Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loomis · 08-01-2010, 05:06 PM

Confusion about identity of Jesus seems to be a reoccurring theme in the New Testament.

Was Jesus the Son of God?
Was Jesus the Son of Man?
Was Jesus the Prophet?
Was Jesus the Christ?

Is it possible that this type ambiguity is simply a literary device used to ad intrigue to the stories?

stephan huller · 08-01-2010, 05:12 PM

Or that there was one rather limited interpretation of Jesus's role in the original narrative (i.e. the Creator who wanted to repent for his 'sins' in creating an imperfect world) which the later systems of orthodoxy went out of their way to obscure in a later period.

aa5874 · 08-01-2010, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles

But aa5874 you are quoting from the Acts of the Apostles which most of us think is a fake history of the Church. Can you really prove anything from that document?

And I also think the Pauline writings contain the very fake history in Acts of the Apostles.

You can find a similar history of Saul/Paul in the Pauline writings.

Paul is one of the main characters in the fake history of the Church called Acts of the Apostles.

Peter was a fake character in Acts but Paul still claimed he met the [b]ficitious apostle Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. See Galatians 1.18-19

Jesus the Messiah was a fake character in Acts where he was "seen" and "witnessed , perhaps like Superman, going through the clouds to heaven, yet Paul still claimed the resurrected Jesus Messiah told him that he, Jesus, was betrayed in the night after he had eaten. See 1 Cor 11.23.

In Acts the 12 apostles were fake characters yet Paul claimed that he saw the resurrected Jesus after the twelve. See 1 Cor. 15.

The Pauline writers were FAKE 1st century writers.

The only corroborative source for Paul is the FAKE history called Acts of the Apostles.

I use Acts to support my theory that Paul was a fiction writer and FAKE 1st century character before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c70 CE.

If Paul had a TRUE history then the Acts would not be NEEDED at all in antiquity.

I cannot find any Church writer from Ignatius to Eusebius who claimed that the true history of Paul has been lost or can be found in some other external source.

The Church historian claimed that Acts of the Apostles was UNIVERSALLY accepted as authentic and the Pauline writers appear to corroboate events in Acts.

Once you think Acts is Fake history then the Pauline writings MUST be questioned and cannot be assumed to BE authentic.

Loomis · 08-01-2010, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I SUSPECT (I don't know for sure) that the original Alexandrian tradition identified Jesus as the Father and Christ as the Son (this takes a lot of wind out of the sails of the anti-Arian propaganda). To be honest, what I usually do is check every ancient source possible to see if there is a reading which substitutes Jesus for Christ to provide some alternative interpretations (they surprisingly exist in great numbers).

Do you think the confusion between Christ as the Father and Christ as the Son could be related to the confusion between the 'Most High god' and 'the Lord' as seen in places like Deuteronomy 32:8-9 LXX?

Loomis · 08-01-2010, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In Acts the 12 apostles were fake characters yet Paul claimed that he saw the resurrected Jesus after the twelve. See 1 Cor. 15.

Careful! Stephan huller is going to have a field day with this because Paul says the resurrected one was “Christ” and not “Jesus”.

Right Stephan?

aa5874 · 08-01-2010, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In Acts the 12 apostles were fake characters yet Paul claimed that he saw the resurrected Jesus after the twelve. See 1 Cor. 15.

Careful! Stephan huller is going to have a field day with this because Paul says the resurrected one was “Christ” and not “Jesus”.

Right Stephan?

The epistles with under the name Paul mentioned a character called Jesus over 200 times.

It is like the Pauline writers had a "field day" with Jesus.

Romans 1

Quote:

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead...

1Co 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God....

2Co 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God.....

Ga 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead,)....

Eph 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God...

Php 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus...

Col 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God...

1Th 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ...

2Th 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ....

The Pauline writers made references to JESUS CHRIST from the start of every epistle to the Churches and claimed Jesus Christ was RAISED from the dead.

Right!

Loomis · 08-01-2010, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is like the Pauline writers had a "field day" with Jesus.

Yep.

Loomis · 08-01-2010, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is like the Pauline writers had a "field day" with Jesus.

But … but … those are all redactions.

aa5874 · 08-01-2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is like the Pauline writers had a "field day" with Jesus.

But … but … those are all redactions.

But...you mean like "those are all fiction".... The Pauline Jesus was just redactions/fiction...:devil1:

aa5874 · 08-01-2010, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

AA you are assuming that Paul thought that Jesus was the one who appeared to the disciples after the resurrection.

I did not assume such a thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

If this is true why didn't they recognize him immediately.

Well, you assumption was wrong. What is the next step?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stepan huller

The manner in which the gospel narrative is EXPLAINED by Catholic theologians has infected the manner in which even skeptics INTERPRET the same narrative.

Are you a non-apologetic believer or a non-skeptic non-believer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

...Skeptics however fall prey to taking cheap shots at the pious whenever they get an opportunity.

But, wait a minute. Look at your next statement. You may have inadvertently made a cheap shot against Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

..If they just held back their punches and spent the time to figure out - even SPECULATE (aghast!) what the original understanding MUST HAVE BEEN to make sense of the narrative instead of simply chanting to themselves that ALL CHRISTIANS ARE STUPID, CHRISTIANITY IS STUPID, THE GOSPEL IS STUPID, they'd actually realize that Paul did not believe that Jesus was the one resurrected from the tomb. It had to have been Christ...

CHRISTIANS seemed a lot smarter than you think. They believed that Jesus was both DIVINE and had FLESH and BLOOD since without FLESH and BLOOD there would be NO sacrifice and Resurrection story.

Some CHRISTIANS rejected Marcion's non-begotten, non-crucified, non-resurrected Phantom.

Why do you think "Paul" claimed Jesus was made of a woman and was betrayed in the night after he had eaten?

"Paul" was SMART. But, he became a victim of his own "smartness". He stayed with a fictitious character for 15 days in Jerusalem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Irenaeus provides clear and absolutely solid evidence that the heretics separated these two figures that we skeptics still fuse together owing to our inherent intellectual laziness.

How do you SEPARATE Jesus from Christ after JESUS CHRIST was dead? But, Paul did not separate Jesus from Christ, he was NOT A HERETIC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

On second thought I have been told that identifying groups and individuals as 'intellectually lazy' is a serious insult around here. So I apologize to anyone I may have offended. How am I supposed to explain why no one else seems to recognize that Jesus and Christ weren't necessarily viewed as the same person in antiquity? Hmmm. Maybe its better to say that people haven't 'found the time' to read Irenaeus - our earliest historical Catholic - as well as they should.

But, was not Irenaeus extremely "intellectually lazy" or mathematically inept?

Irenaeus perhaps could not count and did not know that if Jesus was crucified under Pilate he could not have been 50 fifty years old if was 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius.

And, to show that "Irenaeus" was having major problems with veracity, he claimed the apostle John, a fictitious character, also told people that Jesus was fifty years old when the fictitious John was in Ephesus.

This is Irenaeus.
"Against Heresies 2.22.5

Quote:

....but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information....

Irenaeus is NOT credible.

08-01-2010, 05:06 PM	#191
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	Confusion about identity of Jesus seems to be a reoccurring theme in the New Testament. Was Jesus the Son of God? Was Jesus the Son of Man? Was Jesus the Prophet? Was Jesus the Christ? Is it possible that this type ambiguity is simply a literary device used to ad intrigue to the stories?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2010, 05:12 PM	#192
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Or that there was one rather limited interpretation of Jesus's role in the original narrative (i.e. the Creator who wanted to repent for his 'sins' in creating an imperfect world) which the later systems of orthodoxy went out of their way to obscure in a later period.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.