J-D

I know you are making statements about the stories in those texts. I don't know whether you are making statements about ancient history or not. If you are only talking about mythology then I don't see how that's supposed to be relevant to ancient history.

archibald

I must admit, I haven't checked out all of those verses, but the first 7 or 8 I tried (selected at random) yielded nothing, so I stopped at that point, partly because it's bedtime, partly because when I have drilled into Earl's citations in the past (eg Ascension of Isiah) they don't pan out. One can only devote so much time.

I think there are two things worth noting:

1. Jesus, for Paul, was already dead. Paul spends a lot of time on dead spiritual Jesus, not surprisingly.

So the question is not, 'Was Paul's Jesus spiritual' (duh. He was) but did Paul think of him as earthly beforehand, so...

2. The multitude of 'earthly' references are still there anyway.

One really does wonder about the calibre of rational posting here sometimes. I rarely ever use picard, and now I've had to use a double picard. :]

This thread alone has given an insight into the amounts of doublethink required by mythicists, even when trying to read one short passage.

I will say this though. I'm not as averse to the idea that Jesus might indeed have been non-historical as I was. But if I do find some hypotheses slightly more plausible than others (though I'm still not inclined to see them as the more likely explanation), Earl's is certainly not one of them.

Sheshbazzar

aa you are not comprehending what I am saying.
NO, I DO NOT think that the Child of a Holy Ghost is NOT the description of a MYTH character. I am certain that certainly is a MYTH.
Got that?
The point I was making is that THE TEXTS consistently present this character as being an actual living 1st century person who actually did the things related in the TEXTS.
THE TEXTS THEMSELVES DO NOT PURPORT TO BE REPORTING ANY 'MYTHS' BUT ONLY ACTUAL HISTORICAL EVENTS.
That is why so many are inclined to accept these texts as factual reports.

Really? No shit Dick Tracy. It is a MYTH but the TEXT does NOT present it as being a myth, but as being a historical FACT
Wow! Now that is some really earthshaking news here on this Atheist board.
Do you really think you are the only one here who has managed to figure that out ???
They lived in a different time and culture, one where the existence of GHOSTS or 'spirits' and 'demons' was taken as a given, a everyday explanation for all manner of phenomenon.
The existence of this 'Holy GHOST' was a unquestioned and socially unquestionable paradigm within that religious culture milieu.
Skepticism was NOT encouraged, any statements that denied the existence of, or the active working of the Divine 'Holy Spirit' -'GHOST'- could get one arrested for Blasphemy against God and the Faith, imprisoned and if not 'repented of' even executed. Religious and government authorities did not take their religion, nor their obligations to defend its taboos and premises lightly back then.
See the above. And in addition because of the then present miserable social circumstances, people deeply wanted to believe, and to this present day -billions- really want to believe that there really exists a 'saviour' and a way to escape death, and live forever.
It sold well back then, and it still sells pretty dam well to the ignorant and the gullible of TODAY. And they want to 'accept' these mythical stories as being TRUE and historical.
Yes. I did say that it is TRUE that 'Jebus' of the NT is MYTH as described in the NT.
I am a 100% MJ proponent. What is described in the NT is a mythical legendary cult figure.
No such person as the NTs 'Jesus' ever existed. (by any name)
There was no 1st century human on which these tales were based.
The situations that are described in the NT are for the most part entirely fictional and never actually happened.

I believe these flat statements ought to make my position on this matter clear to anyone who can read.

aa5874

What!!!! Well, you should have first found out that I am talking about the Myth Fables found in Ancient Codices about a character called Jesus Christ who was claimed to be a Child of a Ghost, God and Creator.

This is an English Translation of Matthew 1.18 from Codex Sinaiticus.

Matthew 1 There are THREE more versions of the Myth Fables found in the Codex Sinaiticus in gMark, gLuke and gJohn.

On the hand, The Pauline writings appear to be a PACK OF LIES in the Codex Sinaticus.

Some writer called "Paul" claimed he SAW a resurrected dead and he was NOT the apostle of a MAN NEITHER got his gospel from man but from the revelation of the same one who was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

If "Paul" actually wrote those things in the epistles then he was a LIAR and if he did NOT the Pauline writings are STILL A PACK of LIES.

Sheshbazzar

AMEN! can we have an AMEN! here brothers? ah' says AMEN!
YEA! PREACH it to us brother! AyyyyMEN! YEAH!

aa5874

Well, you appear to be the source of your own confusion.

The author described Jesus as FATHERED by a Ghost but people may have BELIEVED Jesus was a real.

I cannot find where the author claimed he was writing about an ACTUAL LIVING BEING.

Just show the passage where the authors who claimed Jesus was a Child of a Ghost stated they were writing the history of an ACTUAL LIVING BEING.

No such passage can be FOUND.

The authors wrote about the Child of Ghost without ever claiming that Jesus was an actual living being.

People are still being DUPED today. Even Atheists.

The authors NEVER did say that they were writing about an ACTUAL LIVING BEING.

People simply PRESUMED so.

And that may be PRECISELY what the authors WANTED.

Can't you see how CLEVER the authors were?

The STORY of a Ghost even fooled some ATHEISTS into believing Jesus was an ACTUAL LIVING BEING.

I will NOT be duped.

But, I must admit. Jesus Christ is the GREATEST GHOST STORY ever known even ATHEIST believe parts of the Ghost story MUST be true.

Some ATHEISTS claim parts of the Ghost story is so EMBARRASSING it MUST be History.

That appears to be PRECISELY what the MYTH Fable writers wanted.

Sheshbazzar

When you show me the passage where the authors who claimed Jesus was a Child of a Ghost stated they were -NOT- writing the history of an ACTUAL LIVING BEING.
No such passage can be FOUND.

If you show me yours, then I'll show you mine.
The authors wrote about the Child of Ghost without ever claiming that Jesus was -NOT- an actual living being.

Toto

It was common at this time to see texts as embodying different levels of meaning simultaneously. There was the literal explanation for those who required it, and the higher metaphorical reason for the more advanced thinkers.

He did what he thought he needed to.

This all happened in the second century.

J-D

What!!!! Well, if you are only talking about mythology then I don't see how that's supposed to be relevant to ancient history.

Toto

Historical human, to be more accurate.

The Enlightenment was the first time intellectuals tried to separate out a historical human Jesus from the theological, divine Jesus Christ. That's what the various Quests for the Historical Jesus were all about.

Helena was the first, but Helena and her son Constantine believed that Jesus was preexistant, the son of God and of the same substance of God, born of a virgin, etc. Anyone who said that Jesus was merely human was a heretic.