap on the board and fly back to its flock to claim victory.​

 

[tsig]

None of those are related to religion, are they ? I think you are deliberately missing the point, here.



In the case of the historical Jesus, it was informed by a personal need for Jesus to be not real, hence my question.



Because I'm not satistifed that he was a fairy tale and nothing more. In case I wasn't clear before: I'm not accepting Jesus as a real historical person. Nor am I rejecting this possibility. I'm simply saying that there is, actually, some evidence to work with, some of which is outside of the bibble.

Then you won't mind sharing that extra biblical evidence with us.

 

[Elagabalus]

Hasn't changed since the last time you asked. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, the Pilate Stone-not to mention the Consilience of same, parsimony and all the rest. They tick all the right boxes.

Why do you hate the study of history?

Handwave in 3, 2, ...

 

[dejudge]

Edited by Agatha: 

edited moderated content and removed oversize font

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF AN HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH IN OR OUT THE BIBLE.

JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THE SON OF A GHOST IN AND OUT THE BIBLE.

The Bible specifically states the birth and origin of Jesus of Nazareth and it is documented and admitted by MULTIPLE Christian writers and in the Creed of the Jesus cult that Jesus of Nazareth was VERY GOD of VERY GOD and Born of a Ghost.


An excerpt of the 381 Creed of the Church

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

And [we believe] in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us, humans, and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became fully human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered death and was buried. He rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end..............

The Creed of the Church is EVIDENCE that Jesus of Nazareth NEVER EVER had any known established historical data.

 

[dejudge]

... But the motion of the stars _was_ evidence for geocentrism. To boot: it fit with the theory until we got a better one.

What absurdity you post!!! The motion of the stars was NEVER EVER evidence of geocentrism.

There was NEVER any evidence to support geocentrism.

Based on your bizarre reasonning if some unknown IDIOT makes a claim that the earth is the centre of the universe then it is evidence once PLENTY IDIOTS BELIEVE.

By the way, Geocentrism is based on Bible stories of a fixed Earth.

 

[Craig B]

So an observant strictly Jewish Pharisee becomes persuaded to ABANDON the FOREVER LAWS of YHWH by a blinding light which he thought was just a spirit of a previously normal ordinary observant Jewish preacher carpenter son of a carpenter who died a few decades previously and whom he never met and knows nothing about and all this in utter CONTENTION with YHWH and the people who actually supposedly did meet him and one of whom was in fact his supposed brother?

None of that means that Paul believed Jesus to be God.

Whom are you trying to fool?

Nobody. What I am doing is disagreeing with you. I trust you don't find such a procedure too offensive.