The Bishop

This is all very funny! I particularly like the referencing of modern medicine to events nineteen hundred years before anything like the modern understanding of illness had even occurred to anybody.

Doug Shaver

If I say they are, will they cease to exist?

aa5874

Based on your logic if a person lies about Superman, then Superman is possibly real. Jesus' ghost related miracles, which includes his own birth, have been shown not to occur from medical findings. Contact any World Health Organisation for information on ghost related diseases.

All Superman's actions are fictitious.
All the Ghost related stories of Jesus are fictitious.
Jesus birth is due to actions of a ghost.
Jesus is fictitious.

spin

What should be obvious to you from the vast selection of thought that you find here is that what is "more plausible" usually depends on the individual. The only guide to plausibility that I find convincing is based on our close knowledge of the times under investigation. We are all overcapable of retrojecting our own predispositions on the past and thus making more plausible those things that favour our retrojections.

I am happy to consign miracles to the shelves of unhelpful information. But history for me isn't a matter of weighing up what I consider more plausible, but what I can crib from the past in order to show the past.

But what is inconspicuous about the name "Yah saves"? -- especially when linked with the Samson tradition (Mt 2:23), "he will be called a nazarene" (should be nazirite) from Jdg 13:5, which in the same verse says "he will save Israel".

I don't know your thought or reference here.

So you have some way of dating all this stuff?

A while back I started a thread to see if anyone could seriously date Paul from his letters and the best that could be arrived at was that there is possibly a garbled reference to Aretas III in 2 Corinthians, without justifying the possibility. Try to date Paul from his letters: you'll have fun.

Paul is preserved for us thanks to the fact that Marcion made a collection of his writings -- you know Marcion, who was attributed with bowdlerizing Luke, which could just as easily have been that the gospel was a development on Marcion's efforts.

I can easily see Jesus being the result of a Paul in his religious zeal having concluded that the expected messiah had been, that he missed him and had to make up for the error of his way.

At the same time, real tracks are very hard to locate when there has been an orthodox corruption of scriptures, when classical authors have been preserved due to the auspices of the church, others consigned to the fire as in the case of Porphyry and much of Julian's efforts. We only know something about some of these, because christian author wrote against them. The past has been in the hands of those with vested interests to keep it theirs.


spin

RUmike

Wow. I can't believe so many people are engaging aa5874 now. It seems even more hopeless than ever though, which is why I gave up a few pages ago. He has already decided, a priori, that Jesus is fictitious. To back up that claim, he assumes what he's trying to prove by likening Jesus to Superman, and since Superman is fictitious, so is Jesus. Unfortuntely, no matter how many people reveal the absurdity of his logic, aa5874 won't understand. I've concluded that he is either a troll doing this on purpose, or just has major issues in life that none of us can hope to tackle on an DB thread.

aa5874

If I say, I am Superman's father, will Superman become real?
In order to identify a character real or unreal, one must have a desription of the actions of that character. These actions will form the basis of a determination of whether the character is real or not.

spin

You didn't answer the question. You evaded it.

Amaleq13

aa5874,

You've been asked this question by different individuals in different ways but you have, so far, declined to respond directly. Would you mind doing so, now?:

Given that you have already acknowledged that legends are written about real and fictional individuals, how do you differentiate between the two when presented with a legend?

aa5874

A character is fictitious when the sum of his actions as described are outside the realm of human possibility.A character is fictitious when identity is not known, or cannot be verified. When there are no known records of the character's birth, his residence, schools attended and profession. A person is fictitious when no one can verify that the person actually lived.

The ascension of a character into heaven directly from earth is fictitious, The conception of a person by a ghost is fictitious. The casting out of ghosts to cure sickness is fictitious. A character bringing oneself back to life ater 3 days, is fictitious.There are no recorded data that any human being is capable or have ever done those deeds. Those acts are of a fictitious nature and the sum of those actions are of a fictitious person.

A character is real when the sum of his actions as described are real and within the realm of human possibility.Identity is obtainable. Records are available of the person's background. Persons can verify that the character actually lived.

Now, if I can verify a character is real, whatever is said of that character is insignificant.

Amaleq13

What do you mean by "the sum of his actions"? Many of Jesus' activities in the Gospels are well within the realm of human possibility. Preachers existed in the 1st century. Faith-healers were believed to exist in the 1st century. Prophets were believed to exist in the 1st century.

What constitutes a "known" identity? How is an identity "verified"?

Isn't this standard a bit too modern for considering ancient individuals?

Can you provide some examples of 1st century characters who meet your criteria?