Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2016, 04:48 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(12-08-2016 08:33 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:There's little point telling you that this is not my position, because it didn't register the last 5 times I've told you. I'll just clarify for new readers that I do think there probably was an historical Yeshua. I've written a whole chapter in my book based on that assumption, yet I admit, I may be wrong.

Then how can you respond to my position on Jesus- whom you claim never existed- as if my position was directed towards your version of "Yeshua?"

You are seriously equivocating, demonstrating obvious confusion.

Quote:Right. So we are supposed to believe the gospels may have been already written because Paul doesn't say they weren't written yet? Now I've heard it all. Why da fuck would Paul claim that something wasn't written yet if ...um....it hadn't been written yet?

If you would stop quoting out of context in atypical mythicist fashion you would have demonstrated the intellectual honesty and integrity to also quote the rest of my position which says:

Quote:This is good evidence that demonstrates that information regarding Jesus was in fact written down during Paul's time. Whether this was a gospel or not is unclear.

ORIGINAL QUOTE HERE.

But of course that is far too much to expect from a denialist such as yourself.

Quote:amateurish interpolations.

Who, what, where, when, and why.

You cannot produce the standard of evidence required to qualify your assertion of interpolation. In fact, you cannot even answer one of the 5 Ws.

Therefore, you have no case, and are subsequently dismissed.

Quote:5. He was born of the seed of David, as Paul says.

Paul also claimed Christ was the son of God.

So jeebus had 2 dads?

Which one do you think did the.... um...you know...got Mary in the family way?

Completely irrelevant to the point, leaving my point not contested.

Dismissed also.

Then how can you respond to my position on Jesus- whom you claim never existed-

6x
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 05:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Paul's spiel on the last supper is either an interpolation or a total fabrication on Paul's part. Here is why.

Paul had almost nothing to say about Jesus the person. There is, however, one notable exception, (although it may be an interpolation, and Richard Carrier agrees) when in the first letter to the Corinthians, the author claimed he knew what Jesus said on the night he was betrayed. Paul had just finished lecturing women on what they should wear and what to do with their hair, when he turned to instructing the community on when to eat and drink. He used a story about Jesus at the Last Supper, and even claimed to quote him, in an attempt to get the Corinthians to eat their meals together.

“For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn passed on to you: that on the same night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it and broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.’ In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’ Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death, and so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died. If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world. So to sum up, my dear brothers, when you meet for the Meal, wait for one another” (1 Cor. 11:23–34, NJB.)

If Paul actually wrote this, he was attempting to change some of the social habits of the community, perhaps to foster unity between different classes of people who finished work at different times, and invented a weak story about the Lord to do it. What’s surprising is that he acknowledged that a flesh-and-blood person ate and drank with others; nowhere else do any of the genuine Pauline letters discuss what Jesus supposedly said, which is why I suspect this passage was an interpolation.

There are three compelling reasons why this story isn’t historical.

No sane person would predict his own impending death as part of a covenant with his god/dad. Yeshua would have had no intention of dying, and most definitely not as a sacrifice to save sinners.

Jesus was Jewish, as were his disciples, and they obeyed the Torah. To them, eating human flesh or drinking blood, even in a symbolic sense, would have broken the strict kosher dietary rules. Even today Jews still insist on draining blood from slaughtered animals, as written in scriptures, (Lev. 7:26–27, 17:10–14) and will only eat the meat from animals that chew cud and have cloven hooves (Lev. 11:3, Deut. 14:6.) Yeshua and his followers would’ve been repulsed by the thought of anyone drinking his blood or eating his body.

This Last Supper scene wasn’t something new. It was probably borrowed from Mithraism, a religion that had existed for two thousand years before Jesus, and with which Paul was familiar. Mithraic initiates believed that by eating a bull’s flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again. (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/rcc14-transubstantiation.htm). This was supposed to give physical strength, and bring salvation to the soul. Yeshua wouldn’t have copied these concepts from a competing cult. Paul, or one of his interpolators, made this up to mimic a popular pagan practice.

The synoptic Gospels have similar verses, and their inspiration was probably Paul’s letter.

The reenactment of this scenario is part of some modern Masses in which bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, yet it has no truthful basis.

Christianity blends guilt, dependence and ceremony. The ritual that Paul discusses here brings people together to do something. Communion commemorates the sacrifice of a man dying because you’re a sinner. By participating in the event, people are repeatedly reminded they’re flawed and need Christ and the church to be redeemed. That promotes power; and priests know it.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTTwSJK_XMI).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
12-08-2016, 05:09 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(12-08-2016 04:48 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Then how can you respond to my position on Jesus- whom you claim never existed-

6x

"Then how can you respond to my position on Jesus- whom you claim never existed- as if my position was directed towards your version of 'Yeshua'"?

Fixed it for you.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 05:20 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(12-08-2016 05:09 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 04:48 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Then how can you respond to my position on Jesus- whom you claim never existed-

6x

"Then how can you respond to my position on Jesus- whom you claim never existed- as if my position was directed towards your version of 'Yeshua'"?

Fixed it for you.

Drinking Beverage

???????

7x

ie this is at least the 7th time I've told you I think a Jesus existed. Are you going to insist on telling me what I think?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 05:25 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(12-08-2016 05:20 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 05:09 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  "Then how can you respond to my position on Jesus- whom you claim never existed- as if my position was directed towards your version of 'Yeshua'"?

Fixed it for you.

Drinking Beverage

???????

7x

ie this is at least the 7th time I've told you I think a Jesus existed. Are you going to insist on telling me what I think?

I'm sure it will continue to increase until you stop avoiding the question and actually answer it.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 05:33 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(12-08-2016 05:25 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 05:20 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  ???????

7x

ie this is at least the 7th time I've told you I think a Jesus existed. Are you going to insist on telling me what I think?

I'm sure it will continue to increase until you stop avoiding the question and actually answer it.

Drinking Beverage

If you can ask a sensible question using good English grammar I will respond.

I hold little hope that you will read my answer and address the content, however, as you only seem capable of being abusive. I will answer for those genuinely interested in the history.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 07:00 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(12-08-2016 08:33 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:There's little point telling you that this is not my position, because it didn't register the last 5 times I've told you. I'll just clarify for new readers that I do think there probably was an historical Yeshua. I've written a whole chapter in my book based on that assumption, yet I admit, I may be wrong.

Then how can you respond to my position on Jesus- whom you claim never existed- as if my position was directed towards your version of "Yeshua?"

You are seriously equivocating, demonstrating obvious confusion.

Quote:Right. So we are supposed to believe the gospels may have been already written because Paul doesn't say they weren't written yet? Now I've heard it all. Why da fuck would Paul claim that something wasn't written yet if ...um....it hadn't been written yet?

If you would stop quoting out of context in atypical mythicist fashion you would have demonstrated the intellectual honesty and integrity to also quote the rest of my position which says:

Quote:This is good evidence that demonstrates that information regarding Jesus was in fact written down during Paul's time. Whether this was a gospel or not is unclear.

ORIGINAL QUOTE HERE.

But of course that is far too much to expect from a denialist such as yourself.

Quote:amateurish interpolations.

Who, what, where, when, and why.

You cannot produce the standard of evidence required to qualify your assertion of interpolation. In fact, you cannot even answer one of the 5 Ws.

Therefore, you have no case, and are subsequently dismissed.

Quote:5. He was born of the seed of David, as Paul says.

Paul also claimed Christ was the son of God.

So jeebus had 2 dads?

Which one do you think did the.... um...you know...got Mary in the family way?

Completely irrelevant to the point, leaving my point not contested.

Dismissed also.


"If you would stop quoting out of context in atypical mythicist fashion"


Ah haDrinking Beverage So now I am an "atypical mythicist," whatever that is. Have you any idea how uninteresting trying to work out what you may think that is may be for our readers? As I am not a mythicist, and everyone here knows it, aren't you just making yourself sound like a pig-headed moron?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
12-08-2016, 06:02 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 06:16 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(12-08-2016 05:33 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 05:25 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I'm sure it will continue to increase until you stop avoiding the question and actually answer it.

Drinking Beverage

If you can ask a sensible question using good English grammar I will respond.

I hold little hope that you will read my answer and address the content, however, as you only seem capable of being abusive. I will answer for those genuinely interested in the history.

The question is quite sensible, Mark, and there's nothing wrong with my grammar either.

Your position on Paul's concept of Jesus is that he made it all up in his head. Therefore, when you say that there may have been a Yeshua, you cannot be referring to Paul's concept at all. Hence, you can only be referring to what your concept of Yeshua is.

Therefore, you said the following:

"Still waiting for your evidence that Christianity began with Jesus, and that Peter thought Jesus had risen from the dead."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1045018

I then replied with:

"Still waiting for you to get a clue and read the NT, which at one time were all completely separate documents, each attesting via a cohesive chain of evidence to Jesus being the origin of the Christian faith."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1045093

To which you responded with:

"None of the original contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, they were Jews."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1045571

Since I am obviously speaking of the Jesus of the NT- since I explicitly stated it - which includes Paul's concept, I replied to your statement with this:

"I don't get you. You keep saying that none of the contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, yet assert his contemporaries were Jews.

But your position is that Jesus never existed, so how could he have Jewish contemporaries if he never existed?
"

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1045583

To which I am still awaiting an answer.

Basically, since I was speaking of the Jesus of the Gospel records and Paul's concept, you replied to that concept of Jesus with, ""None of the original contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, they were Jews."

So again ...

"How can you respond to my position on Jesus- whom you claim never existed- as if my position was directed towards your version of 'Yeshua'"?

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 06:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 09:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 06:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There was no "the Christian faith". It developed in many places, in many forms, with all sorts of various (what to us would be) strange attributes, (witness the gospels found at Nag Hamadi).

The Christian title actually began before Paul rose to prominence. In fact, you will not even find Paul refer to himself or anyone else as "Christian." The word is never used in his letters. The reason is because Paul himself was Jew. He did not invent the word, nor did he actually identify with it.

The title of Christian was the evolution of faith in Christ as it traversed from Jew to Gentile. In the beginning, it was a title applied to Gentile followers of Christ, and not to Jewish followers of Christ.

Jewish followers of Christ included the Nazarene, but also included members of the Pharisee and other common Jews. It was James who headed up this sect of "Messianic Jews" during the first century. Although despised by the Sanhedrin/Sadducee, this group was tolerated (barely) in Jerusalem, and were permitted access to the temple.

Now, Paul was actually torn between those "Messianic Jews" that James headed up, and the Gentile Christian movement that was gaining ground throughout the Roman empire. In his letters you can see his strife and anger coming through due to this conflict. Paul was a Jew, but since he evangelized to the Gentiles and Jews in the early part of his evangelism- and kept getting rejected by the Jews, including James in Jerusalem- he went almost exclusively in Gentile mode. This was his way of saying, "Fuck you, James."

However, Paul would not fully identify himself with "Christian," nor would he fully identify himself with the Messianic Jews. This is exactly why you see what he wrote in 1 Cor 9:20 - 9:22. He tried to remain neutral because he was having issues letting go of his Jewish roots.

So my point here is that perhaps Paul was not actually Christian as is supposed, nor was he fully subscribing to the Messianic Jews run by James either. He associated with both, but he danced to his own tune, walking between the raindrops in an effort to not tread hard upon the toes of either the Jews or the Gentiles.

But eventually the dominant Christian sect won out over the Messianic Jews, and the doctrines of Paul were absorbed into the Christian religion along with the Gospel records and other literature. Paul's doctrine jibed well- not perfectly- with the Gospel records treasured by the Christians, but Paul himself would be considered an apostate by both the common Jews and the Messianic Jews of the 1st century, and therefore ostracized from Jewish literature.

And those are my thoughts on Paul.

Great. Assertions without any evidence. No one cares. All we care about is evidence.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 06:08 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(12-08-2016 06:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 09:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The Christian title actually began before Paul rose to prominence. In fact, you will not even find Paul refer to himself or anyone else as "Christian." The word is never used in his letters. The reason is because Paul himself was Jew. He did not invent the word, nor did he actually identify with it.

The title of Christian was the evolution of faith in Christ as it traversed from Jew to Gentile. In the beginning, it was a title applied to Gentile followers of Christ, and not to Jewish followers of Christ.

Jewish followers of Christ included the Nazarene, but also included members of the Pharisee and other common Jews. It was James who headed up this sect of "Messianic Jews" during the first century. Although despised by the Sanhedrin/Sadducee, this group was tolerated (barely) in Jerusalem, and were permitted access to the temple.

Now, Paul was actually torn between those "Messianic Jews" that James headed up, and the Gentile Christian movement that was gaining ground throughout the Roman empire. In his letters you can see his strife and anger coming through due to this conflict. Paul was a Jew, but since he evangelized to the Gentiles and Jews in the early part of his evangelism- and kept getting rejected by the Jews, including James in Jerusalem- he went almost exclusively in Gentile mode. This was his way of saying, "Fuck you, James."

However, Paul would not fully identify himself with "Christian," nor would he fully identify himself with the Messianic Jews. This is exactly why you see what he wrote in 1 Cor 9:20 - 9:22. He tried to remain neutral because he was having issues letting go of his Jewish roots.

So my point here is that perhaps Paul was not actually Christian as is supposed, nor was he fully subscribing to the Messianic Jews run by James either. He associated with both, but he danced to his own tune, walking between the raindrops in an effort to not tread hard upon the toes of either the Jews or the Gentiles.

But eventually the dominant Christian sect won out over the Messianic Jews, and the doctrines of Paul were absorbed into the Christian religion along with the Gospel records and other literature. Paul's doctrine jibed well- not perfectly- with the Gospel records treasured by the Christians, but Paul himself would be considered an apostate by both the common Jews and the Messianic Jews of the 1st century, and therefore ostracized from Jewish literature.

And those are my thoughts on Paul.

Great. Assertions without any evidence. No one cares. All we care about is evidence.

I expected you to assert that. And yes, there is evidence.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: