Sheshbazzar

Are you really that unfamiliar with the teachings of J-S in the Gospel of Mark?
Any man that believes.

To do this it is imperative that one believe in their El Shaddai without doubting.



.

aa5874

Come on. I don't have much time to waste. Please provide the evidence for claims. Provide your sources.

Again, where are your sources??



I miss NOTHING. I present EVIDENCE that Jesus was Myth and that Paul wrote AFTER the Jesus story was known.

Now, when was YOUR Tolodot story composed??? Please identify the Jesus in the Toledot?? Was he from Nazareth?? Was he baptized by John?? Was he crucified under Pilate??

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu

I am just getting tired of all this propaganda on this forum. It seems Nobody wants to deal with evidence only propaganda and imagination.

Sheshbazzar

You seem to have plenty of time to waste on here repeating your mantras.

Celsus made the claim in the 2nd century, and Origen responded to it. Both writers were aware of the allegation that Pantera was Jebus's father.
Origen claimed that this STORY originated with the Jews. That is the evidence that the allegation was known. to Celsus in the 2nd century CE, and to Origen in the early 3rd Century CE.

It is noteworthy that you have been providing us with NO explanation at all for the origins of this Pantera story.

Why do you continue to pretend that it did not exist? Only so you do not have to deal with the obvious fact that you know nothing further of it.

Tell us how Celsus would be able to write about the STORY of Pantera as the illigitamate father of Jezus that he knew nothing of?
Where have your rational reasoning abilities departed to?

Which has nothing to do with what in the 2nd century CE Celsus wrote concerning the manner Jebus's conception, and which Origen contended against in the early 3rd century CE.

There were TWO widely divergent STORIES. Each with their own advocates.
Celsus must have been familiar with the Christian 'Virgin Birth' STORY, otherwise he would not have been mounting his Pantera argument against it.
Origin must have been familiar with Celsus's Pantera as father to an illigitimate Jebus STORY or he would not have addressed its allegations in his 'Contra Celsus'.


.

Sheshbazzar

"the earliest source is unlikely to be prior the 4th century,"

I'm going to be very interested in how you reconcile this with Celsus and Origen both writing about the Pantera STORY in the 2nd to early 3rd century CE.



.

aa5874

You seem not to understand that YOUR TOLEDOT story was probably NOT known to Celsus.

If the Toledot was unlikely to have been composed BEFORE the 4th century then Celsus was dead for hundreds of years.

Please, you have major chronological problems. Examine your own post.

Please, tell us if your Toledot story was lifted from "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

Please, identify a source that states Celsus knew your Toledot story??

Sheshbazzar

You seem not to understand that Celsus is the first identified source to introduce the STORY of Pantera being the father of an illegitimate Jebus. And that scholarship holds that he did so in the late 2nd century CE.

You should not believe every statement you read on the Internet.
And the matter under consideration is NOT the composition of the entire Tolodot, but rather only that of the STORY by CELSUS, and repeated in Origen's refutation of it in 'Contra Celsium', of the Roman soldier name Pantera fathering a illigitimate son named 'Iesus', who became a notorious Jewish magician and fraudster.

Look in the mirror. When did Celsus live and write? When did Origen live and write?
Origin's writings were so primitive in their Christianity, that he was latter anathematized as being a heretic by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Not likely then that they were the producers of writings that were by their own judgment heretical, and to be immediately confiscated and destroyed.

The Tolodot went through many revisions in response to christian claims.
Origen however, writing in 'Contra Celsus' circa 248 CE, makes it evident that Celsus had previously published the STORY of the Roman soldier named Pantera fathering a illigitimate son named Iesus.

logic:
Origin would not have written his refutation of this STORY unless this STORY was known,
And Celsus would not have written of this illigitimate birth unless he was aware that christians were claiming Jebus was of miraculous birth to a virgin, and that the God of the Jews was his only father.
Both stories are old, and both had their supporters.

Really aa, if you wish to pursue this argument further it will be up to you to provide us with your proofs that Celsus and Origen DID NOT both write about this matter of Pantera before 254 CE (the commonly accepted year of Origin's death)

Can you mount a reasoned and cogent argument that can provide the proof that Origen's 'Contra Celsus' was actually not composed until the 4th Century?



.

jakejonesiv

Hi Sheshbazzar,

You are absolutely right, there is no Virgin Birth or "overshadowing" by the Holey Ghost in gMark. gMark has an adoptionist Christology where Jesus is possessed by some kind of spirit. If you read closely, it is not said to be the "Holy" Spirit. (Matthew and Luke "fixed" that).

Mark 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the spirit like a dove descending upon him:

See that? No holy spirit in gMark's baptism, just an ambiguous spirit like a dove.

But what is really strange is that the spirit drives Jesus into the wilderness. This is the language of demonic possession, as in Luke 8:29 where it was the unclean spirit that had driven the man into the wilderness.

Immediately the spirit drove him [Jesus] into the wilderness. Mark 1:12
and he [the Gadarenes Demoniac ]... was driven by the demon into the wilderness.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...9&version=NKJV

Sheshbazzar

Again as in another thread, this is a story of a שדד 'shadad ' at work. irresistible, impelling, terrible.

jakejonesiv

That's true.

aa5874

The Church and its writers do NOT even understand that they have inadvertently CONTRADICTED the stories in Acts and the Pauline letters.

In Acts, it is claimed that Thousands of Jews converted to the Jesus cult and sometimes thousands would be converted in a single day. See Acts 2.

It is also claimed by Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews, that he PERSONALLY went "ALL OVER" the Roman Empire preaching that the Son of God, made of a woman, of the seed of David, was Lord and that every knee should BOW to Jesus, God's own Son including the Emperors of Rome. See Philippians 2

But, where are the corroborative sources for Acts that there were Thousands of Jews who converted to a Jesus cult??

There are NONE.

Where are the corroborative sources for Paul BEFORE c 70 CE by non-apologetics???

There are NONE.

But, we have Apologetic sources that will show that there were NO JEWS who knew of any Messuianic ruler called Jesus and that there was never any known Jews who started the Jesus cult.

The very story of Jesus is that the Jews REJECTED Jesus, his disciple ran away, betrayed or denied him and that Jesus implied that he was also ABANDONED by God on the day he was crucified.

These are the LAST words of the short Mark Jesus.

Mark 15 The story of the short gMark has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Salvation for Remission of Sins by sacrifice or anything about a New cult of Christians.

Jesus in gMark died as a Reject by his very own.

The Jews NEVER realized that they killed the Son of their own God in gMark.

The disciples of Jesus and his followers did NOT really believe Jesus was the Son of God.

The women went to anoint the dead body of Jesus because they did NOT believe or knew he would resurrect.

Jesus himself thought he was ABANDONED UNTIL he resurrected as Predicted.

In gMark, NOBODY really UNDERSTOOD Jesus.

And that is EXACTLY what the author of the short gMark intended.

The author of the short gMark wrote his story because he thought the Kingdom of God was at hand.

The author of the short gMark wrote his story giving the impression that Jesus whom the Jews Killed was COMING back soon--that the Kingdom of God was soon arriving.

Mark 1:14 KJV It is the AUTHOR who is talking NOT the Jesus character.

It is the AUTHOR who wrote the story for the FIRST time that is WARNING JEWS to REPENT for Killing the Son of God.

It is the AUTHOR who wants the JEWS to BELIEVE his story.

The short gMark Jesus PREACHES to Jews and refers to the Jews as his sheep but it is really the AUTHOR who wrote the story for JEWS.

The author of the short gMark FABRICATES a story that the Jews Killed Jesus and that Jesus whom they Killed is Coming back.

Examine short Mark 13.

The AUTHOR tell us what he personally believed was going to happen but use the Jesus character instead.

Mark 13 When the short gMark was composed there were NO Jesus cult.

When the short gMark was composed there were NO JEWS that worshiped any character called Jesus as the Son of God and Messianic ruler.

Up to the mid 2nd century and later there were NO known Jew that was a Christian of the Jesus cult.

In Antiquities of the Jews, the history of the Jews from "Creation" to the End of the 1st century, there is NO JEW who was identified as a Christian of the Jesus cult.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are Historically Bogus.

The Jesus cult most likely began AFTER the End of the 1st century when NON-JEWS believed the story that the JEWS KILLED the Son of God as found in the short gMark.