You must also realise that your site may or may not be useless.
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
You must also realise that your site may or may not be useless.
You, not NASA, don't know the difference between 'majority' and 'consensus'.
The majority of Christians are Catholics but there is no consensus among Christians that Jesus existed as a mere man with a human father.
The majority of Christians admit their Jesus existed as the Son of a Ghost, God Creator, the Logos and a Transfiguring water walker as stated in the Christian Bible.
Matthew 1:18---This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Last edited:
Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
In which way is the consensus on climate change fundamentally different from the consensus of ancient history scholars on the existence of Jesus the man? No one here gives a **** what the consensus of Christians is.
The majority of Christians have NOT conceded that Jesus existed as a mere man with a human father.
The majority of Christians claim Jesus was God Creator the Logos and Son of God.
John 1-----1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
The majority of Christians have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus was a mere man with a human father.
The MAJORITY of Scholars who argue Jesus existed ARE CHRISTIANS.
Last edited:
Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
Again, we are not concerned what the consensus is amongst Christians. What we are discussing is the consensus amongst scholars of ancient history. Maybe if you weren't so consumed with motivated reasoning you could think straight.
Last edited:
The MAJORITY of Scholars who argue Jesus existed are CHRISTIANS.
Christian Scholars must say Jesus existed as described in the Christian Bible [a Son of a Ghost and God Creator]
The MAJORITY of Scholars of Ancient history have NOT conceded that Jesus existed as a mere man with a human father.
Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
The consensus includes people from all religions, including atheists. This is a canard. Why don't you try repeating yourself five or six more times, and perhaps use ALL CAPS On every word? Then maybe someone will start listening to you.
Conceded would not be the correct word in this situation. And yes the consensus is that he was most likely a real figure, even Carrier acknowledges that this is the case. Why are you in denial? Why do you think anyone is going to buy that the "consensus" are just a bunch of Christians? People can use Google for themselves and find that this is the case, they aren't going to listen to your repetitive assertions...
Billions of people believe Jesus existed as stated in the Christian Bible and worship Jesus as God Creator, the Logos, and born of a Ghost and a Virgin.
Atheists have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus existed as a mere man with a human father.
Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
Holy *********** **** ****....
Again, we are talking about the consensus of scholars, which include Atheists, Jews and others... Let me be clear. Atheist scholars. Jewish scholars. Not atheists as a group. Man, what a waste of time.
Again, we are talking about the consensus of scholars, which include Atheists, Jews and others... Let me be clear. Atheist scholars. Jewish scholars. Not atheists as a group. Man, what a waste of time.
Jewish Scholars and Atheists Scholars have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus was a mere man with a human father.
Jews have denied that the Christ has already come.
Last edited:
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
I don't think I understand the nuances of these arguments.
According to this article, Catholics, like most of Christendom believe Jesus was human, with Mary as mother and the Holy Ghost as father.
Extremely few Christians (even Catholics) believe Jesus had a human father.
Thank you kindly
For the record, I am stating Christian beliefs, not my own.
So you do then know that the NT was just myths and fables... right?
And if Jesus was just a nothing human do you then agree that he couldn't have been any different from any jihadist zealots that we see today willing to die for their stupid xenophobic racist religions... right?
In other words Jesus the man was nothing but a pathetic defeated nothing of a zealous jihadist who had he had any power would have been similar to the ISIS monstrous vile religious fanatics that we see all around us today...right?
Do you remember not so long ago we had a pathetic dastard of a man who thought his religion and sky despot were demanding that he resist to the death imperialist occupiers of his country instead of adopting their decadent civilization and conceding that his sky monster is nothing but a foolish delusion... he too much like Jesus was finally put exactly where he belonged?
Maybe a few decades from now some great fool will claim he saw him in a vision and then go on to construct a new version of his religion catering more for the Infidels... thankfully this most probably will not happen... it was a lot easier in those days of ignorance and despotism upon the whims of a single despotic monster for it to have such insanities enforced upon the masses and for them to become officially sanctioned cultural mass delusions.
Why would Jesus have been any different from say Joseph Smith or David Koresh or Osama Bin Laden?
Actually I take that back... Jesus was not even close to those mountebanks and brigands... he was just a pathetic coward who died and achieved none of his delusional aspirations... it is Paul that we should be comparing to those vile men... Jesus was only an aspirant to vileness and never managed it.
Do you then agree with C.S. Lewis that a man who said the sort of things Jesus said would be nothing but a lunatic on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg?
Do you then agree with C.S. Lewis that Jesus was a madman and a fool to be spat upon?
Last edited:
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Then why do you say Catholics believe Jesus was the son of a man?
I think you're making a precise statement, but I can't see what it is.
Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
That was disturbing...
Why do you think that anyone who thinks Jesus was a real person is supportive of the Christian religion?
<snip>
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't seem to understand mythology/fiction.
You may think Adam was a real man because Catholics say so.
Most people who think Jesus of the NT was a real person are Christians or supportive of them.
There are billions of Christians.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
I'm questioning what you said Catholics believe, and source a Vatican source that says that the 'human father' claim is wrong.
Since you can't seem to answer, I'll just chalk it up to hyperbole.
Thanks ever so.
The same proportion that presents Thallus as evidence.
Van Voorst in his 2000 Jesus Outside the New Testament (pg 20-23) is one of the few pro-HJ people to go over the many problems with "Thallos" and then NOT try definitively use him as evidence. In fact, Van Voorst puts out so many caveats regarding this source that you wonder how any scholar who looked at it could even say it was worth anything as evidence.
Van Voorst points out the connection of Africanus' Thallos to that of the historian requires "two successive conjectures"; one a "conjecture textual emendation adopted by all the recent editors of Josephus except Nisese" followed by assuming this "Thallos" in Josephus is the same one in Eusebuis and Africanus. This makes the totally goofy idea that Caligula would take lands from one of his good friends and personal supporters and give it to a rebellious barbarian king look rational. Things basically go downhill from there.
About 15 years ago I did directory assistance and as part of our training we had to look up Clark Kent in Cleveland, OH, an Alex (ie Lex) Luthor in Kansas City, MO, and a Lois Lane in NYC, NY and we actually found listings. By the insane logic given for Thallos I just proved Superman really exists.
This is what passes for logic and historical method in Biblical studies?
Last edited:
If you want to do yourself another favour, read this devastating criticism of it.
ETA Here's the conclusion of the critical analysis.
Last edited:
- Status