Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:19 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:47 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
We're all quite familar with the myth of Hebrew monotheism.
Example:

Another example:

Another example:

It goes on and on. Obviously Judaism was completely intermixed with paganism all along and the very same is true of Christianity as well. I'll warn you that this thread troll of yours is a senseless venture....

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:18 am 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 10
It goes on and on. Obviously Judaism was completely intermixed with paganism all along and the very same is true of Christianity as well. I'll warn you that this thread troll of yours is a senseless venture....[/quote]

Sad that you view my thread as a "troll" where I merely express my free thoughts leaving room for discussion, room for various inputs,
asking for answers. Why am I considered as such?
Is it because my free thought differs from yours maybe?

If I am not allowed to express my free thoughts and questions, my input, then I'm afraid we move back to "religion" being the imprisonment of the mind to
think only in one way - not expressing free thought.

I believe that Acharya is a scholar with much knowledge and expertise and that is why I'm asking for her input on questions that I have.
I reason a lot with myself over certain principles and I believe that Acharya could shed some light on them.
So, please don't attack me! My approach and views might differ from yours and if we all thought the same, there wouldn't have been
any need for a forum, would there?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:38 am 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 10
GodAlmighty wrote:
Ya'ovBenYisraEl wrote:
Thank you for your kind reply.

So, do you believe that Jesus did exist as a historical person between the timeline of say a 100 b.c. To 50 a.d?


No. I'm agnostic on the issue.

Ya'ovBenYisraEl wrote:
And if not, on whom do you believe were these NT accounts based? Shaul mentions Apollo, so it seems unlikely that he (shaul) could have been Appolonius.


I don't believe the NT accounts were based on any real person, to be honest. The stories of Apollonius might have had some influence, if we grant that he was a real person and that Damis was really a disciple and wrote his books during or shortly after the life of Apollonius.

But that's really too close to call, since Apollonius was a contemporary with the New Testament authors. To me, I think the parallels more demonstrate a common literary formula that was in circulation at the time, as well as recurring mythological/religious motifs. For instance, I've read that the gospel of Mark has a story structure similar to Homer, and I've read that there is influence of Homer in Philostratus's book on Apollonius. (I'm not well read in Homeric literature, so I wouldn't know how true this claim is, I'm just using this example to make my point.)

So that would mean that neither one necessarily had to influence the other, they have simply both been influenced by mutual third party sources.

If the Jesus of the New Testament is "based" on anything, as Acharya said, it seems it is based on the Hellenized Jewish logos written of by Philo.

But the New Testament stories, as well as many non-canonical stories and traditions, show much similarity to, and thus probable influence from, the mythologies of the dying and rising gods of the ancient Mediterranean world. Especially Osiris, and to a lesser extent Serapis, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Mithras.

The Jesus character isn't so much the retelling of just one key figure, it is more the junction point where several crossroads converged after many centuries of syncretism between several different cultures and ideologies.

Ya'ovBenYisraEl wrote:
I do agree that certain things in the New Testament are disputable, but then certain sayings seem again very credible. Shaul does mention in Rom 9:5 that Christ was born according to the flesh out of physical Israel, thus a historical figure. What is your commentary on the above?


Well, given that I am currently in the Marcionite priority camp (i.e, the Marcionites had the original versions of Luke and the Pauline epistles, or at least, a version closer to the original than the Catholic versions, and it was later authors who interpolated material into these books, rather than Irenaeus's claim that Marcion removed material), such passages pose no problem to me, as the Marcionite version of Romans does not contain them.

You can read a partial reconstruction of the Marcionite version of Romans here: http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/Romans_Translation_with_Notes.pdf

And while it has not made it to chapter 9 yet, you can see that other such anti-docetic passages such as 1:3 are not in there.

But even then, Paul's usage of the word flesh is not so cut & dry. Do bear in mind certain passages such as Romans 4:1 in which Paul tells the Romans that Abraham is their father according to the flesh (σάρξ, same word used in 9:5).
Surely not the Gentiles among them, who no doubt composed the majority of their congregation?

The perceived dilemma seems to me to be resolved in the very verses following 9:5-
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
...
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, 'I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God'."

Add to that 1 Corinthians chapter 15, in which Paul explains "All flesh[σάρξ] is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
...
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh[σάρξ] and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

So how can Paul say that flesh[σάρξ] and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, if the very Lord of that kingdom is allegedly made of flesh?

Because as Paul wrote in verse 39, not all flesh[σάρξ] is the same flesh. There are different types. So as I said, his usage of this word is not always so cut & dry.

Not all flesh is the same flesh, he says. Humans have one type of flesh, that is natural (i.e., corporeal), and heavenly beings have another type of flesh, which is spiritual (i.e., incorporeal, like the substance that the bodies of angels, demons, and gods are made of).

So when Paul says flesh & blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, in his mind, and in the minds of his readers who understand him, there is no discrepancy there. He is simply referring to natural bodies rather than spiritual bodies, to corporeal substance rather than incorporeal substance.
Hence, even if he had written that Jesus descended from flesh (which I don't think he did as I already explained), I wouldn't see that as a problem. He explained in verses 45-47 that the first Adam was made of earthly substance while the second Adam, i.e. Jesus, was made of heavenly or spiritual substance.

This is perfectly corroborative with Docetism.

And corroborative with this here is the view propounded in texts like the Ascension of Isaiah, in which Jesus descended through each of the seven stages of heaven, and at each stage taking on the appearance of the substance of the angels & spirits in that stage, until finally he got to the firmament of earth and took on the appearance of the substance of the angels of the air and inhabited Mary's womb. After she delivered him, her body immediately appeared normal again, as though she had never been pregnant at all.

His presence was not visible or perceivable at all to anyone whose eyes had not been opened by God, including Joseph. When Jesus was born, Joseph couldn't even see him and asked what Mary was freaking out about. Only then were his eyes opened and he was able to actually see Jesus.

But the masses likewise could not see him, and thus they even said that Mary was never pregnant, she never gave birth to Jesus, and even though they heard of this alleged Jesus, no one ever seemed to know where he was.
It's interesting that they claimed she never gave birth, because after she delivered Jesus, she looked as though she had never been pregnant at all.

And even when Joseph's eyes were opened and he finally saw Jesus, he & Mary both were instructed by a voice to tell no one of the "VISION" that they saw.

This text is blatantly Docetic, and explains away the pregnancy and birth (i.e. his descending from "flesh" or the "seed of David") as being nothing more than a vision, an illusion, and Jesus himself as being composed of the heavenly substance of the angels of the air which was not perceivable to normal human beings.

And as I wrote in another thread, this smacks of damage control. As though it's trying to explain away the fact that no one ever saw Jesus as due not to the possibility that he didn't exist, but instead to the fact that he was made of incorporeal substance that is invisible to humans.
'Oh, no, Jesus certainly existed, it's just that no one saw him because he was invisible'.

This reminds me of how parents tell kids that Santa is real, it's just that he only comes when they are asleep, that's why they never see him.


Thanks man for going the extra mile in addressing some of my questions.

You really went out of your way.

One question. Do you think it is possible that the very Marcion of Sinope could be the Marc of the Gospels?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:56 am 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 10
Acharya wrote:
Great answer there, GA.

There is no clear and unambiguous verbatim quote from the canonical gospels as we have them prior to the end of the second century. Justin Martyr speaks of the "Memoirs," which, like "Acts of the Apostles," appears to be a single text, not the four canonical gospels, which contains material not found in the New Testament, and which does not quote any of the canonical gospels verbatim and unambiguously. Ditto with Clement - if there are resemblances between a few phrases here and there, that would speak of evidence of a source text used by the evangelists, not the other way around.

As we know, the Lukan prologue speaks of "many" attempts before him at writing the "narrative" (diegesis). In my book Who Was Jesus? I provide evidence from early Church fathers such as Origen and Jerome that these "many" included the gospels of Basilides and the Egyptians - second-century texts, once again indicating that Luke was not written until the latter half of that century.

If I recall correctly, Justin's "Memoirs of the Apostles" has been suggested to be the same as the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Also note that Apollonius of Tyana would not necessarily be of interest to Philo, who was very focused on Jewish individuals and ideas. Moreover, Philo was writing about the Logos, in terms expressly attached to Jesus at a later date - if Jesus had been the logos wandering around Philo's homeland, he would have taken notice. Unlike Apollonius during Philo's lifetime, Jesus is reputed in the NT to have been famed far and wide, years before Philo died.


Thanks Acharya


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:51 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
YBY wrote:
Twelve I don't consider mystic because Elohiym Being the Creator of His Own Creations, the Elohiym of His Cosmos so to speak, did also create the moon for the sign of seasons and the sun to pronounce day and night which the heathens exaggerated to the zodiac and astrology, something which is prohibited in the Torah anyways.

To which I pointed out to you that we are all quite familiar with the MYTH of Hebrew monotheism, which, means that you're rambling on about creation as if Genesis is about the literal creation of the world when we know good and well that it is not. And we also know that it conists of a creation myth concerning an entire Pantheon of Gods called the Elohim that provides the context by which scholars, such as Israel Finkelstein, have deduced the pre-monotheistic roots of ancient Judaism. And I provided you with three primary examples of the polytheism and monolatry (heathenism) that informed the "Torah" as it were. After posting the videos covering these issues I then added:

Ya'ovBenYisraEl wrote:
tat tvam asi wrote:
It goes on and on. Obviously Judaism was completely intermixed with paganism all along and the very same is true of Christianity as well. I'll warn you that this thread troll of yours is a senseless venture....


Sad that you view my thread as a "troll" where I merely express my free thoughts leaving room for discussion, room for various inputs,
asking for answers. Why am I considered as such?
Is it because my free thought differs from yours maybe?

If I am not allowed to express my free thoughts and questions, my input, then I'm afraid we move back to "religion" being the imprisonment of the mind to
think only in one way - not expressing free thought.

I believe that Acharya is a scholar with much knowledge and expertise and that is why I'm asking for her input on questions that I have.
I reason a lot with myself over certain principles and I believe that Acharya could shed some light on them.
So, please don't attack me! My approach and views might differ from yours and if we all thought the same, there wouldn't have been
any need for a forum, would there?

Guess what, we have to deal with theistic trolls all the time around here. And what do they usually do? They usually go straight to posting about YHWH, or Yeshua and the ill-conceived debunkles between using Jesus or Yeshua, or making an appeal to creationism, and basically just about everything you've just done.

I warned you.

You mistook a firm warning as an attack. Oh no, you haven't been attacked YET, that is still to come if you keep trolling this forum.

If you are NOT trolling for an apologetic debate, however, then obviously the warning I just gave you is void and doesn't apply to you anyways, only to trolls.

But also consider that you're posting in a thread about Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius and how these ancient writers offer no credible evidence for confirming the historical existence of Jesus, or Yeshua if you prefer. What do your posts have to do with this topic?

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:21 am 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 10
Have mercy man.
I'm new on this forum and still to familiarize myself with the layout of it.
I thought it would be the appropriate place as to ask whether any of Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius or Philo mentioned Apollonius.
So apologies if under the wrong header :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:54 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
Mercy granted.
:lol:
8)

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:15 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
Ya'ovBenYisraEl wrote:

Thanks man for going the extra mile in addressing some of my questions.

You really went out of your way.

One question. Do you think it is possible that the very Marcion of Sinope could be the Marc of the Gospels?



No problem, thanks for the compliment.

I have heard that before, I think it was on Stephen Huller's blog, but I didn't exactly find the case he made to be very convincing. Although, I haven't read thoroughly on the matter and I did not check out the books he recommended, so perhaps there is a more convincing case to made, and I just haven't seen it yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Here's a blog at vridar where he's posting Earl Doherty's responses to Bart Ehrman's latest book 'Did Jesus Exist?.' In this blog Earl addresses Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius and more.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:26 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Here's a blog at vridar where he's posting Earl Doherty's responses to Bart Ehrman's latest book 'Did Jesus Exist?.' In this blog Earl addresses Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius and more.

Ugh. I notice that that bizarre and misogynistic cyberstalker "Roobookaroo" is on Vridar's blog in the Carrier post, as is the mind-numbing haranguer GakuseiDon. Looks like a wonderful place to hang out!

I'm currently working on a Suetonius article myself at the moment, but, as always, I have too much material and it's going on at length...

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
I'm just adding some newer relevant articles and blogs:

Is Suetonius's Chresto a Reference to Jesus?

Chresto in the Suetonius Manuscript Tradition

Chrestos Magical Cup?

Christos or Chrestos?

Does Suetonius refer to Jesus?

Isis the Chrest

Apollo the Chrest? God of Oracles and Son of God (Apollo, Son of God and the Chrest?)

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:41 am 
Offline
Jesus
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 13
Ya'ovBenYisraEl wrote:
Quick question to anyone out there

Clement of Rome, living in the first century I understand, did refer to Jesus.
What do you have to say in response to this?

Also, according to what I've read in the forums Philo does not mention Jesus.

But he doesn't mention Appolonius of Tyana either?

According to many Biblical scholars, the gospel of Mark dates to around 65 A.D. and the letters of Shaul
to even 55 A.D. If this IS the case, why accepting the account drawn up in the third century
by Philostratus as the "true" identity on whom the gospels were based?



Quote:
Clement of Rome, living in the first century I understand, did refer to Jesus.


This is something I read a lot. The words "refer" and "mention". I have yet to see how these words justify or even prove a jesus of any kind. Christian Revisionists have been at it for centuries forging and adapting ancient text of others to change the course of their history in order to validate their faith. There is a fair amount of "Argument from Silence" concerning this jesus as Earl Doherty states:

Quote:
Before getting under way, let’s take a brief look at the "argument from silence." This is a method of reasoning which is often condemned by scholars in the field of New Testament research (though more widely accepted in other areas). But it is an important and legitimate element in the Jesus-as-myth theory. It states in one of its applications that if a document fails to mention something in a context where we would strongly expect to find it, this would tend to show (depending on the state of all the evidence) that the subject is not known to the author and therefore may not exist.


He then goes on:

Quote:
We might illustrate the principle involved with this analogy. If a deceased man’s descendant claims that the man once won a lottery, yet there is no contemporary record of such a win, no entry of a large sum in his bank statements, no mention of it in his diaries and letters, no memory of a spending spree, if on his deathbed he told someone he never got a break in his life, if he died of starvation, etc., we would have some good reason to use the argument from silence to say that the claim is probably false, that in fact he had never won a lottery. (See also my "parable" which opens the book review of Robert Funk’s Honest to Jesus.)


I like this example as I think it shoots down the argument from silence rhetoric pretty good.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group