TedM

This is the best part of leaving..bye aa.

mountainman

So nobody said "He was a 'figment' and made from nothing existing."?



What about the gnostic authors of the heretical non canonical gospels and acts in which Jesus and the Apostles are portrayed in the context of fictional hellenistic romance narratives, mixed with extreme docetism and outlandish miracles?

What about the institition of censorship and burning of books implemented by the Christian regime as soon as the Council of Nicaea and Constantine's 20th year Long Service Party was over? The heresiologists swept clean the negative evidence that erupted in a contraversial fashion when the Bible was floated by the victorious War Commander on the Eastern Empire.

TedM

I may have misinterpreted, but I thought Paul was talking about Jews who believed Jesus had been resurrected but who still adhered closely to Jewish Law. Some of the men associated with James would seem to have fit the bill. Remember that Paul had to persuade the pillars that there was merit to his salvation to Gentiles theology..Some say that the early Jewish 'Christians' believed in resurrection but not that Jesus was divine, but I am not sure what the basis is for that.

Diogenes the Cynic

Paul said the Jerusalem Pillars continued to keep Jewish Law. There is actually no reason to think those original apostles ever claimed to believe Jesus was God, was physically resurrected or was a savior of sins. The Pillars were just a Palestinian Jewish micro-sect with no obvious apostatic leanings. Paul's eventual Christology basically had nothing to do with the original movement, and his audience were gentiles, not Jews.

Sotto's witnessing about Jews not wanting to accept Jesus as their Savior is, of course, without any evidentiary basis and is contrary to plausible history.

aa5874

Again, you seem not able to deal with the statements in "Against Celsus". It must be noted and it is extremely important that it was Origen, a supposed Christian , who argued that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

It was Origen, the supposed Christian, who claimed it was LIE that Jesus had a human father.

It was Origen, a supposed Christian who claimed that it was KNOWN in advance that people who did NOT believe Jesus was the Son of a Ghost would Invent Falsehood.

On the other hand, it was Celsus, the Skeptic, who attempted to argue for an "historical Jesus". Celsus argued that Jesus had a human father.

But, Celsus did NOT produce any Roman or Jewish writings to show Jesus was human or had a human father.

"Against Celsus" show that the Jesus of Origen the supposed Christian was considered NON-Historical [Divine].

"On the Flesh of Christ" shows that the Jesus of Tertullian the supposed Christian was NON-historical [Divine].

"Against Heresies" shows that the Jesus of Irenaeus the supposed Christian was Non-historical [Divine].

"First Apology" shows that the Jesus of Justin the supposed Christian was Non-historical [Divine]

BASED on the Abundance of evidence Jesus was ESTABLISHED to be Non-historical , to be Divine in the 2nd century.

andrewcriddle

These enquiries go back before Constantine. origen contra celsus 1 I am certainly not claiming that the tradition of the cave at Bethlehem is historical, but Origen's comments indicate a widespread interest in matters of material history.

Andrew Criddle

sotto voce

That didn't make them Christians; it made them fiercely antichrist. Sanhedrin members doubtless believed that Jesus had been resurrected, but they commissioned Paul to exterminate the church. The difference is between people of that malignant ilk, and people who believed in justification by faith for all, but timorously yet temporarily wavered under the pressure of the Sanhedrin and its many allies. It would be bizarre misrepresentation to suggest that this ephemeral personal weakness was a respectable and orthodox theological conviction. Paul makes abundantly clear in Galatians that Christ is 'of no value' if faith is placed in anything, however 'pious', other than his perfect, perfecting righteousness. :frown:

So why decide who is correct? Before 'certain men' came from James, Peter used to eat with the Gentiles, true. Now when was Peter correct? Before James, or after James?

But what of James? When the subject of the necessity of circumcision arose, he had this to say:

'It is my opinion," James went on, "that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God.' Ac 15:19-20 GNB

When was James correct? When he was ensconced with others in the bosom of the church? Or when he was exposed to the relentless opposition of powerful Jerusalem magnates who frightened him into action that could have resulted in the destruction of the church?

The true judgment of Galatians is thus:

'by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray' Gal 2:13

So it is highly misleading to suggest that Gentiles could not or cannot be justified by faith. The debate in Jerusalem was soon turned to whether they could be justified at all. The notion that Gentiles needed to be circumcised was of some Pharisees who had joined the church, but had been over-ruled by 'the whole church', so these gents had evidently changed their minds in that meeting. There was intense pressure from other Jews, in Jerusalem and elsewhere, that Gentile Christians should be circumcised. James, Peter and Barnabas had caved in to that pressure; Paul, seemingly single-handed, saved the church from a theological disaster. But there is a vast difference between theological heresy and temporary human weakness, and they should not be confused.

Evidently TedM possesses a very strange version of the New Testament.

Also, these men only 'appeared' to be pillars. Are we reading the 'translation' of Jesuits here?

No doubt they do. Some say that the earth is flat. With better rationale, too.

There is ever some unattributed cockamamie antichrist whisper available on the internet. It's hormonal, not cerebral.

Hearsay, heresy.

TedM

Thanks Andrew. I'm sure it is all a misunderstanding by Origen though, right? People back then were simply too stupid and naive to consider investigating anything having to do with their salvation!

aa5874

There is NO REASON to accept the words of questionable sources WITHOUT corroboration.

You have ZERO evidentiary basis to accept the Pauline writings as historically accurate. You very well know that plausibility is an ACTIVE ingredient in LIES.

LIARS want their stories to be PLAUSIBLE.

You accuse Sotto of the very same thing that you have done.

Please provide a credible corroborative source for the Pauline writings.

Don't even try. You cannot.

Your stories about Paul are derived from a Big Black hole and your imagination.

aa5874

Your statement can be EASILY shown to be WRONG.

If Origen's statement is false regarding the cave at Bethlehem then there was NO widespread interest in the history of the birth of Jesus.

The fact that Celsus did NOT mention the cave at Bethlehem is a CLEAR indication that there was NO interest and NO known cave in Bethlehem [u]when Celsus wrote "True Discourse".

Celsus did NOT indicate that he knew of the cave at Bethlehem.

Origen's cave at Bethlehem story appears to be an INVENTION since no earlier Apologetic source ever made such a claim and NO author of any earlier Apologetic claimed that they had seen the cave at Bethlehem.

There was NO historical Jesus based Origen's "Against Celsus" or else Origen's statements are all false.

Origen claimed Jesus was miraculously FATHERED by a Holy Ghost---such a birth could NEVER happen in a cave, a house, a manger, in Bethlehem, in Judea--NOWHERE.

We have just EXPOSED another Fiction writer--his name is ORIGEN.

"Against Celsus" 1.32