by iskander wrote: In the short ending of Mark there is no resurrection . There is no information about his birth either.
There is also no evidence in any "short g-Mark" that the anonymous author had ever met anyone named Jesus. Nor is there any evidence that any informant for that author ever wrote to claim they (the informant) had known any human Jesus. The only sort of evidence in any version of g-Mark or in any of the gospels or letters, is evidence of the unknown writers religious beliefs.
That's the only sort of evidence that exists in the biblical writing - evidence only of belief. What it does not contain is any credible evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone.
iskander wrote:
In chapter 6 we are told that he is the son of the carpenter (1) and Mary, and has brothers and sisters. His family is well known to the village and he is treated like the boy they all had known.
It is a dogma of the RCC that Mary was a perpetual virgin who never had any other children and never consummated her marriage to Joseph .
How did the author of g-Mark know any of that? Who told him any such things about Jesus? Where does the author say that he had known any of these people? Where does he name any credible informant who ever told him any such stories about any such family of Jesus?
iskander wrote:
The early church made a man into a god, transformed his mother into a perpetual virgin, honoured his obscure birth with a divine father and his death was only a pause in a busy schedule. Where could traces of the man be found?
What? You say, as if it were certain fact, that Jesus was known as a man who was later made to sound like a god by church writing?? You just state explicitly that he was indeed known as a human man? Where is the evidence that anyone ever wrote even to claim that they had known any such human person as Jesus?
What you mean is that is that you will first assume that Jesus was indeed human, and then you will say that later church writing told untrue god-like stories about him, and hence he was actually real because you started off by assuming he was!
Look, the task of any HJ person here is very simple - just post any genuine credible writing from anyone who made a reliable claim to ever meeting a human Jesus.
If you cannot do that, then it means all of the biblical writing (and all the non-biblical writing) cannot possibly contain any sort of evidence except evidence of religious belief in Jesus obtained as anonymous hearsay. If none of those writers ever met Jesus, and if none of them could ever quote anyone else who had written to make any credible claim of meeting Jesus, then none of what they wrote can actually be evidence of a human Jesus known to any of them.
IOW - what you have in the biblical writing (and in the non-biblical writing) is only evidence of belief. What you certainly do not have is any credible evidence of Jesus as a human person known to anyone.
People here who believe in a HJ are continuing to commit that exact same naive fallacy. They are claiming to have evidence of a human Jesus. When all that they really have is evidence of their own belief that Jesus was real.
Jesus might have been a real person. It’s not impossible. But the problem is that there is actually no genuine evidence of his existence, only evidence of un-evidenced religious belief (belief that was certainly being copied from the OT).
). These barely scratch the surface, but they'll get you started:
