TedM

aa, you seem to be saying this is the sequence:

1. Temple Fell
2. Romans saw need to explain the Fall of Jewish Temple
3. Romans make up deception of Jewish Savior to explain Temple Fall. Sequence: gMark, followed by Pauline writings and Acts
4. Romans people believe #3 and are called Christians.

Is this what you claim? Please clarify. I was saying that #2 seems very unlikely. The Romans don't need a Jewish explanation for the Fall of the Jewish Temple. The Romans know the reason: They took over.

I'm saying the orthodox view makes more sense:

1. Jewish Christians who believe in Jewish Savior, including Paul, who saw Hosea 6:2 as Scriptural support
2. Pauline mission to Gentiles creates Roman Christians.
3. Pauline writings, followed by gMark. Christianity spread further.

aa5874

Please, please, please!!! Is English your first language?? Do you see the pronoun "US"?? Do you see the pronoun "WE".

You seem to have suspended logic and reason. Hosea 6. 2 has BACKFIRED in your face. Hosea 6 is about us ---1 Cor. 15.3-4 is about Jesus.

1. After two days will he revive US.

2. In the third day he will raise US up.

3. WE shall live in his sight.

Hosea 6.2 has nothing whatsoever to with 1 Cor 15.3-4.

1. Jesus died for our Sins.

2. He was buried.

3. He was raised on the third day.

Come on, TedM. You have got to do better than that. You show a complete lack of understanding of Hosea 6.

There is NOTHING at all about Remission of Sins by the death of Jesus and that he resurrected on the third day in Hosea.

Duvduv

WHAT Jewish Christians??

Toto

I consider this thread to have run its course. But I will leave it open until I can't take it any more.

aa5874

This is unheard of. There are no such rules on this forum. I have not violated any rules at all. I have not been warned about any violation. Something has gone radically wrong on BC&H.

I have simply presented an argument that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century using Jewish and Roman writings, Dated NT manuscripts, the Bible, Apologetic sources of antiquity and writings and debate of Bart Ehrman.

This thread has NOT run its course.

I will show that writings attributed to Tertullian are forgeries and were composed extremely late.

It has been drawn to my attention that the Five Books "Against Marcion" are forgeries under the name of Tertullian.

Effectively, it will be shown that Marcion did NOT know of the Pauline letters which will corroborate the writings of Justin Martyr when he mentioned stories about Jesus and also mentioned Marcion without ever acknowledging Paul, the Pauline letters and the Pauline Revealed Gospel from the Resurrected Jesus.

TedM

You apparently don't realize that prophecy interpretation was highly creative. The revival of 'us' was the 'raising up' of the souls of believers -- the washing of sins -- salvation itself, THROUGH his own resurrection.

Do some research and you'll discover that this passage indeed was considered Messianic prophecy. As such, there is no reason to not see a rather obvious link between salvation on the third day and resurrection on the third day.

Iskander

There are hundreds of ‘messianic prophecies’, but each one is a worthless invention after the alleged event

Sheshbazzar

I'm still enjoying it. To me it has been both educational and entertaining, although some of it has been a wee bit repetitious.

I can hardly wait to see what new sources and angels aa5874 will produce for our edification.

Sure wish he used a name though, it just don't seem polite to have to refer to his views a 'aa's' .

tanya

Hi Toto,

Yes, as usual, I disagree with your assessment, however, I would like to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to you, for, your comment here, stimulated my thinking.

How do we decide which threads have been productive, which entertaining, which useful, which interesting?

What do those words even mean, in the context of evaluating a thread on BC&H?

Can we relate our own satisfaction/irritation with topics covered here, with the origin of Christianity?

Were people, two thousand years ago, sitting, not in the comfort of their homes, reading text on a flat screen monitor, but listening to the one literate voice in their community, reciting some sort of religious exhortation, ALSO bored to tears by what they heard, as you were, Toto, by what you had read? Were folks 2000 years ago, inspired by the mediocrity of those outlandish claims describing some ordinary, little person, otherwise without distinction, able to kill a giant, using only an ordinary slingshot, though they themselves had just been evicted from their mud hut by someone relatively scrawny, like them? Alternatively, did they mutter to themselves, there must be a better way? Were the first Christians, similarly, unable to "take it anymore", focused on creating a more imaginative myth?

Imagine a contest, to determine the BC&H 2012 thread of the year. Which criteria would we apply, to submit a list of candidate threads to the forum as a whole, to vote upon?

Consider, for example, the notion of listing as a candidate for "most interesting thread of the year 2012", for forum member consideration, a thread with 41 entries, 36 of which had been submitted by the author of the thread.

Then, there will be, juxtaposed, another thread, also with 41 entries, but having 36 different forum members submissions.

Can we deduce from that characteristic, that one of these two threads was more interesting than the other?

I doubt it.

I have no idea how one could envision a method to determine eligibility for a list of "most interesting threads" on this forum.

Would that list embrace those topics which had caused a forum member to stop whatever else had been planned, to investigate one or another claim, whether reasonable, or unreasonable, perhaps outlandish, possibly mundane? How would we establish that the forum member did in fact investigate some controversial aspect contained within the thread? Would it be reasonable or fair or accurate to employ the existence or absence of a link, embedded within the text of some submission to that particular thread, as evidence that the forum member had indeed found the substance stimulating? What if that controversial item had been very interesting, and had provoked an attempt by the forum member to investigate some aspect, but, the forum member had failed to obtain a useful link, and so, submitted a rejoinder, sans link? Would absence of a link necessarily serve to demonstrate lack of interest?

How can we even define "interest". The earliest Christians solved that problem with their pocketbooks. It was not so much the size of the congregation that was significant, but rather the wealth procured by Church activities. Since it takes money, to make money, perhaps there is something to this idea that the whole religion began with Marcion. One thing is certain, those earliest churches weren't built by salvage and scavenging. Money exchanged hands---WHY? What would have caused an educated, wealthy Greek or Jew to give his/her money to this new church of Rome/Alexandria?

Thanks again, Toto, for a stimulating comment.

aa5874

Again, TedM, Hosea 6.1-2 does NOT contain the name 'Jesus' and that he Died for Our Sins and was resurrected on the third day.

It is clear to me that you have suspended logic and reason.

Hosea 6 specifically is about 'US', 'WE'.

1. After two days will he revive US.

2. In the third day he will raise US up.

3. WE shall live in his sight.


You have not done any research. Please, just go and do your homework.