I think it was in Luke but can't be certain. It isn't in Bible Gateway. I will find it once I can get hold of my friend's bible which he lent me some months ago. It is in his New International Version but not in my New International Version. Obviously two different publications.
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed
- Thread starter Kapyong
- Start date
-
- Tags
- david fitzgerald
- Status
I think it was in Luke but can't be certain. It isn't in Bible Gateway. I will find it once I can get hold of my friend's bible which he lent me some months ago. It is in his New International Version but not in my New International Version. Obviously two different publications.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,132
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Pedantic, then. Gotcha.
Please explain why you are using the Bible to argue otherwise. If the bible is off bounds for arguing the one, isn't it equally off bounds for arguing the opposite?
Back to pedantic arguments, your claim is that Jesus being conceived by a ghost, was not human (Oh, which BTW is you using the Bible to argue the nature of HJ). What kind of DNA would a non-corprorial ghost contribute to the 'incarnate' JC's flesh? Presumably, his DNA would be 100% human, the only corporial part of the union. Would that not make him human by any reasonable measure? Oh, right... pedantry.
LOL
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,132
According to some Christians who came along generations after Jesus died, and most Christians today.
And according to most mormons, Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. Do you deny that Joseph Smith existed?
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,132
Two millennia from now, how much corroboration of the existence of Ronald Reagan, Fidel Castro and Augusto Pinochet do you suppose there will be compared to, say, you or I?
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,132
How indeed? How could someone possibly lie about something of a religious nature?
Attachments
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
No, lol
. What he is arguing (and what many others have stressed) is that the biblical description of Jesus is NOT that of a human being.IOW - you can certainly use the bible to argue that Jesus was not human. Because that's what the bible actually says - it says he was the supernatural scion of Yahweh. And it says that repeatedly, over & over again.
But what you cannot do is argue that the bible tells us of a real human Jesus. Unless of course you completely ignore all the non-human descriptions in the the bible, and effectively re-write a new and very different invented figure for yourself called a "historical Jesus" ... but that is not remotely the description of Jesus in the bible.
No, lol
IOW - you can certainly use the bible to argue that Jesus was not human. Because that's what the bible actually says - it says he was the supernatural scion of Yahweh. And it says that repeatedly, over & over again.
But what you cannot do is argue that the bible tells us of a real human Jesus. Unless of course you completely ignore all the non-human descriptions in the the bible, and effectively re-write a new and very different invented figure for yourself called a "historical Jesus" ... but that is not remotely the description of Jesus in the bible.
But we all know that what you are saying here is not true, because you refuse to respond to the points that show you are wrong.
Please stop repeating this lie of yours IanS.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
I see. This is not a discussion. This is a prophet sharing absolute knowledge on the biblical nature of Jesus. Thus, any disagreement is disallowed.No, lol
IOW - you can certainly use the bible to argue that Jesus was not human. Because that's what the bible actually says - it says he was the supernatural scion of Yahweh. And it says that repeatedly, over & over again.
But what you cannot do is argue that the bible tells us of a real human Jesus. Unless of course you completely ignore all the non-human descriptions in the the bible, and effectively re-write a new and very different invented figure for yourself called a "historical Jesus" ... but that is not remotely the description of Jesus in the bible.
So the NT never depicts Jesus as a human being, and Christians don't believe he was a human being? And you say this repeatedly over and over again.
I use the Bible to show it is a compilation of Ghost stories.
Please, Read gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.
It was a Ghost that gave the disciples the Power to preach the story of the resurrected Jesus.
If a Ghost did not come down from heaven on the day of Pentecost and powered up the disciples the Gospel of the Resurrected Jesus would not have been preached to all mankind based on Acts.
Essentially, A Holy Ghost had more power and the ability to teach than Jesus.
In gJohn, Jesus claimed he MUST go away so that God can send a Ghost to Comfort and teach the disciples.
John 14:26 KJV
God will send a Ghost in the name of Jesus!!!!
Jesus was JUST a Ghost story.
John 16:7 KJV
Please, this is the 21st century.
The NT is just a compilation of Ghost stories about a character called Jesus, the Son of a Ghost who walked on the sea for miles.
Jesus was a man?
Jesus was a Ghost!!!
Last edited:
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
That still doesn't affect the question of where the idea of telling such ghost stories came from. One possibility is pure fiction, based on nobody and nothing. Another is that they were fictional embellishments attached to what had originally been a person, whose true unembellished story is now unavailable. You appear to be convinced of the former option, but how do you eliminate the latter? The fact that the Bible contains "ghost stories" does not do that alone, because both options are compatible with that fact.
I am very delighted that you admit that "one possibility is pure fiction, based on nobody and nothing".
I am even happier that you admit that even if Jesus existed the " true unembellished story is now unavailable".
I am also extremely pleased that you admit the fact that the Bible contains "ghost stories
You have identified the fundamental problem with the HJ argument. It cannot be maintained because NO evidence is available. You have exposed the hopelessness and utter weakness of the HJ argument--the supposed true story of Jesus is unavailable.
The HJ argument is based on supposition of history, assumptions, imagination, blind faith, speculation, logical fallacies and Chinese Whispers.
You don't know and have no evidence from antiquity that there were ever true stories of Jesus. Your assumptions are worthless without evidence.
The fact that there are Ghost stories in the Gospels and Pauline Corpus do not mean that there were true stories of Jesus.
The ONLY stories of Jesus in the NT are Ghost stories so I will consider that Jesus was as a Ghost until new evidence is found.
I cannot go outside the Ghost stories and make assumptions.
Jesus was the Son of a Ghost that Walked on the sea until new evidence is found.
My conclusion that Jesus was a figure of mythology is directly based on the present available evidence.
If you can present evidence from antiquity that Jesus of Nazareth was even a real idiot claiming he was God which was blasphemy and punishable by death then I may review my position.
Last edited:
You lose.
Please, stop talking and read the writings of antiquity. Youtube cannot help you.
The evidence for Myth Jesus is extremely good--some in almost pristine condition.
NT manuscripts and Codices have been found and dated. We know what the Jesus cult believed. They believed Jesus was God from the beginning and the Creator of everything.
David Mo
Philosopher
No, lol
IOW - you can certainly use the bible to argue that Jesus was not human. Because that's what the bible actually says - it says he was the supernatural scion of Yahweh. And it says that repeatedly, over & over again.
But what you cannot do is argue that the bible tells us of a real human Jesus. Unless of course you completely ignore all the non-human descriptions in the the bible, and effectively re-write a new and very different invented figure for yourself called a "historical Jesus" ... but that is not remotely the description of Jesus in the bible.
There are several Jesus in the Gospel: An apocalyptic Jew preacher; a spiritual entity; a universal Messiah; a rebel Jew … And so on. The Gospel sources are multiple. For some of them Jesus was a deified man. In the past some non believer scholars had thought that it was possible to reach Jesus the man only by removing his supernatural features. This is a very ingenuous outlook. The most recent quests of the historical Jesus are based on hermeneutic and literary criticism. They are absolutely misguided in my opinion. But this is really the interesting point. If Jesus did exist or did not is irrelevant. Probably yes. And so what?
Only believers and atheists who are passionate deniers per system are obsessed with the subject. I think it's just miscellaneous.
@ian S
Look at what you write.
Now, what the "historicists" notice is this: Jesus is most "human" in the Mark account. In Mark 3 his family even treat him as insane. (The Mother of God thinks the Second Person of the Trinity has gone bananas, eh? No, it makes sense only of a human Jesus.) Then the later Synoptics add in more supernatural material, like miraculous birth stories - different ones - and miraculous resurrection stories - different ones - that are missing from Mark. Then John gives us a Jesus who spends his time spouting grandiose verbiage about his own supernatural singularity. Finally, a few decades later, we have Pliny who is able to tell us that Christians sing hymns to the Messiah, "as to a god". The process is complete.
Thus, we can see a clear process over time, resulting in the reinforcement of the supernatural, and finally divinised, aspects of the Jesus figure. The human element is not merely not absent, as you quite absurdly suggest, but it is not mixed indiscriminately with the miraculous and divine, either. No, the latter is constantly developed and reinforced as time passes. What do you conclude from that: Jesus was originally seen as divine and then humanised; or Jesus was originally a human teacher and exorcist who was divinised in proportion as his followers were increasingly drawn from ex-pagan non-Jews?
Look at what you write.
I could equally well write
The one is as good as the other. But both are absurd, because the Bible Jesus is depicted both as a human being and as a supernatural figure.
Now, what the "historicists" notice is this: Jesus is most "human" in the Mark account. In Mark 3 his family even treat him as insane. (The Mother of God thinks the Second Person of the Trinity has gone bananas, eh? No, it makes sense only of a human Jesus.) Then the later Synoptics add in more supernatural material, like miraculous birth stories - different ones - and miraculous resurrection stories - different ones - that are missing from Mark. Then John gives us a Jesus who spends his time spouting grandiose verbiage about his own supernatural singularity. Finally, a few decades later, we have Pliny who is able to tell us that Christians sing hymns to the Messiah, "as to a god". The process is complete.
Thus, we can see a clear process over time, resulting in the reinforcement of the supernatural, and finally divinised, aspects of the Jesus figure. The human element is not merely not absent, as you quite absurdly suggest, but it is not mixed indiscriminately with the miraculous and divine, either. No, the latter is constantly developed and reinforced as time passes. What do you conclude from that: Jesus was originally seen as divine and then humanised; or Jesus was originally a human teacher and exorcist who was divinised in proportion as his followers were increasingly drawn from ex-pagan non-Jews?
- Status