Toto

Does this invalidate my point?

Your OP:

But you never get beyond that. You keep repeating "fiction" "no evidence" as if this means something.

PyramidHead

Most people don't argue whether or not the actual miraculous events described in the NT were real. Saying somebody doesn't exist because absurd things were attributed to him is no different than saying there were no Chinese emperors, since they were believed by many to have divine powers. What is your evidence that the NT was not simply an exaggeration of the lives of people who actually, albiet mundanely, existed?

Amaleq13

You are WAY too late with that caution, my friend.

Get used to it with that one.

And welcome to IIDB. :wave:

aa5874

Again, Jesus of Nazareth, his 12 disciples and Paul are not mentioned in any non-apologetic writings of the 1st century even though these 14 characters are claimed to have lived and were largely responsible for Christianity during that century and beyond.

I find it odd that Jesus, who was or believed to be the son of God of Moses, the Messiah, the Christ, was or believed to be born through the Holy Ghost, raised or believed to have raised the dead and healed all manner of diseases, and was or believed to be resurrected and ascended, was not mentioned by Philo who lived at the supposed time of Jesus.

Philo, based on his extant writings, wrote about Pilate and Tiberius. Philo appeared not to know that the God of Moses had a Son that was or believed to be on earth, with thousands of followers, and was or believed to be crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven, while he, Philo, was alive.

Philo made mention of a concept called "Logos" the "Word", yet Philo's "Logos" or "Word" had no reference to Jesus of Nazareth at all and this Jesus the "Word" was supposed to have lived around the very time Philo made use of a concept called the "Word".

My conclusion that Jesus, his 12 disciples and Paul are fiction is a result of a multi-faceted approach that included taking the both the miraculous and natural aspects of the NT and the writings of the Church fathers. And in short, the 14 characters cannot sustain reality without the miraculous, but the miraculous, as we all know, is not real.

mountainman

So we have an assessment of fourteen fictive fabulous figures.
Your dialogue to date appears to be that you believe the good
SAINT IRENAEUS was not a fictive fabulous figure.
Is that correct?

And further, when you have the time, what is your opinion
of the following cast of fictive fabulous figures (approx year)?

Start with either Celsus (placed first in the list for a good reason)
or your favorite "solid ground" and "eminently quotable" Irenaeus
of Lyons (175) ...

Celsus (c.178), Jude (0), Barnabas (0), Simon Magus (0), Judas (0), Clement of Rome (18), Paul (20), Ignatius of Antioch (40), Aristides the Philosopher (70), Quadratus (70), Carpocrates of Alexandria (80), Aquila of Sinope (of Pontus) (90), Hegesippus (110), Marcion of Sinope (110), Polycarp (110), Papias (110), Valentinus (120), Apollinaris Claudius (120), Basilides (120), Diognetus (130), Epiphanes (130), Aristo of Pella (130), Marcion (130), Mathetes (130), Pinytus of Crete (130), Polycrates of Ephesus (130), Tatian (135), Apollonius (136), Ptolemy (140), Minucius Felix (140), Isidore (140), Agrippa Castor (140), Alexander (of Cappadocia,Jerusalem) (150), Excerpts of Theodotus (150), Heracleon (150), Justin Martyr (150), Ammonius Saccas II (155), Julius Cassianus (160), Apelles (160), Octavius of Minucius Felix (160), Dionysius of Corinth (165), Melito of Sardis (165), Irenaeus of Lyons (175), Athenagoras of Athens (175), Rhodon (175), Theophilus of Caesarea (175), Theophilus of Antioch (180), Bardesanes (180), Hippolytus of Rome (180), Clement of Alexandria (182), Maximus of Jerusalem (185), Victor I (189), Pantaenus (190), Anonymous Anti-Montanist (193), Tertullian (197), Serapion of Antioch (200), Paul of Samosata (200), Apollonius (200), Caius (200), Cyprian of Carthage (200), Cornelius (of Rome) (200), Dionysius (of Alexandria) the Great (200), Novatian (201), Hermias (210), Dionysius of Rome (210), Gregory Thaumaturgus (212), Malchion (of Antioch) (220), Anatolius of Laodicea in Syria (222), Victorinus (bishop) of Petau (240), Peter of Alexandria (250), Phileas (Bishop) of Thmuis (250), Pamphilus (250), Methodius (250), Miltiades (270)


You know my opinion. I do not stop with the fourteen.
We may as well stress test the whole lot for integrity.
This is either a valid or an invalid hypothesis. There will
either be a consistency with the available evidence, or
these will be an inconsistency with the evidence.

I am backing the Arian controversy as the shit (of fiction)
hitting the fans of the eastern greek academic and ascetic
priesthood, which had hitherto never heard a peep about
your man Jesus Christ, until Constantine touted him as his
sponsored Pontifex Maximus cult-god.

Either the entire bunch above (plus the fourteen of yours)
are fictive Mills and Boon material or some of them
are not. Where do you stand on the Eusebian fiction, or
are you actually arguing for a pre Irenaeus of Lyons fiction?

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

aa5874

Well my investigation is primarly concerned with the main characters of the NT, Jesus, the 12 and Paul. And in carry out such a search, I have accepted Irenaeus as a figure of history, this is due to the fact that I am not, as this moment, challenging the historicity of Irenaeus.

At this present time, I have very little interest in other figures outside the NT with respect to their historicity, I am more interested in what these figures wrote about Jesus, his disciples and Paul.

And I have not been disappointed with this approach, since those who wrote about the fabulous 14 actually exposed their fiction and helped enormously in reaching my conclusion that Jesus, his disciples and Paul are fiction.

mountainman

OK.

Eusebius packaged up every little bit of the "historical data"
concerning these fabulous fourteen. Eusebius transmits each
of your figures. What they (ahem) "wrote" about Jesus, his
disciples and Paul. Are you going to question Eusebius?

Surely, you need Eusebius as your 15th man
since it is only by Him that you know anything
whatsoever about the fourteen before him.

I am not here looking at the historicity of Eusebius.
I can accept he existed in the 4th CE. I am looking
at the integrity of your "information mining".

That is, we know Ireneus could not himself have
transmitted everything which Eusebius claims to
have had in front of him in the 4th century.




Best wishes,


Pete Brown

scotsmanmatt1

Can you point out to me instances in the Bible where angels made general appearances to humans so that any random person could detect them?

Proxima Centauri

Try out this web site.
jesus never existed

Question

I also find it interesting that if God spent 30+ years on our planet, he didn't leave an indestructible written account in 7 languages.

I think an Intelligent Designer would have?