aa5874

The fundamental core of Jesus the Christ and Superman is fiction based. Both came from unknown places, with the consent of their unknown fathers, raised by unknown persons and later developed superhuman and supernatural powers.

Although, the authors of Superman declared that their character is fictitious, Superman is considered fiction without having to rely on the authors acknowledgement, that is, even if the authors of Superman were unknown, and even if they claimed anonymously and unanimously that Superman was indeed a real person, Superman would still be a fictitious character.

The planet called Krypton, the vehicle used to come to earth, and his superhuman acts are all fictitious whether or not the authors agreed.

Now, because unknown authors claimed that Jesus the Christ came from an unknown place, with the consent of his unknown father, through an uknown medium and later did unknown acts, some claim that the unknown authors must have some credibilty and their story is more plausible than the Superman story.

If you think that Superman is a bad example then we can compare Jesus the Christ to any of the mythical-virgin born gods.


The unknown authors claimed that Jesus the Christ is the son of a holy ghost, and that some unknown characters named Mary and Joseph are witnesses to this fictitious event, and it is your opinion that even if the story is fictitious and the unknown authors honestly believe it, then it may be credible. Anything that is declared anonimously and unanimously may be credible, even though it is known to be fictitious. And we have good examples.

The historicity of Jesus the Christ is baseless and without merit.

Toto

I see a distinct absence of new content in the last few posts. If no one has anything new or coherent to say, we can just close this thread, perhaps?

mountainman

The claim that there was, and the search for,
the HJ cannot be demonstrated, and has had a few
hundred years of scholarship directed at it; and
everyone should treat it for what it apparently is:
utter stupidity.

Evidence for the existence of anything "christian"
in the 1st century does not exist. I am reasonable
sure that you agree with this position, as do many
posters to this forum.

The claim that we have been tendered an FJ
(fabricated or fictional jesus) is not impossible.

In fact it seems to be quite consistent with the
(total lack of) evidence related to an "HJ" in any
earlier century.

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

Alternatively spin, elsewhere you have said that
you do not subscribe to the mythicist position.
Therefore this question:

When do you (personally) think (best guess) that
christianity emerged into the Roman Empire?
The second century with Marcion and the Marcionites?
The third century at the "house church" within the city of Dura Europa?

You effectively abuse my chronology of a 4th century kick-start.
What chronology do you suggest is better than this?

aa5874

mountainman, I would put it this way, the 'Eusebian tribe' was started or developed in the 4th century, with the canonisation of the NT and probably by manipulation or destruction of documents or writings from the 1st to 4th century.

From my observation, there was a concerted effort by one or more interpolators who tried to falsely place Jesus of the virgin birth in the 1st century, but I would not catergorise it as a wholesale re-writing of history but a case where passages of extant contemporary writings were tampered with, perhaps on a large scale, to make the Jesus of the virgin birth and the resurrected carnal body, appear historical in the first century.

As I have noticed, the word Christian as it relates to antiquity does not inherently mean follower of the Jesus of the virgin birth and resurrected carnal body, it could mean many different things in the 2nd century. And so far it has not been established what version of Christ was predominant. Therefore even if there was a tribe of Christians, it may have been the tribe as it relates to Balisides, Simon Magus, or some other weird non-Eusebian model.

spin

aa5874 (and b'jezus could you find a f**king nick that someone can remember?),

You haven't answered my question:

do you honestly believe that the writers set about concocting a Jesus religion as a fictional effort?

I must agree.


spin

aa5874

You need to relax and compose yourself.

All I know is that the virgin birth of Jesus, as described in the NT, is fiction, no-one is the son of a ghost. And in order for Jesus to be a real person, Mary must have had contact with some male semen. Mary's statement about being a virgin, as written in Luke, is therefore false.

The burial of the body of Jesus the Christ as written in the NT is fiction, the body was placed in a sealed tomb under guard and it vanished, however, the resurrection was given as the reason for the disappearance, this is blatant fiction.

Now all the writers of the NT are unknown, I know nothing about them other than they wrote fiction.

I enjoy answering your questions.

spin

You need to stop speaking through your hat.

To my question "do you honestly believe that the writers set about concocting a Jesus religion as a fictional effort?" you claim: "I know nothing about them other than they wrote fiction." I asked you to give your opinion if you thought that the writers concocted a Jesus religion, and while you are willing to opine numerous things, you seem rather reluctant to opine in this case. Why? Why won't you give a simple opinion to the following question?

"do you honestly believe that the writers set about concocting a Jesus religion as a fictional effort?"

spin

Steve Weiss

The authors of the bible, whoever they may have been and whenever they may have composed, were creative writers par excellence with a flair for the dramatic, miraculous and fantastic. The Greatest Story Ever Told is part of a two part series (OT and NT) that is the most successful con job ever promoted by myth-makers and charlatans with the only competition coming from its sequel the Koran. Audiences are wowed by the exciting scenes done on a Hollywoodesque scale that was far ahead of its time in it scope and grandeur. Isn't that god and his son Jesus a real dynamic duo that puts Batman and Robin to shame? What's a few car chases, explosions and battles with the Russians compared to seas parting, plagues a plenty, giant fish swallowing people whole then spitting them out, Adam and Eve running around naked and making the whole human race, numerous raisings from the dead and ascensions into heaven, eternal torture near the earth's core, two final judgments, one whiping out everyone except one family for minor infractions, and the other an end of the earth for everyone not initiated into a particular cult? Now that's a blockbuster worth a dozen academy awards, no? There's not a theater big enough to hold the crowd, and the reruns will continue for centuries.

Steve Weiss

The entire bible involves guesswork, so why separate the issue of author motivation? Motivation is a key element in analyzing any work, fictional or otherwise. Name anything in the OT and NT that you know to be factual. Nothing? So aren't you guessing?

Steve Weiss

Your first sentence indicates that you are getting warm; in fact you may be burning already.