storytime

But what if speculation leads to why this story was written? I for one, would really like to know why non-Jewish men decided to create a story about a new god-man, a Jewish one at that, when clearly another god-man was not needed in Rome.

mountainman

Codex Theodosianus 16.8.1 dated 315 CE:

"Any Jew who stones a Jewish convert to Christianity shall be burned, and no one is allowed to join Judaism.

[Pharr also gives 339, but we give 315 because it is listed by Pharr as in the “fourth consulship” of Constantine.] "

Constantine did not seem to worried about the possibility that any of these Jewish people could have been descendants of the followers of his man Jesus. Constantine was the first known emperor to introduce laws which proscribed for people to be burnt alive. Nice Christian emperor eh?

Wake up world!
Question history.
Especially "Church Controlled History"

aa5874

Again, there is no need to speculate.

Just read Mark 13 and the author will tell you why he wrote his Jesus story. The author uses the voice of Jesus the God/man to deliver his own personal message.

When you analyse gMark 13, you may begin to realise that it was the author himself who BELIEVED that the world as it was known then was coming to an END after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

By not revealing his name and when he wrote, the author was able to give the FALSE impression that he wrote before the Fall of the Temple by including the prediction of Jesus that the Temple would Fall.

The author appeared to believe the world was coming to an end after the Fall of the Temple and that there would be a conflagration as found in Hebrew scripture.

Examine the book of Joel.
Joel 2:10 - Joel 2:31 - Joel 3:15 - And now examine what the author of gMark claimed would happened after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Mark.13.24-27 The author of gMark believed or wanted people to believe that shortly, in the very near future, the world as he knew it would be no more and he wrote a story to WARN PEOPLE using a God/man character called Jesus under the pretense that this God/man had correctly predicted the Fall of the Temple and the desolation of Jerusalem.

But he actually wrote his story after the Fall of the Temple, the God/man Jesus did not really make any predictions about the Fall of the Temple, and the so-called prediction of the Apocalypse was a complete failure.

The world never did come to an end. There was no Apocalypse even up to today.

The Markan prediction of the Apocalypse was a complete failure.

Now, examine the gospel of John and the Pauline writings. You will notice there is NOT ONE WORD about the Apocalypse. The Johanine and Pauline JESUS "forgot" to talk about the Apocalypse.

The Johanine and Pauline Jesus changed from the failed Apocalypse to SACRIFICE and LOVE.

Joh 3:16 -
Eph 5:2 - In gMark the death of Jesus signified destruction but in the gJohn and the Pauline writings it signified love and sacrifice.

So, there is no need to speculate.

The Jesus God/man character was fabricated as one who had correctly predicted the Fall of the Temple in order to make people believe that there would be an immediate Apocalypse.

mountainman

But reasoning would also suggest that records were destroyed and censored by the imperial orthodox christian regime. Constantine burnt written petitions in the presence of the petitioners at the Council of Nicaea, writings of Porphyry and Arius were the subject of destruction, as were the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts". The writings of the Roman Emperor Julian "AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS" was both destroyed and censored. Refutation and censorship was all the rage with the 4th and 5th century orthodox christians.

What happened to the books of Ammianus Marcellinus concerning the rule of Constantine? The evidence has been swept clean by the church.

If the Nag Hammadi $Codices had been discovered 100 years earlier they would today still be in the Vatican Archives. Do you get the picture?



Fred the Jew had a small voice in the Roman Empire. The dominant voice was actually Fred the Greek. And we do n ot need to imagine what Fred the Greek was thinking when he first heard the Jesus god-man story, since the words are actually and quite serendipitously preserved in the earliest historical accounts of the Council of Nicaea, under the official anathema clause .....

There was time when He was not.
Before He was born He was not.
He was made out of nothing existing.
He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
He is subject to alteration or change.

Solo

Price reads the "bestowing" of the name "Jesus" after crucifixion as meaning that Jesus was called something else during is lifetime. Following Couchoud, he argues (for his theory that Jesus really was John the Baptist) that the name "Jesus" was part of the post-mortem exaltation of the Baptist.

I am afraid sending aa to this text will only add to his confusion. What the hymn says transparently, even if in a somewhat ungrammatical form, is that the name Jesus became exalted with him after his death, and (therefore) that every knee should bow to it (him) and confess Jesus Christ (him) as Lord.

IMHO, the hyper-literalist reading of Phl 2:9 does not work because of Paul's insistence that the name "Jesus" could be, and was, used in ways that were to his mind vulgar (1 Cr 2:2, 2 Cr 5:16, 2 Cr 11:4).

Jiri

aa5874

So, why did you take a HYPER-LITERALIST READING of 1 Cr 2:2, 2 Cr 5:16, 2 Cr 11:4?

You are not consistent. You do exactly what you are accusing me of.

You are simply confused.

Solo

You put a conclusion into your question. That is not a promising method of inquiry. The three verses that I named confirm that Paul saw variant approaches to 'Jesus' in his time. One of them (1 Cr 2:2) directly belies the notion that the name itself was bestowed on John the Baptist (or whoever) post-mortem.

There is a beautiful Czech saying: 'Když dva dělají totéž, není to totéž.' ('Two people may be trying to do the same thing but it's never the same thing.')

Jiri

aa5874

The words of the Pauline writers cannot be self-corroborative when it has already been deduced that more than one person used the name Paul to write Epistles and that the Church writers seemed not to even know what Paul wrote or when Paul wrote all the Epistles.

YOU really cannot TELL what Paul literally SAW even if it were to be written a million times without any external corroborative source.

Now, please give me the LITERAL meaning of "your beautiful Czech saying".

Loomis

No workie. I created a new account and typed 82; I can see a snippet of text regarding Phil 2 at the left margin but all I get is “Some pages are not included in this book sample.”

Loomis

Where does it say that?

It doesn’t say that the name became exalted; it says the recipient of the name became exalted.