spin

To claim that there is a historical core, you need evidence. Otherwise you are stating simple conjecture. Now, to disguise the simple conjecture you shroud the situation with obfuscation:

I prefer working with the evidence we’ve got...

When you've got none, it's hard to work with it.

When you cannot show any evidence for yourself, but merely keep repeating things like blah, blah, "historical core", blah, blah, and still not one jot of anything to make yourself seem more tangible, the emptiness of your position should be transparent to you.

It is also meaningless for you to try to talk about any emptiness of mine, as I have expressly stated from the start that there isn't enough evidence to take a meaningful position. Hence I have refrained from doing so.

You were complaining about not being able to summarize my views. They are all over this forum. All you have to do is spend a little time here.


spin

Elijah

There is no point in us talking spin, I’m tired of repeating myself over and over again. You have no position; you have nothing to contribute. I’m not looking back thru your posts to see whatever you think I should know about whatever position you think you have.

spin

And I wouldn't ask you to. I think it would be better that you didn't just waft in and out with the breeze, so that you could get a more realistic understanding of the views that people hold here.

It didn't click that you were the person who insisted on trying to reduce ancient supernatural beliefs into metaphorical views, because you couldn't understand how anyone would be silly enough to earnestly hold such beliefs.

:wave:


spin

aa5874

Why is the sacrifice not crap? Many Jews were crucified and there are no stories about any other Jews who were crucified and were sacrificed for the sins of all mankind or would save people when they died if they believed these Jews were the sons of the God of the Jews.

You seem not to realise that it is claimed that hundreds of Jews were crucified in antiquity.

The sacrifice story is crap.

You are so confused. When a person exaggerates there must be some invention.

The conception, temptation, baptism by the Holy Ghost, the miracles, the transfiguration, the resurrection, and the ascension of Jesus was invented.

Well, the author called John claimed Jesus existed before the world was created and was the Logos of God, I reject that as crap. I think John's Jesus was fiction.

So, lying and exaggeration are the basis of your historical core. When you see lies, it is evidence of the truth.

You are so confused, you use lies, exaggeration, figurative statements as evidence that Jesus existed only as human.

You do not want to read the evidence available. You need to read about Jesus believers of antiquity to find out what they believed.

Marcion, according to the church writers, was a Jesus believer. Marcion's Jesus was plausible in antiquity. Jesus was never human at all, and it was plausible and true, according to Marcion. Jesus was never born at all, he came directly from heaven, it was plausible and true according to Marcion.

Based on Marcion, it is a lie that Jesus had a mother, it was implausible for a God to have a human mother. It was implausible for Jesus to be sacrificed or crucified. The sacrifice was crap for Marcion's Jesus.

You seem a bit confused here.

What? And they crucified this physical manifestation of an eternal aspect of the universe that existed before the physical world was started?

What!



You are so confused. The mission MUST be part of the history.



Well, you are just a believer or a person who imagines they know the truth about Jesus. Believers do not need evidence, just like you, just their imagination.
Well, I think you may be exaggerating or is it an invention? Was not Jesus the Logos of God before the world was created?

Please read John 1.

Elijah

Well this doesn’t really offer up much reason for why you think the sacrifice was crap. Saying Jews were crucified all the time seems counterproductive to your claim.

Maybe it’s “the died for our sins” that you are turning magical which you are referring to and arguing against.
That’s fine. I’m not arguing that. It’s rational to not believe in magical events, but I feel you are taking the invention thing too far when you say they invented the figure they are exaggerating about.
You don’t understand what the author is saying so how can you reject it?
No it’s not at all, it’s my experience in this world. If he existed he could have only exist as human, there are no other options.
I want to read the evidence so why don’t you present what you are talking about specifically instead of just pointing generally at the church fathers.
Confusing, sure.
All spiritual aspects should exist before the physical world started. The physical things are temporary the spiritual things are eternal.

2 Cor 4:18 As we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.

This is why you have phrases like “image of the invisible god” for Jesus.
I have no idea what that means. There can be a mission to the work if it’s fictional or historical.
Well, you’re just a skeptic who doesn’t want to be associated with believers and you make unrealistic expectations for evidence so you can imagine you are wiser than the believers who you assume all think a certain way.

The physical manifestation of it. He cannot be it. It’s a spiritual concept.

aa5874

So, you need to explain why some character called Jesus, one of the hundreds of Jews crucified, was specifically sacrificied for the sins of all mankind. And you need to explain why other forms of capital punishment of the Jews were not considered sacrificial. Stephen, in the book called Acts, was stoned to death, was he not sacrificied? Shouldn't the Jews worship Stephen as the son of the God of the Jews?

What was so special about Jesus, when his core is non-literal, from the Holy Ghost conception to ascension through the clouds witnessed by his mother and his disciples??





That is your problem, you imagine that you know the truth about Jesus of the NT. You see blatant exaggerations or figurative statements about Jesus and still is determined to historicised this character without any external corroboration.

So, you want me accept what you claim I do not understand. How absurd?

Now, I understand the claims of Marcion, Cerinthus and Irenaeus and I consider their claims about Jesus to be false unless some other credible external source can be found to corroborrate their outrageous claims.

But, the authors of the NT, and the church writers presented another pausible option. Their claim is that it is true and plausible that Jesus is the son of the God of the Jews and that he transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

Now, if you reject the plausible option provided by the NT and church writers, you have rejected Jesus.

So, why are you now presenting some other option for which there is no evidence at all?

There is no credible information or evidence for your human only Jesus anywhere, except in your head.

Read Against Heresies by Irenaeus, First Apolgy and Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr, Church History by Eusebius and the others, you will see all the written statements, the evidence, about the fictitious character called Jesus.



2 Corinthians 4.18 appears to be an exaggeration, a figurative or a false statement. It is meaningless in the REAL world, only a dreamer would believe such an ambiguous statement has value.

So, Jesus was spiritual, he has a spiritual core. Jesus was a spiritual concept.

Elijah

Because he went willingly. He sacrificed himself. He put himself in the position like someone doing suicide by cop. He then asked those who followed after him to do the same. This is what spread his message; the willingness to sacrifice yourself for the cause.

Stephen is following in the footsteps of Jesus and parroting his actions as do the rest of his followers (supposedly) until it catches on in Rome and takes off. Do you see how someone killing themselves like that could create believers?

The dying for the sins of mankind will make more sense to you once you understand the plan of the son of man I think. You are still thinking too magically about all this.
The sacrifice freaked his followers out like it freaked out anyone who saw the imitation of it. He introduced a self-sacrifice meme into mankind to go at the rulers of mankind. All the magical stuff is secondary to the actual revolution.
Because there isn’t a viable alternative in my mind besides a historical core. You’ve been here long enough to know the holes in the myth theory.
No I want you to understand what is going on. This has nothing to do with you accepting anything except a reasonable outlook of the world around you.
I don’t know if you do understand the claims, all I’ve heard out of you is their names. Want to put some up here and take a shot at it and prove it?
What people believed doesn’t change what is possible... him being a man is all that is possible. And my opinion is that you take things too literally when it sound like figurative or poetic license. Nothing like listening to a skeptic trying to argue for a magical Jesus.
Pretend I’ve already looked at them and you still need to present your case with evidence of what you are talking about and where you got it from. Again. Pointing blankly at some church fathers does nothing for your case if you can’t present evidence. You just look like you know a few names and nothing more about what is going on.
Here is a quote from Philo from Allegorical Interperatoins that is pretty much the same thing. This is basic platonic dualism they are talking about here. One of if not the dominate philosophical outlooks of the time. This is what someone educated at the time would have been familiar with. Not the superstitious cartoon understanding you are assuming they all had.
No from a philosophical perspective he is personifying a certain spiritual/eternal aspect of the universe physically. Like showing affection towards a significant other is personifying love. Try to understand it rationally.

aa5874

Apparently you do not read the NT, Jesus in the NT did NOT willingly accept his crucifixion, in fact based on the NT he asked the God of the Jews to "let this cup pass" and Jesus of the Synoptics thought God had abondoned him, when he cried out "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?



Please read the crucifixion story, don't tell me what you imagine is in the NT.

I have told you already that I do not deal with plausibility to construct history. I do not know if anyone was really called Stephen who was stoned to death. The author that wrote about Stephen claimed the disciples saw Jesus ascend through the clouds. Who knows what really happened?

As I told you before I consider the crucifixion as CRAP, you are the one who believe that the crucifixion has some kind of power or meaning.
Jesus is fiction.
I think fiction, you think the Jesus of the NT was somehow magically literal.

In the second century, according to Justin Martyr, people thought Jesus believers were cannibals and sacrificed babies during their meetings. People were scared of Jesus believers. See the writings of Justin Martyr.

No, you have it upside down. It is the complete opposite. I am going be here for a long time since the historical Jesus is a strawman without any evidence or information except your imagination.

The theory that Jesus did not exist have no holes whatsoever since no evidence or information can be found about Jesus anywhere in the world right now.


Again, you are the one who takes the NT literally, you are the one who imagine that Jesus of the NT did literally walk on earth. You take Jesus LITERALLY.

Again, I consider Jesus as non-literal, never existed, unreal, nothing.

You must be confused. You see things that are figurative or poetic license and still claim Jesus literally was on earth during the days of Tiberius.

No case was presented for Achilles, the offspring of a sea-goddess, and Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost is the same case.

Jesus was nothing but fiction. See the NT and the church writings.

Elijah

He didn’t want to die, he still had to do it. Why have you forsaken me is the beginning of psalms 22 but I’m sure you already know that so I don’t really know what your point is.
Well, you just have to go with the evidence you have available if you want to discuss anything biblical. Using scripture when it’s convenient to make a point and then act like it’s not admissible to the discussion when it goes against you the very next moment is not how it works player.
Not meaning or power but effect. His sacrifice was imitated by his followers which is what spread his message. If you want to understand anything about Christianity I suggest you take a few minutes and try to understand the impact of his sacrifice on those around him.
It is impossible for a person of any intelligence to think that I believe Jesus to be magical after going on this long now. It is you who are the literalist here… as are most atheists. What makes an atheist? A stupid understanding of scripture.
What does this have to do with anything? They also thought they were atheists when they were just worshiping a philosophical understanding of God. Read the writings of Justin the Martyr, which I’m sure you haven’t.
How is the historical Jesus a strawman and your magical understanding isn’t? You are presenting an understanding of Christ suited for children and none else.
The lack of information about a first century son of a carpenter doesn’t really do anything for your theory whatever it is. You need to provide a rational understanding of where the story came from and how it got confused for history. "There is no evidence for Jesus" is just hot air at this point.
Completely ridiculous to say I take the NT literally. It’s like you aren’t even aware who you are talking to at this point.
Yea because you are a literalist with scripture. Just like your standard uneducated fundamentalist, except you have no excuse for your lack of educating yourself on this subject.
Yea I don’t see why you are having such a hard time with this.
The inability to distinguish between different forms of literature and different forms of literary devises within literature must be a mental defect of some type, like color blindness. That or the average skeptic who can’t is just a liar and can tell the difference but it’s convenient for them to lump everything together and go its all fiction. I wonder which it is.

aa5874

The authors of the NT contradict your claim that Jesus died willingly. Where the words are from are irrelevant.

I do not use my imagination as evidence or use my imagination as a substitute for written statements found in the NT.

You have no idea how the Jesus story was actually started. I do not deal with guesses.



You believe Jesus of the NT LITERALLY existed. You are the literalist.
.

But virtually all children in the Western World have the same understanging of Jesus like you. Virtually all children in North and South America, the Caribbean, Europe, Australia, many parts of Africa and other Continents presuppose Jesus existed.

Your understanding of Jesus is completely compatible with child like views of Jesus.

There is no evidence, information or written statements from the NT or church writers that Jesus was only human, the information of Jesus was that he was before the world began and was indeed the creator of the world who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, transifigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

I am talking to a person who claim it is ridiculous to take the NT literally, yet claimed Jesus of the NT LITERALLY lived during the days of Tiberius as stated in the NT.

You and the standard uneducated fundamentalists have come to the same conclusion that Jesus of the NT literally lived during the days of Tiberius.

You and the standard uneducated fudamentalists claim Jesus was Literally sacrificed.

You appear not to know that you and the standard uneducated fundamentalists have the same fundamental opinion of the existence of Jesus


I have already suggested that you read Suetonius Twelve Caesars, to see the difference between the writings of the NT and other biographies.