I'm stating that the NT doesn't always represent Jesus as a disembodied ghost. Far from it. Even the resurrected Jesus is depicted in very physical terms. Belief in a disembodied Jesus is a heresy dejudge. It's not Crapocratism, however. It's called Docetism.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Historical Jesus II
- Thread starter dejudge
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I'm stating that the NT doesn't always represent Jesus as a disembodied ghost. Far from it. Even the resurrected Jesus is depicted in very physical terms. Belief in a disembodied Jesus is a heresy dejudge. It's not Crapocratism, however. It's called Docetism.
What a big joke!!! You have become trapped with your own heresy.
You forget that the very CREED of the Church states Jesus was born of a Ghost.
The NT doesn't always say Jesus was a dis-embodied ghost sometimes they say he was God Incarnate and God from the beginning
Jesus was a Ghost/God Incarnate.
At one time Jesus was a Ghost, the next time he was God, the next a man and then he transfigured.
The NT does not always say Jesus was a disembodied ghost but sometimes it says he walked on water or ascended to heaven from a mountain in Galilee.
If that is so, why did you say this previously?What a big joke!!! You have become trapped with your own heresy.
You forget that the very CREED of the Church states Jesus was born of a Ghost.
The NT doesn't always say Jesus was a dis-embodied ghost sometimes they say he was God Incarnate and God from the beginning
Jesus was a Ghost/God Incarnate.
At one time Jesus was a Ghost, the next time he was God, the next a man and then he transfigured.
The NT does not always say Jesus was a disembodied ghost but sometimes it says he walked on water or ascended to heaven from a mountain in Galilee.
If everything about Jesus is directly related to a ghost, and Jesus was believed to be a ghost; how can he be a ghost, then a god, then a man? You are contradicting yourself. When your statements are shown to be utter balderdash you simply say something quite different and pretend you've been saying it from the beginning. You are as slippery as an eel.Everything about Jesus and the disciples are directly related to a Ghost.
<snip very long list>
People of antiquity must have believed Ghosts did actually exist and that Jesus was one of them.
You forget that gMatthew's Jesus was the son of a Ghost.
It is you who are forgetting that based on known historical people also 'sons of Ghosts' (Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Plato to mention a few) the whole born of a virgin thing is a figure of speech. As mentioned before taking it literally is like asking if the silver spoon George W Bush had in his mouth when he was born was sterling or plate.
it is not logical at all that people would be convinced by gMatthew's Ghost story if Jesus was actually known in Galilee with a human father.
"Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible." - Irenaeus (c180 CE) Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 11 Paragraph 3
The author of gMatthew intentionally claimed Jesus was the son of a Ghost so I don't know how the Ghost child could have fulfilled prophecies.
Was the silver spoon George W Bush born with sterling or plate? That is what all this harping on a son of a Ghost is - a real life Symphony in Slang
'I feel the spirit of the lord moving through me'
'Must be very uncomfortable' - Number 44 aka Satan
"I can do no wrong... for I do not know what it is." - Satan in The Adventures of Mark Twain
Last edited:
If that is so, why did you say this previously? If everything about Jesus is directly related to a ghost, and Jesus was believed to be a ghost; how can he be a ghost, then a god, then a man? You are contradicting yourself. When your statements are shown to be utter balderdash you simply say something quite different and pretend you've been saying it from the beginning. You are as slippery as an eel.
Your questions have betrayed your lack of understanding of mythology and fiction.
You have no idea that myth/fiction characters can do whatever is stated by the inventor.
You have no idea that Christians of antiquity argued that Jesus was THREE in ONE--God, man and born of a Ghost.
Please, just go and get familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Your HJ argument appears to be STUCK to Ghost stories of the THREE in ONE.
"Listen" to "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........ 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.
He is thus man with God, in short, since He is man's flesh with God's Spirit — flesh (I say) without seed from man, Spirit with seed from God.
Jesus of Nazareth is just a Ghost story that people of antiquity BELIEVED was true. In antiquity and even today people believe that Ghosts were figures of history.
It is you who are forgetting that based on known historical people also 'sons of Ghosts' (Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Plato to mention a few) the whole born of a virgin thing is a figure of speech. As mentioned before taking it literally is like asking if the silver spoon George W Bush had in his mouth when he was born was sterling or plate.
Your statement is logically fallacious. You forget that ALL we have of Jesus of Nazareth are Ghost stories and ZERO history.
You forget that the historicity of George W Bush, Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus and Plato was not confirmed by Ghost stories and "silver spoons".
You forget that there are MYTH characters that were born of Ghosts/Gods and Virgins like Romulus and Remus and also Perseus with "golden showers".
dejudge said:it is not logical at all that people would be convinced by gMatthew's Ghost story if Jesus was actually known in Galilee with a human father.
maximara said:"Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible." - Irenaeus (c180 CE) Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 11 Paragraph 3
You forget that Irenaeus supposedly lived in the 2nd century and that it is claimed "Against Heresies" was composed about c 180 CE.
Irenaeus did not actually know Jesus.
You forget that the supposed Irenaeus IDENTIFIED the Heresies
Irenaeus claimed his Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.
In "Against Heresies" it was regarded as Heretical and contrary to the truth of the Church that Jesus actually had a human father.
Last edited:
But we don't have any early version of that work. Only a Latin translation from the Middle Ages. So how do you know what it said?In "Against Heresies" it was regarded as Heretical and contrary to the truth of the Church that Jesus actually had a human father.
And even if you did know, who cares? Of course the Christians thought this a heresy. Are you so devout a Christian, dejudge? Do you believe in the infallibility of the Pope as well as the infallibility of Irenaeus?
Then why did you sayYour HJ argument appears to be STUCK to Ghost stories of the THREE in ONE.
Where is the man there? Everything a ghost, you said. And now you're pretending you never said that; but people telling lies makes the Baby Jesus sad, dejudge.Everything about Jesus and the disciples are directly related to a Ghost?
dejudge said:In "Against Heresies" it was regarded as Heretical and contrary to the truth of the Church that Jesus actually had a human father.
But we don't have any early version of that work. Only a Latin translation from the Middle Ages. So how do you know what it said?
And even if you did know, who cares? Of course the Christians thought this a heresy. Are you so devout a Christian, dejudge? Do you believe in the infallibility of the Pope as well as the infallibility of Irenaeus?
You just keep on repeating the same nonsense.
We have manuscripts of gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline Corpus dated to c 175-225 CE and they do indeed have Ghost stories of Jesus.
The discovered 175-225 CE manuscripts of the Ghost stories of Jesus around the supposed time of "Against Heresies" c 180 CE confirm or suggest that people of antiquity did believe that Jesus was really born of a Ghost and was God from the beginning.
Papyri 4 [gLuke], Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] and Papyri 46 [the Pauline Corpus] are all dated to around the time of the supposed Irenaeus c 180 CE.
In those manuscripts DATED c175-225 CE Jesus was a Ghost God BEFORE he was made Flesh.
Please, we cannot go over your multiple debunked arguments day after day.
Why do you believe the Ghost stories were really real?
You refuse to answer the question!!!
Jesus was a Ghost/God/man--a pure Myth.
In the beginning Jesus was a Ghost and the Ghost was God and the Ghost became Flesh.
God is a Ghost--a character WITHOUT Flesh.
Last edited:
And gJohn twice calls him Son of Joseph, and makes him cook a lakeside fish breakfast for his pals. And Luke 24 has him eating fish to prove he's NOT a ghost. So they have non-ghost stories too! Therefore you are SPOUTING balderdash when you tell us that everything ABOUT Jesus and the disciples are directly related to a ghost. That is docetism, and you would HAVE been burned at the stake.You just keep on repeating the same nonsense.
We have manuscripts of gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline Corpus dated to c 175-225 CE and they do indeed have Ghost stories of Jesus.
Also if you think the Trinity means a kind of shapeshifting Jesus sometimes being a ghost, sometimes a man and sometimes a god, you have no idea what you are talking about. That would be a heresy too but since it's so crazy that you're the only person who has ever dreamed it up, it has no name yet. Maybe we should call it dejudgism.
And gJohn twice calls him Son of Joseph, and makes him cook a lakeside fish breakfast for his pals. And Luke 24 has him eating fish to prove he's NOT a ghost. So they have non-ghost stories too! Therefore you are SPOUTING balderdash when you tell us that everything ABOUT Jesus and the disciples are directly related to a ghost. That is docetism, and you would HAVE been burned at the stake.
What bizarre nonsense. Jesus could TRANSFIGURE and walk on water.
Jesus was a Ghost, a God and a Man in the Gospels.
Jesus was "TRI-MYTHICAL"--[Three Myths in One]
The author of gJohn described his Jesus in the very first chapter.
1. Jesus existed WITHOUT Flesh in the beginning.
2. Jesus existed WITHOUT Flesh as a God Creator from the beginning.
3. Jesus became Flesh AFTER he had already existed as a Ghost God.
John 1.1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
John 4:24 God is a Spirit...
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 6:19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
Jesus of gJohn was a Ghost God from the beginning.
Jesus of gJohn existed BEFORE he became Flesh.
Jesus of gJohn WALKED on water.
gJohn's Jesus is a Ghost/God/Man!!!
gJohn's Jesus is Ghost/God Incarnate.
Why do you believe the Ghost God man was really real?
Last edited:
The evidence which does exist, is all evidence of religious belief. There's plenty of evidence of that. Evidence that the gospel writers (for example) believed he existed (in some sense of existence at least) ... but what they wrote in their gospels was evidence of their religious beliefs, not evidenec that any of them had ever known any human Jesus. And as Randel Helms and others have shown, that was a belief they were certainly obtaining from reading messiah prophecies in their old testament.
I don't agree with that.
But I do agree with the account of Helms' views given in his wiki entry.
Helms shows how the Gospel writers used the Old Testament as a source of material to build up fictional details about events surrounding Jesus.
Which is true? What you have stated, or the wiki account?
What do you think the difference is?
So you're no longer calling this entity the Trinity, but the Trimythical. That wouldn't have saved you from the Inquisition and the stake for heresy. But at least you are acknowledging that this is not the Church's definition of the Trinity, which is crazy enough as it is, without you making it even worse!Jesus was "TRI-MYTHICAL"--[Three Myths in One]
I don't, dejudge, since this is one of your balderdash inventions.Why do you believe the Ghost God man was really real?
I don't believe the GHOST is really real.
I don't believe the God IS really real.
I do believe the man is probably REALLY real.
So you're no longer calling this entity the Trinity, but the Trimythical. That wouldn't have saved you from the Inquisition and the stake for heresy. But at least you are acknowledging that this is not the Church's definition of the Trinity, which is crazy enough as it is, without you making it even worse! I don't, dejudge, since this is one of your balderdash inventions.
Please, tell us the Church's definition of the "Trinity"?
We know that the Church claimed and preached in the Roman Empire that Jesus was God of God, born of a Ghost and a Virgin.
Examine excerpts the Nicene Creed of 381.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
Jesus of the Church was a Ghost, a God and a Man.
Craig B said:I don't believe the GHOST is really real.
I don't believe the God IS really real.
I do believe the man is probably REALLY real.
Your statement is contradictory.
You believe the Bible stories of the Son of the Ghost are really embellished historical accounts of a man.
You believe the Bible character called the son of the Ghost was a real man.
You believe the Bible character called the son of the Ghost was a real man who was baptized by John.
You believe the son of the Ghost was really a real man who was crucified.
You believe the Bible is history although it clearly states Jesus was born of a Ghost and was a Ghost/God from the beginning.
Why do you believe the son of the Ghost was a real man and NOT a Ghost/God?
Have you forgotten that letters in the Pauline Corpus stated Jesus was the LORD from heaven, the Son of a God and that Jesus was made a Spirit?
Have you forgotten that letters in the Pauline Corpus claim Jesus was God Creator and was equal to God?
You BELIEVE the Bible stories of Jesus are true even though you claim Paul was an auditory hallucinatory..
Last edited:
You think that the components of the Trinity, according to the Church, are God, a Ghost and a Virgin?Please, tell us the Church's definition of the "Trinity"?
We know that the Church claimed and preached in the Roman Empire that Jesus was God of God, born of a Ghost and a Virgin.
No wonder you are asking plaintively, Please tell us the Church's definition of the Trinity!
You think that the components of the Trinity, according to the Church, are God, a Ghost and a Virgin?
No wonder you are asking plaintively, Please tell us the Church's definition of the Trinity!
Come on Craig B please, please tell us of the Church's definition of the Trinity.
In the Nicene Creed of 381 Jesus was God, born of a Ghost who was turned into Flesh.
Jesus is TRI-MYTHICAL--God/Ghost/Man from heaven.
.... We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
We are waiting to hear your version of the Church's definition of the "Trinity.
Jesus of Nazareth was NOTHING but a Ghost.
"Helms shows how the Gospel writers used the Old Testament as a source of material to build up fictional details about events surrounding Jesus."
This isn't all the different from what Carrier is giving us:
Element 7: (a) The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, laying out what would happen and when, partly inspiring much of the messianic fervour of the age.
(b) The text was widely known and widely influential, widely regarded as scripture by early Christians. (pp. 83-87)
Element 8. (a) Many messianic Jewish sects were searching the (Hebrew and Greek) scriptures for secret messages.
(b) It follows that the Jews who became the first Christians had been searching the scriptures this way this long before they became Christians. (pp. 87-88)
Element 9: The early first century concept of scriptures embraced not only writings that became canonized but many more works, many of which no longer exist; further, of those that do still exist, including canonical texts, the early first century versions were sometimes quite different in details. Texts in places were been modified, changed, before their canonical versions were finally settled. (p. 88-92)
I have already compared this whole prophecy thing to Nostradamus and the Oracle of Delphi and if we throw in text we no longer have (or may have never existed in the first place) then the comparison is more spot on.
It is no secret that people of antiquity BELIEVED that Ghosts/Spirits were actual figures of history.
In fact, it is documented in the Gospels that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost can NEVER be forgiven.
In gJohn, God Creator, the Logos, told people he would send a Ghost to comfort them
Mark 3.29
Matthew 12:31-32 KJV
Luke 12:10 KJV
In gJohn, God Creator, the Logos, told people he would send a Ghost to comfort them and TEACH them ALL things.
The Holy Ghost would be an historical teacher in gJohn.
In Acts, the Holy Ghost arrived on the day of Pentecost and instantly TAUGHT the disciple to speak in tongues and gave them power to preach the Gospel.
John 14.26
Jesus of Nazareth is NOTHING but a Ghost story.
The ENTIRE story of Jesus of Nazareth in NT Canon is just total nonsense--without a shred of history from conception to ascension..
In fact, it is documented in the Gospels that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost can NEVER be forgiven.
In gJohn, God Creator, the Logos, told people he would send a Ghost to comfort them
Mark 3.29
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation
Matthew 12:31-32 KJV
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come
Luke 12:10 KJV
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 .
In gJohn, God Creator, the Logos, told people he would send a Ghost to comfort them and TEACH them ALL things.
The Holy Ghost would be an historical teacher in gJohn.
In Acts, the Holy Ghost arrived on the day of Pentecost and instantly TAUGHT the disciple to speak in tongues and gave them power to preach the Gospel.
John 14.26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance , whatsoever I have said unto you.
Jesus of Nazareth is NOTHING but a Ghost story.
The ENTIRE story of Jesus of Nazareth in NT Canon is just total nonsense--without a shred of history from conception to ascension..
No, we're not. Look it up yourself. But of course we have already established that you can't manage this.We are waiting to hear your version of the Church's definition of the "Trinity.
The Church doesn't say that, and not even the risen Jesus is depicted as a ghost. It is explicitly denied that even the risen Jesus is a ghost, far less the living Jesus. Nor is there any Jesus of Nazareth in the Trinity, but an eternal being called the Son; and the Ghost in the Trinity isn't Jesus.Jesus of Nazareth was NOTHING but a Ghost.
To see it in your favourite list format look here
See the last bit?"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"
"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Spirit"
"The Father is not the Son"
"The Father is not the Holy Spirit"
"The Son is not the Father"
"The Son is not the Holy Spirit"
"The Holy Spirit is not the Father"
"The Holy Spirit is not the Son"
Element 9: The early first century concept of scriptures embraced not only writings that became canonized but many more works, many of which no longer exist; further, of those that do still exist, including canonical texts, the early first century versions were sometimes quite different in details. Texts in places were been modified, changed, before their canonical versions were finally settled. (p. 88-92)
It is completely useless to make references to writings which have been never seen, never known and never heard of heard of.
We cannot examine non-existing writings to corroborate what you claim.
We already know there are NO early 1st century versions of the Jesus story
It is historically useless at this time to speculate about early 1st century concepts WITHOUT evidence.
We have found the DSS and there are writings attributed to contemporaries of the 1st century and they do not mention Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus.
It is logically fallacious to assume that there were early 1st century non-canonical texts and more so to ASSUME you know the contents.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.