mountainman

We? Need? Why not?

mountainman

The recently discovered and translated text of the Gospel of Judas
supports this contention that Jesus was a master sorceror and that
the twelve daimons under his control were the twelve -- who could
not look at Jesus in the eyes. See especially Deconick's input.

I am inclined to suspect this fictive portrayal was designed and
authored as a method to attack the authority invested in the plain
and simple orthodox canon of gospels and acts. Chronology is the
all critical element upon which we lack a firm calibrationary basis.

The scientific team who were assembled in regard to the publication
by National Geographic and the carbon 14 test performed on the
physical properties of the manuscript both suggest fourth century
origins. Supported by the C14 date of 290 CE (+/- 60 years) the
team members all appear to agree on a fourth century dating.

We do thus have a reasonable idea of the chronology for this
Gospel of Judas and the master sorceror Jesus F. Christ and his
pack of trained no-eye-contact drones.


Photius makes mention of Simon Magus.

As an aside, here is a reference by Photius to a conflation of
the two figures of Jesus Christ and Simon Magus. We should be
alerted to the possibility that the stories by which Simon Magus
and Jesus Christ were together inextricably interwoven were the
Hellenistic fiction stories now known as the "Other Acts of the
Apostles ---- the Apocryphal Acts of the New Testament.

steve_bnk

It is a good analogy, the Cathoilic mass involves priests making incantaions that change bread and wine into body and blood, followed by ritual canabilism, the faithful eat their god.

ApostateAbe

We don't need that dichotomy because there are many more options. Almost all historical records are a mishmash of truths and falsehoods, and there is no good reason to treat the gospels of Jesus as a special exception.

aa5874

Well, tell us the truth about Jesus. Tell us the truth about the authorship of the Gospels.

You must know the truth, you claimed that the Gospels are a mishmash of truth and falsehoods.

To make it easier for you, tell us all the falsehoods first.

What is the truth about the conception, the birth, the miacles, the transfiguration, the crucifixion, death, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus?

mountainman

Precisely the reason that we need to take seriously the possibility
that the gospels of Jesus as presented in the books of the new
testament canon are plain and simple falsehoods. The new testament
apocryphal books amplify the falsehoods into Hellenistic romance
narratives chock-a-block full of outrageous fictional miracles and
other accounts.

Theories which attempt to explain the books of the NT as the result
of the existence of an historical Jesus character have been entirely
ineffectual in their explanations due to archaeological problems of
evidence. There is no evidence corroborating Eusebius' "Hi-Story".

Isn't it about time we became objective enough to openly discuss
the possibility that the NT books are plain and simple fiction?
Will such a discussion impinge upon our collective Salvation?

Toto

Most people here are willing to discuss this, but are not willing to listen to the same unsupported claims that you keep reciting.

Please do not hijack this thread.

ApostateAbe

The falsehoods are generally the claims that are unlikely and that align with Christian interests. The truths are the claims that are ordinary and that are neutral are contrary to Christian interests. If you want me to go into more detail, I can, but I know we have gone over this before.

aa5874

It is totally illogical to say that ordinary claims that appear neutral or contrary to Christian interests are true when it is well known and can be shown that it is not out of the ordinary for people to tell lies which appear plausible or even contrary to their interest.

In the NT, it was claimed that Peter attempted to walk on water towards Jesus who, it is also claimed, was walking on water during a storm at sea. Peter according to the Bible, began to drown.

Now, the story is all fiction although it would appear that it was not in the interest of the author to show that Peter nearly drowned.

Con-artists use devious tricks to cause people to believe their erroneous stories. They are well-versed in the art of lying.

Con-artists must already know that a lie may be believeable if it appears not to be helpful or not in the interest of the person that issues the deliberate error.

I will examine the first part of your reply:

"[b] All the stories of Jesus in the NT ,in general, align with Christian interest and are unlikely.

The stories of Jesus are generally falsehoods. I have discussed this before.

Now, please remind me of an event in the NT with respect to Jesus that is not false. Just one single event.

ApostateAbe

Jesus had a brother named James, he had a mother named Mary, he had a father named Joseph, he was baptized by John the Baptist, he made many prophecies that the end of the world would happen within the generation and lifetime of his listeners, and he was crucified under the leadership of Pontius Pilate. Those are the claims in the earliest gospels that are conventional and are neutral or contrary to Christian interests.