aa5874

But, there is nothing in the passage that shows Schneerson was worshiped as a God and that he had the power to forgive the sins of mankind and salvation through his death and resurrection.

You seem not to understand the difference between the claim that a man resurrected or had never died and the worship of a man as a God.

There is a massive difference between deification and resurrection.

In the book called Kings, Elijah went up into heaven in a chariot with horses of fire. However Elijah was NOT deified or worship as a God by Jews or Gentiles.

2Ki 2:11 - The death and resurrection of Jesus, God's Son, on the other hand, abolished the Laws or commandments of God his Father as it related to circumcision and salvation according to a Pauline writer.

This is what God the Father of Jesus said to the Jews according to the Bible.
Genesis 17.12-14 And this is a Pauline writer.

Ga 5:2 - The revelation is from God's Son, the MJ.

It must be obvious to you by now that Paul's Jesus was a God, an MJ, who had the Power to abolish the covenant between his Father God with the Jews and strangers.

The NT and Church writings are about MJ having abolished the Laws of his Father God.

Toto

You have no explanation, but you are sure that there was some history that they just didn't discuss. This sounds totally ad hoc and unfalsifiable.

Look at the surrounding culture - there's a lot of detailed historical details. Why would Christians have been different?

Anything is possible, since we don't know very much about Paul. But it seems highly unlikely that Paul would treat a contemporary like that. Unless you think that Jesus existed a century before Paul wrote.

maryhelena

Update re the debate......


http://vridar.wordpress.com/

GakuseiDon

Heh? It's definitely the case! Do you deny that there is very little history about almost anything in the early epistles? Most of the epistles in the NT are dated late First Century / early Second Century. Can you tell me what the church was like, who the leaders were, etc, from those letters?

It's not adhoc, it is something that regularly gets pointed out. But mythicists only look at the part of the picture dealing with Jesus. Unless the entire world was mythical, then there is something wrong with drawing conclusions from such a narrow focus. It is part of that post-Enlightment mindset that you brought up.

Well, give me an example. Is the level of detailed historical details the same as what we find in Christian writings? If it isn't, then the Christians WERE different.

Then when would people start avoiding historical details, according to your theory? One generation after, two generations?

Toto

From the NT, I would conclude that the early church is mythical, not that it was historical but people didn't talk about the details.

The explanation is ad hoc.

??

Look at other first century writings. Philo, Josephus, any of the classical writers. If the Christian writers are different, is that because Christians are a different species or because there is no history behind the writings? What are the odds?

I don't think that anyone will avoid discussing historical details if they are well known. I have read that in the classical period, after 150 years it was considered to be virtually impossible to distinguish between history and legend.

aa5874

There goes the HJ case up in smoke. There is no information, NO HISTORY of their early leaders including their supposed HJ.

But, this is exactly what an MJer expected. Once there was no real Jesus there would be NO HISTORY of the early Church.

But, an MJer cannot focus on what is missing and what was expected to be missing. MJ IS FOCUSED on what has been supplied by the NT and Church writers. You are focus what you imagined they missed.

The NT, Church and Apocryphal writings must be a very good random sample of the all information that have been lost about Jesus.

Many hundres of documents have RANDOMLY survived and they consistently show Jesus was eirher known, believed or intended to believe was the Creator and Son of God.

What has been found most probably reflected what has been lost.

If virtually 100% of what has been found describe Jesus as a God with no history of the early church then it is almost certain that there was no early Church which is exactly what MJers expected.

arnoldo

Interesting, so from this perspective when did the church cease to be mythical and become historical?

Toto

Probably around the mid second century.

aa5874

You mean the Church was worshiped as a God.

You seem not to understand that MJ does not deny the belief that Jesus existed only that he existed as a God or as a MYTHOLOGICAL entity.

The God of Abraham or the Jews or Gods in general are mythological regardless of whether people believed they existed or not. So likewise is Jesus the son of the God of the Jews.

It is clear and without doubt that people worshiped the God of the Jews.

It is clear and without doubt that people of antiquity worshiped Jesus as a God.

It is also clear and without doubt that those who worshiped Jesus as a God did not and do not worship men as Gods.

Jesus Christ was therefore known or believed to be a God.

Jesus was mythological.

arnoldo

No, I didn't understand that MJ means that Jesus existed. Thanks for clearing that up