PhilosopherJay

Hi Sheshbazzar,

Good satire.

One thing I find interesting is the concept that glasses can disguise the identity of a person. People constantly complain that Clark Kent wearing glasses and Superman not wearing them would not stop people from recognizing that they are the same person. In fact, Harold Lloyd's "glasses character" was so known for his wearing glasses that Lloyd could go to movie theaters where his movies were playing and people would come out of the movie theater and walk right past him without realizing that he was the man they had just been watching for an hour and half on the movie screen. He was the only movie star of the 1920's who could walk the streets of Hollywood without being recognized and hounded for autographs. The glasses did in fact work as a disguise for him.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Your statement is contradictory. You will NOT be able to identify any specific person with elements of an admitted fictional character.

Clark Kent is a fictional character with imaginary human characteristics. That is all.

A Quest for the Clark Kent of Superman Comics will NOT ever find such a character.

A figure of history MUST be properly identified in a credible source or by historical records.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Lets take the case of Charles Forster Kane in the movie "Citizen Kane" and William Randolf Hearst. Kane is obviously a fictional character. Nobody would argue that Kane ever existed. Likewise nobody disagrees that William Randolf Hearst is an historical person.
Do you disagree that Kane is based on Hearst? If not, how would you explain the fact that Kane is a media mogul and Hearst was a media mogul, Kane starts the Spanish-American war though yellow journalism and Hearst was credited with starting the Spanish-American war through yellow journalsim, or Kane deserted his wife for a younger singer named Susan Alexander, while Hearst deserted his wife for a younger actress named Marion Davies.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Again, a SEARCH for a figure of history named Charles Forster Kane in the movie "Citizen Kane" would produce NOTHING.

There would be no historical records, no birth certiicate, no address, no acquaitances, no parents, no siblings, no teachers, no school, and no place of employment for Charles Forster Kane.

IT is irrelevant whether some person by coincidence have some silimar experiences.

It must be understood that Fiction Novels and Movies will tend to contain characters and events that may appear similar to real characters and events.

This is precisely why there are disclaimers in fiction novels and Movies.

This is the disclaimer found in a Fiction novel before me.

This novel is a work of fiction. Names and characters are the product of the author's imagination and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is ENTIRELY co-incidental.

Now, if Jesus of the NT was a product of the authors imagination then we have NO need to look for an historical Jesus because ALL resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, was ENTIRELY co-incidental.

The Quest for the Historical Jesus will get nowhere because it is most obvious that NT Jesus was IMAGINED by the author from conception to ascension.

judge

You missed the point. But...sigh..it doesn't matter.

Adam

Are you being argumentative for the sake of argumentativeness, or is your reading comprehension just that poor?
What does the first 25 verses of gMatthew have to do with my Gospel according to the Atheists or even my seven written eyewitness records? I hardly ever talk about gMatthew at all, and certainly not the first few chapters. I'm talking about distinct sources within the four gospels. I don't have to explain myself about Q (the sole connection with gMatthew relevant here). As for L in gLuke, I acknowledge I need to clarify that few consider the Infancy Narrative therein to be part of the original L source. The Passion Narrative and the Resurrection are debatable (and I of course hold that the Passion Narrative came from the underlying source, below). That covers two sources that I claim are from eyewitnesses that have definable scholarly bounds apart from anything I have presented.

As for the original eyewitness I keep saying that one should start with, for the Passion Narrative I said in #555 in my Gospel Eyewitnesses thread "One can read just chapters 18 and 19 here in Fortna’s Signs:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/signs.html
Or here’s my list I’ve provided a number of times:’ John 18:1b, 1d, 3, 10b, 12, 13b, 15-19, 22, 25b, 27-31, 33-35, (36-40); 19:1-5a, 9-19, 21-23, 28-30, 38b, 40-42."
Except that that list in "Post #1 OP should be amended to include in the shared source (from John Mark) also verses preceding the Passion Narrative in John 11:54, 12:2-8, 12-14a, 13:18 or 21, and 13:38."

That leaves as the other source the Johannine Discourses that I say Nicodemus wrote. They're very recognizable, and only peripherally connected with miracles by the common setting in Jerusalem. My case for them being eyewitness testimony is that they are notes accumulated for a trial against Jesus, but which show the author's change of stance towards Jesus even while Jesus was alive.

aa5874

Nicodemus in gJohn did NOT exist. Nicodemus was a Fiction character in the Canonised Myth Fables called Gospels.

The earliest gMark DESTROYS gJohn.

gMark's Jesus was a Phantom---A myth character.

gJohn's Jesus was the Word that was God the Creator--another Myth.


It is totally ridiculous that Nicodemus could have been an eyewitness to a Phantom or to the Word that was God the Creator.

This is the 21 st century.

People here have no time to waste with Ghost stories about the Barbaric ritual of Sacrifice of Murdered victims.

It is a MYTH Fable that God MURDERED his own Son to save the human race.

What a load of BS.

Jesus was a just a Myth Fable like those of the Greeks and Romans.

Sheshbazzar

My challenge was and is;
Take your Gospels one or all, and write a coherent text that does not include any supernatural elements, miracles, or actions or interventions by any invisible entities.

You do understand what Gospels one or all,.. means don't you?

For your comprehension I'll explain. You may employ any or all verses or portions of the texts of the received Gospels that do not include any supernatural elements, miracles, or actions or interventions by any invisible entities, to produce that text that you believe best represents your idea of what this miracle-free Gospel that you posit to originally have existed would consist of.

GMatthew was only suggested as beginning because it is placed first in the series of Gospels in all Bibles.
But you are certainly more than welcome to choose the text of your best shot composition, from whatever verses you endorse, from whatever Gospel you wish, and feel free to mix or match them in any way or order that suits you, to fashion a coherent text. With the only proviso being that it not include any supernatural elements, miracles, or actions or interventions by any invisible entities.

You invented, and have employed the title, 'Gospel According to the Atheists' in multiple posts, distinctly implying that there are an identifiable set of witnesses and texts that even atheist must accept as being historical accountings.
Thus I am calling you out on it and issuing you the challenge of backing up your claim by producing such a text in a coherent and readable narrative form.
You alone are the only one qualified to decide exactly what verses you wish to include or to exclude, and none of us can possibly do that for you.

I would expect that the actual length of any such text would be far less than that of the walls of protracted arguments you have thus far presented in this Forum.

Write your miracle-free version of the NT, and we will have something to discuss.

Sheshbazzar

Please, do feel free to explain exactly what the point was that I missed.

Iskander

Alexander the Great, the son of God (Zeus)

Zeus, the king of the Greek gods, had come to Olympias in the form of a snake