aa5874

Do not get distracted.

I am dealing with the MYTH called Jesus Christ which was presented to the world by the Church and NT writers.

Let us hear what they SAY about their Jesus Christ.

The preface to De Prinicipiis Up to the third century, the nature of Jesus was not yet established by Jesus believers.

Jesus was not historical at all. He was the creator and was before the world was in existence.

Chaucer

Says you. You're like that dining room table. Just because Paul does not dwell much on the details of Jesus as a human being -- although in Corinthians he certainly cites certain examples of J's human life like some of J's sayings on divorce -- you and a tiny few others jump to the conclusion that the early church and the NT do not introduce/present a historical human being. It's one thing to suggest that we're not dealing with a historical human being. It's another thing to BRAY REPEATEDLY LIKE A BULLY THAT IT'S AN ABSOLUTE FACT. Constant repetition won't make it so.

On top of that, I'm amused that some of you are actually using (some) later Church fathers as direct sources for your theories and bypassing earlier texts, including extra-Scriptural and extra-canonical texts like Thomas, Josephus and so on! That's putting the cart before the horse.

Chaucer

spamandham

Jesus as depicted in the NT is certainly not historical. People do not raise corpses from the dead, nor do they raise themselves from the dead, nor walk on water.

However, it is possible that the Jesus of the NT is based on a normal human being.

It is also possible he is not.

There just is no way of really knowing at this point in time.


It points everywhere and nowhere. That's the problem. IMHO, it's ok to lean one way or another depending on which way you think is a simpler solution, but an open mind is required. Don't become dogmatic about it.

...life after death. That's the most basic similarity.

spamandham

You were not born a mythicist.

aa5874

I quoted passages from the Church writers and the NT. Look at them.



You think I am BRAYING because I quote passages from the NT and the Church writers.

Now, it was Paul who BRAYED. Look at the passage again. Is not Paul BRAYING?

1 ThESS 4:16 -
And the author of Matthew BRAYED. Look at Matthew 1.18
If the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God really lived it does not matter when people write about the Ghost of God. It does not matter when people write about Alexander the Great or Galileo provided that their sources were reliable.

It is just absurd to think that you can find a reliable source for the Holy Ghost of God at around 7-30 CE. According to Marcion, maybe he did some research, Jesus only looked real, but he was a Phantom or Ghost-like.

Just tell me who would you expect to reliably write about Jesus of the NT, the creator of the world who existed before the world and people were in existence?

spin

Further irony: vampires like me don't show up in mirrors. You still don't recognize yourself.


spin

IamJoseph

Is there any instance of the pre-christians demanding proof here? When this report is contrasted with the Israelites in Egypt, we find that Moses was not accepted at face value - even when the people were freed from slavery via great miracles. They demanded first hand direct proof - and, at least according to the text narratives, got it.

What then made the Europeans so accepting of the Gospels without a shred of evidence, even being in another continent, and knowing nothing about that region or its peoples, yet fully accepting a story many generations of first hand reporters removed? What credibility can be applied on such a blind acceptance, then compounded by the premise of BELIEF as its only foundation? That this occured with humanity's most advanced peoples - only makes it all the more confounding. One must want to say: you've got to be joking, right!? :banghead:

Tybalt

I'm not entirely sure about this, but I do seem to remember reading somewhere that early Christians didn't even believe that Jesus had existed.

The only non biblical evidence I've found for Jesus is said to be discredited, some guy named Josephus or something.

Toto

Early Christians are mostly lost to history, and we can't ask them. Some of them might have thought that Jesus was a supernatural being.

The non-Biblical evidence for Jesus can all be impeached using normal critical methodology, but allows believers and historicists to think that Jesus possibly did exist.

And -

The aa5874 - Chaucer hand to hand combat has reached its limit. Please stop.