dongiovanni1976x

spin, I am curious what kind of evidence would be "enough" to pull you to one side of the fence or the other.

aa5874

I repeat again, in real life, real people are lied about and rumors are spread. That is logical.

Fictional characters, like Superman, Spiderman and Batman are not real. All acts attributed to them have never occured. Those fictional characters are not based on the characters of historic persons. No historic persons can be found to match the description of those fictional characters. That is logical.

I regard Jesus as a FICTIONAL character, like Superman, Batman or Spiderman. Jesus was the son of a Ghost, let's not get carried away. Get a Superman comic book and compare it with the Book of Matthew and you will see the similarity.

dongiovanni1976x

Both real people and fictional people can have things made up about them. So how is it that you go from statements like, "real people are lied about...fictional people are not real...I think Jesus was fictional...therefore everything that was said (or made up about him) came from a comic book"?

spin

I think at this stage it would be extremely difficult to provide enough evidence either way. If the MJ people can get over the hurdles and show an ancient religion not anchored in any reality whatsoever, that would go a long way. If the HJ christians can come up with some substantive 1st c. evidence for their eponymous founder.

As it stands now Jesus is ahistorical and we can happily say to those people who believe that he was real to demonstrate the fact, though with the data available it would seem certain that they couldn't. But the same thing is true for the substantive claim that Jesus was a myth. There is a difference for us though, the onus is always on the shoulders of those who wish to present a substantive position to actually make a case, so, functionally, they always have to. And we don't have to do anything until they do.

However, if we wish to communicate with those who don't understand the simple logic of scholarly argument, it is easiest to provide a substitute for their present position so that they can see that something else will work. (I don't know hoew many times I've heard the dumb argument: "it had to be this way, how else could it have been?" requiring an alternative to be proferred in order to communicate.) Yet, this is not a wholeheartedly successful approach either, because those who need a substitute for what they have often will only take it as a target and cling to what they have.


spin

aa5874

In order to show that Jesus was fictional, I have given you the facts that all the ghost related miracles were indeed false. There is no medical finding that ghost cause any health related problems. There is no person today that has a ghost related health problem. There is no person that have been cured of an illness due to the expulsion of a ghost. There is no medical finding, that the body dies when a person gives up 'the ghost'. The medical fraternity worldwide has no knowledge whatsoever of the health risk posed by exposure to ghost. There is no vaccine, oral or intravenous, manufactured any where in the world to prevent or cure ghost related illnesses. There are no known symptoms of a ghost. There are no records of births, where the father is registered as a ghost. No ghost has been ever examined by the medical fraternity worldwide. There is no audio or video recording of ghosts, whether by cell phone or sophistcated equipment. There is no known description of a ghost. Now, Jesus was the Son of ONE.

Compare the acts of Superman to Jesus, the son of a ghost, their similarities will astound you. Not one them stand a chance of being historic.

dongiovanni1976x

You seem to limit yourself to only one of two options: either (a) that the entire Bible has to be literally true -or- (b) that it was all fabricated

Your posts lead me to believe that you have chosen the latter but this dualistic approach seems rather myopic. Spin said this best, But you are using it as if Paul himself wrote it. How else do you come to your conclusion that he must be a liar unless you held this incorrect assumption?

I do not think it is possible. Am I limited to the same two options you have consigned to yourself when attempting to answer such a question?

Let me have Dr. Ehrman answer your question as he is far more euridite than myself: Try quoting things he wrote himself. That would certainly be more accurate if you wanted to set up an argument to demonstrate his own credibility with regards to events that he putatively experienced.

spin

I'm sorry, you have reverted to your original series of non-connected wanderings outside the realm of history. You have accepted that real people can have crap written about them, yet you insist that as crap was written about Jesus he can't have been real. You are actually committing a basic logical fallacy:

1. Having crap written about you doesn't make you fictional.
2. Jesus has crap written about him. Therefore,
3. Jesus is fictional.

Is this not a fair representation of the senselessness of your argument? Pleaser try and answer this point. Is my reduction of your argument not correct?


spin

dongiovanni1976x

In the recent debate between William Craig and Bart Erhman, Dr. Ehrman gave a brief outline of the role a historian plays when researching and writing history. Miraculous claims were consigned to the dustbin because they are the least likely event of all possible events and thus, by definition, never constitute "the most likely event" from a list of alternatives. With this in mind, are you suggesting that the MJ and HJ arguments are so close that you cannot assign to one "more plausibility" than the other?

I am a skeptical person by nature and I see the strength in your agnostic position, but I still think that here is a slightly better case for a HJ based upon Jesus' inconspicuous name, certain archaeological consistencies related to Pontius Pilate and Roman crucifixion, the close timing between the events and the developing stories, and most importantly, Paul's connection with the followers of Jesus which he recounts himself.

Is the argument from silence so strong that it should be considered equal to these valid points?

The Bishop

I'm talking to the deaf, I know, but...
I've no idea, but these things happen to this day. I've seen masses on TV where the evangelist shouts at the people, shoves them backwards and yells out "You're blessed!" More overt cures, like people getting out of wheelchairs, are either genuine people who aren't actually that paralysed, or outright trickery.

Well, Jesus was dead by then, so obviously Paul's "meeting" with Jesus was a figment of his imagination. But that doesn't necessarily make Paul either fictitious himself or "a confounded liar". He could simply have been delusional.

And of course, now you're just attacking the straw man of the phrase used to possibly explain some of the miracles that were observed when Jesus was alive, not Paul's delusions.

aa5874

Judaism is baesd on the God of Abraham. This God has no evidence of existence.

The Muslim religion, based on Allah. Allah is not known to exist.

Hinduism, based on various Gods, the Hindu Gods have never been found anywhere in the world.

Shintoism, based on various Gods, the Gods of Shinto are of unknown origin and existence.

Mormonism, based on unknown Gods and the angel, Moroni. Only Joseph Smith knew Moroni. No follower of Mormonism has any idea or clue where to find their Gods, yet they manage to follow them.

There is no known religion to be anchored in reality, all religions, whether ancient or modern accept spirituality as their basis. Their Gods are Spiritual Beings and there lies their anchor.

All religions are Ghost related and you better believe it.