angrysoba
Philosophile
But in fact it is falsifiable claims that tend to be thought of as stronger. In science anyway.
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed
- Thread starter Kapyong
- Start date
-
- Tags
- david fitzgerald
- Status
But in fact it is falsifiable claims that tend to be thought of as stronger. In science anyway.
It was Christians who argue that their Jesus was not a human being. I don't know why people are claiming Jesus was a human being when it was a LIE according to virtually all writers of the cult.
Origen claimed it was EXPECTED that people would invent falsehoods and claim Jesus was a human being because they did not believe he was born of a Holy Ghost.
Origen's "Against Celsus" 1
Origen's EXPECTATIONS have come true. Even so-called Christians are claiming Jesus was a human being contrary to their own Bible.
Why are people inventing their own Jesus from imagination when it is not necessary?
The Christian's Jesus was born of Ghost and was God Creator. Let us not invent falsehoods.
Origen's Against Celsus 1
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
Gday all,
To dejudge -
you used to post as "aa5874",
then you started to use "dejuror",
now it's "dejudge".
Who promoted you to juror, then judge?
What next? "deGod"?
Kapyong
To dejudge -
you used to post as "aa5874",
then you started to use "dejuror",
now it's "dejudge".
Who promoted you to juror, then judge?
What next? "deGod"?
Kapyong
I was brought up a Catholic and was taught that Jesus was both human and devine. I don't recall any denial that he was human.
Don't do it Lionking. It's a load of crap. They'll look at you like you've turned into a Truther.
They'll be right.
Christianity won't go away because of these crappy self-published books. Any more than Von Daniken destroyed Archaeology.
Don't fall for it.
Take a look at my "Paul the Herodian" thread.
That would make your Catholic Priest's head explode...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096
Have fun.
You are entirely correct. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
It is a fundamental Christian doctrine that Jesus was fully human, whatever else he may also have been. dejudge therefore couldn't be more wrong when he states that
Try this thread for a bit of light relief:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268331
Thank you, that was much less like work than the other.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Thanks for the links. I've only read the three posts up to myth #1 thus far, but I'm not impressed by Tim O'Neill's critique. But Tim O'Neill and Fitzgerald make diametrical opposite claims about Fitzgerald's handling of the various standpoints w.r.t. the historicity of Jesus, so the only way to really know is to buy the book and read for yourself.
The Hannibal episode is also amusing - I read that one before. But I'm amazed why these debates seem to have to get a very acrimonious tone.
I may also remind that Tim O'Neill is also a member here.
Last edited:
You had no idea that you were taught Jesus was a myth [God Incarnate]!!
This is most fascinating.
If Catholics were taught Jesus was half fish and half human then would you not remember or deny he was a mermaid??
If Catholics are taught Jesus was divine and human then Catholics are actively engaged in mythology and teaching that Jesus was a myth.
By the way, how do Catholics explain Angels--half bird and half human?
Catholics do not deny angels exist as figures of history!!
And what about the Holy Ghost?
Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one.
You cannot recall any denial that Jesus was the Holy Ghost by the Catholics!!
Last edited:
lionking states he was taught that Jesus was human, as well as divine. So he must have been, because such is the teaching of the RCC, and to deny it is a heresy. He was not taught that Jesus was a myth. That is not what Catholics are taught. Indeed your own statement proves it, for you say he was taught "God incarnate". Webster dictionary defines incarnate as
The rest of your post makes so little sense that it merits no detailed response.
NekoTheCat
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
- Messages
- 93
I don't see how these show that Jesus was a mythical figure. Certainly it may show that for example there's a lot of things that aren't true within the Gospels. There is no reason to think that some guy named Jesus cast out "demons" or came back from the dead, but that doesn't make Jesus himself a myth no more than the false stories around Moses and Egypt make Egypt not a real place, or untrue legends around a battle make the battle a false event. Certain things can be true, such as the existence of Egypt or pharaohs while others are not.
I'm not that informed about this issue really, but I'd may as well put in my input on a few of these for the fun of it. I've never gotten into this debate. "The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous." Whether or not someone considers it ridiculous doesn't make the Jesus myth idea any more or less accurate. So I don't see how this contributes to things that "show Jesus never existed at all." Not being ridiculous doesn't equal true.
"Ancient Historian Josephus wrote about Jesus." While I do believe that this is in fact a myth if I'm not mistaken, I don't see how it necessarily contributes to the Jesus myth idea. As far as I can tell, he was the starter of some small and rather insignificant (at least at the time) cult.
"Eye-witnesses wrote the Gospels." It's pretty much obvious that they didn't write the Gospels, however that doesn't make Jesus a myth. The stories could have easily been passed down orally before being finally written by someone after several decades. And there is always the mysterious Q source that we really don't know much about to keep in mind. The anonymity of the stories doesn't make Jesus suddenly an entirely mythical figure.
"The Gospels give a consistent picture of Jesus." Historians use redaction criticism in regards to this issue. Basically, the Gospels essentially follow one another and copy from one another while changing things to insert their own goals in what they want the messages and such to be. This doesn't mean Jesus didn't at all exist.
I think this rather makes the point well enough. I don't think there is any particularly good reason here to think that the stories weren't based on a real person. It could very well be for example that there was some guy that made a cult with a handful of followers, was crucified for some crime committed, and then the story was just gradually embellished from there. (Note that I just made this up off the top of my head as someone who doesn't know much at all about this.) From what I've heard from historians, or at least remember hearing, we don't seem to really have enough information to know how much of the Jesus's story is true. And maybe it is all myth? Maybe some guy had a strange hallucinogenic vision about this guy named Jesus that did all this stuff, and it just grew from there. But why should we really care? Such is all just baseless speculation. And its not as if we need to discredit the existence of Jesus to put up a decent argument against Christianity.
Just thought I would make a quick reply to this as well. I believe that the general idea around Jesus, at least among modern Christians, is that Jesus was both fully God and fully human. Also, all the writers of the Gospels except one seemed to view Jesus as a purely human being. A prophet and the Messiah, but still just human. It's not really until the latest of the four, John, that Jesus becomes God. Paul may be a different story I think, but I'm not too knowledgeable about his views.
The gospels were written at least a hundred years after Jesus' death. There are pages of what he said and I don't think all that would be passed down accurately/verbatim over the century. Also he only spoke in parables and that, to me, smacks of Greek philosophy. I think he was part of Greek mythology
The earliest gospel (Mark) has been dated by Scholars to just after 70 CE, so thats about 40 years, not 100.
He's too Jewish to be all Greek, sorry.
I think he was Greek jewish and there was a large Greek community in Judea at that time........ I can't quote the verse where a woman approaches him and says "but you are a Greek it is said that the son of God comes from the Gallilea area"
I read that in the New International Version but not the copy I have here.
I think it was in Luke but I could be mistaken.
The Greeks virtually had a God for everything and two of which had sons with earthling virgins. When this new invisible God came on the scene, so to speak, they needed to invent a son by him. Plus the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Doesn't get much more Greek than that.
Last edited:
Gday all,
To dejudge -
you used to post as "aa5874",
then you started to use "dejuror",
now it's "dejudge".
Who promoted you to juror, then judge?
What next? "deGod"?
Kapyong
DeExecutioner, or perhaps Deus Ex..
Last edited:
Er, yes. According to Catholic dogma, they are. The Trinity, ya know.....
Do you know anything about Catholicism, or are you just trolling?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
There is already plenty of solid evidence that proves evangelical churches wrong about many of their central beliefs, and they are thriving.
- Status