aa5874

It is frightening when I see people here who make claims that are BLATANTLY erroneous and documented for at least 1600 years to be in error.

The NT Canon does NOT support the HERESY that Jesus was a man.

Look at Galatians 1.1 which was written at least by the 4th century and was CANONIZED in the CODEX SINAITICUS..

Ga 1:1 - And this is found in the NT CANON. A NON-HERETICAL document of the Church.

Matthew 1.18-20 It is clear that Jesus was NOT a man in the NT Canon.

Sheshbazzar

Ahhh, so that's the infamous Jewish GOLEM.

TedM

aa, please stop with this nonsense. You can't be so dense as to not see that we aren't talking about believing in the representation of Jesus in the NT canon, can you?

aa5874

Don't you realize that YOUR posts are recorded? Look at your OWN post #96


So, the EVIDENCE is the Gospels and other traditions!!!

And now look at your OWN post #53.
Stop your DENSE NONSENSE now. You yourself are talking about the Gospels and traditions that are in the NT Canon.

You seem to be obsessed with with my posts that you can't even think straight.

Now, the EVIDENCE in the NT, a compilation of the Gospels and other traditions, is that Jesus Christ was NOT a man.

This is clearly shown in the Pauline writings, especially Galatians 1.1-12

The EVIDENCE is that Jesus was NOT a man in the NT, a compilation of the Gospels and traditions that developed.

Are you really READY to discuss the evidence that SHOW Jesus Christ was NOT a man?

There is MORE in traditions that developed and the EVIDENCE that Jesus was NOT a man is RATHER DENSE.

TedM

aa, you apparently really don't get what I'm saying here at all:

OF COURSE the gospels represent Jesus as a God and as a man. YOU simply can't conceive of that as anything but a contradiction so YOU conclude that the gospels are only talking about a God since MAN can't be a god. Why don't you conclude that since man can't be a god all references to god-like qualities are made up but that there might be a real man named Jesus at the origin of some of the myth? You see aa, this is what most here are talking about when they talk about the search for a historical Jesus -- the parts that MIGHT NOT be made up.

I think you are not quite getting what this discussion is about because you are so focused on the god-man contradiction in your own mind. YOUR own personal conclusion that the Jesus of the gospels CAN'T have been a man is not really relevant to this discussion of a historical Jesus because we aren't discussing the god-man claim and we aren't discussing your beliefs about it. We are talking about what other people believed and surely you understand that other people can believe in a man who does god-like things, can't you? After all that's what a belief in Santa Clause is right? And surely you recognize that there are people (mostly kids) who think of Santa as a man, right? It's the same thing here. I wish you would see it in this light because that really is what the discussion is on these forums and has been for years. It isn't whether a man can do god-like things. It is more down to earth, so to speak: Was there a man behind all of the myth?

If you simply don't understand what I'm saying then please don't respond to this post. I would kindly ask that you also please stop trying to catch me in contradictions because it is a waste of mine and your time. I know what I'm talking about here but until you can grasp the meaning of the two paragraphs above then I think we should avoid further discussion.

I can only respond further to you when you acknowledge that you really do understand what a historical Jesus discussion is about.

aa5874

I am saying what the evidence says but you are saying something else.

You are NOT really ready to discuss the evidence.

You want to dicuss your imagination. I am NOT HERE TO discuss your imagination.

I am here to SHOW the evidence from Antiquity.

Look at this letter supposedly from the 1st century by Clement about Jesus Christ.

"Letter to the Corinthians" 59
I am saying what the EVIDENCE of antiquity says but you want to talk about something else.

Jesus was a God. Gods are considered MYTHS.

Jesus can be reasonably considered a MYTH.

Look at this letter to the Romans from Ignatius.

"Letter to the Romans" I am saying what the EVIDENCE of antiquity says but you want to talk about something else.

Jesus Christ was the ONLY begotten son of a God. Gods and Son of Gods are considered MYTHS. Jesus Christ can be reasonably considered a MYTH.


Look at this piece of EVIDENCE from "First Apology" XXI The evidence of antiquity is OVERWHELMING. Jesus Christ was NOTHING more than a Greek fable that people of antiquity BELIEVED.

Sheshbazzar

It's really quite simple aa, when people don't believe in the Jesus that the bible describes, they make up a different imaginary Jesus that the Bible doesn't describe. :Cheeky:

mountainman

The evidence itself strongly suggests that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts may have been authored in Greek by people with precisely such a belief. That is, they did not believe in the Jesus of the NT canonical books, so they authored a series of non canonical books with a different imaginary Jesus that the NT Canonical books doesn't describe.

Did Jesus drive a water taxi to and from "The Land of the Cannibals"? He certainly did in one story. He had a Pilate Licence.

mountainman

Hi TedM,

To be down to earth we must be up front with the fiction.
We cant just sweep it away and under the discussion level.
The spectrum of belief must include disbelief, that is, fiction.
The more general question is therefore ...
Was there a man behind all of the myth, or was there a fiction?

Some hypothesise a man - a core HJ, with varying percentages of "myth".
However some hypothesise no such core man.

(You have already commented on that chart of the HJ and MJ theories/positions)


By fiction I mean that the fabrication of the christians was a fiction of men. The fiction could have been intentional or fraudument, or as Earl argues, the fiction may have arisen by the innocent misinterpretation of mythical stories and textual "chinese whispers".

Earl seems to be exploring this path of an innocent organic evolution of scribal texts in order to explain the origins and evolution of "Early Christianity", but in the fuller spectrum we must also face pious forgery and fiction. If indeed it was a fiction, and thus authored elsewhere in the historical record (contrary to the declarations of Eusebius), precisely where and when and by whom and how, and why was this fraudulent misrepresentation of ancient history perpetrated. In the exploration of the fiction angle, the mass of evidence in the gnostic gospels and acts (including the Ascension of Isaiah) becomes collateral fiction, in a massive war of greek literature against the canon. When in history was this war of the greek codex fought and lost by the Gnostics?

driver8

1. All gods are created by men.
2. No two men have exactly the same god or gods.

The rest is just details.