Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-03-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Nobody can have two different biological paternal grandfathers. However, there is no logically valid argument from this premise to the conclusion that all the statements about Jesus in the Christian Scriptures are false.

Could you validate your statement by showing me one statement about Jesus as written in the NT, that you know is not false?

Your argument is only valid with evidence.

My argument is that the virgin birth as described in the NT is false, no person has ever been conceived through a ghost and a woman. Mary's story is false, as written in the NT, she had no child that was the son of a ghost. It therefore logically follows, no Jesus, no baptism, no temptation, no miraculous acts, no transfiguration, no burial, no resurrection and no ascension.

As I have said, before an investigation of a crime there are many possibilities. At the completion of investigation, there is generally only one possibility. So truly the investigation ultimately determimes the possibilties, not the initial logic.

aa5874 · 04-03-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What do you mean by "historicity"?

I mean Jesus the Christ was never born, the virgin birth is fiction or folklore. Mary never had a child that was the son of a ghost, she never conceived a child as described in the NT.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Nope, Matthew testifies with Mark, you have to read with more depth.
When Matthew gets to the actually crafty attempt to trick Jesus
he shows the Herodian-Pharisee alignment.

Matthew 22:15-18
Then went the Pharisees,
and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians,
saying, Master, we know that thou art true,
and teachest the way of God in truth,
neither carest thou for any man:
for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou?
Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said,
Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

The whole argument of incredulity is very flimsy.
Folks make alliances every day with their political opponents
.. that is the nature of .. politics.

I even gave an example on this forum the other day. The
largely conservative folks battling for the life of Theresa Schindler
were pleased to see a cogent supporting article by a fellow
often considered leftist, Nat Hentoff, writing in the Village Voice.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

The analogy I used previously was one of the Republican Party 'going forth to take counsel' (I think that was the phrase) with the Communists. Can you give me any definite historical example of that? Failing that, can you give a credible account of how and why the Pharisees might have 'gone forth to take counsel' with the Herodians? Many things are possible in politics: but not everything.

Amaleq13 · 04-03-2007, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There will be many possibilities, not just two.

1. All versions are historically false
2. One version is historically true and all others are historically false.
3. Some parts of all the versions are historically false and other parts of all the versions are historically true.
4. Some parts of some versions are historically true and all the remaining versions are false.
5. One version is historically true, and some parts of all the remaining versions are true.
6. One version is historically true, and some parts of some versions are true, the remaining versions are false.
7. One version is historically false, and some parts of all the remaning versions are true.

Now, with respect to the non-historicity of Jesus the Christ, there is one fundamental statement, as written in the NT, that confirms mythology and fiction, that eliminates all logical possibilities, Mary, as the author wrote, claimed that Jesus was born without sexual contact and that Jesus is truly the son of a holy Ghost.

Do you actually believe identifying this single claim as false eliminates all the possibilities you list above?

Chris Weimer · 04-03-2007, 10:40 PM

I officially claim that aa5874 is the son of God.

Does this mean he no longer exists? If so, I also proclaim that (rambles off a long list of names of people...)

Chris Weimer · 04-03-2007, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I mean Jesus the Christ was never born, the virgin birth is fiction or folklore. Mary never had a child that was the son of a ghost, she never conceived a child as described in the NT.

And for crying out loud it doesn't say ghost!

J-D · 04-03-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Not all scholars agree that this fragment of the literary tradition
has the utmost integrity with respect to history. AFAIK this is
first reported by Tertullian, along with many other documents
which are also now known to be totally fraudulent and bogus,
such as the Report of Pilate to Caesar, and for Pilate's conversion
to Christianity.

Like the other Fathers, Tertullian is also in the ranks of patristic
forgers of holy fables, being either the author or the publisher
of "The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas",
the fabulous Martyrdom of two of the Church's most celebrated
bogus Saints, annexed to his accredited works. (ANF. iii, 699-706.)

--- Joseph Wheless

What about Tertullian himself? Do you accept his writings as evidence of the existence of Christianity in the second and third centuries, before Constantine?

J-D · 04-03-2007, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

One must always bear in mind that, according to Irenaeus in Against Heresies, there were followers of many versions of Christ. These versions of Christ were conceptualised long before the canonisation of the NT.

The word 'Christian' does not inherently signify the same group or those of the same doctrine with respect to the post-nicene period.

If the same word is used to refer to different groups, it seems to me that it is a legitimate question to ask why the same word is being used to refer to different groups.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The pre-existence, the virgin birth, the baptism, the miraculous acts, the transfiguration, the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus the Christ, as written in the NT, are all consistent with acts of mythological figures.

See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus

I don't see anything there about the pre-existence, virgin birth, baptism, transfiguration, resurrection, or ascension of Zeus.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

One cannot separate Jesus from the fictitious acts recorded in the NT, which supposedly earned him the title, Jesus the Christ.

That depends on who the 'one' referred to is. Obviously you are incapable of making that separation. I don't see that that is a reason why anybody else should share in your deficiency.

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

04-03-2007, 10:40 PM	#455
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I officially claim that aa5874 is the son of God. Does this mean he no longer exists? If so, I also proclaim that (rambles off a long list of names of people...)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.