No. They all report that.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
They also report many other things like the resurrection and walking on water so how do you determine that one story is true and another false?
I don't follow. I stated
You respond:
No I don't. Because the gospels do indeed report that. It would have been wrong of me to state that they didn't. Cos they do. Don't they?
No because Matthew talks about a trip to Egypt and staying there for at least 2 years while Luke states they went to temple every year...the two stories are not compilable.
They all report the resurrection [a non historical event]
Without the resurrection [a non-historical event] there would be NO remission of Sins, No Christian Faith and NO preaching of the Gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV
Mark 16
An historical Jesus cannot explain the start of the Jesus story and cult.
Only Mythology does.
Myth Jesus fully explains the Jesus story and the teachings of the Jesus cult.
That would be a logical argument if the Gospels were independent but everything shows they most likely aren't.
The gospels all report that Jesus was crucified? And that makes it true, does it? Because it says so in the bible?
How did the gospel authors know verbatim what Jesus said on the cross? How did they know verbatim what the dying crucified people on either side of Jesus said whilst nailed to their crosses. How did an anonymous gospel author around 100AD (or whenever), who had never seen Jesus, let alone seen him on the cross, report verbatim the perfectly logical coherent conversations that all these people had whilst being suspended nailed in appalling dying agony on a cross around 30AD?
You think that is a reliable factual account?
Belz...
Fiend God
They aren't fully independent, that's for sure.
Belz...
Fiend God
No one said that. Why do you keep battling positions that no one takes ? Is it because it's easier that way ?
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Well, let's see now. People don't come back from the dead, and they don't walk on water. I think it's safe to say that those two elements of the Jesus story are false. As many people have tried to explain, that does not mean that all elements of the Jesus story as recorded in the Gospels are false.
There's nothing inherently implausible about some religious crank getting himself executed back in first-century Judea. It happened to a good many others. It was the dedication of this particular crank's followers that enabled his cult to spread as it did.
I was asked where the evidence was? I stated
Now, either they do, or they don't. OK? I say they do. I say that is evidence. Now you can say it's not good evidence or whatever, fine. But I say the gospels contain that. Do they or don't they?
Belz...
Fiend God
It's amazing how much conflation occurs in this thread, isn't it ?
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,437
That pretty much sums it up.
People have repeatedly explained to you that you have no evidence that any element of the Jesus story is true.
People have explained to you that Romulus the myth founder of Rome have similar elements of the Jesus story.
People have repeatedly explained to you that there were hundreds of Myth characters and Gods that have similar elements to the Jesus story.
People have explained to you that YOUR Itinerant little known HJ does not make much sense.
The Jews do not and did NOT worship men as Gods--not even the Emperors of Rome were worshiped as Gods by Jews.
Who worshiped your Crucified Obscurity as a God??
The same Romans who crucified the Criminal??
A KNOWN dead Crucified Criminal does not explain the Jesus story and the start of the Jesus cult.
Thousands of Jews were crucified in the 1st century.
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
And? What is your point?
And it has been explained to you, many times, why this argument of yours is useless, stupid, and betrays a fundamental ignorance of the subject.
If you are happy with people thinking that, then carry on doing exactly what you are doing.
It has been explained to you that you have NO evidence from antiquity for what you say about your dead OBSCURITY .
As soon as you admitted your DEAD OBSCURITY was NOT the Christ then the forgeries in Josephus and Tacitus could not help you.
Your Dead Obscurity is a figment of your imagination and is NOT found in the forgeries of the NT, Josephus and Tacitus.
Your HJ argument is dead.
Robert Eiseman the historian KILLED it when he declared NO-ONE has solved the question of HJ.
Unfortunately for you, the position you are attacking is empty. No one holds that position, so feel free to burn it to the ground.
Even if anyone did hold the opinions that you accuse us of, your arguments would not persuade anyone to change their mind.
I have a very difficult time understanding why anyone would continue to cling to such an intellectually bankrupt position as yours.
Is this just a very long and not particularly amusing joke?
Your statement is highly illogical and fallacious. Robert Eiseman, an historian, has already declared that NO-ONE has solved the question of the historical Jesus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayU8uKFtxgU
I have a very difficult time understanding why you would continue to argue for an historical Jesus WITHOUT a shred of evidence from antiquity.
You have already claimed that your dead obscurity was NOT the Christ and that there was NO CHRIST yet you are using known forgeries about a character called the Christ in the NT, Josephus and Tacitus.
Your position is unacceptable and contradictory.
The Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are riddled with Fake 1st century authors and the accounts of Jesus are NOT eyewitness reports.
Accounts of Jesus in the NT MUST be corroborated by non-apologetic sources before they can be accepted.
There is NO corroborative non-apologetic evidence for Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century pre 70 CE.
In fact, the earliest evidence of the Jesus story and cult that have been recovered and dated are from the 2nd century or later.
Your HJ [your dead obscurity] is NOT Plausible and NEVER was because you never ever had the supporting evidence.
Last edited:
- Status