jakejonesiv

No.

Anno xv Tiberii Christus Iesus de caelo manare dignatus est, spiritus salutaris.
'In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar Christ Jesus vouchsafed to glide down from heaven, a salutary spirit.' Tert ADVERSUS MARCIONEM 1:19

outhouse

Exactly.


And the further you get away from the supposed actual events, the deeper and more twisted the mythology gets.

stephan huller

It looks like the cavalry has arrived (Jake)

You haven't been here for a while. There is this curious development - 'Dohertyism' - which can be defined as arguing for a supernatural Jesus from the existing canon, but one who never appeared on earth. I don't know how to explain this, let alone its appeal. Anyone who has ever read the Church Fathers knows that those who believed in a supernatural Jesus used a different canon and argued from a 'seeing together' of the gospel and the Pauline epistles that Jesus appeared on earth as a spiritual being.

Of course, I welcome anyone who brings attention to the idea that Jesus was a supernatural being. But this approach pushes to the side everything in antiquity that supports this POV. It's so curious to have to wrestle with the basic concept. I don't know what to say. The only word I can come up with to describe it is banalité, which isn't the same thing in French as it is English (I doubt Earl knows much French because I think he is a few years older than me, there used to be a separation of culture until Trudeau).

I don't know why anyone would embrace an approach which throws out every scrap of information we know about the 'supernatural Jesus' from existing historical testimonies. As I said, on the one hand, I am happy with the attention Earl is bringing to the subject. But it can't possibly be right. To be frank, it can only appeal its message to those who don't know anything. How can anyone who has read and studied embrace a theory that tells all our historical sources to go jump in a lake?

I can't imagine Earl having a conversation with Martin Hengel if he were still alive or David Trobisch or Birger Pearson or anyone else who is both familiar with the Patristic testimonies and the texts of the gospel and the apostolikon. They would have the same problem with this theory that I do (albeit they are respected figures and I just some guy who posts at this forum). Like I said to the fans of Acharya S and the like, it's as good a theory as any. But how do we just jettison what the historical record tells us about the origins of the supernatural Jesus movement?

ApostateAbe

Fortunately for you, I highly doubt anyone else was following the discussion.

Chili

Definition is a major problem, as in how do you define a spritual being? Angels? Above angels? or below? and what is an angel even? a messenger with wings?

At this board I have yet to see anyone define what it means to be human, and what sinless really means for both Mary and for Jesus, which after all also is a proclamation whereupon the church is built, and only on that basis.

So let's rationalize that first and that will be the end, because the historicist will never accept that either. While yet if the myth is real it will be iconic and can be explained away.

jakejonesiv

How dogmatic has 'Dohertyism' become?

jakejonesiv

Do you rank yourself above Robert M. Price and Hermann Detering?

Vorkosigan

I'm tired of your whining, especially since it is so uniformed. Why don't you bring your best arguments for the historicity of Jesus in a new thread, and I will dismantle them. It won't be difficult.

Vorkosigan

aa5874

We have the "historical" records of the supernatural Jesus and the Jesus movement. They originate from Fiction and Mythology.

The Foundation of Christianity is well documented.

We have Four Canonised authors that have the stories about the Son of God that came down from heaven and supposedly did miracles that no human being could have done.

The Entire "history" of Jesus the Son of God is Total fiction.

The authors of the short gMark, the Long gMark, gMatthew, and gLuke show without contradiction that the character called Jesus, the Son of God, had No real place in history.

In the Entire Bible, the supposed contemporaries of Jesus the Son of God, the Lord and Savior, never claimed that they saw him alive before he died.

In fact, Pauline writers wrote about their relationship with Jesus, the Son of God, Lord and Savior ONLY after he was Raised from the dead---a most fictitious relationship.

The "history" of supernatural Jesus is secure. The Foundation of Christianity is cast in stone.

It is based on total fiction and derived from Jewish, Roman and Greek Mythology.

We have the Codices, Apologetic writings and NT Manuscripts.

Bingo the Clown-O

+1 :wave: