Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 03-29-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

The presumption is that a work is fiction until proved otherwise.

Why? If you saw somebody walking out of a library with a book just borrowed, would you automatically presume it was fiction until proved otherwise? Why? That sounds like a pretty stupid presumption to me. I think the sensible thing to do in such cases is to make no presumption.

J-D · 03-29-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

How do you differentiate true from false? And is this an issue for believers?

There is no general algorithm for differentiating true from false. How do you differentiate true from false?

I would assume that believers feel as much need to differentiate true from false to nonbelievers. Obviously they make mistakes some times, but so do nonbelievers. What's your point?

J-D · 03-29-2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

A person who tells a lie is a liar. A person who murders is a murderer. A book which tells falsehoods or deceives by claiming the truthfulness of an event that is patently a myth or nonsensical is decredited.

There is, indeed, a difference between the erroneous or unfactual and a lie. A lie is a falsehood that is presented as if it were true when it is obviously false or impossible. It does not matter how many people testify to a falsehood or strongly believe it to be true. By objective standards statements are either valid or invalid, fact or fiction. It remains for those who assert claims to prove them, and until they do the claims are mere words. Biblical claims are beyond proof, they are just tall tales fit for the consumption of the terminally naive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Those who make truth claims are obligated to prove them if their statements are to be considered. If they fail to do so, their statements are to be ignored and given no cognitive weight. In the case of the bible, not only are the fictions within it unproven, they are unprovable. A bit of honesty goes a long way, and lies do damage credibility. The bible is a whole fabric of lies from Adam and Eve to resurrections and other assorted miracles.

This thread began, as I pointed out, with aa5874 asserting the truth of a number of statements. aa5874 has never backed up those assertions. Now you are asserting the truth of a number of statements:

that 'Biblical claims are beyond proof';

that they 'are just tall tales';

that 'not only are the fictions within it [the Bible] unproven, they are unprovable';

that it 'is a whole fabric of lies'.

Until you produce something to support these claims, I will, as you suggest, give them no cognitive weight.

J-D · 03-29-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I can find no hard evidence against the 'yes' answer
despite searching exhaustively for quite some time.

There are two options:

1) There was an existent little known religious order called
"christianity" which Constantine embraced through love of
religion, philosophy and the "Roman Way".

2) There was no existent "christianity" - it was invented by
a malevolent dictator as another avenue of power, aside
from the avenue of military power and civil power.

Is there a good reason why you didn't give a straight answer to a simple question?

spin · 03-29-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you alone determine irrelevancy and the boundaries of my data? I do not agree with everyone's position but I certainly do not define them as irrelevant.

Your logic has been:

Some data about Jesus do not reflect the real world, therefore
No data about Jesus reflect the real world

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

My position is that the Jesus the Christ is fictitious,

Yes, you've said this many times. The problem is where you go from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

he was brought from heaven to earth by divine intervention. Some brought Jesus the Christ to earth by the fictitious virgin birth, others through baptism, some by the 'phantom' and others as the unbegotten son of Gods alien or superior to the God of the Jews.

In Against Heresies, all versions of Jesus the Christ existed in heaven or some unknouwn place of abode, before he came to earth, i.e he existed as a myth before he became a person.

Even the NT clearly shows that Jesus the Christ was already in existence before he came down from heaven, John 3:13, "And no man hath ascended upto heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven".

The Jesus of the NT was not a historical figure who was deified, but a deity that was sent from heaven to appear historical.

If I say that you came down from heaven, does that statement make you not a historical figure? If it does not, then why does what others said about Jesus make him not a historical figure?

spin

J-D · 03-29-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you alone determine irrelevancy and the boundaries of my data? I do not agree with everyone's position but I certainly do not define them as irrelevant.

My position is that the Jesus the Christ is fictitious, he was brought from heaven to earth by divine intervention. Some brought Jesus the Christ to earth by the fictitious virgin birth, others through baptism, some by the 'phantom' and others as the unbegotten son of Gods alien or superior to the God of the Jews.

In Against Heresies, all versions of Jesus the Christ existed in heaven or some unknouwn place of abode, before he came to earth, i.e he existed as a myth before he became a person.

Even the NT clearly shows that Jesus the Christ was already in existence before he came down from heaven, John 3:13, "And no man hath ascended upto heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven".

The Jesus of the NT was not a historical figure who was deified, but a deity that was sent from heaven to appear historical.

We know what your position is. What purpose do you suppose is served by reiteration of it?

mens_sana · 03-29-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

1. The prophecies about Jesus the Christ are fictitious, for example, Isaiah 7:14 is taken out of context, since the entire book of Isaiah including chapter 7 does not deal with a character refered to Jesus the Christ.

The prophecies to which you refer are Christian interpretations of Hebrew scripture. Hebrew scripture most certainly did not have Jesus of Nazareth (or Jesus Christ) in mind. Why are you setting up a fundie strawman?? (On a side note, while II Isaiah did not have a messiah in mind, when the Greek translation was made, the translators apparently thought parthenos was an appropriate rendering. This should tell us that Greek ideas and messianic hopes had become far more prevalent than is often supposed.)

Quote:

2. The virgin birth of Jesus the Christ is fictitious, real persons are not the sons of ghost.

No one argues that the "Christ myth" wasn't real. The V.B. is part of the Christ myth. Why do you belabor what is obviously mythical and think that is relevant to a historical Jesus of Nazareth?

Quote:

3. There is no angel named Gabriel and this so-called angel have never spoken.

Again, so what? What does this have to do with an HJ?

Quote:

4. The genealogies of Jesus the Christ are contradictory and one is fictitious.

Nothing like beating a dead horse. But, please reread your #4. You just asserted that one of the genealogies was NOT fictitious, did you not? :devil1:

Quote:

5.The miraculous acts of Jesus the Christ are all false, including putting devils in 2000 pigs.

Again, what does this have to do with an HJ? Do you argue that Honi the Circle Drawer was fictitious because he miraculously brought rain? and stopped it? Sometimes "miracles" are just literary techniques invoked to establish a link to the divine. Sometimes they are enthusiastic exaggerations of real, but minor events. That neither of us believes in this "miracle" does NOT say that an HJ was also a fiction.

Quote:

6. The burial of the body of Jesus the Christ is a complete mystery, he was buried in a sealed tomb under guard and his disciples have never seen his dead body again.

James Tabor has an idea or two in this area. http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbKCtombtabor.html

Quote:

7. The so-called Saul/Paul could not recall if Jesus the Christ was real.

I need a reference for this, but I seem to remember that Paul thought his vision was real enough. At the same time, that vision was very necessary in the establishment of his authority as the apostle to the gentiles, supplanting Peter's position. Hmmm.

Quote:

8. The Paul of Galations is not the Paul in Acts.

And this is relevant to an HJ?

mens_sana · 03-29-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I took into account passages from the NT, Matthew to Revelation, I examined certain passages of the OT, I also read some of the writings of Josephus, Irenaeus, Philo, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Porphyry, Origen and other writers of antiquity. I have also read thousands of posts by MJers and HJers on IIDB and have come to my conclusion that Jesus the Christ, as described in the Christian Bible, is fiction, non-historical. ...
Now, if I consider Jesus the Christ to be fiction, how can he be born in Bethlehem or be in Galilee when he came to earth miraculously?spin

When one draws (and sticks with) a distinction between a historical Jesus of Nazareth and a mythical, post-resurrection Christ the Lord, these problems simplify themselves in an almost "miraculous" manner. Unfortunately, it also does away with the tremendous fun involved in fulmination.

mens_sana · 03-29-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

It [the Bible] is, however, passed off as holy writ, beyond question, of divine inspiration, more true than any history book, and these claims do not hold up to even a cursory scrutiny. In addition, the bible, and conformity to official Roman interpretations of it, carried with it severe sanctions for dissent. The bible is not a neutral, innocuous history book, it is a means of indoctrination and enforced obedience to a set of irrational ideas and values. The predominance of the bible retarded Western Civilization of about 1500+ years and continues to do so. The war between fact and faith is one that cannot be avoided or ignored.

And the use to which it has been put means that it has no historical information in it at all?

mountainman · 03-29-2007, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

And the use to which it has been put means that it has no historical information in it at all?

The history of the invention of christian religious propaganda
may yet have a chronological foundation restricted to the
fourth century and the rise of bullneck, the malevolent despot
whom "christian ecclesiastical historians" THRICE BLESS.

There is no scientific and/or archeological evidence external
to the "literature tradition" by which we may independently
infer that "the new and strange religion" existed
in the prenicene epoch, immediately prior to the turbulent
and non-linear boundary event, known to "Ecclesiastical
History" as the "Council of Nicaea", but to ancient historians
as Constantine's "Supremacy Party".

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.