Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 02-10-2012, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

ItSt. Ephraim Homilies [4,6] A.D. 338-373:
After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith they had eaten of Christ's body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out . . . Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: `This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen me do, do you also in My memory. whenever you gather together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My body, and drink My Blood.

Be careful, this was Holily-hear-say-language watered down to to make them think in wonder and is not fact..

Chili · 02-10-2012, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In the Gospel of John in the sixth chapter we see an allusion to the idea of the eucharist last supper in a totally different context where the body of Christ is "eaten" as the Manna of the desert, and the blood is drunk though it is not described as wine.
So the question here is how did the author of GJohn get this idea without from the description of the last supper/eucharist itself ?
It is interesting to ponder why the metaphor is much more direct than in the synoptics.

No, mana is second hand from scripture and not 'desert material' . . . . and so not fried chicken coming down from heaven either.

John 5:39 makes this very clear that 'bible passges' do not yield salvation, or rather 'maturation', and these guys here were just 'born again' and needed more.

Chili · 02-10-2012, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Which apologist claimed Jesus was historical?

Please, examine apologetic sources of antiquity. Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and a woman and that is NOT an historical Jesus.

You don't seem to understand the HJ argument at all.

The HJ argument is NOT SIMPLY ABOUT belief of existence it is an argument to show that Jesus was ENTIRELY HUMAN.

It is COMPLETELY erroneous that apologists argued that Jesus was ENTIRELY human with a human father and was a product of sexual union of a man and a woman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

....Now you are suggesting that the Paulines were authored LAST despite the absence in those letters about any aphorisms or stories of the gospels which we have all discussed here ad nauseum?...

You have mostly asked a lot of question ad nausem with very little discussion.

Now, the Pauline writings BEGIN where the Gospels END.
The Pauline writer is claiming to be a WITNESS of the Resurrected Jesus and that he received his Gospel from the Resurrected One.

Paul is the ONLY writer to claim that Jesus had post-resurrection VISITS with over 500 people at ONCE.

No Gospel writer used the post-resurrection visit of the Pauline 500 and NO author of the Entire Canon mentioned the Revealed Teachings of the Resurrected Jesus as stated by Paul.

The Gospels are about the supposed life of Jesus up to the resurrection.

The Pauline revelation story is about the post-resurrected Jesus.

Paul ONLY witnessed the resurrected Jesus and was the LAST to do so.

Apologetic sources claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

Paul claimed he Persecuted the FAITH he NOW preached.

It is NOT rocket science.

The Pauline writings ARE LAST.

Why do people want to claim Paul was first when Paul claimed he was LAST to see the resurrected Jesus.

Amazingly, Paul gave his position.

He was at least in the 500th place from being first. See 1 Cor. 15.3

Yes but you always have your words mixed up because the Jesus of Luke was not human, but was fully man and fully God and not human at all.

The first things you must ask is what it means to be human and then define man, and then also define woman as opposed to female, and when that is done you are totally wrong in accepting the premisses at face value and present them to us here.

And please do not forget that this is a book wherein snakes are known to talk, and they have scorpions here too, so it would be wise to be careful with language here as not everything is as literal as you like it to be.

In his Cathegories Aristotle has Man as 'the being' and has a description of 10 'conditions of being' that make him human and so our humanity is the sum total of our conditions of being, and so our human nature has no being at all.

So nobody is 100% human, as for one, we are all part 'woman' as opposite to 'human' and so then we can be either male or female and androgyne as created which makes our sexuality also a condition of being with extremes on both ends, and we 'as humans' slide in between male and female on the slippery slope where also homosexuals are found (hint hint). So now then our humanity is an illusion that enslaved us as if with a sexuality and a blank slate that we wrote out Curriculum vitea on all by ourself, while all is illusion and no more than just an illusion . . . and here you are looking for a 100 % human? That even sound insane, don't you think?

The next question you must ask "who was this Jesus if Christ was born?" and why not just say that Jesus was born?

Now if Christ was born in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark and John what is this infancy all about? and why is there no 20 or 30 years missing in the life of this so called Jesus in Matthew and Luke.

So your language rieks with ignorance from my point of view. Then, if I add that Joseph was the guy who was reborn here, it makes Jesus real but just isolated from the sin-nature of Joseph and the NEW creation now depicted as Jesuit-by-nature (or Nazarite-by-nature) doing his thing. If this then is true, you can no longer say that Jesus never existed.

So it is wrong to make a blanket statement that Jesus never existed while we have no trouble with Joseph except that we want to call it all myth and then think Hollywood and Joseph might as well go too.

Of course the mythicist haven't got a clue either but they just went to school for that and want something to say too, naturally, and might even write a book or two on it, but that doesn't mean anything either . . . until they define what they are looking for first.

So then if the 'reborn Joseph, was called Jesus his new creation was 100% man and his sin nature was the 'Jewish condition" of Joseph and therefore no longer a Jew and hence no sinner either. Period.

Opposite this was Mary who was the woman taken from man way back when in Gen.2 without history, mind you, and this woman here now was his dowry in bethrotal as once taken from him, and so then was 100% woman as never banned from Eden and so a match made in heaven for sure. This would be Aristotles "intuition" beyond human error and thus pure in metaphysics itself . . . and hence both are sinless again, and down the road fully God , naturally too.

Here is an image to ponder like Joseph did, but not as a dreamer in Matthew where the Annunciation was missing that starts here with Luke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melencolia_I

And BTW, that so called 'magic square' image is a 16 day calender pad in disarray and that just means "shepherds on the run," or rather, his insights or ousia's in disarray.

Chili · 02-10-2012, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It is interesting to note the comments of Nestorius, the ex-Arch-Bishop of the City of Constantine from the 5th century, who describes the reaction of some of the HEARERS of the WORDS from John ....

I will speak the words too of offence.
Of His own Flesh was the Lord Christ discoursing to them;
Except ye eat, He says, the Flesh of the Son of Man
and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you:
the hearers endured not the loftiness of what was said,
they imagined of their unlearning
that He was bringing in cannibalism."

Nestorius was simply reporting some of the reactions to the "Last Supper Idea" in John, and it is quite obvious that these common reactions were treated as being heretical.

If you read Nestorius writings about such various heresies, you will see perhaps the motive that drove the malevolent arch-heresiologist Bishop Cyril of Alexandria to strenuously anathemetize (i.e. POLITICALLY CENSOR) Nestorius and his abominable writings. Cyril was attempting to try and bury the evidence of the masses of heretics at that time.

The orthodoxy was preserved by presenting only the ONE TRUE side of history - the victory of the heresiologists over the heretics. Our histories of Christian origins are all the same in this respect. They are just one side of a struggle which had (at least) two sides. The history and the identity of the gnostic heretics was "lost" because it was suppressed - along with the Greek intellectual tradition (according to the thesis of Freeman).

That is just mudslinging as the concept is very simple and clear. "This is my body" equals to "this is Buddha" and it is what the Panteist 'see in nature' while Jesus tells us to "Be that in nature." Oh, and the gnsotics are just wannebe's in their -ism as a 'solitairy individiual' has no place to lie his head and so cannot belong except to freedom itself (foxes have dens etc. here).

Duvduv · 02-11-2012, 04:39 PM

If you believe this, please provide some evidence. You certainly cannot suggest that the Paulines had a relationship to the gospel story when the gospel story or stories is ignored in the Pauline epistles.
Paul did not claim to have seen the resurrected historical Jesus. He claimed to have revelations from a celestial Christ who did not walk on Earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I wasn't presenting evidence but I was hypothesizing based on the context exactly as you were hypothesizing based on context. Please reread my posting. It is of no importance for this what the apologists said. The same apologists said that Jesus was a historical figure in the first century, so what?...

Which apologist claimed Jesus was historical?

Please, examine apologetic sources of antiquity. Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and a woman and that is NOT an historical Jesus.

You don't seem to understand the HJ argument at all.

The HJ argument is NOT SIMPLY ABOUT belief of existence it is an argument to show that Jesus was ENTIRELY HUMAN.

It is COMPLETELY erroneous that apologists argued that Jesus was ENTIRELY human with a human father and was a product of sexual union of a man and a woman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

....Now you are suggesting that the Paulines were authored LAST despite the absence in those letters about any aphorisms or stories of the gospels which we have all discussed here ad nauseum?...

You have mostly asked a lot of question ad nausem with very little discussion.

Now, the Pauline writings BEGIN where the Gospels END.
The Pauline writer is claiming to be a WITNESS of the Resurrected Jesus and that he received his Gospel from the Resurrected One.

Paul is the ONLY writer to claim that Jesus had post-resurrection VISITS with over 500 people at ONCE.

No Gospel writer used the post-resurrection visit of the Pauline 500 and NO author of the Entire Canon mentioned the Revealed Teachings of the Resurrected Jesus as stated by Paul.

The Gospels are about the supposed life of Jesus up to the resurrection.

The Pauline revelation story is about the post-resurrected Jesus.

Paul ONLY witnessed the resurrected Jesus and was the LAST to do so.

Apologetic sources claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

Paul claimed he Persecuted the FAITH he NOW preached.

It is NOT rocket science.

The Pauline writings ARE LAST.

Why do people want to claim Paul was first when Paul claimed he was LAST to see the resurrected Jesus.

Amazingly, Paul gave his position.

He was at least in the 500th place from being first. See 1 Cor. 15.3

Chili · 02-11-2012, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If you believe this, please provide some evidence. You certainly cannot suggest that the Paulines had a relationship to the gospel story when the gospel story or stories is ignored in the Pauline epistles.
Paul did not claim to have seen the resurrected historical Jesus. He claimed to have revelations from a celestial Christ who did not walk on Earth.

You have to be careful as there are no celestial beings 'up there' including no ghosts, while yet Christ is real in the mind of the believer until his belief is brought to understanding and then he is the Christ.

Paul plays the role of religionist here as the New Cloak that Peter put on during that post resurrection fishing trip when he dove in headfirst to catch all those big ones. It was this same John who's faith was Peter and it was this same Peter who caught all those big fish and John kind of 'canned them to keep' as the manners and ways of the Church that Jesus had in mind. So there is no 'evolution in insight' but the manifestion on earth needs time, and for this nothing is better than Christians fighting among each other and scatter as Matthew's Jesus promised he would "scatter the sheep" and 'strike another shepherd' and scatter some more.

Now 2000 year later we are still wondering what went wrong then and how it was that the Church ran away with loot and why all the gold ended up in Rome.

Duvduv · 02-12-2012, 07:50 AM

Is it possible then that the absence of the synoptic Last Supper in GJohn is because the author of GJohn didn't know about it as opposed to his wanting to offer a more clearly "cannibalistic" presentation for some reason?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In the Gospel of John in the sixth chapter we see an allusion to the idea of the eucharist last supper in a totally different context where the body of Christ is "eaten" as the Manna of the desert, and the blood is drunk though it is not described as wine.
So the question here is how did the author of GJohn get this idea without from the description of the last supper/eucharist itself ?
It is interesting to ponder why the metaphor is much more direct than in the synoptics.

It is interesting to note the comments of Nestorius, the ex-Arch-Bishop of the City of Constantine from the 5th century, who describes the reaction of some of the HEARERS of the WORDS from John ....

I will speak the words too of offence.
Of His own Flesh was the Lord Christ discoursing to them;
Except ye eat, He says, the Flesh of the Son of Man
and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you:
the hearers endured not the loftiness of what was said,
they imagined of their unlearning
that He was bringing in cannibalism."

Nestorius was simply reporting some of the reactions to the "Last Supper Idea" in John, and it is quite obvious that these common reactions were treated as being heretical.

If you read Nestorius writings about such various heresies, you will see perhaps the motive that drove the malevolent arch-heresiologist Bishop Cyril of Alexandria to strenuously anathemetize (i.e. POLITICALLY CENSOR) Nestorius and his abominable writings. Cyril was attempting to try and bury the evidence of the masses of heretics at that time.

The orthodoxy was preserved by presenting only the ONE TRUE side of history - the victory of the heresiologists over the heretics. Our histories of Christian origins are all the same in this respect. They are just one side of a struggle which had (at least) two sides. The history and the identity of the gnostic heretics was "lost" because it was suppressed - along with the Greek intellectual tradition (according to the thesis of Freeman).

Chili · 02-12-2012, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Is it possible then that the absence of the synoptic Last Supper in GJohn is because the author of GJohn didn't know about it as opposed to his wanting to offer a more clearly "cannibalistic" presentation for some reason?

Well actually the last supper is John's departure discourse where the paraclete is promised and came in Jn.21:22 to validate the bread of life among men, like an icon that is real and with substance. Or did you think that bread is supposed to taste like meat?

And did you say cannibal? Are you fimiliar with the image of witches brewing up a salvation recipe and later get boiled in it? Oh and have you ever heard of 'flat-earthers?'

Duvduv · 02-13-2012, 07:55 AM

I am asking a specific contextual question as to why GJohn did not include this event if he had access to any of the other epistles which DO contain it. If it is likely that GJohn did see the one or more of the other gospels, then the only other option would be that he did not accept the reliability of this story or had other sources that he relied on that did not include it, and he preferred them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Is it possible then that the absence of the synoptic Last Supper in GJohn is because the author of GJohn didn't know about it as opposed to his wanting to offer a more clearly "cannibalistic" presentation for some reason?

Well actually the last supper is John's departure discourse where the paraclete is promised and came in Jn.21:22 to validate the bread of life among men, like an icon that is real and with substance. Or did you think that bread is supposed to taste like meat?

And did you say cannibal? Are you fimiliar with the image of witches brewing up a salvation recipe and later get boiled in it? Oh and have you ever heard of 'flat-earthers?'

aa5874 · 02-13-2012, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If you believe this, please provide some evidence. You certainly cannot suggest that the Paulines had a relationship to the gospel story when the gospel story or stories is ignored in the Pauline epistles.
Paul did not claim to have seen the resurrected historical Jesus. He claimed to have revelations from a celestial Christ who did not walk on Earth....

Your assertion is ERRONEOUS. Paul did claim the resurrected Jesus was SEEN by him.
1Cor. 15

Quote:

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time....

Now, there is ZERO requirement, absolute ZERO requirement, for me to believe the Pauline writings in order to present the written evidence, the written statements found in the Pauline letters.

We have the Pauline letters and there are written statements which show that Paul claimed that there were Post-Resurrection Visits by Jesus who was Raised from the dead.

We have the Pauline list and chronology of SIX Post-Resurrection Visits of Jesus who was RAISED from the dead.

1 Cor. 15

Quote:

3 ...... he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once.....

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time....

The Pauline writer even suggested that he be called a FALSE WITNESS if the Dead Rise Not.

1 Cor. 15

Quote:

....we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

It is completely ERRONEOUS that the Pauline writer did NOT state he SAW the resurrected Jesus in the Pauline letters.

There is NO need to Speculate.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.