aa5874

So, you just want to make up stories about a suicidal man, and want people to believe your laughable story is true.

You want a blank sheet of paper and you will just write down whatever you like and claim 2000 years ago, there was a suicidal man who was worshipped as a God.

But, I have written statements found in the NT about the offspring of the Holy Ghost called Jesus.


You cannot deny that in Matthew 1.18, the author represented Jesus as the offspring of the Holy Ghost. You cannot deny that in Mark 16.6 the author claimed the offspring of the Holy Ghost had risen from the dead. You cannot deny that in Acts1.9 that the author claimed the offspring of the Holy Ghost ascended through the clouds. You cannot deny that the offspring of the Holy Ghost was potrayed as a mythical creature in the Gospels.

And what is your job? To produce a most hilarious character called the suicide man.

The authors of the NT and the church writers produced a God/man that was truly born of a virgin, truly resurrected and truly ascended and had power and authority to forgive sin and do miracles.

You cannot prove anything with your suicide man, except that you have a vivid imagination and can make stuff up.

In the NT, a cloud talked to the offspring of the Holy Ghost, while the creature converse with resurrected prophets, you cannot deny that the author presented the offspring of the Holy Ghost as a myth.

All the laughable characters are in the NT.You want to make another one called suicide man.

Origen wrote a lot of stuff about the offspring of the Holy Ghost, maybe he knows the origin of the creature.


But, you just tell me who wrote the origin of suicide man. Please answer me.

Elijah

But are unwilling to explain what you believe the origin of those written statements are.
You cannot think that the statements made in the NT show the origin to be a myth.
Yea a rational understanding of Christ… and point out that you don’t have a theory to stand on.
It’s a messiah not a god/man. Understanding it like a pagan poem and not a political messiah is a mistake.
It's just a reasonable explanation for how Christianity started unlike your absent explanation.
You don’t think it was possible that the author really did think that he was the son of the Holy Ghost and some of the stories were true? Is that something that is hard to imagine or is there some reason you think this person couldn’t have believed that?
What’s laughable about it? Don’t you see the impact it had on the world?
Yea it’s called history.
No one wrote the origin from the historical perspective. Who wrote it from the Mythical one?

You haven’t presented any reason to believe in a mythical origin to Jesus so why are you afraid to admit that it’s more likely that it came from a historical one or at the very least possible? It’s not like admitting there was a historical core turns you into a Christian it just shows you can use some reason.

dog-on

You can't contradict anything in my "theory" without making it up, that's true.

I base my "theory" on a couple other "theories"...

1. Paul is the earliest extent Christian writer
2. Mark is the earliest of the Gospels

I have no information as to the actual "real" intent of either of these authors.

Based on what they have written, the most obvious and, Occam friendly solution is the following:

Paul made up a story about a "revelation" from some god named Jesus Christ.

At a later time, the Author of Mark wrote a fictional biography of Jesus Christ. Fictional based on the prima facie evidence, contained within, the text itself.

Now, please point out where you think there are any holes.

rlogan

Now we're talking.

May I add to this? Thanks beforehand.


Until the exchange between Pliny and Trajan, we have no reliable evidence of "christians". There is no historical Jesus at this time.

Marcion seems to be in posession of the first Christian "Bible", and that would be the letters of the legendary Paul - to which you have referred.

It seems "gospels" are in circulation sometime after the Pliny/Trajan exchange, and have gone through some kind of evolution to extant form. "Mark" as we know it has an extended ending. Others letters and books "interpolated".

I see Christianity as a 2nd century phenomenon, remote in time and place from the alleged events in gospel tales. Earliest protochristians late late 1st century maximum.

All NT books are of the form "long ago and far away". Golly! Nobody here to question these preposterous claims. Superman chasing the largest herd of pigs ever assembled into the sea. Causing so much turmoil the Jewish Temple officials demand execution by the Roman Occupation. Ludicrous stuff, through and through.

Whenever christians are defending the lack of notice then oh no - he's just a carpenter nobody ever noticed. Well it escaped notice during what is best called a census of Jewish sects by Josephus in History of the Jews.

First we have letters obviously written as liturgical devices. Silly and improbable as "letters" on the face of them. Conveniently "discovered" and circulated as pious frauds.

The Jesus Christ story - mined from the Hebrew Bible and in a setting the writer is not that familiar with except through source material. Jesus is given this pedigree of prophecy, and it is so jumbled up as a consequence of needing to fulfill various scriptures.

Born (how sadly unoriginal) of a virgin. Not history, clearly. But a force-fit HB "prophecy". Common to other religions too.

In Bethlehem - HB prophecy forced to "come true" with a make-believe census requirement the legendary "Joseph" has to journey there for.

Next, the journey to Egypt to escape a slaughter of innocent children that did not happen. Gee, where did they get that? Recycled Moses. HB source material again. And again, a double play because the prophecy about "coming out of egypt" comes true.

He needs to be a "naza" something in Prophecy and the writer makes an error here and Jesus is from Nazareth. The best-travelled nazarean of all time.

Nothing of him in any concrete way until he is shaming the temple priests as a juvenile. Obviously a more learned scholar than the highest educated men in the land as a 12 year old. Of course he can't write though because oh he's just a carpenter nobody would notice.

His whole core life in the bible - that ministry of a couple of years - is obvious fiction. More quote-mining from the HB and most especially the whole passion sequence. The most basic core belief in christianity - all from Isaiah.

You remove these things, and what do you have? Next to nothing. The crucifixion did not happen. It is a religious principle, not an event that happened.

Jesus went around with literally the coat on his back, but attracted multitudes? But nobody took note?

Probabilitly zero. Furthermore the desciples are stupid and Jesus baffles them, there are inner secrets and meanings within meanings. Religious twaddle.

The Hebrew Bible before it was myth before history too. No Moses. No Exodus. The extant record there too is a melding of two different traditions.

The myth-before-history has close parallels in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament.

CHeers

aa5874

Again, is your suicide man the origin of the passages you quoted?
You are either pretending to be naive or disingenuos.

When I quote passages from the NT or the church writings you constantly ask if the passages represent the origins of the offspring of the Holy Ghost called Jesus.

Yet you quote from the very same NT and cannot explain the origins of those very passages. You have quoted from Matthew 20.27, Mark 8.34, 10.45 and John 10.18, 12.25 and 15.13, so I ask you again, are these passages from the NT the origin of suicide man?

What did suicide man write or say?

Remember, in an earlier post, you claim you would not expect to find information of suicide man in the NT.

I can show you that the offspring of the Holy Ghost called Jesus was presented as a myth in the NT and the church writings.

You cannot show me the origin of suicide man.


And, that is how we know that the offspring of the Holy Ghost called Jesus was a myth. The creature was presented as truly the offspring of a Holy Ghost, born without sexual union, the son of the God of the Jews, who did many miracles, that transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven and people believed the mythical fable.

When did suicide man have an impact on the world? No-one wrote a single thing about suicide mam. When and where did suicide man originate?

Marcion proved without a doubt that it was not necessary for anyone to commit suicide or to have been a real person to be worshipped as a God.

It was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, born without sexual union, that resurrected who ascended to heaven called Jesus who Constantine used to make an impact on the world.


There are four versions of the offspring of the Holy Ghost, called Jesus, canonised in the NT, but the authoships are unknown.

I have presented the NT and the church writings and in them there is the offspring of the Holy Ghost, who was born without sexual union, that was resurrected, and ascended to heaven, who will come back a second time for dead believers.

Why are you afraid to admit that an Holy Ghost can only have a mythical core?

You must admit that Ghost or Spirits can only have mythical cores, unless your argument is suicidal.

Elijah

You have no information at all but a couple of names you don’t know the history behind or the relation between.
The god/man is a Sunday school understanding for kids who can’t understand the politics or philosophy from the time. You show no idea about the nature of Paul’s revelation or what it was about. When you start using the word “messiah” you’ll start getting closer.
Holes:
1. How was it confused for history?
2. What was Paul writing about? What is his revelation?
3. What is Paul’s relationship to Mark?
4. What does Mark think he is writing about?
5. Who is Mark?
6. Does Mark think it is fictional or historical?
7. How is Marks gospel published/distributed?
8. What do the preexistent Christians believe?
9. When did the martyrdom start and with who?
10. Who else in the NT or church history is fictional?

Elijah

Are you saying that Marcion’s Luke was the origin of the Christ story or that the letters of Paul themselves are the Christian bible at this point?
People noticed but the evidence that is expected by skeptics is highly unrealistic for the story being presented.
Can you think of any other possible reason they were mining the Hebrew bible and trying to fit Jesus into fulfilling prophecy, besides it’s a work of fiction? Like they thought he was a messiah and tried to convince others of that; people who believed he need to fulfill prophecy in order to be considered the messiah.
What do you think the understanding of Jesus is that is being put forward by the writers? What is the core belief?
How do you know the crucifixion or execution didn’t happen? Something too rare back then to be possible?
Reasoning zero. Who is supposed to take note? The “stupid” disciples, maybe the dumb fisherman or the knuckleheaded tax collector? Could they write proficiently enough to put something out?
Are you saying Moses is of mythical origin or that the story didn’t happen the way it is portrayed?

Elijah

How could he be?
Because that is what you need to be presenting in order to call yourself a mythicist. You are pointing out obvious facts that maybe half the Christians in America would agree with and aren’t showing how you came to your mythical understanding.
No from the historical perspective the suicide is. And as I said you can look up the history of the texts I’m using. If you feel like you want to argue any point on any text that you think can help your case then go for it but I don’t see how it’s going to help you. Make your case for a mythical origin any way you want but make the case.
No known texts of his are known or expected. The sayings that are attributed to him are found in the sources you are already familiar with so please stop playing dumb.
Can you show that they thought they were presenting an original myth and not writing down the stories being told of a man that they may or may not have believed? Can you show that the writer didn’t believe a person could really rise from the dead and was just writing fiction?
That would require time travel which I don’t believe is possible.
Yea but you can’t show these stories were tales being told of a man that some religious zealots thought was the messiah. That’s the whole crux of your issue. You need to show where this story came from and how it was confused for history. Pointing out that the miracles aren’t possible are statements of the obvious that anyone could point out.
He impacted the world as soon as his followers started imitating him and made believers out of the world. You don’t know what was written about him, all you know is the fraction that has preserved from history.
Marcion may have had a completely different understanding of Christ, I don’t know. Neither do you. I’m a fan of the demiurge concept and Paul like him but I don’t know if he understood Jesus as the messiah or as a philosopher killed. What he did believe is pretty irrelevant to the discussion on the origin of Christ I think though.

So you’re with Mountainman that Constantine and Eusebius are the sources of the Jesus phenomenon and just made up the Church history?
The authors are recognized but disputed. But I guess for you Eusebius wrote all four of them to help unify but confuse the people? Why reference Justin, Marcion and Origen? Obviously they were just as fictional and just as created as Jesus right?
Soooooo? That does nothing for your absent theory of how Jesus came about and thought of as historical. The miracles aren’t possible makes you sound like a liberal Christian more than an atheist.
We’re not talking about Ghosts or spirits being possible we are talking about a man. Obviously, I can make a story up about you saying you were born of a virgin and that doesn’t mean you don’t exist or didn’t exist, just that I had reason to write something to make you look good.

Now I can admit there is a possibility that he had a mythical origin. The same possibility I put of aliens building the pyramids or him actually rising from the dead. There is no evidence, reason or even a complete theory out there to support it but since it isn’t impossible, there is a small possibility.

Now, can you do the same for Jesus just being a messiah claimant, which was exaggerated to the people by his followers in order to sell him as the messiah? If you can’t see that as possible, why not?

aa5874

No, you are talking about suicide man and the authors of the NT and church writers are talking about the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Look at Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement, and Ignatius, they wrote about the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

This is Gregory of Nyssa It should be obvious that you cannot make up stories about me that I was born of a virgin, people would immediately know you were a liar, in antiquity and in Judaea, they might just stone you to death. Such a story about me would be suicidal. And if you made up a story that I was a God, it probably would have produced the same results. Death or your butt kicked. And no Jew would worship me.

The letter writer called Paul claimed he got his butt beaten 195 times and he was stoned, Eusebius claimed the letter writer called Paul was even crucified, yet and no-one worshipped him as a God.

People would laugh at you if you claim aliens built the pyramids, and Marcion and the Marcionites laugh at those who believed a God could die for three days.


If the letter writer called Paul, and the one called Peter were really Jews, they should have known that Jews do not worship men as Gods and that they were going to get their butts kicked all the time and end up dead.

The Jesus story, the offspring of the Holy Ghost story, could have only been a story, written probably at the end of the 1st century after the writings of Josephus and believed to be true.

Elijah

Why "only"? Couldn't it have been an exaggerated story based on a historical figure? If not, why?