Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-22-2011, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

...I've never at any time said that considering a possible HJ necessarily implies assuming an HJ. I myself sometimes consider a possible HJ, and still seriously listen to HJ arguments, all without any assumption that he existed...

HJ of Nazareth MUST be PRESUMED to have existed once as it is claimed that "All four canonical Gospels contain some statements which cannot possibly be historically true and some other statements which might or might not be historically true".

ALL that we Know is that the Canonical Gospels cannot be trusted.

The claim by HJers that there was an HJ of Nazareth can ONLY be PRESUMED since the very source that HJ lived in Nazareth, the Canonical Gospels, ALL state Jesus of Nazareth WALKED on the sea and Transfigured.

HJers cannot ever show that the Gospels are credible historical reports when they contain statements that CANNOT be historically true.

The Gospels DESCRIBE Jesus as a PHANTOM who was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for HJers to argue that the Gospels are historically reliable.

aa5874 · 10-22-2011, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

.... "fabrication of the Galilaeans" refers to the resurrection, not the existence of Jesus. Read further in what Julian wrote, and this will be clear.

Well, after having read what Julian wrote I can't even find the word "resurrection". It seems you may have mis-represented what Julian wrote.

Please show the actual passage where Julian stated that "fabrication of the Galilaeans" refers to the resurrection.

This is what I found.

"Against the Galileans" book 1

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth......

The Jesus story was a MONSTROUS tale composed by WICKEDNESS according to Julian.

gurugeorge · 10-22-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for HJers to argue that the Gospels are historically reliable.

Yes, but it is still possible that the gospels may be a fanciful overlay over an ordinary human being's doings. That's not a terribly unusual thing, we have precedent for it.

The problem for HJ-ers is how to dig out the hypothetical human being's doings from the fanciful overlay; plus they also have a problem that they have no triangulation from other contemporary sources that so much as hint of someone whose doings look vaguely similar (well, apart from the other troublemakers mentioned in Josephus, who I maintain they ought to be looking at more closely as possible candidates), so the hypothetical nature of the human being is doubly hypothetical, really just a shot in the dark

J-D · 10-22-2011, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

...I've never at any time said that considering a possible HJ necessarily implies assuming an HJ. I myself sometimes consider a possible HJ, and still seriously listen to HJ arguments, all without any assumption that he existed...

HJ of Nazareth MUST be PRESUMED to have existed once as it is claimed that "All four canonical Gospels contain some statements which cannot possibly be historically true and some other statements which might or might not be historically true".

ALL that we Know is that the Canonical Gospels cannot be trusted.

The claim by HJers that there was an HJ of Nazareth can ONLY be PRESUMED since the very source that HJ lived in Nazareth, the Canonical Gospels, ALL state Jesus of Nazareth WALKED on the sea and Transfigured.

HJers cannot ever show that the Gospels are credible historical reports when they contain statements that CANNOT be historically true.

The Gospels DESCRIBE Jesus as a PHANTOM who was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for HJers to argue that the Gospels are historically reliable.

That depends on what you mean, in this context, by 'HJ of Nazareth' and 'historically reliable'.

J-D · 10-22-2011, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Let's try a simple question.

Did Jesus Christ as described in the gospels exist?

The answer to that question is simply, no. To get any other answer, you have to start slicing and dicing, and that involves almost as many assumptions and biases as there are authors.

Is that too simple?

Jake

Yes.

Why is it too simple?

It is too simple in that it gives the appearance of presupposing that it is appropriate to treat the four gospels as presenting a single integrated description of one named 'Jesus Christ'.

aa5874 · 10-22-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Josephus mentions by name a number of individual claimed messiahs who attempted to lead revolts against the Romans, but none of them are corroborated by surviving Roman sources; there is no reason to expect that Jewish messianic claimants would be mentioned by surviving Roman sources, and the absence of reference to them in surviving Roman sources demonstrates nothing.

In the Synoptics Jesus WALKED on the sea and Transfigured so I really don't see any significance to your post.

In the Synoptics Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost and so I can only ACCEPT that the Synoptics are Ghost stories or Myth Fables.

What Josephus did or did NOT mention about other people proves NOTHING for the presumed HJ.

The Canonical Gospels MENTIONED that Jesus was a SEA-WATER walker and TRANSFIGURED.

The Gospels are version of Myth Fables about a PHANTOM called Jesus Christ.

Josephus wrote stories about other people.

A SEA-WATER WALKER cannot have an actual human body only an APPARENT body.

One who TRANSFIGURED cannot have an actual human body only an APPARENT body.

The SPECIFIC GRAVITY of a human body does NOT allow for SEA-WATER-WALKING.

The Gospel Jesus was a PHANTOM.

Mattt 14:25 -

Quote:

And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

Mark 6:49 -

Quote:

But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out..

John 6:19 -

Quote:

So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.

arnoldo · 10-22-2011, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

.... "fabrication of the Galilaeans" refers to the resurrection, not the existence of Jesus. Read further in what Julian wrote, and this will be clear.

Well, after having read what Julian wrote I can't even find the word "resurrection". It seems you may have mis-represented what Julian wrote.

Please show the actual passage where Julian stated that "fabrication of the Galilaeans" refers to the resurrection.

This is what I found.

"Against the Galileans" book 1

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth......

The Jesus story was a MONSTROUS tale composed by WICKEDNESS according to Julian.

The next question I have is to whom does the Emperor Julian attribute the MONSTROUS tale? The title "Against the Galileans" seems to suggest that a group of Galileans from the first century invented the lie. . :constern01:

aa5874 · 10-22-2011, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

....The next question I have is to whom does the Emperor Julian attribute the MONSTROUS tale? The title "Against the Galileans" seems to suggest that a group of Galileans from the first century invented the lie. . :constern01:

Jesus and the disciples were the Galileans. Those were the Galileans that were fabricated by the WICKEDNESS and the FICTION of men.

Julian challenged anyone to produce any well-known writer who wrote about Jesus and Paul who supposedly lived during the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

"Against the Galileans"

Quote:

.... But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.....

Up to this day, 1600 years later, Julian remains UNCHALLENGED.

NOBODY can show us that the well-known writers of that time wrote about Jesus and Paul.

Julian was right. The Jesus story is A monstrous wicked tale.

J-D · 10-23-2011, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Josephus mentions by name a number of individual claimed messiahs who attempted to lead revolts against the Romans, but none of them are corroborated by surviving Roman sources; there is no reason to expect that Jewish messianic claimants would be mentioned by surviving Roman sources, and the absence of reference to them in surviving Roman sources demonstrates nothing.

In the Synoptics Jesus WALKED on the sea and Transfigured so I really don't see any significance to your post.

In the Synoptics Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost and so I can only ACCEPT that the Synoptics are Ghost stories or Myth Fables.

What Josephus did or did NOT mention about other people proves NOTHING for the presumed HJ.

The Canonical Gospels MENTIONED that Jesus was a SEA-WATER walker and TRANSFIGURED.

The Gospels are version of Myth Fables about a PHANTOM called Jesus Christ.

Josephus wrote stories about other people.

A SEA-WATER WALKER cannot have an actual human body only an APPARENT body.

One who TRANSFIGURED cannot have an actual human body only an APPARENT body.

The SPECIFIC GRAVITY of a human body does NOT allow for SEA-WATER-WALKING.

The Gospel Jesus was a PHANTOM.

Mattt 14:25 -

Quote:

And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

Mark 6:49 -

Quote:

But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out..

John 6:19 -

Quote:

So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.

Some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place; other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.

J-D · 10-23-2011, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I don't see how you can change that sentence above to have any other meaning than the one I'm giving it. You may have been thinking something else, and you may have misrepresented what you were thinking, but what you wrote has the meaning it has, and it's a blatant example of taking for granted what has yet to to be demonstrated.

If all you meant was "some statements in the gospels may or may not be historically true", why didn't you just say it? It's a fairly bland proposition, but at least it doesn't commit the fallacy of petitio principii.

George, this whole time you've been reading something which wasn't there, and you're not listening to the other party when they're telling you that. There never was such a fallacy, except in your perceptions, because you appear to have this ingrained notion that considering a possible HJ necessarily implies assuming something, which of course it doesn't.

I think you're reading something which isn't there

I've never at any time said that considering a possible HJ necessarily implies assuming an HJ. I myself sometimes consider a possible HJ, and still seriously listen to HJ arguments, all without any assumption that he existed.

"My perceptions"? I can only go on the words my eyes perceive. If JD meant simply a bland tautological truism ("some statements in the gospels, including statements with the name "Jesus" in them, may or may not be historically true") then he should have stated that bland tautological truism, instead of the question-begging substantive statement he made ("some statements in the gospels about Jesus may or may not be historically true"). Don't tell me you can't tell the difference.

In the context of the averral that some of the statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus cannot be accurate literal reports of events that actually took place, it is not tautologous to aver that other of the statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus might or might not be accurate literal reports of events that actually took place: the point being that there is a distinction between statements for which literal accuracy is still an open possibility and those for which it is not.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.