Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 05-04-2013, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

After reading the information provided in the link Jesus was not a militant but fiction character.

In the earliest story of Jesus he was not the Prince of Peace but a Son of a God.

One cannot ask if the original Jesus was a militant and expect an answer in the affirmative when no actual evidence for such a character has ever been found.

In the NT Pilate found NO fault with Jesus.

The NT supports the claim that the Jesus character did NOT exist when it specifically described Jesus as the Son of a God, born of a Ghost and a Virgin without a human father who walked on the sea before he transfigured.

NT Jesus was originally NOTHING real and was merely believed to have existed exactly like the Myth Gods of the Jews, Greeks and Roman.

It is unheard of that a militant was a miracle worker and was not known to carry a weapon.

aa,
You just do not seem to understand me. Since the gospels are fictional, JC is only a militant or a pacifist or the Son of God WITHIN that fictional narrative. Likewise the fictional Pilate would find no fault in a man who claimed to be the King of the Judeans, but a real Pilate certainly would.

But in the real history of that era, there were many Judean militant zealots such as Judas the Galilean and his sons whose actions are reflected to some degree in the militant actions of the fictional JC and are also inversely correlated with JC's more predominant pacifist side.

In many ways the fictional JC gospels are a satire of the historic messiah-aspirants of the day.
Onias

Even if we followed a MJ storyline for the NT, if jesus was a militant, there would be no reason to deify him.

Bar Kochba would be a good example of a miltary leader.

If Jesus was only a military leader, why was he remembered and written in the NT so differently then other military leaders?????

Onias · 05-04-2013, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

aa,
You just do not seem to understand me. Since the gospels are fictional, JC is only a militant or a pacifist or the Son of God WITHIN that fictional narrative. Likewise the fictional Pilate would find no fault in a man who claimed to be the King of the Judeans, but a real Pilate certainly would.

But in the real history of that era, there were many Judean militant zealots such as Judas the Galilean and his sons whose actions are reflected to some degree in the militant actions of the fictional JC and are also inversely correlated with JC's more predominant pacifist side.

In many ways the fictional JC gospels are a satire of the historic messiah-aspirants of the day.
Onias

Even if we followed a MJ storyline for the NT, if jesus was a militant, there would be no reason to deify him.

Bar Kochba would be a good example of a miltary leader.

If Jesus was only a military leader, why was he remembered and written in the NT so differently then other military leaders?????

Jesus of the gospels was a parody of a military leader. He was a parody of a real messiah. Whenever the 'militant' gospel Jesus makes a zealous or militant statement, it is always reversed or marginalized by the pacifist Jesus (who is the dominant of the 2 Jesus figures).

When militant Jesus says he brings not peace but a sword, he is later contradicted by pacifist Jesus who say those who live by the sword will die by the sword.

When militant Jesus tells a disciple to sell his garment to buy a sword and is asked how many, pacifist/goofy Jesus says one sword is enough. (Think of a soldier asking Gen Patton for tanks, and the general sends just one.)

When militant Jesus first refuses to help the Canaanite woman, the pacifist Jesus relents and heal her "because her faith is great'.

When zealot Jesus says he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and to avoid gentiles and Samaritans, pacifist anti-Jesus tells his disciples to spread the gospel to the whole world in a Great Commission.

There are dozens of examples to show how Jesus is making fun of the real messiah aspirants who fought and died for their zealousness for the Law.

There are dozens more examples of this reversal process, and I really do need to take the time to list them all. But once you understand the principle, they are all immediately obvious.

In short, the fictional gospel Jesus, is an anti-messiah invented to ridicule the historic messiah-aspirants of the day.
Onias

aa5874 · 05-04-2013, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

aa,
You just do not seem to understand me. Since the gospels are fictional, JC is only a militant or a pacifist or the Son of God WITHIN that fictional narrative. Likewise the fictional Pilate would find no fault in a man who claimed to be the King of the Judeans, but a real Pilate certainly would....

In the fictional stories called Gospels Jesus of Nazareth was not a militant. He was called a prophet or John the Baptist and was known as a miracle worker.

Mark 8

Quote:

And Jesus went out , and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am ?

28 And they answered , John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

...But in the real history of that era, there were many Judean militant zealots such as Judas the Galilean and his sons whose actions are reflected to some degree in the militant actions of the fictional JC and are also inversely correlated with JC's more predominant pacifist side.

In many ways the fictional JC gospels are a satire of the historic messiah-aspirants of the day.
Onias

The Jesus story was not developed in the time of Pilate but in the 2nd century so the Judean militant zealots before c 100 CE had nothing whatsoever to do with the story of Jesus.

There was no Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was a zealot.

Onias · 05-04-2013, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

aa,
You just do not seem to understand me. Since the gospels are fictional, JC is only a militant or a pacifist or the Son of God WITHIN that fictional narrative. Likewise the fictional Pilate would find no fault in a man who claimed to be the King of the Judeans, but a real Pilate certainly would....

In the fictional stories called Gospels Jesus of Nazareth was not a militant. He was called a prophet or John the Baptist and was known as a miracle worker.

Mark 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

...But in the real history of that era, there were many Judean militant zealots such as Judas the Galilean and his sons whose actions are reflected to some degree in the militant actions of the fictional JC and are also inversely correlated with JC's more predominant pacifist side.

In many ways the fictional JC gospels are a satire of the historic messiah-aspirants of the day.
Onias

The Jesus story was not developed in the time of Pilate but in the 2nd century so the Judean militant zealots before c 100 CE had nothing whatsoever to do with the story of Jesus.

There was no Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was a zealot.

aa,
I totally agree "there was no Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was a zealot". JC was a fictional parody or satire of the zealots.

Whether the gospels were written in the 2nd century, 3rd century or the 20th century, they were dealing with events in the 1st century.. . . just as you and I are writing about events in a time period far removed from our own.
Onias

aa5874 · 05-04-2013, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

aa,
I totally agree "there was no Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was a zealot". JC was a fictional parody or satire of the zealots.

Whether the gospels were written in the 2nd century, 3rd century or the 20th century, they were dealing with events in the 1st century.. . . just as you and I are writing about events in a time period far removed from our own.
Onias

No, No, No!!! The Jesus character had nothing whatsoever to do with parody or satire of the zealots.

The Jesus character was based on supposed prophecies in Jewish Scriptures.

The author of the Jesus story used the Son of God character to promote his own personal belief that the Kingdom of God was at hand and that the Jews must repent.

Essentially, the author of the Jesus character believed that the supposed prophecies in the book of Daniel and other Prophets like Micah and Isaiah were about to take place.

The Jesus cult writers told us exactly why the Jesus story was fabricated.

The Jewish Temple was made desolate, and a story was invented that the Jews killed the Son of God and that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

People of antiquity believed the story.

That is all. No Parody--No Satire--just supposed prophecy.

Aristides, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian claimed that the Jews killed Jesus and that was the reason for the Fall of the Temple.

1. Aristides' Apology

Quote:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High......... But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven

2. Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews

Quote:

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate? .......it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

3. Tertullian's Answer to the Jews 8

Quote:

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.”

Onias · 05-04-2013, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

aa,
I totally agree "there was no Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was a zealot". JC was a fictional parody or satire of the zealots.

Whether the gospels were written in the 2nd century, 3rd century or the 20th century, they were dealing with events in the 1st century.. . . just as you and I are writing about events in a time period far removed from our own.
Onias

No, No, No!!! The Jesus character had nothing whatsoever to do with parody or satire of the zealots.

The Jesus character was based on supposed prophecies in Jewish Scriptures.

The author of the Jesus story used the Son of God character to promote his own personal belief that the Kingdom of God was at hand and that the Jews must repent.

Essentially, the author of the Jesus character believed that the supposed prophecies in the book of Daniel and other Prophets like Micah and Isaiah were about to take place.

The Jesus cult writers told us exactly why the Jesus story was fabricated.

The Jewish Temple was made desolate, and a story was invented that the Jews killed the Son of God and that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

People of antiquity believed the story.

That is all. No Parody--No Satire--just supposed prophecy.

Aristides, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian claimed that the Jews killed Jesus and that was the reason for the Fall of the Temple.

1. Aristides' Apology

2. Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews

3. Tertullian's Answer to the Jews 8

Quote:

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.”

aa,
Wow! Judging by your outburst, I must have touched a sore nerve.

You have recited the tired old conventional anti-Semitic wisdom that the Jews were the reason for the desolation of Judaea, and yes the gospel "story was invented that the Jews killed the Son of God".

But the historical story is the Romans were responsible for the desolation of Judaea, and the Romans or their sympathetic Hellenistic or Herodian sympathizers/clients wrote the gospels as a means of both blaming the Judeans for its destruction and also to ridicule the attempts of the Judean messiah aspirants by portraying Jesus as a Judean 'messiah' who was impotent and ineffectual would-be messiah in contrast to the historical messiah aspirants such as Judas the Galilean of the 1st century.

See my reply to Outhouse above. Once you see the gospels as an anti-Judean satire, everything falls into place.
Onias

outhouse · 05-04-2013, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

In short, the fictional gospel Jesus, is an anti-messiah invented to ridicule the historic messiah-aspirants of the day.
Onias

If you just read Gmark and Gmark alone.

Do you see any of this?

No. You see a man found so important to certain people. they wrote a book about him and based their theology on him.

This isn't any ridicule you can demonstrate reading just Gmark is there?

aa5874 · 05-04-2013, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

aa,
Wow! Judging by your outburst, I must have touched a sore nerve.

I have no nerves.:banghead:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

You have recited the tired old conventional anti-Semitic wisdom that the Jews were the reason for the desolation of Judaea, and yes the gospel "story was invented that the Jews killed the Son of God".

But what have you recited? There is no manuscript or copy of any manuscripts for the things you recite. You repeat what you imagine without ever producing the source from antiquity.

Please, identify a source of antiquity that support what you have imagined.

I can only recite the evidence not what you imagine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

But the historical story is the Romans were responsible for the desolation of Judaea, and the Romans or their sympathetic Hellenistic or Herodian sympathizers/clients wrote the gospels as a means of both blaming the Judeans for its destruction and also to ridicule the attempts of the Judean messiah aspirants by portraying Jesus as a Judean 'messiah' who was impotent and ineffectual would-be messiah in contrast to the historical messiah aspirants such as Judas the Galilean of the 1st century.

There is no such historical story that the Romans or Hellenistic or Herodians sympathizers wrote the Gospels.

Present your historical source.

You made that up from your imagination.

There was no Jesus of Nazareth who was a militant.

We have the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Cassius Dio and others.

I simply cannot accept your imagination as evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

See my reply to Outhouse above. Once you see the gospels as an anti-Judean satire, everything falls into place.
Onias

You must first present the evidence from antiquity for me to see. I cannot see what you imagine.

This is what I see and everything is in place. Multiple Jesus cult writers claimed that the Jews killed or delivered up Jesus to be killed.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

"For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One, and us who hold by Him.

For after that you had crucified Him, the only blameless and righteous Man,-- through whose swipes those who approach the Father by Him are healed,--when you knew that He had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, as the prophets foretold He would, you not only did not repent of the wickedness which you had committed, but at that time you selected and sent out from Jerusalem chosen men through all the land to tell that the godless heresy of the Christians had sprung up, and to publish those things which all they who knew us not speak against us....

There is no evidence whatsoever from antiquity that the Romans or Hellenistic sympathizers invented the story of Jesus to ridicule him.

The Jesus cult writers were not Roman or Hellenistic sympathizers. The Jesus cult writers regarded the Romans as evil persecutors of the faith.

See Justin's First Apology.

Now, please name the Roman and Hellenistic sympathizers who accepted or wrote the story of Jesus.

Onias · 05-04-2013, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

In short, the fictional gospel Jesus, is an anti-messiah invented to ridicule the historic messiah-aspirants of the day.
Onias

If you just read Gmark and Gmark alone.

Do you see any of this?

No. You see a man found so important to certain people. they wrote a book about him and based their theology on him.

This isn't any ridicule you can demonstrate reading just Gmark is there?

A good question!

I see most of the reversals in GMatthew and then GLuke.

In GMark, at first glance, I only see a reversal in Mark 7:24-30, in which Jesus first calls the Syro-Phoenician woman a dog. . . . but then relents and drives the demon out of her daughter.
Onias

aa5874 · 05-04-2013, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

A good question!

I see most of the reversals in GMatthew and then GLuke.

In GMark, at first glance, I only see a reversal in Mark 7:24-30, in which Jesus first calls the Syro-Phoenician woman a dog. . . . but then relents and drives the demon out of her daughter.
Onias

Which fictional Jesus are you now referring to? The fictional militant or the fictional pacifist?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.