Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrMacSon · 04-06-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

My conclusion is that it doesn't exist. There are no early Christian writings that depict Jesus as a solely mythical being in line with an evolution from a mythical Jesus to an historicized Jesus. ... Where are all the early Christian writings describing a Jesus that exists in another realm who dies only a spiritual death?

Plenty of early concurrent belief systems portray "a Jesus that exists in another realm who dies only a spiritual death". They are mentioned in the first few replies in this thread.

aa5874 · 04-06-2012, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Seems more plausible they would mention HJ if they knew anything about it. Seems to me like onus is on HJers to say why he never gets a mention.

Slightly later Xians mention HJ, e.g. Justin, Irenaeus.

No at all, Justin and Irenaeus did NOT mention the historical Jesus.

The "historical Jesus" is DEFINED as an human Jesus born of human parents.

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus mentioned the DIVINE Jesus, the Jesus of Faith without a human father and FATHERED a Ghost. Over 250 years ago it was accepted that the NT is about The DIVINE Jesus, the Jesus of FAITH who was born of the Ghost, was God the Creator , walked on water, transfigured resurrected and ascended.

Please examine Justin's Jesus. It was a MYTH.

First Apology 21

Quote:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter...

It was the Skeptics like Celsus the Roman writer who attempted to historicise Jesus but was Ridiculed as an inventor of falsehood in writings attributed to Origen.

EmmaZunz · 04-06-2012, 03:11 PM

I'm only saying that Justin believed in HJ and talked about him as such.

E.g.:

"on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judea, under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled" (Dialogue with Trypho LXXVIII)

"when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan" (LXXXVIII)

"He kept silence, and chose to return no answer to any one in the presence of Pilate; as has been declared in the memoirs of His apostles" (CII)

You may of course believe that the Gospel Jesus was intended as mythical, but there is certainly a HJ in Justin, as he understood it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Seems more plausible they would mention HJ if they knew anything about it. Seems to me like onus is on HJers to say why he never gets a mention.

Slightly later Xians mention HJ, e.g. Justin, Irenaeus.

No at all, Justin and Irenaeus did NOT mention the historical Jesus.

The "historical Jesus" is DEFINED as an human Jesus born of human parents.

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus mentioned the DIVINE Jesus, the Jesus of Faith without a human father and FATHERED a Ghost. Over 250 years ago it was accepted that the NT is about The DIVINE Jesus, the Jesus of FAITH who was born of the Ghost, was God the Creator , walked on water, transfigured resurrected and ascended.

Please examine Justin's Jesus. It was a MYTH.

First Apology 21

Quote:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter...

It was the Skeptics like Celsus the Roman writer who attempted to historicise Jesus but was Ridiculed as an inventor of falsehood in writings attributed to Origen.

MrMacSon · 04-06-2012, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

I'm only saying that Justin believed in HJ and talked about him as such.

.... there is certainly a HJ in Justin, as he understood it.

But a key "tenet" of Christianity is the notion of Jesus being a man and God, so many propose it.

aa5874 · 04-06-2012, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

I'm only saying that Justin believed in HJ and talked about him as such...

You make a Grave Error when you state that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus mentioned an historical Jesus.

Please, you MUST get the definition of an "historical Jesus".

The Quest for an "Historical Jesus" refers to a complete human Jesus with a human father.

In "Dialogue with Trypho" the very Jew called Trypho WARNED Justin that once he claimed Jesus was Born of a Virgin that Justin's Jesus was just like Greek Mythology.

Justin's Jesus was a Divine Jesus, the Jesus born with SEXUAL union, Myth Jesus.

Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on......Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men...

We must understand that it was Trypho that told Justin that Justin's Jesus was NOT historical but like the Myth fables of the Greeks.

Justin ARGUED for a Divine Jesus, a Jesus of Faith--Myth Jesus.

Apologetic sources did NOT historicise Jesus they maintained throughout the NT the Jesus Myth when they made sure that no author claimed Jesus had a human father and that he was the Son of a Ghost , God the Creator, who walked on water and transfigured.

It is IMPERATIVE that it is understood that it was Heretics who attempted to historicise Jesus [humanised Jesus] while apologetic sources Mythologised Jesus.

EmmaZunz · 04-06-2012, 03:47 PM

I think you are being too semantically strict with your definition. For me, a HJ merely means a Jesus who was recently on earth. Maybe not theologically human in the normal way, but still seen and heard on earth.

Justin clearly believes in a HJ who was on earth, even tho he may not fit your all-or-nothing definition.

There's a poll on the minimal attributes of a HJ here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313296

Looks like we as a community require crucifixion, disciples and sayings as some of the main attributes necessary to a HJ.

I don't think we can say Justin or anyone did not have a HJ, just because they might have thought him not human in the normal way.

"it was Heretics who attempted to historicise Jesus"

Now that is interesting. Who are you thinking of - Marcion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

I'm only saying that Justin believed in HJ and talked about him as such...

You make a Grave Error when you state that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus mentioned an historical Jesus.

Please, you MUST get the definition of an "historical Jesus".

The Quest for an "Historical Jesus" refers to a complete human Jesus with a human father.

In "Dialogue with Trypho" the very Jew called Trypho WARNED Justin that once he claimed Jesus was Born of a Virgin that Justin's Jesus was just like Greek Mythology.

Justin's Jesus was a Divine Jesus, the Jesus born with SEXUAL union, Myth Jesus.

Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on......Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men...

We must understand that it was Trypho that told Justin that Justin's Jesus was NOT historical but like the Myth fables of the Greeks.

Justin ARGUED for a Divine Jesus, a Jesus of Faith--Myth Jesus.

Apologetic sources did NOT historicise Jesus they maintained throughout the NT the Jesus Myth when they made sure that no author claimed Jesus had a human father and that he was the Son of a Ghost , God the Creator, who walked on water and transfigured.

It is IMPERATIVE that it is understood that it was Heretics who attempted to historicise Jesus [humanised Jesus] while apologetic sources Mythologised Jesus.

aa5874 · 04-06-2012, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Sure. If there is evidence of early Christian writings that, while apparently showing awareness that there was a historical Jesus, nevertheless have little or nothing about him, then this provides a benchmark for when we examine other early Christian literature....

Why do you continue to promote propaganda and confuse the issue?? Why??You have been posting here for years and still you are making erroneous and mis-leading claims regarding the "historical Jesus".

The "historical Jesus" means a complete human Jesus with a human father and mother.

You very well know that early Christians who believed Jesus existed as a God were NOT writing about an "historical Jesus".

The very supposed early apologetic sources claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost, and God the Creator that walked on water. See the ALL the Gospels.

The very Pauline writer PRESUMED to be early claimed his Jesus was NOT human and that he did NOT get his gospel from a human being but from Jesus.

Please, let us understand that nobody is being fooled anymore. We have the Existing Apologetic sources of antiquity and early Christians and writers argued that Jesus was DIVINE.

It was Skeptics like Trypho and Celsus who attempted to argue for an historical Jesus--a complete human Jesus.

Celsus claimed the father of Jesus was Panthera--Origen claimed it was FALSE and that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and a Virgin . See Against Celsus 1.

EmmaZunz · 04-06-2012, 03:52 PM

I guess it's also possible that some Xian writers continued to hold to MJ even after the spread of Gospels, if they treated them as the allegories they were originally intended as.

We badly need a history of the reception of the Gospels by the very early Xians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

@ GakuseiDon - I'm not sure what or why you're arguing against me. Could you just describe briefly what your opinion is?

Sure. If there is evidence of early Christian writings that, while apparently showing awareness that there was a historical Jesus, nevertheless have little or nothing about him, then this provides a benchmark for when we examine other early Christian literature.

You wrote that "There are early texts where the historical Jesus idea is only little known or developed, e.g. Epistle of Barnabus, Ignatian Epistles (Trallians 9)". And also that: "they might be Xians who are aware of traditions about a historical Jesus, but don't have much detail because Mark's Gospel is not widely available in written form yet".

You then asked: "How many Xians do you know who would write a whole letter about their faith and never mention the life of Jesus? Can you imagine the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus, who is attempting to explain the basis of the Xian faith to a pagan, neglecting to mention anything about the man who founded it? Whose life and resurrection proved the validity of the faith? Maybe one or two such cases would be possible. But case after case after case?"

I looked at the Epistle to Diognetus, and I suggest that this is actually the case: the author was a proto-orthodox Christian who described the Christian faith without referring to historical details of a historical Jesus. My argument is: If you are using "Mark's Gospel is not widely available in written form yet" as a demarkation point (no pun intended!), then doesn't much of NT literature fall into this group? I am floating the possibility that there is indeed case after case after case of this type of literature.

Unfortunately this type of analysis is often hindered by equating "historical Jesus == Gospel Jesus", so that the literature isn't allowed to speak for itself. But if you allow that Barnabas is an example of Christians apparently believing in a historical Jesus without apparently knowing or referring to Gospel details, then it becomes a benchmark by which to examine other early Christian literature.

The next step to my mind is: In your view, what Christian literature was written before Mark's Gospel became widely available in written form? How many cases do we have of writings similar to our benchmark Epistle of Barnabas?

MrMacSon · 04-06-2012, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

There's a poll on the minimal attributes of a HJ here:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313296

I think that poll is too wishy-washy - too much emphasis on belief and not enough on objectivity. I think these should be on the list

information from more than one biblical source that provides reliable biography
writings by him - actual or attested copes
artifacts
was a sage of some kind
Said at least some of what is attributed to him in the Gospels
Was involved in some kind of attack on the Temple
Had some disciples, not necessarily 12

aa5874 · 04-06-2012, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

I guess it's also possible that some Xian writers continued to hold to MJ even after the spread of Gospels, if they treated them as the allegories they were originally intended as...

The Gospels do NOT historicise Jesus. In gMatthew and gLuke the writers made sure they claimed Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, in gJohn, Jesus was God the Creator and in gMark Jesus walked on water, and transfigured.

The Gospels did NOT humanize Jesus at all-virtually all the miracles of Jesus were NOT even humanly possible.

Matthew 1:18 KJV

Quote:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise..... his mother Mary..... was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

This passage cannot in any way be the humanising of Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.