Toto

You are reading your own ideas into the sources.

??? Not sure what this means, if anything.

Coming back from the dead and ascending to heaven is not a human trait.

And where does Paul talk of "flesh and blood?" (It's a trick question. Paul speaks of Jesus coming "in the flesh" which is a somewhat ambiguous term as discussed here ad nauseum. But "blood" is only mentioned in Ephesians, which the majority of critical scholarship classifies as "Deutero-Pauline," i.e., forged in his name.)

Of course - because Paul doesn't tell us anything about Jesus life on earth between the time he was born of a woman and crucified. Paul seemingly knows nothing of an earthly Jesus or his teaching.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Tommy,

We take non-existence as a logical category today, but the ancients had a real problem with non-existence. Parmenides argued that non-existence could not even be talked about. Aristotle told us that nature abhors a vacuum. He felt Primal matter was everywhere having the potential to be anything. When it found its form, Primal matter became actual. When an actual form lost its form, it did not become nothing, but went back to being primal matter and having the potential to become another form.

This difficultly in conceiving of nothing probably played a part in the ancient Greco-Roman culture never developing the concept of zero. They wondered how could something that was nothing ever be or be used for anything? When you were born, you were one year old on the day of your birth. If you left your home on Friday and returned Sunday, you had been gone for three days: the first day - Friday, the second day - Saturday and the third day - Sunday.

Note also that it was rarely argued that Zeus or his off-spring did not exist, rather the arguments were over which things Zeus and the other Gods had done, and which things the poets had mistakenly attributed to them. Even the early Christians believed in the Gods, merely pronouncing them demons who had done evil to their worshipers.

Further, Since Christians controlled the texts written about Christianity after the early Fourth Century, it is not surprising that we do not see arguments against the existence of Jesus.

Thus, if we look at ancient philosophy, mathematics, religion and the Christian control over textual production and distribution, it is easy to explain how a non-existent entity could be accepted unquestioned in ancient times and appear to many today to be a nearly universally accepted existent entity.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

outhouse

Which is perfectly normal when one doesnt really know said person but is writing about him after his death..

Toto

No point in going over this again.

outhouse

Well you would be wrong.

Early scripture, historical or mythological factually describe a mortal man first and formost.

The foundation of all the early scripture factually states Jesus was a mortal man.

How you want to percieve that evidence is up to you, despite what is claimed as a near concensus of scholars claiming they see a historical character.

Chili

But I think what Parmenides meant that everything that exists in the imagination exists in reality as well, such as pink and elephants but not pink elephants and that is why they can not be talked about.

Primal matter is chaos in a vacuum and wants to be any-thing but for this the essence must be created first, such as pink and elephants that remain dust without this essence to make it known as either pink or elephants but not pink elephants. Not sure about pink here but elephants someday sooner or later return to dust again when this essence parts from it.

So then now who are we as humans? Nothing but the image of what we call God in us, which then is also true for every thing.

So I do not really see how anyone could ever preach 'historic' existence of God or any of his delegates in history, except for the description of an event that happened in the past to present a possible encounter of the same so that we can relate to it as we journey our life on our own below this God we know.

And I think those Christians called themselves Catholic, but I am not sure since they never were very vocal about just what they did believe.

Toto

You ignored the rest of my post.

You are repeating your claims without providing details.

No it doesn't.

No it doesn't

You haven't provided any evidence so far.

Where is this consensus? What is it based on?

If you are trying to claim that there is a consensus of scholars who think that Paul described a merely mortal man, you're going to have to provide more evidence, not just what you remember from some TV program you saw.

Chili

Huh? Jesus was a mortal man? Have you ever thought you are reading the wrong books maybe? or per choice you are much too mortal yourself?

Jesus was insurrectionist as second Adam to undo the human condition and die on it's behalf.

Please tell me when he was born if Christ was born and so just who do you think this Jesus was to call him mortal and all that.

Toto

Chili speaks for the religious point of view here. The idea that Jesus Christ was a mere mortal is rank heresy.

outhouse

Gmark makes no mention at all of the birth mythology.


Its also the exact foundation the others layered their works upon, adding and building more mythology as the deity they factually created evolved forward.