aa5874

As I go through gMatthew, gMark and the Gospels it has become clear to me that the Jesus story is COMPLETE Nonsense.

Let me FAST forward to the resurrection story.

In the Gospels, Jesus was raised from the dead and appeared unto the disciples but still some did NOT believe.

Matthew 28So, the disciples MUST see Jesus to believe he was RAISED from the dead and even so some still doubted based on gMatthew.

Examine Mark 16.8, and Luke 24.36-43. and we will see that the disciples MUST see Jesus to BELIEVE he was raised from the dead.

But, now examine John 20.24-25. Now, if the supposed very disciples of Jesus who were WITH him and MUST see Jesus PHYSICALLY resurrected and some still doubted then how could they have convinced people that Jesus was RAISED from the dead when the RESURRECTION NEVER really happened?

The Jesus story is NONSENSE.

The disciples MUST GO to GALILEE to see Jesus the PHYSICALLY resurrected but resurrections are FICTION.

Mt 26:32 - Mr 14:28 - The disciples could NOT have seen a PHYSICALLY resurrected Jesus in Galilee.

The disciples MUST first see the Physically resurrected Jesus to believe he was Raised from the dead.

The Jesus story is not history just NONSENSE.

Juststeve

To No One In Particular:

What to make of Matthew 28, 16-17? We have an account of Jesus appearing post resurrection to the disciples with the added information that an undisclosed some doubted. (Just Thomas or is one doubter too few to make a some?) Seems like the injection of the doubting disciples serves no apologetic purpose, tends to weaken the claim that the resurrection is evidenced by the appearances. What are we to make of it?

If we were particularly simple minded we might just declare that its all NONSENSE. Or we might wonder whether, assuming there were disciples who thought they had had resurrection experiences, what the manner of those experiences were. We might wonder whether they were visionary experiences, more convincing to some than to others. We might start to wonder whether the disciples experiences were more like that the Apostle Paul had than those narrated in the Gospels. Experiences that would still leave room for doubt in at least some.

It might help to answer the simple minded question "how could they have convinced people that Jesus was RAISED from the dead when the RESURRECTION NEVER really happened?" How is it that roughly a billion people have come to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead when we have excellent reason to think that never happened?

Steve

aa5874

Well how is it the disciples wanted to PHYSICALLY see the resurrected Jesus when it was NOT necessary in the first place?

John 20 You have EXPOSED that the resurrection story is NONSENSE.

People who have NEVER ever seen the supposed Jesus will believe he was raised from the dead but NOT his OWN supposed disciples. They want to PHYSICALLY see the resurrected Jesus and resurrections are FICTION.

The disciples NEVER ever could have believed Jesus was raised from the dead because resurrections do not happen.

Please examine the words of Thomas again.

Thomas will NOT believe until he PHYSICALLY saw Jesus and EXAMINED his PHYSICAL body but such an event could NOT have happened.

In gJohn, Thomas does NOT believe his own fellow disciples. He must see Jesus and EXAMINE him.

In gLuke, Jesus ATE food to show his own disciples that he was really raised from the dead but resurrections are FICTION.

If Jesus was an ORDINARY man then the resurrection story is complete NONSENSE.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Juststeve:

"How is it that roughly a billion people have come to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead when we have excellent reason to think that never happened?"


Mass marketing, threats and terrorism from rich and powerful institutions.

From the 4th century to the 19th century, in Europe, it was not legal for people to deny the resurrection. Countless millions of people were tortured and killed who said they did not believe.

In the United States today, teachers, such as myself, still fear that they will lose their jobs and livelihood if they speak too openly about how silly they think this fairy tale is.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Tristan Scott

Maybe because they want to believe it...or maybe many of those billion, no matter how hard they try, no matter how bad they want to, in their deepest thoughts don't really believe it at all.

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Harry S. Truman, the 33rd US President (1945-1953) apparently once remarked that:

"There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know".

We do not know the history of Jesus, all that is available is a series of canonical books in which Jesus makes an appearance, sometimes in the author's head and other times according to the Eusebian canon tables.

In roughly the same time period (as Harry) Smedley Butler wrote "War is a racket". We too often forget that the Jesus Story was widely published in the 4th century during a time of war. The publisher was at war with the Eastern Roman Empire and they also represented his audience. The Jesus publication may have been part of the "Racket of War" used to "divide and conquer".

The fact that all orthodox christian sources from the 4th century are also heresiological suggests that heresy was the modus operandi by which the division and conquering by the canon following victors was to be progressed, until only the "Blessed Canonical Elect" are left standing on the fields of justice within Christendom.

Two Sides of the non historical Jesus Story - and their appearances in history

The Jesus story in the canonical books and the Jesus story in the non canonical books provide a contrast that requires exploration. Both series of books are fiction, but the victors have obscured the conflict by further false historical accounts. They are two sides of the Jesus story, and they need to be disentagled and untwined and examined with critical care.

The orthodox Christian heresiological victors of the 4th century lied about the heretics and the controversies and wrote false histories. The case of Mani is a classic example. Until recently the heresiological orthodox accounts of Hegemonius and Ephrem Syria and Augustine were taken to be integrous accounts of the life of the heretic Mani. However recent academic assessment, based on the appearance of much other evidence, now treats these accounts as non historical fabrications. Parts of the victors' historical accounts, Eusebius and 4th and 5th century continuators have been piously forged and fabricated to present false information (including chronology) for their Gnostic heretical opponents.

Not only is the Jesus story not history, the story of the harmonious reception of the Jesus story in the Roman empire from Nicaea c.325 CE for the next century or more, is not history. There has never yet been written a political history of the 4th century in which the Gnostics have a voice. They too sang a song of Jesus, but it was very contraversial and it was immediately censored. The recently appearing evidence in the form of gJudas and the Nag Hammadi Codices support the above comments - their generation was fleeing because they did not believe in a living (historical) Jesus.


Best wishes


Pete

Tristan Scott

Good post Pete, and it should also be understood that the Jesus story was not new. Jesus wasn't the only hero in antiquity that was said to have risen from the dead, or to have had a miraculous birth, for that matter. Krishna miraculously appeared in his mother's womb, and the Avatars of Vishnu were all virgin births as well. The Babylonian god Marduk was born of a virgin. Don't forget Perseus' mother Danae locked away as a young maiden until Zeus lets her have it with a shower of (ahem)gold, impregnating her. And of course Alexander the great, also a virgin birth.

I believe it was Carl Jung that theorized that we (men) want our heros to be born of virgins because of our deep seated hatred for our mother's impurity.:constern01:

aa5874

Let me continue to EXPOSE that the Jesus story is NOT history but just NONSENSE.

Some claim that the baptism of Jesus by John in the NT was embarrassing so it is likely to be true.

Well, what nonsense!!!

The baptism of Jesus by John is a shameless implausible fiction story.

Examine the implausible FICTITIOUS baptism story in gMark.

Mark 1:9-13 - What NONSENSE!!!

The author of gMark was NOT Embarrassed by the shameless implausible FICTITIOUS baptism story and ALL the authors of the Gospels WROTE the same shameless IMPLAUSIBLE fictitious baptism story.

Examine the shameless implausible fictitious baptism event in gJohn.

Joh 1:32 - The baptism story is NOT history just shameless NONSENSE.

Kapyong

Gday,

Well, what is YOUR answer?
Let me guess - people BELIEVED it because it actually happened.

Because we know that people never ever believe things that never happned , right?

We know that every religious belief is true - right Steve?

K.

Steve Weiss

Do you close with "warmly" because you are on your way to roast in hell? The all loving god will certainly consign you to unending torture for your blaphemies.