aa5874

There is no such thing as 'supernatural fiction'. Fiction is the term given to all fictitious events and these include the prophecies, the virgin birth, the baptism, the temptation, the miracles, the transfiguration, the burial, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

My view is this: The NT, the primary source of information about Jesus is essentially a fictitious book, it has no credibility whatsoever. No 1st century historian has written a rumor, an omen, an anecdote, a myth or historical episode about Jesus. There are also suspected cases of tampering with historical writings to place Jesus in the 1st century.

In Against Heresies by Irenaeus, as early as the 2nd century, Jesus was already considered a fictional character by Marcion, Valentinus, Caprocates, Saturninus, Basilides and others.

The search for an historical Jesus is a search in futulity.

mountainman

At the peril of their life! It is also helpful to distiguish
between the separate natures of the two emperors,
and what were their policies in regard to the preservation,
creation and destruction of academic literature.

According to all accounts Arius was a man who was considered
"wise and clever in disputation". He wanted to live.

Immediately prior to Nicaea, where the words of Arius were
preserved (in the Nicaean Oath), Constantine had sacked the Oracle
of the god Apollo in Dydima, Minor Asia, and had murdered/tortured
the non-christian priests of Dydima; he had earlier evicted all
non-christians from Mt.Athos, and had destroyed all non-christian
temples nearby Mt.Athos.

IMO it is not impossible that christianity first emerged into the
Roman empire and its border "barbarians" from out of the Council
of Nicaea.

What we think Julian says is not Julian writing.
Julian wrote 3 books c.362 "Against the christians".
These books were destroyed by the "christian regime".
But not before Bishop Cyril wrote a refutation of Julian.

What today survives of Julian, is a reconstruction of
Cyril's refutation of Julian which is heavily censored by
the Alexandrian christian bishop, who admits a number
of omissions and avoidances, but not what these are.

IMO it is not impossible that, should Julian's original three
books be somehow found, they will indict Constantine and
the "wretched Eusebius" as "the wicked men who composed
the fiction -- the fabrication of the Galilaeans".

In other works, such as his The Caesares, Julian makes it clear
the relationship between Constantine and Jesus.

mountainman

What makes you so sure Irenaeus, Marcion, Valentinus, Caprocates,
Saturninus, Basilides et al, were not also fictional? What evidence
would you present for the historicity of Irenaeus, Marcion, Valentinus,
Caprocates, Saturninus, Basilides et al? Who informs the planet
concerning the existence and just about everything that was to be
known about the purported authors, including the quotage of only
known surviving fragments?

You appear to believe in the historicity of Irenaeus but not JC.
Forget JC for a second ... why do you suddenly appear to believe
in the historicity and the testiment of "Dear Bishop Irenaeus"?

Amaleq13

This response gives the appearance of comprehension on your part that a missing body is ultimately irrelevant to the historicity of the alleged deceased but I suspect that this appearance is deceiving and you still do not recognize your error.

Assuming that you do continue to be confused:

You have acknowledged that an historical figure can have a missing body.

Arguments against historicity based on a missing body are, therefore, flawed.

Your argument has frequently made an appeal to the missing body of Jesus as though it was evidence against historicity.

Your response here indicates you understand your argument to be flawed in this regard and we can, therefore, expect you to avoid this error in the future.

I would call that progress if I genuinely believed you understood the logical implications of what you have written here.

You didn't seem to grasp the similar point that has been established with regard to magical conception stories and historicity but I continue to hold out hope for you. :angel:

Amaleq13

You have disingenuously included the death of Jesus when there is nothing supernatural about dying from crucifixion.

aa5874

That's your queer little logic.

You have to show that Jesus existed for your queer little logic to work.

jgibson000

Intersting, you first base your clam that Jesus didn't exist on the "fact" that he is said by some (but not all) NT writters to be the "son of a ghost". Now you say that the claim of being the child of a "ghost" cannot be taken as evidence for anything, unless we can first show that the person to whom the claim is attributed did indeed exist. First it is evidence for "non existence", then it is not.

Speaking of "queer little logic" ...

JG

aa5874

Let me make myself clear. The NT contains all fictitious events with regards to Jesus. The events that are regarded as supernatural are actually fiction. The words of Jesus as they relate to supernatural events are also fictitious. Jesus is fictitious as documented by the NT itself.

Jimmy Hoffa is documented to have been born and lived. There is no parallel between Jimmy Hoffa and the undocumented Jesus.

Febble

Clarity is not the issue. It is perfectly clear that you believe that Jesus is fictitious. The issue is your logic.

Some things narrated in the NT are perfectly possible. Some things are not (or at least not within the bounds of possibility as we know them). But just because it is clear that parts of an account of a series of events are likely to be fictitious does not mean that other parts are not veridical. If a child tells her teacher that she cannot hand in her homework because her dog ate it, it does not mean that her homework can in fact be handed in. It is likely to be perfectly true that she cannot hand in her homework, even if the teacher knows perfectly well that she doesn't even own a dog.

jgibson000

The issue isn't whether or not you have made yourself clear in stating what you believe.

It's whether you've contradicted yourself when you give your "reasons" for what you believe, whether you employ double standards when you speak about "evidence", whether you cook the evidence you appeal to, whether the criteria you use in your designations of what is "credible" and not "credible are themselves "credible", whether you have any grasp whatsoever of the rules of logic, and whether you are sufficiently grounded in, and informed about, the areas on which you make pronouncements to be regarded as someone whose word on these matters should be taken as anything other than the horse hockey it actually is.

JG