It's obviously got religious mythical elements. But I'm afraid it doesn't smell like religious myth in the same way that the story of Moses or the Buddha do. The Messiah Myth was of a descendent of David, born in Bethlehem. If you're creating a mythical God-man, why all the bending over backwards (completely different stories in two different Gospels) in order to make him be born in Bethlehem and then describe him routinely as a Galilean, if you're making him up out of whole cloth? No, Jesus the man was from Galilee (you can go on and on about there being no Nazareth at the time, that still doesn't change the essential point of a person who was from a recognisable region, probably through accent and dialect) so they had to invent reasons for him to be born in Bethlehem. A completely mythological Judaic Messiah would simply have been a Bethlehem native and be done with it. With the Nativity it's the very inconsistencies of the stories involved which support the fact that there was a real man they had to make up stories about.Iasion said:
Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
Yes Silas, I did.. I even posted a response to it back on page 10.
I'll repaste it here to save you scrolling back:
"Thank you for the link Silas. The only problem is that this news report, (and similar ones I am aware of), are where you have different coloured children - but from the same man, as opposed to Visitors statement that it was two eggs fertilised by two different men."
Silas said:
The bible is the sealed book.
It is full of esential mysteries that have been hidden and revealed .....but to the eyes of the carnal mind the bible is still a sealed book and it's secrets remain a mystery.
He is the Word revealed in flesh.
"He comes to be glorified In His people"
He is revealing that word to His people now.....all over the world.
I'm not talking about a God of history ...He's has returned just like He promised.
But not as the major religions have presumed He would.
Last edited:
This smells so much of Leo, those of you that been awhile here know who i'm talking about. Anyhow, if you believe that you see some secrets in the bible that many don't by reading and re-reading it. The conclusion is my friend. YOUR GOING DELUSIONAL!
Godless
It takes more than reading and re-reading.......
That's who revealed it....the author Himself.
He's the Alpha and the Omega, the Author and the Finnisher.
That's who revealed it....the author Himself.
He's the Alpha and the Omega, the Author and the Finnisher.
Last edited:
Visitor, he understood what you said, he believes you to be delusional because of it. You do have to minimally understand, surely, that if you talk about the mysteries that have been revealed to you personally by Jesus Christ,you are going to be considered having experienced a fantasy or delusion? Nobody else can experience what you have experienced, certainly not by means of a text forum on the internet. So don't waste any more of your time, (or ours), trying to convince people of the reality of Jesus in your mind by describing your personal, subjective and completely mystical experience.
We are here discussing matters of fact, only, not matters of faith. We are not discussing the untestable truth/false value of the virgin birth or the Resurrection. We are compiling objective data (on both sides of the argument) from the Bible and from history which can help us decide whether a physical human being walked in Judaea and spoke with his fellow human beings.
We are here discussing matters of fact, only, not matters of faith. We are not discussing the untestable truth/false value of the virgin birth or the Resurrection. We are compiling objective data (on both sides of the argument) from the Bible and from history which can help us decide whether a physical human being walked in Judaea and spoke with his fellow human beings.
Nice explanation.
Greetings,
Yes, the Gospels are usually dated 65-110 or so.
But,
NO CHRISTIAN shows ANY KNOWLEDGE of the Gospels stories until early-mid 2nd century.
Regardless of when the Gospels were written - it is clear that no CHristian knew them until a century or so after the alleged events.
Check this page which clearly shows this fact :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html
This shows very clearly how the early Christians knew nothing about the Gospels and their stories until LONG LONG afterwards.
Please do look at that page, then give your response.
Consider all these early documents :
(50-60)
Paul
(60-70)
Hebrews
(70-90)
Collosians
1 John
James
(90-100)
Ephesians
2 Thess.
1 Peter
1 Clement
Revelation
(100-110)
Didakhe
Jude
(110-120)
Barnabas
(120-130)
2,3 John
Rev. Peter
G.Thomas
(130-140)
2 Peter
Pastorals
G.Peter
Hermas
NONE of these early Christian writings shows any knowledge of the Gospels or their stories.
Not until the 130s and later do the first clues start (Papias, Ignatius).
Finally, not until the 150s do we start to see quotes like modern Gospels (Justin) but STILL UN-NAMED.
Finally, the Gospels were named in the 180s by Ireneaus.
Well, if you actually read his work, you will find he neither claims a conspiracy, not merely an argument from silence.
Earl builds an argument from a BETTER EXPLANATION.
When you have read his site, get back to us.
Then why did all the old myths do the same ol' miracles - healing, water to wine, special birth, etc.?
Jesus was crafted from stories in the OT, along with some new ideas - exactly what you would expect from a myth.
Such as revive people from the dead?
Bring the saints back to life?
You claim anybody can do that?
Such as,
say James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Rhett Butler?
Iasion
Yes, the Gospels are usually dated 65-110 or so.
But,
NO CHRISTIAN shows ANY KNOWLEDGE of the Gospels stories until early-mid 2nd century.
Regardless of when the Gospels were written - it is clear that no CHristian knew them until a century or so after the alleged events.
Check this page which clearly shows this fact :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html
This shows very clearly how the early Christians knew nothing about the Gospels and their stories until LONG LONG afterwards.
Please do look at that page, then give your response.
Consider all these early documents :
(50-60)
Paul
(60-70)
Hebrews
(70-90)
Collosians
1 John
James
(90-100)
Ephesians
2 Thess.
1 Peter
1 Clement
Revelation
(100-110)
Didakhe
Jude
(110-120)
Barnabas
(120-130)
2,3 John
Rev. Peter
G.Thomas
(130-140)
2 Peter
Pastorals
G.Peter
Hermas
NONE of these early Christian writings shows any knowledge of the Gospels or their stories.
Not until the 130s and later do the first clues start (Papias, Ignatius).
Finally, not until the 150s do we start to see quotes like modern Gospels (Justin) but STILL UN-NAMED.
Finally, the Gospels were named in the 180s by Ireneaus.
Well, if you actually read his work, you will find he neither claims a conspiracy, not merely an argument from silence.
Earl builds an argument from a BETTER EXPLANATION.
When you have read his site, get back to us.
Then why did all the old myths do the same ol' miracles - healing, water to wine, special birth, etc.?
Jesus was crafted from stories in the OT, along with some new ideas - exactly what you would expect from a myth.
Such as revive people from the dead?
Bring the saints back to life?
You claim anybody can do that?
Such as,
say James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Rhett Butler?
Iasion
Greetings,
No.
It was NOT MADE UP out of WHOLE CLOTH.
G.Mark was crafted from the Tanakh, based on the themes in Paul (with echoes of pagan myth and literature.)
A.Mark had to follow the landmarks set for him.
Bethlehem was chosen to fulfil the fake "prophecy" of Micah.
Many times the NT authors mangled the OT to provide a fake prophecy, which they then had Jesus "fulfil".
More evidence the NT was crafted from the OT.
Iasion
No.
It was NOT MADE UP out of WHOLE CLOTH.
G.Mark was crafted from the Tanakh, based on the themes in Paul (with echoes of pagan myth and literature.)
A.Mark had to follow the landmarks set for him.
Bethlehem was chosen to fulfil the fake "prophecy" of Micah.
Many times the NT authors mangled the OT to provide a fake prophecy, which they then had Jesus "fulfil".
More evidence the NT was crafted from the OT.
Iasion
Last edited:
Sorry, I thought your thesis was that Jesus was a made-up person. That the Evangelists attributed many of the deeds of Jesus to Old Testament prophecy is not in question, certainly not from me. With your penultimate sentence, you pretty much prove my point. No point in mangling the prophecy if your having it fulfilled by a fictional person. You only need to mangle the prophecy when the real person you are describing didn't quite match the prophecy.Iasion said:
Nothing fake about the prophecy in Micah - pre-Christian Jews had it as an article of faith that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem-Ephrata. No, the fake prophecy is Matt 2:23 "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" My NJB leaves this verse, uniquely amongst Matthew's OT references, completely un-crossreferenced. Here Matthew is making up OT scripture in order to match the reality - that Jesus came from Galilee. Again, you make up fictional life details to match the existing scripture (born in Bethlehem), you do not make up scripture to match a fictional life, only a real one (Galilean).Iasion said:
Last edited:
Sorry, I thought your thesis was that Jesus was a made-up person
-------------
The peoblem is your all operating on a thesis of sorts....
Talking with book knowledge about a god of history in some book.
He is not a God of history - He is alive now....still.
The bible is every word true, because it is the person of God.
-------------
The peoblem is your all operating on a thesis of sorts....
Talking with book knowledge about a god of history in some book.
He is not a God of history - He is alive now....still.
The bible is every word true, because it is the person of God.
Last edited:
Greetings all,
My apologies for being unclear - the phrase "made up out of whole cloth" is ambiguous.
I meant :
* Yes, Jesus is made-up, crafted, fictional, myth
* No, Jesus was not made up from NOTHING, from THIN AIR.
Jesus was made-up, crafted, created as midrash, mythologised from the Tanakh - based on the OT.
Or to create new stories about a new myth.
Many of the "prophecies" about Jesus do not stand up at all (e.g. born of a virgin), but are merely attempts to create a prophecy to bolster the new myth.
We are talking about religious mythology - the Gospel writers were quite happy to change the original "prophecy" to make their new mythical character fit their religious views - the sign of myth-making, not history.
Later Gospels even made changes to earlier ones - a clear sign of MYTH-MAKING.
Well, I meant that it originally refers to a clan "Bethlehem-Ephrata", but in the Gospels its the town Bethlehem.
A better example of a fake prophecy would be the "virgin" birth - not prophetic at all, not even about a virgin.
You seem to be saying both no and yes here.
Fiction CAN be added to real stories.
Fiction CAN be added to fictional stories.
What about the scripture made up about :
* Krishna ?
* Dionysus?
Does that make them real?
Fiction, myth, midrash - these are all attributes of mythical characters. But apart from the myth-making, there is no hard historical core to the Jesus story - none.
Jesus was a myth.
Iasion
Silas said:
The Visitor said:
My apologies for being unclear - the phrase "made up out of whole cloth" is ambiguous.
I meant :
* Yes, Jesus is made-up, crafted, fictional, myth
* No, Jesus was not made up from NOTHING, from THIN AIR.
Jesus was made-up, crafted, created as midrash, mythologised from the Tanakh - based on the OT.
Silas said:
Or to create new stories about a new myth.
Many of the "prophecies" about Jesus do not stand up at all (e.g. born of a virgin), but are merely attempts to create a prophecy to bolster the new myth.
We are talking about religious mythology - the Gospel writers were quite happy to change the original "prophecy" to make their new mythical character fit their religious views - the sign of myth-making, not history.
Later Gospels even made changes to earlier ones - a clear sign of MYTH-MAKING.
Silas said:
Well, I meant that it originally refers to a clan "Bethlehem-Ephrata", but in the Gospels its the town Bethlehem.
A better example of a fake prophecy would be the "virgin" birth - not prophetic at all, not even about a virgin.
Silas said:
You seem to be saying both no and yes here.
Fiction CAN be added to real stories.
Fiction CAN be added to fictional stories.
What about the scripture made up about :
* Krishna ?
* Dionysus?
Does that make them real?
Fiction, myth, midrash - these are all attributes of mythical characters. But apart from the myth-making, there is no hard historical core to the Jesus story - none.
Jesus was a myth.
Iasion
Isaiah propheied the virgin birth 800 years before Christ was born.
Last edited:
TheVisitor said:
Oh, I think Iasion knows them vastly better than you allow, probably vastly better than you yourself; that would explain both your propensity for insisting that your adversaries "don't know scripture" when presented with arguments and inconsistencies between them, and the avoidance of answering reasonable questions about them (such as- what serpent woman did Cain marry, from the land of Nod? What fish was specially prepared for Jonah?).
Tsk.
Greetings,
It is clear I know the scriptures better than you do.
Just how do you research the scriptures by "going outside"?
Ko-peesh?
What on earth is that?
Do you mean the common Italian slang "capiche" ?
No he didn't.
Isaiah recounts an episode when Ahaz is threatened from external enemies. Isaiah promises a child will be born in THOSE times.
It has nothing to do with prophecy,
it mentions a maiden of those times.
Nothing to do with a prophecy at all.
Sadly,
most Christians never bother to check the facts, they just repeat claims made by other Christians.
Iasion
TheVisitor said:
It is clear I know the scriptures better than you do.
Just how do you research the scriptures by "going outside"?
TheVisitor said:
Ko-peesh?
What on earth is that?
Do you mean the common Italian slang "capiche" ?
TheVisitor said:
No he didn't.
Isaiah recounts an episode when Ahaz is threatened from external enemies. Isaiah promises a child will be born in THOSE times.
It has nothing to do with prophecy,
it mentions a maiden of those times.
Nothing to do with a prophecy at all.
Sadly,
most Christians never bother to check the facts, they just repeat claims made by other Christians.
Iasion
C
charles cure
Guest
Provita said:
well, usually an overwhelming lack of evidence for somethings existence points to its non-existence. there arent any authentic references to jesus anywhere in historical texts that were contemporary with his lifetime.
however, i do think that he probably did live at some point, just that the details of his life according to the bible are an obscene distortion.
Dear The Visitor, thank you for the useless answers. One evidently can't expect any more or less from you; so my questions remain, and you are dismissed. Good day.
qwerty mob said:
The carnal mind can't be expected to understand spiritual things...
Isaiah said; "A Virgin shall conceive", thats one of the easiest prophecies to see in the scriptures and if you can scruple that up with your humanist theories and theologies.........you either don't want to see the truth or you wont ask God for the help....You can't do it on your own
Yeah, when I was younger I had my own ideas about things.
It doesn't mater how well you you've studied the scriptures.
The bibles a sealed book.
And it takes the author to unseal it.
What knoweth the things of God, save the spirit of God in a man.
Last edited:
If "carnal" minds can't understand "spiritual" things it is because the spiritual things make no sense, logically, no matter how well articulated linguistically... not because there is no interest in immaterial matters, but because there is no coherency, objectively, on 'spiritual' matters.
If one wishes to equivocate mind and matter, or spirituality and immateriality, they do so at their own peril and abandonment of rationality.
Myself included.
If one wishes to equivocate mind and matter, or spirituality and immateriality, they do so at their own peril and abandonment of rationality.
Myself included.