(May 20, 2015 at 1:52 am)Minimalist Wrote: You need to get out more.

Seeing as how I was raised by fundamentalist parents who took me to their fundamentalist church twice a week and sent me to a fundamentalist school grades K-11, I think I might have just enough experience to say that on this one you're full of shit.

(May 20, 2015 at 1:38 am)Nestor Wrote:

(May 20, 2015 at 12:39 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: As you now realize your island is rapidly shrinking.  You have no name for the "John" characters.  Consequently your ideas about them are totally skewed by your impression of what modern day Johns are like.  When the writers gave the "Jesus" character the name of "Jesus" they gave him a completely new identity that the one the original con man gave him.  So if someone claims to have seen"Jesus" they are saying that they saw a completely imaginary character.  "Jesus" didn't exist 2,000 years ago.  He's only about 400 years old.  

LOL. If you had read the posts at the top of this page, you'd have seen that I already gave an example of what Jesus' name would have been in the Greek: ησοῦς or Iēsous. John would have been ωάννης or Iōannēs. What "new identity" are you talking about? Are you saying nobody that we, using modern English, identity with a "J" in their name existed until 400 years ago? You can't be this fucking dumb... then again I'm not holding out much hope to the contrary.

The point I'm making is that even if such people did exist their persona changed when they were given new names.  If I wrote a Bible version and called "Jesus" something like "Billy Bob" or "Flap Jack" instead of "Iēsous"
would you really worship him?  Of course not.  If I changed "God" to "Spit Bucket" would you pray using "Spit Bucket" instead of "God"?  I doubt it. 

So when the writers changed the names of the characters they effectively created a new fairy tale.  They made a cast of new imaginary characters to reflect their own ideas and biases.  

Here's something to think about:  There are ragged pieces of ancient manuscripts that supposedly contain bits and pieces of the old ethnocentric religious fairy tale.  There are also supposed to be some ancient Bibles somewhere.  But you, yourself, will be hard pressed to prove that the Bible actually existed before the English wrote it.  

As it says in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, once people become deluded they will believe the lie.  In this instance the delusion is that the Bible has existed for about 2,000 years when in reality it's a recent book about 600 years old.  Of course the fairy tale is thousands of years old but that's another story. 

So if someone sees "Jesus" he's really seeing an imaginary character of his own making instead of the imaginary character that the con man dreamed up to fool everyone with. 

(May 20, 2015 at 2:19 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The point I'm making is that even if such people did exist their persona changed when they were given new names.  If I wrote a Bible version and called "Jesus" something like "Billy Bob" or "Flap Jack" instead of "Iēsous"
would you really worship him?  Of course not.  If I changed "God" to "Spit Bucket" would you pray using "Spit Bucket" instead of "God"?  I doubt it. 

When letters are translated into different languages, yes, meanings often change. You can find examples of that simply by consulting the multiple versions of the English translations that exist for the Bible. But that's not unique to the Bible; every work that is translated confronts the same issue, as does every translator, and each has to strive to remain as faithful to the spirit of the original text as possible. And I'm glad to see you backtracking your totally moronic claim that the character of Jesus was invented in the 17th century with the differentiation between the English letters "I" and "J."

Quote:So when the writers changed the names of the characters they effectively created a new fairy tale.  They made a cast of new imaginary characters to reflect their own ideas and biases.  

Examples and citations please.

Quote:Here's something to think about:  There are ragged pieces of ancient manuscripts that supposedly contain bits and pieces of the old ethnocentric religious fairy tale.  There are also supposed to be some ancient Bibles somewhere.  But you, yourself, will be hard pressed to prove that the Bible actually existed before the English wrote it.

As it says in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, once people become deluded they will believe the lie.  In this instance the delusion is that the Bible has existed for about 2,000 years when in reality it's a recent book about 600 years old.  Of course the fairy tale is thousands of years old but that's another story. 

We've debated this before, and as I remember correctly, you had your ass handed to you when I posted pictures and texts to the multiple, nearly complete copies of the Greek Old and New Testaments, dated from from the 2nd-4th centuries. Unless you have something new to present, or are actually willing to confront the facts, what are you still babbling on about?

Quote:So if someone sees "Jesus" he's really seeing an imaginary character of his own making instead of the imaginary character that the con man dreamed up to fool everyone with. 

Uh-huh. Ok.

(May 20, 2015 at 1:39 am)Nestor Wrote:

(May 20, 2015 at 12:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: As a logophile I'd be delighted to see a source for it.

Don't hold your breath.

---

(May 20, 2015 at 1:39 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Therefore it's obvious that "Jesus" didn't exist before then.

So you actually are claiming that Gaius Julius Caesar didn't exist until 1633?

Shakespeare wrote whole books about Caesar.  So where did Shakespeare get all of those details about a guy who lived over 1,600 years before him?  Heck, he even knew the exact words Caesar spoke on a daily basis.  It's like the scene in the Bible when Jesus and Satan are paling around in the desert all by themselves.  The writer knew everything that they said and did even though he wasn't there himself.     

(May 20, 2015 at 2:32 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Shakespeare wrote whole books about Caesar.  So where did Shakespeare get all of those details about a guy who lived over 1,600 years before him?  Heck, he even knew the exact words Caesar spoke on a daily basis.  It's like the scene in the Bible when Jesus and Satan are paling around in the desert all by themselves.  The writer knew everything that they said and did even though he wasn't there himself.     

But he wasn't called "Julius." And by your "logic," since they changed his name from Iulius to Julius they invented new stories for his "new identity."

(May 20, 2015 at 2:32 am)Nestor Wrote:

---

(May 20, 2015 at 2:19 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The point I'm making is that even if such people did exist their persona changed when they were given new names.  If I wrote a Bible version and called "Jesus" something like "Billy Bob" or "Flap Jack" instead of "Iēsous"
would you really worship him?  Of course not.  If I changed "God" to "Spit Bucket" would you pray using "Spit Bucket" instead of "God"?  I doubt it. 

When letters are translated into different languages, yes, meanings often change. You can find examples of that simply by consulting the multiple versions of the English translations that exist for the Bible. But that's not unique to the Bible; every work that is translated confronts the same issue, as does every translator, and each has to strive to remain as faithful to the spirit of the original text as possible. And I'm glad to see you backtracking your totally moronic claim that the character of Jesus was invented in the 17th century with the differentiation between the English letters "I" and "J."

Quote:So when the writers changed the names of the characters they effectively created a new fairy tale.  They made a cast of new imaginary characters to reflect their own ideas and biases.  

Examples and citations please.

Quote:Here's something to think about:  There are ragged pieces of ancient manuscripts that supposedly contain bits and pieces of the old ethnocentric religious fairy tale.  There are also supposed to be some ancient Bibles somewhere.  But you, yourself, will be hard pressed to prove that the Bible actually existed before the English wrote it.

As it says in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, once people become deluded they will believe the lie.  In this instance the delusion is that the Bible has existed for about 2,000 years when in reality it's a recent book about 600 years old.  Of course the fairy tale is thousands of years old but that's another story. 

---

We've debated this before, and as I remember correctly, you had your ass handed to you when I posted pictures and texts to the multiple, nearly complete copies of the Greek Old and New Testaments, dated from from the 2nd-4th centuries. Unless you have something new to present, or are actually willing to confront the facts, what are you still babbling on about?

---

Quote:So if someone sees "Jesus" he's really seeing an imaginary character of his own making instead of the imaginary character that the con man dreamed up to fool everyone with. 

Uh-huh. Ok.

---

Your evidence for 2nd-4th century Bibles is sorely lacking.  They didn't exist.

(May 20, 2015 at 2:41 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Your evidence for 2nd-4th century Bibles is sorely lacking.  They didn't exist.

One thing is for sure, when someone "see Jesus" they are (almost certainly) seeing what they imagine Jesus would look like based on the mythology that has surrounded them. No one has any sound basis for drawing up a photofit in case we missed him on the street.

Just like God, we don't know what we're testing for. We have nothing solid to compare against. So we wouldn't know if we found it.

(May 20, 2015 at 2:38 am)Nestor Wrote:

(May 20, 2015 at 2:32 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Shakespeare wrote whole books about Caesar.  So where did Shakespeare get all of those details about a guy who lived over 1,600 years before him?  Heck, he even knew the exact words Caesar spoke on a daily basis.  It's like the scene in the Bible when Jesus and Satan are paling around in the desert all by themselves.  The writer knew everything that they said and did even though he wasn't there himself.     

But he wasn't called "Julius." And by your "logic," since they changed his name from Iulius to Julius they invented new stories for his "new identity."

When the name is changed you get a completely different character.  Supposed George Washington's name was changed to "Corn Pone Huckster".  Would that be the same person or someone new?  

If people want to believe in the Biblical characters that's OK.  But at least they should believe in them under their original names in the fairy tale instead of names cooked up in the 17th Century.  Heck, in a thousand years "Jesus" might be called "Flippy Rippy".  

---

(May 20, 2015 at 2:46 am)Nestor Wrote:

(May 20, 2015 at 2:41 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Your evidence for 2nd-4th century Bibles is sorely lacking.  They didn't exist.

Didn't Jesus say that people will be in danger of hell fire for insulting others ? (Matthew 5:22).  

Post your pictures if you have them and we will evaluate them.  If you're right then there's no need to be reluctant to do so.  

BTW, I wonder if the guy who saw "Jesus" saw an entity that resembles your meme?

(May 20, 2015 at 2:50 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Didn't Jesus say that people will be in danger of hell fire for insulting others ? (Matthew 5:22).  

Post your pictures if you have them and we will evaluate them.  If you're right then there's no need to be reluctant to do so.  

Didn't I already post all that for you? Yeah, I did. And I can only imagine that it caused a massive hemorrhage in your cranium as the cognitive dissonance from your ignominious cluelessnes set in and became all too apparent for everyone else to see. Well, here you go, again.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-32354-page-5.html