OLDMAN

I didn't prove anything. I never said the stories were true, I said they are poorly fabricated. King Arthur may not be true, but the knights and kings the story is based on could be real.

aa5874

The story of Jesus is that he was FATHERED by a Ghost and the story was publicly circulated.

If Jesus was human and then I would expect that the story to show him as human.

The authors did NOT.

They showed John the Baptist and the apostles as human. They cleaned them up.

Why did they NOT clean up Jesus?

There was NOTHING to clean up.

They cleaned up King Herod the Great, Pilate the Governor, Caiaphas the High Priest, Philip the tetrarch, Herod the tetrarch, Tiberius the Emperor and Cyrenius.

Why was Jesus NEVER cleaned up?

Jesus was the product of a PURE HOLY GHOST without Blemish. Spotless.

Steven Carr

Mark 14
55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree.



It seems Jesus was guilty, as these charges against him were not fabricated charges, or else they would have done a better job of it.

Chili

Nothing to clean as Jesus was not human, and they just hung him in history to make us look why, where, when and how to get some fire going here on earth.

Sic NOT hu-man as he was born a man-child on his way to prove himself a Man as Volumnia would say in Coriolanus where the story is laid before us loud, clear and clean.
.

Chili

What do you mean: he was guilty? . . . as he did raise the temple three days after he destroyed it as he was talking only about his own mind where that temple he created to stand strong, tall and bright was built upon the vanity of his bloated chest and was doomed to collapse no matter what.

PhilosopherJay

Hi OLDMAN,

To me the fact that the story is not cleaned up indicates that it was fictional to begin with. In fictional tales, people change whatever they want because it does not matter to them what really happened, they know it is entirely made up so they can have an angel, two angels, a man, or two men at the tomb greeting one, two, three or four women. It simply does not matter. Historians usually cite their sources and acknowledge when sources disagree because they are interested more in truth than in simply amusing their audience.

Note that none of these jokes are based on real incidents although they vary:

Horse walks into a bar. Bartender says, "So. Why the long face?"

A jumper cable walks into a bar. The barman says "I'll serve you, but don't start anything."

So a guy walks into a bar with a pair of jumper cables around his neck. The bartender looks at him and says gruffly, " All right, pal, I'll let you stay but don't start anything."

So Jesus walks into a bar and says, "I'll just have a glass of water."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Atheos

Also, the myths of the ancient Greeks, Romans, etc., are recorded with many variants, some of which are quite contradictory. I just don't see how anyone can argue that whether or not a story has been "cleaned up" bears any relationship to its historicity.

Doug Shaver

You presented an argument against their being fiction.

Chili

Sorry, I presented Magdalene wrong or at least it needs elaboration. Magdalene was in all four Gospels as she is 'home' in the TOK where she is 'temple tramp' or Eve or the serpent that Adam took to be his wife when he left Eden so that he could 'see' where it was dark and be 'like one of us' there, . . . but was left in the dark when Jesus died now without persona (her teacher) in the TOK, and so it was 'not light' until the women arrived at the tomb. Remember here that 'the woman,' (and so women in plural), were never banned from Eden except Eve here now called Magdalene to be his source of ligth by day and his source of dreams by night, and efficiently was the 'vacuum' or 'tanha' or 'vehicle named Desire' in the mind of Joseph that so lost its material form and why it remained dark (in 'causation' the chain runs from formal to efficient to material to final, and so here with a material disconnect the efficient cause will have reached a dead end that left the cave dark and hence 'dazzling robes' only could be seen).

Jesus was the ego-awareness and of course when 'it died' she was left in the dark until the other women arrived. The 2 angels in 'dazzling robes' of both Luke and John were illuminations that she saw in the cavity of the TOK that Jesus had vacated., ie, "he is not here," and "who are you looking for" . , while she did not recognize the risen Jesus outside and actually thought he was a gardner (in Eden of course), and wanted to 'cling' when she heard his voice as if now the source of light came from the wrong side that put her on tilt and wanted to 'cling.' And then of course Peter as 'faith in the heart' came running to see in Luke while material John out-ran him to see but did not enter to occupy until Peter observed the '[swaddling] cloth' and so layed out the red carpet so that John would understand. Peter and John so were the two angels that Magdalene saw made manifest in beauty and truth to occupy the lower house so it is worthy to be raised later so that reason can prevail in the mind of Joseph the Jew (ie, the house was 'swept clean' and the darkness for Magdalene in John so was in evidence of that).

Opposite this for Matthew sabbath was still in order who's 'angel of light' announced the dawning of just another first day of the week and then rolled the stone away so that they could look in to see, etc and more.