The Historical Jesus III

[Leumas]

Yes, there was lots of confusion then, and that seems to have led to lots of confusion now.

I think this book does a GREAT GREAT job of clearing out 99.9% of the confusion

• On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt

And if you are too lazy to read it or just want a little summary before reading it in full then see this video.



Also this video and this video and this video and this video are a good in relation to the subject of the book.

 

[dejudge]

Paul's source of "information" about Jesus was revelation from on high, which unsurprisingly told him nothing, as it was delusionary.

The Pauline writers could not have received any "information" from "on high" whether or not Bible Jesus existed.

There is no evidence the Pauline writers were delusionary.

They were considered liars since at least 1600 years ago.

The Pauline writers simply used gLuke.

Christian writers of antiquity ADMITTED the Pauline writers did know of gLuke and the writing called Revelation.

He deprecated the apostles, and believed that his own contacts with the risen Jesus were more significant than information received from humans in the normal way. So even if ordinary human information was available to him, he was not motivated to relate it.

The Pauline writers LIED when they claim that they were witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The resurrection of Jesus was fiction whether or not Bible Jesus did exist.

The Pauline writers MUST be liars since they claim to be WITNESSES of events which did not and could not have happened.

In addition, the Pauline Corpus claims Jesus was the Lord from heaven, God Creator, Equal to God, and God's Own Son.


The Pauline Corpus does not support the Heresy that Jesus was an ordinary man.


The HJ argument is the very worst argument known to mankind since it is established that the Jesus cult of Christians up to this very day do NOT worship men as Gods.

As soon as the Roman Goverment made Jesus, God of God, their Lord and Savior, no more Roman Emperors were worshiped as Gods.

Essentially, the Jesus cult of Christians effectively INITIATED the abandonment of the worship of men as Gods.

 

[Craig B]

The HJ argument is the very worst argument known to mankind since it is established that the Jesus cult of Christians up to this very day do NOT worship men as Gods.

Don't try to join the Catholic Church, dejudge, until you've studied the catechism.

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

 

[Leumas]

I think this book does a GREAT GREAT job of clearing out 99.9% of the confusion

• On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt

And if you are too lazy to read it or just want a little summary before reading it in full then see this video.



Also this video and this video and this video and this video are a good in relation to the subject of the book.

Also this video is a lecture about the book (good one)... the Q&A session at the end is great too.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is the very worst argument known to mankind since it is established that the Jesus cult of Christians up to this very day do NOT worship men as Gods.

Don't try to join the Catholic Church, dejudge,
until you've studied the catechism.

What irony!!!

You actively RELY on the Canon of the Catholic Church and 'join' with them to argue that Jesus existed.

You use gMark, gMatthew, gJohn and the Pauline Corpus which are products of the Church.

The writers of the Church claimed Jesus walked on water before he TRANSFIGURED and Resurrrected.

The HJ argument is a farce.

The writers of the Jesus cult of Christians have not claimed, stated or taught in any existing manuscript or Codex that people should worhip men as Gods.

Christians REFUSED to worship even the Emperors of Rome as Gods.

Unless the Jesus cult of Christians were COMPLETE IDIOTS then it is just total nonsense that they would worship a KNOWN DEAD BLASPHEMER or criminal as a God while refusing to worship the Emperors of Rome.

Athenagoras' Plea for the Christians

Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son.

For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son.

But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father[, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one.

And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nouskai logos) of the Father is the Son of God.

 

[Craig B]

What irony!!!

You actively RELY on the Canon of the Catholic Church and 'join' with them to argue that Jesus existed.

That is even by your standards arrant balderdash and piffle. I was using the catechism to argue that the Catholic Church worships a man as God, because the catechism defines Jesus as both a god and a man, as you can see by reading my post.

But you are intentionally engaged in your usual obfuscation, designed to disguise the utter futility of your arguments.

 

[Leumas]

Don't try to join the Catholic Church, dejudge, until you've studied the catechism.

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

What an utterly imbecilic and disingenuous statement!!

So now your "observant Jewish preacher" historic Jesus is one and the same as the bastard Son of God the Catholic Church worships as 1/3 of a God in three parts?

You are invoking the Catholic Church's historic Jesus in support of your "observant Jewish preacher" historic Jesus?

 

[dejudge]

That is even by your standards arrant balderdash and piffle. I was using the catechism to argue that the Catholic Church worships a man as God, because the catechism defines Jesus as both a god and a man, as you can see by reading my post.

What bizarre nonsense!! The Church claims Jesus was GOD from the beginning, very God of very God, born of a Ghost and then became Flesh.

A God/Ghost/man is a mythological character.

It is just most absurd to suggest a God/Ghost/man is the definition of a human being.

But you are intentionally engaged in your usual obfuscation, designed to disguise the utter futility of your arguments.

What established fiction you write. You use the writings of the Church and is ACTIVELY engaged in obfuscation.

The Church writings and CREED state Jesus was a God/Ghost/man, very God of very God and born of a Ghost yet you intentionally use the writings of the Church to argue the HERESY Jesus was a mere man with a human father.

You very well know that the Church writers used their Canon to argue that the historical Jesus [a mere man with a human father] was a LIE.

Please, stop your propaganda.

The Jesus cult of Christians do NOT worship men as Gods and argued since the 2nd century that THEIR Jesus was a Transfiguring Water Walker, God Creator, the Lord from heaven, born of a Ghost and a Virgin [a God/Ghost/man].


The 381 Creed of the Church

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.

He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end....

 

[Craig B]

What an utterly imbecilic and disingenuous statement!!

So now your "observant Jewish preacher" historic Jesus is one and the same as the bastard Son of God the Catholic Church worships as 1/3 of a God in three parts?

You are invoking the Catholic Church's historic Jesus in support of your "observant Jewish preacher" historic Jesus?

No, I am correcting dejudge on his statement that the Church doesn't worship a man as God. It does. Go and look. I have cited the text of the catechism.

 

[dejudge]

No, I am correcting dejudge on his statement that the Church doesn't worship a man as God. It does. Go and look. I have cited the text of the catechism.

What??? You mean you are ATTEMPTING to CORRECT the Church. IT IS TOO LATE to do any more "corrections".

Imaginative fiction are not corrections.

Jesus was GOD of very God and born of a GHOST

You have completely forgotten the 381 Creed of the Church.

I have cited the 381 Creed.



The 381 Creed of the Church

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.

He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end....

You can't "correct" the Church writings now.

Jesus was the LORD GOD/GHOST/MAN from heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:47--- The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

 

[Leumas]

No, I am correcting dejudge on his statement that the Church doesn't worship a man as God. It does. Go and look. I have cited the text of the catechism.

RUBBISH!!!

The man in question is an INCARNATED 1/3 of GOD in three parts, not a conceived human.

It was the result of a MAGICAL act of adultery and rape performed by the other 1/3 of a god in three parts on a 13 years old married VIRGIN.

So no, that is not a man... it is CHICANERY and astounding STUPIDITY of WARPED and benighted imaginations of FAIRY TALE fabricators.

Demigod protagonists of fairy tales are not men, and least of all a historical man who existed other than in the imaginative creative writings of wily hucksters who managed to DUPE billions of people.

 

[maximara]

No, I am correcting dejudge on his statement that the Church doesn't worship a man as God. It does. Go and look. I have cited the text of the catechism.

Many of us have tried to correct dejudge especially on his fallacy of using the Triumphalist Jesus as why a Reductive Jesus can't exist and it hasn't worked in the past. Why would correcting on something else work now?

Apollonius of Tyana shows that a historical person can quickly become elevated to demigod status and credited with pumping out miracles like crazy

Christopher Hitchens makes a good point in one of his talks: if the Gospel account had been made of whole cloth then why this convoluted trip to Bethlehem rather that being where Jesus' parents lived?

More over anyone truly familiar with the supposed prophecies would have known that the "Bethlehem" in Micah 5:2 refers to a clan rather then a place. So why can't "Nazareth" actually refer to a group known as Notzrim? More over were there any sects that had this as part of their tradition?

It is things like this that throws out the idea of the Jewish origin for the Gospels because a Jew would have had a better handle on things.

Furthermore in the 4th century it was stated the the original followers of Jesus "did not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus’ own name, but 'Natzraya'" and this term was applied to all followers of Jesus. Then one had a group that were called Jessaeans for a time and then a group called Christian. Ok did these older groups just fall off the planet or what?

 

[Craig B]

RUBBISH!!!

The man in question is an INCARNATED 1/3 of GOD in three parts, not a conceived human.

It was the result of a MAGICAL act of adultery and rape performed by the other 1/3 of a god in three parts on a 13 years old married VIRGIN.

So no, that is not a man... it is CHICANERY and astounding STUPIDITY of WARPED and benighted imaginations of FAIRY TALE fabricators.

Demigod protagonists of fairy tales are not men, and least of all a historical man who existed other than in the imaginative creative writings of wily hucksters who managed to DUPE billions of people.

I assert: the Catholic Church preaches that Jesus is God and Jesus is man. So the Catholic Church worships a man as God. dejudge denies this fact. dejudge is wrong. You write all manner of vituperation. But nonetheless the Catholic Church worships a man as God. The man may or may not have existed. But real or not, the Church worships him as God. Do you understand this?

The Church does not preach that Jesus is 1/3 of a god. So in discussing dejudge's misunderstanding of what the Church says, there is no point in writing down what it does not say. Can you grasp this? The Church explicitly says that Jesus was not a demigod. So there is no point in writing that when discussing what the Church preaches about Jesus. Can you comprehend that?

 

[Mcreal]

... the Catholic Church preaches that Jesus is God and Jesus is man. So the Catholic Church worships a man as God ... the Catholic Church worships a man as God. The man may or may not have existed. But real or not, the Church worships him as God ...

Logic and reality says that there can only be a proposition that Jesus was/is God (especially given the inability for anyone to show an firm evidence that Jesus was a man; beyond the bible narrative).

Logic and reality says the church and its parishioners worship the proposition; a narrative.


Logic says all humans are mortal, so the proposition that Jesus is not mortal also says he is not a human, despite the proposition of him having a human form.

 

[MCel58]

From the Vatican archives
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

 

[Mcreal]

From the Vatican archives

These creed-like statements read like a metaphor for the development of the concept of god being man -

459 The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness ... On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: "Listen to him!"⁷⁵ Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law ...

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."⁷⁹ "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."⁸⁰
461 Taking up St. John's expression, "The Word became flesh",⁸² the Church calls "Incarnation" the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it.

465 The first 'heresies' denied not so much Christ's divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism).

468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ's human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity."⁹³
IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed" ...​

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

ie. it's like they describe how the narrative developed - "to be our model".

 

[Leumas]

These creed-like statements read like a metaphor for the development of the concept of god being man -

459 The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness ... On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: "Listen to him!"⁷⁵ Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law ...

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."⁷⁹ "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."⁸⁰
461 Taking up St. John's expression, "The Word became flesh",⁸² the Church calls "Incarnation" the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it.

465 The first 'heresies' denied not so much Christ's divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism).

468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ's human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity."⁹³
IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed" ...​

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

ie. it's like they describe how the narrative developed - "to be our model".

In other words... Jesus was always GOD the Son of God who ASSUMED the role of a man.

Not a man who was later made into a god!

It is a god who ASSUMED THE ROLE of a man for a little while and then when the divine drama finished he went back to his daddy who patted him on the back for a ROLE WELL PLAYED.

Or to be precise .... CLAPTRAP and POPPYCOCK and pure HOGWASH.

How can any sane person in the 21st century not laugh his/her head off upon reading such buffoonery, I cannot fathom.

 

[Craig B]

In other words... Jesus was always GOD the Son of God who ASSUMED the role of a man.

Not a man who was later made into a god!

It is a god who ASSUMED THE ROLE of a man for a little while and then when the divine drama finished he went back to his daddy who patted him on the back for a ROLE WELL PLAYED.

Or to be precise .... CLAPTRAP and POPPYCOCK and pure HOGWASH.

How can any sane person in the 21st century not laugh his/her head off upon reading such buffoonery, I cannot fathom.

That is not the point of this discussion. Whether worshipping a man as God is buffoonery or not, Christians do it. By saying they do not, dejudge has fallen into error. Again.

 

[Leumas]

That is not the point of this discussion. Whether worshipping a man as God is buffoonery or not, Christians do it. By saying they do not, dejudge has fallen into error. Again.

That is not true!

They are worshiping a GOD who assumed the role of a man for a little while but still remaining a God.

They do not worship the man.

They worship the ACT OF SACRIFICE that the GOD made for them so as to help them become gods.

They do not worship the man... they worship the GOD and his SACRIFICE for which he needed to ASSUME THE ROLE of a man for a little while but still remaining a god in order to save humans and make them gods.

479 At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature.

460...... "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."⁸⁰
461 Taking up St. John's expression, "The Word became flesh",⁸² the Church calls "Incarnation" the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it.
...

 

[Craig B]

That is not true!

They are worshiping a GOD who assumed the role of a man for a little while but still remaining a God.

They do not worship the man.

They worship the ACT OF SACRIFICE that the GOD made for them so as to help them become gods.

They do not worship the man... they worship the GOD and his SACRIFICE for which he needed to ASSUME THE ROLE of a man for a little while but still remaining a god in order to save humans and make them gods.

So what? The Christians worship Jesus as God and, as has been shown, the Catholics define him thus

464 ... He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

That is the object of their worship and it was correctly observed in the earliest days of the Church by Pliny.

... they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god

This is the specific peculiarity of Christianity, not found in the other major religions.