For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[Craig B]

What utter nonsense you post!!!

Please, engage your "brain" function!!!

You seem to have no idea who are called Christians. You seem not to understand that there were multiple cult of Christians even today who have differing Christian doctrine.

l said I wasn't going to lose little grey cells thinking about this, because it was trivial. However, it is not without interest to anyone who wants to evaluate the correctness of your theories - if I may call them that - so I will comment.

There are very many and varied Christian doctrines, but the Faustus teaching opposed by Augustine is most definitely not one of them. The idea that Jesus had never been born, because his existence wasn't a physical reality, but solely a spiritual "appearance", a kind of illusion, is called "docetism" from the Greek work "dokein" meaning "to seem".

It was a typical doctrine of the Manichaeans, who disparaged matter and considered all material bodies to be corrupt or sinful. Faustus was expounding exactly this, judging by Augustine's polemic against him.

The belief that during his earthly existence he only seemed to submit to suffering and death reflects the common docetic christology of gnosticism, which is based on the assumption that Jesus had no human body but only a spiritual one.​

No view is more contrary to that of the Church, so to ask me to use my brain to work out whether Faustus or Augustine is the more authoritative as a Christian teacher, is to display such unfamiliarity with Christian doctrine, that only if your own brain was in a jar of formaldehyde could any excuse be found that might pardon you for making it.

Docetism^WP was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and Coptic Church.​

 

[dejudge]

l said I wasn't going to lose little grey cells thinking about this, because it was trivial. However, it is not without interest to anyone who wants to evaluate the correctness of your theories - if I may call them that - so I will comment.

There are very many and varied Christian doctrines, but the Faustus teaching opposed by Augustine is most definitely not one of them. The idea that Jesus had never been born, because his existence wasn't a physical reality, but solely a spiritual "appearance", a kind of illusion, is called "docetism" from the Greek work "dokein" meaning "to seem".

It was a typical doctrine of the Manichaeans, who disparaged matter and considered all material bodies to be corrupt or sinful. Faustus was expounding exactly this, judging by Augustine's polemic against him.

The belief that during his earthly existence he only seemed to submit to suffering and death reflects the common docetic christology of gnosticism, which is based on the assumption that Jesus had no human body but only a spiritual one.​

No view is more contrary to that of the Church, so to ask me to use my brain to work out whether Faustus or Augustine is the more authoritative as a Christian teacher, is to display such unfamiliarity with Christian doctrine, that only if your own brain was in a jar of formaldehyde could any excuse be found that might pardon you for making it.

Docetism^WP was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and Coptic Church.​

Again, you post more evidence that your "circuits are blown". You simply cannot engage "brain function".

The Nicene Creed of 325 is evidence that Jesus was a fiction/myth character [God of God] and that there was never ever any historical documented evidence that Jesus was ever born of human parents.

In effect, the Nicene Creed of the 325 is non-scientific non-historical garbage just like the teachings of the Christians called Manicheans.

Examine The Letter on the Council of Nicaea attributed to Eusebius.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2804.htm

The Faith dictated in the Council.

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge quick and dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

And those who say, 'Once He was not,' and 'Before His generation He was not,' and 'He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that the Son of God is 'Of other subsistence or essence ,' or 'created' or 'alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes.

The Nicene Creed is unequivocal rejection of the historical Jesus with human parents who only existed after his supposed birth.

The Jesus of the Nicene Creed was always in existence [Very God of Very God].

The Jesus described in the Nicene Creed is fiction [without actual birth].

Augustine's Jesus was never ever born.

Augustine's Jesus was fiction.

 

[Craig B]

The Nicene Creed is unequivocal rejection of the historical Jesus with human parents who only existed after his supposed birth.

Where does the 325 CE Creed unequivocally say he was not born as a human being? Where does it say that the parents of the Jesus born in the flesh were not human?

The Jesus of the Nicene Creed was always in existence [Very God of Very God].

That doesn't refer to the birth of Jesus as a human being on Earth.

 

[dejudge]

Where does the 325 CE Creed unequivocally say he was not born as a human being? Where does it say that the parents of the Jesus born in the flesh were not human?

Your circuits are blown---you cannot engage "brain function".

Where does the Nicene Creed of 325 unequivocally say he had a human father?

The Nicene Creed states unequivocally that Jesus was the ONLY begotten Son of God, and was God of God, very God of very God.

God is a fiction/myth character.

Jesus is unequivocally the son/product/begotten of fiction.

Jesus was never ever born.

Examine excerpts of the fiction called Jesus in The Letter on the Council of Nicaea.

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge quick and dead.

Jesus is very fiction of very fiction.

Jesus is the very same substance as fiction.

Jesus and fiction are ONE.

 

[Craig B]

Your circuits are blown---you cannot engage "brain function".

Where does the Nicene Creed of 325 unequivocally say he had a human father?

You previously said that "The Nicene Creed is unequivocal rejection of the historical Jesus with human parents who only existed after his supposed birth." So where is this "rejection"? Now you're saying it doesn't positively assert it, so you're jumping from one statement to another because your memory banks have been erased, perhaps when your brain function was most recently updated.

 

[Darat]

In this new year of our Lord 2017 shall we try to be better humans and stop personalising our discussions? That's a rhetorical question as the answer is "yes unless you want to be infracted, suspended or even banned for ignoring your membership agreement".

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: historical Darat

 

[dejudge]

You previously said that "The Nicene Creed is unequivocal rejection of the historical Jesus with human parents who only existed after his supposed birth." So where is this "rejection"? Now you're saying it doesn't positively assert it, so you're jumping from one statement to another because your memory banks have been erased, perhaps when your brain function was most recently updated.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with moderator instructions and Rule 12

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2804.htm

Examine the Nicene Creed.

The Faith dictated in the Council.

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge quick and dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

And those who say, 'Once He was not,' and 'Before His generation He was not,' and 'He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that the Son of God is 'Of other subsistence or essence ,' or 'created' or 'alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes.

God is fiction.

Jesus was begotten of fiction/God.

Jesus is unequivocally fiction in the Nicene Creed.

Jesus and fiction are One and the same.

 

[Craig B]

@dejudge

It's a complete mystery to me how you can turn

came down and was made flesh, was made man​

into an

unequivocal rejection of the historical Jesus with human parents​

 

[dejudge]

@dejudge

It's a complete mystery to me how you can turn

came down and was made flesh, was made man​

into an

unequivocal rejection of the historical Jesus with human parents​

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with moderator instructions and Rule 12

Jesus was unequivocally fathered by God in the Nicene Creed.

Again, examine the Letter on the Nicene Council.

The Faith dictated in the Council.

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge quick and dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

And those who say, 'Once He was not,' and 'Before His generation He was not,' and 'He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that the Son of God is 'Of other subsistence or essence ,' or 'created' or 'alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes.

Examine the Letter on the Council of Nicaea

9. Moreover to anathematize Before His generation He was not, did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all, that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh.

Jesus was born of fiction/God.

Jesus never ever existed.

Jesus was never ever born.

 

[Craig B]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with moderator instructions and Rule 12

According to the Nicene Creed (NC) - my spellcheck calls it the "Niceness" Creed, which is quite touching - Jesus has existed from of all eternity, begotten by God the Father. But Christians also insist that he became flesh and assumed a human form. There is nothing in the 325 AD creed that rules out human parentage, and the existence of a physical bodily Jesus is somthing that the major sects agree on. To state otherwise, as naughty Faustus did, and was reprimanded by Augustine, is the horrible heresy of "Docetism". You may not believe in the human existence of Jesus, but Christians believe in it. As a consequence of that, they believe he was born as a person, and two of the gospels even have magical stories about the event.

 

[dejudge]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with moderator instructions and Rule 12

According to the Nicene Creed (NC) - my spellcheck calls it the "Niceness" Creed, which is quite touching - Jesus has existed from of all eternity, begotten by God the Father. But Christians also insist that he became flesh and assumed a human form. There is nothing in the 325 AD creed that rules out human parentage, and the existence of a physical bodily Jesus is somthing that the major sects agree on. To state otherwise, as naughty Faustus did, and was reprimanded by Augustine, is the horrible heresy of "Docetism". You may not believe in the human existence of Jesus, but Christians believe in it. As a consequence of that, they believe he was born as a person, and two of the gospels even have magical stories about the event.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with moderator instructions and Rule 12

The Nicene Creed in the Letter on the Council of Nicaea unequivocally rules out a human father of Jesus.

No human father and a virgin have ever produced a child who already existed before coming down from heaven.

Christians claimed their Jesus was the son of a Ghost in two of the Gospels and in another that he was God Creator, the Logos.

Examine one of the birth narratives in the Gospels.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

A Ghost and a Virgin cannot produce human flesh.

A Ghost and a Virgin produce fiction.

Jesus the Son iof a Ghost is confirmed to be fiction by the NT writers.


In effect, Jesus was fiction--Jesus was never ever born.

The Faith dictated in the Council.

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge quick and dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

And those who say, 'Once He was not,' and 'Before His generation He was not,' and 'He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that the Son of God is 'Of other subsistence or essence ,' or 'created' or 'alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes.

 

[Craig B]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with moderator instructions and Rule 12

The Nicene Creed in the Letter on the Council of Nicaea unequivocally rules out a human father of Jesus.

No human father and a virgin have ever produced a child who already existed before coming down from heaven.

Christians claimed their Jesus was the son of a Ghost in two of the Gospels and in another that he was God Creator, the Logos.

Examine one of the birth narratives in the Gospels.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

A Ghost and a Virgin cannot produce human flesh.

A Ghost and a Virgin produce fiction.

Jesus the Son iof a Ghost is confirmed to be fiction by the NT writers.


In effect, Jesus was fiction--Jesus was never ever born.

I can't even find the word Virgin in the 325 AD creed.

 

[dejudge]

I can't even find the word Virgin in the 325 AD creed.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with moderator instructions and Rule 12

Look in the Ghost stories of Jesus in gMatthew and gLuke.

Luke 134-35 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her,[u[/u][/b]]The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Jesus was "born" after a Ghost overshadowed a virgin.

What fiction!!! What monstrous tales.

Jesus was never ever born.

Jesus was always fiction from conception to ascension.

Look at what I found. Jesus was able to have God for his father WITHOUT a human mother and also able to have a Virgin as his mother without a human father

On the Flesh of Christ

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.

Look In the Letter on the Council of Nicaea it is stated that the father of Jesus was God.

Jesus was able to have God for his fatherr without a human mother.

Jesus was unequivocal fiction in and out the NT and Nicene Creed.

 

[Craig B]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with moderator instructions and Rule 12

Look in the Ghost stories of Jesus in gMatthew and gLuke.



Jesus was "born" after a Ghost overshadowed a virgin.

What fiction!!! What monstrous tales.

Jesus was never ever born.

Jesus was always fiction from conception to ascension.

Look at what I found. Jesus was able to have God for his father WITHOUT a human mother and also able to have a Virgin as his mother without a human father

On the Flesh of Christ


Look In the Letter on the Council of Nicaea it is stated that the father of Jesus was God.

Jesus was able to have God for his fatherr without a human mother.

Jesus was unequivocal fiction in and out the NT and Nicene Creed.

I can't even find the word Virgin in the 325 AD creed.

 

[dejudge]

I can't even find the word Virgin in the 325 AD creed.

Jesus was fathered by God in the Letter on the Council of Nicaea

Jesus was very God of very God in the Nicene Creed.

Jesus was very fiction of very fiction.

Keep looking for the word Virgin because when you do you would have found more fiction.

I found the word Virgin in writings attributed to Augustine [your more authoritative source].

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1304.htm


Of the Faith and Creed attributed Augustine

....we add the faith in temporal things which have been done with salutary effect on our behalf, believing in that Son of God Who Was Born Through the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary.

Examine "On the Holy Virginity" attributed to Augustine [your more authoritative source].

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1310.htm

2. This we have undertaken in our present discourse: may Christ help us, the Son of a virgin.....

Examine On the Trinity Book 1 attributed to Augustine

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm

Yet not that this Trinity was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, but only the Son

A Ghost and a Virgin can never ever produce a son.

Jesus the son of a Ghost and a Virgin is fiction

Jesus was never ever born.

 

[Craig B]

@ dejudge

The problem is, anyone who depended on you for information would have assumed that the year 325 NC referred to the Virgin story. But it doesn't. The later versions of the creed do mention it unlike the Nicene version; as you clearly are aware, but won't admit it, preferring to hide behind a cloud of verbal garbage, like a squid emitting a puff of ink to cover its escape flight from a pursuing shark.

What then do we find when we examine the texts? Progressively increasing mythological elaboration. Just as we saw in the gospels, in our discussion, oh so long ago. We found that the earliest Gospel had no special birth story, and no virgin, or ghost.

What does that mean? It means that Jesus started with a normal human biography, and mythical materials were added later. That happened to Alexander the Great too.

But what makes me very sad? I will tell you. What makes me very sad is that you won't look systematically at the surviving texts in an attempt to assess the probability of the stories related in them. You just jump about this material from place to place, finding passages that suit whatever idea has entered your head at any given time.

And the idea currently in your head is virgins copulating with ghosts, which is a very unhealthy preoccupation.

 

[dejudge]

@ dejudge

The problem is, anyone who depended on you for information would have assumed that the year 325 NC referred to the Virgin story. But it doesn't. The later versions of the creed do mention it unlike the Nicene version; as you clearly are aware, but won't admit it, preferring to hide behind a cloud of verbal garbage, like a squid emitting a puff of ink to cover its escape flight from a pursuing shark.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with moderator instructions and Rule 12

The monstrous fable that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin PRECEDED the Council of Nicaea.

Manuscripts of gMatthew and gLuke dated the 2nd-3rd century contain the fables that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Anyone who depended on you for information would assume the Virgin story was invented after the 325 Council of Nicaea

What then do we find when we examine the texts? Progressively increasing mythological elaboration. Just as we saw in the gospels, in our discussion, oh so long ago. We found that the earliest Gospel had no special birth story, and no virgin, or ghost.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with moderator instructions and Rule 12

The earliest Gospel support the argument that Jesus was not born but came down from heaven without birth.

In letters under the name of Paul Jesus is called the second Adam who was on earth WITHOUT birth in the book of Genesis.

The earliest Gospel supports the claim of Faustus.

We know Jesus was a Ghost character in gMark because he used to walk on water and transfigure.

Human beings cannot walk on water and instantly transfigure.

What does that mean? It means that Jesus started with a normal human biography, and mythical materials were added later. That happened to Alexander the Great too.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with moderator instructions and Rule 12

Based on your absurdity Satan the Devil, Angels and God were normal human beings since the earliest Gospel does not contain their birth narratives.

You seem to have no idea that ADAM existed WITHOUT birth and that Jesus was called the second ADAM in letters under the name of Paul.

But what makes me very sad? I will tell you. What makes me very sad is that you won't look systematically at the surviving texts in an attempt to assess the probability of the stories related in them. You just jump about this material from place to place, finding passages that suit whatever idea has entered your head at any given time.

And the idea currently in your head is virgins copulating with ghosts, which is a very unhealthy preoccupation.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with moderator instructions and Rule 12

You have zero historical sources of antiquity to support your imagined Jesus.

I MUST show the HUNDREDS upon hundreds of writings of which support my argument that Jesus was fiction from conception to ascension.

1 Corinthians 15:45

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

All stories of Jesus were fiction.

Jesus was never ever born.

Jesus never ever existed.

 

[Craig B]

In letters under the name of Paul Jesus is called the second Adam who was on earth WITHOUT birth in the book of Genesis.

That is a metaphor. Paul didn't believe that Jesus had been manufactured by God out of dust in a garden. When Paul literally describes Jesus, he calls him

his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.​

So Paul believed Jesus to have had a body of flesh. And Paul never mentions virgins or suchlike. Therefore Paul must have believed Jesus to have had a conventional physical conception and birth; cos if he thought it was a miracle he would have told us so when referring to Jesus in the flesh. So you now must admit that
- Paul believed Jesus to have had a body, like his ancestor David
- Paul knows nothing about a miracle virgin birth.
Therefore we have shown yet again that docetism is not a Christian teaching, and that the virgin ghost story is a later elaboration; as Paul's works are the earliest Christian writings we have.

I MUST show the HUNDREDS upon hundreds of writings of which support my argument that Jesus was fiction from conception to ascension.

I most fervently hope that will not be necessary.

 

[dejudge]

That is a metaphor. Paul didn't believe that Jesus had been manufactured by God out of dust in a garden. When Paul literally describes Jesus, he calls him

his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.​

So Paul believed Jesus to have had a body of flesh. And Paul never mentions virgins or suchlike. Therefore Paul must have believed Jesus to have had a conventional physical conception and birth; cos if he thought it was a miracle he would have told us so when referring to Jesus in the flesh. So you now must admit that
- Paul believed Jesus to have had a body, like his ancestor David
- Paul knows nothing about a miracle virgin birth.
Therefore we have shown yet again that docetism is not a Christian teaching, and that the virgin ghost story is a later elaboration; as Paul's works are the earliest Christian writings we have.

Docetism is one of the multiple Christian beliefs in atiquity.

The claim that Paul does not know of a virgin birth has no negative effect on the belief by Christians that Jesus was not born.

Faustus [a Christian--a believer of Christ] does not know of a virgin birth.

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly. Do I therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not. It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born. This I do not believe; because Christ does not say that He was born of men...

The author of gMark does not mention a virgin birth but claimed his Jesus was a transfiguring water walker who was raised from the dead.

Based on your hopelessly flawed speculation, people who believed Jesus was born of a virgin and a Ghost would not be Christians.

Now these are the facts.

1. Letters under the name of Paul claimed his Lord Jesus was from heaven.

2. Letters under the name of Paul claimed his Lord Jesus was not a man.

3. Letters under the name of Paul claim his Lord Jesus was the Last Adam.

4. Letters under the name of Paul claim his Lord Jesus was made a Ghost.

5. Letters under the name of Paul claims his Lord Jesus was God's own Son.

6. Letters under the name of Paul claim his Lord Jesus was God Creator.

7. Letters under the name of Paul use the same Nomina Sacra for his Lord Jesus as the the Lord God of the Jews.

8. Letters under the name of Paul claim his Lord Jesus was equal to God.

9. Letters under the name of Paul claim his Lord Jesus was resurrected.

10. Letters under the name of Paul claim his Lord Jesus would never ever die again.

11. Letters under the name of Paul claim his Lord Jesus was the FIRSTBORN of the dead.

12. Letters under the name of Paul are dated to the 2nd century or later.

13. The character Paul is unknown in all accepted contemporary historical sources.

14. The letters under the name of Paul are compilations of fiction and forgery/false attribution.

15. The Lord Jesus in letters under the name of Paul is a fiction character.


The Lord Jesus was never ever born.

The Lord Jesus and Paul are 2nd century or later fabrications who never ever existed.

 

[Craig B]

Letters under the name of Paul claim Jesus never had any physical existence? Why have you not told me that, which would still least be relevant to your current argument, instead of being a murky cloud of verbal garbage designed to accomplish your escape from the consequences of uttering balderdash.

Letters under the name of Paul are dated to the second century or later? No they are not. Surviving manuscripts are thus datable, but
Paul mentions a living John. Is that from the second century or later?
Paul mentions a living James. Is that from the second century or later?
Paul mentions living Apostles. Is that from the second century or later?
Paul mentions an extant Temple. Is that from the second century or later?

You see what drivel you are uttering?