Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 03-28-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I forgot to mention some of the reasons, let me give you some.

1. The prophecies about Jesus the Christ are fictitious, for example, Isaiah 7:14 is taken out of context, since the entire book of Isaiah including chapter 7 does not deal with a character refered to Jesus the Christ.

2. The virgin birth of Jesus the Christ is fictitious, real persons are not the sons of ghost.

3. There is no angel named Gabriel and this so-called angel have never spoken.

4. The genealogies of Jesus the Christ are contradictory and one is fictitious.

5.The miraculous acts of Jesus the Christ are all false, including putting devils in 2000 pigs.

6. The burial of the body of Jesus the Christ is a complete mystery, he was buried in a sealed tomb under guard and his disciples have never seen his dead body again.

7. The so-called Saul/Paul could not recall if Jesus the Christ was real.

8. The Paul of Galations is not the Paul in Acts.

I have more reasons to show that the Jesus the Christ is fictitious, for example, chapter 8 of Matthew contains all fictious events from beginning to end.

I have more reasons, but that's some for now.

I agree with some of these. Some of them I am not sure about. But even if they were all proved definitely true, they would not prove the conclusion you stated previously, and which I was questioning (in case you have forgotten, you said: 'I think that these real names and places were not co-incidental but were placed in the NT to make Jesus the Christ seem real.').

Nor have you proved the conclusion that everything recorded about Jesus in the Christian Scriptures is false. That is another speculation which you have not substantiated so far.

J-D · 03-28-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

This thread relates to the historicity of Jesus the christ.

Although precisely what is meant by that has not yet been clearly defined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

These NT and OT books were first bound together in one publication
(called now, "The Bible") within a few years of Constantine's
maleovolent and despotic "Supremacy Party" (aka Nicaea).

The writing is on the wall.

Is it? I can't read it. Apparently you've got a conclusion, but you're concealing from us what it is.

Chris Weimer · 03-28-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I wasn't talking about Steve Weiss. And no, the point is not old and worn out when you are willing to appeal to modern historical fiction. Weiss, like aa5874, has proven he isn't likely to perceive the texts for what they are and say, so at the moment he certainly doesn't "fully ha[ve] the concept down."

You were injecting your agenda along the way and that's where my interest lay.

My agenda? Prithee, how the fuck you know what my agenda is. I was correcting Steve Weiss. If you feel so inclined to twist what I said out of context in order to correct it, that's your problem, but don't you dare prescribe your preconceived notions of what my agenda is to me.

spin · 03-28-2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

My agenda? Prithee, how the fuck you know what my agenda is.

I think you have posted a few times here before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I was correcting Steve Weiss.

Everything one does is overdetermined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

If you feel so inclined to twist what I said out of context in order to correct it, that's your problem, but don't you dare prescribe your preconceived notions of what my agenda is to me.

:notworthy:

I'll just forget everything else you've written, Chris.

spin

Riverwind · 03-28-2007, 08:13 PM

So, what is Chris' agenda?

Riverwind · 03-28-2007, 08:16 PM

Misanthrope = someone who hates everyone equally

mountainman · 03-28-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Apparently you've got a conclusion, but you're concealing from us what it is.

On the contrary I present to you as an historical fact
that the bible was first published fully bound together
(ie: the old and the new 'testaments') c.330 CE, and
in no earlier age is it reported that this act had been
performed by anyone at all.

All the surviving codexes are in the large thought to
post date the Constantine Bible. I have no conclusion.

If you are to understand my position you will only
find a question:

Did Constantine Invent Christianity?

Riverwind · 03-28-2007, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...the bible was first published fully bound together
(ie: the old and the new 'testaments') c.330 CE

What books do you believe that it contained?

Chris Weimer · 03-28-2007, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I think you have posted a few times here before.

You think you can twist an agenda out of that? Come on, spin, assign me my motives. Use your best fallacy.

Did I say something incorrect? I'm well aware that you can have an historical character in a non-historical narrative. That's not a problem. It never has been a problem. I don't know why you're making that a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And no, the point is not old and worn out when you are willing to appeal to modern historical fiction.

The point you were making was clear:

Quote:

If someone uses it as an analogy, then you take from that what is relevant, ie that a narrative can have historical allusions without its core material being necessarily historical, as can be seen with the Satyricon. The letters between Jesus and Abgar involve the historical figure Abgar. The Paul/Seneca letters also deal with a historical figure.

However, look at what I actually was replying to:

Quote:

And how does the mention of real people validate miraculous stories? The point that I was attempting to make was that the bible is historical fiction.

And later:

Quote:

The authors of the bible, on the other hand, try to deceive and mislead us into believing that their make-believe is the real deal. Not so. It's lies, fraud, and manipulation. No one is laughing, but many are dead because of this propaganda.

The "bible" is not historical fiction. Psalms is not historical fiction. Paul is not historical fiction. You just can't claim it so. "Historical fiction" is a modern genre - there are more accurate genres to describe the historical (or even non-historical) character in a non-historical (or even semi-historical) narrative. No scholar worth his salt would say that the "bible" is "historical fiction".

If you and I want to go at it, step up to the level where we can work, but don't step down to his level, justifying his mistaken preconceptions.

mountainman · 03-28-2007, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

What books do you believe that it contained?

In Greek, the NT canon as per Eusebius' editorship directly.
In Greek, the OT canon as per Origen's translations, which
were (purportedly) inherited by Eusebius at the library of
Caesarea. However I see Origen as another Eusebian profile.

The books were lavishly bound, at great expense.
At least 50 copies were ordered in writing by "Bullneck"
from his shrewd and worldly adviser, Eusebius. The
date of 330 CE, precedes any "christian council" cited
by mainstream in the "canonisation process" other than
the Council of Nicaea .... "Bullneck's Supremacy Party".

However it coincides closely with edicts by Constantine
for the destruction of other literature in the Roman empire.
Such as the works of Porphyry. Book burning and death
by beheading for anyone caught in possession of said
books (by the leading academic of the eastern Roman
empire).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2007, 08:13 PM	#225
Riverwind Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Allen, Tx Posts: 604	So, what is Chris' agenda?

03-28-2007, 08:16 PM	#226
Riverwind Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Allen, Tx Posts: 604	Misanthrope = someone who hates everyone equally

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.