Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-08-2012, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This is a non-sequitur since that's not what anybody thought "son of God"meant.

In fact, in Aramaic convention, bar Dalaha ("child of God," or "Godlike") was used broadly and generically to denote holiness, and people seen as either chosen or under the protection of God (e.g. orphaned children).

These phrases in Aramaic (bar nasha, bar Alaha) referred to the Messiah only elliptically, not primarily, and neither carried any implication of personal divinity. The Jews did not believe in avatars (they still don't).

Your claim is ERRONEOUS.

In the NT, no other character is specifically identified as the Son of God and the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God.

Please stop wasting our time with your propaganda.

Examine gJohn.

Quote:

John 1:14 KJVAnd the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 KJV
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 3:16 KJV
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 KJV
He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It is just a load of BS that the Son of God was an honorific title for the Jesus character.

In the Bible, Jesus was BEGOTTEN of God--God's OWN Son.

Romans 8:3 KJV

Quote:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh...

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-08-2012, 09:35 PM

The NT has no relevance to the Jewish/Tanakh meaning of the phrase.

stephan huller · 04-08-2012, 10:08 PM

For what it's worth aa the preferred Arian term it seems was 'Firstborn' again emphasizing that Jesus was the firstborn created divine being after the Father. 'Onlyborn' seems to have been consistently used as part of Athanasius's rebuttal of the Arian position. The key again is Romans 8:29 "the firstborn of many brothers." The word 'firstborn' here means 'heavenly being' not merely the first born of human brothers. Look at Athanasius's Orations Against the Arians. This seems to have been the Arian take. I bet the Marcionites thought the same thing too. If only we had Clement's uncensored writings (remember what Jerome says about Eusebius's whitewashing of prominent Alexandrian writers from the second and third centuries to allegedly 'purge' the texts of LATER Arian additions!!!). The only text which seems to have been left alone was the Hypotyposeis but that's probably why it didn't survive.

outhouse · 04-08-2012, 11:09 PM

Quote:

didn't survive

is the most brilliant thing you have said in this thread.

any writing that revieled any part of a historical jesus would have been burned and outlawed.

But you knew this already stephan

exactly why we dont have Q and other gospels like it. You know from your study other literature certainly existed. Anything other then the roman/gentile version we have that may have even hinted at a jewish mortal teacher would have been outlawed.

and with that knowledge that a mortal man was hidden after his movement was stolen by roman/gentiles so that only ONE version of biblical jesus would exist WAS KNOWN by the church father's you study.

lets turn around your shoddy work and get it back and track so you can use your exstensive knowledge of our church fathers to follow a REAL hypothesis

stephan huller · 04-08-2012, 11:43 PM

Well if that's the most brilliant thing I said in the thread I am in deep trouble. The facts are that if we limit ourselves to what is we only reinforce the theology the Church wants us to have. I don't see why there should be any difficulty reconstructing the text of Clement of Alexandria, the Arians, the Marcionites wherever evidence is found to support those assumptions. If my wife tells me that she had an affair our Mexican gardener along with a few other details (where it happened, what happened etc), I can reconstruct a fairly good picture of what happened. I don't need a video tape of the event. It would also change the experience of going to Mexican restaurants. But the point is that as long as all participants are familiar with the available evidence one can have a reasonable back and forth to figure out what is possible and what isn't.

tanya · 04-08-2012, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

"Son of God" was just a Jewish honorific for kings, like "Anointed."...

Mark's whole trial shows an almost total lack of knowledge of Jewish law and legal proceedings.

Even "Son of God" was just another way to say "Messiah," though. ...
...
The NT has no relevance to the Jewish/Tanakh meaning of the phrase.

1. obvious contradiction: clearly "son of God" was written in a GREEK text, not the Tanakh.

2. Greek text of Mark is in harmony with Greek text regarding Hercules: both "son of God".

3. "Son of God" is NOT another way to write "Messiah". Messiah was modeled after Alexander of Macedonia. It means SAVIOUR, not "anointed". yes, the messiah, Alexander, was anointed. But that is AFTER he routed the Persian army. His anointment was confirmation of his messianic activity. Mark is a GREEK text, not a jewish text.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-09-2012, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

1. obvious contradiction: clearly "son of God" was written in a GREEK text, not the Tanakh.

Incorrect. It appears in the Tanakh first.

Quote:

2. Greek text of Mark is in harmony with Greek text regarding Hercules: both "son of God".

It's also in harmony with normal Hebrew and Aramaic usage of the phrase, and with Hebrew Scripture.

Of Course, Mark's interpretation of the word have no relevance to their Jewish meaning anyway. Mark didn't know what he was talking about. Whenever he tried to talk about Jewish beliefs and practices, he got something wrong.

Quote:

3. "Son of God" is NOT another way to write "Messiah". Messiah was modeled after Alexander of Macedonia. It means SAVIOUR, not "anointed". yes, the messiah, Alexander, was anointed. But that is AFTER he routed the Persian army. His anointment was confirmation of his messianic activity. Mark is a GREEK text, not a jewish text.

I don't know what to say but that all of this is patently untrue.

aa5874 · 04-09-2012, 02:51 AM

In the NT, Jesus was the BEGOTTEN Son of God, in other words Jesus was FATHERED by the God of the Jews.

In the Canon, Jesus is IDENTIFIED SPECIFICALLY as God's Son--Born of God. No other character in the NT Canon is directly and Specifically identified as Begotten of God or was God's OWN Son.

Jesus of the NT was Mythological and was PUBLICLY declared as the BEGOTTEN of God in antiquity.

It is CONFIRMED and Corroborated that people of antiquity ACCEPTED that Jesus was BEGOTTEN of God--a Divine character [Non-historical] based on the EXISTING CODICES.

There is an ABUNDANCE of EXISTING CODICES that PUBLICLY declared the DIVINE NATURE of Jesus.

Jesus of the CODICES was DIVINE.

Jesus of the CODICES was the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God.

Jesus of the CODICES was MYTHOLOGICAL.

In the QUEST for an Historical Jesus, those SEARCHING for THEIR Jesus are TRYING to find a NON-DIVINE Jesus--Not the DIVINE Jesus of the CODICES.

Jesus of the CODICES had NO real Existence.

A begotten Son of God is a Myth character.

Scotsguy44 · 04-09-2012, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

Can you provide the specifics of where Jesus' mother was inseminated by YHWH?

1. To introduce or inject semen into the reproductive tract of (a female).

Matt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

I'm not a mythicists hence your first assertion can have no persuasive power with me. The point I was making was in the account Mary is not inseminated as tanya seems to be stating.

Matt

Mary had to be inseminated: reproduction in higher animals - mammals - has to be sexual; mammals have not been designed intelligently enough for non-sexual reproduction by parthenogenesis to be able happen. at all. It cant happen.

Whehter you are a Jesus mythicist or not is beside the point - "virgin birth" via non-insemination [virgin] conception is myth.
.

You miss the point. Even allowing for it to by 'myth', in that myth Mary is not inseminated by YHWH.

Matt

MrMacSon · 04-09-2012, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

Even allowing for it to by 'myth', in that myth Mary is not inseminated by YHWH.

Matt

You think Mary is a myth?

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

04-08-2012, 09:35 PM	#152
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The NT has no relevance to the Jewish/Tanakh meaning of the phrase.

04-08-2012, 10:08 PM	#153
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	For what it's worth aa the preferred Arian term it seems was 'Firstborn' again emphasizing that Jesus was the firstborn created divine being after the Father. 'Onlyborn' seems to have been consistently used as part of Athanasius's rebuttal of the Arian position. The key again is Romans 8:29 "the firstborn of many brothers." The word 'firstborn' here means 'heavenly being' not merely the first born of human brothers. Look at Athanasius's Orations Against the Arians. This seems to have been the Arian take. I bet the Marcionites thought the same thing too. If only we had Clement's uncensored writings (remember what Jerome says about Eusebius's whitewashing of prominent Alexandrian writers from the second and third centuries to allegedly 'purge' the texts of LATER Arian additions!!!). The only text which seems to have been left alone was the Hypotyposeis but that's probably why it didn't survive.

04-08-2012, 11:43 PM	#155
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Well if that's the most brilliant thing I said in the thread I am in deep trouble. The facts are that if we limit ourselves to what is we only reinforce the theology the Church wants us to have. I don't see why there should be any difficulty reconstructing the text of Clement of Alexandria, the Arians, the Marcionites wherever evidence is found to support those assumptions. If my wife tells me that she had an affair our Mexican gardener along with a few other details (where it happened, what happened etc), I can reconstruct a fairly good picture of what happened. I don't need a video tape of the event. It would also change the experience of going to Mexican restaurants. But the point is that as long as all participants are familiar with the available evidence one can have a reasonable back and forth to figure out what is possible and what isn't.

04-09-2012, 02:51 AM	#158
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	In the NT, Jesus was the BEGOTTEN Son of God, in other words Jesus was FATHERED by the God of the Jews. In the Canon, Jesus is IDENTIFIED SPECIFICALLY as God's Son--Born of God. No other character in the NT Canon is directly and Specifically identified as Begotten of God or was God's OWN Son. Jesus of the NT was Mythological and was PUBLICLY declared as the BEGOTTEN of God in antiquity. It is CONFIRMED and Corroborated that people of antiquity ACCEPTED that Jesus was BEGOTTEN of God--a Divine character [Non-historical] based on the EXISTING CODICES. There is an ABUNDANCE of EXISTING CODICES that PUBLICLY declared the DIVINE NATURE of Jesus. Jesus of the CODICES was DIVINE. Jesus of the CODICES was the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God. Jesus of the CODICES was MYTHOLOGICAL. In the QUEST for an Historical Jesus, those SEARCHING for THEIR Jesus are TRYING to find a NON-DIVINE Jesus--Not the DIVINE Jesus of the CODICES. Jesus of the CODICES had NO real Existence. A begotten Son of God is a Myth character.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.