Clivedurdle

Cannot that be read as Christ has not been to earth?

Then the second verse does not fit, unless you accept the xian view of history.

The words second time are an easy insertion and may have started as an editorial gloss!

jakejonesiv

I think there is a useful principle that is being overlooked on this discussion. It is the connection between myth and rite. We know that many of the pagan and mystery religions acted out their myths. And vice versa, the rites of the cult, as acted out by the initiates, were attributed to the gods. Think of it as a feedback loop.

A quick example: we know from Aristophenes, The Frog, and the Homeric Hymn to Demeter that the initiates of the Eleusian mysteries enacted Demeter's search for Persephone by torchlight, and the shared the bitter draught of Barley groats

Now, if the Mithraic initiates share a cultic meal, and they say that Mithras also chows down with the Sun before hopping a ride in his fiery chariot, is this not the world of myth that is so disparaged by overliteralists?

Is Christ really present in the wafer and the wine of Mass? The answer is from a rational perspective, no. But for the people who, even today, really believe in it, the boundries between heaven (where Jesus is believed to sit at the right hand of God) and earth (where the real presence of Jesus is believed to manifest itself in the Eucharist) are blurred. Within the cultus, the distinction between the logical and illogical vanishes, even the evidence of the senses are irrevelant (still looks and tastes like wafer and wine). Has not the recipient of the sacraments entered the world of myth?

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Hi Cliveurdle,

That is a good point. In Philippians 3:20-21, Jesus is said to be eagerly expected from heaven, the the "second time" qualifier is absent.

Moreover, he has the power to subdue "the all" the entire cosmos.


And, dare I mention it, his body is made of sidereal material (cf 1 Cor. 15:40-41).


Jake Jones IV

Gamera

Since I'm not talking about Genesis, but the Christian Scriptures and their relation to Jesus, what's your point?

Gamera

.

Tranlated: you don't know who put the inscription on the gate or why or when. Quite an admission.

But I do agree it's absurd to deny the existence of Augustus. Which proves how absurd your position is in denying the historicity of Jesus. Same standard is being applied (see the topic post). So you're sort of admitting the absurdity of your position not mine. I think Augustus and Jesus were real people.


No response, I see, and how you know who wrote the gate inscription and why and when. You sound adrift on this issue.

spin

I've already said your translation services aren't worth the paper wasted on them.

My comment was a recognition of the signs of the fullfilment of a prophecy I made earlier. You would turn your position in into Millard Fillmore know-nothing party.

No, you don't. You'll deny anyone and everyone, because your sources can't get your guy into the same league. You are floundering about with the pretence that you have historical material in the gospel accounts without being able to demonstrate this claim, so you are willing to try to take down everything you can in the vain hope of reducing of history to literary text manipulation.

See what I mean?

The same standard according to you is to deny historical data altogether so that you can raise your stuff to the same level.

Nice projection.

At the same time you have admit William Tell and Lemuel Gulliver into the fold. You have no criteria to prevent it.

You have the sounds of your own beliefs echoing in your ears.


spin

LGM

You implied that the older a myth is, the more historically accurate it is. I was just pointing out that was bunk, and using the older flood myth of Gilgamesh and contrasting it with the flood myth of Genesis.

My point is, you have no point.

LGM

The "historicity" of a name tells me nothing. Worse, this lame attempt of yours, wrongly assumes that if there was a historical person named Yeshua, then we must accept some reconciled version of the conflicting gospel myths, as his literal biography. Including all his miracles, like rising from the dead, and then “flying” up into outer space where his mythographers mistakenly thought heaven was. Puhleeeeze. I'm so sick of this lame claim that if we don’t accept this fairytale, then we can’t accept any other historical document, that details a Roman Emperor doing the mundane things that Roman Emperors do, without the help of supernatural magic tricks, dreamed up by cosmologically ignorant, first century, fiction writers.

Augustus could very well be a historical emperor, yet plenty of the stories written about him could be propaganda, or mythical, or simply exaggerated to paint him in the best possible light.

Who gives a shit? Does your worldview change if the details of Augustus life were different in some significant way?

Now ask yourself the same question about Yeshua.

If there was some Galilean named Jesus, who traipsed around Palenstine with some of his homeboys, telling pithy parables, and eventually he got whacked by the Romans, and was tossed into an unmarked grave, is that the “historical” Jesus you want so desperately to “exist”?

The gospels are evolved, mythical, theological hagiography. a.k.a. bullshit. It’s just a question of how much of it is bullshit. 75 percent…or 100? Even Doherty admits there was likely a Galilean tradition that was responsible for the pithy parables and teachings called "Q"…so what if one of the guys telling the stories was named Yeshua or Barabas or Ralph.

“Historical Jesus” means nothing until you specify the actual historical CLAIM you insist is genuine. And there are no claims in Paul's or the other epistles.

jakejonesiv

Well said.
Jake

GakuseiDon

[Argument by assertion]So, are you saying you can't imagine a sacrifice on earth affecting heaven? People of that time believed a lot of weird things.[/Argument by assertion]

I hope that Gregg can see the dangers of such arguments. Appealing to "imagination" and attacking someone for "lack of imagination" goes nowhere. At the end of the day, it is the evidence -- the surrounding context, the examples in similar literature -- that supports such views that is important. It is this type of evidence that is noticeably lacking in Doherty's argument. (ETA: To his credit, Doherty admits this himself throughout his book. To a certain extent, I sympathize since there isn't a lot of material from the period that can be examined. A measure of speculation is required for any position, MJ or HJ, and I don't begrudge Doherty speculating on the topic. But I do feel that his speculations go against the evidence at hand, and that he should be called on this)

Taking a few statements from Hebrews without examining Hebrews as a whole is not enough. Pointing to Paul's lack of gospel references without noting that there are many other such examples in the first few centuries is just ignoring the evidence at hand. "Evidence" can't just mean putting a cloud over every passage by asking an endless stream of questions and saying "hey, couldn't they have thought this way?"

Speaking of which:
Yes, it's possible I suppose. How do we decide, one way or the other?

Yes, it's possible I suppose. How do we decide, one way or the other?