srd44

aa's assertation that Jesus is in heaven sounds again like Schweitzer. And your position sounds alarmingly like that of Timothy Luke Johnson, whose book, The Real Jesus, tries to cut through the debate. His arguments, however, are very tenuous. -- a good read though .... I think

mountainman

Are we dealing with another Luke Skywalker?

(I did not write Luke J Skywalker)

Perhaps he sips wine from Russel's teapot?

But he certainly is reported to have used bright clouds to get around.

Perhaps he's still floating around the clouds?

Did his ascension have the necessary escape velocity to heaven?

aa5874

If your position is that there was an historical Jesus then you sound like Ehrman--highly illogical.

See page 197 of "Did Jesus Exist?"--Ehrman argues for an historical Jesus of NAZARETH and claims it does NOT matter if NAZARETH did not exist.

Sheshbazzar

My 'position' only places him in exactly the 'position' that the NT's writers place him.

Not my fault that that is the position the authors chose to place him in.

Now if they had chosen to have their Jebus take a trip to India, to Japan, or Timbuktu, or levitate off to an unknown land in the West, or stay nicely asleep in a tomb, well that also would be fine with me.

It is their story, and unlike many others, I have no inclinations to rewrite or to change a line of it.

The only Jesus the Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth that the Christian Church has an account of is that of Zombie Jesus, the three days dead corpse that escaped from a tomb, flitted about as a shape changer for a bit, and then flew off into a cloud never to be seen in the flesh again.

According to his followers he said he was ascending to Heaven. According to his followers they saw him ascending into Heaven, and 'Christians' say that he still communicates with them from Heaven.
Who am I to argue? That is their story. Take it or leave it, there is no other story of Jesus Christ supported by Bible or Christianity .

aa5874

It can be published and cannot be overturned that all writings based on EARLY Pauline writings, before c 68 CE, are OBSOLETE.

All theories about a 1st century Jesus and the Jesus cult , whether from MJ or HJ Scholars, that employed the presumptions of early Pauline writings are Hopelessy flawed.

It is the 2nd century writings and writers that reflect the History of the Jesus cult--NOT the Pauline writings.

If Paul was a Persecutor of the Jesus cult then he could NOT have persecuted the Jesus cult in the 1st century. No evidence at all has surfaced and dated to the 1st century about Jesus and the Jesus cult.

2nd century Apologetic writers do corroborate that there was Persecutions of people who called themselves Christians in the 2nd century under the Emperors Antoninus and Verus.

The Pauline writings can be placed in the Dust Bin of History--they are products of fraud, forgeries and are historically bogus.

The writings attributed to Aristides, Justin Martyr, Melito, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Municius Felix and Arnobius are compatible with the recovered dated manuscripts and do NOT contain the 'historical' garbage in the Pauline letters.

These 2nd century and later Apologetic sources show virtually NO sign of manipulation since they are almost totally contrary to Church History as presented by Eusebius.

In First Apology, Up to the mid 2nd century, it was the MEMOIRS of the Apostles that were read in the Churches this claim along with many other suggests that First Apology was NOT manipulated.

Even in "Church History" 4 it is claimed other Jesus cults ALSO did NOT use the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles.

Eusebius CORROBORATES Justin Martyr.

Church History 4Justin Martyr used the Law and the Prophets and the Memoirs called Gospels and wrote nothing of the Pauline Epistles and Acts.

The Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are to be REJECTED--they are NOT history. They do NOT REPRESENT the Jesus cult nor their history and teachings in the 2nd century.

Duvduv

If the gospel writers knew the basic Jewish story of Yeshu, then it would make sense that part of their lambasting Judaism would be reverse lampooning, i.e. to poke fun at the claims of the Jews, and could have viewed the Yeshu model in a positive light.

The writers themselves could have turned the opposition of the Jewish rabbis against those rabbis themselves by claiming that, after all, if this Yeshu had a mother named Miriam and was executed on the eve of Passover as an enemy of the rabbis and pharisees who then lost their independence and their Temple, then this Yeshu could be a model for the savior with a mother Miriam who was divinely impregnated and who was killed by those wicked pharisees. Thus this backdrop of an heretical enemy of the existing Jewish establishment was in fact just perfect for a divine savior Yesoos/Yeshu.

Toto

You are reduced to replying to your own posts?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Talmud is a source of history? Have you read Frank Zindler's The Jesus the Jews Never Knew?

Composer

LOL!


"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." (Matthew 25:34) KJV Story book

OOPS! - CONTRADICTION:

" In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." (John 14:2) KJV Story book

First ' the place is already prepared from the beginning ' and then Oops! we learn that jebus still has it on his "To Do List? " LOL!


Composer the ongoing successful & vindicated Cult buster!

:eating_popcorn:

Duvduv

Yes.....I am "REDUCING"............What the hell is wrong with adding on to a posting so that a reader can see the previous posting? Is it some kind of a sin or crime against the RFDB Church of Latter Day Golems or something? For heaven's sake, how much pleasure do you get from posting to me like this?!
And why the hell shouldn't the Talmud contain historical material in it? Is there some kind of Law of Ancient Texts prohibiting any use of Talmudic sources to analyze history? Or is it restricted to Roman books in the hands of the Church in Rome?!

Toto

Your previous post is already visible, and there is no obvious relation between it and the later post. If anyone here finds any value in Duvduv quoting himself, please speak up.

None whatsoever. I keep hoping to get you to engage in actual discussion. Probably hopeless.

I have never argued that Roman books in the hands of the church are especially useful for historical purposes. But you have IIRC argued against their use as history. Why should the Talmud, which was not even written with the intent of recording neutral history, be privileged?

Please feel free to start a new thread explaining how and why the Talmud can be used as a historical source.