Elijah

I’m really sorry AA I’m still not able to figure out how you understand this. Do you think the gospels are a work of fiction or they are meant to be understood as actually happening? You say it is fiction and then cite examples of early Christians who consider it actually happening. Do you see why I’m confused here?

Is your position that it was fiction or that the early Christians believed this stuff to have actually happened in the past?
If you are waiting for proof on the origin of Christ I think you will be waiting a long time. You may just want to work with what you got and move on.
All I have in my historical core is a guy with a messiah complex doing suicide by authority. I don’t believe in any miracles of any type as a part of my conviction and I don’t understand Christians who care about that crap. It’s all about the sacrifice for me.

aa5874

So, why isn't the sacrifice crap? The sacrifice was crap. It was non-literal.

Why are you terrified to claim Jesus was non-literal when you are already aware of his figurative existence?

Why do you cherry-pick parts as non-literal and other parts as literal when Jesus was presented in total as plausible and true, whether as God only, God and man, or just a man by Jesus believers?

Your historical core is worthless, you have no support just your imagination.

Eusebius has left written statements that your Jesus is a lie, never existed at all. Eusebius in Church History, the person who canonised the NT, has already declared that your historical core is nonsense, or blasphemy, Jesus was the son of the God of the Jews, who was transfigured, resurrected, and ascended through the clouds.

The author of gJohn claimed Jesus existed before the world was created, and it was Jesus who really created the world.

From where did you get the core of Jesus? From Eusebius?

The core of Jesus is non-literal, figurative or literally false.

Elijah

What about the question about your basic understanding of how the gospels are supposed to be considered?
Why does it have to be non literal? What makes the sacrifice crap?
Terrified?? Come on now. Not figurative existence but figurative/exaggerated miracles and titles.
What can be literal I consider literal what cannot be possible I consider figurative.
And all those church fathers you keep pushing who thought he existed in history right?

Reference please.
The spiritual aspect/logos that he is personifying existed before the physical universe. This is where you need some philosophical understanding of what they are referring to. What is your understanding of the Logos?
It’s what I consider possible. I don’t consider much possibility to the myth theory nor do I see much of a chance of a virgin birth. The historical core theory is the only one I see as having much chance of being true.
Then why are you taking the miracles and titles as literal? Why imagine a literal virgin birth and a literal resurrection if it’s all figurative?

aa5874

Can't you recognise crap? Read Homer'Achilles and then read the NT, and after those, read Suetonius "Twelve Caesars", you will immediately recognise that Achilles and Jesus are "crap".

You seem to think non-literal crap lived during the reign of Tiberius.

Well, couldn't the authors exaggerate his existence? Jesus did not exist so they just exaggerated him into existence, just like you.. Even though you can identify false or exaggerated and figurative statements you still say that you imagine Jesus was a real human being during the days of Tiberius.

When an author wrote that Jesus created the world and was before the world was created, I think the author has the propensity to make false and mis-leading statements about the existence of Jesus.

When an author claimed Jesus ascended through the clouds and was witnessed by the disciples, this author has the abilty to construct fiction about the existence of Jesus. And all the authors that claim Jesus was resurrected have the abilty to lie about or fabricated the existence of Jesus.



Well, that is just like Marcion, Cerinthus or Irenaeus who were all Jesus believers. Whatever is plausible is true, but they alone determine what is implausible even if they are martyed or burnt to the stake.

Marcion, according to the church writers, thought it was implausible for Jesus to be human, so Marcion's Jesus was not human, it was only plausible to him for Jesus to be only a God.



Well, I understand.

Jesus existed philosophically.

Jesus was figuratively the Logos, you know, he was not a real Logos.

So, you are going to fabricate your own history of Jesus. You are just going to guess you know what is true in the NT and call it history. That's what it appeared Marcion did, and he had a lot of followers.
You sure are confused. When does a fictitious event become literal?

And why do you imagine Jesus existed when you know his conception was literally false or figurative?

Tell me, when was the birth of your historical core, the offspring of the philosophical Word called Logos?

Elijah

You didn’t answer my question again. Nor did you respond to the basic question I have asked repeatedly now. Why is the sacrifice crap? How should we consider the gospels as fiction or as something they believed happened?
Exaggerating his existence is one thing but to exaggerate him into existence isn’t exaggeration its creation. The exaggeration of his existence isn’t in question it’s the creation of his existence that is.
I think they had an understanding of Logos that greatly varies from yours.
Does lying or exaggerating about someone mean that they didn’t exist?
I don’t know why you keep pulling up all these old Christians like Marcion if you neither bring forth evidence or can show you understand the discussion back then.
Funny. I’m not using “philosophical” as in figuratively or symbolically. I’m speaking of the perspective from the philosophers of the time. Plato and Philo and such. To them the world has a dual aspect between the spiritual and the physical, where the spiritual was eternal/constant and the physical was temporal/changing. The spiritual side was divided up depending on the philosophy but one of the aspects of the spiritual side was the Logos. Now Philo, IIRC had the logos as the divider aspect to the One which Jesus sounds more in line with when he talks of dividing stuff and causing division, but can’t be sure exactly how he or the writers understood it.

Regardless you shouldn’t think of it in cartoon terms; like if someone says that a person personifying the spirit of freedom, or justice or reason or love that doesn’t mean they are the physical incarnation of an anthropomorphic ghost of freedom or love. They are the physical manifestation of an eternal aspect of the universe that existed before the physical world started.
I’m not worried about the history of Jesus. I’m worry about the mission.
When a reader/you interpret it that way.
Because I see it as figurative or exaggerated legends and not reason to disbelieve in a historical core.
About 2000 years ago.

spin

You've been going on for quite a while and still there is nothing tangible to your meanderings.

There's this historical core which I think is self-evidence and I'm never going to analyze because it's self-evident. In fact if you have trouble with my unanalyzed suppositions your obviously wrong because common sense dictates that I know what I'm talking about because I have evidence which I don't need to produce because, as I said, it's self-evident. So my theory is the only one I see as having much chance of being true.

:banghead:


spin

Elijah

I thought the same after looking back at some of your previous posts here.

I wish I could summarize your position as accurately as you did mine but unfortunately you don't have one because you're just spin.

spin

In fact I did not present a position so that it would not get in the way of you dealing with the emptiness of your position. That was a vain effort on my part. You thought it was better to have a silly position rather than none.

People who spend consistent time on this forum know what my opinions are.


spin

Ben C Smith

And roundly reject them.

Ben.

Elijah

You should definitely reconsider that strategy in the future. I am aware of the lack of physical evidence for my position but I don’t expect any. Which I’m sure you are aware of because I’ve said it enough times now.

From my POV it doesn’t look like you are trying to show me the emptiness of my position but hide the emptiness of yours.
What does that have to do with anything?