Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-10-2014, 08:56 PM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2014 09:05 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 12:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 07:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What original text didn't have Jesus as being from Nazareth of Galilee, but just as Nazarene?

All stories about Jesus that didn't fit with the highly manufactured nonsense in the 4 gospels were destroyed by the catholic church, who then promoted the idea that Jesus was "of Nazareth" to counter the truth...that "he" was a Nazarene.

So a writer like that of Mark, used a text earlier which referred to Jesus as a Nazarene, and he mistakingly interpreted this to mean he was from Nazareth? And the reason we're suppose to believe this earlier text existed, is because the catholic church burned all sorts of texts, so there must have been a text prior to the gospel just like this, which they must have burned?

Quote:Much later, Eusebius considered the Nazarenes heretics because
“they regarded [Jesus] as plain and ordinary, a man esteemed as righteous through growth of character and nothing more, the child of a normal union between a man and Mary; and they held that they must observe every detail of the Law—that by faith in Christ alone they would never win Salvation” (Ecclesiastical History 3.7.) I think Irenaeus and Eusebius depicted the Nazarenes correctly in these quotes.

So you're claiming that the Gospels derived their Jesus from Nazarene sources, and this Jesus was a plain and ordinary man, esteemed as righteous, someone of normal birth, like your everyday historical person? Did he have a typical death, or was he also crucified? Did they also believe he was the messiah? Did the Nazarene Jesus exist, or was he just a fictional character in their literature?

This is quite a contrast to the other posters here, trying to persuade us into believing that the Jesus the Gospels were based on was an earlier belief in a spirit being Jesus, who lived in some temple in heaven, and had no ordinary human like qualities at all. And the texts for this Jesus, was also burned by the catholics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 09:16 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 10:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am pointing out why that is not in the least a compelling argument.

A compelling argument for what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 09:32 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 09:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Thank you for, once again, showing you haven't looked at anything either Bucky or myself have shown you.


So here it is for posterity once more...


Euhemerism

You accused the Gospel writers of :"Writing fiction, and attempting to pass it off as non-fiction." If JK Rowling was attempting to pass of her work of fiction, as non-fiction, this wouldn't be Euhemerism. Euhemerism would be if her readers interpreted her fictional works to be non-fictional. Do you understand this difference?

So what is it, are you going to back track from accusing the Gospel writers of being disingenuous, by attempting to pass off fiction as non-fiction?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 09:33 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 09:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 10:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am pointing out why that is not in the least a compelling argument.

A compelling argument for what?

For anything, let alone the existence of Nazareth.

If all you do is copy the work of someone else, your work is not a separate independent source, it's just a copy of another source. So if Luke and Matthew mostly copied Mark verbatim, they aren't separate sources, they are copies of Mark. So saying that "Actually all four of the Gospels just like Mathew refer to Nazareth as a place" is next to useless.

Do try to keep up...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 09:38 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 08:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So a writer like that of Mark, used a text earlier which referred to Jesus as a Nazarene, and he mistakingly*1 interpreted this to mean he was from Nazareth? And the reason we're suppose*2 to believe this earlier text existed, is because the catholic church burned all sorts of texts, so there must have been a text prior to the gospel just like this, which they must have burned?

1. mistakenly
2. supposed

http://www.richardcarrier.info/Historicity_of_Jesus.pdf
Philo's Jesus was a celestial being who died between the Earth and the sun.

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
27-10-2014, 09:42 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 09:33 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  For anything, let alone the existence of Nazareth.

Do try to keep up...

I mentioned the other four Gospels, because the comment I was addressing suggested it was just Matthew that treated Nazareth and Jesus's hometown. I was merely correcting this.

The poster I was responding to, Mark, seemed to have understood this much at least, hence why he alluded to there being some pre-gospel text which they used, which mentioned Jesus being a Nazarene, but not from Galilee.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 09:44 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 09:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 08:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So a writer like that of Mark, used a text earlier which referred to Jesus as a Nazarene, and he mistakingly*1 interpreted this to mean he was from Nazareth? And the reason we're suppose*2 to believe this earlier text existed, is because the catholic church burned all sorts of texts, so there must have been a text prior to the gospel just like this, which they must have burned?

1. mistakenly
2. supposed

http://www.richardcarrier.info/Historicity_of_Jesus.pdf
Philo's Jesus was a celestial being who died between the Earth and the sun.

Thank you, it's always nice to have a Harvard student going around correcting your spelling mistikes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 09:46 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 09:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 09:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Thank you for, once again, showing you haven't looked at anything either Bucky or myself have shown you.


So here it is for posterity once more...


Euhemerism

You accused the Gospel writers of :"Writing fiction, and attempting to pass it off as non-fiction." If JK Rowling was attempting to pass of her work of fiction, as non-fiction, this wouldn't be Euhemerism. Euhemerism would be if her readers interpreted her fictional works to be non-fictional. Do you understand this difference?

So what is it, are you going to back track from accusing the Gospel writers of being disingenuous, by attempting to pass off fiction as non-fiction?

The Gospel writers, once again, didn't have a concept of objective history as we know it. What the author of Mark appears to be doing was indulging in euhermization, creating a fictitious story of a celestial being on earth; in this case the High Priest of God's Temple in Heaven, Jesus. Much like the stories of other divine sons-of-god placed on earth and into human history; like Romulus, Osiris, Bacchus, and Zalmoxis. The point of the story wasn't 'here is a history of events that really happened to a real Jesus', but rather 'these are parables and allegories that represent what our cult believes'. To the outsiders, they read like non-fiction. However to cult disciples, who have the 'truth' explained to them, they could see it for the allegory it was. That is the 'mystery' inherent in the mystery cults, you have one story for outsiders with a hidden meaning there for true believers. But if others start taking that original euhermization at face value, as real history, and go about teaching it as such? Then you have Christianity and Jesus, the one lone historical exception, the one and only divine son-of-god who actually existed. When compared to the wealth of other mystery cults who all shared such similar traits, and all of who evidently didn't exist either, what makes Jesus the exception here? What evidence do you have to justify making Jesus the exception?

I keep directly asking this question, and you keep conveniently ignoring it. So either put up, or shut the fuck up.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-10-2014, 09:52 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 09:42 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 09:33 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  For anything, let alone the existence of Nazareth.

Do try to keep up...

I mentioned the other four Gospels, because the comment I was addressing suggested it was just Matthew that treated Nazareth and Jesus's hometown. I was merely correcting this.

The poster I was responding to, Mark, seemed to have understood this much at least, hence why he alluded to there being some pre-gospel text which they used, which mentioned Jesus being a Nazarene, but not from Galilee.

You forgot most of the post there skippy.

(27-10-2014 09:33 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If all you do is copy the work of someone else, your work is not a separate independent source, it's just a copy of another source. So if Luke and Matthew mostly copied Mark verbatim, they aren't separate sources, they are copies of Mark. So saying that "Actually all four of the Gospels just like Mathew refer to Nazareth as a place" is next to useless.

I am really sick and fucking tired of your editing and cutting out the content of people's posts you quote... Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 09:55 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 12:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Today’s Nazareth was probably only first named as such in the third or fourth century, and there is little good archaeological evidence the place was a town before that

The earliest archeological evidence, is a marble fragment from a jewish synagogue from 300 A.D and "chronicles the assignment of priests that took place at some time after the Bar Kokhba revolt, AD 132-35".

And this is a point Carrier makes: "The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from). "

But I'm sure someone can provide a creative conspiracy theory to interpret this away as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: