Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2014, 01:49 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 11:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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."

If you can produce evidence of the first century existence of Nazareth, apart from what Carrier mentions, I would be very interested to see it. Please provide links. In the past I've spent many hours searching for this evidence and never found it... I'm not going to waste my time again.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 02:03 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014 02:10 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

"The Gospel Jesus is basically a combination of this Nazarene Jesus, and the spirit-being Christ of Paul. Am I right?"

Well...sort of. For a start, there is no one Gospel Jesus. No one can honestly claim the Jesus in John is the same as the Jesus in any of the other three. The three synoptic gospels all have Jesuses with different personalities and different ideas, although Luke and Matthew are largely based on the foundation provided in Mark, so there are some similarities.

There were multiple authors contributing to all of the gospels. In addition to the gospel of the Nazarenes, there was Paul's Christ, Mithras and all the other saviour Gods of the first century Roman world such as Krishna, Buddha and Horus that were morphed into our Jeebus. Then there's the writings of Josephus from which I think many of the antics of Jesus were pinched from. The character of Jesus didn't stop evolving until the early fourth century, when they were still arguing whether he was a god, a spirit, a man or some combination of all three. If you step back and look at this objectively it's embarrassingly pathetic.

Any real character that just may have once been a person is barely discernible under all that theological and mythological gloss.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 02:27 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014 02:30 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 09:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If there already existed a celestial being named Jesus (as indicated by Philo of Alexandria),

No, Philo didn't believe in a celestial being named Jesus. But since you've mentioned this on more than one occasion, let's nip this little turd in the butt.

The passage folks like yourself use for this begins with this:

Quote:"I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!"{18}{#zec 6:12.} A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. " -Philo

There's no Jesus here. Philo is using a passage for Zechariah 6:12: "'Here is the man whose name is the Branch (East), and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD."

Zechariah even names the man he is taking about, in the presiding verse: "Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak". This Joshua was the high priest, who according to the Bible reconstructed the Jewish Temple after the return of the Jews from Babylonian Captivity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_the_High_Priest

What non-historicist such as yourself do, is that they look at the Philo passage, then they go back to Zechariah and notice that Zechariah is speaking of a Joshua. And since Zechariah is speaking of a Joshua, this means that Philo was speaking of Jesus who was a spirit being.

Here's the problem with this entirely silly route of reasoning:

One, Zecharia was referring to an actual flesh and blood person. And two, Philo already knew that. Hence why he states: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!" A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul.

Or in other words, Philo found it novel that Zechariah would speak of an actual person, Joshua son of Jehozadak, in such as way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 02:37 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 01:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If you can produce evidence of the first century existence of Nazareth, apart from what Carrier mentions.

Apart from the inscription in the synagogue of Caesarea Maritima?

Why doesn't this suffice? Do you want to argue it was some elaborate Christian forgery?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 04:09 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 10:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

You make a very important point there. Their audience is the credulous.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 04:23 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 10:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

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[/b][/u], 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.

The POINT is you DID claim precisely what you denied you claimed.

And BTW, your repeated mistakes with the language are far more than "spelling errors" They are ignorance of the English language in a very disturbing way. What is your education level ?

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
28-10-2014, 04:28 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 01:19 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.)

How does this square with Paul's 'Road to Damascus' experience? Paul's going along in his ugly life and suddenly he realizes he was chosen in the womb?

Right. Sure. Uh huh. Dodgy

That's called 'delusion'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 04:30 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 01:11 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  OH YES HE DID.

OH NO HE DIDN’T.

Quote: Instead, he wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics.

Paul was writing letters to various Christian communities regarding issues within those churches. And the primarily theological trouble for these infant communities, in fact it’s still an ongoing issues even in churches today, was in developing a Christology. Or in other words Paul, like many theologians past, and present, is exploring what it means for Jesus to be Christ. His audience is a community of believers, not those outside of it, and he’d likely have been surprised to find that we’re reading his letters today. His audience is a community, that already had some common beliefs.

Folks such as yourself, who are not believers, have a hard time understanding the theological concerns of believers. If you were to explore Christian theology, especially among theologians who devoted themselves to the meaning of Christ, like Bonhoeffer’s Christ the Center, or Moltmann’s The Crucified God, you’ll find that these writing sound remarkably like Paul. They are heavily spiritualized, rarely if ever mention any of the details found in the Gospels, or even quote much of anything Jesus had said. They devote themselves completely to the idea of Christ, the Cross, and the Resurrection.

Earlier another individual here asked me, why I am believer if I viewed certain aspects of the Jesus story as non-historical, and the answer to this would be, because I believe that there is some sort of truth in the person, life, and death of Jesus beyond his mere historical reality. And Paul, like many reflective theologians, are devoting their writings to explore this supposed underlying reality.

The communities Paul is addressing already knew the story of Jesus, they just didn’t know what it all meant, and this is the question Paul is exploring with them.

Quote:In fact Paul never expressed any genuine pleasure in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers

Yea, it sure didn’t seem like it. He probably found them to be too exclusive, too stubborn, too hesitant to start the fire of their founder’s vision. Without Paul, who knows if there would even be a Christianity today.


Quote: He casually downplays the fact he met James and Cephas, Yeshua’s brother and one of his important disciples.

What’s interesting is that you speak of Jesus’s family, and note that Paul met his brother James, and seem to argue that Paul didn’t believe in a Jesus who was a real person? I don’t really know how that works.

Quote: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.

Yes, we should just reject every aspect of Paul, where he speaks of Jesus as an actual human being, in fact wherever he uses the name Jesus, for no other reason than it doesn’t bode well for your position.

Quote:In addition to the gospel of the Nazarenes, there was Paul's Christ, Mithras and all the other saviour Gods of the first century Roman world such as Krishna, Buddha and Horus that were morphed into our Jeebus. [...]

Here’s another one. Paul's propaganda was the government's pre-war effort to undermine the Jews.

Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse.

I have a bipolar cousin, who likes to give me a call whenever he has his latest episode. He likes to tell me of his latest crazy theory, of how the government is spying on him, and moving all the furniture around in his apartment, or how his mom is plotting to kill him, and how aliens were the cause of 9/11. He sort of strings little occurrences around, like when he can’t find his keys, and his mind just begins of spin these things into one convoluted narrative.

Sometimes when his episode has just begun, you can sort of reason with him a bit. I’d ask him, if realizes how unlikely any of these theories of his are, and sometimes he can acknowledge that they are very unlikely. And sometimes it appears that he can sense how ridiculous they are as well. But he always replies, “just because they are extremely unlikely, doesn’t mean they are not true”.

Compared to the shit being peddled here, my cousin made a lot more sense. At least sometimes he was aware of how big of a turd he was trying to peddle.

I can understand why the recent zeitgeist among non-historicist, is to slowly walk themselves away from mythicism. Bucky called me a “little bitch” for labeling him as a mythicist. You would think that I just slapped the shit out of his mother.

They are in essence worried that they’d be tarred with the same feathers as 9/11 truths, birthers, moon-landing conspiracy cuckoos, and that whatever legitimate criticism they have of religion, would be thrown out with the tainted bathwater.

I’m afraid that’s all a little too late.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 04:38 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 04:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  How does this square with Paul's 'Road to Damascus' experience? Paul's going along in his ugly life and suddenly he realizes he was chosen in the womb?

Right. Sure. Uh huh. Dodgy

That's called 'delusion'.

He also writes: "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight." It all sort of goes into a belief in omnipotence and a sort of determinism. God may have a chosen a man to be a pastor from the beginning of time, but the pastor only comes to a realization of this later on. It may come as no surprise to God, but it comes as a surprise to man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 04:47 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 04:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The POINT is you DID claim precisely what you denied you claimed.

No I didn't.

I never claimed the Gospels were independent sources, or independent of each other. In fact I don't believe this.

Your precisely is merely you reading this into what I wrote.

Quote:What is your education level ?

Surgery-CalTech
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: