Littlejohn

.

Son of Man and Son of God: have, these locutions, the same meaning as regards the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth?...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Adam

It's an open question. See Paul Owen's book review in the Jan. 2009 Review of Biblical Literature, of Maurice Casey's The Solution to the Son of Man Problem.
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6442_6959.pdf
(Thanks to Toto for finding the link.)
Casey recognizes only the Synoptics as authentic, and he does not find divine allusions in the term "son of man". Paul Owens disputes that.
I see the general picture as widespread use of "son of man" in the Synoptics paralleled by widespread use of "son of god" in gJohn. In gJohn "son of man" is occasionally used, however, usually with divine implications. The term "son of god" is also used occasionally in the Synoptics.

Littlejohn

.

Sorry .. Probably the issue may have already been addressed and discussed in this forum in the past ... However, my intention is to bring to the discussion a further 'cue' (or 'idea', if the concept is not clear) of research, useful to those who will think to use it ...


Littlejohn

.

aa5874

The phrase "Son of Man" is allegory in the Synoptics.

Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost in gMatthew and gLuke.

Matthew 1:18 - Luke 1:35 - There is ZERO evidence that the Synoptics are historical accounts of a man. It is WRITTEN, not presumed, that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

We are NOT dealing with history in the Synoptics. We are dealing with Myth Fables that people of antiquity BELIEVED.

In antiquity It was CIRCULATED PUBLICLY and PREACHED that Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

People of antiquity and even today BELIEVE ALL SORTS of Myth Fables about Jesus or Gods.

Some Christians BELIEVED the MYTH Fable of Marcion that the Son of God was a PHANTOM with ZERO birth and ZERO flesh but came directly to Capernaum from heaven in the 15th year of reign of Tiberius.

Littlejohn

Be careful not slavishly follow what is there reported in the Gospels! .. These texts, in fact, were not written to provide a real and reliable version of Jesus' history, but rather to mystify the real one, which was well known by Jewish circles of the time, as also by pagans ones, who were being informed by the first about the true story of Jesus and his mother. (see Justin Martyr and Tertullian, who complained of this)

In fact, the character Jesus of Nazareth did not lend itself quite to build on it a cult such as the one Catholic-Christian (and not simply 'Christianity'!), because the life of Jesus, the REAL one, which lasted NOT only 33 years, but 66, it was full of lights and shadows and the latter were far exceeding the first! .. (I know this will make 'distort' the nose to Roger Pearse, but this is the historical truth, even if he will agree not with me!)

This was the main reason why, in the face of the 66-year life of the Nazarene, the counterfeiters evangelists reported the story of just two or three years, mystifying heavily, also, the little one reported about the life of Jesus (and of the others co-actors of the 'evangelic story').

Greetings


Littlejohn

.

aa5874

Well, you have to provide the historical sources from antiquity with the true history of Jesus.

The very sources that state Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost cannot be the same source that also claimed he was NOT.

If you can't produce any sources of antiquity for what you assert then what is point in posting?

I have heard enough unsubstantiated claims about Jesus in order to historicise him.

Why must Jesus be a figure of history?

Public documents of antiquity claimed he was the Child of a Ghost.

Littlejohn

.

«..Well, you have to provide the historical sources from antiquity with the true history of Jesus...»

Well...

[1] - Tacitus;

[2] - Suetonius;

[3] - Josephus (NOT the T.F., but other indications, confirmed by other authors pagans);

[4] - Pliny the Younger;

[5] - Marcus Cornelius Fronto;

[6] - Marcus Aurelius:

[7] - Talmud and Toledoth Yeshu: both rabbinic sources;

[8] - more than 70 gnostic-jesuan sects;

[9] - Basilides;

[10] - Quran;

[10] - Mandaean literature;

[11] - a myriad of fragments of Christian texts and not, of the second and third centuries AD, that speak of Jesus (which categorically excludes that Christianity can be initiated in the fourth century with Constantine, as claimed by you and someone else);

[12] - Celsus;

[13] - Hierocles;

[14] - Porphyry;

[15] - Julian the Apostate;

[16] - Lucian of Samosata.

Are enough for you ?....

«..The very sources that state Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost cannot be the same source that also claimed he was NOT...»

NONE of the sources quoted says that Jesus was born by a 'Holy Spirit'!... However, a heathen source tells us that Jesus claimed to be born of a virgin and a god, and NOT from the' Holy Spirit ', as claimed by counterfeiters fathers of the antiquity and to this day also by the Catholic clergy, no less forger than that of the antiquity ! ..


«..If you can't produce any sources of antiquity for what you assert then what is point in posting?...»

To know my data sources, you must wait patiently for the publication of my book ... For the moment I'm posting for provide, to those intend to use them, some useful items for personal research ... Nobody has to believe what I say or to use the data that I provide ... (and that cost me a lot of work to recover them!)

«..I have heard enough unsubstantiated claims about Jesus in order to historicise him....»

I believe that the 'unsubstantiated claims' are just the ones that would like Jesus an invent character, i.e. not historical .. On what thing you basis your assumptions about that? ... On the fact that, APPARENTLY, there are so few quotations related to Jesus by part heathen authors?

Do not it ever came to mind to you that if the ancient fathers had had need to prove the historicity of Jesus, today, in the texts of Greek and Latin authors, to which you're referring to support the non-historicity of Jesus, of these citations you would find be thousands ??... Or you ignore the fact that ALL ancient texts that we today read , there have been passed down through multiple recopying by scribes Catholics, both of ecclesiastical and monastic environments? .. What would have cost, to the scribes, enter 'ad hoc' countless of pagan citations in ancient texts about Jesus of Nazareth? ...

The REALITY is that in the early centuries of Christianity, no one doubted the historicity of Jesus! ... The same 'Testimonium Flavianum', an ignoble historical forgery, was NOT included in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews in order to prove the historicity of Jesus, since NO ONE doubted at that time, but just to put in the 'mouth' to an authoritative historian, jew, moreover, the phrase according to which 'JESUS​​' was more than 'a man' (ie the 'messiah' and the son of God). In short, they tried to emphasize, through the pseudo-testimony of an authoritative person, as was considered, in fact, Josephus in the first centuries, the fact that Jesus was really the one 'painted' by the evangelists: ie the 'son of God' and God himself!

All this means that in those times, after the downfall of the Catholic clergy, first with Emperor Decius and, to finish, with the Emperor Diocletian, there was a strong confutation on the pagan part against the ecclesiastical christian world, to which, as had Celsus already done it in the second century, was challenged the 'divinity' and 'messiahship' of Jesus, denouncing the fact that he was, indeed, a mere man, and also a MAGICIAN, a BANDIT and a TRICKSTER (through his 'magical' arts: that is, illusion games and circus tricks!)

Leading figures of this dispute of the late third century, were Porphyry (whose anti-Christian works, 'prudently' have not come down to us!) and his disciple Hièrocles, of which there are come down to us only fragments of his works, through the 'ferocious' criticism that it did Lactantius and Eusebius.

«..Why must Jesus be a figure of history? ...»

Because Jesus IS A HISTORICAL FIGURE !!!... Simply, this figure, the real one, that truly historic, it was almost completely different from that of the 'faith', or the Catholic magisterium, starting with the fact that he lived not only 33 years, but exactly twice, having been born in 6 AD, years of the famous Census of Augustus, and died stoned (and NOT crucified!) in the 72.

«...Public documents of antiquity claimed he was the Child of a Ghost....»

I already answered this observation ... Only in the texts of the counterfeiters fathers is reported that Jesus was born by the Holy Spirit! The Gospel of Philip, dated with certainty to the second century of our era (it was mentioned by Irenaeus, writing between the mid to late second century) confutes this assumption of the roman catholic apostolic church, pointing out that since the Holy Spirit (Rhuah for Jews) feminine in nature, could never making pregnant the Virgin Mary! ... I remember you once again that Jesus never claimed to be the son of the 'Holy Spirit', but of a GOD AND OF A VIRGIN! ...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

dockeen

Littlejohn,

How many of those sources would you date to the time in question?

aa5874

I asked you for credible sources for the history of YOUR 66 year old Jesus.

You gave me sources for the 33 year old Jesus that was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Littlejohn

.

Well ... at least the following:

[1] - Tacitus;

[2] - Suetonius;

[3] - Josephus (NOT the T.F., but other indications, confirmed by other authors pagans);

[4] - Pliny the Younger;

[5] - Marcus Cornelius Fronto;

[6] - Marcus Aurelius:

[7] - Talmud and Toledoth Yeshu: both rabbinic sources;

[8] - more than 70 gnostic-jesuan sects;

[9] - Basilides;

[11] - a myriad of fragments of Christian texts and not, of the second and third centuries AD, that speak of Jesus (which categorically excludes that Christianity can be initiated in the fourth century with Constantine, as claimed by you and someone else);

[12] - Celsus;

[16] - Lucian of Samosata.

However, you must know that I ABSOLUTELY REJECTION the ignoble assumption of the forger clergy according to which a lie said 'yesterday' it has more value than a truth said after a year to starting today!

In the works of a Catholic hagiographer of the twelfth or thirteenth century, I could 'unearth' a incredible data, that I never would have expected to find in a catholic text. Such a data is for me very important, because it clearly confirms one aspect evoked in the Toldoth Yeshu, and that does not appear in ANY ancient patristic text! ...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.