Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-11-2010, 02:21 PM

HJers are putting forward the absurd notion that Jesus believers, including the Pauline writers, were just like those who worshiped historical figures and Roman Emperors as Gods.

The evidence clearly shows and demonstrates that the worship of Jesus, being a God, was the alternative to and was introduced to mankind to help to eradicate the deification of historical figures.

With the advent of the God Jesus, no longer would Roman citizens, Jesus believers or any person have to worship the Emperors and deify them.

HJers are reducing Jesus believers to hypocrites and heathens.

This is Athanasius in "Against the Heathen" part1.9

Quote:

... But just as they who have fallen flat creep in the slime like land-snails, so the most impious of mankind, having fallen lower and lower from the idea of God, then set up as gods men, and the forms of men, some still living, others even after their death........and in our own time Antinous, favourite of Hadrian, Emperor of the Romans, whom, although men know he was a mere man, and not a respectable man, but on the contrary, full of licentiousness, yet they worship for fear of him that enjoined it.

For Hadrian having come to sojourn in the land of Egypt, when Antinous the minister of his pleasure died, ordered him to be worshipped; being indeed himself in love with the youth even after his death, but for all that offering a convincing exposure of himself, and a proof against all idolatry, that it was discovered among men for no other reason than by reason of the lust of them that imagined it..........................5. And do not wonder, nor think what we are saying hard to believe, inasmuch as it is not long since, even if it be not still the case that the Roman Senate vote to those emperors who have ever ruled them from the beginning, either all of them, or such as they wish and decide, a place among the gods, and decree them to be worshipped.

For those to whom they are hostile, they treat as enemies and call men, admitting their real nature, while those who are popular with them they order to be worshipped on account of their virtue, as though they had it in their own power to make gods, though they are themselves men, and do not profess to be other than mortal.

6. Whereas if they are to make gods, they ought to be themselves gods; for that which makes must needs be better than that which it makes, and he that judges is of necessity in authority over him that is judged, while he that gives, at any rate that which he has, confers a layout , just as, of course, every king, in giving as a favour what he has to give, is greater and in a higher position than those who receive.

If then they decree whomsoever they please to be gods, they ought first to be gods themselves.

But the strange thing is this, that they themselves by dying as men, expose the falsehood of their own vote concerning those deified by them.

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm

Jesus of the NT was known or believed to be an actual God, not just historical or human, unless Jesus believers were also the most impious of mankind and were like the Roman Senators who made men into Gods.

Toto · 02-11-2010, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
The purpose of an analogy is to highlight an element in the current topic, by relating it to something that the other party might understand....

But the only thing the other party understands by your use of the term is that you are throwing out an inflammatory insult.

I'm glad you have agreed voluntarily to stop using it.

maryhelena · 02-11-2010, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

GDon, I really think you need to cut this out - re the equating of mythicists with creationists - if this is your starting position you will not be getting very far with me....

Maryhelena, I will no longer use that analogy here. I'd much rather concentrate on the mythicist case, get it laid out clearly so that there is no misunderstanding.

Sure, that's fine. There may well be a case for mythicism built from the Gospels, I do not deny it. But many historicists also question the validity of information in the Gospels. I'm saying that questioning the validity of information in the Gospels doesn't necessarily support mythicism. A case still has to be made. I am after that case. I'm hoping that this makes sense?

That's fine. I'm interested in the case for this. Can you lay out the supporting evidence, please?

GDon the evidence for a mythicist 'case' is - the gospel storyline re Jesus. It really is that simple. The evidence is staring you in the face.

The historicist can only interpret that storyline as being about a historical Jesus by cherry-picking that storyline. A mythicist position has no need for cherry-picking the gospel storyline. It really is that simple.

PhilosopherJay · 02-11-2010, 03:47 PM

Hi Toto,

I think this alternative hypothesis you outline is really where the evidence points. the difficultly lies in synthesizing the evidence in a clear manner to support the alternative hypothesis. We shouldn't underestimate those difficulties.

On the other hand, we should realize that the vast historical Jesus camp has been trying for 1800 years to come up with significant proof of an historical Jesus and hasn't succeeded. The small mythical Jesus camp has really been in business for only 180 years and has done an excellent job of clearing the ground of the historical jesus vines and brambles, so that we may now start constructing a sturdy and reliable edifice.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

I think I have stated before my personal view of the most probable story of Christian origins. I think that Christianity evolved from Jewish Messianist sects sometime after 70 CE. The mythical Jesus was based on Joshua son of Nun, and was gradually turned into a historical figure in the second century. Paul's letters were heavily interpolated, so cannot be used as evidence of much. I don't expect to be able to prove this; I think a lot of Christian history was possibly lost in the persecutions under Decian, and the Christians who survived reconstructed their history in a way that made sense to them.

I think this is most probable because I see it happening today - political and religious groups rewrite history for their own purposes.

But I am not now prepared to fill in all the details that would turn this broad outline into a theory. If you refuse to admit the probability that Paul's letters cannot be dated and are heavily interpolated, you will be stuck arguing about Jesus' brothers.

arnoldo · 02-11-2010, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Steven, I just don't see the relevance. You can keep bringing up questions until the cows come home, but it doesn't provide analysis for a mythicist case. How does this support the mythicist case?

So GDon cannot see the relevance to mythicism of a revelation from the Lord telling his cult how to get access to the body and blood of its founder in a ritual meal.

Why is that my problem?

To answer your question, according to Dr Lamsa the phrase "drinking blood/eaten flesh" was an aramaic expression meaning being willing to suffer to the point of death or making the teaching part of one's life. From Idioms in the Bible Explained and A Key to the Original Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk). A somewhat similar expression in english is the idiom of "working one's fingers to the bone." How does this aramaic idiom support the mythicist case?

aa5874 · 02-11-2010, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So GDon cannot see the relevance to mythicism of a revelation from the Lord telling his cult how to get access to the body and blood of its founder in a ritual meal.

Why is that my problem?

To answer your question, according to Dr Lamsa the phrase "drinking blood/eaten flesh" was an aramaic expression meaning being willing to suffer to the point of death or making the teaching part of one's life. From Idioms in the Bible Explained and A Key to the Original Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk). A somewhat similar expression in english is the idiom of "working one's fingers to the bone." How does this aramaic idiom support the mythicist case?

Perhaps you don't realise the HJ is dead probably forever.

Once it is understood that HJers have put forward the absurd notion that Jesus existed as only human and was living in region of Galilee for thirty years and that he was deified by his very disciples who vehemently preached against deification of mere men, then it will immediately be realised that the HJ is over.

Simply, if Jesus was historical, only human, he would not have been deified.

Once he was deified by his disciples they considered him a God.

It is all over for HJ.

Toto · 02-11-2010, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So GDon cannot see the relevance to mythicism of a revelation from the Lord telling his cult how to get access to the body and blood of its founder in a ritual meal.

Why is that my problem?

To answer your question, according to Dr Lamsa the phrase "drinking blood/eaten flesh" was an aramaic expression meaning being willing to suffer to the point of death or making the teaching part of one's life. From Idioms in the Bible Explained and A Key to the Original Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk). A somewhat similar expression in english is the idiom of "working one's fingers to the bone." How does this aramaic idiom support the mythicist case?

How does Lamsa then explain the Eucharist? What was the point of Jesus eating bread and drinking wine with his disciples, and instructing them to do it in remembrance of him, if all he meant was to work very hard?

arnoldo · 02-11-2010, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

To answer your question, according to Dr Lamsa the phrase "drinking blood/eaten flesh" was an aramaic expression meaning being willing to suffer to the point of death or making the teaching part of one's life. From Idioms in the Bible Explained and A Key to the Original Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk). A somewhat similar expression in english is the idiom of "working one's fingers to the bone." How does this aramaic idiom support the mythicist case?

How does Lamsa then explain the Eucharist? What was the point of Jesus eating bread and drinking wine with his disciples, and instructing them to do it in remembrance of him, if all he meant was to work very hard?

Depending on the context drinking blood would correlate to the english example of "working one's fingers to the bone". In a different context it would correlate to "eat, live, sleep and breathe" a truth. The point still stands that "drinking blood/eating flesh" was an aramaic idiom which in no way supports a mythicist case. For more info see below.

Quote:

Eating Jesus Flesh & Blood?

“Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.’” (John 6:53 KJV)

This is also a very interesting verse for analysis. As one can read in John 6, after Jesus said this, many who had followed Him left at this point. Why? They did not really understand what Jesus said; even some Jews did not comprehend the Northern Galilean dialect. According to Dr. Lamsa, the Northern Galilean dialect has the following saying: “I have eaten my body and drank my blood” (Lamsa, 1999). This means that the speaker has worked hard and suffered even to the point of dying. Therefore, by incorporating this saying into His teaching, i.e., “eating His blood and His body,” Jesus meant that His followers should be ready to suffer even to the point of death for the sake of the Gospel and Christ’s message, just like Jesus Himself.

A literal translation of this verse can cause a misunderstanding. For example, during the early persecution of the church in 100 – 200 AD, Christians were wrongly accused of cannibalism.

http://web.mac.com/slwe/iSam02/My_Bl..._and_West.html

show_no_mercy · 02-11-2010, 07:34 PM

It's really hard to take that analysis seriously if the one proposing that idiom thinks that there are any historical sayings in John.

aa5874 · 02-11-2010, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How does Lamsa then explain the Eucharist? What was the point of Jesus eating bread and drinking wine with his disciples, and instructing them to do it in remembrance of him, if all he meant was to work very hard?

Depending on the context drinking blood would correlate to the english example of "working one's fingers to the bone". In a different context it would correlate to "eat, live, sleep and breathe" a truth. The point still stands that "drinking blood/eating flesh" was an aramaic idiom which in no way supports a mythicist case. For more info see below.

Quote:

Eating Jesus Flesh & Blood?

“Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.’” (John 6:53 KJV)

This is also a very interesting verse for analysis. As one can read in John 6, after Jesus said this, many who had followed Him left at this point. Why? They did not really understand what Jesus said; even some Jews did not comprehend the Northern Galilean dialect. According to Dr. Lamsa, the Northern Galilean dialect has the following saying: “I have eaten my body and drank my blood” (Lamsa, 1999). This means that the speaker has worked hard and suffered even to the point of dying. Therefore, by incorporating this saying into His teaching, i.e., “eating His blood and His body,” Jesus meant that His followers should be ready to suffer even to the point of death for the sake of the Gospel and Christ’s message, just like Jesus Himself.

A literal translation of this verse can cause a misunderstanding. For example, during the early persecution of the church in 100 – 200 AD, Christians were wrongly accused of cannibalism.

http://web.mac.com/slwe/iSam02/My_Bl..._and_West.html

So are you claiming that in a fiction story where a fiction character discussed "drinking blood/ eating flesh" that the fictitious character will all of a sudden come to life?

You first need an external source or a credible source to show that Jesus did in fact live as a man before you can even begin to make claims about the activities and words of Jesus.

But, in any event, the HJ has been "checkmated".

If you argue that Jesus was human living around Galilee for thirty years then you simply cannot explain why he was deified by the very people who preached against the deification of men.

Jews and Jesus believers were adamant that figures of history should NOT be deified. Once Jesus was deified he therefore was not considered a historical figure. He must have been considered a God, a mythological entity.

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

02-11-2010, 07:34 PM	#119
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	It's really hard to take that analysis seriously if the one proposing that idiom thinks that there are any historical sayings in John.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.