ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th October 2019, 10:33 PM   #561
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The Pauline writer lied when it is stated that he was seen of Jesus after he was dead, buried and resurrected.

You very well know that it is stated that Jesus was God's son made of a woman and he was from heaven.

(...)

You seem to have no idea that the miracles in the Jesus stories must have been believed to be plausible by people of antiquity who accepted mythology/fiction as history.
It doesn't matter if Pablo was lying or hallucinating. We are not discussing whether Jesus' resurrection was a real fact. We agree that it was not.


Of course I know how legends were formed in ancient times. I've been explaining it for several comments.
Edited by zooterkin:  Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Last edited by zooterkin; 12th October 2019 at 10:10 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2019, 05:02 AM   #562
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
It doesn't matter if Pablo was lying or hallucinating. We are not discussing whether Jesus' resurrection was a real fact. We agree that it was not.
You don't make any sense. Your statement is void of logic.

The credibility of the supposed Pauline writings must matter in the discussion about the existence/non-existence of his Jesus.


If you agree that Jesus' resurrection was not a real fact then it must be that the so-called Pauline writer was lying when it is claimed he was seen of Jesus after he was dead and buried.

The supposed Pauline writer not only lied about the resurrection of his Jesus from heaven but also lied about getting information about the last supper from his resurrected Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11
Quote:
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me...
The so-called Pauline letters are not historical accounts, just a pack of lies, with respect to his Jesus.



Originally Posted by David Mo
...Of course I know how legends were formed in ancient times. I've been explaining it for several comments.
Edited by zooterkin:  Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Your statement does not provide any historical evidence for your invented Jesus derived from your imagination.

Colossians 1
Quote:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
The Pauline Jesus was God Creator.

The Pauline Jesus was a myth/fiction character.

Last edited by zooterkin; 12th October 2019 at 10:10 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2019, 11:28 AM   #563
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
[quote=dejudge;12853499]You don't make any sense. Your statement is void of logic.

The credibility of the supposed Pauline writings must matter in the discussion about the existence/non-existence of his Jesus.


If you agree that Jesus' resurrection was not a real fact then it must be that the so-called Pauline writer was lying when it is claimed he was seen of Jesus after he was dead and buried.

The supposed Pauline writer not only lied about the resurrection of his Jesus from heaven but also lied about getting information about the last supper from his resurrected Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11

The so-called Pauline letters are not historical accounts, just a pack of lies, with respect to his Jesus. the Pauline letters are a pack of lies are they? Fascinating analysis. But Colossians was probably not written by Paul. One reason for thinking this is "The christology of Col is built on the traditional hymn in 1:15–20, according to which Christ is the image of the invisible God... and other christological statements that have no parallel in the undisputed Pauline writings are added" Romans is authentic and in it Christ is not an image of invisible God, but "was descended from David[b] according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord" which is a completely different pack of lies. But who is telling the lies? David Mo has invented Jesus from imagination so that must be lies too. Everyone is telling lies? There is no error or belief, simply lies.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2019, 01:21 PM   #564
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
The so-called Pauline letters are not historical accounts, just a pack of lies, with respect to his Jesus.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Fascinating analysis. But Colossians was probably not written by Paul.
What!!!??? Colossians was probably not written by Paul!!!??? Examine the very first verses of the so-called Epistle to the Colossians.

Colossians 1
Quote:
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,

2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
If the letter writer called Paul in the Epistle to Colossians is not the same Paul who supposedly wrote Epistles to other Churches then the so-called Pauline Epistles are a compilation of fiction, falsehood, false attribution and forgeries.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
........ "The christology of Col is built on the traditional hymn in 1:15–20, according to which Christ is the image of the invisible God... and other christological statements that have no parallel in the undisputed Pauline writings are added".......


You very well know that the authenticity of all the Epistles under the name of Paul have been disputed.

You very well know that all the existing manuscripts of the so-called Pauline Epistles have dated by paleography no earlier than about the mid 2nd century and later.


Originally Posted by Craig B
Romans is authentic and in it Christ is not an image of invisible God, but "was descended from David[b] according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord" which is a completely different pack of lies.
There are no authentic manuscripts of the Epistles to the Romans. In addition, there are multiple versions of all the Epistles.

Please, tell me which version of any Epistle is authentic? Is it P[Papyri] 10, P11, P14, P 15, P16, P26, P 30, P 31, P34, P46 P49.......?

In Romans, it is claimed the Pauline Jesus was God's own son who was raised from the dead.

Romans 8:3
Quote:
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.
NIV Romans 6.9
Quote:
For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
NIV Romans 10-9
Quote:
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
The Pauline Jesus in the Epistle to the Romans is a non-historical resurrected being and God's own son.

The Pauline Jesus is a fiction/myth character.

Last edited by dejudge; 12th October 2019 at 01:28 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2019, 10:29 PM   #565
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
If you agree that Jesus' resurrection was not a real fact then it must be that the so-called Pauline writer was lying when it is claimed he was seen of Jesus after he was dead and buried.
To think that an hallucination is real is not lying. It is to make a mistake.

Last edited by David Mo; 12th October 2019 at 11:37 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2019, 10:37 PM   #566
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
David Mo has invented Jesus from imagination so that must be lies too. Everyone is telling lies? There is no error or belief, simply lies.
I beg your pardon. I have not invented anything. The idea that some facts can be drawn from some legendary tales is very ancient and respectable. Open this possibility is inventing nothing.

In addition, I think that very few facts can be drawn about the "historical" Jesus and they would be very vague. This is not consistent with building a character called "Jesus" in any sense. It is almost a mythicism.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2019, 08:23 AM   #567
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by dejudge
If you agree that Jesus' resurrection was not a real fact then it must be that the so-called Pauline writer was lying when it is claimed he was seen of Jesus after he was dead and buried.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
To think that an hallucination is real is not lying. It is to make a mistake.
So the Pauline Jesus is the product of an hallucination.

The Pauline Jesus never ever existed.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2019, 10:31 PM   #568
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
So the Pauline Jesus is the product of an hallucination.
It may be.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The Pauline Jesus never ever existed.
Of course, no. Other earthly Jesus it may be. The Pauline divine creature, no. He was a product of Paul's religious exaltation.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2019, 05:03 AM   #569
Hamhawk714
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 37
Historical Jesus

The bible says that there was the killing of all boys two-years-old and younger in the region of Bethlehem.Surely many of the writers or historians etc of that time would have wriiten about such a massacre!Here is a list of people who are listed as historians from first century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...ury_historians
25 of them and not one mentions Jesus or the slaughter of all babies under two! More historical first century people who didnt mention Jesus below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...entury_writers
Hamhawk714 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2019, 05:04 AM   #570
Hamhawk714
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 37
Only my 2nd post since 09...lol..
Hamhawk714 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 09:12 AM   #571
Jagermeister
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, and that's why they call him the historical Jesus.

It's like if you found out that King Arthur had a real-life inspiration who was a Roman soldier and never had a sword called Excalibur or a friend called Lancelot. He's still the inspiration for the stories.
What if King Arthur was based on several different people? Which one becomes the historical king?
Jagermeister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 09:32 AM   #572
Jagermeister
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Some guy.
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Without wishing to disagree at all, but just for the sake of accuracy/clarity, and because there are people on this site who often read these threads but who rarely post anything, so that if nothing is said against any factual sounding comments then they may easily assume that that the comment is true or widely accepted as correct – but in fact we do not know when Paul's letters were written ... just to explain that for anyone who is not fully up-to-speed on this subject -

- the date given by all Biblical Scholars, and almost universally accepted even by sceptics such as Richard Carrier, G A Wells, Alvar Ellegard, Earl Doherty and others, is indeed around 50AD to about 59AD. However, we need to be clear that we do not actually have any such letters from anywhere near that date.

The earliest date we have for those letters is from Papyrus P46, which is typically dated circa.200AD. Some Biblical Scholars have suggested that P46 maybe slightly earlier than 200AD, however, others have said it might be considerably later.

But the essential point, especially for any readers here who might think the date of these letters (or the dates for canonical gospels) is fairly well established, is just to point out that the dates commonly given for any of this biblical writing are far from being well established. And in fact the earliest copies that we have and which actually exist, almost certainly all date from centuries after the believed lifetime of Jesus.

That's important for several reasons. Firstly, because the reason why Biblical Scholars try to insist on the earliest possible dates for gospels and letters, is because as soon as any such writing becomes removed from the events by more than about 50 years, the more rapidly it becomes unreliable as evidence for whatever it claims. And certainly, anything that is nearly 200 years & more after the events, has to be regarded with extreme caution.

Secondly – what we have as the Letters of Paul are 13 documents that were all once thought to have been written by Paul himself. However, it was later realised that only 6 or 7 of them were written in similar style as if from the same author (and the other 6 or 7 appeared to be from various different writers). From that it was apparently concluded that the 6 or 7 in the same style were all written by Paul. However, there is of course no evidence for that. It is just as likely that those 6 or 7 were written by some other person, and that only one of the the remaining letters was actually by Paul (or maybe more than one, or maybe none at all from Paul).

We could of course add that its' clear from the letters that Paul had never met any living Jesus. And that nowhere does he actually mention anyone else that had ever claimed to have met a living Jesus … both Paul himself, and anyone else Paul mentions in the letters, are only ever said to have known Jesus from religious visions of a heavenly spiritual figure that had risen from the dead. That does of course leave the famous half-sentence where in one of the letters the writer says “other apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother” … but I'll leave any debate about that for another time (we have discussed it literally thousands of times before).

But it is those letters, as weak and seriously unreliable as they clearly are, that are counted as almost certainly the best evidence anyone has for a historical Jesus.
I agree. But there is one point you have missed, the manuscripts we do have are copies of copies that will have been 'corrected' or modified. So we do not even know how accurate the manuscripts we have are.

The Lords brother is an example. If Marcion said Jesus did not have a family or genealogy, why would he use a letter of Paul that says Jesus did have a brother. And why did Tertullian not use this, or any other relevant passage to refute Marcion? If they were added after 200 AD, that leaves us with Paul talking about a celestial Jesus (unless those passages are later additions.
Jagermeister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 09:40 AM   #573
Jagermeister
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Pliny the Younger
Pliny was the governor of the Roman province of Bithynia, in present-day Turkey. In about 112 AD, he wrote (in Epistles X.96) to the emperor Trajan, asking for advice on how to deal with the Christians in his province, because he was executing so many of them. Pliny wrote:

'They were in the habit of meeting before dawn on a fixed day. They would recite in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a God, and would bind themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any criminal act, but rather that they would not commit any fraud, theft or adultery, nor betray any trust nor refuse to restore a deposit on demand. This done, they would disperse, and then they would meet again later to eat together (but the food was quite ordinary and harmless.)
Except Pliny does not mention a historical Jesus. He does not tell us who or what this Christ is, or if he ever walked the earth. All Pliny tells us is that there were Christians in Turkey at the start of the second century AD.
Jagermeister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 09:58 AM   #574
Jagermeister
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I am no historian but I think the persecution of Christians by Nero in 64ad is documented.
Yes, but documented later. And we do not know if the passage in Tacitus is genuine, modified, or just second hand account from a gospel. And if the gospel is an allegorical account, as Mark appears to be, that leaves you with Tacitus reporting a fiction.

Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Christians could recant and be spared, but they chose to die rather than do so, and this was within living memory of the time of Jesus. How could a cult so strong in belief have existed at that time if there never was a Jesus?
How do you know they were given the chance to recant? Neither Seutonius nor Tacitus say this.
Jagermeister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 08:09 PM   #575
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
The supposed Pliny letter to Trajan about Christians is completely useless as evidence of an historical Jesus.

First of all, there is no mention of anyone called Jesus in the letter and if there were multiple persons claiming to be Christ then the term Christians cannot inherently refer only to those who believe the Jesus stories.

The very Jesus stories claim multiple deceivers would call themselves the Christ.


Matthew 24:5
Quote:
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Mark 13:6
Quote:
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many
.

Luke 21:8
Quote:
And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ
Justin Martyr, a 2nd century apologetic writer also stated that there were people called Christians who worshiped Simon Magus as a god and followed his disciple Menander since the time of Claudius [41-54 CE]


First Apology XXXVI
Quote:
...... There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god......... And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his.............. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians..
It must be noted that there were multiple versions of Christians belief in the 1st and 2nd century.

See "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

"Against Heresies" 1. XXIV
Quote:
2. He has also laid it down as a truth, that the Saviour was without birth, without body, and without figure, but was, by supposition, a visible man.....
Jesus called Christ never ever had any history- he was without birth, without body and without figure - a product of fiction/mythology.

Last edited by dejudge; 17th October 2019 at 08:12 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 08:30 PM   #576
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,525
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
First of all, there is no mention of anyone called Jesus in the letter and if there were multiple persons claiming to be Christ then the term Christians cannot inherently refer only to those who believe the Jesus stories.
Of course there were multiple Christs - Michaelangelo painted all three of them, along with 28 disciples, a Kangaroo and a trampoline act in his famous painting "The Last But One Supper".
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 02:28 AM   #577
Jagermeister
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Justin Martyr, a 2nd century apologetic writer also stated that there were people called Christians who worshiped Simon Magus as a god and followed his disciple Menander since the time of Claudius [41-54 CE]


First Apology XXXVI
An excellent point, but it is one X too many. It is chapter XXVI, should anyone want to check.
Jagermeister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2019, 11:02 AM   #578
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
The fallacy that the name Christ only applies to the character called Jesus of Nazareth is destroyed by writings of antiquity.

High Priests and Kings of the Jews were also called Christ hundreds of years before the fables of the supposed Jesus.

Examine Church History attributed to Eusebius.

Church History 1. 3. 7.
Quote:
And not only those who were honored with the high priesthood, and who for the sake. of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed under the influence of the divine Spirit, and thus constituted, as it were, typical Christs.
The Greek word for Christ is derived from the word meaning anointed.

Jewish High Priests and Kings were physically anointed with oil when installed.

See list of Jewish High Priests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ests_of_Israel

It must be noted that Jesus the Christ was a High Priest of the Jews c 63 CE.

There is no mention anywhere by Jewish writers of antiquity of person named Jesus of Nazareth who was anointed a High Priest or King in the time of Pilate 27-37 CE.

Jesus of Nazareth the Christ is a complete fiction/myth.

Last edited by dejudge; 19th October 2019 at 11:04 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.