Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-16-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

If I claim that I am the son of a ghost, do I or do I not exist according to your logic?

I need to see some documentation, seeing that you claim you are the son of ghost. Drivers license, passport, birth certificate, social security number, or an affidavit from an attorney will do.

aa5874 · 04-16-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

We've already seen that fictitious birth stories do not allow one to assume the individual is fictitious.

So, when was Jesus born? Who are his parents? What did he do while he was alive?

Febble · 04-16-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

My friend, there is no evidence for non-existence. If I name all the Gods of this world, there will be no evidence of their existence.

Indeed.

Gamera · 04-16-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You must established that Jesus was born to consider what he could have possibly done. Jesus has not been established to have been born.

Your standard of proof eludes me. We have texts that say he was born and we have a religious tradition that say he was born.

I fail to see how this is epistemologically distinct from the claim that Emperor Augustus was born, that Pericles was born, or that Socrates was born (or Descarte for that matter).

Indeed the textual evidence for Jesus far outweighs the textual evidence for Socrates.

Are you claiming that most of the personages in antiquity are mythical? What do you consider sufficient evidence of the existence of an historical person?

aa5874 · 04-16-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

You appear to believe in the historicity of Irenaeus but not JC.
Forget JC for a second ... why do you suddenly appear to believe
in the historicity and the testiment of "Dear Bishop Irenaeus"?

It is not that I believe in the historicity of Irenaeus, all I am trying to show is that Irenaeus, or someone bearing that name, wrote about other fictitious characters commonly called Jesus Christ in the 2nd century.
Irenaeus, himself, even claimed that the Jesus he heard about was over 40 years old when he died.

All this goes to show that the name Jesus Christ is nothing specific, it is arbitrary, it is futility.

aa5874 · 04-16-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Your standard of proof eludes me. We have texts that say he was born and we have a religious tradition that say he was born.

We have fictitious accounts of his birth, see Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:34-35. There is no credible extra-biblical reference to Jesus in the 1st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamera

I fail to see how this is epistemologically distinct from the claim that Emperor Augustus was born, that Pericles was born, or that Socrates was born (or Descarte for that matter).

No historian of the 1st century has written anything about Jesus, his followers or his teachings. There are no anecdotes, myths, omens, rumors, or historical reference to Jesus in the 1st century, unlike other figures of antiquity, even Apollo, the mythical Greek god is recognised by historians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Indeed the textual evidence for Jesus far outweighs the textual evidence for Socrates.

What credible textual evidence do you have for Jesus? I need to know this, urgently. Can you quote me a pssage from your textual evidence for Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Are you claiming that most of the personages in antiquity are mythical? What do you consider sufficient evidence of the existence of an historical person?

I am claiming that the primary source of information about Jesus is fundamentally fiction. For example, Jesus was buried in a sealed tomb under guard, according to the NT, yet at the same time, he was seen by people eating fish and bread, and walking through the wall or roof of a closed building and giving instructions on fishing.

This is preposterous, unless some historian can corroborate that these anecdotes were said about Jesus, then I can only regard the NT as fairy tales.

J-D · 04-16-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is no such thing as 'supernatural fiction'.

Sure there is.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...ction%22&meta=

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

My view is this:

Yes, we know what your view is. You've told us again and again. There's no need to keep on repeating it.

J-D · 04-16-2007, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

At the peril of their life! It is also helpful to distiguish
between the separate natures of the two emperors,
and what were their policies in regard to the preservation,
creation and destruction of academic literature.

According to all accounts Arius was a man who was considered
"wise and clever in disputation". He wanted to live.

I notice that you haven't answered the question I asked you: why do you believe the accounts about Arius? Why do you even believe that Arius existed?

But setting that aside, if your explanation for the cryptic way in which Arius expressed himself is that he was afraid Constantine would have him killed, how do you explain the fact that he defied Constantine at all, if Constantine was so scary?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Immediately prior to Nicaea, where the words of Arius were
preserved (in the Nicaean Oath), Constantine had sacked the Oracle
of the god Apollo in Dydima, Minor Asia, and had murdered/tortured
the non-christian priests of Dydima; he had earlier evicted all
non-christians from Mt.Athos, and had destroyed all non-christian
temples nearby Mt.Athos.

Wait a minute! You say that Constantine evicted all non-Christians from Mt Athos before the Council of Nicaea. But according to you, there was no Christianity before the Council of Nicaea. Isn't that a contradiction?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

IMO it is not impossible that christianity first emerged into the
Roman empire and its border "barbarians" from out of the Council
of Nicaea.

An opinion which you are evidently incapable of backing up, and which hence has no claim to be taken seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What we think Julian says is not Julian writing.
Julian wrote 3 books c.362 "Against the christians".
These books were destroyed by the "christian regime".
But not before Bishop Cyril wrote a refutation of Julian.

What today survives of Julian, is a reconstruction of
Cyril's refutation of Julian which is heavily censored by
the Alexandrian christian bishop, who admits a number
of omissions and avoidances, but not what these are.

IMO it is not impossible that, should Julian's original three
books be somehow found, they will indict Constantine and
the "wretched Eusebius" as "the wicked men who composed
the fiction -- the fabrication of the Galilaeans".

In other works, such as his The Caesares, Julian makes it clear
the relationship between Constantine and Jesus.

How so? What precisely does he say?

jgibson000 · 04-16-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Sure there is.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...ction%22&meta= Yes, we know what your view is. You've told us again and again. There's no need to keep on repeating it.

Ok, everyone. It is more than abundantly evident that there is no point in "arguing" with or responding to anything posted by A what's his name.

I propose that he be sent to Coventry -- i.e., ignored absolutely -- and that no one ever again respond to anything he says here or enter into any correspondence with him.

Jeffrey Gibson

J-D · 04-16-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I can only regard the NT as fairy tales.

Just because your capabilities are limited is no reason why anybody else should voluntarily accept the burden of the same limitations.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.