Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-24-2009, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Undoubtedly some religious documents were forged, but many, including the gospels, were written in good faith well before Christianity became the tool of the Roman Empire.

Has the "Crystal Ball" which you are using to make these fine pronouncements on the history of the gospels been checked by NASA? You dont happen to have any evidence for your "hypothesis" do you? Where did you hear about this hypothesis? In church? Do you believe everything your told?

aa5874 · 12-24-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

....I called it a "conspiracy" because that is what is exactly suggested by references to an imperial government telling lies, forging religious documents, and creating a false person of history for their own gain. What else should I call it?

But is not the HJ a "conspiracy" theory where the parents, disciples, relatives and followers of Jesus presented a false account of his life and that the Church lied and forged documents for their own gain?

Based on your view, the HJ must be a CONSPIRACY theory and must be maintained by conspiracy.

In order for the HJ conspiracy theory to be maintained it must be suggested that the authors of the NT produced lies, interpolations, embellishments and created a false GOD/MAN character when he was just a man.

Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Mark 16.6, John 1, Acts 1.9, and Galatians 1.1 are all part of the conspiracy to create a false GOD/MAN of history.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

aa5874 · 12-24-2009, 09:42 PM

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

If Jesus of the NT was a just a man then it can be shown that virtually everything about Jesus from conception to ascension was fundamentally fiction.

Now, if Jesus did actually exist and was human, then it must be expected that the Jews in Jerusalem and the surrounding region knew that Jesus was only human.

So, when the supposed Jesus was crucified and died he would not have resurrected and there would be no expectation by the Jews that he would resurrect.

Many Jews were crucified before the supposed Jesus and died, there is no record or expectation of any dead crucified Jew to come back to life after three days.

However, once Jesus was known or believed to be just human by the Jews and Jesus believers then he would not have been deified, worshiped as a God, and ask to forgive sins.

This is the christian Aristides about worshiping men as Gods in his "Apology".

Quote:

7. And those who believed of the men of the past, that some of them were gods, they too were much mistaken.

For as you yourself allow, O King, man is constituted of the four elements and of a soul and a spirit (and hence he is called a microcosm), and without anyone of these parts he could not consist.

He has a beginning and an end, and he is born and dies.

But God, as I said, has none of these things in his nature, but is uncreated and imperishable.

And hence it is not possible that we should set up man to be of the nature of God:

— man, to whom at times when he looks for joy, there comes trouble, and when he looks for laughter there comes to him weeping—who is wrathful and covetous and envious, with other defects as well.

And he is destroyed in many ways by the elements and also by the animals.

It is clear once Jesus was known or believed to be a mere man there would have been no salvation for mankind, and Jesus would not have been worshiped by Jews or Jesus believers in Jerusalem.

Now, this is Aristides' understanding of the nature of Jesus in his "Apology". Jesus was a God incarnate.

Quote:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High.

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh, and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished.

But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven.....

Aristides believed Jesus was a God with the flesh of a man otherwise Aristides would not have worshiped a man as a God and ask the corruptible man to forgive the sins of mankind.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

No Jew or Jesus believer would dare worship a corruptible man as an incorruptible and eternal God. Jews and Jesus believers do not even worship King David as a God much worse a man who was a blasphemer.

Larkin31 · 12-25-2009, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

I just read two different threads in the Bible section here, and could not really find what I think you are suggesting. Yes, there were claims here and there, but no arguments. Can you provide a link? Or anyone else?

I called it a "conspiracy" because that is what is exactly suggested by references to an imperial government telling lies, forging religious documents, and creating a false person of history for their own gain. What else should I call it?

You may have picked threads from one particular poster who proposes a conspiracy theory of history. Most people here do not endorse that theory, including most mythicists. Undoubtedly some religious documents were forged, but many, including the gospels, were written in good faith well before Christianity became the tool of the Roman Empire.

Why not do some background reading for yourself?

I have, indeed. Which is why I am asking for additional information here. I thought maybe there was stuff here that I have not yet been exposed to. So far, I have one author suggested for me, which I appreciate. But I don't buy books blind, so we'll see....

Larkin31 · 12-25-2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.... No Jew or Jesus believer would dare worship a corruptible man as an incorruptible and eternal God. Jews and Jesus believers do not even worship King David as a God much worse a man who was a blasphemer.

This claim isn't true. I grew up in a Christian minister's household that believed exactly what you claim here that no Christian would believe.

I have my doubts about certain aspects of the historical Jesus, but your blanket absolute claims are not persuasive.

Toto · 12-25-2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

.... But I don't buy books blind, so we'll see....

That's why I gave you a link to google books, so you can preview the book. You can also look for reviews on Amazon.

If you want a more complete theory of how Christianity developed without a historical Jesus, you can read www.jesuspuzzle.com for one well thought out example, which does not involve massive conspiracies.

Larkin31 · 12-25-2009, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

.... But I don't buy books blind, so we'll see....

That's why I gave you a link to google books, so you can preview the book. You can also look for reviews on Amazon.

If you want a more complete theory of how Christianity developed without a historical Jesus, you can read www.jesuspuzzle.com for one well thought out example, which does not involve massive conspiracies.

Perfect, yes. Thanks for the reminder. :wave:

aa5874 · 12-25-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.... No Jew or Jesus believer would dare worship a corruptible man as an incorruptible and eternal God. Jews and Jesus believers do not even worship King David as a God much worse a man who was a blasphemer.

This claim isn't true. I grew up in a Christian minister's household that believed exactly what you claim here that no Christian would believe.

I have my doubts about certain aspects of the historical Jesus, but your blanket absolute claims are not persuasive.

Well, if you doubt aspects of the history you understand that the HJ is doubtful.

Now, you have failed to understand what I post.

I am referring to Jesus believers of antiquity. The records of antiquity show that Jesus was presented as a GOD/MAN, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, not just a man.

I am not discussing your minister unless he lived in antiquity.

Please look at Matthew 1.18

Quote:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,[u] she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.[/u

And look at Luke 1.35

Quote:

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also [b]that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God./b]

This Aristides in his "Apology"

Quote:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah,and he is named the Son of God Most High.

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh, and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

And now look at Aristides in his "Apology"

Quote:

7. And those who believed of the men of the past, that some of them were gods, they too were much mistaken.

For as you yourself allow, O King, man is constituted of the four elements and of a soul and a spirit (and hence he is called a microcosm), and without anyone of these parts he could not consist.

He has a beginning and an end, and he is born and dies.

But God, as I said, has none of these things in his nature, but is uncreated and imperishable.

And hence it is not possible that we should set up man to be of the nature of God...

Why do you ignore sources of antiquity and tell me about your minister?

I am dealing with sources of antiquity that show that Jesus was considered a God who came down from heaven.

It is absolutely clear that Jesus believers in antiquity did not consider Jesus just a man but a God come from heaven.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition since Jesus believers considered that Jesus was a God come down from heaven.

Kapyong · 12-25-2009, 01:52 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Fact: No one at the time seemed interested in stating the "obvious" that there was no such person As Jesus of Nazareth.

Fact: No one at the time seemed interested in stating the "obvious" that there was no such person As Aesculapius.

Fact: No one at the time seemed interested in stating the "obvious" that there was no such person As Bacchus.

Fact: No one at the time seemed interested in stating the "obvious" that there was no such person As Osiris.

Fact: No one at the time seemed interested in stating the "obvious" that there was no such person as ANY of the gods and god-men and angels and demons and ghosts that filled poeple's beliefs in those times.

There was NO debunking of ANYONE back then, no matter how obviously fictional or mythical we realise they were now.

K.

Kapyong · 12-25-2009, 01:55 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Was Josephus part of this conspiracy?

What conspiracy?
No-one here argued for a conspiracy.

It's just a silly phrase that people beat others with -
"conspiracy theory" essentially means :
"rubbish I don't agree with".

K.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.