Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-10-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The simple answer is this: it cannot be that there was a Jesus who conformed in every detail to the account given in the Christian Scriptures, but it can be that there was a Jesus who conformed in some respects but not others to the account given in the Christian Scriptures.

Simply name one event that you know is true with respect to Jesus in the NT.

Upon reflection, I think I have erred, there are 2 distinct truths in the NT.
1. Jesus had no human father.
2. The body of Jesus was not in the tomb.

I should say, therefore, name some other event with respect to Jesus that you know is true as recorded in the NT.

Quote:

Mind you, it's a bit of a cheek you complaining about your questions going unanswered, when you're outscoring everybody else on this thread in the 'not giving answers to questions' tally by about two to one.

I am not compaining at all. If I ask an HJer for information repeatedly and I receive no replies, then maybe, there is no information to support the HJ position.

Remember, no information is consistent with non-existence.

J-D · 04-10-2007, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Virgin Mary could not have spoken to anyone in any language, in 1858, anywhere in the world. And in any event, the Virgin Mary has not been established to have been a real person, at any time in history, based on extant extra-biblical writings.

Now, as to Bernadette Soubrious, an investigation will have to be carried out to verify whether or not she was a real person and if she actually did make those statements about the Virgin Mary, bearing in mind that the entire episode may be totally fictitious.

Given that we know that the Virgin Mary cannot have spoken to Bernadette Soubirous in 1858, is that enough information for us to figure out whether Bernadette Soubirous was or was not a real person? Or do we need more information before we can figure out whether Bernadette Soubirous was or was not a real person? Why or why not?

J-D · 04-10-2007, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Who is Asclepias of Mendes, is he an historian? The story of Atia is unconfirmed by her or her husband. It is not a virgin birth, it is a dream. And in any event, Suetonius, the historian, wrote that the father of Augustus was Gauis Octavius not Apollo nor a snake.

Lives of the Caesars by Suetonius section III,

Lives of the Caesars by Suetonius section IV,

Augustus can be placed in history by historians in the century which he lived, although deified.

The unknown deity Jesus was historicised, not by historians, but by believers.

Nobody here is suggesting that the father of Augustus was really a snake, or the god Apollo. Did you not grasp that?

What is being suggested is that Augustus was a real person even though there was a story that he was the son of a snake, or of the god Apollo. Hence, if you are suggesting that nobody can be a real person if there is a story that he was the son of a god, you are wrong?

Are you suggesting that, or not? Do you think this statement--'if there is a story that somebody was the son of a god, he couldn't have been a real person'--is true or false?

aa5874 · 04-10-2007, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Nobody here is suggesting that the father of Augustus was really a snake, or the god Apollo. Did you not grasp that?

What is being suggested is that Augustus was a real person even though there was a story that he was the son of a snake, or of the god Apollo. Hence, if you are suggesting that nobody can be a real person if there is a story that he was the son of a god, you are wrong?

Are you suggesting that, or not? Do you think this statement--'if there is a story that somebody was the son of a god, he couldn't have been a real person'--is true or false?

I am suggesting that Jesus was never born, using the statements in the NT. So he was neither god nor man. Did you not grasp that?

See Matthew chapter 1-2 and Luke chapter 1-3 for the bogus virgin birth, genealogy and fictitious statements from the unknown Mary.

J-D · 04-10-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hi J-D,

Well, you don't really say anything

It seems to me that I said several things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

and you don't seem to be aware of the nature of various Communist Party alliances post-WWII.

So? How is that a reason for not responding to me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Papers are written about this phenomenon.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...8.1998.00061.x
Strange Bedfellows: Explaining Political Cooperation between Communist Successor Parties and Nationalists in Eastern Europe - John T. Ishiyama

Abstract.In postcommunist politics many of the 'new national right' political formations in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have joined forces with the communist successor parties. Such a combination is, on the surface, a baffling mixture; how is it possible that two fundamentally different ideological approaches (nationalism and internationalist socialism) can coexist and actively cooperate to form such a potent political force? What are the conditions under which such political cooperation emerges?

Very interesting. But those aren't Communist parties. They are post-Communist parties, a different thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

It is rather obvious that the Herodians and the Pharisees could easily get together to come up with a tactical attempt to derail the Jesus movement. Putting aside other differences for a common cause where neither one is even making any concessions.

I know that you've said this before. You still haven't given any reason to think it's true. You haven't particularised in the way I challenged you to do in my earlier post (the one you described as saying nothing).

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

On a topic like this there comes a point where discussion becomes redundant, since you are simply taking an untenable position, the impossibility and incredulity of what is a rather simple and intuitively-easy-to-comprehend tactical alliance.

If it's so easy to comprehend, why can't you explain it a little?

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Since I have little expectation of moving you to any introspection about your position I would prefer not to simply redundify.

I have introspected, and I still can't see what motive you imagine that the Pharisees could have had to try to derail the Jesus movement that could have been compelling enough to get them to cooperate with the Herodians.

More historically credible, and incompatible, is Acts 5:34-39.

J-D · 04-10-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If a person omits all the known fictitious elements of the Jesus the Christ and, without corroboration, assume all other elements are true, then it is possible to re-construct an HJ.

For example, if a person disregards the virgin birth, and assume that Mary and Joseph did have a child named Jesus, then they have instantly made Jesus a real person, just on an assumption.

The reality is that Joseph, Mary or Jesus cannot be assumed to be real persons because the virgin birth is fictitious.

Are you saying: 'Joseph can never have existed because the virgin birth is fictitious'? How can you justify that statement?

J-D · 04-10-2007, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

J-D, I have already pointed out to you that it is not the initial logics, it is the investigation that ultimately determines the possibilities.

For example, if a person is determined to have been murdered, initially,there are billions of logical possisibilities, however after investigation, there may be only one.

Now, I have done my investigation, I cannot find any contemporary extra-biblical information about Jesus, except interpolations and forgeries, I therefore have to depend on the NT. I have found the NT to be wholly fictitious. My conclusion is that Jesus is mythological, fictitious or non-existent.

Before my investigation I thought Jesus could have been a real person, but definitely all evidence points to nothing.

If your investigation was conducted illogically, then your conclusions are worthless.

J-D · 04-10-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Let me try to explain, simply, I do not accept that a Jesus was born.

I have read about the virgin birth and events surrounding the birth in Matthew ch 1-2 and Luke ch 1-3 and cannot accept them as true. I do not even know if there were actual persons named Mary or Joseph.

The NT, itself, cannot account for Jesus. Firstly, both authors claimed Mary had a child with no human father.

When you say 'both authors' like that, it creates the impression of only two authors. It would be more natural to say 'two of the authors claimed'; but expressing it like that is a pointer to the fact that other authors made no such claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Then the authors of the NT tried to assemble 2 genealogies for his supposed father, they could not even determine the father of Joseph. The authors then tried to show where Jesus lived as a child, one said Nazareth and the other said Egypt.

Now, I regard these explanations as total fiction, no Jesus was born as described. He, therefore could not be in Gallilee, or crucified or buried, hence the empty tomb.

The way you use the word 'therefore' in that sentence is wrong.

If you said--'He was not born, therefore he could not be in Galilee'--that would be a correct use of the word 'therefore'. But what you are saying--'He was not born as described, therefore he could not be in Galilee'--is not a correct use of the word 'therefore'.

J-D · 04-10-2007, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Simply name one event that you know is true with respect to Jesus in the NT.

Upon reflection, I think I have erred, there are 2 distinct truths in the NT.
1. Jesus had no human father.
2. The body of Jesus was not in the tomb.

I should say, therefore, name some other event with respect to Jesus that you know is true as recorded in the NT.

Admit that I answered your question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am not compaining at all. If I ask an HJer for information repeatedly and I receive no replies, then maybe, there is no information to support the HJ position.

Remember, no information is consistent with non-existence.

If I repeatedly ask you questions intended to get you to defend your position and receive no replies, then maybe your position is indefensible. If I repeatedly ask you questions intended to get you to clarify your position and receive no replies, then maybe your position is incurably unclear.

Huon · 04-11-2007, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Given that we know that the Virgin Mary cannot have spoken to Bernadette Soubirous in 1858, is that enough information for us to figure out whether Bernadette Soubirous was or was not a real person? Or do we need more information before we can figure out whether Bernadette Soubirous was or was not a real person? Why or why not?

In France, and during the XIXth century, vital records were well kept, and there remain written traces of the birth and death of Bernadette Soubirous. For the data, see Wiki "Bernadette Soubirous".

Conclusion : Sometimes, a real person can have visions. This is not unfrequent.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.