Amaleq13

How do you eliminate the possibility that the miraculous nature of the story is a mythical overlay of a oral story describing a psychosomatic condition "cured" by the placebo effect?

What about the facts we know about the psychological phenomena described above?

There are many books describing Pat Robertson and Benny Hahn performing allegedly miraculous healings. By your "reasoning", we can safely conclude that neither man is historical.

aa5874

Amaleq, Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn claim that the alleged miracles are done by the same fictitous Jesus, the son of a ghost.. Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn are not sons of ghosts. You cannot compare the son of a ghost to real people. I have already told you that real persons can have myths told of them, however only fiction can be said of the son of a ghost. Again, no real person is the son of a ghost, it is not possible. There is no person alive today who is the son of ghost, there are no known cases of persons conceived through a ghost and a Human being.

The Christian doctrine is based on Jesus, the Son of a Ghost, not a Jesus with a human father.

Now, if I tell you I know a Pat Robertson, who is the son of a Ghost, and his mother's name is Mary. He was tempted for 40 days and forty nights and preached the Sermon on the Mount. He cast out unclean ghosts from the blind, dumb, deaf and raised the dead. He walked on water and was betrayed by Judas. He was crucified, died and is now among us.
Which Pat Robertson is historic, the one I describe or the one you mentioned?


The son of a Ghost, Jesus, is fiction. All other infinite possibilties are purely speculative.

spin

It would be good if you presented something I didn't know, but you shouldn't have bothered with your happy summary. For some reason you keep overlooking the fact that this is an infidels site. You don't have to try to preach here.

Yep. Funny things get about. Josephus has some funny crap about Vespasian as well, but I wouldn't go consigning Vespasion to the realm of myth just yet.

So?

The facts that you have outlined tell you that a lot of rot was written about Jesus, but then a lot of rot gets written anyway. There was a lot of rot written about Alexander. There was a lot of rot written about King Arthur. Etc. Do you consign these people to being "pure fabricated fiction" as well? Do you think that as each pharaoh of Egypt was the son of Osiris, that none of them existed? Jesus may or may not have existed, but your musings about him being the son of a ghost certainly doesn't help us one way or another.

You have not started to deal with the historicity of Jesus. The tales that were told of him, don't necessarily reflect anything about him historically, yet you haven't got past that. You are not doing what you claim to want to do. You are waffling on about side-issues and are unable to accept that real people can have legends that are built up around them.

So far you cannot make the difference between a real historical figure who has developed a legendary fame and a non-historical figure. In fact you apparently can't see the difference. Did George Washington chop down that cherry tree? I think you will accept that George Washington existed without necessarily accepting that he chopped down that tree. I think you can accept that Nebuchadnezzar existed without him having his legendary trip into the wilds eating grass.

Until you can make the obvious distinction that real people can be the target of unhistorical stories, there is nothing that people can say to you anymore. Too many people have held your hand on this issue and you keep coming back with the same "I don't understand what you are all saying" routine and you repeat your previous stuff unanalysed.


spin

aa5874

.

Dont' be absurd! What 'placebo effect' can cause a dead man to come back to life, the blind to see, the dumb to talk and the deaf to hear. You are becoming more and more irrational.

If Jesus was a real person, with a real human father, then Saul or Paul is now either a fictitious person or a confounded liar. It is not humanly possible for Jesus, the human being, to blind Paul, to talk to him from heaven and instruct Paul to go to the city to meet Ananias. Read Acts 9. By your 'rational', Paul may have been blinded by a 'placebo effect'. This 'placebo effect' talks to Paul and three days later, the very same 'placebo effect' removes the scales from Paul's eyes. And, putting your 'rational' to it's full extent, Christianity, the doctrine of Paul is based on the 'Placebo effect'.

The Christian Bible can only be 'harmonized' when it is regarded for what it is, fiction. Amaleq 13, you are extremely intelligent, don't waste your time on Jesus, the son of a ghost, it will get nowhere. The Christian Bible, as I have shown, is a Ghost Story Book.

dongiovanni1976x

It is a non sequitur to assert such conditions as "if Jesus was a real person with a real human father then Paul has to be mythical or a liar himself," if you are basing this upon Acts 9. Paul is not the author of Acts.

aa5874

I am for MJ, you forgot. Total MJ. I have made my position clear, MJ, MJ......... MJ. You are the historian, present your HJ. I have on numerous occasions said that real people can have myths said about them, however Jesus, the son of a Ghost, is all FICTION.

To make you feel better, Jesus is reffered to as the Son of the Holy Ghost in the Christian Bible, I believe that may help you to expound on his historicity.

I await your factual pesentation on the historicity of Jesus, the son of a ghost.

Julian

How does the impossibility of one part of a story invalidate all the other parts? If someone else claimed that I was born of a ghost does that make me suddenly non-existant? Your conclusion may be correct but your method for arriving there seems quite shallow and illogical.

Julian

Rick Sumner

It is an oddity of human nature that, when one person is observed banging there head against the wall, soon several more will line up beside him to join in the banging.

I wonder what inspires this desire for collective suffering.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

aa5874

I am reporting what is written in the Christian Bible, I am not questioning the authorship of Acts. So, why don't you tell how it is possible for a real human being, with a real human father can blind a person from heaven for 3 days?

How in the world can I talk about Paul, if I dont read Acts. Absurdity rules the day.

spin

No, I didn't. I'm for evidence and neither side has enough.

You have no position, just an unsupported set of beliefs. I don't care which side of this issue you are on. The requisites are the same. Produce evidence. Your non sequiturs are no use to you.

If you weren't on cloud nine, you wouldn't need to say this, but you miss most of what is said to you.

If you can say that "real people can have myths said about them", then your persistant non sequitur about "Jesus, the son of a Ghost" is no help whatsoever to your mythicist case. Saying that it "is all FICTION" is just as empty without anything tangible to back up the statement.

You're making marginally more sense, but there is a long way to go.

I don't support the historicity of Jesus, nor do I claim he didn't exist. There is not enough evidence either way. If you think you for some reason have evidence to tip the scale, you might present it rather than continuing your rather facile pronouncements about Jesus, unsupported by anything useful. I will join you to ask those who believe he was historical to produce evidence.

My conflict with you is over methodology: you need to produce evidence for your claims about biblical criticism and history. You're having great problems in offering any evidence. Many of the christians who come here are in the same boat. They can't back up their claims.


spin