Elijah

God was on earth? You may be making the whole son of god title out a little too cartoonishly to be taken seriously. A Sunday school understanding of Christianity isn’t going to get the job done here.

You may want to upgrade your understanding of God and Logos and the philosophy of the time.
Your understanding of the NT is just an interpretation based on a poor understanding of the religious mindset. A cartoon God and cartoon Christ with Casper as the Holy Spirit.
He was given a whole bunch of titles but none of them prevent him from being a man.

That’s all he can be. Where is your evidence that the Son of Man or Christ or personification of the Logos should be understood as biological offspring of a genie?

Then you should have some evidence for your theory instead of just discrediting all scripture as unusable and calling yourself the winner by default.
Just because we know that the events couldn’t have occurred doesn’t mean the man they are attaching them didn’t. They are trying to sell him as the Christ and a dead peasant who didn’t do anything remarkable is a hard sell so exaggerations and misunderstandings of those exaggerations should be expected.
No reality and probability is the evidence for my position. Your position to me is as farfetched as him actually walking on water. Without any proof or other examples of whatever it is you think happened with the Jesus myth being turned into history then I’m going to go with the most likely scenario. What is the evidence for your position besides a lack of evidence that you trust? What can you actually contribute to your theory? Or whichever myth theory you subscribe to.

aa5874

So, when was Logos a mere man, a real human being? Logos has nothing whatsoever to do with a real human being.

You just cannot fabricate what you think Jesus was. Jesus has already been described.

I am not the one who characterised Jesus as the offspring of the Holy Ghost or claimed he ascended through the clouds like a cartoon, it was theauthors of the NT and the church writers.

Apparently you have not read about the beliefs of the Church, you seem not to reailse that what you refer to as cartoon characters like CASPER are the fundamental doctrine of the Church.

Just read Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and others and they all claimed Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are one, yet you still think Jesus was human.

A title does not make a person rise from the grave and fly. the author of Mark claimed Jesus rose from the dead.

The only title that fits is the title "the myth"


Plase read the writings of the Church. You think Jesus has been mistaken for a genie, the Church call Jesus the son of the God of the Jews, born through the Holy Ghost ,crucifed , resurrected and ascended.

Please get current and understand the doctrine of the Church. Jesus was more than a genie to them, he was God.
Just saying Jesus was only human means absolutely nothing to them until you get evidence to prove he was human



I do NOT need evidence. How many times must I repeat myself?

Again, if Jesus did not exist, there would be no evidence of him. There is no evidence for Jesus as human, he did not exist.

But, you need evidence to claim Jesus was only human, when the Church claimed he was a God.

Look, you are just manufacturing events that can be found nowhere. No author of the NT or the church ever claimed that your fabricated story was true.
Again, the mythical position is extremely strong because Jesus was described as a God, no evidence of a God can be found on earth during the reign of Tiberius.

Why do want to fabricate some other Jesus without any evidence at all and then claim your Jesus lived?

Your Jesus is not here, he has risen.

spamandham

Are we getting too hung up on the word "prove"? Our job here is not so much to determine whether Jesus was historical or mythical (or fictional as Pat seems to be arguing).

Instead, as I see it, our job is to form a cohesive theory from the available evidence, with the fewest and least stretched number of implausibilities and hidden variables.

If I note that gospels contain impossibilities, then we know the impossibilities didn't happen. But it isn't a valid approach to simply subtract them and declare the rest historical, nor is it valid to simply declare them myth or fiction without further investigation, so we are compelled to try to determine why the author put them there. One simple explanation, is that the authors were not stenographers, but were instead writing hero biographies...a common genre of the time. But in general, hero biographies need not involve a historical central character. So that doesn't help all that much except to discredit the ridiculous apologetic 'multiple eye witness' claims.

Examining "Paul", I notice that other than a few 'born of a woman' or 'died on a cross' type phrases, there isn't anything in "Paul" to tie Jesus down as an actual human being. Why didn't Paul quote Jesus? Why didn't he at least say "The lord taught us ..."? Why does Paul claim his gospel was not handed down to him? Why does he state multiple times it was revealed to him through scripture?

None of this is favorable to the idea of a historical Jesus. Of the few phrases that do seem to tie Jesus down as human within Paul, several are argued by qualified scholars to be interpolations. So which is the simpler explanation? Paul believed Jesus to be historical, yet claims his gospel was revealed to him and never appeals to the authority of Jesus...or, the few places that Paul seems to pin Jesus down as human (some of which are argued to be interpolations for other reasons)...were added later? To me, the answer is obvious with only trivial ambiguity - Paul's Jesus was not a recent historical figure in Paul's mind. Even more confusing, the Dutch radicals have formed a fairly comprehensive theory with no implausibilities and only a few trivial speculations that conclude Paul himself is not even historical.

I also have observed that the cross had pre-existing theological significance, and need not have been a reference to anything historical. 12 disciples also has obvious pre-existing theological significance.

...maybe this needs a new thread?

Elijah

What is the Logos to you?
Described with words that have very different meanings depending on your understanding of religion and philosophy.
What is the Holy ghost to you? How does is it different from the Logos?
I think the writings should be understood under a philosophical light and not a nonsense superstitious one. I feel the text should be read as if written by grown men studied in Plato and such not Sunday school teachers talking to children with no understanding of reality.

You are never going to be able to understand Christianity if you stay stuck in cartoon mode.
How does a claim about him rising from the dead or flying make him God and not just someone with their version of faith?


But is your understanding of God a genie or do you have something more sophisticated going on? And just for future reference “the Church” is a very broad word, you may want to be more specific in who’s interpretation you are citing as the Church’s.
No you don’t need it but if you want to convince people of your position and not look like a crazy skeptic just wishing for a silver bullet to take care Christianity then you may want to be able to back up your position. Entirely on how you want to present yourself though.

There s/would be evidence of the myth moving from myth to history and the myth in other forms/cultures prior to the Jesus one. There should be a whole genre of stories that deal with a savior in historical settings. There should be more evidence for what a myther is suggesting then someone who simply claims a peasant was executed 2000 years ago by the authority.
Well if it’s supposed to be a historical account then I don’t need evidence that he was only human because that is all he could have been in reality. What I need to show is that it was based on history and not a myth.
Lost me. What story?
No evidence of a God can be found on earth…??? What kind of God/s are you working with here? Anything rational or just stuff suited for cartoons.

Not fabrication but assuming what I consider most likely based on my experience. The messiah complex is fairly common as was killing rebel rousers back then and myths being confused for history is about as common as a honest to God miracle.
If you say so.

spamandham

I assume you meant "a claimed miracle"? :huh:

Elijah

No, claimed miracles are fairly common.

spamandham

..so then you are saying that it is uncommon for myths to be confused for history?

Elijah

yes

spamandham

Well, ok, I don't think I agree. Urban legends run rampant even today. snopes entire business model depends on myths being believed as history.

Elijah

If you have any that come from or you consider a myth that gets confused for history let me know. I think if there was an accurate example of what the mythers are suggesting happened with Jesus it would be used ad nauseam around here, but I'm always prepared to be schooled.

P.S. I wrote some stuff for the Paul comment you made earlier but it really was off topic like you said and was just basically just Paul didn't know Jesus personally or any of his teachings.