Toto

Is this thread is going to recycle through every argument made in the past century over extracting history from myth?

Can we all just agree to note that some historical figures were embellished with mythical details and some mythical figures were turned into what appear to be historical figures?

Does anyone have anything new to say?

Chili

Well you know Johnny, if Jesus said "these are my brothers and sisters" because they were born again you can figure out that Jesus was the born again Joseph who was conceived from Jerusalem on high (Gal.4:26), but it is she who moved to Rome to be our mother there and we just call her Mary, casually even . . . as if she is what she is said to be such as our gate to heaven and a whole lot more than that.

Now let me add here that she is specifically in Rome to say that if anybody ever finds favor with her she will drag him to Rome where truth is piled sky-high and hers to show for as the beauty of that truth.

Opposite this was Hagar, of course, and she is the mother of those who still look at 'Jerusalem of our time' and their cathedrals look more like warships so they can keep what they have, except for maybe an empty promise that they idolize while the warships will sink to the bottom of the ocean where 'wide-eyed fishes' wonder what that human 'gloriousness' is doing down there.

So who are the counterfeiters and hallucinators really?

Littlejohn

«...extracting history from myth?..»

I do not think that during the exegetic's scientific development, which began about three centuries ago, you has sought to 'extract' history from myth, but rather to remove the mythological 'scale' by the real history, which is absolutely NOT the one shown by the Gospels, which were written especially for to 'mask' and falsify the historical truth, that more than 19 centuries ago was well known by the Jews and pagans, who know directly part of the history of Jesus (albeit with another name) and partly learned also by Jews of the Diaspora, fully informed, in turn, by the Jews of Palestine, as it is evidenced inter alia by reading Justin Martyr.

The true story of Jesus of Nazareth was an amazing story, by the fact that Jesus was an extremely versatile and eclectic character, as well as of good education, but at times also very disconcerting, because of 'implications' that today may seem as unethical or even 'amoral', but that at that time gathered consensus in a certain part of the society, especially that most popular, linked to mythological traditions very ancient (and therefore also the most superstitious and easier to deceive also, as is the case today again! ..)

It was for such a reason that the 'forger founders' of the catholic-christianity, were forced to contain as more possible news about Jesus and his mother (and the rest of his family), in addition to systematically manipulate or destroy all documents pagans who spoke of Jesus, otherwise the 'patristic truth' would never come to us! The same fate regarded also the gnostic-jesuan and manichean literature, which was linked also to the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

The sanguinary catholic clergy, that you alternated in power after the death of Constantine and with complicity of his descendants, sought to do the same thing with the literature of the Jews, which contained within 'explosive' and devastating matter for the 'sacred' patristic lies. However, the rabbinic world managed stubbornly and duly to rebuild any time all, or nearly, of the his literary heritage, after every 'holy pyre', cyclically lit up by the infamous catholic inquisition!


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

aa5874

But, did you not spilt the thread so that people can discuss embellishments whether real or imagined?

Some people think that they have some thing to contribute to the split thread.

Toto

Some people think that there is nothing new worth "contributing."

But carry on.

aa5874

It is perfectly normal for some not to contribute but I get highly annoyed when some do not realise that a discussion board is for those who want to contribute to the thread.

Littlejohn

I will affront the response to your comments through a more articulated message. Now, however, I am interested in hearing your opinion about a specific subject.

About Apollonius of Tyana we have mention in the patristic literature and the pagan one. Philostratus even, a member of the so-called 'second sophistic', wrote a biography of Apollonius, requested by Empress Julia Mammeæ, mother of Alexander Severus.

The stories about the figure of Apollonius closely resemble to those that were circulating at the time about the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, so that there were pagan scholars, of the third and fourth centuries, who came to stating that Jesus was nothing more than the same Apollonius of Tyana, although the geographical origin of the latter would have to deny any juxtaposition of the two figures.

Apollonius, like Jesus, was credited with several miracles like, e.g., the 'resurrection' of a young girl, while the family transported her to the cemetery. It was also told that he could give life to the statues, which under his command you animated. For these reasons, Apollonius was regarded by his contemporaries as a God or a demi-God. He himself, moreover, claimed to be born by a virgin 'impregnated' by a God (again a surprising similarity with the alleged virgin and divine birth of Jesus, as if the magicians of the time liked them to impersonating as living 'gods'!)

Given the above, you think the figure of Apollonius of Tyana was 'fictional' or historical? ...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

"...So who are the counterfeiters and hallucinators really?...."

Those who say that outside the Church there is not salvation .... I instead believe is just inside the church that there is not salvation, neither for own 'behind', as unfortunately abused children know well! ..


Greetings


Littljohn

.

aa5874

Please deal with one subject at a time. You have not even articulated on Jesus and now you want to articulate on Apollonius.

I did not ask you about Apollonius.

The exisience or non-existence of Apollonius of Tyana has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence or non-existence of Jesus of the NT.

The positive identification of one character of antiquity cannot automatically mean that all unknown characters of antiquity have been identified.

You must know that the existence of Apollonius has nothing at all to with Homer's Achilles the offspring of a sea-goddess or Alexander the Great.

Please ANSWER ME.

Please state exactly what you know NOW about Jesus that must not be thrown out.

Chili

Oh hi Johnny, what they really mean is that there is salvation outside the Church but they will not be able to work out their salvation and so remain torn in the saved-sinner complex and die nonetheless. They would be called lukewarm for 40 years (or better) and that equals hell on earth . . . if for those who can work out their salvation in 40 months eternity ends when they die their second death.

So I think that they are just being polite when they say that.

Like, have you ever wondered why so called Christianity is the only religion wherein you have to die before something good happens to you?