Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Historical Jesus

#42101  Postby RealityRules » Jan 10, 2017 11:33 pm

.
New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash

Robert M. Price

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm

"Jewish "haggadah [=] new narrative commenting on old (scriptural) narrative by rewriting it. Haggadah is a species of hypertext, and thus it cannot be fully understood without reference to the underlying text on which it forms a kind of commentary. The earliest Christians ...practiced haggadic expansion of scripture, resulting in new narratives partaking of the authority of the old. The New Testament gospels and the Acts of the Apostles can be shown to be Christian haggadah upon Jewish scripture, and these narratives can be neither fully understood nor fully appreciated without tracing them to their underlying sources, the object of the present article."
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2819

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42102  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jan 11, 2017 1:23 am

Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (P75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
Brent Nongbri

https://www.academia.edu/25759945/Recon ... _Testament

ABSTRACT

    Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (p75), a well-preserved Greek papyrus codex containing the Gospels of Luke and John, has been called the most significant New Testament papyrus so far discovered. the reason for this high estimation is the combination of the early date assigned to the manuscript on the basis of paleography (ca. 175–225 CE) and its close agreement with the text of Codex Vaticanus, which is thought to provide evidence that the “B text” of Vaticanus was produced as early as the second century and was very carefully transmitted. The evidence gathered in the present essay calls these conclusions into question by showing that both paleographically and codicologically, P.Bodm. XIV–XV fits comfortably in a fourth-century context, along with the bulk of the other “Bodmer papyri” with which it was apparently discovered. These observations, combined with the fact that the text of P.Bodm. XIV–XV so closely matches that of Vaticanus —a codex widely acknowledged to be a product o the fourth century — suggest that P.Bodm. XIV–XV was also itself produced in the fourth century. Thus, a number of previous arguments that relied on a second- or early-third-century date for P.Bodm. XIV–XV will need to be reconsidered.


Image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75




My comments on this article are as follows ....


A 4th century provenance for both the canonical and the non canonical Christian literature explosion is IMO quite a parsimonious explanation of all the available Christian evidence from antiquity.

Why are we looking any earlier than the 4th century?

Is it the Eusebian Signpost pointing backwards?
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Jan 11, 2017 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42103  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jan 11, 2017 1:55 am

Why are we looking any earlier than the 4th century?

Is it simply alas because the Eusebian Signpost to Origens is pointing backwards?



MY COMMENTS follow:'

The sketch of this alternative chronology is as follows:

1) Constantine publishes the Greek NT Bible Codices containing "The One True Jesus Story"
2) The pagan Greek academics of Alexandria respond with "Other Fascinating Jesus Stories"
3) Did Arius of Alexandria author the "Clementine Literature"? (believed by some to be authored c.330 CE by an Arian)
4) Constantine considers them to be [political] heretics - burns them (if he can find them!!) along with their books.
5) The pagan literary resistance decides to escape Alexandria and establish Pachomian monastic settlements.
6) The resistance translates the Greek to Coptic 400 miles up the Nile and then bury the Nag Hammadi Codices.
7) The Nicene Church Organisation prospers in the cities, and is essentially deified by Edict of Theodosius.
8) Christian "historians" of the 4th and 5th century adopt a conspiracy of silence over this one-sided military conflict.
9) The church of the 5th (and subsequent) century fabricates pseudo-historical markers for the [pre-Nicene] "heretics"


The Christians of the 4th and 5th century knew that they were writing a brand new "Nationalistic Literature" to be associated with the rise of "The Nation of Christians".

AM wrote:p.139

"Preparatio evangelica is one of the boldest attempts ever made to show
continuity between pagan and Christian thought."


"[Eusebius], the witness of the last persecution and the advisor and apologist
of Constantine was in a vantage position to appreciate the autonomy and strength
of the institution that had compelled the Roman state to surrender at the Milvian
Bridge in 312. Though anxious to preserve the pagan cultural heritage in the new
Christian order - indeed very anxious, as we shall soon see, to use the pagan tradition
for his Ecclesiastical History - Eusebius knew that the Christians were a nation,
and a victorious nation at that; and that their history could not be told except
within the framework of the Church in which they lived. Furthermore, he was well
aware that the Christian nation was what it was by virtue of its being both the
oldest and the newest nation of the world."

The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography
Arnaldo Momigliano
Sather Classical Lectures (1961-62)
Volume Fifty-Four
University of California Press, 1990




:coffee:


This scenario basically attempts to explain the complete story of Christian origins, including the authorship of the "Other Fascinating Jesus Stories" and the political context of the conflict between the canonical and uncanonical and that between the orthodox and the heretics.

In this scenario Jesus was born in a 4th century scriptorium, with the hindsight of the crucifixion of Mani (and some disciples) in the Persian capital city, the spread of Manichaean churches, the "Gospel of Mani" and His canonical books and Epistles to Apostles, and their persecution by Diocletian. (All these events occur in the later 3rd century).

That's my take on ALL_THE_AVAILABLE_EVIDENCE at the moment.

Be well.

Compliments of the season.





ETA:


9) The church of the 5th (and subsequent) century fabricates pseudo-historical markers for the [pre-Nicene] "heretics"

What do I mean by this? The church was already preserving the "Church History of Eusebius" and they therefore placed attestation in the writings of the pre-Nicene "church Fathers" [invented charcters] concerning the authorship of the books of the heretics.

The classic false flag is the "Testimonium Tertullianum" :

RE: The Acts of Paul:

The chief and final literary citation is from Eusebius’ often cited Latin author Tertullian, in his De baptismo 17.5. This appears as the only early instance in which information is provided concerning an author of apocryphal writings. Note that the manuscripts which preserve Tertullian's De baptismo are quite late, the earliest being the 12th century Codex Trecensis.

    As for those (women) who appeal to the falsely written Acts of Paul in order to defend the right of women to teach and to baptize, let them know that the presbyter in Asia who produced this document, as if he could add something of his own to the prestige of Paul, was removed from his office after he had been convicted and had confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul.

The 4th century interpolation into Josephus, known as the "Testimonium Flavianum", is regarded by many as a critically positioned forgery, with respect to the history of the NTC. Likewise the "Testimonium Tertullianum", it is suggested, should be regarded as a critically positioned forgery, with respect to the history of the "Other Fascinating Jesus Stories". Jerome’s novel addition to the Christian tradition - that the author of the Acts of Paul wrote in the presence of the apostle John in the 1st century - is a plainly piously fraudulent misrepresentation, and has been soundly rejected by many academics.
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42104  Postby RealityRules » Jan 15, 2017 12:36 am

DavidMcC wrote:
... I am pretty sure that Roman repression would have been resisted by many of the various politico-religious sects, and "Historical Jesus" is as good a name as any for one of the leaders of that resistance. What he [Jesus] actually said is what is lost, thanks to Constantine, because that emperor had his own agenda, which was to re-write the early Christians' rebellious religion (which can't have been like any version of the bible) so that they would not be so rebellious, but "turn the other cheek", as the real Jesus probably didn't say.

    So the Jesus of the NT is not really a "historical Jesus"? - the NT Jesus is not based on a 1st century pacifist?

    The NT Jesus is a construct of Constantine?


DavidMcC wrote:
It is an historical fact that Constantine had trouble with the early Christians ...

It is a historical fact that Constantine lived late 3rd century to mid-4th century (Feb 274 - May 337 AD/CE: emperor 306-337).

    Are you saying early-Christians were also then?


DavidMcC wrote:
[Constantine] converted to Christianity in order to control them, and re-write their religion.

    That's an interesting proposition.


DavidMcC wrote:
It is also a fact that the Romans wanted to build a temple in Palestine, and make the local people pay for it. Hence extra taxes were levied, sparking resistance from the taxed. Surely you don't deny THAT bit of history as well?

    There were two or three instances that Romans wanted to build significant Roman structures in Palestine.

    The fiscus Judaicus (aka fiscus Iudaicus) was the tax-collecting agency instituted by Vespasian to collect a new tax imposed on Jews throughout the Roman Empire as a result of the First Roman-Jewish War of 66–73 AD (the First Jewish Revolt) (Josephus BJ 7. 218; Dio Cassius 66.7.2).. Revenues were directed to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome.

    This new tax replaced the levy (Tithe) on Jews towards the upkeep of the Temple: that Tithe had only been payable by adult men between the ages of 20 and 50 (and probably only by those living in Judea). The fiscus Iudaicus was imposed on all Jews, including women, children, and elderly —and even Jewish slaves. It was humiliating to the Jews. In addition, if it were determined that a person was not Jewish, but was living a Jewish life, this person could also face the confiscation of his property as well as the possibility of execution if he was unwilling to sacrifice to the Roman gods and the emperor (Pliny, Ep. 10.96; Rev. 14:9-11). This group probably included 'Gentiles' and other 'pagans'.

    Those who had abandoned Judaism were exempt from paying it.

    One of the unintended consequences of the Jewish Tax was that it forced the various communities to define themselves as either Jewish or non-Jewish. One the one hand there were those traditional Jews, who saw themselves as Torah observant and covenant members of Israel, and who would never shrink from that identity; they would clearly pay the tax. On the other hand, there were those who, although Jewish by blood, tried to hide their Jewishness in order to prevent having to pay the tax: this was apparently far more widespread than one might initially realize. For example, there were thousands of Jews who had been captured as slaves and been brought to Rome during Pompey's assault on Jerusalem in 63 BCE.

    By Domitan's time many of the descendants of those slaves saw themselves as thoroughly Roman: they bitterly resented having to pay such a heavy tax (Domitian expanded the tax; see next paragraph). Finally, there were those who, although not Jewish by blood, nevertheless practiced the Jewish faith in both Messianic and traditional Jewish communities. Of these groups, the early Messianic Community found itself particularly vulnerable since these followers of "The Way" belonged to a faith that was still considered a party of Judaism.

    Domitian, who ruled between 81 and 96 AD, expanded the fiscus Iudaicus to include not only born Jews and converts to Judaism, but also on those who concealed the fact that they were Jews or who merely observed Jewish customs. Suetonius relates that when he was young an old man of 90 was examined to see whether he was circumcised, which shows that during this period the tax was levied even on those above the age of 62.

    In 96 AD the emperor Nerva determined that the fiscus courts were the improper venue for convicting non-Jews of living a Jewish life improfessus. It is contended that Nerva instituted a change in the official definition of a “Jew,” from an ethnic to a religious one, and limited the tax to those who openly practised Judaism. This would have permitted apostate Jews to avoid the tax.

    The coins of Nerva bear the legend fisci Iudaici calumnia sublata -"abolition of malicious prosecution in connection with the Jewish tax"- in reference to his reform of the harsh policies of Domitian.

    Marius Heemstra argues in The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe, 277 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) that this tax had an important role in the separation of Judaism from other social and cultural systems, particularly recent Gentile-deconverts; a process commonly called “the parting of the ways.” Heemstra relates the tax and its relaxation to the supposed writing of various 'Christian' texts in the late 1st century, but I am not so sure those relationships can be verified.

    There seems to have then been increased tensions between Jews and Gentiles: supposedly a growing anti-Gentile polemic within the Traditional Jewish communities.

    (One of the characteristic features of Nerva’s short reign was his attempt to relieve the poor. He bought up large lots of land from the wealthy landlords, and let them out to the needy citizens. It is noteworthy that he submitted this law to the assembly of the people. In the next place, he showed his great interest in the cause of public education. He set apart a certain fund, the interest of which was used to educate the children of poor parents. This interest in providing for the care and education of the poorer classes was continued by his successors.)

    It remains unclear when exactly the fiscus Iudaicus was abolished. Documentary evidence confirms the collection of the tax in the middle of the 2nd century, and literary sources indicate that the tax was still in existence in the early 3rd century. It is not known when the tax was formally abolished. Some historians credit the emperor Julian the Apostate with its abolition in about 361 or 362
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2819

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42105  Postby solazy » Jan 22, 2017 1:48 pm

Whenever I pass a church, I always consider that it stands there because of a myth about a man, and quite probably the wrong man, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

Of the many candidates, he seems to be as good as any.
Jesus/Yeshua was probably no more than a street preacher who made a living from magic tricks. He could also have been a revolutionary and that's why the cruel Romans gave him their standard punishment.
Obviously we'll never know, but if you point that out to a Christian you will be met with the standard faith argument.
Any compelling argument to question Christianity will be countered by saying that it is all a matter of faith alone.
Personally I prefer evidence to faith.
So if the historical Jesus is a myth, then why is it a lingering myth? The Jesus story is beefed up with the usual solar mythology which surrounded all heroes of antiquity. But Jesus is not just a character from history who like all Jews claimed to be the Son of God. He seems still present in some way, whether you believe or not.
The answer is quite startling. To transfer their own mortality into immortality, the ancient belief was to mate with the gods or angels, and this subconscious desire still prevails. Christianity became the biggest religion because it's the sexiest. It began with sex between an angel and a woman.
solazy
 
Name: Steve Wilkes
Posts: 215

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42106  Postby dejuror » Jan 22, 2017 3:50 pm

solazy wrote:Whenever I pass a church, I always consider that it stands there because of a myth about a man, and quite probably the wrong man, too.


You consider that the Holy Ghost was a man?? The Holy Ghost was the father of Jesus!!!

You consider that Satan was really a man too? After all Satan and Jesus were together in Jerusalem in the time of Pilate!!!
If you stop and enter the church you would have found out that the church people do not worship a man. The church people worship a God/Ghost/man called Jesus.

Church people do not worship men as Gods.

Church people worship a fiction character like the Jews, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and others.

If Jesus was a man then there could be no salvation.

Examine the Panarion attributed to Epiphanius
http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm
8:6 'And moreover, you composer of this work of fiction, give us an answer on the subject of Christ! If Simon of Cyrene was crucified, then our salvation has not been secured by Jesus but by Simon, and the world can no longer hope to be saved through Jesus Christ, who did not suffer for us.

For Simon cannot save us either; he is a man and nothing but.


solazy wrote:
So if the historical Jesus is a myth, then why is it a lingering myth? The Jesus story is beefed up with the usual solar mythology which surrounded all heroes of antiquity. But Jesus is not just a character from history who like all Jews claimed to be the Son of God. He seems still present in some way, whether you believe or not.


So, if the God of the Jews is a myth, then why is it a lingering myth??
If Satan is a myth, then why is a lingering myth??

The myths called God Creator and Satan the Devil have lingered for thousands of years and at least hundreds of years before the Jesus story was invented.

solazy wrote:...The answer is quite startling. To transfer their own mortality into immortality, the ancient belief was to mate with the gods or angels, and this subconscious desire still prevails. Christianity became the biggest religion because it's the sexiest. It began with sex between an angel and a woman.


No, No, No!!

The Church people story is that their Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin!!!

You cannot invent your own story because you don't like what Church people believe.

CEB

Matthew 1.18
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ took place. When Mary his mother was engaged to Joseph, before they were married, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.


Whenever I read what church people believe then I consider that their Jesus was fiction from the beginning.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42107  Postby solazy » Jan 22, 2017 5:04 pm

Whenever I read what church people believe then I consider that their Jesus was fiction from the beginning.

I'm only trying to give you my understanding of why people still worship Jesus (or is it 'God'). A shadowy figure from the past for which there remains zero evidence. Religions started to evolve as a promised escape from mortality. You will never get a better offer than immortality.
For one thing, I don't always believe in Occam's Razor. It's likely to be more far more complicated.
A woman was visited by an angel and fertilised by the Holy Ghost or whatever. For the spook read the sperm of an angel.
Can't imagine what her husband thought of all that, but it has astrological significance and that's where much confusion arises.
Ask a Catholic who Jesus was and they will say a man. It's heretical to say otherwise. Angels must have DNA too.
In my local area there are at least a hundred different types of church, most claiming to be the one true church.
They can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. There are churches dedicated to God, to Jesus, and there is also a Holy Ghost Zone. Not sure if that's what I think it is, but I'd be loathe to ask.
When you attend church it's a bit like having sex with God. But the ecstasy is in the cavity of your brain, and that's the God meme. Metaphorical infusion or impregnation of the Holy Spirit.
solazy
 
Name: Steve Wilkes
Posts: 215

Country: UK
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42108  Postby dejuror » Jan 22, 2017 7:01 pm

solazy wrote:
Ask a Catholic who Jesus was and they will say a man. It's heretical to say otherwise....


You have it completely wrong. Catholics say their Jesus was God of God, very God of very God the Creator born of a Virgin without a human father and also say it is heretical to claim that Jesus was only human.


Examine Against Hereisies attributed to Irenaeus, Refutation Against All Heresies attributed to Hippolytus, the Panarion attributed to Epiphanius, and Prescription Against Heresies attributed to Tertullian.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm

On the Flesh of Christ attributed to Tertullian.

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God, and have nothing more than a Solomon or a Jonas, — as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him. In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42109  Postby solazy » Jan 23, 2017 11:12 am

As an ex Catholic myself, you are sadly mistaken.
The Bible is a book of astrology, numerology, sex and drugs.
Just who do you think the Christ is?
Not only Jesus, but the Hindu Krishna and Christ Buddha have one thing in common. They were codes for the soma or hallucinogenic drugs traded down the Silk Road.
If you see Buddha on the road kill him.

The whole of the Bible is based around the fantasies of drug inspired revelations.
The solar mythology had to be sown into Jesus's life because dispensing the drugs had to be determined by an addict's astrology.
If Jesus was a man then he had to be born of a human father and mother. He can't be both man and/or god.
I'm telling you the facts - the terrible truth about the Bible.
solazy
 
Name: Steve Wilkes
Posts: 215

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42110  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 23, 2017 12:43 pm

Of course historical Jesus was born of human parents! It's physically impossible that he wan't. It was the early christians who made up the crap that he wasn't, presumably to manipulate gullible believers. They must also have faked the miracles attributed to him, such as feeding the many wo=ith just a few fish and loaves. :roll:
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42111  Postby solazy » Jan 23, 2017 4:31 pm

To believe the Bible literally, you have to be at least half mad.
Message to Christians: Don't quote the Bible. You do not realise what nonsense it is. When I was a Catholic I became sick and tired of hearing about how we should love one another, when the reality was love only your Jewish neighbour. Even love your neighbour was not original. It was almost certainly borrowed from Hindu scripture which predated it by thousands of years.

Sure there's a Bible Code, but it isn't the one proposed by Drosnin.
Instead there's a long lost code based mostly on the drugs cult.
Have you read The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross? The magic mushroom Ammonita Muscaria was probably one of the hallucinogenics, or part of the Soma concoction kept secret by the addicts.
Which points also to the anonymous gospel writers as part of the conspiracy. John's gospel was a classic forgery.

Also, the Buddhists talk of enlightenment. What do you think that is? Have a guess. Buddhist monks even today use drugs to find it.
solazy
 
Name: Steve Wilkes
Posts: 215

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42112  Postby nunnington » Jan 23, 2017 5:04 pm

I think it's non-dualism. Admittedly, I took an aspirin, to get to that conclusion.
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3980

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42113  Postby dejuror » Jan 23, 2017 8:54 pm

solazy wrote:Ask a Catholic who Jesus was and they will say a man. It's heretical to say otherwise.....


dejuror wrote:You have it completely wrong. Catholics say their Jesus was God of God, very God of very God the Creator born of a Virgin without a human father and also say it is heretical to claim that Jesus was only human.


solazy wrote:As an ex Catholic myself, you are sadly mistaken.


You seem to have no idea that the Catholic Church has documented their Creed which states their belief of the nature of their Jesus.

Jesus was God of God, Very God of Very God who was always in existence.

The Catholic Church anathematizes those who claim Jesus was only human.

The Letter on the Nicene Council attributed to Eusebius

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge quick and dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

And those who say, 'Once He was not,' and 'Before His generation He was not,' and 'He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that the Son of God is 'Of other subsistence or essence ,' or 'created' or 'alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes.
Last edited by dejuror on Jan 23, 2017 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42114  Postby dejuror » Jan 23, 2017 9:02 pm

solazy wrote:....If Jesus was a man then he had to be born of a human father and mother. He can't be both man and/or god.
I'm telling you the facts - the terrible truth about the Bible.


If Jesus was a fiction character then he had no human father and mother.

Jesus can't be both man and/or god when he is fiction.

I am telling you the facts--the terrible truth about the Bible".

Jesus of Nazareth is a fiction character in the Bible--a water walking, transfiguring, son of a voice from heaven who resurrected.

All stories of Jesus of Nazareth are implausible non-historical garbage written in the 2nd century or later.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42115  Postby dejuror » Jan 23, 2017 9:14 pm

DavidMcC wrote:Of course historical Jesus was born of human parents! It's physically impossible that he wan't. It was the early christians who made up the crap that he wasn't, presumably to manipulate gullible believers. They must also have faked the miracles attributed to him, such as feeding the many wo=ith just a few fish and loaves. :roll:


Of course, the fictional Jesus was not born of human parents. There was never ever any historical Jesus that is precisely why all we have is crap written in the 2nd century or later.

Now, today it's deja vue, people are making up their own crap about their imagined historical Jesus.

It is most laughable that people invent their own Jesus and then want others to believe their modern unsubstantiated invention was really a figure of history.

There is simple no historical corroboration in any manuscript to support the modern fabrications of Jesus.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42116  Postby Stein » Jan 24, 2017 6:55 am

nunnington wrote:I think it's non-dualism. Admittedly, I took an aspirin, to get to that conclusion.

Hey, suddenly the myther denialists are actually channeling a brand new with-it fad. After all, they are trading in "alternate facts"! :thumbup:

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=591807CB

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2410

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42117  Postby RealityRules » Jan 24, 2017 10:06 am

Stein wrote:
Hey, suddenly the myther denialists are, actually [according to 'Ein.Stein'^] channelling a brand new 'with-it' fad.
After all, they are [according to 'Ein.Stein'^] trading in "alternate facts"!

lol. Yet it's the right-wing, ultra pro-Christian people that are actually doing that.

Projecting one's side's characteristics onto the other side is disingenuous and tendentious.

How about providing clarity for the argument for a real, human Jesus -as opposed to the celestial Jesus- Ein.Stein?
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2819

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42118  Postby Tracer Tong » Jan 29, 2017 1:38 pm

RealityRules wrote:
Stein wrote:
Hey, suddenly the myther denialists are, actually [according to 'Ein.Stein'^] channelling a brand new 'with-it' fad.
After all, they are [according to 'Ein.Stein'^] trading in "alternate facts"!

lol. Yet it's the right-wing, ultra pro-Christian people that are actually doing that.

Projecting one's side's characteristics onto the other side is disingenuous and tendentious.

How about providing clarity for the argument for a real, human Jesus -as opposed to the celestial Jesus- Ein.Stein?


I'd say the argument is fairly clear already, whatever else it may be.
Тебя прощают. Не будут больше подавать платок.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1576
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42119  Postby solazy » Jan 29, 2017 2:31 pm

Just a few questions.

If Christians revere bones, then why don't we have Jesus bones, or disciple bones?
Whatever happened to the Holy Grail?
When is the Second Coming?
How did the original idea that the dead remain in the grave until Jesus reappears be replaced by some other idea, such as Purgatory?
And, where are the real Christians???
Apart from monks and nuns, possibly, I don't think I've never met any.
I mean the ones that do their biblical duty to surrender their possessions, reject family and future, and stay celibate.
solazy
 
Name: Steve Wilkes
Posts: 215

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42120  Postby RealityRules » Jan 29, 2017 8:26 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:
I'd say the argument is fairly clear already, whatever else it may be.

There are no clear arguments, otherwise you would be able to present them. There are only bare assertions. No facts. Only appeals to narratives or texts of dubious history themselves.


solazy wrote:
And, where are the real Christians???

That question applies to the period up to the middle of the 4th century, and maybe beyond.

No-one before then gives any indication of being a gospel-knowing Christian. Many that are called Christians are, on the other hand, also as much (or more) derided for being Gnostics, or heretics. Origen is credited with writing some commentaries on some Christian passages, but is more known for his rewriting or reorganising the Jewish texts as the Hexapla.

solazy wrote:
When is the Second Coming?
How did the original idea that the dead remain in the grave until Jesus reappears be replaced by some other idea, such as Purgatory?

Yes, theologies that developed over time.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2819

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 7 guests