Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

How a spiritual being came down to earth

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

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

#21  Postby Kapyong » Feb 14, 2016 9:03 am

Gday all,

Just a quick update to my maintained page on my Paradise Theory :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/KapyongsTheory.html

I acknowledge Doherty and Carrier whose work informed my theory.

I also clarify what is new or different in my theory :

  • Several distinct phases of growing Jesus Christ belief :

    1. Before Paul - a purely spiritual heavenly being seen in visions,
    2. Paul's crucified and resurrected son-of-God - a real spiritual being,
    3. The Gospel of Mark - being mythical literature, copied and spread and increasingly mis-understood as historical,
    4. A historical Jesus of Nazareth becomes the popular view.
  • Crucifixion in Paradise in the Third Heaven - according to Paul.
  • The docetics' ('seemers' or 'illusionists') belief in a phantom Jesus is the direct consequence of the conflict between the early belief in a spiritual Jesus, and the later details of the Gospels.
  • The historicisation of Jesus Christ was the natural result of the increasing historical detail of the phases in belief.


Kapyong
User avatar
Kapyong
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 265
Age: 58
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

#22  Postby dejuror » Feb 15, 2016 3:48 am

Kapyong wrote:Gday tanya, and all :)

tanya wrote:First: your dates: Paul 50ce. ??? How do you arrive at this date???


Well, my c.50 meant c.50-c57 actually. The accepted dates.

Yes, I did no work dating Paul, and provided no evidence of his date. Because I consider the consensus to be both firm and reasonable.
You may well disagree with that dating of Paul, but that's not an argument against MY theory - it's an argument against essentially everybody.
I cannot re-invent every wheel, oft-times I must go with the academy. It is not up to me to defend the standard dating of Paul.


Your argument in defense of dating Paul early makes very little sense.

Your Myth Jesus theory is considered fringe and without consensus by academics so you are actually arguing against virtually all academics who argue for an HJ.

You have no evidence to support early Paul therefore your myth theory is extremely weak.

It is most bizarre that you reject the argument for an HJ because there is no historical evidence but refuse to argue against an historical Paul when there is no evidence of an historical Paul.

All theories [MJ or HJ] with an early unevidenced Paul are completely flawed.

There is no historical evidence in any non-apologetic writings of antiquity which can show that there were people called Christians of a Pauline cult who worshiped a character called Jesus as a God/Son of God since the time of King Aretas.

Even the earliest manuscripts of the Jesus story do not identify any person called Christians or a Pauline cult in the Roman Empire.

In addition, writings attributed to Paul have been found to be forgeries or falsely attributed.

It is virtually impossible to provide any evidence that any letter attributed to Paul was written c 50-60 CE.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

#23  Postby dejuror » Feb 15, 2016 11:18 am

The claim that the Gospels historicise Jesus is hopelessly flawed.

1. In gMark there is no birth narrative.

2. In gMatthew Jesus was born of a ghost.

3. In gLuke Jesus was born of a ghost.

4. In gJohn Jesus was God from the beginning.

The Jesus story in the Pauline Corpus begins AFTER the resurrection which is precisely where the earliest Jesus story ends.

The post- resurrection visits of Jesus in the Pauline Corpus are most likely a later version than gMark.

In the earliest version of gMark the author appears to have no knowledge of the post-resurrection visits of Jesus to the disciples and the character called Paul.

In addition, the authors of the Synoptic Gospels [especially gMatthew] appear to have knowledge of gospel of attributed to Mark but no knowledge or influence by the gospel according to Paul.

The author of gMatthew appears to have used almost all of gMark sometimes word for word but not a single sentence from the Pauline Corpus.

It would appear than none of the authors of the Gospels attended a Pauline Church, ever heard the Pauline post-resurrection story or the Pauline Gospel [salvation by the resurrection].

The entire Pauline Corpus are most likely late writings fabricated after the story of the resurrection was already known and composed.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

#24  Postby Leucius Charinus » Feb 16, 2016 12:32 am

Kapyong wrote:Life of Adam, and the Third Heaven

Well, a mention of the functioning temple seems pretty solid.


If the story were a history I'd agree, but the story is far from an historical narrative.

Here are some books about Adam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testament_of_Adam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_ ... with_Satan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Adam

A functioning temple can also appear in a fiction story.
Are you assuming the "Life of Adam" is NOT fictional?

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

    Interesting parallels can be found with some New Testament passages, such as the mention of the Tree of Life in Revelation 22:2. The more striking resemblances are with ideas in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians: Eve as the source of sin (2 Corinthians 11:3), Satan disguising himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), the location of the paradise in the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2). No direct relationship can be determined between the New Testament and the Life of Adam and Eve, but the similarities suggest that Paul the Apostle and the author of 2 Enoch were near contemporaries of the original author of this work and moved in the same circle of ideas

So your theory seems to use these similarities - or more striking similarities - in order to make the claim that Paul used this work and drew material from it. Which is possible, but is it likely.

The opposite case may also be true - namely the author of the Life of Adam and Eve drew material from Paul, at some later date. What are your thoughts about the opposite possibility?
"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: Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

#25  Postby Kapyong » Feb 16, 2016 1:22 am

Gday Leucius Charinus and all :)

Leucius Charinus wrote:
So your theory seems to use these similarities - or more striking similarities - in order to make the claim that Paul used this work and drew material from it. Which is possible, but is it likely.
The opposite case may also be true - namely the author of the Life of Adam and Eve drew material from Paul, at some later date. What are your thoughts about the opposite possibility?


Actually, my thoughts on that are expressed early in my OP :

Kapyong wrote:
Paul read the 1st C. book 'The Life of Adam (and Eve)' (AKA Book of Adam AKA Revelation of Moses) and absorbed themes of - a son of God, who died, is buried in heaven, and eventually resurrected. Paul, 2 Enoch and Life of Adam all put Paradise in the third heaven. Maybe Paul learned this, maybe he authored it himself - but he clearly believed it.


I agree it's hard to be sure who really was first - but we have three books which overlap in beliefs.

What is clear is that :
  • several 1st C. writers put Paradise in the Third Heaven
  • Paul believed it
Also - there are some really strange early comments about Jesus and the Tree of Life, and the 'blood of the cross'.


Kapyong
User avatar
Kapyong
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 265
Age: 58
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

#26  Postby dejuror » Feb 16, 2016 1:54 am

The writings attributed to Paul show that the Pauline resurrection story of Jesus is LAST.

1 Corinthians 15.3-8
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


The letter attributed to Paul does claim that the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus was known to at least 500 persons before the supposed Paul and that the author knew or was acquainted with the "twelve" including Peter/Cephas, James and the apostles.

The "twelve", Peter/Cephas and the apostles are found in the fiction/myth fables called Gospels.

The Gospels most likely predated the Pauline Corpus.

The Gospels do not mention or acknowledge any person called Paul/Saul or that he was commissioned at any time to preach the Gospel of the non-historical resurrected Jesus.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

#27  Postby dejuror » Feb 23, 2016 2:57 am

Kapyong wrote:.....My theory, I call it 'The Paradise Theory' for it's central claim, places Paul's crucifixion of Jesus in Paradise in the Third Heaven - rather than the somewhat silly 'outer space', or the somewhat uncertain 'world of myth'....


The writings attributed to Paul actually contradicts your theory.

The central claim of the Pauline Corpus is that the Jews killed or caused the death of Jesus Christ, the Lord and son of God from heaven.

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.



It must also be noted that Christian writers of antiquity who made use of the Pauline Corpus also claimed the Jews killed Jesus, the son of God, the Logos, God Creator.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

#28  Postby tanya » Feb 23, 2016 10:44 am

Kapyong wrote:My theory, I call it 'The Paradise Theory' for it's central claim, places Paul's crucifixion of Jesus in Paradise in the Third Heaven - rather than the somewhat silly 'outer space', or the somewhat uncertain 'world of myth'

dejuror wrote:The writings attributed to Paul actually contradicts your theory.
The central claim of the Pauline Corpus is that the Jews killed or caused the death of Jesus Christ, the Lord and son of God from heaven.

Good point, well done. Thanks.

With regard to Kapyong's statement above, four questions:
a. At what point in time, i.e. in the written record, in any tradition, did the concept of Paradise first appear?
b. Did that concept, Paradise, in any culture, embrace the notion of death? torture? pain and suffering?
c. Why is 'outer space' silly? Were not authors of that era (Lucian) writing about 'outer space', and, even, travel to the moon?
d. What is uncertain about mythology? Is the story of Romulus an uncertain myth? How about Herakles? How about Jesus?
tanya
 
Posts: 285

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

#29  Postby Kapyong » Mar 02, 2016 11:25 pm

Gday tanya and all :)

tanya wrote:a. At what point in time, i.e. in the written record, in any tradition, did the concept of Paradise first appear?


Pardes came from old Persian and was imported into the Tanakh after the captivity, later Paradise became associated with Eden.


tanya wrote:b. Did that concept, Paradise, in any culture, embrace the notion of death? torture? pain and suffering?


Don't think so.
That idea may be original to Paul's vision - presumably a vision of Jesus Christ crucified on a tree or cross in Paradise, near the burial of Adam.


tanya wrote:c. Why is 'outer space' silly? Were not authors of that era (Lucian) writing about 'outer space', and, even, travel to the moon?


Outer Space is a modern term expressing modern cosmologies. Lucian does not mention anything like 'Outer Space', he describes :
"Thus far I have told you what happened to me until I reached the other world, first at sea, then during my voyage among the islands and in the air, then in the whale, and after we left it, among the heroes and the dreams, and finally among the Bullheads and the Asslegs."
Carrier should have used a simple contemporary term like 'the heavens'.

tanya wrote:d. What is uncertain about mythology? Is the story of Romulus an uncertain myth? How about Herakles? How about Jesus?


What is uncertain is the 'world of myth', and how it relates to ancient tales.
Did Romulus live on earth or the world of myth ? Probably earth.
Heracles ? Probably earth.
Zeus and the pantheon on Mt Olympus ? Earthly or Heavenly ?
Phaeton and his chariot ?
Visits to heavens like 4 Ezra ?
The Jerusalem above ?
Thoth playing dice with the Moon ?


Kapyong
User avatar
Kapyong
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 265
Age: 58
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

#30  Postby tanya » Mar 04, 2016 1:02 pm

Kapyong wrote:My theory, I call it 'The Paradise Theory' for it's central claim, places Paul's crucifixion of Jesus in Paradise in the Third Heaven - rather than the somewhat silly 'outer space', or the somewhat uncertain 'world of myth'

tanya wrote:Did that concept, Paradise, in any culture, embrace the notion of death? torture? pain and suffering?

Kapyong wrote:Don't think so.

I agree.
But, then, do you not observe a contradiction? Let me spell it out. It is illogical for folks living in 21st century to suppose that morons and idiots were living in the first, second, third, nth centuries of the common era. Christianity gained adherents not because of absurd nonsense about Jesus crucifixion in paradise. Christianity grew, because of persecution, financial ruin, and utter misery, leaving people with no hope of ever becoming more than enslaved mules working for others. Forget this life, give us your few remaining shekels, and upon your death, you will arrive at the gates of paradise. Paradise is not a place of torture, suffering, enucleation, castration, amputation, impalement, or crucifixion. It is a place where angels live, flowers bloom, and birds sing.

So, in summary, I disagree with anyone who argues that Jesus had not been portrayed by the gospel writers as having been murdered by Roman soldiers, here, on terra firma, and not in paradise.

Your second point, to me, Kapyong, is without merit, as well. One doesn't enjoy writing only criticisms, but, honestly, friend, this is unsupportable, in my opinion.
Kapyong wrote:the somewhat uncertain 'world of myth'

There is nothing uncertain about the mythical origins of the gospel writers' inspiration for the Jesus story.

The problem, as I imagine, maybe incorrectly, is that you are trying to fit the data to a world view that is colored by your own religious background and training. For example, I asked you about the origins of the word paradise, and you mentioned the Tanakh. Why? The traditions we associate, today, with Christianity, began, long ago, as reflections, NOT of Judaism, but of Greek pagan mythological worship. Judaism certainly had a big influence on nascent Christianity, I don't deny that, but the fundamental concept of the religion is derived from the worship of Herakles, not Moses.

Think of ship building. Starts with oars, right? Then someone comes along with sails. Great. Along comes a clever man, let's claim that he is Jewish, like my ancestors. He invents a device to help change the direction of the ship.
Would we then claim, because of this rudder, that Jews had invented ship building? Surely there is no doubt LOTS of stuff in Christianity, that originally came from Judaism. But the main point, the focus on the figure representing the tradition, Jesus, is a caricature of Herakles, not Moses.

To us, that sounds silly. How could the Gospel writers envision Herakles when creating the story of Jesus? Of course not. They must have been thinking of Moses, right? Nope.

We no longer use Kerosene to illuminate the wooden buildings of our streets. But, back in the 19th century, urban street illumination deterred crime. Technology changes our modus vivendi. We no longer send mail by horse drawn carriage from London to Liverpool, as was routine in the 18th century. Does anyone still think of using DOS as an operating system in a business environment, yet, in the 1980's it was one of the standards in small business establishments.

So, it is not facile for us today, to imagine the power and attraction of Herakles 2000 years ago, for his image does nothing for us. We are impressed only with the skill and patience of the master stone masons who chiseled those enormous monuments. We feel the same about Herakles' temples and statures, as we do about Stonehenge. Marvelous, but of no practical value, in terms of contemporary people's behaviour. No one runs out to a temple of Herakles, today, in order to donate money to the monks servicing the temple. It is just a pile of stones. Nothing more.

But, that was not the case 2000 years ago.

If you seek to learn the origins of Christianity, you need to read less of the Tanakh, and more of archaeology, regarding discoveries in Egypt especially, of the religious figures commonly worshipped around the time of Philo of Alexandria. What do you know of the great ancient city that served as port for ships engaged in commerce between Rome, and the whole Eastern Mediterranean? Have you seen the enormous temple dedicated to Herakles (also named Khonsou, in local parlance of the day) in that city, east of Alexandria? When did that huge city disappear Kapyong? A city as important to Egypt as Sydney is to Australia.

The name of this city Ἡράκλειον. It disappeared, following an earthquake, 1200 years ago. Today it is all underwater. Long before Alexandria, there was Herakleion, aka Thonis, (in Coptic perhaps?). Strabo of Pontus described the temple in that city, two thousand years ago, living at the same time as Philo.

These enormous stone temples and statues are not "uncertain", Kapyong. There is nothing uncertain about the central role of Herakles in the lives of ordinary people, living in the Greek empire, two thousand years ago. The "world of myth" then, and today, is vibrant, dynamic, and flourishing. It is the world of scholarship that is floundering. In the case of the inquiry into the origins of Christianity, that scholarship is on life support.
tanya
 
Posts: 285

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

#31  Postby dejuror » Mar 07, 2016 3:17 am

tanya wrote:..... I disagree with anyone who argues that Jesus had not been portrayed by the gospel writers as having been murdered by Roman soldiers, here, on terra firma, and not in paradise.


Christian writings of antiquity do state that the JEWS killed Jesus, the Son of God, the Lord from heaven.

1. Acts of the Apostles--the Jews killed Jesus, the son of God.

2. The Apology attributed to Aristides--the Jews killed Jesus, the son of God.

3. Dialogue with Trypho attributed to Justin--the Jews killed Jesus, the son of God.

4. Against the Jews attributed to Hippolytus--the Jews killed Jesus, the son of God.

5. Against Celsus attributed to Origen--the Jews killed Jesus, the son of God.

6. Against Heresies attributed to Irenaeus---the Jews killed Jesus, the son of God.

7. Against the Jews attributed to Tertullian---the Jews killed Jesus, the son of God.

8. The Pauline Corpus---the Jews killed Jesus, the son of God.

9. How the Persecutors died attributed to Lactanius---the Jews killed Jesus, the son of God.

10. Church History attributed to Eusebius--the Jews killed Jesus, the son of God.

11. Against the Jews attributed to Chrysostom---the Jews killed Jesus, the son of God.

Christians writings also claim the Jewish Temple fell c 70 CE because the Jews killed the son of God


The fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE must have or most likely pre-dated the propaganda that the Jews killed Jesus the son of God.

The fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE must have or most likely preceded the Jesus story in all christian writings including the Pauline Corpus.

In effect, the Pauline Corpus was fabricated after c 70 CE or after the Jewish Temple fell.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever that anything about the Jesus story in the Pauline Corpus was historical or could have been history .
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Previous

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest