Amaleq13

I consider this a mistaken characterization of the exchange. Pliny's knowledge of Christian beliefs and practices is vague and appears to be primarily a view from the outside. His stated emphasis is on testing whether the alleged Christians will do what a practicing Christian won't. And we have no idea what beliefs he has dismissed as "depraved, excessive superstition". Your reliance upon Pliny seems like a very weak argument from silence to me.

But those followers and the man who failed were separated from Paul's myth long before and it is Paul's myth that had the legs. The Gospel stories are new additions to the myth which replace the forgotten/denied historical failure with a wonderful story of magical powers and self-sacrifice.

But they aren't "linear descendants" of the followers of the Failure. They are descendants of the Believers in the Myth.

The emphasis of the myth is the risen Christ. An outsider establishes obvious connection between the "name" Christ and the name "Christian". That Christ was a crucifixion victim brought back to life might be the "depraved, excessive superstition" Pliny rejects.

There is nothing curious about recognizing you are not relying on the generally accepted dating of the Christian texts. Alternate dating schemes don't impress me given the rorschach nature of the evidence. Projection is too easy. I can't pretend I know more than the professionals even if I suspect some of them are biased by religious beliefs.

This may all come down to dating the texts.

Discovering documentation that hasn't even been gathered together by Christians? Give the guy a break.

You missed the point. The absence of a "story" in Pliny's letters does not argue against just one position so it can be of no service to you.

You missed my point. The myth overtakes the unpleasant reality. Dragging in this bullshit about forgetting his name, etc. is a red herring. I see no reason to think he knew about the Gospel story and no reason to assume this of any of his alleged Christians, either.

That was left behind and replaced by the myth. It only resurfaces after the Gospel stories are written and begin to circulate.

Pointing out that an argument appears to work both ways is dodging nothing.

Please point to a cult that was able to obtain converts despite lacking any detail in their beliefs. This is a dodge, amigo. And the idea that a belief unrestrained by history or reality would not obtain details is simply contrary to everything known about the way humans think.

There is no incompetence in failing to find writings that aren't even popular with Christians yet.

Very little and that was Paul's doing when he created the myth that replaced the historical man.

No, I reached the conclusion prior to and independent of the Pliny-Trajan exchange. It simply fails to offer any significant challenge to the conclusion.

Some of them and from an outsider's view so, no, it isn't.

This is not clear. I think you exaggerate the nature of his investigation. What he has to say about them certainly doesn't suggest "thorough" to me.

Don't fall into the double-aa trap!! I see it as a viable possibility. I've been arguing against the notion that it is "preposterous". That is simply wrong.

I'll take any warmth available. And Hapkido is about avoiding violence. Plus you have guns.

aa5874

My position is that Jesus, the disciples are total fiction and that Paul was a fiction writer from some other century than the 1st.

I have the evidence to support my position.

You have no argument, just baseless assertions, only saying repeatedly that others are wrong.

You absolutely have nothing on the historicity of Jesus. Total Zero.

Elijah

If it’s tiny things or just going with an assumption he wasn’t for equality amongst people because of an assumption that no one was back then, then I’ll have to suffice with the straws.

Mark 8:35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.

The martyrdom meme is what made Christianity into what it became and why Rome couldn’t kill it.

Amaleq13

Who do you imagine isn't already aware of your very strong religious beliefs?

You have some evidence that can be used to support your position but you have yet to present it in a logical or coherent fashion or to recognize that it is incapable of establishing your assertions with the level of certainty with which you make them. Instead, you prefer to ignore the problems with your argument to just continue preaching. Apparently, because that is easier for you than actually thinking. :banghead:

I have repeatedly pointed out where you are wrong or indulging in logical fallacy and, rather than take the intellectually honest approach of attempting directly address those errors, you ignore them and keep preaching.

That you think I have no position just confirms that you haven't been paying attention. You never seem to and I suspect that is large part of the reason why so many people have you on ignore. :wave:

aa5874

Your position, as you have just demonstrated again, is to claim everybody is wrong or illogical.

It should be most obvious that if you disagree with some-one that you will think the other party is wrong.

Now, what do you have right about Jesus with respect to the OP.

You need to put some evidence, some source, some information on the boards, not some speculative imaginative story about some character called Jesus.

Amaleq13

No, not everybody.

And attempting to limit false claims, logical fallacies, and nonsense clogging the forum is part of my job.

Don't like it? Stop preaching and make an honest effort to improve your arguments.

aa5874

Everything is going well on my side.

You are too predictable.

If the writings of Tertullian is examined it will be noticed that the writer made contradictory claims about how the name "christian" was derived.

In "Ad Nationes 1.3" and "Apology 3", the writer claimed the the word "christian" is derived from "anointing", yet later in the same "Apology 5" he claimed the word "christian" first entered the world because of Jesus Christ during the time of Tiberius.

Ad Nationes 1.3 by Tertullian
Apology 3 by Tertullian
Now, once the word "christian" is derived from "anointing" or a "sense of anointing", then to be called a Christian did not need an historical Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is totally not necessary as a god or man.

There were person who called themselves Christians who did not mention Jesus at all. Theophilus of Antioch and others called themselves Christians because they were anointed with "the oil of God".

Theophilus to Autolycus 12 The historical Jesus was not needed by Theophilus of Antioch. The non-existence of Jesus was not a hindrance to being called Christians.

And what is interesting in Apology 5, the passage appears to be full of fiction. Tertullian claimed Tiberius believed Jesus was indeed a God and presented his findings to the senate. What fiction.

Apology 5 by Tertulian
The historical Jesus is a myth or fables of fiction.

rcscwc

Quote:
Sure can be. Have been. There s a complete knowledge about when an Avatar is to appear. K appeared at the end [nearly] of Dwapar era, just before the start of Kaliyuga about 5200 years ago.




That He would appear as Lord Kalki at then of Kaliyuga, present era, which is run for another 427,000 years. Firm date. Just wait.

In contrast, second coming is coming, coming..
Not quite blank. Luke tells us about about what a child prodigy he had been in the Jerusalem Temple, and the noncanonical Infancy Gospels go even further -- they picture Jesus Christ as having worked lots of miracles when he was a little boy.


Quote:
Reason is you have not gone through the life story of K. No contradictions at all. On the other hand those apostles contradict each other merrily. A slip shod job.

Amaleq13

That is often the perception of one who ignores potential errors and appeals to logical fallacies in their arguments and conclusions.

No, there is nothing inherently contradictory about the claims. You have simply chosen to interpret them so that they are incompatible. There is no reason to assume your deliberate effort to create a contradiction was what Tertullian had in mind.

I assume you are aware of the literal meaning of the word translated as "christ"?

Jesus was called "Anointed".

Believers in Anointed Jesus consider themselves, by virtue of that faith, to also be anointed.

No contradiction here. Better get back to the pulpit.

aa5874

You are so predictable.

You should now understand that your perception of me is ignored or has been regarded as ignorance.



I assume you are aware that the word "anointed" was used hundreds of years before Jesus.

It is complete fiction for Tertullian to claim the word "christian' came into the world with the advent of Jesus when he had already claimed the word "christian" derives from "anointed".

The word "anointed" is found in Hebrew scripture and transliterated to "christ" in Greek as found in Leviticus, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Psalms and other books of the Hebrew Bible.

1Samuel 12:5 - Jesus Christ is not the originator of the word "Christ" or "anointed". The writer purported to be Tertullian wrote fiction in "Apology 5", Jesus did not even exist as god or "christ" during the reign of Tiberius.

The passage of Apology 5 is completely false.
"Apology" 5 by Tertulian

The word "anointed" or "christ" does not need an historical Jesus.