steve_bnk

Hornets nest? Hardley. The theist approaches and attacks all take one of several repeating forms. On another thread a theist thinks the non response is something other than a lack of interest and a lack of anything new.

One approach is '...if they the atheists actually just read how I quote ancient scriptures they will see I am right....' .

Ecclesiastes 1:9 There is nothing new under the sun.

Littlejohn

"..The theist approaches and attacks.."

THEIST???....Who told you that I am a 'theist'?.... I am an AGNOSTIC!...

How can you believe that to affirm the historicity of Jesus, one must necessarily be a 'theist'? ... For me this is just something so silly .....


Littlejohn

PS: 'Hardley' what it means?

.

.

steve_bnk

You are arguing as a theist for apprent theist claims. Sorry to whip up a horonets nest with you....

You are quoting ancientt writings nd declaring a fiat.

Littlejohn

I can not understand what you mean ... However, I reiterate the point:

It is absurd to think that to say that Jesus was a truly historic character, one necessarily have to be a theist.

.

steve_bnk

Agnostic has many intepretations. I am atheist agnostic. I believe the god hypothesis is neither provable nor disprovable, abd I see no evidence for a deity.

"truly' as you are attempting to assert is on the same basis as the thesist. Mixing and matching various texts none of which have any substantuve validation.

One only has to look at the modern proliferation of Christian books all based on the NT. Imagine 2000 years from now only havinga few of the books around toda, how would you deduce one being more credible than another? Your reasoning would say becuase there are multiple books, or the few books seem to all talk about the same person JC must have lived?

Steve_bnk aka Sheriff Of Notingham

Littlejohn

"..truly' as you are attempting to assert is on the same basis as the thesist..."

So, in your opinion, in order to not to be regarded as a theist, I should deny the historicity of Jesus? .... Now that's really thinking as theists! ... That is to say dogmatics hopeless!

"..Mixing and matching various texts none of which have any substantive validation...."

And who is that determines that these texts have no substantial 'validation'? .. You? ... Why you not follow more closely to what I expose and you enter the discussion with more knowledge of the facts and, above all, in a more 'targeted' form? ..

This is the only way to 'engage in' constructive discussion ... Remaining on generic, one can only talk of 'lana caprina' (futile discourses, deprives of any value)

"..One only has to look at the modern proliferation of Christian books all based on the NT.."

????!.... And they should be based on what?

"..Imagine 2000 years from now only having a few of the books around (toda?), how would you deduce one being more credible than another?.."

Do not you know that there exist a 'historical research', which is based NOT ONLY on a category of texts, but on ALL of the texts which, potentially, can provide data for a correct historical reconstruction of?...

"..Your reasoning would say because there are multiple books, or the few books seem to all talk about the same person JC must have lived?.."

I read that you are an engineer, ie a person of culture ... I can hardly believe you can write this ... If I understand correctly, to believe that Jesus was a historical character, such books should talk to different people? ...

Overturning this concept, that to me frankly looks 'strampalato' (weird), you could extrapolate an extremely important reality, which missing understanding has put in a situation of 'stalemate' generations of scholars, by at least three centuries in this part: that is to say that Jesus, a UNIVOCAL character, was actually known, by his contemporaries, through different identities, from place to place...

"...Steve_bnk aka Sheriff Of Notingham.."

Sheriff Of Notingham?... Now all is explained...


Littlejohn

.

Sheshbazzar

Little Johnny,

You know I have been reading your posts from the first day that you appeared on these Forums.
It is clearly evident that you draw the material for your theories from a broad range of religious and quasi-religious writings, without employing much distinction at all as to their origins or value, in other than whatever material you may choose to crib from them to shore up those presuppositions that you are attempting to support and add to.

The few references you do allude to often as not trace back to the highly inventive and fictional Catholic sources of the 5th, 8th or 12th centuries, or as in this latest display of a lack of discrimination on the quality of your sources, to the Frenchman Hippolyte Léon Denizard Rivail, aka 'Allen Kardek', whom during the early 19th century was a well known charlatan 'Medium' whom engaged in the then popular craze of delivering 'messages' from 'the spirits of the dearly departed'.
The practice proved a quite lucrative way to prey upon, and fleece the gullible, and little old ladies out of their life savings, who would give anything to be able to communicate one last time with their departed loved ones 'spirits'.
These shyster Mediums would hold 'séances' and by a variety of concealed devices produce such phenomenon as table 'rapping's', loud groanings and various other impressive 'scary' but unintelligible noises.
Then these 'Mediums' claiming to have made 'contact' with a 'spirit' world, of course 'in a trance' would do all of the talking or 'spirit writing' for that alleged 'spirit'.
This kind of stupid, deceptive, and dishonest shit still goes on in various parts of the world today, simply because it sells.

And and a person deeply involved in this type of shysterisim, is one whom you wish to present as a being a credible or valid source because at one time he said or wrote 'something' really extraordinary!'?
I can open his books and show you a lot of things he wrote that are really extraordinary! made up horse-shit, lies and trickery. Embarrassingly so.

Using Rivail ne 'Kardec' as a 'source', or to confirm any of your presuppositions, you may as well be using a fucking 'Ouija Board' to compose your book.


To any concerned. I really do feel very sorry for Littlejohn.
It is a sad thing to see a person who does not comprehend the requirements of real textual scholarship, neglect his family responsibilities and so fritter away his life chasing after wraiths.




.

steve_bnk

A man of culture? You don't have oi get insulting. I am ordinary. Beer, peanuts, and football games.

I entertain the possibillity of an HJ because we know there were people who claimed the mantle of messiah and we know the political conditions in Judea and the unrest. The overall story of a wandering rabai at odds with the temple beaurachracy and Jewish elite makes sense. You only have to look at the Christians vs govt conflict today. Many outspoken and hostile Christian ministers raging with claims of immorality and hypocrisy. Recently a concervative mnister suggest all gays be rounded up ina fenced area.

The gospel stories make sense as a composite of the overall events much as docu-drama today based on composite characters with literary license as to the screenlay dialogue and story.

It is my conjecture. There is no proof to be found in any of the scriptures. I object to a conclusion of absolute certainty.

Littlejohn

"..without employing much distinction at all as to their origins or value..."

I'm glad about your personal 'relief' (note), since this allows me to clarify an aspect very important - at least for me:

" If I got where I arrived, namely to understand virtually ALL of what there is to understand about the true origins of Christianity (believe it or not, it is thus!), it is mainly because I kept OPEN ALL DOORS (*), without distinction of antiquity (presumed o true), neither of the origins, neither of the 'race' of the documents I analyzed! "

All this makes it ABSOLUTELY necessary, because Jesus was NOT just a character of uncommon intelligence, but was also extremely eclectic and 'POLIEDRICO' (versatile)! ... Able to show himself under multiple identities and undertake various roles, such as (at the close of his life, lasting 66 years and NOT 33!) the role of rebel leader of a small army of about 850-900 armed GALILEANS (see Julian the 'Apostate', which called' Galileans' the Jesus' followers). It was just this his extraordinary attitude that makes, even now, extremely elusive his historical figure to the 'specola' of the researchers around the world!

"..to the Frenchman Hippolyte Léon Denizard Rivail, aka 'Allen Kardek'.."

The "charlatan" Allen Kardek, as you define him (and that, however, was a graduate and an esteemed scholar) was NOT for me a source of NO ONE DATA! ... Simply I felt comforted by certain of his statements ... That's it!

At least wait you until the publication of my book, before you judge .....

________________________________

(*) - including also those of 'spiritualism' or 'seers'. It has been, in fact, thanks to Edgar Cayce if I have been able to guess a very important data, then comforted by research that I carried on. This aspect is still unknown to the world of 'official' scholarship, although it has been always under the eyes of all!


Littlejohn (no Little John!)

PS: I think it is worthwhile to note a very important point: I do not know what happens in the American forums, however, in the WEB in Italian language wandered 'pasdarans' pro-clergy who, posing as 'atheists', try to 'convey' the idea of a Jesus never existed. This is because to the counterfeiter clergy (Catholic or not) return back MUCH MORE USEFUL that on the NET you speak of never existed Jesus (thesis that, as is known, comes rejected a priori by the vast majority of plagiarized faithful) rather than of a really historical Jesus, but totally different from what 'commercialized' by the counterfeiter fathers circa19 centuries ago!

.

steve_bnk

Unfortunatly for you I know who Edgar Cayce was and with that you reveal yourself. Your reference to secret Jesus techings and revelations now make sense.

Jesus the non divine mystic and seer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce

'....Edgar Cayce (/ˈkeɪsiː/; March 18, 1877 – January 3, 1945) was an American psychic who allegedly had the ability to give answers to questions on subjects such as healing or Atlantis while in a hypnotic trance. Though Cayce himself was a devout Christian and lived before the emergence of the New Age Movement, some believe he was the founder of the movement and influenced its teachings.[1]

Cayce became a celebrity toward the end of his life and the publicity given to his prophecies has overshadowed what to him were usually considered the more important parts of his work, such as healing (the vast majority of his readings were given for people who were sick) and theology (Cayce was a lifelong, devout member of the Disciples of Christ). Skeptics[2] challenge the statement that Cayce demonstrated psychic abilities, and traditional Christians also question his unorthodox answers on religious matters (such as reincarnation and Akashic records, although others accept his abilities as "God-given").

Cayce founded a nonprofit organization, the Association for Research and Enlightenment....'

I had a Lithuanian prof for a number of philiophy classes in the early 70s including religion. He had been studying for the RCC priesthood and opted out for philosophy. His specialialty was Christian mystic traditions. According to him there was a history of Cayce like sects which were suppresed.