You seem to think that your logical fallacies should not be exposed because of the massive quantity and regularity.
I am obligated to expose your logical fallacies.
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
You seem to think that your logical fallacies should not be exposed because of the massive quantity and regularity.
I am obligated to expose your logical fallacies.
Tosh. Myths and fables are not the same thing as "admitted fiction". But you can't be induced to understand that, so you keep going on with this nonsense eternally.
Belz...
Fiend God
The second highlight... well... highlights the whole problem!!
The third highlight is a little fix I did.
Now regarding the first highlight.... the question should then be followed by
WHICH Jesus?
Really... the historicists have so many different models for this STRIPPED DOWN BASIC VERSION of a Jesus that the question becomes
Did a Jesus exist? And if so WHICH model of this Jesus is the one that in fact existed?
It seems every person speculating about this faceless nothing of a template of a man looks upon it and sees a reflection of his wishful thinking for what he hopes the man were.
Here are a few images for what this faceless Jesus might have been like.
[imgw=150]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi_%281966-2006%29.jpg[/imgw] [imgw=300]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/GayFest_Bucharest_2005_2.jpg[/imgw]
[imgw=200]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Jim_Jones_brochure_of_Peoples_Temple.jpg[/imgw] [imgw=170]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/David_Koresh.jpg[/imgw]
[imgw=200]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Shirdi_sai2.jpg[/imgw] [imgw=185]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Al-Furq%C4%81n_Media_Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi.png[/imgw]
[imgw=200]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/HomelessParis_7032101.jpg[/imgw] [imgw=197]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_512825407ec546c5ab.jpg[/imgw]
Last edited:
Christians of antiquity are the ones who fabricated and forged and cajoled and huckstered and promoted and peddled and enforced Jesus.
Christians of antiquity are the ones who ENFORCED this myth upon humanity and continued to shove it down people's throats by hook or by crook for centuries?
If it were not for the indefatigable huckstering and incessant fabrications and continued forgery and adamant peddling and RUTHLESS ENFORCEMENT of this myth for centuries upon the ancestors of these modern "scholars", they would have argued about Jesus as much as they are arguing about Ali Baba and his 40 disciples. They would have been just as concerned about Jesus the man as they are concerned about Quetzalcoatl the man.
Could this modern "scholarly hook" approach be because the "scholarly crook" one of only a few decades ago cannot be applied any longer?
So you are saying that Irenaeus or Tertullian or Origen had no opinions at all, but were simply mindless crooks and thugs? I think that's an exaggerated view, and that it leads to an overly simplistic understanding of the history of Christian thought.
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
It appears that Leumas may be a fan of "the chart".
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/10/gods-philosophers-how-medieval-world.html
scroll down.
And is certainly guilty of another copy pasta in the preceding post. I've seen those pictures before.
ETA. Spoke too soon. And the post after this one. I've seen those quotes before.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/10/gods-philosophers-how-medieval-world.html
scroll down.
And is certainly guilty of another copy pasta in the preceding post. I've seen those pictures before.
ETA. Spoke too soon. And the post after this one. I've seen those quotes before.
Last edited:
It is an old and long cherished Christian Tradition to lie for Jesus' sake
Paul dissimulated and huckstered for Jesus's sake
Eusebius, Emperor Constantine's bishop, legalized deception for Jesus' sake
And Martin Luther the founder of Protestantism sanctified lying for Jesus' sake
- 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
Eusebius, Emperor Constantine's bishop, legalized deception for Jesus' sake
- How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.
And Martin Luther the founder of Protestantism sanctified lying for Jesus' sake
- What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.
Therefore there were no Christian opinions in antiquity? They were all mere crooks, thugs, and as you have now added, liars. Luther had no opinion? He was a mere crook, thug and liar?
Likewise for the earlier people I have referred to.
[imgw=350]http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/d/d3/Strawman.jpg/revision/20121026220316[/imgw]
You're not too keen on tackling the detail of points made to you; are you, Leumas?
When they are nothing but arrant illogical fallacies the are only worthy of being called as such and nothing more.
You mean you can't answer them, so abuse is your only recourse. That is a pity.
The HJ argument is the very worst known to mankind. It is a farce developed from Ghost stories called the New Testament.
Jesus of Nazareth was a very well documented Ghost story!!
Christians of antiquity PUBLICLY ADMITTED and DOCUMENTED that their Jesus was the Logos, God Creator a Ghost from heaven who was a water walking Transfigurer.
1. Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
2. 1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
3. Mark 6---about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea
4. Mark 9----he was transfigured before them.
5. Galatians 1:1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ
6. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
7. Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Jesus of Nazareth is an extremely well established and documented Ghost story.
Manuscripts have been found to CONFIRM that Jesus was a Ghost/God/man character.
Papyri 46 and Papyri 75 have been discovered with the same Ghost/God/man character called Jesus.
Jesus of Nazareth NEVER EVER was a figure of history.
Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a Ghost story.
People in the Roman Empire did believe Ghosts were REAL figures of history.
Romulus, the very founder of Rome was BORN of Ghost and a Virgin.
Jesus, the very founder of the Roman Christian religion was BORN of a Ghost and a Virgin.
Jesus of Nazareth was a very well documented Ghost story!!
Christians of antiquity PUBLICLY ADMITTED and DOCUMENTED that their Jesus was the Logos, God Creator a Ghost from heaven who was a water walking Transfigurer.
1. Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
2. 1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
3. Mark 6---about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea
4. Mark 9----he was transfigured before them.
5. Galatians 1:1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ
6. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
7. Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Jesus of Nazareth is an extremely well established and documented Ghost story.
Manuscripts have been found to CONFIRM that Jesus was a Ghost/God/man character.
Papyri 46 and Papyri 75 have been discovered with the same Ghost/God/man character called Jesus.
Jesus of Nazareth NEVER EVER was a figure of history.
Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a Ghost story.
People in the Roman Empire did believe Ghosts were REAL figures of history.
Romulus, the very founder of Rome was BORN of Ghost and a Virgin.
Jesus, the very founder of the Roman Christian religion was BORN of a Ghost and a Virgin.
Last edited:
<snip very many familiar things>
dejudge, I'm pretty sure I've seen many of these statements before. Do you intend to develop them in any way?
There is nothing to answer except deliberately and disingenuously fabricated straw men.... so the only response is to point out the illogical fallacies.
I would explain further if I knew that you in fact did not understand... but I know very well how clever your are and thus the only explanation is that you deliberately are resorting to fallacious illogic for the purposes of obfuscation.
That's a false dichotomy (a fallacy).
There were layers upon layers of 'thought' put into the development of early Christianity.
We don't know if we have the original versions of documents attributed to these people.
The discovery of Papyri 46 and Papyri 75 are devastating evidence against an historical Jesus.
Papyri 46 and 75 show that Jesus Christians of antiquity were not teaching that Jesus was a mere man with a human father.
Jesus cult Christians of antiquity TAUGHT and DOCUMENTED that Jesus was of God the Father, the Lord from heaven and born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.
Papyri 46 and 75 do not support the HJ argument.
Anyone who is familiar with even basic history knows that the people of the Roman Empire in antiquity worshiped Myth Gods like Apollo, Jupiter, Mars, Serapis, Asclapius, Diana, Minerva and multiple other myths.
The HJ argument put forward the bizarre notion that people of antiquity had historical data that Jesus Christus was a KNOWN dead criminal but his disciples manage to FOOL the Romans into worshiping the KNOWN dead criminal as a God from heaven even though Tacitus claimed Christus suffered the ultimate penalty.
In the NT, the disciples had already ABANDONED Jesus and went into hiding even before Jesus Christus was crucified.
Who in the Roman Empire would have worshiped a KNOWN DEAD CRIMINAL as a God Creator when Tacitus had records that Jesus suffered the ULTIMATE Penalty?
It is clear that a KNOWN DEAD Criminal is not a viable alternative religion.
It is quite obvious the Jesus story becomes completely IDIOTIC and without any theological value.
A KNOWN DEAD JEWISH CRIMINAL would be the very worst candidate to be worshiped as a God and Savior in the Roman Empire.
If the Romans HATED Christians and KILLED Christus to HALT the spread of the cult as stated in Tacitus' Annals why did the Romans worship the KNOWN DEAD JEWISH CRIMINAL as God Creator in the 4th century?
The answer is quite easy.
Jesus of Nazareth was NEVER EVER known to be a mere dead man.
Jesus of Nazareth NEVER EVER had any historical data.
Jesus of Nazareth was a ALWAYS a figure of FAITH.
We have manuscripts to show that Christians of antiquity ADMITTED THEIR Jesus was born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven and God Creator.
Papyri 46 and 75 show that Jesus Christians of antiquity were not teaching that Jesus was a mere man with a human father.
Jesus cult Christians of antiquity TAUGHT and DOCUMENTED that Jesus was of God the Father, the Lord from heaven and born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.
Papyri 46 and 75 do not support the HJ argument.
Anyone who is familiar with even basic history knows that the people of the Roman Empire in antiquity worshiped Myth Gods like Apollo, Jupiter, Mars, Serapis, Asclapius, Diana, Minerva and multiple other myths.
The HJ argument put forward the bizarre notion that people of antiquity had historical data that Jesus Christus was a KNOWN dead criminal but his disciples manage to FOOL the Romans into worshiping the KNOWN dead criminal as a God from heaven even though Tacitus claimed Christus suffered the ultimate penalty.
In the NT, the disciples had already ABANDONED Jesus and went into hiding even before Jesus Christus was crucified.
Who in the Roman Empire would have worshiped a KNOWN DEAD CRIMINAL as a God Creator when Tacitus had records that Jesus suffered the ULTIMATE Penalty?
It is clear that a KNOWN DEAD Criminal is not a viable alternative religion.
It is quite obvious the Jesus story becomes completely IDIOTIC and without any theological value.
A KNOWN DEAD JEWISH CRIMINAL would be the very worst candidate to be worshiped as a God and Savior in the Roman Empire.
If the Romans HATED Christians and KILLED Christus to HALT the spread of the cult as stated in Tacitus' Annals why did the Romans worship the KNOWN DEAD JEWISH CRIMINAL as God Creator in the 4th century?
The answer is quite easy.
Jesus of Nazareth was NEVER EVER known to be a mere dead man.
Jesus of Nazareth NEVER EVER had any historical data.
Jesus of Nazareth was a ALWAYS a figure of FAITH.
We have manuscripts to show that Christians of antiquity ADMITTED THEIR Jesus was born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven and God Creator.
Last edited:
I agree with most of this. Except "admitted". If you had written "mistakenly asserted" that would be better.
What you are saying is THAT Tacitus, Suetonius and other rational thinkers dismissed Jesus (once Christianity BECAME known to them) as a mere dead man who had BEEN executed as a criminal; and they did not worship him. Then in the Third CENTURY Crisis intellectual life in the Empire became degraded, and people looked for supernatural solutions to insoluble socio-ECONOMIC problems, and in that environment Christianity made headway and later BECAME the State religion.
But consider this: in the scholarly world, Jesus was first known to be a mere dead man, and only later stated to be a god. In recent centuries, scholarship has recovered from Christian control and Jesus has stopped being a God and turned back into a mere dead man.
By the second century, as Pliny tell us, the Christians had already started worshipping Christ as a God, but at that time they were only a small minority, like the people nowadays who "admit" that the Earth is being visited by flying saucers and who have a "consensus" that people are kidnapped by aliens. As Pliny called it: depraved, excessive superstition.
Outside that world, Christ was from the start a natural figure - a sectarian who had been put to death. It is simply untrue that he was "NEVER EVER known to be a mere dead man".
And now, to bring some happiness to your life, I will write the magic words "Chinese whispers", and "propaganda". Because you missed these expressions out in your last post. Although you did manage to put in NEVER EVER.
We can be pretty certain that we have none. For which ancient author would you argue that we have the original version of his or her writings? Most of Caesar is mediaeval, and most of Josephus too.
- Status