If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?

[Zzyzx]

.
There is some reason to doubt biblical tales that Jesus Christ, identified as a godman, died and came back to life (as discussed in many threads). Some theologians regard the resurrection to be less than literal.

Questions for debate:

1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?

2. Was Jesus supernatural?

3. What is the meaning of “son of god”?

[Flail]

It matters little who Jesus was. It matters greatly that we follow the selfless teachings and simple messages of love and kindness attributed to him in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that are lost by being sandwiched between the Old Testament and the rantings of Paul in the New Testament. Church dogma is not Jesus. Church is the anti-christ, leading us from helping each other to praying to God as if we don't have time to help our neighbor and pray that God will do it....

Sell the churches and use the money to help the poor and the needy.

Get over your self righteousness

Your rituals are embarrassing

Jesus is not a Christian.

[Catharsis]

>>1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?<<

Ask the Muslims...


>>Some theologians regard the resurrection to be less than literal.<<

The entire edifice of Christianity is supported on the event of the Resurrection. The Apostle Paul said: "If Christ had not risen (from the dead), our faith would be futile". (Corinthians I, 15: 17).

If there is no Resurrection, there is no Christianity -- I don't know what kind of Christian "theologians" you've been reading...


>>2. Was Jesus supernatural?<<

The proofs of His Divinity are the supernatural events that took place while He was here on earth. Christ did not rest on the proclamation of the truths alone; He certified His statements with miracles as well. The most astounding of all his miracles was His own Resurrection. That's the Christian position at least; otherwise ask the Muslims. The entire edifice of Islam is supported on the belief that Jesus was a mere man.


>>3. What is the meaning of “son of god”?<<

The Word of God is contained within God Himself. God in His Word is not two, but one. That Word of God is then revealed to man. The thing that is contained within is called being born out of that person. That is why the Word of God is called the Son: He is the Child Who is born from within God, but outside time. So, that is why the One God is called the Father, because He has His own Word Who is born out of Him, and is called the Son.

[Goat]

.
There is some reason to doubt biblical tales that Jesus Christ, identified as a godman, died and came back to life (as discussed in many threads). Some theologians regard the resurrection to be less than literal.

Questions for debate:

1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?

IF he existed, he probably was someone who the Romans considered a rabble rouser. My best bet that the figure that the Gospel Jesus was based on is
the Samaritan Messiah, who was executed by Pilate in 36 C.E. His name is not recorded, but he is the only figure that meets the Messianic concept that we know
Pilate executed. It was around the same time the Josephus claimed John was
executed also, so that fits in with at least some of the timing claimed by the Gospels.

2. Was Jesus supernatural?

IMO, no.

3. What is the meaning of “son of god”?

In the Jewish culture of the time, the term 'son of god' was someone who was particularly righteous and particularly blessed by god by their actions. A previous
'son of God' that is mentioned in the Bible is King David (see psalm 2:7)

In the case of Jesus and the Gospel of Mark, I would say this occurred when he was baptized by John.. according to the writer of that Gospel.

The events surrounding John The Baptist that are mentioned in the Gospel of Mark happened around 36/37 C.E., according to Josephus. The traditional dating of the events according to Christian tradition is 32/33 c.e... a disagreement there.

[The Duke of Vandals]

.1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?

First, there's no "if" about it.

To understand what Jesus was, we have to understand what was going on in Judea in the first century.

Some background: part of Jewish folklore is that the Jews always have heroes who show up to save the day when things are going bad. We see this time and again in Jewish writings.

So, let's look at what was going on in Judea.

After the fire in Rome, the the Romans were taxing the Jews, specifically, for the money to rebuild. This is about 64 ce. So, if you're a Jew, you can expect to be losing another huge percentage of your wealth/income on top of what the Romans already tax you.

About six years after that, the Romans destroy the Jewish temple (except the wailing wall).

If you're a Jew, things are not looking good for you. The Romans are taxing you. They've destroyed your holy place. They occupy your nation. Depressing stuff.

Whenever you find depression of that nature, you'll find people and stories that look to feed off it. The Jews were eager for a hero to come and save them.

Well, what's the next best thing to a hero?

Convincing people that the hero was "just here" and that he'll be back any day now to lay waste to the enemies of Judea.

Into this mix of tears and frustration are stories of radical rabbis from the early first century exagerated into tales of a godman.

Except no one could agree on who or what he was. You had the gnostics and other sects that saw the son of god as a fully spiritual being to be pondered and thought about and who would offer rewards in the afterlife. You have volumes of gospels written by early Christians which later Christians would discard not on any empirical basis, but because they threaten orthodoxy.

From the many conflicting sects of Christians, orthodoxy... with it's easy to remember and emotionally guilt ridden tale of persecution... is the sect of Christianity that wins out over all the others. Like any good victor in history, the early orthodox church establishes that it's assertions about Christianity (the Jesus tale we know today) are "right" and everything else is heresy.

Add into the mix Constantine's conversion to Christianity to gain gurilla fighters against his political enemies and voiala: you have the makings of the religion that (when mixed with worship of Caesar) became the dominant religion of Rome and thus Western civilization.

We know the resurrection didn't occur because it's A) OBVIOUSLY FU**ING IMPOSSIBLE (Christians tend to ignore this) and B) isn't mentioned anywhere by anyone living at the time. We know that second century Christian writers like Athenagoras of Athens were blithely unconcerned with the personhood of Jesus. We know that early Christian writers acknowledged that Jesus' story sounded a lot like pagan mythology that came earlier. Justin martyr's answer? To paraphrase: "Satan invented all those other earlier gods to trick people about Christ". (that's still the church's official standing on the issue, by the way)

So, you have first century writers and scholars living in Judea who are completely unaware of Jesus, second century writers who are convinced Jesus wasn't a person, and 21st century Christians who somehow know Jesus was a person.

2. Was Jesus supernatural?

No.

Jesus was a myth based on pre-existing and readily available Jewish prophecies (it's REALLY easy to fulfill prophecies when you have ancient text in hand and you're re-writing recent history) and earlier pagan gods. He's a tall tale start to finish.

3. What is the meaning of “son of god”?

I'll let Athenagoras explain it to you the same way he explained it to the emperor of Rome in the second century:

• That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things,

Incidentally, that's the closest Athenagoras comes to mentioning Jesus in all 37 parts of his essay "A Plea for the Christians" which was meant to be an explanation of Christianity fit for the emperor of Rome.

---------------------------

Sources:

www.jesusneverexisted.com

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... -plea.html

http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html

[Catharsis]

>>From the many conflicting sects of Christians, orthodoxy... with it's easy to remember and emotionally guilt ridden tale of persecution... is the sect of Christianity that wins out over all the others. Like any good victor in history, the early orthodox church establishes that it's assertions about Christianity (the Jesus tale we know today) are "right" and everything else is heresy.<<

Duke, I find your tone very repugnant.

The fact that the orthodox have been persecuted is indeed a historical and documented fact. It's been persecuted continuously from day one, up to year 2008, and is ongoing. In the 20th century alone, over 50 million orthodox christians perished, be it by communists, nazis, catholics, muslims, etc. If you don't believe me, read some books and do research on your own --- lest my 'lies' and emotionally guilt ridden 'tales' lead you astray.

[The Duke of Vandals]

>>From the many conflicting sects of Christians, orthodoxy... with it's easy to remember and emotionally guilt ridden tale of persecution... is the sect of Christianity that wins out over all the others. Like any good victor in history, the early orthodox church establishes that it's assertions about Christianity (the Jesus tale we know today) are "right" and everything else is heresy.<<

Duke, I find your tone very repugnant.

Of course you do. You've been indoctrinated to believe challenges to Christianity are challenges to you as a person... to the fundamental building blocks of your being. I'm sure Mormons feel the same way about anyone who points out Joseph Smith was a con man... or how Scientologists freak out when people imply L. Ron Hubbard invented the religion to make a buck.

The fact that the orthodox have been persecuted is indeed a historical and documented fact.

Not the way you think it is. Yes, Christians were persecuted for a bit, but mostly because the Romans associated them with Jews. Nero didn't persecute Christians. That's a myth*. So, I'm curious as to when you think this persecution happened and who the emperor was who did it.

It wasn't Galba, Otho, Vitellius,

It's been persecuted continuously from day one, up to year 2008, and is ongoing. In the 20th century alone, over 50 million orthodox christians perished, be it by communists, nazis, catholics, muslims, etc. If you don't believe me, read some books and do research on your own --- lest my 'lies' and emotionally guilt ridden 'tales' lead you astray.[/quote]


* http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/joseph ... ml#tacitus

[The Duke of Vandals]

>>From the many conflicting sects of Christians, orthodoxy... with it's easy to remember and emotionally guilt ridden tale of persecution... is the sect of Christianity that wins out over all the others. Like any good victor in history, the early orthodox church establishes that it's assertions about Christianity (the Jesus tale we know today) are "right" and everything else is heresy.<<

Duke, I find your tone very repugnant.

Of course you do. You've been indoctrinated to believe challenges to Christianity are challenges to you as a person... to the fundamental building blocks of your being. I'm sure Mormons feel the same way about anyone who points out Joseph Smith was a con man... or how Scientologists freak out when people imply L. Ron Hubbard invented the religion to make a buck.

The fact that the orthodox have been persecuted is indeed a historical and documented fact.

Not the way you think it is. Yes, Christians were persecuted for a bit, but mostly because the Romans associated them with Jews. Nero didn't persecute Christians. That's a myth*. So, I'm curious as to when you think this persecution happened and who the emperor was who did it.

It wasn't Galba, Otho, Vitellius, or Vespatian. None of them were really aware of the cult of Christianity (mostly because early Christians were still busy inventing it).

Domitian executes Clemens on charges of "Jewish manners" and "atheism". Hardly persecution.

Nerva is likewise clueless of the existence of Christians.

Trajan brings us into the second century. The closest he comes to "persecuting" Christians is to not seek out Christians nor act on anonymous charges.

Hadrian had to wage a war against the Jews. Again, we find the Jews were being attacked with the Christians taking credit for "persecution". He and the next emperor carry on Trajan's policy of not being jerks to Christians.

Antonius pius... just mentioned him.

Marcus Aurelius was no great enemy to the Christians. The worst he did was to threaten exile of those spreading morbid superstitions.

Commodus could have cared less about the Christians (incidentally, one of the people who helped murder him was a Christian).

The list goes on. When exactly do you think this "well documented" persecution took place?

It's been persecuted continuously from day one, up to year 2008, and is ongoing.

So, let me get this straight. Pointing out that your story isn't supported with evidence and offering a rational explanation of how Christianity came to be is "persecution"???

Riiiiiight.

In the 20th century alone, over 50 million orthodox christians perished, be it by communists, nazis, catholics, muslims, etc.

Hitler was a Catholic.

If you don't believe me, read some books and do research on your own --- lest my 'lies' and emotionally guilt ridden 'tales' lead you astray.

Pot meet kettle.


* http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/joseph ... ml#tacitus

[Catharsis]

>>Of course you do. You've been indoctrinated to believe challenges to Christianity are challenges to you as a person... to the fundamental building blocks of your being. I'm sure Mormons feel the same way about anyone who points out Joseph Smith was a con man... or how Scientologists freak out when people imply L. Ron Hubbard invented the religion to make a buck.<<

I don't really feel personally challenged or threatened. Your tone in general seems very menacing, but I don't know why you're so bitter; I picked out a quote that I did because persecution was indeed real, and not something invented.

>>So, I'm curious as to when you think this persecution happened and who the emperor was who did it.<<

There are many examples. This is just one:

The holy 20,000 martyrs of Nicomedia
On the feast day of the Nativity of Christ in the year 302, when about 20,000 Christians had assembled at the Nicomedia cathedral church, the emperor Maximian sent into the church an herald - who proclaimed the emperor's command to exit the church and offer sacrifice to idols; otherwise, he threatened to burn the church together with those praying in it. But all those present refused to worship idols. While the tormentors prepared to set fire to the church, Bishop Anthymos having completed divine services, baptized all the catechumens and communed all with the Holy Mysteries. All 20,000 of those praying died in the fire.


>>So, let me get this straight. Pointing out that your story isn't supported with evidence and offering a rational explanation of how Christianity came to be is "persecution"???<<

Not really. That's not persecution. You implied that persecution was somehow invented or blown out of proportion -- which I disagree with.

When I said that the orthodox continue to be persecuted to this day, I actually meant it in a real, physical way. A couple of years ago, muslims pogromed orthodox christians in "one" european province, and desecrated and destroyed tens of ancient orthodox churches and monasteries. Only a day ago, another orthodox church was desecrated. This is not reported by the western media, as the west and the vatican support the muslims against the orthodox in "this" part of the world.


>>Hitler was a Catholic.<<

This can be argued, but nevertheless...Do you know what nazis and catholics, in full collaboration, did in WW2?

Did you know that catholic friars alongside nazi militias ran a concentration camp for orthodox christians where more than 500,000 perished, including jews and roma (gypsies)?

[The Duke of Vandals]

I told you that persecution happened, but this wasn't until Christianity came onto the radar of the Roman emperors. They saw the church for what it was: a cult trying to gain power. Constantine used that to his advantage. This is really where the persecution starts.

What's more important here, though, it's what's going on in this thread. I've offered a very rational explanation of what Christianity really is and you've attempted to derail the discussion by going off on a tangent about persecution. No one doubts there were Christians living in the 4th century; they'd simply done the same thing you've done... assumed there was a Christ based on indoctrination/bad logic.

Why don't you stop evading, stop worrying about my "tone", and address the issues I raised in my reply, yes?