aa5874

Would you agree that it is possible for a person found guilty of a crime to be innocent?

However the person will be sentence and the verdict will stand until evidence can be found to prove innocence. The possibilty of innocence is really irrelevant without supporting evidence.

Would you agree that it is possible that a person who tested positive for a disease, does not have the disease?

However, once a person has been tested positive, the person will be treated as having the disease, the possibility of not having the disease is really irrelevant.

Now, the information about the supposed man Jesus is fundamentally fiction, monstrous lies.

The NT and the church writings have all tested Positive for monstrous lies.

I, therefore, consider the man Jesus non-existent during the supposed time zone.

Those who think he was possible should provided evidence for their possibility, otherwise my verdict stands, Jesus the Galilean was a monstrous lie.

Ken Carman

In the cases you provide I wouldn't claim "irrelevant," probably less relevant than the sentence, society-wise, would be a better modifier. Much like Science, any result should be able to be challenged and could very well be skewed, upside down or even outright bogus. The first is more likely.

Evidence isn't always available, but to dismiss the possibility of it is the kind of arrogance that has kept humanity back time and time again.

Note: it's also possible someone testing negative actually has said disease.

And what he may have taught, what he may have said, who he actually might have been, is all up for debate. At this point whether he actually did not exist may be true, but disproving or proving a negative is logically a fool's errand. One can show what's likely, but that's all. One can prove he did exist in that time period. One cannot prove he did not. One can just say, "Here is all we have so... not likely," or "maybe not."

If you feel the lack of evidence provides the answer, that of course is your right... and you very well could be spot on. (Where did that phrase come from?) But it's not "proof."

Sheshbazzar

Under the dictates of The Laws of the Jews, any person found guilty, is by definition "guilty" as the decision of Priestly " Judgment" was final, without appeal, and irrevocable. (Deut 17:8-12)
But that is not really a problem because this particular "Judgment" of an actual individual never happened, because, just as you say, the man "Jesus" was non-existent- as was this latter fabricated story and trial.

But then again the story does have some basis in the course of entirely natural developments and events.

While James being legalistic, and the High Priest in The Temple, provides no additional support or evidence for the existence of a "historical guy called Jesus, Yahshua, or whatever".
James and the other Jerusalem pillars might well have held strong messianic convictions without need ever having attached those beliefs to any flesh and blood individual.
That is, a (thoroughly "Jewish") conviction that the Messiah would come that was prophesied in the TaNaKa, his -"Delivering"- act epitomised in the promise inherent in the name "Yah-ha-oshua"="YAH the DELIVERER" (or conventionally Yahshua), a resurrection as it were of the Covenant "Joshua" (Yahshua) who would once again arise amongst them to "Deliver" Israel in the Land of Promise, by the defeating of all of Israel's then present adversaries and oppressors.

I believe this is what James and the Jerusalem Pillars actually represented, all the rest of the NT stories were latter opportunistic fabrications and accreditations.
Yahshua The Messiah was no more than a spiritual ideal, the expression of a hope for a national Deliverer of Israel, (and through them, ultimately, the entire world) but it was one that never materialised, or was realised in any actual flesh and blood individual.
A truly "historical Jesus" or "Yahshua" cannot ever be found, or precisely identified, or placed in actual history,
because there never was any such person.

Yet the story is powerful and moving, representing how the endurance of hope, and victory of conscience as triumphant, can prevail yet even in the midst of ultimate despair, and of most humiliating defeat.

Thus "he" was not necessarily originally conceived as, nor intended as a fiction or a monstrous lie, but was transformed into such by the much latter writings of a predominately Gentile christian church, who through the agency of their writings, took the Jews Messianic hope, and transformed "him" into a rather ridiculous and unbelievable Action/Adventure comic book hero.

aa5874

So, based on your view, it is sheer arrogance for jurors to declare a verdict of guilt if all evidence points to guilt. They must wait for evidence that may be out there, evidence that was not presented, to show innocence.

Based on your position, it is arrogance for a person to be deemed to have a disease if tested positive since no test is 100% accurate.

Your position does not make much sense.

It is those who still believe the monstrous lies to be true who have kept humanity back in time and are arrogant. They no have credible evidence, yet demand that people believe their stories or else they will burn in hell or receive some kind of punishment.

So, it will be arrogant for you to claim you do not have a disease, if your test is negative for that disease. And further it will not be arrogant for you to declare that you have a multiplicity of diseases for which you have tested negative.

That does not make much sense.

Do not jurors, using reason, prove a negative when they find a person NOT GUILTY?

Well, the written statements of the authors of the Jesus stories are in the records, they have been canonised, and they have been found to be NOT TRUE.

The canonised letter writer perjured himself when he wrote over 500 people saw Jesus, the man, after he was resurrected.

The historical Jesus is a monstrous lie.

How did you find out that there may have been a person called Jesus?

There is an abundance of information about Jesus, please see the NT and the church writings, but much of it can be proven or shown to be fiction and implausible, this finding has led me to conclude that the historical Jesus is a monstrous lie.

Analyst

Was Saul / Paul a real person or a fiction?

spamandham

There's no way of knowing. Detering argues Paul is a constructed character based on Simon Magus and Marcion's own life.

http://www.radikalkritik.de/FabricatedJHC.pdf

I don't see anything particularly implausible about a historical Paul. In the letters which are generally attributed to him, there are no extraordinary claims. Even his vision of Jesus is described as possibly being a dream/hallucination. However, Paul does not show up in other literature (outside his own letters) prior to the writing of Acts, which I believe is a late 2nd century work like so many other noncanonical 'acts' type writings from that period.

aa5874

I think Paul preached too much "foolishness" to have lived in the time zone that he was allocated.

The letter writers with the name Paul may extend from the 2nd to the 4th century.

The dates for the writers called Paul may never be known, the writings are embedded with fiction, forgery, fraud and sheer stupidity.

When the supposed Jesus died, his body could not be found, it was sheer stupidity for Paul to claim five hundred people saw Jesus after he resurrected, and what is even more stupid is to claim that most of the people that saw Jesus were still alive while he was writing his letter.

Absolute stupidity.

The skeptics and pagans would have known that Paul was lying, they would just have to locate some of these people who Paul claimed saw Jesus. Paul would have been busted.

Look at 1Corinthians 15.6

spamandham

We see these types of easily disproven fantastic claims even by modern cults. Should we conclude that everyone who writes such things is thus a fictional character?

show_no_mercy

Who was the first person to either quote Paul or present his letters as some sort of authority? Was it Marcion?

spamandham

Yes, Marcion is the first to know anything about Paul. It is through Marcion that we have the letters of Paul.