John Henry
King Arthur
Plato
Big Foot
Robin Hood
Betty Crocker
Aunt Jamima
Allegra Coleman LOL
William Tell
*My All Time Favorite Non Real Person Pierre Brassau
Paul Bunyan
Pecos Bill
Sherlock Holmes (If you didn’t already know.)
Tony Clifton LOL
That little coffee grower " Juan Valdez
And I am sure, thousands of others also fit the bill.
They are anonymous hearsay, no more credible than the legends of Hercules.
Spider Man is set in New York in a real time, does that make it likely he is real?
Just like the depiction of New York in Spider Man.
I’ve actually seen “Tony Clifton”, although I’m not sure “which one”. Certainly not one of the “originals” though.
My guess is that he manifested more clearly than a vision of God. LOL
LOL, yeah “Clifton” used to “preform” during the intermissions for a local minor league hockey team’s games.
I think anyone can be Tony Clifton if they want.
Oh I just had to laugh when you posted this. Want to know why?
Let’s turn our attention to Matthew 27: 51-54.
This passage asserts that hundreds of zombies rose from their graves and walked around Jerusalem in the wake of the “crucifixion”.
First, NONE of the other canonical gospels includes this vignette, which makes one call into question such matters as consilience even before we ask ourselves whether this frankly bizarre event could have happened in reality. But, perhaps more fatal to the idea that your mythology purportedly constitutes “historical reportage”, is the fact that the occupying Roman forces seem not to have noticed all of these zombies walking about the streets of Jerusalem. We are, after all, dealing here in the case of the Rmaans, with a civilisation that established a track record of documenting meticulously even mundane events such as tax returns, let alone anything as spectacular as this. If you need a pointer to Roman diligence in the matter of recording history, then the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE is perhaps the canonical example.
I think it safe to conclude that this passage is a blatant fabrication, and a particularly fatuous one at that. Which on its own punctures a serious hole in the idea that your mythology constitutes “historical reportage”.
I’m also reminded at this juncture, that one Michael Licona got himself into serious trouble, when he stated in one of his writings that this passage was “allegorical” rather than historical fact, which led to various “inerrantists” launching into him attack dog style. Another individual commented on this affair in another place as follows:
I commented in the same place thus after that above post:
Though I’m used to seeing mythology fanboys demonstrate time and again, that their modus operandi can be summed up as “if reality and my mythology differ, then reality is wrong and my mythology is right”.
Meanwhile, here’s another example of elementary failure on the part of the authors of your mythology, namely the beginning of Matthew 4, covering the purported “temptation” of Jesus by the devil. According to this account, Jesus was purportedly alone during this event, at which point, the obvious question to ask is “if no one else was around to observe this event, how could it possibly have been written about by said nonexistent observer?”
Your mythology fails to withstand scrutiny using even elementary questions, let alone any more sophisticated tools.
And again, that sound you hear is myself and many other people who paid attention in class laughing.
Apart from the fact that the Spiderman comics are honestly presented as fiction, the passages I covered above pretty much hammer several nails into the coffin for any assertion that your favourite mythology constitutes “historical reportage”.
This is a bare faced lie, and you are strongly advised to retract it. Not least in the light of my presenting cogent reasons for rejecting key assertions from your mythology.
We happen to understand what constitutes genuine evidence for a given postulate. This can consist of [1] a deductive proof in an appropriate formal system (see: pure mathematics), or [2] observational data supporting the postulate (see: physics, chemistry, biology etc). Blind assertions in a mythology constitute “evidence” only for the propensity of the authors thereof to engage in fanciful fabrication. Frequently mirrored by apologetic fabrication on the part of mythology fanboys who are desperate to prop up the original mythological fabrications.
You might want to factor into the matter of your retraction of this lie you’ve just posted, that several individuals here have a sufficiently rigorous background in such topics as experimental methodology or formal logic, to know what constitutes genuine evidence for a postulate and what doesn’t. Indeed, if called upon, I can provide an illustrative example in a subsequent post.
Oh, and before you mistakenly try to assert that I’m engaging in the same sort of summary dismissal that mythology fanboys like you routinely engage in when presented with, say, scientific papers on topics such as evolution or abiogenesis, this would be a serious mistake on your part, as any honest reading of the material I’ve presented above should establish. I for one understand that mythology isn’t written in a vacuum, and as a consequence, there may well have existed one of more individuals upon which the “Jesus character” is based, not least because being an apocalyptic preacher or “prophet” was something of a cottage industry in first-century Judea. This much is established historical fact. Whether the “Jesus character” was based upon a single individual, or was a composite derived from several individuals, may never be definitively known, but we do know that there did exist individuals at that time who could have provided material for the character construction in question.
None of this, of course, validates any of the fantastic supernatural assertions erected around this character, almost all of which are incapable of being subject to any proper test of their validity (and quite possibly, deliberatedly designed to be thus by whoever generated said assertions).
Bullshit. See above for the detailed explanation of why this assertion of yours is bullshit.
It includes claims that defy natural physical and scientific laws in a spectacular way, so this is imply wrong. If you start from the position that such irrefutable facts can be denied openly without any accurate explanation or objective evidence being presented then you’re not really interestd in whether it is true are you, since you’ve already made up your mind, Indeed that is precisely what your assertion here asserts, you want to start by believing it is a credible story.
Try not doing that, try being sceptical and demanding proper evidence, try imaging that the nature of the evidence must match the spectacular or extraordinary nature of the claim. This is what one would do if one cared whether the claims were true or not, instead of starting from a position of bias in favour of them, which can only end in one result regardless of whether they are true or not.
This will help:
“In history, it is rare that we are completely sure that sources are 100% reliable. Therefore, when we talk about reliability of sources, we can talk in terms of ‘degrees of reliability’: Extremely - Very – Somewhat – Rarely – Not very.”
“Based upon what you discovered in your analysis of the source, the reasons provided to establish reliability can be based upon any of the following:”
Origin
The creator is someone who can be trusted. For example, an eyewitness or an academic expert. The type of source is particularly valuable. For example, a personal letter or an academic journal.
Perspective
The creator has a specific perspective on the topic. For example, a particular nationality or career.
Context
The source was created at an important point in time regarding the event. For example, it was made on the same day.
Audience
The intended audience of the source is particularly important. For example, those who would have known key details.
Motive
The specific purpose of the source was to record specific information about the topic."
Now critically examine the claims of the gospels for example using those criteria.
I know for a fact that Jesus exists. He works at my local McDonalds. It says so right there on his nametag.
That’s so Jesus! Operating among the common folk. Setting the example of humility.
Not sold your claim unless he’s convinced his coworkers to believe everything he says or burn in a lake of fire forever, or to abandon their families and money and just follow him, though.
I’m so happy that you finally found Jesus. I was starting to get worried about him. Your reward will be spectacular! Problem is, though, you have to collect it posthumously.
Uh, I did hear there were some serious quantities of fish sandwiches coming out of that dude’s hands though…so there’s that…
Edit special sauce
Uh, just so you know, that was NOT tartar sause he was using.
Damn! Can’t trust anyone anymore…I knew that shit was way too salty…(or so I heard)
Edit: if I knew…I would have baked a cake
Well fuck! I looked for Jesus all morning long and all I got was Kim, Yoo, Whang, Oh, Chan, Bum, Choi, Geun, Ho, Huk, June, Lim, Moo, Moon, Noh, Park, Ruuh, Shin, and Woo. I gotta tell you, I am not convinced this Jesus thing is real. 8 MacDonalds this morning and not a sign of him. And the looks you get from the cashiers when asking “예수님이 여기서 일하십니까?” just makes you want to leave right away.
I’m sorry but I am not seeing it.
Ah Grasshopper…you look but you do not see, you listen but you do not hear, and you eat but you do not taste…you must learn to imagine without thinking, dream without sleeping, and metamorphose without changing.
Only when you accept the presence of that which is not present will you be able to “see it”.
As soon as you loosen your grip you will attain grasp…
Edit: the truth is a lie
I found my Jesus working at the Best Buy, his wise words of wisdom told me to buy a Samsung. Definitely doesn’t look like his other mug shots being a tree murderer way back when.
Jesus was my Gardener in San Diego, great guy, I bought a beach house from him in Baja…
I found somethig else that’s relevant to this discussion.
I terms of how religions get started from nonsensical backgrouds . . . consider the Church of the Force, which is a religion based on Star Wars.
If people are willing to abandon reason to the point of founding a religion based on a series of science fiction movies . . . then how does this change how we view the beginings of Christianity?
I must ammend a mistake I made above.
The religion is called Jediism, not the church of the force. See below:
I apologize for any confusion that I created . . . but this doesn’t change my point.
It was granted tax exempt status in Texas.