Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-20-2012, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, the philosophical concept that the Logos is God is extremely easy to understand.
1. The Logos, the Word, is a product of God.

2. A Son is a product of a Father.

3. A Son and a Father are of the Same Nature.

4. The Logos, the Word, and God are of the same Nature.

5. The Logos, the Word, is the Son of God and the same Nature as God.

6. The Logos, the Word, is God.

7. The Logos, the Word, manifested himself in the LIKENESS of the Son of man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

How do you get from 5. to 6. without it being complicated? That's where the chain snaps. I'm also the same nature as my father following your logic, but I am not him and he is not me.

You snap rather easily.
You seem not to comprehend philosophical concepts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Daniel 7:13 KJV

It is extremely important that you recognise the word "LIKE".

Jesus, the Logos, was LIKE the Son of man.

Jesus, the Logos, APPEARED LIKE the Son of man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Jesus isn't mentioned in Dan 7 and the word "like", ὡς, doen't appear in the gospels.

Jesus is claimed to BE the Son of man in the Gospels which is based on Daniel 7.
Daniel 7:13 KJV

Quote:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Mark 13:26 KJV

Quote:

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

If the Son of a man was a REAL Man he would NOT be in clouds.

Real men don't come in CLOUDS.

You seem incapable of understanding philosophical concepts--non-historical accounts or mythology.

In the Gospels it is claimed the Son of Man was the Product of a Ghost. See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.26-35.

It really does not even matter what it says in Daniel 7 because the Son of Man in the Gospels was Fathered by a Ghost.

That must be extremely complicated to you. That must be where you Snap.

Don't snap, it is extremely easy to understand.

Jesus is just Simply a Mythological concept. That's all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, in gJohn Jesus WALKED on the sea for 3-4 Miles [25-30 furlongs]

John 6:19 KJV

Quote:

So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid .

It is clear that the Johanine Jesus is NOT actual Flesh but Only Appeared LIKE Flesh.

Real Flesh cannot walk 3-4 Miles on water.

The Johanine Jesus, the Logos, is NOT from the ancient Jewish Community.

The Johanine Jesus story appears to be a Myth Fable like those of the Greeks and Romans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

So, what do you think it means that "the Word became flesh"? It's a later addition?

I told you already but apparently you snapped.

Jesus in gJohn ONLY APPEARED LIKE the Son of man but he was GOD.

We are dealing with Philosophical concepts NOT actual historical accounts.

Please, read on the "Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian and you will see that the Son of Man was NOT born of the seed of man.

On the Flesh of Christ 18

Quote:

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God...

Adam · 10-20-2012, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Another quote concerning the Gospel according to Adam :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herman Hendricks

The identity of the fourth evangelist is hopelessly lost in anonymity. He was not an eyewitness and is not to be identified with the "beloved disciple." It is more likely that the evangelist (whom we shall continue to call John for the sake of convenience) writes of a revered founder of the community whose witness is the basis of the community tradition. The writer speaks of this honoured figure as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." While some scholars have attempted to identify this figure with someone known to us from the gospels (most often John, son of Zebedee, or Lazarus), it seems wiser to admit that we do not know.

Rather irrelevant, actually. Hendricks is apparently of the Roman Catholic deniers of sources within John. A Passion Narrative and a Signs Gospel underlie gJohn, and in my opinion and Howard Teeple's (and Bultmann, etc.) a Discourse source as well. Anyone like Hendricks who is willfully blind to this is not qualified to deny that there are eyewitnesses to Jesus in gJohn nor to claim that the Beloved Disciple may not have had a role, though limited, in writing gJohn. (No, neither Teeple nor Bultmann acknowledges eyewitnesses, but my arguments for eyewitnesses in gJohn have not been refuted.)

Horatio Parker · 10-20-2012, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_Uni/ECF_Jn1_1.htm

Notice on this list of early church writers that the mentions of the Logos expressed in John 1 are few and not very important in terms of theology and doctrine overall. Other references are not necessarily invoking anything from John 1. And of course we know that the author of GJohn himself does pursue the doctrine and its implications in the rest of the gospel.

Also notice two allusions suggested in Romans 11 and 1 Corinthians 8, which themselves say nothing referring to the Logos concept that emerged in the (probably later) GJohn.

In Romans 11 the name of Jesus or Christ is mentioned not even a single time, while in 1 Corinthians 8 only twice as well (verses 11 and 12), clearly indicating interpolations of Christ ideas into a pre-existing Jewish-friendly text having nothing to do with Christianity.

Quote:

Colossians 1:15: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

I don't know how it was expressed in Greek, presumably without "logos", but it's consistent with the concept of logos.

Duvduv · 10-20-2012, 09:33 PM

Since you mentioned Colossian, by way of an aside, the chapter certainly sounds very "churchy" and has those 3 references to "the church."
For that matter the other chapters also sound rather "churchy."
If it was written in the first two or three centuries CE then I am a monkey's uncle.

aa5874 · 10-20-2012, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Rather irrelevant, actually. Hendricks is apparently of the Roman Catholic deniers of sources within John. A Passion Narrative and a Signs Gospel underlie gJohn, and in my opinion and Howard Teeple's (and Bultmann, etc.) a Discourse source as well. Anyone like Hendricks who is willfully blind to this is not qualified to deny that there are eyewitnesses to Jesus in gJohn nor to claim that the Beloved Disciple may not have had a role, though limited, in writing gJohn. (No, neither Teeple nor Bultmann acknowledges eyewitnesses, but my arguments for eyewitnesses in gJohn have not been refuted.)

Your claims are not corroborated. You imagine your own witnesses.

When the NT is examined it can be seen that accounts about Jesus MUST have been invented.

It cannot be assumed that the authors of the books of the NT did NOT invent any part of their story but faithfully copied their sources.

The Gospel according to John does NOT require any actual witnesses.

Cesc · 10-21-2012, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

It's not complicated? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So God was with himself? Sounds complicated already in the first verse. Jesus is the preexisting Logos, the son of man, the son of God, he is sent from God and sent by God, and he is God. Either it's just alot of religious concepts put arbitrarily together, or it's complicated religio-philosophy.

It's the difference between transcendence and intelligibility. It's abstract but not complicated.

Put in mythical cosmological terms, the Son is the Thought in the Mind of God. God, in creating the universe, first had to conceive it. The sum total of that intelligibility, all that can be communicated in words, is the Son.

Still sounds complicated to me, even if that is in fact what the author of gJohn believed.

Cesc · 10-21-2012, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

...On another note, I personally am not fully convinced that gJohn is not the first of the gospels. What if gJohn (or the oldest parts of it anyway) were the first and Mark got the idea to write a different kind of narrative?

Too bad, Cesc, you weren't following BC&H in 2011 when I presented my Gospel Eyewitnesses thesis that developed the Johannine Discourses as the first written about Jesus, with internal evidence that it was written while Jesus was still alive. I reached a climax at Post #450 :

(See same link as for Post #436 below)

Here's a list of my main posts towards my thesis of seven written records by eyewitnesses to Jesus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

As I admitted in my Posts #368 and 418, I failed to include a link to the first of my four articles with the basic argumentation for Peter as an eyewitness. So I'm reissuing my #52 (fourth in my series) not just linking the article, but incorporating it "between the lines" below: (the complete series now is Posts #1, #!8, #38, #436 (enlargement of #52), #74 (pending enlargement with same new link http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common ), #132, #144, #170, #230, and supplemented by #335.)

[Above from my Post #436 here]
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....nesses&page=18

Naturally, running counter to FRDB beliefs was unpopular. I made the mistake of retreating to an easily provable position that the case for for MJ had now been rendered impossible to prove. Even this failed to impress MJ partisans in my various posts presenting my Gospel According to the Atheists in such posts as #526, 534, 561. People just don't change their minds, no matter the evidence. (Just to be clear, I was not saying that MJ could not reasonably be believed, just that it could not be held as probable, because we now have too much evidence of HJ, that Jesus existed.)

Apparently no one has told you yet that rational discourse with aa is impossible.

Hello Adam, thanks for the links, I hope I get the time to read your arguments any time soon.

Cesc · 10-21-2012, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, the philosophical concept that the Logos is God is extremely easy to understand.
1. The Logos, the Word, is a product of God.

2. A Son is a product of a Father.

3. A Son and a Father are of the Same Nature.

4. The Logos, the Word, and God are of the same Nature.

5. The Logos, the Word, is the Son of God and the same Nature as God.

6. The Logos, the Word, is God.

7. The Logos, the Word, manifested himself in the LIKENESS of the Son of man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

How do you get from 5. to 6. without it being complicated? That's where the chain snaps. I'm also the same nature as my father following your logic, but I am not him and he is not me.

You snap rather easily.
You seem not to comprehend philosophical concepts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Daniel 7:13 KJV

It is extremely important that you recognise the word "LIKE".

Jesus, the Logos, was LIKE the Son of man.

Jesus, the Logos, APPEARED LIKE the Son of man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Jesus isn't mentioned in Dan 7 and the word "like", ὡς, doen't appear in the gospels.

Jesus is claimed to BE the Son of man in the Gospels which is based on Daniel 7.
Daniel 7:13 KJV

Quote:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Mark 13:26 KJV

Quote:

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

If the Son of a man was a REAL Man he would NOT be in clouds.

Real men don't come in CLOUDS.

You seem incapable of understanding philosophical concepts--non-historical accounts or mythology.

In the Gospels it is claimed the Son of Man was the Product of a Ghost. See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.26-35.

It really does not even matter what it says in Daniel 7 because the Son of Man in the Gospels was Fathered by a Ghost.

That must be extremely complicated to you. That must be where you Snap.

Don't snap, it is extremely easy to understand.

Jesus is just Simply a Mythological concept. That's all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, in gJohn Jesus WALKED on the sea for 3-4 Miles [25-30 furlongs]

John 6:19 KJV

Quote:

So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid .

It is clear that the Johanine Jesus is NOT actual Flesh but Only Appeared LIKE Flesh.

Real Flesh cannot walk 3-4 Miles on water.

The Johanine Jesus, the Logos, is NOT from the ancient Jewish Community.

The Johanine Jesus story appears to be a Myth Fable like those of the Greeks and Romans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

So, what do you think it means that "the Word became flesh"? It's a later addition?

I told you already but apparently you snapped.

Jesus in gJohn ONLY APPEARED LIKE the Son of man but he was GOD.

We are dealing with Philosophical concepts NOT actual historical accounts.

Please, read on the "Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian and you will see that the Son of Man was NOT born of the seed of man.

On the Flesh of Christ 18

Quote:

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God...

You are arguing like you think all the authors of the Christian texts, including the Fathers, were in agreement about any and all things?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Real men don't come in CLOUDS.

Sounds like an atheist bumper sticker.

aa5874 · 10-21-2012, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus in gJohn ONLY APPEARED LIKE the Son of man but he was GOD.

We are dealing with Philosophical concepts NOT actual historical accounts.

Please, read on the "Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian and you will see that the Son of Man was NOT born of the seed of man.

On the Flesh of Christ 18

Quote:

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

You are arguing like you think all the authors of the Christian texts, including the Fathers, were in agreement about any and all things?

So what is your argument when you have NO agreement?? Your argument is Simply Contradictory.

My argument is that Jesus was Fathered by a Ghost and APPEARED LIKE the Son of Man in the NT and Apologetic sources.

1. In gMark 6.48--Jesus WALKED on water but He appeared LIKE the Son of man.

2. In gMatthew 1.18--Jesus was Fathered by a Ghost but He appeared LIKE the Son of man.

3.In gLuke 1.26-35--Jesus was the Product of an Overshadowing Ghost but he appeared LIKE the Son of man.

4. In gJohn 1.1--Jesus was God but he appeared LIKE the Son of man.

5. In Galatians 1.1--Jesus was NOT human but appeared LIKE a Man.

6. In the Epistles of Ignatius Jesus was GOD but appeared LIKE a man.

7. In the writings of Justin, Jesus was born of a Ghost but appeared LIKE a man.

8. In the writings of Irenaeus, Jesus was born of a Ghost but appeared LIKE a man.

9. In the writings of Tertullian, Jesus was born of a Ghost but appeared LIKE a man.

10. In the writings of Origen, Jesus was born of a Ghost but appeared LIKE a man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Real men don't come in CLOUDS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Sounds like an atheist bumper sticker.

No, No, No!!! It is a Bumper Sticker from the book of DANIEL and the Gospels.

Real men don't come in clouds--But One Like the Son of Man.

Daniel 7:13 KJV

Quote:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one LIKE the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Matthew 24:30 KJV

Quote:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn , and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

outhouse · 10-21-2012, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Sounds like an atheist bumper sticker.

most atheist are not that closed minded.

that is basically ignoring all the human aspects written, and falsely promoting the mythical nature of writing at that time

you will not do any good argueing with such people.

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

10-20-2012, 09:33 PM	#74
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Since you mentioned Colossian, by way of an aside, the chapter certainly sounds very "churchy" and has those 3 references to "the church." For that matter the other chapters also sound rather "churchy." If it was written in the first two or three centuries CE then I am a monkey's uncle.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.