aa5874

You are making stuff up. You are an inventor. You have ZERO sources for your imaginative speculation.

Where are you sources for your fantastic stories??

Christian writers claimed Jesus was born after his mother became Pregnant by a Ghost without a human father, was God the Creator, walked on water and transfigured. See Matthew 1.18, Mark 6, Mark 9, Luke 1.26-35, John 1, Ignatius' Epistles, Aristides' Apology, Justin's First Apology, Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ and Origen's "De Prinicipiis".

Jesus of the NT is pure mythology of the 2nd century.

maryhelena

Ted, let me repeat your quotes that I copied above:

These quotes present your argument that a human flesh and blood crucifixion/sacrifice has salvation value.

You are now arguing that it was because the crucifixion/sacrifice was of a "heavenly man" that that crucifixion/sacrifice has salvation value. Ergo - the crucifixion/sacrifice of a "mere man" (a human man) does not achieve the salvation value that the crucifixion/sacrifice of your "heavenly man" does.

Methinks, Ted, it's time to start checking your premises. Otherwise you are simply getting yourself in more and more deep water as you contradict yourself.

TedM

You took me too literally and didn't respond much to what I was saying about the theology, which required a perfect man to overcome the sins that were punished by death, so it was hard to pinpoint where our lines were crossing. I thought it was clear that the early Christians believed Jesus wasn't 100% human -- that he was their Messiah. It was on that premise that my statements were made (ie he may well have been 100% human but it had salvation value for those that didn't think he was).

I didn't know that belief in fully human sacrifice was even on the table, since we have no indication that any early Christians saw Jesus that way. Anyone that would have viewed Jesus as fully human would not have been open to the theological message of his salvation from his death as a ransom, as spread by early sources such as gMark and Paul.

aa5874

Your claim is erroneous. You have NOT read gMark or don't understand it.



In the short gMark Jesus preached the Good News of God that that the Kingdom of God is at hand and to repent.

Jesus did NOT have to die for people to REPENT in the short gMark. Jesus was ALIVE when he told people to repent in Mark

Mark 1 Once a person BELIEVED the Gospel and Repented they would be saved.

There was NO requirement for Jesus to have been crucified and resurrected before people could repent in gMark.

It is in the LATER gJohn and the Pauline letters it is claimed Jesus gave his life and resurrected so that people of the whole world could be saved. See John 3.16 and Romans 10.9

TedM

see Mark 10:45

Sheshbazzar

Just goes to show that there is not a book in the NT that the Church didn't diddle with after it was written.

aa5874

You have ONE out of context Verse like Doherty.

I have the Entire short gMark.

See short Mark 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

maryhelena

Ted, here again are your own words:

You have not qualified these statements.. These statements reference a "real human sacrifice", "[COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"]rational basis for a human salvation sacrifice",[/COLOR] "[COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"]Human sacrifice":[/COLOR]

Ted, I don't read minds. I read what you write. The above statements of yours, supporting a salvation value in a human sacrifice, you have now contradicted with your "heavenly man" sacrifice that is the sacrifice that has salvation value, i.e. the sacrifice of a flesh and blood human man has no salvation value.

Ted, I really think you should put your cards on the table upfront. I never imagined, posting on a forum that is upholding rationality as a medium for inquiry - that I would come across this backdoor attempt to get a theological hearing for someones ideas.


Be upfront, Ted. Who on this forum is going to want to debate with you your arguments about a godman?

Do you really think that aa would give you a pass on such an irrational theological fantasy. People here don't want theological 'answers' to their questions or research. They want rationality, they want logic. Your not attempting to provide any of that with your theological fantasies.

And to attempt to do, as you did in an earlier post, to demean the early christians by assuming that it would be a "rational response" of the early christians to equate a human flesh and blood crucifixion/sacrifice as being some bizarre parallel, counterpart, to animal sacrifices under the Law, is the height of audacity. No Jew, now or then, is going to support human flesh and blood sacrifices as being in any way, or shape of form, anything to do with animal sacrifices under the Law. Ah, you might say, they thought he was a godman. Really - then how did such a Jesus escape stoning if that is what he professed to be? And, likewise, his followers if that was what they were teaching.

Ted, the NT might well be, to us, a confusing collection of the writing of those early christians. But to assume that those early christians did what they did because[COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"]"THEY DIDN'T KNOW ANY DIFFERENTLY OR BETTER",[/COLOR] is a preposterous assumption to be making. The NT is a highly sophisticated work. It's the work of people who knew exactly what they were doing in creating this work. Clever people, brilliant minds. People who rose above their cultural heritage and forged a new intellectual world. People who, like all people who seek to move forward the cultural environment - were ahead of their time. Ted, don't be so small-minded as to assume that it's our modern age that knows all the tricks in the book....

Ted: Post #471
If there is anything this modern age has got, is getting right - it's that christian theology is bankrupt. That does not mean the NT is bankrupt - it simply means that the christian theology that has been derived from it is a travesty. If the NT is to have a place of value in our cultural heritage - then the approach to this material has to be one of logic, rationality, morality and humanitarian concerns. The theological approach has failed.

TedM

Good to see an admission that the verse is supportive of a theology of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus. At least you admit it. aa is too stubborn or worse to do so.

TedM

Mary I am increasingly finding your ignorance to be annoying, but I can deal with that. It is your insulting insinuations about my character that I find unacceptable. I can't have any kind of fruitful discussion with people like you and aa when you aren't open to a real discussion. You both avoid the points that are against your claims and then come back later, nitpicking around to try and claim that I said something I never said. It is pitiful and you both should be ashamed. The problem, I think, is that you neither one really understand your deficits in thinking that come from extreme literalism (Earl was dead on about that), to have a rational perspective.

FOR THE LAST TIME, I am talking about a historical reconstruction based on a human sacrifice. It is highly rational to expect the people of the time to have seen a human sacrifice as MORE THAN THAT in this case. If you can't grasp the meaning of this, and you apparently cannot, then please stop responding to me!

If you continue to think that I'm pushing a theological agenda in order to convert you, you and others like you, continue to be ignorant. What I'm doing is showing the REASONABLENESS of the naturalistic approach to Christian origins based on a human being by taking into account the CONTEXT of the situation.

Talk about a true stumbling block....