Robert Tulip

That is not true. I have presented this evidence on other boards and am happy to do so here on request.

This hypothesis of how the New Testament encodes precession of the equinox as a basis for the Christ Myth is more coherent with the existing evidence than any other. It is relevant to this thread because it provides a scientific explanation of Christian origins.

Would you like me to present more evidence or have you personally decided a priori that the case cannot be made?

Robert Tulip

This goes back to a comment on page 12. I'm not sure that J-D understands this issue of precession that well. We can go back to Copernicus, whose book explaining the heliocentric theory also explains (accurately) that there are three motions of the earth, the day, the year and the precession. The precession is not just some arbitrary choice that is like any other motion, it is one of three actual motions of the earth. There are also some slower motions, but the three motions were known in antiquity, and provide the basis of visual cosmology.

Precession takes about 2000 years to move the spring point through each zodiac sign. That is the only coherent meaning of the old concept of an age (or world). This is a coherent natural premise that enables us to understand Biblical mythology, explaining everything from the seven days of creation to the holy city.

dog-on

Indeed they did, but what they accepted were things that, for the most part, they already believed. In other words, Joe Smith is the "Who", whereas existing concepts, even re-packaged ones, is the "What".

aa5874

Whether or not there were existing concepts the Mormon religion was started when people BELIEVED what Joseph Smith wrote.

If no-one accepted and did NOT Believe what Joseph Smith wrote then there would be no Mormon religion started by Joseph Smith.

It must be noted that Joseph Smith did also write about Jesus in his Bible "copied" from golden plates as "directed" by the Angel Moroni.

It was a similar thing with the Jesus cult.

The cult started when people accepted and believed the stories about Jesus.

Some Non-Jew wrote a story that the Son of God came down from heaven and was Killed by the Jews and the cult STARTED when people accepted the story as history.

Aristides in his Apology explains WHAT started the Jesus cult of Christians.

1. They trace the START of their religion to a STORY of Jesus.

2. The people who BELIEVED the story called themselves CHRISTIANS.

Aristides' Apology

Robert Tulip

Thanks outhouse, but it would be more constructive if you identified a specific point that you do not understand rather than expressing a generalised gainsaying with no contrary evidence. Unfortunately your comment does not help me to appreciate your comprehension skills.

Let me try to explain for you again in simple language. Try reading more slowly if you find the words a bit hard.

Traditional Christianity has a ransom theology. I gave a link to the Wikipedia explanation of the Ransom Theory. This wikipedia page explains that "according to Christian tradition, the Ransom View of the Atonement is one of the main doctrines in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ."

I raised it in this thread in order to counter the anti-Semitic implications of some other posts. According to the Gospels, the Jews delivered up Christ to the Romans. In the Gospel of John, the Jews speculate that this action might save their temple. This equates to the Jews delivering Christ to the Romans as payment of a ransom. This event, the death of Christ, came to be understood as a cosmic atonement, saving all Christians from going to hell, with the ransom of Christ imagined as being paid by God to Satan.

Meanwhile the Romans effectively sent the Jews to hell by expelling them from Israel and smashing their temple. Paying the ransom did not work for the Jews.

I am very happy to help you out if there is anything in this simple explanation that you do not understand, or if there is something else I said that you do not understand.

Davka

Again you expose yourself as unable to follow a simple logical progression; unable to discern the clear and unambiguous meaning of English phrases; and unwilling to even attempt to grapple with these crippling shortcomings.

Are you under the illusion that mere repetition of unsupported assertions somehow strengthens them? :huh:

aa5874

Again, you present fallacies.

You clearly stated that the EXACT SAME sentiments were in the OT but failed to produced them.

1. Where in the OT it is stated that the Jews would kill Jesus of Nazareth.

2. Where in the OT is Pharisees mentioned?

3. Where in the OT does it state that the Jews are of their Father the Devil who was a Murderer.

There are NO such claims in the OT.

In the earliest Gospels, Jesus was NOT even known as Christ or the Messiah by the Popoluce.

The OT does NOT have the EXACT SAME sentiments as the Gospels.

Mark 8 KJV

outhouse

That is not really true in any sense.

Not only is it not worded that way, your required to, forced to use imagination while taking the whole NT out of context.



Nothing is more coherant then a martyred man at Passover placed on a cross.



The dec 25 birth and virgin birth are all later developments you cannot use as evidence for your equinox guess.

aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about.

There were at least THREE persons crucified in the Gospels--Jesus the blasphemer and Two Thieves.

There is no evidence from antiquity at all that Jews worshiped a Blasphemer or any of the Two Thieves as Gods.

Mark 15:27 KJV

outhouse

Which has nothing to do with the origins of Christianity, and is a later theological development.


Any trouble maker in the temple at Passover in this time of high tension, would be made a severe example out of.





Later writers tried to rationalize this in mythology and OT theology, and many have different beliefs for this tradition.

I understand all to well this, its your lack of comprehensive ability to show how this really applies to the origins of chriatianity while leaving us forced to use imagination to connect your mental dots.






Which doesnt address the crooked temple, or the well known hated Saducees who ran the temple/treasury.

Nor the anti semitic writings by people who wanted to distance themselves from Judaism.


Ransom theology has a place in this theology, but you have not successfully showed how it applies to any origin.




yes according to theology, not history.

Did the temple guards who worked hand in hand with the Romans hand him over to the romans who factually policed this event, it spossible.

No matter how you slice it peace keeping was their primary focus. They didnt want a riot, its why they went in at night with a goon squad to arrest him.


Also if you posit a ransom, this ransom would be for a living man at passover, not a deity








Finished roughly 70 years after Jesus death, and the destruction of the temple.

At the time of Jesus death, the temple was not destroyed, but the possibility for revolt was always at hand and tensions high over the Roman occupation.


Turning over a prisoner, a Jewish peasant for ransom of the temple was not historical, outside theology.




Christianity did not exist at this time, or any time during Jesus life.




Because no ransom was ever paid in reality.

The temple fell because Zealots had always fought Roman oppression.

So this is where your seriously messed up with a bad guess.

You propose a cosmic atonement for a man, yet a temple destruction that doesnt have anything at all to do with cosmic horse crap.







I am very happy to help you out if there is anything in this simple explanation that you do not understand about real history.