Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-10-2014, 10:00 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 08:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 12:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

RE
"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?"

No. One of the many authors/editors of Mark made up the "Nazareth" bit of the story to hide the fact that Nazarenism was a Jewish sect. It meant their version of Jesus "the Nazarene" could be explained without associating the character with a militant messianic sect.

RE "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?"
YES.

RE "Did he have a typical death," Huh?
"or was he also crucified?" YES
"Did they also believe he was the messiah?" YES
"Did the Nazarene Jesus exist" My opinion is...probably yes... But I accept it is quite possible the entire story is mythical. In one sense it's a moot point, as there is no way that Jesus described in the gospels is an accurate description of any historical person

RE "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."

Well I suggest you put your thinking cap on. The Jesus of the Gospels is partly based on the ramblings of Paul. Paul believed in a Christ, who was a spirit, a ghost. I think he had no knowledge of, or no interest in, an historical Jesus. The texts for this "Jesus" i.e. Paul's Christ, haven't been destroyed by Catholics, they're in the Bible, in the writings of St Paul.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 10:08 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 09:52 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You forgot most of the post there skippy.

No, I didn't forgot it, I just didn't bother responding to a comment arguing a point I never made. But I'll go ahead and explain this to you:

Quote:"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."

Now, go back to where I said all four Gospels mention Nazareth as Jesus's hometown. Did I at any point state they were independent sources, or even independent of each other? No. You accused me of claiming they were independent sources, when I in fact didn't claim this, nor do i believe this.

I typically just ignore your remarks when you do this, because it's more or less a tedious tangent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 10:27 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Actually all four of the Gospels just like Mathew refer to Nazareth as a place:

“When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read,” Luke 4:16

"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.” Mark 1:9

"Nathanael said to him, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ John 1:46.

So either all these writers meant that he was from Nazareth, when referring to Jesus, as Jesus of Nazareth, or that Jesus was oddly a Nazarene from Nazareth of Galilee.

But either way, clearly it wasn't just Matthew who spoke of Nazareth as an actual place, where Jesus was from.

Dementia setting in ? Tongue

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, 10:54 PM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2014 11:20 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 10:00 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  No. One of the many authors/editors of Mark made up the "Nazareth" bit of the story to hide the fact that Nazarenism was a Jewish sect. It meant their version of Jesus "the Nazarene" could be explained without associating the character with a militant messianic sect.

Why wouldn't the author/s of Mark, if he/they had issues with the Nazarene aspect of Jesus, just avoid making any connotations of this, rather than concessions? Why not tell the story without him being from Nazareth at all, if the only point of saying he was from Nazareth is to conceal that he was Nazarene?

The conclusion you seem to be drawing, suggests that the writer/s needed to be somewhat faithful to the Nazarene account of Jesus, hence why they couldn't just expunge it completely in their telling of the story?

Quote:Well I suggest you put your thinking cap on. The Jesus of the Gospels is partly based on the ramblings of Paul. Paul believed in a Christ, who was a spirit, a ghost. I think he had no knowledge of, or no interest in, an historical Jesus. The texts for this "Jesus" i.e. Paul's Christ, haven't been destroyed by Catholics, they're in the Bible, in the writings of St Paul.

This isn't a question of putting my thinking cap on. When you run into someone who seems to hold a view on the outskirts of the common views of historians, NT scholars, you'll find that they tend to believe all sorts of things. And I didn't want to accuse you of holding a view, which I don't recall you stating earlier.

So here you are bringing in something new, at least for you that is, suggesting that Paul believed in a Christ who was a spirit or a ghost. And no, he didn't. You're just an atrociously poor reader of the Epistles, and lack the imagination to understand what sort of questions followers of a Messiah-claimant have to deal with in his aftermath.

Paul believed in a historical Jesus, who he believed was the Christ, and devotes much of his time to developing a Christology, something Christian theologians have been doing for some time, from Moltmann, Bonhoeffer, Barth, etc... They like Paul are attempting to answer a question that is of serious importance to the community of believers, but not so for non-believers.

But I'm just going to play along. So let's try and guess what your view here is. The Gospel Jesus is basically a combination of this Nazarene Jesus, and the spirit-being Christ of Paul. Am I right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 11:02 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 10:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Actually all four of the Gospels just like Mathew refer to Nazareth as a place:

“When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read,” Luke 4:16

"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.” Mark 1:9

"Nathanael said to him, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ John 1:46.

So either all these writers meant that he was from Nazareth, when referring to Jesus, as Jesus of Nazareth, or that Jesus was oddly a Nazarene from Nazareth of Galilee.

But either way, clearly it wasn't just Matthew who spoke of Nazareth as an actual place, where Jesus was from.

Dementia setting in ? Tongue

No.

But if you were trying to make a point, I would like to hear it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 11:24 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 09:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

Much as I like and respect Richard Carrier, he sounds a little tenuous on this one. I haven't found any other scholars who mention it. Please note that Carrier is talking about after the first Jewish War of 66 to 70. Jeebus, if he ever existed, was killed well before this time.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 11:52 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 11:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Much as I like and respect Richard Carrier, he sounds a little tenuous on this one. I haven't found any other scholars who mention it.

Mention what? The inscription in the synagogues of Caesarea Maritima? If so, than you should perhaps look a little harder.


Quote:Please note that Carrier is talking about after the first Jewish War of 66 to 70. Jeebus, if he ever existed, was killed well before this time.

And...?

What are you trying to argue now? Are you just going to change your time frame, and claim that it was likely named in the late first century after Jesus died, because that's when we can date the earliest mention of it?

To close with Carrier: " I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 11:56 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Earl Doherty makes the point that there is only one jesus story - what later came to be called gMark in the late second century. The others were all expansions of it.

Early versions of fan fics.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 01:11 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014 02:21 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 10:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 10:00 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  No. One of the many authors/editors of Mark made up the "Nazareth" bit of the story to hide the fact that Nazarenism was a Jewish sect. It meant their version of Jesus "the Nazarene" could be explained without associating the character with a militant messianic sect.

Why wouldn't the author/s of Mark, if he/they had issues with the Nazarene aspect of Jesus, just avoid making any connotations of this, rather than concessions? Why not tell the story without him being from Nazareth at all, if the only point of saying he was from Nazareth is to conceal that he was Nazarene?

The conclusion you seem to be drawing, suggests that the writer/s needed to be somewhat faithful to the Nazarene account of Jesus, hence why they couldn't just expunge it completely in their telling of the story?

Quote:Well I suggest you put your thinking cap on. The Jesus of the Gospels is partly based on the ramblings of Paul. Paul believed in a Christ, who was a spirit, a ghost. I think he had no knowledge of, or no interest in, an historical Jesus. The texts for this "Jesus" i.e. Paul's Christ, haven't been destroyed by Catholics, they're in the Bible, in the writings of St Paul.

This isn't a question of putting my thinking cap on. When you run into someone who seems to hold a view on the outskirts of the common views of historians, NT scholars, you'll find that they tend to believe all sorts of things. And I didn't want to accuse you of holding a view, which I don't recall you stating earlier.

So here you are bringing in something new, at least for you that is, suggesting that Paul believed in a Christ who was a spirit or a ghost. And no, he didn't. You're just an atrociously poor reader of the Epistles, and lack the imagination to understand what sort of questions followers of a Messiah-claimant have to deal with in his aftermath.

Paul believed in a historical Jesus, who he believed was the Christ, and devotes much of his time to developing a Christology, something Christian theologians have been doing for some time, from Moltmann, Bonhoeffer, Barth, etc... They like Paul are attempting to answer a question that is of serious importance to the community of believers, but not so for non-believers.

But I'm just going to play along. So let's try and guess what your view here is. The Gospel Jesus is basically a combination of this Nazarene Jesus, and the spirit-being Christ of Paul. Am I right?

RE "Why wouldn't the author/s of Mark, if he/they had issues with the Nazarene aspect of Jesus, just avoid making any connotations of this, rather than concessions? Why not tell the story without him being from Nazareth at all, if the only point of saying he was from Nazareth is to conceal that he was Nazarene?"

The Nazarenes were still a powerful force in the late first century. Memories of Jesus the Nazarene were (probably) still strong and had to be undermined. The similarities between the name Nazarene and the place Nazareth cannot be explained by sheer coincidence. Even as I've already mentioned, the Bible, in the book of Acts, talks about the Nazarene sect who "stirred up trouble amongst the Jews the world over" A powerful Jewish sect that caused such a disruption to the pax Romana would not be named after an obscure Galilean village.

I know there's a lot of new concepts here for you to digest. Here is another one. The gospels were originally written to undermine the messianic aspirations of Jews. The Romans didn't want another war. If you can understand that you will understand why Jesus was said to be "of Nazareth."

He's another one. Paul's propaganda was the government's pre-war effort to undermine the Jews... it never worked as there was a massive war in 66 to 70. That was why Paul just disappeared from the scene without explanation in the mid-60s. He had become redundant… the military had to be bought in.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 01:19 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014 01:44 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 10:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 10:00 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  No. One of the many authors/editors of Mark made up the "Nazareth" bit of the story to hide the fact that Nazarenism was a Jewish sect. It meant their version of Jesus "the Nazarene" could be explained without associating the character with a militant messianic sect.

Why wouldn't the author/s of Mark, if he/they had issues with the Nazarene aspect of Jesus, just avoid making any connotations of this, rather than concessions? Why not tell the story without him being from Nazareth at all, if the only point of saying he was from Nazareth is to conceal that he was Nazarene?

The conclusion you seem to be drawing, suggests that the writer/s needed to be somewhat faithful to the Nazarene account of Jesus, hence why they couldn't just expunge it completely in their telling of the story?

Quote:Well I suggest you put your thinking cap on. The Jesus of the Gospels is partly based on the ramblings of Paul. Paul believed in a Christ, who was a spirit, a ghost. I think he had no knowledge of, or no interest in, an historical Jesus. The texts for this "Jesus" i.e. Paul's Christ, haven't been destroyed by Catholics, they're in the Bible, in the writings of St Paul.

This isn't a question of putting my thinking cap on. When you run into someone who seems to hold a view on the outskirts of the common views of historians, NT scholars, you'll find that they tend to believe all sorts of things. And I didn't want to accuse you of holding a view, which I don't recall you stating earlier.

So here you are bringing in something new, at least for you that is, suggesting that Paul believed in a Christ who was a spirit or a ghost. And no, he didn't. You're just an atrociously poor reader of the Epistles, and lack the imagination to understand what sort of questions followers of a Messiah-claimant have to deal with in his aftermath.

Paul believed in a historical Jesus, who he believed was the Christ, and devotes much of his time to developing a Christology, something Christian theologians have been doing for some time, from Moltmann, Bonhoeffer, Barth, etc... They like Paul are attempting to answer a question that is of serious importance to the community of believers, but not so for non-believers.

But I'm just going to play along. So let's try and guess what your view here is. The Gospel Jesus is basically a combination of this Nazarene Jesus, and the spirit-being Christ of Paul. Am I right?

RE "So here you are bringing in something new, at least for you that is, suggesting that Paul believed in a Christ who was a spirit or a ghost. And no, he didn't."

OH YES HE DID.

Paul Knew Almost Nothing of Jesus
Most Christians incorrectly assume Paul was restating Jesus’ teachings. Yet Paul never claimed he was inspired or influenced by Jesus or Jesus’ disciples. Paul held his messages came from God and were about his Christ. They were not from Jesus.

Paul’s Christ was clearly someone different from the wise teacher full of parables and anecdotes we think we know from the Gospels. Amazingly, in the twenty-first century, we know more about “Jesus” than Paul did!

Paul wrote,
“Even if we did once know Christ in the flesh, that is not how we know him now” (2 Cor. 5:16, NJB.) What an extraordinary statement! It only begins to make sense if we realize that Paul was only interested in the idea of a resurrected spirit, his Christ figurehead. A “once human” Jesus, someone with a personality and ideas, was never a topic Paul was comfortable discussing.

Someone passing himself off as Paul wrote that “Christ” was a mystery, one that he had a particularly good understanding of:
“Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4, KJV,) and
“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds” (Col. 4:3, KJV.)

Paul didn’t give a fig tree about the details of Jesus’ life, family, miracles or his teachings. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...not-much/, http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm). The only thing that mattered to him was that a Christ was crucified and resurrected. Paul rambled on and on about the supposed significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, not about the details of Christ’s life. Consider Galatians:

“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

After God “called” him, he more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d thought Yeshua was the son of God, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, Jesus’ brother, and Peter and Mary, two of his close associates. He should have been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Yet he very obviously wasn’t. Something more important enticed him to Arabia. In fact Paul never expressed any genuine pleasure in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers. Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, and there is definitely something very odd about the way he casually downplays the fact he met James and Cephas, Yeshua’s brother and one of his important disciples. I think this is strong circumstantial evidence that Yeshua never was Paul’s Christ.

The Gospel stories are sadly short of genuine historical facts about Jesus. Things could have been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could have saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years (Jesus’ historicity has only been seriously studied in this time) by jotting down some facts about Jesus as related by his family and disciples. Paul should have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. Instead, he wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics.

I suspect this wasn’t a deliberate omission on Paul’s part; he was obviously totally unaware that people in the future might care to know about Yeshua. Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul nor James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure - because the Gospels hadn’t been written yet, so Jesus’ status as a legendary character hadn’t been created.

Who then, was Paul’s Christ? It was someone who Paul thought had existed in heaven since the beginning of time, yet only revealed to the world via his own peculiar interpretation of Jewish scripture. Douglas Lockhart (http://douglaslockhart.com/) and a number of other scholars (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/BkrvEll.htm) think it could have been the “Teacher of Righteousness” written about in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are many theories as to who this character was, one of which is that he was an Essene leader, a priest, who lived perhaps a hundred years before Yeshua, who had disapproved of the Hasmonean high priest.

In the Gentile world of the time there was competition from many dying and rising gods such as Mithras. Those gods often didn’t have a mortal life that was remembered, just like Paul’s Christ. It was only the myth of them dying and rising again that gave them significance, just like his Christ. His Christ, real identity uncertain, was a Judaic myth invented to compete with these other cults. The idea that his Christ would one day be equated with Yeshua may not ever have been on Paul’s radar. (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm). I did warn the reader this chapter was complicated.

It is true that “Paul” mentions “Jesus” many times, yet “Jesus” may have been edited into Paul’s writings, where he had written only “Christ.” I can’t prove this happened, yet it’s a distinct possibility given that there was a culture that encouraged “pious fraud” amongst Christians in the second, third and fourth centuries. Or, it could be that Paul was using the (very common) name to represent a spirit, not a person. “Paul” does say, once, in 1 Tim 6;13, that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus, yet this wasn’t written by Paul. “Paul” does talk about what Christ allegedly said on the night he was betrayed, in the first letter to the Corinthians, but this whole passage is unique in that regard and therefore it too is suspiciously “unPauline.”

Most Christians I have talked to about this are perplexed, and with good reason, because Paul’s lack of commentary on Jesus undermines the account about Jesus being an inspiring, miracle working individual, someone with real feelings, empathy for his fellows, and charisma, who preached wise anecdotes that had so impressed his disciples and the crowds. This is an image created by churchmen using the Gospels. Paul knew none of this. Outside of Jewish scripture he only ever acknowledged one source of wisdom—himself. An authoritative Yeshua, even one recently deceased, would have focused the limelight on someone more significant than himself, and I don’t think he would have liked that.

Just who Paul thought his Christ was is a difficult concept to grasp, and in my opinion it’s not worth spending too much time on. It helps to remember that the sources of Paul’s ideas are obscure; that his writings have been tampered with; that original meaning is often lost in translations; that the Jesus stories we know so well only finished being cobbled together in the fourth century, and Paul had never read them; that Paul had an overactive imagination, and he was a very peculiar man.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: