"Yes, I was also thinking that too. I would like to see more than just 3 topics."
 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
My message is that Jesus did not exist but was a 4th century literary fabrication
Greetings
I have had an interesting career (see below) and presently find myself
researching the field of ancient history with a view to present a
revisionist history of the 4th century of our "common era".
My position can be most appropriately summarised by quoting the
opening lines from the three books which Emperor Julian authored
c.361 CE "Against the Christians".
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.
and am happy to attempt the answer of any questions
any skeptical people may ask here, or elsewhere, on this
material.
My message that Jesus did not exist but was a 4th century
literary invention may at first sound impossible and counter-
intuitive, however if people are interested and willing to ask
critical and skeptical questions about the reasons why I
believe that the historical truth is best explained in this manner,
then I will be happy to do my best to answer these questions.
ABOUT ME
http://www.mountainman.com.au/about.html
Finally, I wish to state that I feel that I am acting and researching
this material out of a desire to establish the ancient historical truth
of "christian origins" -- what really happened in the 4th century?
Best wishes to one and all.
Kookaburra Jack
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Phil on -
Get testy when you got nothing huh.......keep going OP the Christ Cryers will evenually began to whine louder..............Little Red Riding Hood existed I know because the book says so............
-
Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on -
You should probably start by learning to construct an actual English sentence. After that you could move on to all the areas that you're totally ignorant about; for now I've identified the use of analogies and the basics of historical analysis as focus points.
Good luck. I'm sure you'll learn a lot here.
-
Permalink Reply by Phil on
-
What have you identified? Other than insults. Present your evidence to counter the OP or bow out of the thread.....Only thing worse than a know it all is some one who claims they are smarter than everyone else. You must be a Christian. I bet you know a lot about circular arguments and most likely your only a kid still in high school.
-
Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on
-
Present your evidence to counter the OP or bow out of the thread.....
That would imply that the OP has actually offered any evidence. He's claiming that the first four centuries of ALL documents pertaining to Christianity (that includes all its detractors, all the evidence of their early schisms and strives and conflict between early Christian communities, as well as all the regular documents and the theological ones) were forged by the (apparently rather brilliant) following of a single man.
Which is, essentially, a paranoid conspiracy theory. He has absolutely no evidence for this except that he imagines that it could happen and so it must have. Sadly for him, all the documents he cites are of course dated to long before his alleged date of forgery by every single scholar on the face of the Earth (and that's not an exagerration, that is a fact). And no amount of "Well all the evidence was erased!!" counts as a substitute for an argument.
You're actually going to defend this? You want to paint yourself in the kookiest and smallest corner of the conspiracy-theory-room you can possibly find?
Only thing worse than a know it all is some one who claims they are smarter than everyone else.
Not smarter. Just someone with the benefit of actually having studied the subject.
You must be a Christian.
That's considered an insult around here. Careful if you want to last here for more than a week.
-
Permalink Reply by Phil on
-
Yeah you have studied it alright.....master of insults and jack of nothing.....Your worse than those christian whiners who think because they see some historian mention "christian" that means he was referring to a jesus.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on
-
You should really watch that language of yours if you're planning to stay here much longer.
Alternatively you could try to actually defend one of Kookaburra's points that I've comprehensively trashed. That would be very amusing indeed.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Phil on
-
Your simply amazing and the reason Atheists have such a bad name. You present no counter argument and respond with the insult "bigot".
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Butler on -
Hold on there Matt VDB, steady on!
Kookaburra Jack may or may not be correct in his theory. In fairness, you seem to give a good counter-arguement. However, while I have no problem with ideas and theorys being tested and if necessary being de-bunked, common manners should prevent anyone from attacking the person who presents the idea. That's the very way in which the theists keep control. To call Kookaburra Jack "delusional" in the manner you did and the personal tone of your post seems pretty harsh to me.
-
Permalink Reply by nick altman on -
Perhaps elevating an unorthodox theory that puts contemporary knowledge of history completely on it's head above something more than a suspicion or hypothesis and then stating you believe it to be historical truth suggests delusion? It certainly bears the scent of denialism. Such a radical idea demands radical evidence. I will be interested to see what evidence is presented.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
I agree. It is a theory, and if someone is willing to put time into investigating the theory, even against previous historical understandings, all the power to them. You never know what type of information may come out of it, even if it doesn't support his theory.
-
Permalink Reply by nick altman on
-
There's nothing wrong with reexamining what's been established and exploring alternative ideas, but to step forward and claim you know it's truth and everybody else is wrong is unnecessarily bold. It suggests denialism. I think that is the heart of Matt's objection, Kook's claim that his idea is the true idea. We atheists especially should be wary of that when addressing this subject, because it appeals to our bias.
-
Permalink Reply by Kookaburra Jack on -
Hey, I am nowhere claiming any form of infallibility here.
I have a number of hypotheses in the field of ancient history which are falsifiable, and which can be refuted by the provision of appropriate citations to evidence in the field of ancient history.
My arguments rise and fall with the evidence, they are NOT infallible.
BTW thanks for those respondents who at least for now are prepared to ask me questions and consider my responses with regard to the ancient historical evidence which I have examined in great detail for many years. I suggest we wait and see how my detractors respond to my replies.
CONNECT WITH ATHEIST NEXUS
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
"can you find me any evidence of a non-activist (or celebrity) being asked a similar question an saying "well, i'm an atheist'? i can't remember anything like it, but please let me know if there are other examples. "
Miles replied to matthew greenberg's discussion Pope Francis says even Atheists go to Heaven"Saw the clip, no news there. He made a small assumption and she gracefully corrected him. I do it all the time."
Miles replied to matthew greenberg's discussion YES!!!! Wolf Blitzer asked the wrong person if she thanked the Lord...."Saw the clip, no news there. He made a small assumption and she gracefully corrected him. I do it all the time."
"they still have the internet. i'm guessing she'll be treated fine though. it's not like she tried to stir things up. she was asked a question and she answered it honestly. "
Mr Peterdactyl replied to matthew greenberg's discussion Pope Francis says even Atheists go to Heaven"In the middle of OK that was pretty brave. Good thing her neighbors lost their TV sets. (I know, that probably sounds insensitive, but I am originally from KS, so I stand by the comment.)
"
The Flying Atheist commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"Mindy, I was speaking with a coworker of mine about 30 mins ago who lives in Rockford. She said no rain there last night but a couple of flights to O'Hare were diverted to the Rockford airport. It was fairly nasty here. "
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
