Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-21-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Selsaral

I may be wrong, but it seems that a core aspect of this debate is whether or not it's reasonable to assume that fictional characters of history (like Jesus) had historical cores or not. This topic was briefly touched on in the middle of this thread and then abandoned.

I think AA's argument rests (with incredible force) on the idea that without a particular reason to think so, it's not reasonable to conclude that a character like Jesus must have had a historical core.

Am I wrong to think this is an important point? Or did everyone already work it over and move on beyond where I'm at?

That would be the logical core of aa's overstated argument.

It is a point that could be argued. And if it were well argued, it could save a lot of typing.

Is anyone else still reading this thread?

kcdad · 12-21-2009, 02:26 PM

Fact: The entire empire of Rome was changed almost overnight by the influence of this "FICTIONAL" person.
Fact: Many people thought this "FICTION" was important enough to write about and to martyr themselves over.
Fact: No one at the time seemed interested in stating the "obvious" that there was no such person As Jesus of Nazareth.
Fact: It was common to attribute god-like qualities to important political figures.
Fact: No other person in history has so commanded the attention of the world as this "FICTIONAL" person.

But then again... he might have been completely fictional.

aa5874 · 12-21-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Selsaral

I may be wrong, but it seems that a core aspect of this debate is whether or not it's reasonable to assume that fictional characters of history (like Jesus) had historical cores or not. This topic was briefly touched on in the middle of this thread and then abandoned.

I think AA's argument rests (with incredible force) on the idea that without a particular reason to think so, it's not reasonable to conclude that a character like Jesus must have had a historical core.

Am I wrong to think this is an important point? Or did everyone already work it over and move on beyond where I'm at?

I am not really dealing with other fictional characters of antiquity, I am dealing specifically with a character called Jesus described in the NT and Church writings as the offspring of the Holy Ghost who supposedly healed incurable diseases instantly, who walked on water, was transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

Now, after investigating sources of antiquity external of the NT and the Church writings, there is only one source that make mention of Jesus and that source is widely regarded as a forged source and in addition the information from the forged source described Jesus as an entity that was raised from the dead.

The incredible information from the internal sources, the NT and Church writings, and the forged external source, Antiquities of the Jews, have been presented.

The Jesus of the Church was a fictional mythical supernatural character, he has a forged and incredulous history.

The assumption that Jesus of the Church existed as only human cannot be examined since there is no credible data but just fictional legendary fables and forgeries internally and externally.

HJers and Jesus believers are almost identical, their belief is not related at all to empiricism. Both HJers and Jesus believers refuse to accept any evidence and reject any information that can show that their belief is erroneous.

Now, that is why I state the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition since those who maintain the HJ do not deal with evidence from antiquity but their own imagination which has no empirical value.

This is essentially the claim of the HJer,"I believe Jesus existed therefore he did live and died exactly as I believe."

The HJ is highly irrational, it is based on imagination, fiction and forgeries.

arnoldo · 12-21-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

After examining the NT and Church writings, Jesus, the Holy Ghost of God, appears to be a fundamentally invented fiction character.

From empiricism all the so-called miracles of Holy Ghost-Man are fiction or implausible as found in gMark, the same applies to gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.

Chapter after chapter of the gospels are loaded with fiction.

The Gospel of gMark was virtually entirely soaked in fiction with respect to Jesus, now look at gMatthew, this gospel too, is filled with fiction.

Matthew 1.18..............Fiction.....the holy ghost conception
Matthew 1.23..............Fiction.....the holy ghost conception

Matthew 2..................Fiction...the story of the star and the killing of the innocent.

Matthew 3.16-17.........Fiction...the dove like the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 4.1-10...........Fiction....the temptation by the devil.

Matthew 8.1-4............Fiction.....the instant healing of the leper.
Matthew 8.6-13..........Fiction...the healing a man with palsy or paralysis.
Matthew 8.15-16........Fiction...the healing of fever.
Matthew 8.22-27........Fiction....a storm at sea obeys Jesus and become calm.
Matthew 8.28-32........Fiction....Jesus transfers some devils to pigs.

Matthew 9.1-7.........Fiction....Jesus heals a man with palsy.
Matthew 9. 20-22.....Fiction....The clothes of Jesus healed a woman.
Matthew 9.25..........Fiction....Jesus brings a dead girl to life.
Matthew 9.28-30.....Fiction....Jesus heals two blind men.
Matthew 9.32-34.....Fiction.... Jesus heals the dumb.

Matthew 12.9-13.....Fiction....Jesus heals a man with a withered hand.
Matthew 12.22........Fiction....Jesus heals a blind and dumb.

Mathhew 14.14-21...Fiction.....Jesus feeds 5000 men with 5 loaves and two fish.
Matthew 14.22-32...Fiction... Jesus walks on water and talks to a storm.

Matthew 15.30-31..Fiction...Jesus healed many that were blind, dumb.....

Matthew 17.1-6......Fiction..Jesus transfigures with once dead prophets
Matthew 17.15-18...Fiction...Jesus heals a madman.

Matthew 28.6....Fiction....Jesus resurrects.

If Jesus was actually human he could not have done those miracles and those who were with Jesus would have lied if they claimed the claim Jesus performed miracles that are just not humanly possible.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition since only a belief is needed for the Jesus story to be accepted.

Why was this fiction created?

A. Did the Romans seek to create a religion to unite the Roman Empire (see : The Eusebian fiction postulate ?

B. Did a sect of disillusioned jews after the destruction of Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. seek to invent a new religion?

C. The Greeks incorporated greek and jewish philosophy to write gospels which Hellenized Jews spread throughout the world.

D. Or, according to the Hindu Prank Postulate, christianity was invented in India by Hindu Masters.

E.______????___________________________

Given your repeated statements that "it's all a myth" wouldn't it be interesting to take the next step and develop a hypothesis why this myth came to be? :constern01:

Toto · 12-21-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Fact: The entire empire of Rome was changed almost overnight by the influence of this "FICTIONAL" person.

Well, it wasn't. Jesus existed, if he did, in the first part of the 1st century CE and made no impact on the Roman Empire. Christianity had little impact on the Roman Empire until the 4th century, when Constantine, who seems to have not cared about Jesus' person, allegedly saw a sign in the sky. Are you contending that Jesus sent that sign?

Quote:

Fact: Many people thought this "FICTION" was important enough to write about and to martyr themselves over.

No, not a fact. No one was martyred for asserting that Jesus was a historical person.

Quote:

Fact: No one at the time seemed interested in stating the "obvious" that there was no such person As Jesus of Nazareth.

Fact: no one cared.

Quote:

Fact: It was common to attribute god-like qualities to important political figures.

Which Jesus was not.

Quote:

Fact: No other person in history has so commanded the attention of the world as this "FICTIONAL" person.

But then again... he might have been completely fictional.

Which way does this cut? Lots of fictional persons are much better known that real life chumps.

mountainman · 12-21-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Fact: The entire empire of Rome was changed almost overnight by the influence of this "FICTIONAL" person.

Well, it wasn't.

The empire was changed almost overnight --- in the fourth century. See Barnes - "Christian Revolution"

Quote:

Jesus existed, if he did, in the first part of the 1st century CE and made no impact on the Roman Empire. Christianity had little impact on the Roman Empire until the 4th century, when Constantine, who seems to have not cared about Jesus' person, allegedly saw a sign in the sky.

Nowhere do you address the logical realistic historical implications of a fourth century fiction implemented for the sake of the political expediency of unification of the power of the Roman Emperor. Constantine at that time dismissed the "Sacred College of Graeco-Roman Priests (or Pontifices)" who had traditionally reported to the "Pontifex Maximus".

As "Pontifex Maximus" Constantine made the Sacred College of Priests redundant (as he did the Praetorian Guard in preference to a close knit group of barbarian chieftans) so that he might also SUPREMELY rule (as Bishop of Bishops and the 13th Apostle) the religious milieu of the Greek civilisation which had up until that time been sponsored by the emperors since the historical JC (Julius Caesar).

Larkin31 · 12-22-2009, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Selsaral

I may be wrong, but it seems that a core aspect of this debate is whether or not it's reasonable to assume that fictional characters of history (like Jesus) had historical cores or not. This topic was briefly touched on in the middle of this thread and then abandoned.

I think AA's argument rests (with incredible force) on the idea that without a particular reason to think so, it's not reasonable to conclude that a character like Jesus must have had a historical core.

Am I wrong to think this is an important point? Or did everyone already work it over and move on beyond where I'm at?

That would be the logical core of aa's overstated argument.

It is a point that could be argued. And if it were well argued, it could save a lot of typing.

Is anyone else still reading this thread?

Yes

I am a very curious reader here

I also think it behooves us to consider the nature and style of the writing. These texts are likely written before some of the dates being mentioned above, so a more persuasive argument is needed concerning the dates, authors, and motivations.

And especially, if one is going to argue for a large political conspiracy of fabrication, one must argue quite convincingly. I read conspiracy theories with a jaundiced eye. Nearly always, the simpler explanation that answers the details is the better one (a group of folks who had met and seen this healer-peasant did believe that he was divine and did exaggerate his powers).

arnoldo · 12-22-2009, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

As "Pontifex Maximus" Constantine made the Sacred College of Priests redundant (as he did the Praetorian Guard in preference to a close knit group of barbarian chieftans) so that he might also SUPREMELY rule (as Bishop of Bishops and the 13th Apostle) the religious milieu of the Greek civilisation which had up until that time been sponsored by the emperors since the historical JC (Julius Caesar).

I have to give you credit for developing a hypothesis on the alleged origin of a mythical Jesus. Undeniably, the Roman Government adopted Christianity as a State Religion at one time which led in the rise of Roman Catholicism. In contrast, others who hold a mythical Jesus stance seem to adhere to a vague MJ origin concept that;

A. Mild Climate in the Mediterranean in the first century led to growth of certain molds with hallucinogenic properties. Once ingested, a kind of group psychosis resulted which led people to start Christianity

B. A certain historical person with a bi-polar disorder heard about these Christians, fell off a horse and then proceeded to write the majority of the New Testament in a fit of mania.

Sai · 12-22-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Fact: The entire empire of Rome was changed almost overnight by the influence of this "FICTIONAL" person.
Fact: Many people thought this "FICTION" was important enough to write about and to martyr themselves over.
Fact: No one at the time seemed interested in stating the "obvious" that there was no such person As Jesus of Nazareth.
Fact: It was common to attribute god-like qualities to important political figures.
Fact: No other person in history has so commanded the attention of the world as this "FICTIONAL" person.

But then again... he might have been completely fictional.

Mohammed has more followers than Jesus. So why say no other man "so" commanded the attn of the world?

There's about a billion people who are oppressed today under the fictional "revelations" of a perv. name "mohammed". Oddly enough, they seem to get a whole lot more 'martyrs" today than Christianity does.

Christians killed a whole lot more people to impose their religion than were ever killed as 'martyrs' for it.

didnt some people recently take poison so they could get to a spaceship that was hiding behind a comet? How seriously are we supposed to take people's belief in something... they believe strongly enough to kill themselves makes it all true and valid?

Similar number whose lives were changed almost overnight by the rantings and wrongheaded ideas of one "Karl Marx". Killed about 90 million people.

Do we need to continue to state the obvious here about how much this has to do with the reality of Jesus being who and what he is supposed to have been? "HE" may or may not be fictional, but the story is.

aa5874 · 12-22-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

..... Nearly always, the simpler explanation that answers the details is the better one (a group of folks who had met and seen this healer-peasant did believe that he was divine and did exaggerate his powers).

The HJ is not a simpler explanation, it is a most irrational explanation.

The HJ cannot explain how supposedly HONEST and HOLY believers, already accused of being LIARS, would have known that Jesus was just a man and then turn around and LIE from beginning to end, about his conception, miracles, walking on water, transfiguration, resurrection and ascension.

If Jesus believers who actually knew Jesus was a mere man and wanted to go to HEAVEN to be with their LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ, the TRUTH and the LIFE, then it is just highly unlikely that they would all just manufacture all those PACK of LIES about him, and then be killed knowing that they were Liars.

The very Jesus believers would have gone straight to HELL based on their own belief or LIES and self-condemnation.

It is far more rational, and makes more sense that Jesus was just a story fabricated very long after his supposed time on earth and in a region many hundreds of miles away from Jerusalem and was believed to be true or was intended to be believed as true when all the main characters Jesus and his disciples did not really exist but this fiction was not known to the readers or hearers of the story at the time of publication or propagation.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition, since if Jesus was human and his HONEST and HOLY disciples knew he was human then they are ALL a pack of LIARS and died for their own LIES and are ALL in HELL based on their own beliefs or LIES.

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

12-21-2009, 02:26 PM	#362
kcdad Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: illinois Posts: 688	Fact: The entire empire of Rome was changed almost overnight by the influence of this "FICTIONAL" person. Fact: Many people thought this "FICTION" was important enough to write about and to martyr themselves over. Fact: No one at the time seemed interested in stating the "obvious" that there was no such person As Jesus of Nazareth. Fact: It was common to attribute god-like qualities to important political figures. Fact: No other person in history has so commanded the attention of the world as this "FICTIONAL" person. But then again... he might have been completely fictional.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.