NOGO

Wrong!
You should say "We want to unblelieve. Help our belief!"

The ancient Israelites believed that the life of a person was in his blood. They sacrified animals and removed the blood which was offered to Yahweh in order for him to forgive sins.

The crucified Jesus is a human sacrifice to Yahweh. Hebrews 9 explains this very well and essentially says that Jesus made this sacrifice at the end of the world in order not to be sacrificed every year as animals were and in order to put away sin once and for all.

Paul decided that Jesus could not have been sacrificed for just ordinary sins so he went looking in the OT and found "the fall of mankind" for which Jesus died for. Unfortunately this fall of mankind and the need for a saviour to reconcile man to God is a theme which is absolutly non-existent in the OT. Jesus does not say one single word about it. Pure myth.

This is the way Jesus stated his mission after refusing to help a Canaanite woman.
Mt 15:24
But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Scholars have argued that since this is an embarassment to the early church that it was a genuine statement from Jesus.

Yes, we want to believe; help our unbelief!

Radcliffe Emerson

This despite the fact that the messianic attributes of Jesus are NOT of Jewish origin?
This is the reason the Jews never accepted Jesus was Messiah.
They're Greek attributes, the Jews did not and NEVER have believed their Messiah will be divine, nor have they ever believed a human sacrifice was necessary. In fact, there are supposed to be two Messiahs at the same time, ushering in world peace on their FIRST arrival, according to Jewish customs I have heard.
The Jews also have NEVER believed in eternal damnation. That also evolved with the Jesus myth, and has nothing to do with Judaism.
Their law explicitly says the sacrifices must be made AT THE ALTAR, not on a Roman cross.
These are some of the reasons that the notions that Jesus came for Israel, and was their sacrifice, etc are absurd.

Vorkosigan

Please give us another example in all of history which includes so many people writing so many different accounts and letters (many from jail) in such a short time.


You don't listen well, do you? The only "made up" part are the Gospels and Acts which are romantic fictions, although they include history in oblique ways. The letters of Paul are more or less authentic in my view, at least the 7 widely accepted ones. Also in that include Hebrews, Jude, James, 1 Clement and the Didache, all in the period 60-100. There are no references in them to the Jesus legend of the later era, so no "explanation" is necessary. The Jesus legend is a late developing story, that starts to appear around the 90s of the first century.

Now that I've discussed the point, can we have the methodology I've been asking about?

Vorkosigan

Radorth

Ah no, you need to provide a like example from history, with so many people and documents involved, including sayings and details meant to please no one but a just and holy God.

When you admit you can't find one, you will understand why the Jewish Klausner calls Mark "genuine history."

Try his "methodology."

Radorth

Radorth

Really? The crucifixion is a foregone conclusion in Hebrews. Either that or Paul is a complete nutball. As Bede said, they make no sense at all without the Gospels. And even if you can prove the Gospels were written later, you have not come close to proving there was no story circulating, written or verbal.

Radorth

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Vampyroteuthis

I just went to <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/index.html</a> and I must say this is the funniest thing I have read in ages!! Does anyone know the people/person who runs this site? They must be great fun to know! Thanks for the reference! I wish I could get my holy roller mom to visit here!

Aimee

Vorkosigan

Ah no, you need to provide a like example from history, with so many people and documents involved, including sayings and details meant to please no one but a just and holy God.

Really? Do you know of any two historical events that are exact parallels with each other? It seems -- what a shock! -- your understanding of history is insufficient. I don't need an exact parallel. All one needs is an understanding that the claims apologists make about historicity are not supported by examples from other cultures.

In any case I gave a number of examples, from Robin Hood to Faust to Jon Frum, where individuals appear not to have existed, or where the stories bear little or no relationship to the individual they purport to discuss. Those examples, and hundreds of others, testify to the way humans behave when they construct stories that create and reflect on their social identities.

When you admit you can't find one, you will understand why the Jewish Klausner calls Mark "genuine history."


Try his "methodology."

What methodology? In any case, Klausner wrote from the 1920s to the 1940s. Is the best you can do a scholar more than half a century out of date?


Give us some methodology, please.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Really? The crucifixion is a foregone conclusion in Hebrews.

If only you could read, Radorth. Then you'd learn that nobody disputes that a legend about a crucified savior arose in the community. Indeed, that is the eventual source of Markan invention. Hebrews nowhere mentions any details from the gospel stories, and discusses Jesus as High Priest, relating him to the then ongoing Temple sacrifices (a theme also found in 1 Clement).

The issue is, once again, whether the gospel stories reflect reality. No parts of the gospel stories are known in any of these letters. Indeed, Hebrews remarks in 8:4 that Jesus was never on earth.....

Either that or Paul is a complete nutball.

Or -- gasp! -- there's another alternative, and your lack of knowledge of it is -- well, actually, it's not that surprising. It would be well to actually understand the mythicist case before you argued against it.

As Bede said, they make no sense at all without the Gospels.

Horseshit. How did Paul gain converts if he never knew nor communicated the gospel legend? Clearly his letters make sense without the gospel legends, or else nobody would have converted! They don't make the same sense that later theology back-projected onto them. Plenty of people converted to Christianity without ever hearing the gospel stories, since they appeared long after Paul. Further, second century apologists complain about Christians not preaching the NT legends, so clearly people were gaining converts without this story.

And even if you can prove the Gospels were written later, you have not come close to proving there was no story circulating, written or verbal.

Don't need to. The existence of the all-things-to-all-scholars oral tradition is unattested to until the second century (and even that is only in a fourth century reference, and its content is unknown). The burden of proof is on those who claim that the gospel legend existed prior to Mark.

In any case, as the 1st century writings show, there was a story circulating -- the loose story savior crucified spiritually allegorically found in the OT by Paul and other Christians -- but it had none of the "history" we know from the later fictions of MMLJ.

Vorkosigan

Radorth

Not sure you can read either. You missed these apparently:

"when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down art the right hand of the majesty on high..."

"...which att he first egan to be spoken by the lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him."

I thought Paul heard him first. Too bad about that verse.

"In as much as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He himself likewise shared in the same..."

"Therefore in all things he had to be made like his brethren..."

" but was in all ways tempted as we are."

How is that possible floating around in heaven all his life, or through one of Paul's dreams?

"who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications..."

Let's do the other 7 chapters tomorrow, shall we?

But already we can see it makes NO SENSE without a fleshly Jesus. Either that or the writer of Hebrews was a total nutball.

Interesting methodology you have. Torture the scripture until it says what you want it to? You're making the Christians look downright rational there bub.

Radorth

Vorkosigan

Not sure you can read either. You missed these apparently:

"when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down art the right hand of the majesty on high..."

"...which att he first egan to be spoken by the lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him."

Please explain how either of these contains any details found in the later gospels. Please show how these are incompatible with the thesis that the emerging Jesus was a spiritual savior deity.

There is no historical Jesus in either passage. As Bede has admonished us, we must use the plain reading of the text. And the plain reading contains no historical references, just references to Jesus' activities on the non-material plane.

"In as much as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He himself likewise shared in the same..."

Reference to what? A historical crucifixion? I don't see it.

"Therefore in all things he had to be made like his brethren..."

" but was in all ways tempted as we are."

Heb 4:15 Still don't see a historical Jesus here.

How is that possible floating around in heaven all his life, or through one of Paul's dreams?

"who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications..."


Again, please show any gospel details in Hebrews.

Let's do the other 7 chapters tomorrow, shall we?

Bring'em on. Gospel details? So far Haven't seen any.

But already we can see it makes NO SENSE without a fleshly Jesus. Either that or the writer of Hebrews was a total nutball.

How about the writer of Hebrews was writing about a drama that took place in spirit. That solves both problems.

Interesting methodology you have. Torture the scripture until it says what you want it to? You're making the Christians look downright rational there bub.

Yes, certainly, 8:4

"If he had been on earth....."

Obviously the writer of Hebrews thought Jesus had never been on Earth.

LOL

Vorkosigan