Belz...
Fiend God
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be surprised, if we had actual historical records of the Trojan war, to find out that one of the top Mycenaean generals was called Achilles or some variation thereof.
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be surprised, if we had actual historical records of the Trojan war, to find out that one of the top Mycenaean generals was called Achilles or some variation thereof.
Good, because your denial of basic FACTS (like Troy and therefore the Trojan War being regarded as a myth before Schliemann dug it up which was cited when I originally brought it up) and the twisting or sound biting of people's comments to fit your agenda is gotten past the point of annoying.
Last edited:
Well, examine your fib. You said the opposite. You contradict yourself
Craig B said:
Craig B said:
You said it was not possibly true that Muhammad and Smith could have spoken to Angels.
Angels do not exist.
You say Jesus exist although Gods, Sons of Gods from heaven do NOT exist.
It was not possibly for you to conclude that Jesus existed because Paul was lying or had delusions of a resurrection.
You always CONTRADICT yourself.
Craig B said:
You have been making statements that Jesus in the Pauline Corpus existed when Paul claimed he was seen of Jesus after the resurrection.
Your HJ argument is based on lies or delusions about the resurrection in the Pauline Corpus.
Last edited:
What an unpleasant and pointless comment. You don't choose, or dare, to sustain or abandon your Holocaust denial innuendo; instead, you make remarks safely under cover of my refusal to discuss until you do. Not nice.
Belz...
Fiend God
What an unpleasant academic topic. It's good we're not discussing anything important. Things might get nasty.
No it most certainly is not. What gave you that idea? I have pointed out before that Mark has no resurrection story, and that Mark's portrayal of Jesus is the earliest we have.
If I say, Jesus probably existed, and I also say, Acts reports that Paul had a vision of Jesus; that doesn't mean that I believe the vision story, or that I accept it as evidence for the existence of a natural Jesus. I think it is a delusion or a fabrication, and have repeatedly expressed that opinion of it.
Belz...
Fiend God
Man, that's way too complicated. You either believe or you don't. Get it?
The problem with this idea is 1 Corinthians 2:8 KJV: "Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
But as has been sarcastically pointed if Jesus death and resurrection was to cleanse man's sins so mankind could be saved then if these "princes of this world" were Earthly rulers wouldn't their first order of business been to kill this guy so mankind could be saved?
More over 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV states "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
No this crucifixion was NOT but Romans but by servants of the god of this world ie demons. So this has nothing to do with an earthly crucifixion.
The funny thing is one of his tracks Jack Chick (A Demon's Nightmare) makes a point of having two demons comment about had they only know they would have never incited the mob to crucify Jesus.
Well the word "evidence" means the same thing whatever the subject.
What is at a "different standard", is (i) the quality and amount of truly reliable & relevant data that it's possible to gather or to discover. And (ii) whether or not it's possible to use such data to form a robust & reliable hypothesis which can be tested in various ways by different reliable techniques, methods and calculations.
Outside of core science, the problem is that in many subjects the claimed data is not reliable or credible at all in the first place. And if you use such poor and unreliable data, then any conclusions drawn from that data are likely to be seriously unreliable or even completely mistaken/untrue.
In the case of biblical studies, the data offered by reading the bible, is truly atrocious. You really cannot use data (what for simplicity we often here call "evidence") as massively unreliable as that, where a huge mass of it has even been proved entirely false and physically impossible, and still hope to conclude anything more than the most tenuous and doubtful of conclusions.
The best you can conclude from data like that (i.e. the bible) is that Jesus might have existed (at least in some sense or other). Because after all, people did exist in 1st century Judea, and anything might be possible.
But what you certainly cannot conclude (except by naivety or dishonesty or by the wishful thinking of "confirmation bias"), is that such data is good enough to show that he probably existed (i.e. meaning, greater than 50% likelihood), or as Ehrman and his colleagues claim, that he "certainly" existed.
IOW - as I’ve said here many times before - he might have existed, but to show that would require something a great deal better than the utterly useless and massively unreliable “data” known as the bible.
gMark does state that Jesus resurrected but You say the opposite.
What you say cannot possibly be true.
Mark 16:6 ---And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
Why can't you even say what is WRITTEN in gMark?
Why can't you stop saying the opposite??
Craig B said:
What you say is recorded.
Craig B said:
Stop saying the opposite.
You make statements about the existence of Jesus who was claimed to have been resurrected by Paul, in gMark and gMatthew.
Paul claimed he was seen of the resurrected Jesus after he died and was buried. Such claims cannot possibly be true.
Paul's Jesus was a myth/fiction resurrected Son of a God FROM HEAVEN.
Last edited:
Sounds like you have been reading an early copy of Evidence that Demands a Verdict and quite frankly that is NOT true.
The scientific method itself is IDENTICAL:
Observe
Hypothesize
Predict
Test Predictions (in physical sciences this is called Experiment)
Reproduce
The problem as Horace Miner pointed out in 1956 is the Hypothesize stage is where things can go haywire. James Burke in his Day the Universe Changed showed this is NOT just an aspect of the social sciences but of the physical sciences as well. They very model you use can determine what is "acceptable" observation.
Is there a large amount of nonsense garbage in the Christ Myth camp? Sure there is but there is just as large an amount of nonsense garbage in the Historical Jesus camp as well.
The Ahistorical Camp tends to get shoved in with the Christ Myth and get flak from much of its more insane notions.
By the criteria of the historical method as it is used outside Bible studies the evidence for Jesus would be considered poor at best. Jesus at best would be considered on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur; a character so cloaked in myth that pulling anything actually historical out of the mess is effectively a joke.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Yes, and that's the unfortunate result of the lack of historical records. It doesn't change my point.
As opposed to being impossible? What does that have to do with the data?
Belz...
Fiend God
The standard of evidence is DIFFERENT. I'm not talking about the method, though that can vary as well.
If you have bothered to READ further on rather then replying to the first thing that caught your fancy you would have seen this:
HOW is that different from what you said?
How about reading things THROUGH before replying so you don't look
How do you know that g-Mark is the earliest "portrayal" we have?
What date was g-Mark written?
Why can't you even say what is WRITTEN in my post, even as you are copying it?!? I didn't say
Mark does not state that Jesus resurrected
I in fact wrote
I have pointed out before that Mark has no resurrection story, and that Mark's portrayal of Jesus is the earliest we have.
Mark may have believed that Jesus rose from his grave, but he doesn't know any story about it. The posthumous activities of Jesus, which appear in different forms in the later gospels, were simply unknown to Mark. A later hand added 12 verses with a risen Jesus story into GMark, but almost nobody believes that passage to be authentic. Not even the editors of the NIV Bible translation accept it as genuine, as you will see if you look up Mark 6 in that version.
The standard of evidence is DIFFERENT. I'm not talking about the method, though that can vary as well.
The "evidence", or rather the quality and abundance of material gathered as data, is different. The problem with biblical studies is that the material (the data) which is being used as the "evidence", i.e. the bible, is completely unreliable in the first place. And that has actually been proved by "science" (it's also been "proved" by all the early sceptic findings that I mentioned 40 or 50 times previously).
There’s probably, actually, a far higher standard and greater abundance of “evidence” i.e. data, claimed to support Homeopathy, than there is claimed for Jesus in the bible. And practitioners of homeopathy all claim that the “evidence” shows that their treatments are effective.
But one of the main reasons their claims are not credible, is the fact that, like Jesus & the bible, their claimed data or “evidence” was of an appalling standard in the first place. Other reasons include, again just like the bible, that their central claims of having cures from such enormous dilutions, are shown by science to be physically impossible (the miracle claims of the bible, which are likewise the absolutely central and crucial claims, are similarly now shown by science as physically impossible).
But, like belief in Jesus, a huge number of people feel quite certain that homeopathy and all sorts of similar treatments, really do work. They would claim a huge amount of supportive data (“evidence”), just like the bible providing the data ("evidence") for Jesus. But in both cases, homeopathy and biblical studies, their massive amount of data is all at the level of "garbage". In both subjects it's a case of Garbage In - Garbage Out.
Here’s a clip from Richard Dawkins showing how pervasive such garbage (like homeopathy) actually is -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJQlGOVEfqI
Craig B, I have pointed this out to dejudge several times including 15th July 2014 on this thread.
At this stage of the game it is clear he is using the Triumphal Jesus to drop kick any idea of a historical Jesus between the legs and out the window. Heck, that was clear about 2 freaking years ago.
Could there have been some obscure teacher whose teachings ticked off the locals and got killed for his troubles and whose followers later turned him into the miracle working God man of the Gospels?
Sure, but such a hypothetical teacher is in the realm of Robin Hood and King Arthur NOT Julius Caesar, Muhammad, or what ever other famous ancient personage that has caught the apologist eyes this month.
Pretending otherwise is delusional and that is the problem with the HJ idea as it currently stands; it simply will not admit its evidence is insanely poor.
Last edited:
What ridiculous nonsense!! You keep saying the opposite.
The resurrection of Jesus is part of the story in the short gMark BEFORE the 12 additional verses.
Sinaiticus Mark 16:6--- But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified, he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.
You can't stop saying the opposite to the facts.
What you say is opposite to the short gMark 16.6.
The resurrection of Jesus is part of the short gMark story.
No, it isn't that simple. Everybody has their own idea on how much of the Gospels story must be true for Jesus has "really" existed.
Some only go with the idea there was a teacher Jesus who taught something that ticked off the Romans and he was executed as a result.
Other say he had to have meet John the Baptist as well as the above. Still other add the trial by his fellow Jews must have occurred and on and on it goes.
The Quest for the HJ has become more a game of pick what you think is historical from the Gospels and find something to support it elsewhere.
Last edited:
- Status