Sheshbazzar

Sorry John Winford but you do not get to slip out of the context of the question that was asked of you by employing selecive quoting.

Here it is that qustion presented again -IN CONTEXT- ;

You wished to argue regarding THAT mythology; That is clearly the reason WHY I asked you the questions John Winford, DO "You actually think that this 'Joshua' was God incarnate? Was able to walk on water, and calm the sea? And raise three days dead bodies from the grave? And left earth by levitating up into a cloud while 500 witnesses looked on?"

If this mythology was not 'added on latter' as I wrote, (and as you yourself have also suggested in many of your previous posts) and were here arguing;
...where and when are you claiming that this mythology became part of the known 'Jesus' story?
Or if it is not mythology, as your post stating that you "agree" it is historical based on the evidence in scripture we were left with' .

Point is the objection you raised is utterly stupid and sensless if you do not ACCEPT that the 'Jesus' story as we have it contains latter added mythology.

Chili

That is very simple actually: when they knocked his lights out on the cross and pierced all his senses the [rational] human part of him is supposed to die (that can be called the 'lymbic system' as a whole), after which he has no choice but enter the netherworld or subconscious mind to do some house-cleaning there as well. It so is said to 'set the captives free' by way of understanding his own 'deterninate cause' so the Freeman may indeed be free as man.

Voodoo tried to immitate that, and of course so called Christians think that it was done on their behalf as the [half baked] final imposters that they are.

Chili

Mythololgy is current, or course it is with no history about it and that makes "Infallibility" unavoidable, but must be prior to man by nature so it can be added to the myth.

A good example here is the phrase "Immacutale Conception" as expressed by Bernadette Subirous some 1800 years after the fact, and was added to it's vocabuary as eternally true.

Now notice that this also makes the Jesus story true with even a historic 'first' in that the event was real in history, . . . and so is still real today and therefore current and not historic as past event.

Iskander

Yes, the theme is the Word of God. Everything in the story is a description of a life designed to be lived for a purpose: death and resurrection.

The hero has announced his voluntary death and the time of his resurrection with the concreteness of a table informing the departure and arrival of trains from a station.

The death must be seen to have occurred by everyone witnessing the crucifixion and acknowledged by the enemies such as the centurion, Pilate...

The death must happen soon after crucifixion so that the thunder, rising of the dead, curtains... can clearly be associated with his death by witnesses still picnicking on the hill.

Everything in his life and death happens according to script as in the shooting of a movie.

Even while he was dead, even then, he continued to behave as written by his going to hell to liberate those sleeping in the bosom of Abraham – or Purgatory as Augustine of Hippo wrote.

outhouse

Your going to have to dig deep for this one.

Can you prove that theology written by people that lived mythology, is devoid of any historicity?


After all, Other mortal men were called "son of god"


And you know as well as I do, whether or not a Joshua is the center of the story, his divinity evolved after his death.

And is it not factual the unknown authors were building their deity in scripture?



Glad you asked because there in lies the crux of the matter.


Only after his death, was he ever deified. After Passover and the temple violence fighting jewish corruption in the temple, did the common jew elevate him above the common peasant.

In a zealotous fashion, he was viewed as "gods son" because only "gods son" would sacrifice himself for the good of the people against such oppression and poverty. And please let's get down to it. Gods son did not mean he was gods literal son. It was a jab at how the mortal emporers were called "gods son" Joshua had mocked the emporer upon his entry into the temple. Only after the Romans advanced the movement failing in judaism was this term "god son" perverted in misinterpretation literally.

sotto voce

Why would the Word of God preclude Jesus dying on a cross by means of a soldier's spear?

Chili

Metaphysics is very mechanical, stuctured and ordered by time, as metamorphosis would be in its pure intent.

In "The Spire" Golding shows us how it is done and in the end tells us that it is "as easy as eating and drinking" and so is predesigned for us.

And yes, kind of like having a baby, which is much easier to do than not to do if you are preganant, as Joyce would say, who himself was also 'pregnant with dispair' and saw New Life begin on May 1st with the line: "Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead." He wrote this on April 27 on the last page of his "Portrait" to also go 3 days 'underground' before May 1st, which is known for new life to begin.

Chili

The spear is needed to bleed 'thirst' (tanha) from the enormous cavity inside the human chest that must come in both forms: blood as personal and water as transpersonal so that the journey into the netherworld may be liberating in effect.

It cannot be a self inflicted 'wound' (so to speak), since the self can only 'bleed blood' and then only with pain to make hope spring eternal instead of joy because the soul nature had not been identified, or called by name.

Iskander

The description of the death is computer printout. The input is the need to satisfy certain OT conditions.

Example,

http://www.preceptaustin.org/john_1930_commentary.htm


Did he die in verse 30? Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.


He was already dead in verse 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs


The spear did not kill him, but the water is the water of the baptism and the blood is the blood of the Eucharist.

His death is the result of a computer programme and it was therefore a miracle then, but it is no longer a mystery thanks to Microsoft, Linux and others.

sotto voce

There are no atheists. Popery rules!