aa5874

My position is this. The Jesus of the NT was a fictitious creature, and if it is supposed that Jesus did exist during the time of Tiberius, then his life on earth as described was total fiction.

1. Jesus, as described, had no "good news" for the Jews.
2. Jesus, as described, did not qualify to be called a Messiah of the Jews.
3. Jesus, as described, would not have been worshipped as the Son of God by the Jews or did not have the power to forgive the sins of Jews.


Now, again, if it is supposed that Jesus was actually on earth as a man, then everyone, including his so-called disciples, his mother, his thousands of followers, and the local authorities would have regarded Jesus as a man.

Jesus, based on the story, was circumcised on the eigth day, and was offered to the God of the Jews with the sacrifice of pigeons or turtledoves and followed Jewish tradition.

It is therefore untenable or without logic, for Jesus to have been worshipped by Peter or the letter writer Paul, and for them to ask Jews to worship Jesus as a God when they knew he was a man who had been executed for blasphemy and his body was never recovered possibly hidden by someone to fake the resurrection of Jesus.

The disciples would have been the main beneficiaries of a fake resurrection.

And then for Peter and the letter writer Paul to be later executed, according to Eusebius, for worshipping a man as a God and asking others to do so, when according to Tertullian, Christians do not deify men, is inexplicable.

The historical Jesus does not fit the story as we have it.

It can only be a monstrous fable as propagated by Julian in Against the Galileans.

By the way, I am of the opinion that the letters of the writer called Paul is about the same creature that was claimed to be on earth that was crucified, died and resurrected during the days of Tiberius.

The letter writer called Paul needed a dead Jesus that was resurrected in the same fashion as psychics or mediums need the dead for their revelations.


Psychics and mediums think the dead only speak the truth through them, of course and the letter writer did claim his revealed gospel from the dead was true. He lied not, that is, the dead did not.

Ignostic Morgan

>< I refer to Ebon Musings,' Reply to J.P. Holding,"'I don't have enough Faith to be a Christian : a Reply to Geisler and Turok's " I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist" @ bringyou.to/apologetics/98./htm, here at the library Richard Carrier's "Beckwith on Historiography" and Richard Packham's "Critique of Hohn Warwick Montgomery's Arguments for the Legal Evidence for Christianity" show up the fallacious arguments of Christians's historical argumenets for Yeshua. The book the "The Empty Tomb' does that ,too.:devil1:
Yeshua's hagiography sounds like mythology alright, much like that of other savior-gods and miracle mongers. One scholar suggests that the early Christians overemphasize the similarity of Yeshua to those figures in order to make him credible. They were all unique. That the others do not lay out a plan of salvation is thus an ignoration elenchi- beside the point.:huh:
The presumption of naturalism in the form of Hume's analysis of miracles holds, so that we can discount his miracles. There would have had to be some Amazing Randi who could veify any- to see if trickery were involved, how sober were the witnesses,etc. Paul the Sophist merely avers that 500 people could so verify. Those people were no more reliable as skeptical inquirers than those fooled by Jim Jones or Oral Roberts or Benny Hinn.
This does not beg the question nor sandbags theists but merely declaims that one has to provide evidence rather than uncorroborated hearsay.
The subject of soteriology- the plan of salvation- is nothing more than the divine protection racket, the product of barbarous minds.:devil1: That should indicate that Yeshua, even if he did live, was evil-minded! Look at his nonsensical advice! No rational person could accept that he met with Satan; forty days of deprivation leads to hallucinations [ that numerlogical forty!]. :redface:
This should lead one to question why, even if he existed, would one want to worship him. Furthermore, as Yahwh, he had no right to contemn us or demand worship! He would only have the one-way street of providiing us with a safe -enough existence [ the problem of Heaven].
The Atonement justifies barbarism! Jews long ago gave up animal sacrifice, yet Chrisitans insist it is for our expiation. This shows that no rational being would require this for expiation.:devil1:
So, I contemn him as the Gospels portray him. [ See the deist, Jako Miklos's "Confronting Believers" and what one has to say about him on his existence and teachings @ nobelilefs.com//exist. htm.]
I call this religion Christinsanity [ others-Moses's Folly, Mohammed's Lunacy, Smith's Fraud, the Wrong Path, the Hindu Illusion, the Baker Irreality].
So, if believers find a Platingan warrant for their belief, they honor nonsense period!
As Ehrman shows, he was an apolocalyptic figure, whom others through oral renditions misremembered [and contradictory stories], further changed by scribes.
We have no reason to beliefe that hagiography any more than the lies about Pres. Obama!
Doubting John, see you @ Dbunking Christianity and Theology Web [griggsy there, skeptic griggsy elsewhere- Google me.]
As a naturalist/rationalist, new atheist, I abjure all the supernatural and the paranormal [ As a schizotypal, I 'm probably alone in that schizotypals embrace superstition.]:wave: