aa5874

It is a simple case of copying some information from a source and adding fictitious material. That's all it is. If you read the Gospels, the stories are similar but still eyewitnesses claim to see events differently and have these events occuring from hours to years apart. Now, if you described an unknown character differently, at different places at different times, it is obvious that the characters are different, and that you have manipulated the characters to fit your wishes.

I have already shown you scriptures that indicate the genealogy, birth, residence after birth and the last words before death are different in Matthew and Luke. I have already point out to you that the prophecies, virgin birth, miraculous healings including the raising of the dead, resurrection and ascension of Jesus are all likely to be false. I have found, after reading Matthew and Luke that the character Jesus was not known as the Christ while living on earth. It is also noted that the character called Jesus, in the book called John, is described differently to the other Gospels. The authors of the Gospels are unknown, they have no credibilty.

The characters of Jesus have been manipulated, to fabricate a fictitious figure who is believed to be the Christ. The information in the Gospels supports fiction.

mountainman

When was "the fabrication of the Galilaeans - a fiction composed
by wicked men" actually (historically) created in your assessment?



Pete Brown

aa5874

I am looking at sometime after the destruction of the temple, that is sometime after 70 CE. From what I am gathering, after the destruction of the temple, the Jewish people were eagerly awaiting the 'Messiah' or the 'Christ' to re-instate the Jewish kingdom and many persons were fraudulently called the 'Christ' and this fraud includes the fictitious versions of Jesus.

The fictitious versions of Jesus was rejected by the Jews and was presented to the Gentiles by the unknown Paul. These fraudulent versions of Jesus were canonised along with the 'epistles' and the rest is history.

My assesment is sometime after 70 CE or the destruction of the temple, and before the Council of Nicea (325 CE).

DaBuster

Well, aa5874, we appear to be at an impasse –- despite the many exchanges we have had on this thread over the last week, I find nothing in any of the evidence you have cited in your posts to support the theory that the gospels are referring to “multiple characters” named Jesus, while at the same time it seems clear that you feel I have not made the case that the gospels are all variations on the story of a single character named Jesus. Since it appears that further discussion isn’t likely to budge either of us from our respective positions, I am moving on to fresher pastures. It wouldn’t surprise me if we cross swords on this forum again, so until then, shalom, dude.

aa5874

I am not at an impasse with anyone, my position or view can be altered with verifiable information.

The main criteria for determining different characters are genealogy, date of birth, and place of residence. There are thousands of people with the same names and without physically identifying them, their genealogy, date of birth and place of residence is generally accepted as a means of differentiating the characters.

If someone was to steal your identity, that person would in effect have the same genealogy, date of birth and place of residence as you. Genealogy, date of birth and place of residence should not be taken lightly, it is critical for identification.

Matthew and Luke describe their characters differently with regards to genealogy, date of birth, place of residence directly after birth and other critical areas. In my opinion, it reasonable to regard the characters as different.


I have tried not to pre-judge, but make conclusions on the information before me.
After reading and studying carefully the Gospels, the entire Gospels appear to be a fictious conundrum. There are huge holes in the story line, that is, the Christ is crucified before he fulfills his prohetic role. The Gospels' story has no extra-biblical support. The authors are unknown and have no credibilty.

All I need is credible information to change my position. DaBuster do you have any?

The Bishop

But that kind of direct quotation is used in genuine histories as well. You can't make a claim for fictionality on the basis of reported speech.

aa, you're perfectly entitled to view it as fiction if you wish. It doesn't read like fiction so, however factually mistaken the gospels may be, I don't regard them as fictional.

Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke both used Mark and another unknown source we now call Q, plus some other material which is unique to each.

Ironically it is the Gospel of John that contains a direct reference to it being written by someone who is speaking to a personal witness.

The Bishop

Nonsense. You talk utter nonsense. If two historians describe the life of someone called Winston Churchill, cabinet minister and war leader, and one descibes his childhood in Marlborough Palace and the other describes his childhood as being in run-down Stepney, you presume that somebody got his childhood story facts wrong, not that there were two people who went by the name Winston Churchill and both were Prime Minister in the War.

Modern forms of identifying someone for administrative purposes are not the same as historical identification.

aa5874

You are confused. Virtully everything about Jesus is fictitious, the prophecies, virgin birth, miraculous healings including raising the dead, the resurrection, the acension and all the words of Jesus with respect to the preceeding events, including eyewitnesses are all false. The genealogy, date of birth and residence of Jesus are contradictory in Matthew and Luke. According to Matthew and Luke, no-one was known publicly as Jesus Christ during their lifetime. So it is clear, Jesus is fictious, the fictitious character describe by Matthew is different to the fictitious figure described by Luke. See the books of Matthew and Luke.

I have already debunked your analogy. I will repeat it for clarification. George Bush was born before World War 2. George Bush was born just after World War 2. George Bush's wife is Barbara. George Bush's wife is Laura. George Bush was President of the USA for at least 3 years.
The grandfather of Jesus is Heli. The grandfather of Jesus is Jacob. Jesus was born before Herod's death. Jesus was born during a census by Cyrenius. Jesus was crucified.

Can you show me which historian claimed Winston Churchill lived as a child in Malborough Palace and the historian which claimed Winston Churchill grew up in run-down Stepney?
Once you have established that your Winston Churchill is historic, anything said about him that you believe is not true will not affect his historicity.

It is beyond belief that a person would claim that genealogy, date of birth, and place of residence is non-sense. I am at a loss for words.