Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lineage of Jesus
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 7 of 82 (47560)
07-27-2003 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by sup32string
07-26-2003 9:47 PM


Nicea etc.
Greetings sup32string,
quote:
ok well the linage of jesus really is irrelavent, because he really didn't exist He was based on a scholar of the first century and of ancient religions and heros.
Indeed,
there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure, even where we would expect it - e.g. Justus of Tiberias or Philo Judaeus.
Notably, not even the earliest Christians makes any mention of a historical Jesus of Nazareth :
* Paul refers in spiritual terms to a divine figure Iesous Christos - nothing historical
* other epistles makes no reference to a historical Jesus of Nazareth - James, Peter, Jude, Colossians, Ephesians, the Pastorals, Hebrews
* other early Christian writings make only vague spiritual references - Clement, the Didakhe
The Gospels and their contents were unknown to Christians until early-mid 2nd century.
quote:
here is a small history on the creation of the church and the christian religion.
History?
Incorrect - no historian or history text agrees with your arguments - it sounds more like a pamphlet from the Theosophical Society or some-such. If you are a sceptic trying to find the truth, why on earth didn't you check your claims?
quote:
No mention of a man called Jesus Christ is in history untill 325 ad.
Wrong.
Christians start referring to Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure starting just after the final Jewish war - early-mid 2nd century :
* Papias seemingly refers briefly to a historical Jesus, probably early-mid 2nd century,
* Ignatius (probably forged early-mid 2nd century) makes a TINY few references to Jesus.
* Aristides refers briefly to Jesus, probably early-mid 2nd century - he describes the "Gospel" as preached for a short time (i.e. a RECENT production).
* Justin argued with Trypho about whether Jesus really was the Christ, mid 2nd century.
* Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Clement wrote at length about Jesus as a historical figure at the end of the 2nd century.
* Many other Christian writers refer to a historical Jesus Christ in the 3rd century.
A few non-Christians refer to a historical Jesus from late 2nd century :
* Celsus argued that the Gospels were fiction based on myth - yet he seems to agree that Jesus did exist as such figures were commonplace - in the late 2nd century.
* Galen mentions Jesus briefly in late 2nd century.
* Porphyry argued that the Gospels were fiction, yet apparently accepted Jesus existed, late 3rd century.
Readers may be interested to note that some 2nd century Christian writings describe a Christianity with NO Jesus -
* Theophilus describes Christianity in detail, with NO MENTION of Jesus Christ even when discussing the meaning of the word "Christian" or arguing resurrection is possible!
* Athenagoras also argues for resurrection with no mention of Jesus or Christ even ONCE (or Lazarus.)
* Minucius Felix argues specifically that Christians do NOT believe in a crucifixion or the incarnation!
* The Johanine epistles arguably show evidence for a Christian sect with no son of god.
I agree that Jesus never existed, I agree there is no contemporary evidence for him.
But,
its simply not true to claim that No mention of a man called Jesus Christ is in history untill 325 ad
quote:
In 325 ad the Nicene Council came out with the Bible.
Actually, sup23string, this claim is often made by sceptics, yet it has no foundation.
The decisions of the Council of Nicea still exist to this day (the "minutes of the meeting", so-to-speak) - you can read them yourself here:
Philip Schaff: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
If you read this incredibly boring turgid rubbish yourself, you will find the council dealt with two main issues:
* Arianism
* the date of Easter
There is NO MENTION anywhere in the Nicean writings about the books of the Bible -
none,
nada,
zip,
zero,
zilch.
But, ten years later, Constantine commissioned 50 Bibles to be made - we may even have 1 or 2 of these very Bibles to this day (C.Vaticanus and/or C.Sinaiticus). They do NOT contain the same books as our modern bibles.
Also,
there are several ancient accounts of what happened at the Council of Nicea, and NONE of them makes ANY mention about the books of the Bible (or re-incarnation) - you can see a good analysis of this here:
The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible
quote:
This is how Christianity came to be...the truth is Christianity was created some 250+ years after the man Jesus was suppose to have lived.
No it isn't - you left out Paul, James, Peter (assuming he existed, which is doubtful), Marcion, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, the 2 Clements etc. who all had a hand in creating Christianity.
quote:
This of course would make the Church very happy for any knowledge of where they had stolen their religion from was thought to be gone. Paulinus the first Archbishiop of York in 622, stated that he was the first translator of the scriptures from Gallic into the Saxon tounge had said "I subsituted, as did Eusebius, Jesus Christ of Judea for Apollonius of Tyana" to make "them correspond with Eusebius' version." (Antiquity Unveiled p.544)
I don't think alleged channelings of dead people will be seen as very credible arguments - I can find no real evidence that Paulinus really said that.
quote:
Also the Bible finaly became set in its form then, instead of being changed over the years. So in actuality the bible as we know it is only roughly 400 years old. An interesting fact.
Its not a fact, its just plain false information.
The canon was fixed long before then - the Festal Epistle of Athanasius of 367CE containing the first canon that agrees with ours (not counting the issue of Catholic vs Protestant canons)
The Greek wording of the Bible was generally fixed long before then, but differing translations continue to arise based on newly discovered manuscripts, and also on the choices between different manuscripts when making a translation.
The only thing had happened to the Bible 400 years ago was that an influential translation was made under the patronage of King James - this Bible is now considered a very POOR translation of the original, and many better translations have been, and continue to be made.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sup32string, posted 07-26-2003 9:47 PM sup32string has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by sup32string, posted 07-27-2003 2:59 PM Kapyong has replied
 Message 62 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-22-2003 9:56 PM Kapyong has replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 24 of 82 (47658)
07-28-2003 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by sup32string
07-27-2003 8:58 AM


Ignatius, Bible changes
Greetings,
quote:
May I ask how you are sure that the historical refrences you speak of that mention Jesus are not ficticious themselves?
Well, it is almost certain that the 2nd and 3rd century fathers were real people, as Percipiet mentions below (because we have many interlocking references).
But -
Ignatius is very doubtful - I consider him totally fictitious :
* the story is not plausible at all
* we have no evidence of Ignatius the person at all
* his writings are extremely corrupt (2 versions exist)
* the writings are very odd (e.g. drug references?)
See my page here:
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
quote:
Why did the church have to forcibly make people belive? In the inquisitions the church tortured any who would preach the old philosophies and kill those who would not recant their claims. It seems odd to me that a religion would have to do that if it indeed was true. Might you be able to explain to me then what the reason behind the Inquisition is please? Thanks for your information I'll will look into what you have said.
Whoa - you skipped from the first few centuries, right up to the Inquisition which was a MILLENIUM later - you cannot mix these up, they are totally different situations, in the first case the church was young and often persecuted, the Inquisition was a thousand YEARS of growth later.
quote:
With the invention of the printing press (which the church sought to stop) the bible could be massed produced. In mass producing the bible, it was no longer easy to change things in the bible. As far as you my claims of the bible being only roughly 400 years old in it present form being false I would have to disagree.
You keep saying this without any foundation - do you have any evidence of the bible being "changed" after the 4th century?
We have actual manuscripts from the 4th century - most of the NT was settled by then.
Can you show evidence of any changes made to the Bible after the 4th century?
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sup32string, posted 07-27-2003 8:58 AM sup32string has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 25 of 82 (47659)
07-28-2003 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Admin
07-27-2003 11:33 AM


Good work, Admins
Greetings Admin,
I am impressed with the moderation here - polite and useful and appopriate - keep up the good work :-)
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 07-27-2003 11:33 AM Admin has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 26 of 82 (47663)
07-28-2003 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by sup32string
07-27-2003 2:59 PM


Nicea etc.
Greetings again,
quote:
Thank you for this information, although I would be skeptical as to the vericity of the Historical refrences, one thing seems obvious.
It is good to be sceptical, but the onus is then on you to check the information and form a view you can defend.
quote:
Where is Jesus mentioned in history when he actualy lived?
There are NO contemporary references.
I agree that Jesus ws NOT a historical figure.
quote:
If the Nicene creed is based off of the New Testament it would stand to reason they had the New Testament present at the Council.
Yes,
much of the NT was known and used by the Council - they argued about certain passages at length.
But,
they did NOT choose the "books of the Bible"
The church has NEVER as a whole, officially named the books of Bible (strange but true).
quote:
Again I would like to point out that The Emperor Constintine Set up Both the Council and the Church.
Again I would like to point out this is NOT true -
Constantine did NOT set up the Church -
* the term "ecclesia" was in use,
* the ranks of the church were established,
* the importance of various centres,
* the leadership of the church,
were all established well before Constantine.
quote:
I am assuming then that the council was set up to justify the bible.
You seem to have a fixation with this issue.
You are wrong - the Council had NOTHING to do with the Bible per se.
The council was set up to get the various dis-agreements (Arianism=the nature of Jesus, Easter) of the Christian religion sorted out so it would be an effective official religion.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by sup32string, posted 07-27-2003 2:59 PM sup32string has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 27 of 82 (47666)
07-28-2003 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dave901
07-27-2003 5:49 PM


no teacher Jesus in early writings
Greetings Dave901,
quote:
I can’t see any reason to say Jesus never existed...
There are many good reasons to think Jesus was not a historical person:
* no contemporary references, even where expected (Justus, Philo)
* Jesus' story mimics other common son-of-god stories (Attis, Adonis, Iasius, Osiris)
* early Christians make no historical references
* the alleged "evidence" occurs long after the alleged events
* the Gospels were unknown until early-mid 2nd century
quote:
I think the writings show a transformation of Jesus from originally being simply portrayed as a religious teacher
That is NOT what the evidence shows.
The earliest Christian writings are Paul's (who probably reallly existed) and make up about 1/4 of the NT.
Paul talks of Iesous Christos as a spiritual entity of some sort, with NO historial or earthly references.
But, Paul does NOT show ANY mention of teachings by Jesus, even when the context demands it :
* Paul says "we do not know how to pray" - no mention of the Lord's prayer,
* Paul discusses divorce - no mention of Jesus' teachings,
* Paul talks about food cleanliness - no mention of Jesus' teaching.
This amazing ommision is discussed at length by Earl Doherty (highly recommended) :
LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot Terbesar
In fact, the entire first century of Christian writings, up to early-mid 2nd century, shows NO MENTION of:
* Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Nazareth
* Herod, Pilate, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Judas
* teachings of Jesus,
* miracles of Jesus,
* the birth stories,
* the cleansing of the Temple,
* the triumphal entry,
* the trial,
* the passion,
* Peter's denial,
* etc, etc, etc....
In short - the Gospel story of Jesus of Nazareth was totally unknown for the ENTIRE FIRST CENTURY of Christianity.
This astonishing fact is laid out in my table here:
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
You will not find any evidence of Jesus as a teacher until a century or so after he supposedly existed - it is simply false to claim the first strata of Jesus shows a religious teacher - it does not.
quote:
In the Gospels you will see Jesus himself never considered himself the same as God.
The Gospels were entirely unknown until early-mid 2nd century, and when they arose, pagans attacked them as "fiction" and "based on myth" - the Gospels were not even named until late 2nd century, originally being anonymous.
Actually, Aristides specifically dsecribes the "Gospel" singular, as having been "preached a SHORT time" in the 120s - clear evidence the Gospels only arose in early 2nd century.
A detailed chronology can be seen on my page here :
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
quote:
He would pray to God (What God would need to pray to himself). He always spoke of God as separate from himself and Jesus never even claimed to know what God was thinking.
The Gospels are fiction, unknown until a century after the alleged events.
quote:
It started off with Paul’s writings that portrayed Jesus as a messenger from God.
There is NO evidence of teachings or a message from Jesus in the Pauline corpus.
quote:
if he was a complete fabrication then why wouldn’t these gospels be consistent with the idea of Jesus just being another manifestation of God?
The Gospels, and Jesus, were NOT a "complete fabrication" - the elements of the Gospel story can all be found in the OT and pagan writings of the time - there is nothing original in the Gospels.
Note that G.John DOES have Jesus equated with God - it is the odd one out (and the last Gospel to be accepted).
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dave901, posted 07-27-2003 5:49 PM Dave901 has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 28 of 82 (47668)
07-28-2003 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Jake22
07-28-2003 12:57 AM


Greetings Jake22,
I note Percipient has dealt with the issue of contemporary writers.
Let me just point out that Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny (and the ridiculous Phlegon and Thallus cites) are NOT contemporaries.
quote:
It seems that there is no dispute that the passage mentions a Jesus with Jewish and Greek followers who existed and was killed by Pilate (at least according to the webisite).
False.
There is MUCH dispute, the Josephus issue is one of the hottest debates in NT studies - Earl's page may be of interest:
LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot Terbesar
quote:
Furthermore, Percipient, you mentioned a second passage of Josephus. Although you said this passage is less agreed upon than the first, it is a "usually undisputed allusion" to Jesus according to the site provided by sup. I'd assume the information is rather accurate, seeing as it's presented by an Ivy League professor who seems to have a rather anti-Christian viewpoint (at least as far as Christianity being the revealed plan of God goes). I'm not sure if it's 100% reliable, but worth noting.
No, this passage is also disputed.
quote:
I have cynical doubts about the few scholars who deny the existence of Jesus...that they do so not out of a review of the evidence, but instead because of personal or professional biases.
Oh?
Have you reviewed the evidence yourself ?
Have you evidence of bias of all these following authors? :
C.F. Dupuis, 1791, Abrege De L'Origine Des Cultes
Robert Taylor, 1829, Diegesis
Bruno Bauer, 1841, Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics
Mitchell Logan, 1842, Christian Mythology Unveiled
David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined
Kersey Graves, 1875, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours
T.W. Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions
Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ
Thomas Whittaker, 1904, The Origins of Christianity
William Benjamin Smith, 1906, Der vorchristliche Jesus
Albert Kalthoff, 1907, The Rise of Christianity
M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?
Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth
John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem
Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus — A Myth
Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity
L.Gordon Rylands, 1935, Did Jesus Ever Live?
Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus
P.L. Couchoud, 1939, The Creation of Christ
Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory?
Karl Kautsky, 1953, The Foundations of Christianity
Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth?
Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus Christ
Earl Doherty, HTTP 429
Profesor G.A. Wells, The Jesus Myth
Robert M. Price, Articles You Can Read Now
Hermann Detering,
Freke and Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries
P. Alfrani,
(its true that some of these authors, particularly earlier ones, are of doubtful scholarship.)
In short,
despite the protestations of faithful believers, the historicity of Jesus has been increasingly doubted for centuries and quite a few authors argue the point to this day.
I expect that Jesus as myth will be the mainstream view within a century.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Jake22, posted 07-28-2003 12:57 AM Jake22 has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 29 of 82 (47669)
07-28-2003 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jake22
07-27-2003 11:42 PM


Ossuaries
Greetings again,
quote:
I went back to check that inscription and I was a bit mixed up on the details, namely that it was a suburb in Jerusalem, not the catacombs.
Correct.
The Talpoith ossuaries were found in a Jewish suburb, in a Jewish gravesite, with not the slightest connection to anything Christian.
quote:
"This tomb has been dated in the first half of the first century A.D. (cir. A.D. 42/43), based on pottery fragments therein, as well as a coin belonging to the administration of Herod Agrippa I that was among the rubble."
Dated by who?
It would be more accurate to say : it is the OPINION of a faithful Christian that it "has been dated in the first half of the first century A.D. (cir. A.D. 42/43),"
According to my reference (C.K. Barret, The New Testament Background, SPCK 1987), this tomb is dated 50BCE - 50CE, which is quite different. The meanings of the words "Iesous iou" and "Iesous aloth" is disputed.
Father Sukenik is a Christian believer - other scholars read these ossuaries as simply names - Jesus being a very common name in those times.
Note that one of the ossuaries from this period reads :
"Jesus, son of Joseph"
funny how Christians never bring that one up as proof :-)
quote:
As for the ossuary, I have heard nothing of what you spoke (although I don't deny it). I took a New Testament class with a well-published scholar who was not a Christian. According to him (although this was 6 months ago now), nearly every scholar of the time period believed the box to be authentic. Perhaps things have changed since then. If you don't mind, what about the finding was determined to be a fake?
This ossuary serves as a classic example of how so-called scholars support their biased view-points with any "evidence" they can get their hands on, no matter how dubious.
Several sceptics pointed out there were problems with this ossuary, but the majority were happy to jump on the bandwagon and declare it hard (literally) evidence for Jesus - now these so-called "experts" have egg on their faces as it has clearly been found a forgery and the maker is going to jail - I wonder how many other items came frm his hands?
I hope this example will give pause to those who claim there is good evidence for Jesus - there is NONE.
All the evidence is weak, late, or forged.
Let me finish with a thank you to all who have participated here :-)
And an apology if my tone seems sharp, I have just spent time on the TheologyWeb, which has very poor quality debate, mostly consisting of insults - this board is much better :-)
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jake22, posted 07-27-2003 11:42 PM Jake22 has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 64 of 82 (52010)
08-23-2003 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by w_fortenberry
08-22-2003 9:56 PM


seed of David
Greetings,
The famous passage at the start of Romans is probably the most common item adduced in support of historical Jesus.
It starts :
quote:
1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the Gospel of God, 1:2 which he promised before through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 1:3 concerning his Son...
Here Paul claims his "Gospel of God" comes from the scriptures, not from any recent Jesus of Nazareth (who he never names).
Paul elsewhere makes this very clear :
quote:
Rom. 16:25-6 specifies the source of Paul’s gospel : . . . according to the revelation of the mystery kept in silence for long ages but now revealed, and made known through prophetic writings at the command of God . . .
Note well that Paul's gospel about the son comes through his revelations and his new understanding of scripture. Paul also emphasises he got his Gospel from "no man", and he specifically dismisses Peter and the Jerusalem pillars - "am I not an apostle like (as good as) them?"
In other words he clearly says his Gospel about Iesous Christos comes from no historical person or what he has heard about him - but rather through revelation and a new understanding of scipture.
So,
there is no evidence here for a historical Jesus at all - Paul is merely saying :
"The son has been revealed to me, here is what the scriptures really say about Iesous Christos ..."
Moving on,
here is what Paul has learned,
through revelation and scripture,
about Iesous Christos :
quote:
...who was born of the seed of David physically,
1:4 who was declared to be the Son of God with power spiritually
Here I have rendered "kata sarka" and "kata pneuma" as
"physically" and "spiritually"
to emphasise the dichotomy Paul makes.
There is no evidence of a historical person here - merely two characteristics of the son of God that Paul has derived from scripture.
In paraphrase, Paul is saying :
"I have learned
through revelation and the scriptures
that the son is :
physically of the seed of David
spiritually declared the son of God with power
by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord"
The contrast of physical and spiritual is the key to the passage - Paul is describing 2 aspects of the son - upper and lower, wordly and divine.
There is no evidence of a historical person there - its merely Paul's exegesis of scripture.
Paul never gives a date, or place, or time, or context for the crucifixion or the resurrection.
Paul never mentions the empty tomb - even when arguing for the reality of resurrection!
Paul never gives any teaching from Jesus - he even says "we don't know how to pray" showing no knowledge of the Lord's Prayer.
Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Herod, Pilate, Lazarus, Judas etc.
Paul never mentions the birth stories, the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, the sermon, the feeding, the passion, the trial !
Indeed - no Christian EVER mentions these things until early-mid 2nd century.
Note that Paul describes the resurrection as a spiritual event:
"spiritually declared the son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord"
Paul says he derives this from scripture, and we can see some of the sources in the Messiah of Psalms and the Righteous One from the Similitudes of Enoch.
Paul also says that Iesous Christos was crucified by the Archons of this Sphere - this phrase means those beings one sphere or plane or dimension "up" from ours, the Lunar Sphere, the Etheric or Astral Plane perhaps.
This Lunar or Astral plane immediately superior to this one was also considered part of the "physical realm".
So, Paul's use of the phrase "seed of David physically" means nothing about a historical person - it is merely an attribute of the son of god figure who was crucified in the same place that Attis was cut, that Osiris was dismembered, that Mithras slew the bull - in the world above ours, the world of spirit and myth.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-22-2003 9:56 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-24-2003 5:59 PM Kapyong has replied
 Message 80 by w_fortenberry, posted 09-17-2003 9:37 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 69 of 82 (52089)
08-25-2003 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by w_fortenberry
08-24-2003 5:59 PM


Hebrews
Greetings w_fortenberry,
Hebrews starts by declaring belief in the son and describes this son :
quote:
When in former times God spoke to our forefathers, he spoke in fragmentary and varied fashion through the prophets. But in these last days he has spoken to us in the Son, whom he has made heir to the whole universe, and through whom he created all orders of existence: the Son who is the effulgence of God’s splendor and the stamp of God’s very being, and sustains the universe by his word of power. When he had brought about the purgation of sins, he took his seat at the right hand of Majesty on high, raised as far above the angels as the title he has inherited is superior to theirs.
This theme closely matches the Hellenistic "Logos" - echoes can be seen in Philo and the personified Wisdom figure in "The Wisdom of Solomon". both from the early 1st century.
This "son" is an emanation or image of God, a secondary divinity that serves as an intermediary channel between God and humanity.
Hebrews casts this son of god as the spiritual High Priest whose sacrifice in heaven has established a new covenant, replacing the old.
No Earthly Jesus
But,
no-where in this lengthy epistle is any connection made between this son and Jesus of Nazareth. The son in Hebrews inhabits the heavens, no earthly setting is ever given, no dates, places, names, historical events.
Hebrews even goes so far as note that the son had never been on earth at 8:4 :
"Now, if he had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest"
sometimes translated :
Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest
There is no contrast with any earlier time when he was on earth - the point in this passage is that Jesus would have nothing to do on earth (as he is the Higher Priest and earthly priests are already here doing the earthly work)
The writer clearly sees Jesus as occupying the heavens, without visiting the earth in the past.
This is clarified by other comments :
10:37 : ' For soon, very soon (in the words of Scripture), he who is to come will come and will not delay." '
There is no room here or any earlier coming - the writer sees the future coming of the son to be his first visit.
Hebrews' son is a heavenly figure
Hebrews describes the son is purely spiritual terms, backed-up with citations of the OT - he is "higher than the angels", and the Psalms are quoted in support. It notes that God has "spoken to us through the son", but cites only OT passages as the "voice" of the son - but never gives a word of Jesus' alleged teachings - in fact no mention is made at all about the events of the Gospels, not even the resurrection is mentioned!
The son in Hebrews is a heavenly figure who is ever-present and speaks through the scriptures, not a recent historial person, consider at 10:5-7 the son speaks in what might be styled a mythical present through a passage from Psalm 40 (actually, from the Septuagint version, No. 39, showing that the community lives in a Hellenistic milieu, not a Hebrew one):
quote:
That is why, at his coming into the world, he says:
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire,
But thou hast prepared a body for me.
Whole-offerings and sin-offerings thou didst not delight in.
Then I said: ‘Here am I: as it is written of me in the scroll,
I have come, O God, to do thy will.’
Note the present tense of the Greek, showing that his coming is an ever present spiritual happening - not the slightest hint is made about an earthly coming of Jesus.
The sacrifice made by the son is in heaven :
better sacrifices are required to cleanse heavenly things (9:23).
"For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands ... but into heaven itself" (9:24)
The epistle is silent on the details of Jesus alleged ministry, even when discussing the new covenant no clear mention is made of the last supper events.
In sum,
the epistle of Hebrews shows clearly and repeatedly that the writer believed in the son as a spiritual entity who had never been on earth. Later Christians have re-interpreted some vague comments as if they refer to Gospel events - such arguments are weak.
Hebrews and Paul (and Philo, c.f. Enoch) all show similarities of thought, middle-platonic and even gnostic - but do not provide any hard evidence for a historical Jesus.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-24-2003 5:59 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-25-2003 12:42 PM Kapyong has replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 70 of 82 (52091)
08-25-2003 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by w_fortenberry
08-24-2003 5:59 PM


Hebrews 6:6
Greetings again,
"Chapter 6 verse 6 comes to mind "
Why?
It says that those who have "fallen away" are "crucifying again the son of God and holding him up to contempt"
How can this be a reference to a literal crucifixion?
Falling away does not literally crucify someone, and being likened to "holding up to ridicule" shows this is a allegoric crucifixion, not a literal one.
And, as this second "crucifixion" is not a literal one, why should we think the original was literal?
So,
this passage does NOT support a historical Jesus of Nazareth - rather it supports the mythic Jesus.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-24-2003 5:59 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 71 of 82 (52094)
08-25-2003 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by w_fortenberry
08-24-2003 5:59 PM


Hebrews 7:14
Hebrews chapter 7 verse 14 :
The son is said to be "sprung from Judah" because thats what scripture says about the Messiah - the writer is merely mining scripture for details about this heavenly figure. The lower world reflect the upper world, so heavenly figures share human attributes as "originals" or "templates".
Consider 2:14:
Since (Christ’s children) have blood and flesh, he too shared the same things in a similar manner "
Here Christ has flesh and blood in a similar way, a heavenly way - not an identical way.
There is no evidence here for a historical Jesus - merely descriptions about the son of God mined from the scriptures where he largely originated.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-24-2003 5:59 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 72 of 82 (52095)
08-25-2003 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by w_fortenberry
08-24-2003 5:59 PM


Greetings again,
quote:
Perhaps you could also consider Phillipians chapter 2 and the first verse of Galations. Do you have an explanation of the price mentioned in I Corinthians 6:20 or of the baptism of Romans chapter 6? Can you explain how the husband is commanded to love his wife in Ephesians 5:25?
Well, the Hebrews references didn't amount to much :-)
How about YOU explain why you think these prove a historical Jesus rather than a heavenly one?
quote:
And perhaps most importantly, can you explain what blood Paul makes reference to in Romans 3:25, 5:9, I Corinthians 10:16, 11:25, 11:27, Ephesians 1:7, 2:13, Colossians 1:14, 1:20, Hebrews 2:14, 9:7-25, 10:4, 10:19, 10:29, 12:24, 13:12, and 13:20?
The blood of Jesus, spilled on the heavenly plane which "rules" ours and which in some way affected the lower world (according to Paul).
What makes YOU think he is referring to physical blood of a historical person?
Just because blood is physical, does that mean ALL references to blood are historical?
What about Attis - according to myth he castrated himself and spilled blood under a pine tree - do you believe Attis is therefore historical?
What about Osiris - according to legend he was physically dismembered - do you believe it was a historical event?
What about Adam - he was supposedly made from blood and clay - do you believe that was a historical event?
Heck - we saw Aragorn bleed in Lord of the Rings - do you therefore believe Aragorn is a real person?
Why exactly do you think blood can only be physical and not mythical or spiritual?
All these references in Paul etc. - CAN be interpreted s references to a historical person, IF you already believe.
But,
all these references apply just as well, often BETTER, to a spiritual being,
and
they fit right in with neoplatonic concepts of a spiritual being from a upper plane
and,
coupled with the total silence about a historical Jesus, both by contemporary writers, and oddly enough even the earliest Christians,
argue strongly that Jesus of Nazareth never existed in history.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-24-2003 5:59 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by w_fortenberry, posted 09-17-2003 8:56 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 73 of 82 (52096)
08-25-2003 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by w_fortenberry
08-24-2003 5:59 PM


Archons
Greetings,
I thought it was well understood that the "archons" were spiritual beings.
The author of Ephesians (probably not Paul) talks about them in a couple of places quite clearly, with the same language as Paul uses in 1 Corinthians.
Origen assumed that Paul was talking about evil spiritual beings (and alludes to astrology of the Magi).
So did the Gnostic Marcion.
Ignatius used ‘archon’ in an angelic sense.
Frank Zindler has an interesting comment about Hipparchus' discovery of the precession of the equinoxes :
"It is difficult not to see this as a reference to the end of the 2150-year-long astrological Age of Aries, over which Mithra had reigned as 'Time-Lord' or chronocrat. Paul was writing almost exactly at the time the Age of Pisces was beginning, with Jesus as the new Time-Lord. The Greek for 'the rulers of this age' is "archanton tou aionos toutou". This fairly reverberates with both astrological and Gnostic mysteries. In gnosticism, the archons clearly are rulers of astrological derivation, and the ons are both rulers and periods of time. It is suggestive also, that the church father Origen, in commenting on this passage in Corinthians alludes to "the astrology of the Chaldeans and Indians" and "Magi" - Mithraic or Zoroastrian astrologers"
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-24-2003 5:59 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 75 of 82 (52624)
08-28-2003 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by w_fortenberry
08-25-2003 12:42 PM


Acts late and suspect
Greetings,
quote:
Acts 22:8. "And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest." From this verse and with the support of many others I will show that the writings commonly attributed to Paul the apostle refer to a literal, physical Christ.
Acts dates about 1/2 century or so after Paul, its not certain who wrote it (probably not a follower of Paul as they differ on key issues) - it is no proof for what Paul was referring to.
Secondly,
Acts DIFFERS in its retelling of Paul's visionary experience - the legend has grown in the telling.
Thirdly,
Acts includes elements from pagan myth, including the line from Euripides about "kicking against the goads (pricks)", and a phrase lifted from the Egyptian Mysteries (theos ho ton legon hegemon). Its as much myth as history.
Finally,
the GREEK New Testament (an interlinear of the Nestle Aland 26) does NOT have "Jesus of Nazareth" at 22:8, but rather "Jesus the Nazarene" (Gk NAZARAOIS). So too does Acts 26:9 have "Jesus the Nazarene".
In sum,
Acts is not evidence for Paul's writing,
Acts is a late and suspect source,
Acts refers to "Jesus the Nazarene" not "Jesus of Nazareth".
It can be seen that Jesus' hometown of Nazareth was accidentally derived from his being termed a "Nazarene" - but not from any historical information.
This supports my argument that the original Iesous Christos was a spiritual being, and only LATER did the Gospel stories of a historical person develop.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-25-2003 12:42 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by w_fortenberry, posted 09-20-2003 9:10 PM Kapyong has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024