Clivedurdle

Maybe it is in this case!

RUmike

Personal attacks?? I haven't seen any on this thread.

aa5874

The historicity of Jesus ( the Son of a Ghost) is based on deception and lies.

Doug Shaver

Me, too. I'm a mythicist, but I've seen a bunch of arguments for mythicism that make me cringe. But that one is in a class of its own.

aa5874

You have failed to understand my view. Real people have legends written about them, however, Jesus was totally fictional, Jesus was not real, there was no real person who inspired anyone. There was no real human being who gave ' The Sermon on the Mount', no real human being that fed 5000 people with a few loaves, no real human being that cast evil spirits from the blind, the deaf, the dumb and raised the dead. All the acts of Jesus were done to inspire the multitudes, my view is that no real human being ever did any of those acts.

Real people have legends written about them.
Fictional persons have legends written about them.
Does that mean Jesus (the Son of a Ghost) is therefore real?

Amaleq 13, even if you believe there was a real man, not a God, named Jesus, only the Christian Bible gives an account of his actions in any detail. If these actions never occurred and nobody actually saw him or knew, how is it possible that the man Jesus be historic?

I need to see some facts that augments your views. You can't run me off this forum. Is this an inquisition or what?

Amaleq13

No, I completely understand your view. The lack of comprehension is on your end in that you do not appear to grasp the fundamental error in logic your argument presents. Denying the obvious (from a rational viewpoint) mythical elements of the Gospel stories is simply inadequate to establish the non-existence of the central figure in those stories.

I understand that this is your conclusion but you have indicated that the basis for it is your rejection of the theological/mythical aspects of the stories. While I agree with that rejection, it is clearly inadequate to establish that Jesus was not a historical figure. It is certainly sufficient to question that fact but it is not enough to establish your conclusion. IOW, you are jumping from recognizing that the bathwater is dirty to the assumption that no baby is in the tub.

No but I've already indicated that I agree that "the Son of a Ghost" is not a realistic possibility. Here is how your statement should be written so as to make your error clear:

Real people have legends written about them.
Fictional persons have legends written about them.
Recognizing that a story contains legendary elements fails to differentiate between the two possibilities.

IOW, given that legends/myths are written about both real and fictional people, how does one differentiate between the two when the only available evidence is the legend, itself? In my view, such a situation warrants agnosticism, at best, pending additional evidence.

On what basis do you reject the possibility that a real man taught the "Sermon on the Mount" or something similar?

On what basis do you reject the possibility that a real man was believed capable of performing miraculous healings and had stories to that effect written about him?

If those who were originally inspired by him did not feel compelled to record anything about him because they believed the End Times were near or because they were more interested in his resurrected existence or they were satisfied with oral stories and the need for such written information did not occur until much later in geographically and socially different settings, it seems reasonable to expect to find stories that are largely, if not entirely, legendary in nature to be created.

I consider the Gospels to be of very limited historical value but I also recognize that this is wholly inadequate to establish the non-existence of the central figure.

My "views" are augmented by logic. Recognizing that the stories are religious myths in no way establishes that the central figure is entirely mythical.

The only thing I want to leave this forum is the poor logic being applied in your argument.

spin

You are citing not one piece of evidence for any of the statements you have just made. It is the evidence which is meaningful here, not the opinions. What is expected of you is when you give an opinion, you supply the evidence to back it up. When you support one opinion with another, you are not helping your cause. You say that Jesus is fictional (opinion). To back this up you say, no real person has a "ghost" for a father, though at least one forum member claimed to have a "ghost" for a father. You would claim that that forum member didn't exist (the invalidity of a claim about a figure doesn't indicate that the figure didn't exist: Barbara Bush said George Jnr was a nice boy). You are not dealing with the problems you create for yourself.

People invent, tell lies, get confused, misunderstand what they are told. There are lots of reasons for things to get garbled. The fact that Barbara Bush may have been confused about George Jnr doesn't mean that he didn't exist.

You're a bit late asking for facts. Everyone has been asking for facts from you because you have been trying to present your unsupported opinions as evident facts. Some of your opinions may reflect reality, but one would never know without evidence to support them. Rampant unsupported opinions are not food for this forum.

aa5874

Thank you very much. Have a nice day.

Amaleq13

I'm not sure why you are thanking me for repeating myself but you are welcome. I suspect, however, it does not indicate that you have obtained an accurate understanding of the difference between the Jesus of faith and the possible Jesus of history or the difference between the evidence/arguments against them. I look forward to discovering otherwise. :wave:

aa5874

Let me present a few facts to you. In the history of mankind, there has been no medical records of ghosts causing persons to be blind, deaf, dumb or dead. There has been no medical journal that has expounded on the symptoms of ghost related health problems. There has been no vaccine, no oral or intravenous medication to combat ghost related medical problems. Today, there are no known cases of persons being blind, deaf, dumb or dead as a result of a ghost. Today, there are no known cases where the expulsion of a ghost have restored sight, hearing, the abilty to talk or restore life.

Now in the book of Matthew, a person is diagnosed, in advance, as being deaf and dumb as a result of an unclean ghost. Jesus, the Son of a ghost, confirms the diagnosis and proceeds to expel the ghost in front of eyewitnesses.The person begins to hear and talk in front of eyewitnesses.

Based on that story in the book of Matthew and the facts we know about health and the anatomy of the Body, no person, whether god or man was seen or known, anytime in the history of mankind, to have actually cured any disease by the expulsion of a ghost. No eyewitnesses could have seen such acts. No multitudes could have been healed. There are no medical records,writings, findings or documentation known to mankind at anytime in history to confirm the acts of Jesus.

The facts I have outlined makes me come to the conclusion that Jesus, the Son of a Ghost, was pure fabricated fiction with no possibilty of being historic.