Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
dejuror wrote:duvduv wrote:Dejuror, I think that the argument that no Jesus religion existed before Constantine is pretty powerful, but it is absolutely true that traditional polemical Jewish sources make not even a smidgen of a hint of "Jewish Christians". It is unsubstantiated fantasy that they did exist at anytime.
What is the powerful evidence that no Jesus religion existed before Constantine?
Presently I am arguing that the Jesus story and cult was developed in the 2nd century based on the fact that manuscripts with stories of Jesus have been found and dated to the 2nd century or later.
dejuror wrote:Papyri 75 and 46 [parts of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus] have been dated to the 2nd-3rd century long before Constantine.
dejuror wrote:In addition, writings attributed to Celsus c 175-180 CE, a non-apologetic source, did mention a character called Jesus and he appeared to be familiar with the stories of Jesus and Jesus cult Christians.
duvduv wrote:Anyway, it cannot be proven that the text attributed to Celsus was written by a non-apologetic source, as opposed to it having been written to APPEAR to be so especially in light of what Jews may have thought about "Jesus" after the onset of the official religion. It is clear who had the original negative take on the new Christ via Toldot Yeshu, and what that implies for what is said by a mere Roman pagan.Especially since the setup allowed the new Church to offer a work to "refute" Celsus allegedly some 70 years later. In any event, it was the new regime that had the MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY to set up a new system to be adopted as an official religion.
duvduv wrote:There is no way of determining it was written in the 2nd century, but the new 4th century regime sure did have the means, opportunity and motive to produce the new religion and a slew of apologetics thanks to good old Eusebius.
duvduv wrote:Anyway, it cannot be proven that the text attributed to Celsus was written by a non-apologetic source, as opposed to it having been written to APPEAR to be so especially in light of what Jews may have thought about "Jesus" after the onset of the official religion. It is clear who had the original negative take on the new Christ via Toldot Yeshu, and what that implies for what is said by a mere Roman pagan.Especially since the setup allowed the new Church to offer a work to "refute" Celsus allegedly some 70 years later. In any event, it was the new regime that had the MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY to set up a new system to be adopted as an official religion.
Owdhat wrote:
They weren't worshiping him as a god, they were Jews following his very Jewish teaching, the god bit didn't come until later, yes?
Owdhat wrote:
They weren't worshiping him as a god, they were Jews following his very Jewish teaching, the god bit didn't come until later, yes?
duvduv wrote:Again Dejuror, you are not examining the overall historical context and limitations of certain methods where inevitable human bias cannot be eliminated.
dejuror wrote:
gJohn says here that Jesus was God.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jesus says here that he and the Father are one.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
In gJohn Jesus is GOD from the beginning.
iskander wrote:
John is a late development in the Jesus saga , and John 1; is a prologue, a doctrinal declaration. An addition, a manipulation, an afterthought . It is worthless .
iskander wrote:In mark 10:18 he denies he is god,
18Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone
dejuror wrote:iskander wrote:
John is a late development in the Jesus saga , and John 1; is a prologue, a doctrinal declaration. An addition, a manipulation, an afterthought . It is worthless .
Why are you telling me John is a late development while you use the same late development to argue that Jesus was not God?
Your argument is void of ALL logic or reason.
Based on your statement we must reject what Suetonius wrote about the Caesars if an earlier writer did not mention them.
iskander wrote:In mark 10:18 he denies he is god,
18Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone
In Mark Jesus admits he is the Son of God AFTER he transfigured and walked on water.
gMark's Jesus is some kind of God/Ghost or non-human entity.
1. Mark 3:11---- And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
2. Mark 5:7---- And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
3. Mark 15:39--- And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
4. Mark 14----Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 10 guests