Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-03-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The historicity of Jesus the Christ is baseless.

What do you mean by "historicity"?

mountainman · 04-03-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Is it reasonable for you to demand from others what you don't produce yourself?

On the contrary what I am asking spin for is his
"best-guess-chronology" with respect to the
appearance of "christianity" in antiquity. He
may subscribe to the mainstream opinion that
"christianity" appeared sometime in the first
century. Perhaps the second? Perhaps the third?

I myself have produced my "best-guess-chronology"
with respect to the appearance of "christianity" in
antiquity, namely that it first appeared in the fourth
century. What could be clearer than that?

If spin is attacking a 4th century invention, then I'd
like to know how he presents a chronology for
the appearance of "christianity" in the prenice epoch.

aa5874 · 04-03-2007, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Some people apparently believe that all human beings exist as supernatural 'souls' in some other realm before they live on earth as earthly beings. I consider accounts like that to be fictional or mythological. But I don't therefore consider human beings to be fictional or mythological. You and I really exist, and that fact isn't affected by somebody constructing stories about our supernatural pre-existence.

Are you claiming that you know Jesus existed, and that the stories, in the NT, about his pre-existence are false? Are you claiming that you know how Jesus was actually born, and the statements in the NT are false concerning his virgin birth?

You and I really exist, did Jesus really exist, was the virgin birth real?
If you have established that I am real a human being, then you can figure out if statements made about me are true or false, however if you can not established if I am real, then you will have great difficulty figuring out what is true or false.

On the other hand, if you can establish that I am not real, then everything said about me will be false.

I have established that the virgin birth is false, and that no person named Jesus Christ was conceived, as written in the NT, that event is folklore and mythological. Jesus the Christ was never born, everything written about him is false.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Read Against Heresies by Irenaeus and you would see the many versions of Jesus the Christ, there is even a Christ that was conceived by father, son and a woman called the Holy Spirit.

Not the same thing. We know there are many different stories, but we don't know how they came to be written, whereas we do know how the Superman stories came to be written.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I try not to speculate about mythical entities, I generally only point out inconsistencies and fictitious elements in the Bible.

If that really were all you did, then we wouldn't be having these arguments. But it's not all you do. You go on from pointing those things out to draw logically invalid inferences, and that's what we're arguing about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The stories of Jesus have changed, have you seen his genealogy lately? He has a new grandfather according to Luke.

Yes, I am well aware of this point. Nobody can have two different biological paternal grandfathers. However, there is no logically valid argument from this premise to the conclusion that all the statements about Jesus in the Christian Scriptures are false.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is far easier to tell which parts are fictitious, just look for a miracle, my favorite fictitious event. The one with the 2000 pigs is by far the most humorous, pigs and ghosts died by drowning, but what is even more hilarious, is the thought that 2 persons had enough ghosts to fill 2000 pigs. That's an average of 1000 ghosts per person.

What I asked you was:

'Do you think it is possible to tell which parts are forgeries, interpolations, and redactions? Do you have any views about what might be left after eliminating all the forgeries, interpolations, and redactions?'

Now, your reply is not an answer, or part of an answer to my questions. Why can't you answer my questions? How hard would it be to say 'No, I don't think it's possible, and no, I don't have any views'? Is admitting any degree of ignorance on any point too damaging to your self-esteem?

aa5874 · 04-03-2007, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What I asked you was:

'Do you think it is possible to tell which parts are forgeries, interpolations, and redactions? Do you have any views about what might be left after eliminating all the forgeries, interpolations, and redactions?'

It is difficult to tell which parts are forgeries, interpolations and redactions. I cannot speculate on what will be left.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I like to keep it simple. Have a look at my simple list of fictitious mythological events claimed to have been witnessed by real people in the NT. Did I miss anything?

1.The virgin birth
2.The baptism
3.The temptation
4.The miraculous acts
5.The transfiguration
6.The resurrection
7.The ascension

Are you claiming that you can find close parallels for all of these in Greek mythology?

J-D · 04-03-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

My position is the following ---- it is not impossible
that Constantine invented "christianity" with effect
from 312 CE, and that, by implication, any earlier
references to "christianity" are pseudo-references.

Is it your position that this is one among a number of possibilities, or is it your position that it is the only possibility?

J-D · 04-03-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

On the contrary hundreds of years of BC&H scholarship
have completely failed to give any reason to suppose the
"historical jesus" to be true. Why is that? Because there
is zero evidence.

There is in fact zero scientific and/or archeological evidence
for the existence of anything "christian" before Constantine.
If you have a citation, lay it on the table. Truth suffers the
pragmatic results of refutation.

An absence of evidence for Hypothesis A does not constitute evidence for Hypothesis B. Hence, I stand by what I said: you have shown no reason why anybody should believe your hypothesis is correct.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

All I am doing is offering an alternative theory
of the history of antiquity in which the tribe of
christians existed only in a literary pseudo-history
prior to their "adoption" by father Constantine
in the fourth century.

My position is that the emperor Constantine was
a malevolent despot, supreme imperial mafia thug,
eminent christian theologian, and number one of
christian proselytiser, described as "a brigand"
(I read this as a pirate on land) and as "a ward
irresponsible for his own actions", a murderer of
innocents, family members and philosopher/priests,
possessed with boundless ambition, and absolute
power, and dearly remembered by all BC&H pundits
as the first publisher in the history of the world
of the whole and complete (OT+NT bound) bible,
nicknamed "bullneck".

IMO it is always fair to challenge any position.
I put forward the hypothesis of Eusebian Fiction
as an alternative hypothesis, to the "unexamined
hypothesis" of an HJ, or to any form of MJ theory.

I am happy for it to be considered falsifiable, but
at the same time not yet falsified.

That's what you're doing in this post, but in other posts you assert your alternative hypothesis as if you consider it established. It makes you look as if you're playing 'bait-and-switch'.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.