For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, the thought wasn't as much that demons can overpower God. Well, some gnostics did think that the lesser demiurge is keeping the real God at bay, but that's not necessarily the thought here.

The Xian thought is that God -- well, the Son aspect of God -- WANTED to be nailed, and in fact that was REQUIRED for the prophecy to come true. So God COULD have stopped it, regardless of whether it's on Earth or some celestial sphere, but he didn't want to stop it. Quite the opposite.

In fact, God pretty much tricked them. Look at 1 Cor 2:8. If the "archons of this aeon" (wheter it actually means the "rulers of this world" or not; bear in mind that both operative words there meant VERY different things for neo-platonics; but, basically, whoever the hell nailed Jesus) had known who he actually is, they wouldn't have even touched him. They had no interest to help God fulfill his prophecy.

But basically wherever Jesus was nailed, it makes no real difference there. Whether it's Romans or demons, they still didn't have power greater than God. God let them do it, because God wanted them to do it.

I mean, the part about it having to happen isn't even some esoteric gnostic stuff. It's mainstream Xian theology.

 

[Craig B]

I mean, the part about it having to happen isn't even some esoteric gnostic stuff. It's mainstream Xian theology.

And it is another argument in favour of the insistence on Jesus' physicality as the "Lamb of God" by the shedding of whose blood we are saved. The model for these things is of course the Temple and the cult of animal sacrifice that was celebrated there. The physicality of the beasts sacrificed on the altar is stressed and insisted upon repeatedly in the texts.

Jesus' sacrifice was a final perfect physical one, in which all the others culminated, so that they became superfluous thereafter. To represent this sacrifice of Jesus as an ethereal event occurring in the Empyrean is totally to negate its significance.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Makes a certain amount of sense, but why would you think the other worlds and spheres were anything but physical?

Sure, NOWADAYS we think of "heavens" as some ethereal place, because we know what's up there. We send people up there. We have a space station up there. We know there's no physical kingdom right above the sky dome, and for that matter that there is no actual sky dome, so we have to kinda move those out of phase with the actual reality we know is up there.

But for them the other spheres were just as physical as, dunno, if I told you something happend on the Moon. You don't go, "yeah, right, why would they send a guy to an ephemereal place like the Moon?" about the Moon landing, do you?

 

[Craig B]

Makes a certain amount of sense, but why would you think the other worlds and spheres were anything but physical?

Cos this.

Well, I suppose it depends on how much into neo-platonism were those guys. The pythagoreans and neo-platonics and the Xian gnostic offshoots had a whole system of, basically, parallel worlds. Even less mystical sources such as Aristotle assume the existence of elemental worlds and their inhabitants. (In fact, the planets HAD to be made of elements like air and fire, because if they were made of heavy stuff like earth and water, they'd fall down, see? It's just elementary logic, dear Watson.)

Yes. Therefore the celestial spheres couldn't be made of the same stuff as earthly things. Things including sacrificial victims.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

That was Aristotle. I did use him as AN example, but as I was saying, he's not the only one and not even one of the more mystical ones.

Not everyone agreed with him, and I don't think he had much traction in Palestine anyway. Aristotle only became THE alpha and omega of science in the high middle ages. but in antiquity, other schools of philosophy didn't have to agree with him. And theologians, well, even less so. Religion also wasn't exactly married to science and running colleges (aristotelian or otherwise) until the high middle ages or so.

And you have to understand that philosophy was also a broader term than nowadays.

Middle-platonism (thanks, GDon for spotting my anachronism) which was all the rage at the time, started circa 90BCE with explicitly rejecting any kind of skepticism or being anchored in reality, and went full tilt into woowoo-land. And presumably made Plato roll in his grave. Their system had a world soul, abstract definitions being reified, etc. VERY different from Aristotle's trying to explain the real world.

And unfortunately, it was them who got to be the most influential at the time, and rolled over both Jewish thinking and a whole bunch of other systems, like the Pythagoreans (who were basically numerology kinda woowoo.) But in any case, it's these guys who influenced the spheres of heavens in Judaism, NOT Aristotle.

Edit: and just to make it clear, all that is just broad categories. Within each of them, there were actually dozens of currents and authors disagreeing with each other. There was no bar exam, so to speak, to be a platonic. You could grab a few ideas and run into your own direction with it. So it's pretty hard to nail any one thing that no platonist would believe, be it a material heavens or anything else.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Gday Craig B and all




You're a smart person, you know all those terms, you know all those concepts. Are you just here to abuse the stupid mythicist too ?


Kapyong

Already playing the victim card?

 

[dejudge]

......Since flesh contained earth and water, it was naturally weighed down to earth. So to me those mythicist theories that claim that "flesh" could exist in the air have a burden of proof that I don't think they can meet....

The very letters under the name of Paul do claim that the resurrected dead and those who are alive would meet the Lord in the air.


1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

It is most amazing that Gdon seems to have forgotten the teachings about the second coming of Jesus in letters under the name of Paul.

It is clear that the Jesus character is non-historical and that the letters under the name of Paul are historically useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

The very letters under the name of Paul do claim that the resurrected dead and those who are alive would meet the Lord in the air.


1 Thessalonians 4:16-17


It is most amazing that Gdon seems to have forgotten the teachings about the second coming of Jesus in letters under the name of Paul.

It is clear that the Jesus character is non-historical and that the letters under the name of Paul are historically useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

Paul makes a distinction between the flesh Jesus, who existed on earth, and the entirely different post-resurrection Jesus, whom resurrected people will meet "in the air". It will be recalled that Paul encountered Jesus only in "revelations", so to him the airy Jesus was the important one, who had the power. But Paul believed in the previous earthly existence of a physical Jesus.

 

[Mcreal]

How can "crucified" happen in heaven, or seed of David be heavenly? Show us in what heaven these things happened.

Seed has been described as containing heavenly power:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 15,

there descended on Him, in the form of a dove, that Being who had formerly ascended on high, and completed the twelfth number, in whom there existed the seed of those who were produced contemporaneously with Himself, and who descended and ascended along with Him. Moreover, he maintains that power which descended was the seed of the Father, which had in itself both the Father and the Son

 

[Brainache]

Seed has been described as containing heavenly power:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 15,

That would be the "seed" of god, not the "seed" of man. Irenaeus was arguing against the idea that Jesus only became "Christ" after his baptism.

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

Adoptionism, sometimes called dynamic monarchianism, is a nontrinitarian theological doctrine which holds that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension. According to Epiphanius's account of the Ebionites, the group believed that Jesus was chosen on account of his sinless devotion to the will of God.[1]

Adoptionism was declared heresy at the end of the 2nd century and was rejected by the Synods of Antioch and the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identified the man Jesus with the eternally begotten Son or Word of God in the Nicene Creed.[2][3]

 

[dejudge]

Paul makes a distinction between the flesh Jesus, who existed on earth, and the entirely different post-resurrection Jesus, whom resurrected people will meet "in the air". It will be recalled that Paul encountered Jesus only in "revelations", so to him the airy Jesus was the important one, who had the power. But Paul believed in the previous earthly existence of a physical Jesus.

Your claim is quite absurd. An actual historical Jesus could not be "airy". In writings under the name of Paul Jesus presently Lives somewhere in the air and will come down when some kind of trumpet sounds.

The Jesus in the writings under the name of Paul never ever lived anywhere.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

It is just hopelessly bizarre to argue that Jesus was an actual historical character because Christian writers believed so.

You must have forgotten that writings under the name of Paul do state Jesus is the Lord from heaven, God Creator, the Son of God made of a woman who resurrected on the third day [the firstborn of the dead].

Jesus is a monstrous fiction character in the writings under the name of Paul compatible with Greek/Roman myth/fiction entities like Romulus, Remus and Perseus .

1 Corinthians 15:47

The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Colossians 1:16

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.

Galatians 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law

Colossians 1:18

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

The character called Paul was fabricated as a witness to the non-historical resurrection of the fiction called Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:15

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

Galatians 1:1

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead..

The writings under the name of Paul are non-contemporary non-historical myth/fiction garbage completely useless as evidence for an historical Jesus which were invented after Acts of the Apostles or at least after "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus c 175-180 CE.

 

[Mcreal]

That would be the "seed" of god, not the "seed" of man.

The 'seed of David, Abraham, etc'. essentially was 'the seed' of god.

Irenaeus was arguing against the idea that Jesus only became "Christ" after his baptism.

In that passage Irenaeus was discussing a heresy.

 

[Craig B]

It is just hopelessly bizarre to argue that Jesus was an actual historical character because Christian writers believed so.

I am simply stating that they believed Jesus to have been a physical person on Earth. Whether they were right is another discussion; but that is what they said and believed - that he physically existed on earth as a human being. To say otherwise is heretical in Christianity.

The writings under the name of Paul are non-contemporary non-historical myth/fiction garbage completely useless as evidence for an historical Jesus which were invented after Acts of the Apostles.

You forgot to add that you think they are a hoax perpetrated for nefarious purposes by a gang of forgers.

 

[Mcreal]

You forgot to add that you think they are a hoax perpetrated for nefarious purposes by a gang of forgers.

I don't think it's appropriate for you to verbal another poster -ie. put words in their mouth.

 

[Craig B]

The 'seed of David, Abraham, etc'. essentially was 'the seed' of god.

Can you expand on that? I would like to see the texts that have led you to that conclusion. I mean the scriptural references you have in mind there, as I don't think I agree. But my readings may be mistaken, and I would be grateful to see the reason for your interpretation.

 

[Mcreal]

I am simply stating that they believed Jesus to have been a physical person on Earth. Whether they were right is another discussion; but that is what they said and believed - that he physically existed on earth as a human being. To say otherwise is heretical in Christianity.

Yet there are indications, based on commentary by some early Church Fathers, and the deliberations of some of the Ecumenical Councils, some 'early Christians' weren't so sure. Even some revered Fathers.

Others were written off as heretics -ie. accusations of heresy are likely to have been a way of giving the impression orthodoxy existed from 'day one', when there are strong indications it didn't.

 

[Craig B]

Yet there are indications, based on commentary by some early Church Fathers, and the deliberations of some of the Ecumenical Councils, some 'early Christians' weren't so sure. Even some revered Fathers.

Others were written off as heretics -ie. accusations of heresy are likely to have been a way of giving the impression orthodoxy existed from 'day one', when there are strong indications it didn't.

Can you refer me to any of the indications, commentary, deliberations or accusations that you think would sustain your view?

 

[dejudge]

I am simply stating that they believed Jesus to have been a physical person on Earth. Whether they were right is another discussion; but that is what they said and believed - that he physically existed on earth as a human being. To say otherwise is heretical in Christianity.

The writings under the name of Paul contradict you. It was heretical to say Jesus existed on earth as only human.

It is specifically stated that Paul was not the apostle of a man.
Monstrous fables about the existence on earth of a God/Man/Ghost are not historical accounts.

Galatians 1:1

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead..

It was considered heretical to claim Jesus was only a man in Christian writings.

In "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus those who argued Jesus was a man born of human parents were considered heretics and the writings under the name of Paul were used to argued against those who claimed Jesus existed only as a man or only as a spirit/phantom.

Carpocrates is considered to be a heretic for claiming Jesus existed on earth as a man with human parents.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book1.html

Examine "Against Heresies" 1.25

1. Carpocrates, again, and his followers maintain that the world and the things which are therein were created by angels greatly inferior to the unbegotten Father. They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was just like other men...

Letters under the name do not support an historical Jesus ---they all support a non-historical God/Man/Ghost [the Lord from heaven, God Creator, the firstborn of the dead, a quickening Spirit].

 

[Brainache]

The 'seed of David, Abraham, etc'. essentially was 'the seed' of god.

No. It was the "seed" of certain famous Hebrew ancestors, not god in heaven.

In that passage Irenaeus was discussing a heresy.

Yes. The heresy of "Adoptionism"; the belief that the holy spirit entered Jesus at his baptism.

As far as Irenaeus was concerned Paul was definitely talking about an Earthly Jesus: https://carm.org/irenaeus-heresies3-15-25

Paul, when writing to the Romans, has explained this very point: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, predestinated unto the Gospel of God, which He had promised by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated the Son of God with power through the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ."(2) And again, writing to the Romans about Israel, he says: "Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever."(3) And again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says: "But when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption; "(4) plainly indicating one God, who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the seed of David according to His birth from Mary; and that Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first begotten in all the creation;(5) the Son of God being made the Son Of man, that through Him we may receive the adoption, -- humanity(6) sustaining, and receiving, and embracing the Son of God...

 

[Craig B]

I don't think it's appropriate for you to verbal another poster -ie. put words in their mouth.

I know that view from past expressions of it. But if dejudge has changed his mind, let him say so and I will apologise for my presumption.