Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 09-21-2011, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Hallucinations are fairly common, but so are frauds. I did not say that fraud should be a default explanation, but I see no reason why hallucination should be a default explanation.

The Pauline writer claimed to be a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus NOT an hallucinator.

1Co 15:15 -

Quote:

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not....

The Pauline writer was a FALSE WITNESS because the DEAD RISE NOT.

Is it parsimonious that fraud should be included as one of the explanations to be investigated? Wow. Surely the churches in control of the Gospels and Paul have operated legitimately since the very universal beginning, haven't they? It doesn't say in the bible that its authors were criminals does it?

When readers are ready for the worse case scenario to be outlined and sketched just let me know. Until then please carry on.

'If I want your opinion, Spike, I'll ... I'll never want your opinion.'

J-D · 09-21-2011, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Oh, come now archibald - must I call in aa5874 for his great talent for kicking any idea re a historical gospel JC to the rubbish heap........

No great talent is required to use the CAPS LOCK key.

Iskander · 09-21-2011, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

What I like about you and george, maryhelena, is your willingness to allow that it seems unlikely that Jesus was ever thought of by any group of followers (or indeed any group in ancient times) as having not existed.

(1) Who was the docetic heretic who wrote that despite how hard he looked at the ground under which Jesus was walking he never managed to see any footprints?

(2) Why did the author of the Letter of John warn about the antichristians who would not confess that Jesus had appeared in the flesh?

(3) Why does the anathema clause appended to the earliest Nicaean Creeds clearly cite the words of Arius of Alexandria:

There was time when He was not.
Before He was born He was not.
He was made out of nothing existing.
He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
He is subject to alteration or change.

Then you must be prepared to deal with the counter evidence, such as the three items I have referred to above.

Quote:

And I do again stress 'likely' and I say again that it is not a mathematical likelihood, but one arrived at by the best, though inherently imperfect reasoning methods available. And I am not saying 'vastly more likely' or 'the alternative is a non-starter'.

<snip>.

I am sorry you have posted this one; I had rated you higher in spite of your eccentric love of Constantine

aa5874 · 09-21-2011, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Oh, come now archibald - must I call in aa5874 for his great talent for kicking any idea re a historical gospel JC to the rubbish heap........

No great talent is required to use the CAPS LOCK key.

I have is a KJV RED-LETTER BIBLE, a Laptop with a CAPS LOCK KEY and "will kick" away HJ of Nazareth 24-7.

No great talent is needed to "kick away" the notion that HJ of Nazareth is a more likely explanation.

I won't stop "kicking away" at HJ of Nazareth.

Now, HJers need to present the Sources for HJ of Nazareth.

In the NT, we have TWELVE ILLITERATES and a Child of a Ghost.

J-D · 09-21-2011, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Oh, come now archibald - must I call in aa5874 for his great talent for kicking any idea re a historical gospel JC to the rubbish heap........

No great talent is required to use the CAPS LOCK key.

I have is a KJV RED-LETTER BIBLE, a Laptop with a CAPS LOCK KEY and "will kick" away HJ of Nazareth 24-7.

No great talent is needed to "kick away" the notion that HJ of Nazareth is a more likely explanation.

I won't stop "kicking away" at HJ of Nazareth.

Now, HJers need to present the Sources for HJ of Nazareth.

In the NT, we have TWELVE ILLITERATES and a Child of a Ghost.

You need to present reliable historical sources for your position.

Steve Weiss · 09-21-2011, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, do not mis-represent my position. This is the problem that I have with HJers. You appear to be DELIBERATELY making a BLATANT error about my position.

I DETEST when you mis-represent me. I am NOT playing any games with HJers.

This is MY POSITION.

HJERS have ZERO sources of antiquity to support their HJ of Nazareth and are ENGAGED in logical fallacies, absurdities, circular and strawman arguments, KNOWN forgeries and unreliable sources.

Please, refer to this POST at all times so that you won't forget my position.

You have no reliable sources to support your position.

+1

Steve Weiss · 09-21-2011, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

What I like about you and george, maryhelena, is your willingness to allow that it seems unlikely that Jesus was ever thought of by any group of followers (or indeed any group in ancient times) as having not existed.

(1) Who was the docetic heretic who wrote that despite how hard he looked at the ground under which Jesus was walking he never managed to see any footprints?

(2) Why did the author of the Letter of John warn about the antichristians who would not confess that Jesus had appeared in the flesh?

(3) Why does the anathema clause appended to the earliest Nicaean Creeds clearly cite the words of Arius of Alexandria:

There was time when He was not.
Before He was born He was not.
He was made out of nothing existing.
He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
He is subject to alteration or change.

Then you must be prepared to deal with the counter evidence, such as the three items I have referred to above.

Quote:

And I do again stress 'likely' and I say again that it is not a mathematical likelihood, but one arrived at by the best, though inherently imperfect reasoning methods available. And I am not saying 'vastly more likely' or 'the alternative is a non-starter'.

Nothing is certain. We all should know that by now.

The purpose of discussion is to exchange ideas.

Nothing is certain? Are you certain?

aa5874 · 09-21-2011, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You need to present reliable historical sources for your position.

You must be joking. Myth fables are NOT supposed to be historically reliable.

Next you will be asking me for historically reliable sources for Marcion's Phantom, Romulus and Remus, Achilles, Unicorns, Mermaids and Harry Potter.

Jesus Christ of the NT, the Child of the Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator is NOT found in historically reliable sources.

Not even the "historical Jesus" of Nazareth has any reliable history.

It is just absurd to ask for reliable historical sources for the history of Myth Jesus.

J-D · 09-21-2011, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You need to present reliable historical sources for your position.

You must be joking. Myth fables are NOT supposed to be historically reliable.

Next you will be asking me for historically reliable sources for Marcion's Phantom, Romulus and Remus, Achilles, Unicorns, Mermaids and Harry Potter.

Jesus Christ of the NT, the Child of the Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator is NOT found in historically reliable sources.

Not even the "historical Jesus" of Nazareth has any reliable history.

It is just absurd to ask for reliable historical sources for the history of Myth Jesus.

I am asking you for reliable historical sources for your position. You have given no reliable historical sources for your position.

You demand that others give reliable historical sources for their positions. I don't see why you shouldn't be held to the same standard that you set up for others.

aa5874 · 09-21-2011, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You need to present reliable historical sources for your position.

You must be joking. Myth fables are NOT supposed to be historically reliable.

Next you will be asking me for historically reliable sources for Marcion's Phantom, Romulus and Remus, Achilles, Unicorns, Mermaids and Harry Potter.

Jesus Christ of the NT, the Child of the Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator is NOT found in historically reliable sources.

Not even the "historical Jesus" of Nazareth has any reliable history.

It is just absurd to ask for reliable historical sources for the history of Myth Jesus.

I am asking you for reliable historical sources for your position. You have given no reliable historical sources for your position.

You don't seem to know my position and you have become a VICTIM of your OWN ignorance of my position.

My position is that Jesus of the NT is a MYTH FABLE. How many times do I have to tell you that?

Mythology does NOT need reliable historical sources.

Mythology is about IMPLAUSIBILITIES, and KNOWN FICTION.

I DEMAND credible historical sources for the "historical Jesus" and DEMAND MYTHOLOGY for MYTH JESUS.

I have MET My DEMANDS and have presented the Mythology of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Mark 6.49, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1.1, Galatians 1.11-12 and 1 Cor 15.

There are 4 fundamental FACTORS to argue my position.

1. Show that in the NT Jesus Christ was described as MYTH.

2. Show that in the NT Jesus Christ ACTED as MYTH.

3. Show that in the NT Jesus Christ PARTICIPATED in MYTH events

4. Show that the NT is NOT historically reliable with respect to Jesus Christ.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.