Gorit Maqueda

I'm with Vorkosigan's interpretation.

Kata Doherty, Mark's crucified JC came from Scripture, and Paul's crucified JC too. So it is possible that Mark got this idea from Paul, but it is not necessarily true: Mark could have got this idea from another Paul-like cult, or from himself. In any case, Mark got this heavenly crucified Paul-like (not necessarily Paul's!) JC down to Earth

Chili

But there was no historical Jesus Christ, except in the dual nature wherein Jesus was the transforming agent, also known as insurrectionist, from Joseph to Christ, with Joseph here the Jew it happened to.

Notice that in the Gospel Jesus was never called 'the christ' but Jesus was asked: are you the Messiah (meaning Christ but the word Christ was never used).

So it is already wrong to claim that the Gospels are about Jesus Christ.

The proper chain of events is: Joseph, becomes Jesus, becomes Christ, becomes Christ Jesus and than finally Jesus Christ after the Coronation of Mary under John's care, so that reason will prevail.

So the transition is "from reason to Pure Reason" wherein only the human condition must be crucified.

That is not myth, but is myth explained so that Pure Reason will remain.

So the Inquistor would say: Jesus Christ was not crucified but only Jesus was crucified to die!!!! in effort to set Christ free (under Bar-abbas), and later Jesus was raised 'to be' the omega of man who there was John (mother there is your son).

So it is nice to say I am the 'beginning and the end,' but if the woman was the beginning the crucified Jesus must be raised as the omega so he could indeed talk of the old and the new ((Mary was from Nazareth in Luke but not in Matthew where he was just a visitor to say he could be called a Nazorean).

I know that Jesus already claimed to be the beginning and the end, but that was only to foreshadow what was 'to be' when all was finished in the end.

It really is a very simple story to explain the transformation of the mind, wherein first the right brain becomes the 'living water' to walk on as intuitionist while reason must prevail, and hence the Joseph--Jesus--Christ--Christ Jesus and finally Jesus Christ in the end for whom now this prior water is solid as rock.

So in retrospect it is fair to talk about Jesus Christ, but it is wrong to call him the crucified, except to say that he is the final procuct of the event, who told us to do the same.

aa5874

The author of the short gMark added NOTHING from the Pauline letters. Up to the writing of Acts of the Apostles there was NO Pauline writings.

It was the Pauline writer who was AFTER the Jesus story was ALREADY known and composed.

The Crucifixion of Jesus for Remission of Sins is NOT in the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture.

The Crucifixion of Jesus for Remission of Sins as stated in the Pauline writings and gJohn was a Late Invention and AFTER the short gMark.

The author of the short gMark did NOT claim anywhere that Jesus would Die for Remission of Sins.

The Pauline writer ADDED another dimension to the Resurrection that was unknown to ALL the the authors of the Gospels and Acts.

Paul is the ONLY author of the ENTIRE NT Canon who claimed to be a Personal Witness of the Resurrected Jesus--a dimension not recorded by the Markan author.

maryhelena

Yes, aa, that quote from my post is a reference to Doherty's position - not mine.....

spin

A coinage from the duffer whose name is in the thread title. Just imagine for an instant that the speaker has a lisp. Profound.

aa5874

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...venient-jesus/

It boggles the mind how Hoffmann can defend an argumnent for an historical Jesus of Nazareth while simultaneously admitting his sources are for the most part useless as history.

Those who argue for HJ of Nazareth appear to be "suicidal".

They ADMIT proudly with an air of Delight that they have virtually NOTHING of the their Jesus from the very start.

They don't care about the fact that for Hundreds of years the very Jesus cult Publicly declared to the Emperors of Rome that their Jesus was Born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

117-138 CE, Aristides wrote to the Emperor Hadrian and Publicly Declared Jesus was Son of a God and a Virgin.

138-161 CE, Justin Martyr wrote to the Emperor Antoninus and Publicly declared that Jesus was the Son of God born WITHOUT Sexual union.

The writers of the Jesus cult wrote many, many books and letters and published them in the Roman Empire that clearly STATED that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and others Distributed letters and/or books in the Roman Empire that Jesus was the Son of God and the Product of a Ghost and a Virgin.

The very supposed contemporaries of Jesus in the NT Canon NEVER claimed they SAW Jesus of Nazareth.

Non-Apologetic sources wrote NOTHING of Nazareth and NOTHING of Jesus of Nazareth.

Hoffmann's HJ of Nazareth MUST be Fiction, must be made up, must be historically Useless.

Chili

Christ was born, not Jesus, and they called him Jesus to note that he was not the Christ but the transforming agent inside the mind of Joseph.

I.e. there was no baby (as we know babies), but there was an infancy in the new reign of God inside the mind of Joseph, where Nazareth was faith-without-end put to task and explain itself in function. So here, aa, Joseph was a pursecutor of religion who had raised the ax and said: shape up or ship out, and show your money's worth . . . and finally got reimbursed a hunderfold, here now on earth, so he could pave the streets of Nazareth with gold, but had to make them smooth like water first to a put a shine on it (except that he moved to Rome and called it home).

And so Christ was born of a ghost, but his name was Gabriel of God, first cause, to say that the first cause also ends with the first casue, and so an infancy is real. The proper question now is: who could possible nurse a child born from a ghost? except religion that generated this event and so beth-le-hem is the place to be, and there will be a manger there if and only if the Mother was from Nazareth to show that Gabriel was who he said he was. In other words: the annunciation is the real miraculous event that made Luke's Jesus a Nazorean and Matthew's Jesus not, and so the tragedy will be for him who would become a Nazorean 'by desire' only and thus the anit-christ who will get the scorpion instead (as did Mohammed already way back then).

It is an archetypal event that Plato finds at the end of his chain of division that lands us at center of the genus as man, naked now, with no eyes to see or ears to hear = is non rational and byond theology.

So beware: if someone says 'I have seen the light,' you already know that he has been given a scorpion because he should 'be' the light and so not a worshiper of Jesus for sure.

Steven Carr

HOFFMAN
But the gospels present a fortiori evidence that there was another figure, Jesus of Nazareth, who also meets the prescribed conditions, and that figure cannot be argued away through analogy.

CARR
So Jesus must have existed.

The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.

wordy

Suppose it can be said that the Heavenly Christ
is the Savior but that Jesus is needed as a kind of
physical connection for the human imagination
for to really believe in the power of Christ in Heaven?

Evidence. A lot of people pray to humans that
they trust have entered Heaven. The Saints
are supposed to be persons that really ahve lived
and that one can ask to talk to Christ for to get help.

do you see the logic of it? Christ is a spirit and
can only be experiences through spiritual means.

St. Paul refer to visions and the average believer
does not trust themselves have such talent for
to have visions that others care about.

So if there exist historical persons that have a sure
connection to God and Christ then that would assure
that one can keep the hope that God will listen
if you direct your wishes of good health and so on
to that historical person that now is in Heaven
and sit at God's side and that God care about
as his beloved son.

Sure it is not fool proof but I find it logical
and emotionally feeling like a possible
explanation why we have Jesus and Apostles
and Saints and Mother Mary and Mary Magdalen
and all the other supposed historical persons.

they are required for those that don't trust
them can master the spiritual work to get in
connection with God directly.

Is it not very likely that that explain the myth?
Why they came up with Jesus in the first place?

He is a modern version of Elia and the other prophets.

did not some of those also make miracles and
promised things? Even if not the idea of a Christ
did exist already and the religions around them
had savior gods too so ...

hjalti

There goes his new year's resolution.