aa5874

I do not make stuff up.

You have nothing for your suicidal Jesus. Posts after posts you just cannot produce one single piece of information about your suicide.

There are four canonised books of Jesus, son of the God of the Jews, born of a virgin, who ascended through the clouds. Please read them. The authors have presented Jesus the god-man and it is not true that in their stories he committed suicide or was suicidal.

Elijah

Do you have any theory on how the myth started and was turned into history or not? I'll just assume you believe in a historical core until you can present what you actually do believe in.

The narrative is where the idea of the suicide comes from.

John 10:18 I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.

aa5874

You WANT to make stuff up about me, too.

You need to read the whole of John to understand that Jesus was the Word of God, who was God and with God before the world was and who was the Creator.

Behold the MYTH.

John1.1-4 There is no suicidal man named Jesus in the NT.

Look at the last prayer of Jesus before his crucifixion, according to John.

John 19.1-4 Jesus was with the God of the Jews before the world was.

Behold, the MYTH.

Elijah

No, given the evidence in this conversation it’s what I believe; since you can’t provide a theory for a mythical origin you must truly believe in a historical core. Maybe you’re just a Christian in disguise trying to make serious skeptics look bad.
Where do you get your understanding of Logos from and what is it? How does Jesus personify it?
Yea, right before he got sacrificed himself. What’s your point?
Was Jesus or was the Logos he is personifying with God before the world was created?

Behold someone who believes in the myth theory without having an actual theory.

aa5874

You appear to be obsessed with making stuff up.

I don't believe the Jesus in the NT lived, you do. And Jesus believers believe that Jesus in the NT lived, too.

Philo of Alexandria philosophised on the Logos and did not mention your suicidal man as the Logos, the Word of God. And Philo was supposed to be alive during the time of Tiberius and Pilate, but yet he did not write a single word on your suicidal man.

What was so special about a Jew or anyone committing suicide? Are you claiming that no Jew, before your suicidal man, ever killed himself or was crucified?

Your suicidal theory is not looking too good.

The author of the theory that the Logos was made flesh will answer you.

John 1 There is no myth theory for Homer's Achilles, offspring of a sea-goddess, all you do is just read about the myth. I read about the myth called Jesus, offspring of the Holy Ghost, in the books of the NT. And the myth, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, is multiple-attested.

Where can I read about your un-attested suicidal man?

Elijah

How do I know that it’s not true unless you can tell me how you believe the myth came to be understood as history without the actual man?
But can you demonstrate that you believe the story of Jesus came into existence without a historical core by explaining what you believe?
Why/what would he write about a suicidal man? Because some people were saying he was personifying the logos?
It’s the establishing of the meme. If you want to actually understand Christianity instead of pointing out the obvious impossibilities then you need to understand the effect of self sacrifice on believers. How do you think Jesus convinced the apostles or Stephen convinced Paul or the martyrs convinced Rome? It wasn’t an exaggerated story it was self sacrifice.
So you admit you have no understanding of Logos? How do you know the author intends a supernatural understanding of that and not a philosophical one?
The theory is right there because it’s known as Homer’s Achilles. Where is Jesus’ Homer?
The gospels.

rlogan

Haw! Got to be a record for disengenuousness.

You have demonstrated an impervious shell that prohibits even the slightest bit of this explanation getting through to you.

dog-on

Not really relevant to whether or not JC was a myth.

Point out where Mark leads you to believe anything in particular concerning his intent?

Possibly, but very easy to assume that Mark simply made up his narrative based on a bit of the Christ legend from Paul, the LXX, maybe some Josephus and his own imagination.
Paul admitted that he made it up. Don't you know what revelation means, in this context?

They seemed more like Jews and Paul doesn't exactly say what they believed, but obviously, it was different from what Paul, himself, believed.

Where does Paul ever claim to have stoned anyone to death?


Someone wrote a story... Happens everyday. Show me where Mark ever says he is trying to write history. You can't, so why assume it?

You tell me, though this is actually irrelevant to whether or not his story is fiction or history...

Elijah

So what’s your interpretation? What is the gospel he is preaching? And what is the relevance to the gospel that the Christians he was persecuting were putting forward or at least what was their understanding of the messiah?

I would take it as him trying to say he wasn’t converted by man, but by the spirit of the man and not supernaturally speaking. It’s a credibility thing.
It’s relevant to putting a coherent theory forward that can be examined.
I think the intent is to obviously portray a messiah claimant. The question I asked was do you think he thought he was writing fiction or not and how did he come across Paul’s letters that supposedly inspired his work.
Yea that’s an assumption made by a few mythers I think, unfortunately the reasoning behind it is paper thin.
Made up the revelation, or made up Jesus Christ?

So there is a pre existent group of Christians that may have had a historical leader that inspired Paul yet you’re still comfortable with calling yourself a mythicist?
It’s a story in Acts.
Yea but the stories don’t get confused for history too often. I don’t assume Mark is trying to write history. I assume he is writing a version of the tales surrounding a messiah claimant in the past that created some believers with his death.
It’s relevant in explaining your theory of the cross from myth to history. How did this story get confused for a real savior? What was Paul’s and Mark’s fictional understanding of the savior?

dog-on

You seem to want me to make-up an explanation. As I said, there is no need to do this.

Paul writes some letters based on some knowledge that was revealed to him, not by man, which, to me, simply says that he made it up, unless he is a liar.

Mark writes a piece of dramatic fiction based on the character in Paul's letters and models many of the scenes upon information derived from the LXX.

Mark gives no indication as to what he, the author, actually believed.

The other gospels and Acts are agreed to be, not only later, but based primarily on Mark's original story.

So, as my view is actually quite simple, please share any evidence that you may have that actually contradicts anything I have said, above.