I argue that Jesus was a figure of myth/fiction based on the existing evidence.

Stories of Jesus have been found in manuscripts.

Jesus was the son of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven, and God Creator.

Ducktown wrote:
That's precisely how you know that the narrative in its entirety is an invention. It's so canned.

Yes, it's a re-write of the Olde Testament; a New, better- Testament.

Developed through Diaspora Jews interacting with Gentile-Pagans

RealityRules wrote:

Ducktown wrote:
That's precisely how you know that the narrative in its entirety is an invention. It's so canned.

Yes, it's a re-write of the Olde Testament; a New, better- Testament.

Developed through Diaspora Jews interacting with Gentile-Pagans

The New Testament is blasphemy to the Jews.

The Canonised NT is far worse than the Old Testament.

There is no known Jew documented as a Jesus cult Christian or wrote any manuscript with the Jesus story.

The evidence from antiquity suggest that the Jesus story and cult was most likely developed by non-Jews in Egypt.

RealityRules wrote:
[The NT] is [largely] a re-write of the Olde Testament; a New, better- Testament.

Developed through Diaspora Jews interacting with Gentile-Pagans

dejuror wrote:
The New Testament is blasphemy to the Jews.

That's beside the point.

dejuror wrote:
The evidence from antiquity suggest that the Jesus story and cult was most likely developed by non-Jews in Egypt.

I think there is an influence of Egyptian theology on the genesis of Christianity, but

what evidence suggests that 'the Jesus story & cult was most likely developed by non-Jews in Egypt'?

iskander wrote:

Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Who does?

I've read quite a few of them, and given detailed and rational responses to many of them over the past thousand or so pages.

Sadly, there's no reply other than anti-'myther' ranting and in a few pages the same debunked claims pop up again.

Now I know how Sisyphus feels...

Excuse me: Iskander starts out this exchange by asking a "genuine question" on the "historical importance" of a figure like Jesus, and then Owdhat and I respond by answering his "genuine question" to which Iskander goes off on a wild goose chase through GMark. When I follow up by referencing a posting that spotlights the parallel sayings material in Matt./Luke as more pertinent to the "historical importance" of Jesus as a normal historical human being, ISKANDER GOES RIGHT ON SPOUTING ABOUT GMark instead. Obviously, his was NOT a "genuine question" at all. His is the behavior of a troll.

Most likely, one big reason why mythers on this page now feel they can get away with these outrageous lies about this Iskander exchange is because there are no other HJ-ers around right now who can call their BULLSHIT. Well, there have been circle-jerk phases in this thread before, and I've survived them handily, and I'll survive many more after this, thank you.

Stein

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2224439
Page 1945,
#38890 by Stein » May 01, 2015 10:53 pm
#38892 by iskander » May 01, 2015 11:23 pm

I am not interested in dropping names-Socrates et al. What did Jesus teach?.

I addressed that EXPLICITLY in the post I linked to with the link to Q material. I answered that MOST PROFESSIONAL SECULAR SCHOLARS view the parallel material in Matt./Luke as the most plausible documentation on the human historical Jesus's teachings. That's WHY I linked to it. Don't pretend you have any interest in what the human historical Jesus may have taught if you simply ignore what the most recent scholarship and research duly indicates. You are still ignoring it. That is the act of a troll. If you addressed SPECIFIC PERICOPES in the parallel material and dismissed them as irrelevant, that would be more honest than what you're doing. You're pretending no reference to modern research on the parallel material has been made here in any of my posts. That's why you're a shameless troll.

Stein

Luke 11:22
But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

Luke 11:33
No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel,
but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.


Luke 12:10
And whosoever shall speak a word against the 'Son of man', it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

[and

'but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy One^ it shall not be forgiven.']

RealityRules wrote:
[The NT] is [largely] a re-write of the Olde Testament; a New, better- Testament.

dejuror wrote:The New Testament is blasphemy to the Jews.

RealityRules wrote:That's beside the point.

You have NO point.

The New Testament was NOT better than the Old Testament.

There is no evidence anywhere in antiquity that Diaspora Jews developed or accepted the New Testament or the Jesus story.

dejuror wrote:
The evidence from antiquity suggest that the Jesus story and cult was most likely developed by non-Jews in Egypt.

RealityRules wrote:I think there is an influence of Egyptian theology on the genesis of Christianity, but

what evidence suggests that 'the Jesus story & cult was most likely developed by non-Jews in Egypt'?

What you "think" is of no real value unless you are prepared to present the evidence.

You cannot name a single known Jew of antiquity who actually was a Jesus cult Christian or who was an author of any book of the New Testament from the 1st century to the 4th century.

On the other hand, it can be shown that virtually ALL early manuscripts with stories of Jesus were found in Egypt and that virtually all manuscripts with stories of Jesus are attributed to Non-Jews including people from Egypt.

In addition, manuscripts which were attributed to supposed Jews like Matthew, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude have been deduced to be forgeries, false attribution and written far later than claimed by the Church.

The New Testament stories of Jesus appear to be CORRUPTED and MANIPULATED versions of the so-called Heretics.

The Jesus story developed in Egypt by Basilides and other so-called Heretics most likely PREDATED the New Testament. See "Against Heresies" and "Refutation of All Heresies".

Historical Salvation.
In the eighth day of Creation , after a long rest, Hashem created Salvation . Hashem came to dwell in the womb of a virgin as He had done in the Holy of Holies

I. JESUS
430 Jesus means in Hebrew: "God saves." At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission.18 Since God alone can forgive sins, it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, "will save his people from their sins".19 in Jesus, God recapitulates all of his history of salvation on behalf of men.

The birth of God Jesus did not alter the physical anatomy of the woman . The virginal mother retained her virginal anatomy unaffected by the birth of God



Mary - "ever-virgin"

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... 22a3p2.htm


God entered her womb and exit her womb as if nothing about that pregnancy and that birth is real.

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.

james1v wrote:

iskander wrote:Thank you.
I see that the name of Jesus is mentioned with other names , such as Socrates, Confucius and so on.


But what did Jesus teach?

Mark 1
12 And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. 13He was in the wilderness for forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.
14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news* of God,* 15and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near;* repent, and believe in the good news.’*


Jesus was baptised by a mysterious weirdo. Lived in the wilderness with Satan , Angels, and wild beasts,
Later he proclaimed the need to repent because the kingdom of god is near. Repent and believe.
He is teaching nothing so far.

Fourty, fourty, fourty. Say it enough, and people will think it has some significence. Has it?

The phrase, “Kingdom of God” is found 122 times in the New Testament.But what could it possibly mean? .
Someone has written the answer and that answer is the TRUTH . It is always like this in every religion.

the Kingdom of God was established on earth by Jesus Christ in the year 33 AD, in the form of His Church, led by Peter

http://www.catholicbible101.com/thekingdomofgod.htm

This thread is practically miraculous!

I wonder how many more thousands of pages it will go on for!!

It is a circular thread.

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.

Does that square with the archeological record? Off hand I can't recall any Christian "churches," mosaics, etc. that date earlier than Constantine.

May be because they wouldn't be very distinguishable from Jewish churches

The archeological record has many gaps, but the fact is that although the Talmud discusses Samaritans and Saduccees in relation to the first century and even second , nothing is mentioned about Jewish Christians. They did not exist, but Eusebius was a clever inventor to have lropsed them as Ebonites or whatever.

The archeological record has many gaps, but the fact is that although the Talmud discusses Samaritans and Saduccees in relation to the first century and even second , nothing is mentioned about Jewish Christians. They did not exist, but Eusebius was a clever inventor to have proposed them as Ebonites or whatever.

Owdhat wrote:May be because they wouldn't be very distinguishable from Jewish churches

Or pagan art for that matter.

duvduv wrote:The archaeological record has many gaps, but the fact is that, although the Talmud discusses Samaritans and Saduccees in relation to the first century and even second, nothing is mentioned about Jewish Christians. They did not exist, but Eusebius was a clever inventor to have proposed them as Ebonites or whatever.

Yes, though quite a few 1st and 2nd century people are, on one hand, proposed as early Christians eg. Valentinius, Simon Magus, etc. yet then, on the other hand, decried as heretic-Gnostics b/c the later story was different.

Apologists want their cake and to eat it too.

Owdhat wrote:May be because they wouldn't be very distinguishable from Jewish churches

Jews were worshiping a known dead man as a God in Jewish Churches??

There is no evidence at all that Jews worshiped men as Gods.

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.

Papyri 75 and 46 [parts of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus] have been dated to the 2nd-3rd century long before Constantine.

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.