aa5874

Not me. I am focused.

You have circled my question, and have even gone off on a tangent at times.

But, this is my question that you have failed to answer:

What sources of antiquity can support your belief that there was LIKELY an HJ?

Are you lost for words?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steve,

The story is a lie. There are no dates, no names, no way of checking what really happened. It is just as likely that a Lithuanian Priest shot a communist Lithuanian man for asking why the Priest felt the need to prove God.

People fighting for a cause tend to make up lies, the more absurd the better. Think of the absurd death panel lies spread about the recent health care bill passed in the U.S. senate, or the weapons of mass destruction lies spread about Iraq before the war. Jews routinely accuse Palestinians of smashing new born babies against walls in the 1948 War and Palestinians routinely accuse Jews of doing the same thing.

Part of ideology is to make up and say the worst things you can think up about your opponent. You need to dehumanize them before you kill them.

The claims of Christian martyrs in the centuries before Constantine and the claim of Jesus' crucifixion itself should be put in that category.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

steve_bnk

I believe his story was true based on knowing the man.

I do not believe you are a philosphy PHD simply because you say so in your profile...in fact, from your arument I'd believe otherwise. So then, what is truth?

And yet again, the OP is the question of an HJ which I believe probable, this is not a belief in the divinity or mircaulous tales claimed by the NT. Is this unclear to you? In none of my posts have I agrued for historical accuracy of the NT.

As you point out in your spin on the Lihuanian story, all myths tend to have a basis in facts.

skepticdude

Then why didn't the absurdity kill the movement? Answer: people are gullible. That TV circus called "TBN" is the most absurd advertisement for Christianity imaginable. But millions of faithful viewers send their tithes regularly anyway.

Apparently, advocating stupid doctrine does not argue that it didn't happen.

I'm sorry, but being stupid doesn't mean non-existent.

Ever hear of Jan Crouch?

You completely avoid the other hypothesis that Jesus said nothing about resurrection, this was simply put into his mouth by later redactors after his death brought the Jerusalem-faction to an end. This whole business about dying for sins and rising from the dead appears to be more Pauline in origin than original to Jesus. In that case, your argument would fail because Jesus never taught something so stupid as resurrection. He seriously felt he would be an earthly ruler, he was proven wrong when the Romans killed him, and this defeat caused the end of the Jerusalem faction. Paul picks up the threads, starts calling Jesus' death a "good" thing, adds resurrection, and because of his influence, the gospels sanitize Jesus' defeat by changing the original form of the story to rationalize the death and make it seem that it was expected and necessary to the success of Jesus' mission.

aa5874

Now, you have denied the historical accuracy of the NT, please provide what source OF antiquity provided the historical accuracy for you to believe an HJ was LIKELY.

It must be noted that, unlike you, the Church writers accepted and defended the NT as an historical source for the GOD/MAN.

What is YOUR source for the MAN?


Can name name all the myths and their basis in facts? What about Zeus, Moroni, and Gabriel.

arnoldo

You might not believe in Jesus any longer but Jesus still believes in you ><
See: Luke 15:11-32

Transient

According to the bible, belief counts for nothing, faithfulness is everything.
Even the devil and his cohorts believe in God - so forget the value of belief - it's nothing. Unfortunately for a lot of western "christians" it would be their faithfulness that counts.
One of those ridiculous concepts that can be read either way in the equally ridiculous NT. Like the ying and yang, the NT is full of "balancing" stuff that can be read either way depending on what the reader or preacher is biased towards.
The NT is a great piece of fiction for starting up miriads of different cults.

Toto

The story of the prodigal son is hardly a good illustration of that. The prodigal son did not lack belief, just performance.

Your Jesus will burn unbelievers in a lake of fire, if you actually take your sacred writ seriously.

It makes as much sense to say "you don't believe in voodoo, but it believes in you," or "you don't believe in evolution, but evolution doesn't care."

aa5874

You mean the HJ resurrected?

It must be obvious that people can believe in events and characters that did not exist.

Stupidity is not a corroborative source for history.

If something is too good to be true, it probably is.

If something is too stupid to be true, it probably is.

The HJ is too good and too stupid to be true.



I am also sorry. Stupidity does not mean existence.

Ever heard of a man who taught his disciples that he would be killed and be raised the third day?

What happened after he was killed and buried?

I did not avoid other hypotheses. One other hypothesis is that Jesus said NOTHING at all. I don't know if you avoided that hypothesis.


I cannot find any source of antiquity that support what you have written. You made that story up. Anybody can make up stories. I try and avoid making stuff and dealt with the information or sources of antiquity.

Because you think that the Jesus story was irrational or fiction does not give you the right to make stuff without supporting sources of antiquity.

All we know about Jesus and Paul is from the NT and the Church writers.. Where can I find your story in the writings of antiquity?

Now, my argument will not fail, I have support from sources of antiquity. Yours have already failed, it is speculative and imagination based.

The NT claimed Jesus taught his disciples that he woud resurrect, and after Jesus resurrected and ascended to heaven, Saul/Paul was converted after a lightning bolt or some kind of bright light blinded him and he heard a voice of Jesus. Later Saul/Paul started to preach the Gospel but there are discrepancies between gLuke and the Pauline Epistles about the activities of Paul. Paul claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man, and that he did not get his gospel from a MAN, but from one who was raised from the dead.

That is the story sanctioned by the Church writers but it is SENSELESS.

Humans CANNOT resurrect after being dead and buried for three days. And non-humans cannot be identified.

The HJ is highly irrational, senseless, unles you want to make up stories that are consistent with imagination.

aa5874

As I have stated and shown before the HJ is a most senseless proposition.

Jesus could have only been human if he ever lived, yet Jesus taught his disciples that he would be killed and be raised on the third day.

Now, this supposed man called Jesus was killed and buried according to the NT, the Jews claimed he was guilty of blasphemy.

Even though Pilate found no fault in Jesus, Pilate would behave in a most irrational and unjust manner, he would release a murderer guilty of sedition, a murderer who may have tried or wanted to kill Pilate himself or Herod and allowed an innocent man to be crucified.

What would Herod or Tiberius think of Pilate? Why did he release a murderer guilty of sedition, and by his own words, allow an innocent man to be crucified?

Pilate would have been a self-confessed idiot and possibly worthy of death himself for his stupidity.

But, in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 18, it is found there that Pilate had caused a crowd of Jews to be massacred. In Josephus, Pilate appears genocidal, in the NT, Pilate appears idiotic and possibly suicidal.

What we have in the NT is a most horrible story of stupidity beyond belief.

Jesus, a mere human, claiming that he would raised from the dead after 72 hours and Pilate releasing a murderer guilty of sedition instead of an innocent man.

But, the irrationality of the HJ continues to horrendous proportions.

The disciples of Jesus, the mere man, would have to lie about the resurrection of Jesus.

The disciples now are both liars and blasphemers once they claim Jesus resurrected in three days and was the son of the God of the Jews, but the very Jews, who just caused Jesus to be crucified, allow these liars and blasphemers to continue to spread their GOOD NEWS about Jesus right in Jerusalem. See Acts of the Apostles.

How stupid. How senseless. How irrational.

The NT and Church writings only make sense if Jesus was believed to exist as a God otherwise the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

In the NT, gJohn, a character called Lazarus was dead for four days and his sister declared 'Lord, by this time he stinketh.

Once Jesus was dead for three days then Martha could have made the same refrain," Lord by that time YOU stinketh".

John 11:39 - The HJ is SENSELESS.

Martha knows what happens to dead people. They stinketh.