Belz...
Fiend God
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
You do realize that there is a world of difference between people trying to dupe you into drinking the snake oil.... oops I meant drinking Jesus' blood and eating his body... oops I meant drinking the kool-aid... and people who are trying to worn you that the kool-aid is poisoned... right?
There is a difference between the mountebanks and charlatans who fabricate the snake oil and try to sell it to you .... and the chemist who goes to the trouble of analyzing the snake oil and then gives you a list of its constituents and tells you: "it is pernicious and here is why... read the list of the constituting chemicals".
But I am sure you do not have any appreciation for chemists either.
Do you think there is no difference between a bear trap and the person pointing at the trap telling you to watch out not to step on it?
Last edited:
Essentially. Zeus starts as a God, anyway.
Yes
It's not an argument of Euhemerus: he simply created the narrative about some gods being men - he did it for Zeus and Uranus.
This is false -
it is true of Zeus; and is probably true of Osiris. and the NT Jesus.
To paraphrase Leumas
Mark et al fabricated the narrative by euhemerizing Jesus who, in Paul's epistles, was a god from heaven.
.No. We learn from Pliny that an unspecified 'Christ' was a god in Bithynia in the early second century
Last edited:
Not true at all... the earliest fabricated narratives about Jesus were Paul's epistles where Paul says Jesus was a god from heaven.
In the earliest writings about Jesus he was fabricated as a god from heaven.... later writers fabricated another narrative where they Euhemerized him.
Later people were utterly confused by the fabricated narratives and could not decide whether Jesus was a Man-God or God-Man or God only or Man only and fought wars over it and finally the cultists who won came up with the TRINITY crap.
Later people were forced to swallow the buybull claptrap by hook or by crook.
Many generations did swallow it and some still do.
Reasoning people nowadays realize that it is all claptrap and that the fabricators of Jesus first fabricated him as a god and then as a god who became a man who became a god again.
More on euhemerism or euhemerisation or whatever. In the past I've also pointed out something like this.
In the case of Paul this happens at the resurrection, and in subsequent accounts it is progressively retrojected, as indicated in the passage cited in this post.
With the arguable exception of John, I deny that Jesus becomes "divine" at these points in the respective accounts. He acquires supernatural singularity. As Paul states in Romans 1
That is an adoption by God; not an apotheosis of Jesus. A Son with Power.
In the case of Paul this happens at the resurrection, and in subsequent accounts it is progressively retrojected, as indicated in the passage cited in this post.
dejudge said:
What absurdities you post!!!
You have confirmed that you have no idea what you are talking about. You have nothing to contribute to this discussion but fallacies and propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian
Roman Catholic Christians do claim that Jesus exist and pray to him for salvation, remission of Sins and to go to heaven.
Tim ONeil has indeed forgotten to tell us the proponents of the HJ hypothesis are almost always Christians who worship Jesus as a God and pray to him for Remission of Sins in order to go to heaven.
I agree; though would change that a little to say -
the earliest writings were about a Christ-god from/in heaven .... the first fabricated narratives about 'Jesus' were Paul's (and possibly other epistles) where there was a Christ-god from heaven. Later writers fabricated another narrative where they Euhemerized the god as man-Jesus (as had been done previously for Osiris, Isis, and Serapis).
The Pauline texts and similar texts, eg. the Marcionite texts, were probably redacted to insert the name Jesus in them
The Pauline texts and similar texts, eg. the Marcionite texts, were probably redacted to insert the name Jesus in them
As I have indicated, that seems to be refuted by Romans 1
3 ... his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead
Romans 1
3 concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead
That could be interpreted as part of a process of euhemerization -made of the seed of David ... declared to be the Son of God with power = a deity
according to the flesh ... declared to be the Son of God both = euhemerization
"by the resurrection from the dead" = bringing back David
according to the flesh ... declared to be the Son of God both = euhemerization
"by the resurrection from the dead" = bringing back David
Last edited:
Yes, there are Christian agnostics; Christian atheists; Christian Humanists
If that is so, it refutes your, and Leumas's, original dictum that
"Mark et al fabricated the narrative by euhemerizing Jesus who, in Paul's epistles, was a god from heaven."
Now you have Paul applying the process of euhemerisation in his epistles in which, so you were recently saying, Jesus first appears as a god, only to be eheumerised later by Mark and his successors.
You are also are saying something odd: that "the seed of David according to the flesh" is the definition of a deity. I couldn't disagree more strongly. It is a messianic human definition of the plainest kind.
We are discussing a character found in the NT named Jesus of Nazareth who was born of a Ghost in gMatthew and gLuke, a Transfiguring Water walker in gMark , God Creator in gJohn and the Lord God from heaven who was raised from the dead in the Pauline Corpus.
Some People, believing the Bible, imagine he was really real.
Jesus of Nazareth is an obvious fiction/character who NEVER had any real existence.
If Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history he would be regarded as a complete IDIOT or a very stupid LIAR and false prophet.
Christianity could not have been started or based on such an IDIOTIC CRAZYMAN or Stupid false prophet who supposedly preached that he would resurrect on the third day AFTER he was dead.
How stupid!!! Within 72 hours [3 days] Jesus would have been confirmed to be an IDIOT.
I can imagine an atheist follower of the teachings of Jesus. But I think Christianity must be defined as a belief that Jesus is God, and I don't think an atheist can believe that and still be an atheist.
Except it wasn't Paul doing the euhemerizing - it was someone after Paul.
And I proposed that a 'Christ' first appeared in Paul's epistles; to be later redacted to Jesus.
No, I broke that particular passage up viz. -
Last edited:
I can see no justification for that exegesis. It seems most improbable that Paul meant anything like that. The passage holds together as a description of a Messianic Jesus adopted by God, and given power as a resurrected being. Paul had good reason to understand Jesus in this way, if he did in fact experience a "vision" - or more likely, hallucination - of a risen Christ, as reported in Acts.
Living "according to the flesh" means, according to Paul, living according to merely human standards. Indeed, the phrase kata sarka is often translated "according to human standards," or something similar (see 1 Cor 1.26; 2 Cor 1.17, 10.2-3, and 11.18). He is referring to how much of what we do in life is geared toward living up to other people's expectations, or living according to merely human inclinations.
What a most hilarious statement!!!
Craig B has not even realised that he is showing that Paul is a Liar or is not credible.
"Paul" in Rome refutes "Paul" in Corinth.
Based on Craig B Paul must have been a liar in Rome and Corinth.
Jesus could not have come from heaven and he could NOT resurrect unless he was a myth/fiction character.
Perhaps, Craig B will explain to us when the "resurrection from the dead" happened if Jesus became the Son of God AFTER he was raised from the dead.
These passages are
2 Cor 10:2 supports me. We do not war after the flesh: for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. He surely means "we don't fight bodily wars with physical weapons".1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
2 Corinthians1:17 When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay?
2 Corinthians 10:2 but I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4 (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
2 Corinthians 11:18 Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.
As to the others: the usage in Romans 1:3 is definitely physical. The seed of David is a lineage of physical beings, and Paul says Jesus belongs to it according to the flesh. He is a literal descendant of the kingly lineage.
"Wise after the flesh" must mean, "as wise as it is given to living human beings to be". It could be translated "according to human standards"; but what is being qualified by the expression here is a mental attribute; in Rom 1:3 it is a plainly physical attribute. Seed of David, not wisdom of David. The seed doesn't have human "standards", but it is physically transmitted by bodies of flesh.
There is no known evidence that the myth/fiction fables called the Pauline Corpus were the earliest narratives of Jesus.
Virtually all elements to show the Pauline Corpus was early are MISSING.
Let me give a partial list.
The Christian Jesus story and cult PREDATE Paul.
1. In the Pauline Corpus Paul persecuted the Faith that he now preached.
2. In the Pauline Corpus Paul claimed he met Apostles Peter and James found ONLY in FICTION fables of Jesus called the Gospels.
3. All FOUR Myth/Fiction fables called Gospels mentioned NOTHING of Paul.
4. Acts of the Apostles mentions Paul over 100 times but did NOT ONCE refer to a Pauline letter.
5. Christian writers Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul knew of gLuke and used it.
6. In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed Paul wrote his Epistles AFTER the Revelation of John.
7. According to Scholars the Pauline Corpus was really a compilation of MULTIPLE writers--NOT a single source.
8. The post-resurrection OVER 500 story in the Pauline Corpus is a very late version which was UNKNOWN to ALL the four Gospel writers.
9. Christian Scriptures of Jesus were ALREADY composed and received by Paul in the Pauline Corpus.
10. Non-Apologetic writers up to c 175-180 CE knew nothing of Paul, the Pauline Gospel and the Pauline post resurrection narrative.
11. Apologetic writers knew nothing of Paul, the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline post resurrection narrative up to the 3rd century.
12. All Apologetic writings mention Jesus or Christ but NOT Paul.
13. Only around the end of 3rd century that most Christian writings mention Paul and Jesus Christ.
14. Only around the end of the 3rd century that non-Apologetics began to mention Paul and Jesus Christ.
There is little or no evidence that the Pauline Corpus predated the fables called Gospels.
Last edited:
Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
You're never going to be able to establish this narrative in the world. Whether or not Jesus was a conscious fraud or deluded, and how the religion formed, which people were believers and which were cynical frauds, you're never going to be able to do it with any convincing arguments. You can explain why you believe it, and why you don't believe he was a real person. But you're never going to prove it. It seems people are trying to "prove" it the way that a lawyer presents a case, and call this proof and that "manufactured falsehoods" it's not worth it.
What the **** are you even talking about?
??? I think that the arguments here are a little too subtle for you. I think that believing that you're exposing a fraud instead of looking at the real history and psychology of religion is a little hysterical. It's just not grounded to reality, or anything constructive in society.
Well, in this case the people who started Christianity have been dead for 2000 years.Has anyone ever accused you of being verbose?
- Status