stephan huller

Habari gani juma

mountainman

Good question Juma. My answer would be that the statements made by the heretics were not preserved by the inquisitors.

Academic nievity is not capable of perceiving the possibility that their sources prior to the 18th century have been purposefully and systematically censored by the despotic and inquisitional church.

Biblical scholars have managed to convince themselves, and are falling over themselves in the attempt to convince others, that the concept of non historical jesus, the fictional god on a stick, has no ancient precedents before the 18th century. They appear to be enamoured by a childish myth, and a glittering web of ancient deceit.

mountainman

Well, it's flushable.

mountainman

Was it someone else's thinking then? If it was not Bales' - the author's - thinking, did someone else coin the term "this fable of Christ"?

Are you seriously arguing that Bale could not have himself thought that "this fable of christ" had bought the church great profit?

mountainman

Do you even know which source describes Bale as an apostate?

Do you even know this source is of unquestionable integrity?

Juma

Nzuri, asante, na wewe je?



the apropriate answer according to google... Swahili is not my language. :-)

Toto

Your link does not describe Bales as an apostate, but it goes to the Catholic site newadvent. Of course, the Catholics will describe Bales as an apostate because he was a Protestant.

Protestants are not mythicists (except perhaps for some modern Episcopalians who have not yet come to the attention of the authorities.)

Toto

Bales was a Protestant who thought that the Pope was corrupt - corrupt enough to make money on a religion that he did not himself believe in. But Bales believed in that religion, and in Jesus.

mountainman

mountainman

Are we supposed to play some background mainstream opinion music while reading this Toto? You are effectively suggesting that Bales' enemy, the Pope, didn't believe in this fable of christ because he was corrupt, but that Bales certainly believed in an historical Jesus because ...... why?


Obviously I dont agree. When Bales writes about "this fable of Christ" he is publishing to his readers the notion that at least someone is operating under the assumption that Jesus is a fable. Did Bales question the historicity of Jesus by refering to "this fable of Christ"? I think that it's possible that he did. I dont see how squabbling scholars can be so adamant that Bales could not possibly be questioning the existence of the historical jesus, in writing about the fabulous jesus.