Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 01-25-2012, 04:41 PM

But the apologists and writers that we have been discussing, including Justin, were concerned with the son of Mary who was born with a human body.
Even Mark has a mention in chapter 6 of his mother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

BUT the angels or Satan are not born to human mothers as Jesus is in the nativity and apologetica!!!!

There is NO birth narrative for Jesus in gMark but he Walked on water and tranfigured.

The birth narratives of Jesus in gMatthew and gLuke were invented so Jesus of gMark may NOT have been believed to born at all but came down from heaven to Capernaum.

aa5874 · 01-25-2012, 05:14 PM

To understand the Jesus story one must first identify the significance of the Earliest Canonized Jesus story in the Short-Ending gMark found in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices.

gMark' Jesus was MIRACLE-Man but on the day Jesus was arrested all his miracles were meaningless.

The supposed "historical Jesus" of gMark was Betrayed, Abandoned and Denied.

This is MOST IMPORTANT to remember

If Jesus was REALLY a man and did miracles as stated in gMark the disciples would have Betrayed, Abandoned and Denied Jesus when he was arrested EXACTLY as they did in gMark.

The very last words of Peter in gMark was that he did NOT know the "Miracle"-Man Jesus.

Mark 14

Quote:

71 But he began to call down curses on himself, and to swear: I know not this man of whom you speak.

There is really NO need for an human Jesus.

The Jesus story in gMark Effectively ends at MARK 14.71.

In the End, the Human Jesus was meaningless in gMark.
The very disciples believed Jesus was human and they either BETRAYED , Abandoned and Denied him.

The disciples really thought Jesus was a man and that he would be killed and would NOT be raised from the dead on the THIRD day. The visitors to the burial site believed Jesus was human so they went to annoint his dead body on the Third day.

The human Jesus is a total disaster in gMark.

In the End, Not even the disciples of the supposed human Jesus really believed in him and in what he said or did.

Mark 14

Quote:

......I know not this man of whom you speak.

Christiainty, the Christian Faith of the Jesus cult, was derived from the Non-historical Jesus, the resurrected one.

This is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT

Nothing that the suposed human Jesus said or did had any significance to PAUL just like Peter.

Peter DENIED that he knew the Miracle-MAN and so DENIED his discipleship with Jesus.

Jesus could have done a Million miracles as a man but Peter and the disciples still Abandoned and Denied him.

Only one thing matters which cannot be true whether or NOT there was a human Jesus.

Only the resurrection matters. The resurrection can ONLY be Believed. The resuurection cannot be historical.

The humanity of Jesus is meaningless.

1 Cor.15

Quote:

17 And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Duvduv · 01-25-2012, 05:34 PM

Paul is not the issue, but apologists are the issue. Did they believe that Mary was his biological mother or not? Whether they knew gospels or not, did those historians and apologists believe that Jesus had a physical body born from Mary or not??

Tom Sawyer · 01-25-2012, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

The entire point of the Gospels was that Jesus was human. All his suffering, crucifixion, death, etc are completely meaningless if you view him as a god instead of as a man.

On the contrary. His suffering, crucifixion, death, etc. are completely meaningless if viewed as only a man, because the Romans crucified thousands of people like Jesus, two of them with him. The death of Jesus that counts, if anything about him counts, is not his physical death at all, but the spiritual death he experienced as punishment for the evil deeds and thoughts of everyone else. This is, as is believed, why he cried out that he had been forsaken. This may be why he died physically before death was expected.

Jesus had to be tested 'in every way as we are' and yet never commit a sin. And the temptation to sin had to be as real as it is for us. So he had to be as human as we are, with no advantages. If Jesus was any less than perfect, then nobody's conscience can be perfected, can be salved, and there can be no salvation for anyone. In the biblical context, of course. As, in that context, there is only one who is perfect, the deity, Jesus must be the deity. Jesus is either as significant as the nameless thieves between whom he was crucified, or he is the God and saviour of all. Nothing between.

If he's a god, then the suffering means nothing, because he's just playing with the Romans as little toys. It's like having my four year old punch my knee and I pretend to be hurt - it's just me being silly. None of the suffering is real and he doesn't actually go through any trials or anything. It's a pointless dog-and-pony show and honouring him for it is like honouring Hercules for winning an arm-wrestling match with an eight year old girl.

The whole thing is just a joke if it's being done to an immortal god instead of a man.

aa5874 · 01-25-2012, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Paul is not the issue, but apologists are the issue. Did they believe that Mary was his biological mother or not? Whether they knew gospels or not, did those historians and apologists believe that Jesus had a physical body born from Mary or not??

I will let the author of "On the Flesh of Jesus" answer you.

On the Flesh of Christ

Quote:

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God, and have nothing more than “a Solomon” or “a Jonas,” — as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him.

In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father. He is thus man with God, in short, since He is man's flesh with God's Spirit — flesh (I say) without seed from man, Spirit with seed from God.

I hope "On the Flesh of Christ" answered your question.
Jesus was NOT of the seed of a man.

Sheshbazzar · 01-25-2012, 06:45 PM

Quote:

I will let the author of "On the Flesh of Jesus" answer you.

On the Flesh of Christ

Quote:

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God, and have nothing more than “a Solomon” or “a Jonas,” — as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him.

In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father. He is thus man with God, in short, since He is man's flesh with God's Spirit — flesh (I say) without seed from man, Spirit with seed from God.

I hope "On the Flesh of Christ" answered your question.
Jesus was NOT of the seed of a man.

They sure could come up with some loopy shit back then!

.

Duvduv · 01-25-2012, 06:47 PM

Yes, he does. He says that he is in man's flesh born of the woman, thus regardless of his soul nature he had a human physial body like anyone else born from a woman despite supernatural fertilization. What's so complicated about that?

aa5874 · 01-25-2012, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes, he does. He says that he is in man's flesh born of the woman, thus regardless of his soul nature he had a human physial body like anyone else born from a woman despite supernatural fertilization. What's so complicated about that?

Did Satan and the Angel Gabriel have a human body in the Jesus story?

I really don't understand how anyone who is claimed to have had a Holy Ghost as a father could have a human physical body.

Don't you have any idea what Myth Fables are?

Don't you have any idea what Fiction stories are?

Don't you know that Romulus and Remus are considered Myths but were claimed to be human brothers and Born of the same woman? See Plutarch's "Romulus".

Jesus was either human or Myth.

Human beings do NOT have Ghosts as their Fathers.

Duvduv · 01-25-2012, 07:31 PM

I also don't understand it but that's the party line involving Mary. Of course in GMark there is no statement of how Mary got pregnant, but evidently the passing comment about her would reject the belief that Jesus dropped down as a docetic being.

However I wonder why the Christians were so invested in him having a mother and perhaps being "half" docetic at least with a physical body before the christological doctrine emerged.

But that's what we have with Mary. A being existing in a physical body.

Toto · 01-25-2012, 07:47 PM

Duvduv - this is the Trinity issue. There is no logical resolution.

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

01-25-2012, 05:34 PM	#23
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Paul is not the issue, but apologists are the issue. Did they believe that Mary was his biological mother or not? Whether they knew gospels or not, did those historians and apologists believe that Jesus had a physical body born from Mary or not??

01-25-2012, 06:47 PM	#27
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Yes, he does. He says that he is in man's flesh born of the woman, thus regardless of his soul nature he had a human physial body like anyone else born from a woman despite supernatural fertilization. What's so complicated about that?

01-25-2012, 07:31 PM	#29
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I also don't understand it but that's the party line involving Mary. Of course in GMark there is no statement of how Mary got pregnant, but evidently the passing comment about her would reject the belief that Jesus dropped down as a docetic being. However I wonder why the Christians were so invested in him having a mother and perhaps being "half" docetic at least with a physical body before the christological doctrine emerged. But that's what we have with Mary. A being existing in a physical body.

01-25-2012, 07:47 PM	#30
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Duvduv - this is the Trinity issue. There is no logical resolution.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.