Toto

BAR interview of Sean Freyne: Jesus of History vs Jesus of Tradition

The rest of the interview is somewhat unimpressive. Freyne accepts the basic historicity of the gospel stories, although he ends by comparing those gospel stories to Irish folklore.

Littlejohn

"..is to find the figure who stands behind the gospel narratives as a historical figure.... "

It is from over 10 years that I'm saying just that. The fact that the Jesus of faith, that is what appears in the Gospels, it is so unbelievable, absolutely does not mean that a character known with such a pseudo name is not really existed.

That catholic is not the only worship born around the figure of Jesus of Nazareth

In the first half of the second century, there were already more than 70 Gnostic sects which all revolved around the charismatic figure of Jesus, and all were in direct conflict with 'orthodox' Christianity of the Catholics.

Anyone who affirms the non-historicity of the figure of the Nazarene, pretends to ignore all that and tends to retain not credible the Jewish evidences, registred by the rabbis in the Talmud.

Such evidences does not speak of a non-historical Jesus, but about a fundamentally different Jesus from the one of the Catholic faith, owing to the fact that forger fathers of 19 centuries ago, they isolate from the jesuan context just a few features of the character, neglecting many others, inasmuch not only they were not useful for their purpose, but were even counterproductive!

The material that such fathers used, besides being absolutely partial and very reticent even, was also presented in a highly distorted form, in order to achieve the goals that counterfeiter fathers, and their very rich sponsors, had set out to achieve.

A strong and explicative example of such an approach on the part of forger fathers, as well founders of the catholic-christian cult also, is represented from the episode of Lazarus, which found only in the Gospel of John. How is it that three out of four evangelists, namely the so-called 'synoptics', have 'forgotten' to tell us a fact so apparently striking, as the resurrection of a man, three days after death, operated by Jesus? ..

It is all too clear that if the three evangelists' synoptic' did not speak of Lazarus, it was not for a 'forgetfulness', but for the simple reason that the whole affair had a very indecent aspect, as it is possible guess by the letter of Clement of Alexandria, discovered by Morton Smith at the monastery of Mar Saba. What such things were just in the terms suggested by the letter of Clement of Alexandria, is confirmed by a pagan author of the 2° century AD.

Failing to investigate such an aspect so disconcerting, does not help to search for that truth that a host of scholars and researchers are committed just until today


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

show_no_mercy

The only Jesus that we have is the Jesus of tradition. Tradition doesn't distinguish between historical and ahistorical/mythical.

dog-on

Except that the Jesus of tradition is mythical, whereas the Jesus of history is made up.

Littlejohn

It is just for this reason that a serious researcher, equipped with common sense, should seek to discover the historical Jesus, that forger fathers of 19 centuries ago hid behind that artificial of the faith, because that of the history was unproposable, or however not suitable to build on a cult as the Catholic one. (to keep in mind that Jesus was a Gnostic teacher, who had NOTHING to do with the catholic-christianity)


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

dog-on

And without a time machine, how exactly do you propose to do so.

As there are no actual facts to work with, one is only left with conjecture, aka: making shit up.

Littlejohn

"...aka: making shit up.."

The shit is in the brains of those who presume to externalize easy and lazy judgements and opinions, without the slightest effort to verify if indeed there are no traces of the historical Jesus, or that they should be properly researched.

This is a very expensive task, in order of social and economic sacrifices, which end up involving the entire family, forced to follow the vicissitude of one who has engaged in a stringent and closing search for historical truth. For me, this commitment has been ongoing for over 14 years, and is not yet finished!

There is not need any 'time machine' to trace the historical truth: just research, and a rational approach to the collected data (not many, but NOT insufficients for this purpose), and then seek 'riscontri' (confirms) for the own reconstructions, in extra-christian sources: all sources of data, no exceptions! ...



Littlejohn

.

dog-on

Ok, then give me one actual historical fact about Jesus.

Note: not an argument, not an assumption, simply one fact.

aa5874

Jesus as a mere man has ZERO benefit to the REMISSION of the SINS of mankind. The historical Jesus has ZERO benefit to theology and history. What does "Jesus was a man who died" contribute to history?

It must be OBVIOUS that a mere human Jesus has no real theological value. There would have no reason for the Jesus story writers to isolate some real human character and then proceed to INVENT fables about him when all the story writers would have done is to DESTROY their own credibility.

The historical Jesus is irrelevant to the Christian theology and Irrelevant to Christian history.

It is the INVENTED God/man that has theological and "historical" value. It was the MYTH who "died and resurrected" to REMIT the sins of the world during the reign of Tiberius.

Sheshbazzar

Litttlejohn we have been missing you!

And I am still waiting for your reply to the last thread that you started.
Remember? The one where you were to answer my questions about your assertions regarding the date and details of 'Jesus' BIRTH?

You are again asserting without providing any evidence. tsk tsk tsk. naughty.