Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 01-23-2010, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

"Brother of Jesus" could still be meant as a title, I suppose.

There are at least two possible referents for "lord." There is only one for "Jesus." That would have to make some difference in the range of plausible interpretations.

Doug Shaver · 01-23-2010, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Not exactly the same of course, but some parallels there.

Where is the parallel absence of any reference, in his followers' writings, to his earthly life during the first several decades after his death?

Doug Shaver · 01-23-2010, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

but the "all Paul knows is the crucifixion and resurrection" comment should be qualified.

OK. Would this work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qualified

All Paul knows is the crucifixion and resurrection, although people who presuppose Jesus' historicity have been known to find proof texts interpretable as additional biographical data.

GakuseiDon · 01-23-2010, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Not exactly the same of course, but some parallels there.

Where is the parallel absence of any reference, in his followers' writings, to his earthly life during the first several decades after his death?

It isn't there.

GakuseiDon · 01-23-2010, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

but the "all Paul knows is the crucifixion and resurrection" comment should be qualified.

OK. Would this work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qualified

All Paul knows is the crucifixion and resurrection, although people who presuppose Jesus' historicity have been known to find proof texts interpretable as additional biographical data.

Yes, that works better.

aa5874 · 01-23-2010, 01:16 PM

But going back to the OP, it would appear that there is indeed a default theory on Jesus and it is the MJ.

The information of antiquity that have survived propagates a God/Man born of a virgin without a human father from conception to ascension through the clouds on his way to heaven. Jesus is a classical MYTH.

The Church writers are corroborative sources of antiquity that Jesus was indeed considered a God/Man, a mythological entity.

This is IGNATIUS claiming that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost in an Epistle to the Ephesians 18

Quote:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

This is CLEMENT claiming Jesus was raised from the dead in "First Clement"

Quote:

Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead.

This is POLYCARP claiming Jesus, the son of God was raised from the dead in an "Epistle to the Philippians' 12

Quote:

But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who "raised Him from the dead"...

This isJUSTIN MARTYR claiming Jesus was born of a virgin without sexual intercourse with a man in "First Apology" 33

Quote:

For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive.

This is IRENAEUS implying that Jesus was not a mere man in "Against Heresies" 3.1

Quote:

1. But again, those who assert that He was simply a mere man, begotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience, are in a state of death having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father, nor receiving liberty through the Son....

This is TERtULLIAN claiming that all have agreed that Jesus was Divine in "On The Flesh of Christ" 1

Quote:

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed...

And later

Quote:

...As earth was converted into this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father, so also was it quite possible for the Son of God to take to Himself the substance of the selfsame flesh, without a human father's agency.

This is ORIGEN claiming Jesus was indeed Word of God and the Creator who truly was born of a virgin and truly resurrected in De Principiis.

Quote:

....Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in thecreation of all things— "For by Him were all things made" — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit: that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up (into heaven).

This is EUSEBIUS claiming Jesus had a two-fold nature, God and man, in "Church History" 1.2.1

Quote:

1. Since in Christ there is a twofold nature, and the one — in so far as he is thought of as God — resembles the head of the body, while the other may be compared with the feet — in so far as he, for the sake of our salvation, put on human nature with the same passions as our own...

The extant information from antiquity have consistently depicted Jesus as a mythological entity, a GOD/MAN.

The MYTHOLOGICAL God/man is the default nature of Jesus Christ until some credible evidence of antiquity can be found to show otherwise.

Doug Shaver · 01-25-2010, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

I want an honest addressing of the plain fact that "Lord's brothers" cannot possibly refer to apostles, since apostles are referenced already in this verse -- and as "apostles" only -- and that therefore "Lord's brothers" can only refer to siblings

I'll give you that it doesn't refer to apostles, but I do not regard it as a fact that siblings is the only possible alternative. If that strikes you as dishonesty, so be it.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.