archibald

Ouch. I hadn't expected to see that canard again so soon. Surely it should hardly surprise you that I 'haven't read enough' since according to another eminent poster I 'haven't been around long enough'. Lol.

Toto, by any definition which matters here, Jesus was thought of as having existed, long before the quests and long before Helena. If I have to keep saying it and you have to keep wriggling, that's fine by me. We can do it for another while.

I didn't say that you were some sort of loon. But I do think that the language you used may betray a certain way of thinking, a preference for trying to see things a certain, skewed way. There is no doubt that statement is incorrect, using any meaningful definition which is pertinent to the MJ/HJ question, so I found it very odd that you should view matters in that way. Why, I ask myself, would someone try to imply that Jesus was not seen as historical until fairly recently? :constern01:

And your follw-up assertion that he was thought of as wholly divine was equally skewed off the mark. Though again, it hardly matters, if he was thought of as 'an earthly incarnation of something divine'.

I'm not sure I would have queried you had we been talking about gnostics and docetics. But we weren't. we were talking about 'pre-quest'.


And may I also add that even if we do now shift the goalposts instead from 'pre-quest' to 'Docetic' (and we might as well since your original assertion is dead as a duck and about as accurate as saying that people nowadays no longer believe in the supernatural?) or if you like, to a time when some may have thought of Jesus as walking through walls etc., the short answer is still no, this is not evidence that he was not seen as an historical, earthly Jesus, for the purposes of deciding whether he was thought of as having incarnated on earth, or not. If you think otherwize, google 'miracle worker'.

What do we find when we drill down into your thinking? We find that you do not need actual evidence because (a) you 'know', from (your) reading of Paul and (b) you 'do not trust' the orthodox church not to have concealed something. Subjective interpretations and a conspiracy theory. That's what we find.

And before you respond by reminding me of the general observation that the orthodox church will of course have skewed accounts and doctored history, I already accept that. That is not the specific conspiracy in question.

Toto

How is asking what books you have read a canard? If you haven't read anything and you're just relying on what other people on the internet have told you, you can say so. It's not a problem. But you seem to be making certain assumptions, and I don't know where those come from.

Of course people thought Jesus existed. I keep trying to get you to see that the best minds of the second century had different ideas about what existence involved.

The Quest for the Historical Jesus is recent. It was and is controversial among some believers who do not think that Jesus should be viewed as merely historical. It is still controversial among people who think that the historical Jesus cannot be recovered, and that the important figure is not the historical Jesus, but the Jesus of faith.

This is basic Christian dogma of the Trinity - Jesus was wholly god and wholly man. :huh:

Have you read any Christian literature? It's okay if you haven't - it's probably not worth your time - but that's how Catholics think of Jesus. He lives in their hearts, and they crucify him again every time they sin. The Catholic Jesus might as well be mythical.

I have no idea what this is about. You picked up that phrase about knowing from reading Paul, but I don't remember the context. The only thing I would claim to know from reading Paul is what the text says.

Then what conspiracy are you talking about?

This conversation seems to have less and less to do with anything I have written, even given the normal amount of misunderstanding on the internet. If you want to continue, please quote me.

archibald

George, this is all fine, except it is asking more, much more, of Jesus than for other comparable figures from ancient history. ASs such, I don't consider it objective. It's asking for especially better evidence than we have any right to expect.

archibald

It's a canard when it's repeatedly pulled out of thin air to suggest that if I were 'better-informed' I would be, er, better Toto-informed. The last time it happened you referred me to an archived thread which added nothing I hadn't already realised. In this most recent case the idea that Jesus' incarnation has been viewed differently throughout history.

As for 'if you haven't read anything and you're just relying on what other people on the internet have told you, you can say so' I can only think that you are having a laugh by repeatedly making inferences in a lame attempt to undermine points made by other posters. I have no idea why you think that if I have not read something in a book that the alternative is that I 'heard it from someone online'. There is a lot of written material online, and I do endeavour to read from it. Maybe, you think I should also consider going to church, like TedM? Please try to bear in mind that this is the first forum I have encountered where the mod 'directs traffic' in this way, rather than playing a more neutral, background role.

By the way, I read the two links you suggested, and they were interesting. But not really addressing anything I was saying.

Toto, I think you may have an issue with assessing what other people already know. You have a tendency to appear as if you think they are hearing stuff first time from you.

Toto, try to recall at what point you entered this phase of the discussion, to query something I said to gurugeorge. You have been making word salad with various terms ever since, and I am not the only poster who has been confused by it. In the above paragraph, what was earlier 'purely divine' morphs to 'wholly divine and wholly man', so at least you may have got closer to accuracy the second time.

Tell me this, am I imagining that the Koine Greek word for 'man' appears in the NT in relation to Jesus?

If so, what on earth was the point of interjecting at the point you did? :huh:

What a waste of my time chasing after you. Like trying to pin jelly to a wall. I am definitely printing out the thread and keeping a copy to give me a future chuckle.

Could you answer one question? Of all the 'Jesus Questers', how many decided not to believe in the resurrection? Some maybe, but does it characterize the 'Questers' as a whole? If not, please explain how they managed to reconcile this with thinking of Jesus as only a human?

:facepalm:

If you have no idea because you can't remember, go back and read.

Which is what I have been doing all along:

Plain wrong. And feel free to review the context.

What a waste of time it has been trying to point out this one small fact to someone who can't accept it.

jakejonesiv

HI AA,

I am by no means a historist, but you are spouting nonsense again.

The gospel of Mark spouts not one word about Jesus being the child of of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Yet, Mark 1:9 states "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from NAZARETH of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan."

Read that again realllll slowwwww so it can sink in,

Jesus came from NAZARETH of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan
So there is a single reference that you have been pleading for.

The problem AA, is that if you are so obstinately wrong in the simplest matter, you have no credibility for more advanced arguments.

You can't read the nonsense of the Virgin birth in Matthew and Luke back into Mark. That is just bad methodology.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

HI AA,

Do you really believe that Jesus was a Ghost child born to a Virgin? I bet you don't. I bet you believe it is a lie. If that is the case, why do you have such a hard time with statements that Jesus was claimed to have come from Nazareth? Couldn't that be a lie also? Why do you take one questionable set of staments (i.e the Virgin Birth) and deny another set of questionable statements (Jesus was from Nazareth) as if they never existed?

Jake

archibald

Interesting George. I think yours is one of my favourite of the 'non-orthodox' hypotheses, even though we do not agree on many things and I don't yet see yours as more likely. . :]

I wonder, is there any way of knowing which 'came first'? It seems to me that it wouldn't be unusual for there to be many variations, in those days, especially with geographical distance from Israel. Hypothetical scenario: the apostles who knew Jesus concentrate their ministry around Jerusalem/Israel. By the time they (or Paul) get further afield, say to the places you listed, all sorts of rumours have preceded them? Also, say something about this Jesus story reaches a distant bunch who are already of a certain persuasion (gnostics, for just one example). They weave his story into their existing paradigms. Instant heresies, of all varieties. :]

I'm not sure I see anything in any of them to indicate they didn't start with a basic story of an HJ. Even 'Hebrews', for all it's lack of bio, mentions a crucifixion and a figure who 'has risen from Judah'.

I am not sure if any of the variants were not 'dude centred'. I had the feeling that all of them mentioned some dude quite a lot. In fact, I thought it was a common theme. :]

Also, I am not sure what I should 'expect', generally speaking, since you haven't yet come up with another example of a similar transition from New Agey-vaguey to historical personage.

aa5874

Your post is highly ridiculous, absurd, illogical, bizarre, and absolutely and completely laughable.

There is more that ONE verse in gMark. YOU HAVE TO READ ALL OF gMark.

It is MOST COMICAL to read a SINGLE VERSE to determine the nature of gMark's Jesus.

Look at Mark 6.

Look at Mark 9.

Look at Mark 16

gMark is a Ghost story. Read ALL of it Slowwwwwwly and you will see the whole Ghost story.

jakejonesiv

AA,

Yes, GMark says all those things you quoted. It also says in verse 1:9 that Jesus was from Nazareth.

Why do you believe in the Ghost Story but not Nazareth? Aren't both equally ficticious?

Or do you secretly bleive the GHOST story is true? That is absurd.

Jake

aa5874

I see you are NOT a good gambler. You should BET on what you BELIEVE not on what I might believe.

I BET on my OWN substantiated observations.

Now, I really don't see where the authors of gMatthew, gMark or gLuke claimed that they were actually writing history.

The author of gLuke claimed he did some kind of investigation about what was MOSTLY BELIEVED.

Look at Luke 1
It would appear that people of antiquity did BELIEVE Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

Many Codices of the NT CANON have been found and some dated to the 4th century by paleography.

It is reasonable certain that Gospels REFLECT BELIEFS of antiquity about Jesus and NOT history.

Unless the authors of the Gospels DECLARED that they were writing historical events then I can ONLY accept them as Myth Fables of antiquity that ancient people BELIEVED.

By the way, there may ONLY be ONE Liar in the NT Canon and that is "Paul" who claimed he and OVER 500 people WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus.

Look at 1 Cor.15

"Paul" is a FALSE witness in the NT, he claimed he was a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus when the dead RISE NOT.

Look at 2 Cor.11
"Paul" lied under OATH.

We can charge "Paul" with PERJURY.