The phenomenology of the historical jesus.

[Sheshbazzar]

https://craigbenno1.wordpress.com/2015/ ... istortion/

Hilarious. Now which text did a 125 CE 'Aristides' write?
My bet is neither one.

[Leucius Charinus]

If genuine (and that's a big IF), the "Apology of Aristides" tells us that such a teacher (who was really God clothed with flesh via a Hebrew VIRGIN) was worshipped but it does not tell us "HOW such a teacher came to be worshiped as the divinity of a new religion".


LC

[craig benno]

'Aristides' raises a number of important points. Such as an early reference to a 'written' gospel from an outside source, and what that written gospel contained in it. It firmly debunks any notion that the gospel story was written at a much later date. It also debunks any notion that the Gospels were a fabrication of the church in the 4th century. Regarding the issue of when was Jesus worshiped as God, its well established that happened immediately after his crucifixion and resurrection. There is reliable evidence to suggest the book of Acts, which was written by Luke, was written around the 60AD. This is 27 odd years after his death and resurrection and records that Jesus was worshiped as God at that time...and that the early church was greatly persecuted for its worshiping of him.

There are earlier sources which refer to Jesus - but, outside of the Scriptures, 'Aristides' is the earliest (that we know of) who gives a full account of what the gospel message was. Regarding how he became to be worshiped, its all based around the resurrection, if you can prove that the resurrection didn't happen, then those who worship him are fools. But, if you can't prove it happened, then those who don't worship him, and accept him for who he said he was - they are the foolish ones.

[outhouse]

does not seem to be sufficient in your case to understand that the wikipedia article you quoted represents a common conventional view but does not represent what a significant number of scholars currently argue questioning that traditional understanding.
.

Nonsense.

It must really bother you that with all your infinite knowledge and education, that I almost always have a more credible conclusion then you have ever produced. At least I make a stand and have an opinion, and try to defend it right or wrong. I also possess the ability to be so open minded, I can still learn and change my mind when presented with credible evidence.


In this case your red herring of attacking me or anyone else credible is your typical MO.


Not one sentence in this thread, did you further anyone's knowledge, nor did you address phenomenology, nor the evolution of monotheism in early Judaism as clive brought up.

As a matter of fact Neil, if you did decide to stop judging, and used credible sources, everything I have stated is backed fully. But why is it my lack of knowledge knows this, and your infinite wisdom does not?


Now I have the right to deal with clive, because I have participated and provided credible sources, which he has not addressed head on, due to his inane replies and sources that don't even deal with the topic at hand.

[outhouse]

There is reliable evidence to suggest the book of Acts

.

Yet maybe you fail to realize it was a compilation, and said evidence may only reflect a sentence or paragraph, at best. Acts is steeped so deeply in rhetoric, little can be trusted on its own, even when it agrees with Paul.

Regarding the issue of when was Jesus worshiped as God

Well, lets talk about context here.

Divine, yes right away.

God ??? no.

its well established that happened immediately after his crucifixion and resurrection.

Resurrection is mythology probably added later and perverted from a spiritual one.

Did some small group identify him with god immediately as an equal to god? Possibly but not likely.


Early on the mythology factually grew from man to divine to deity. Deities were something a mortal man could be, so I think your context is way off base.


Not only that there was no center of Christianity starting from one place. There were many centers, with many different beliefs of just how divine this man was. These ranged from all god in spirit form, to all man. And when he became divine is also contradicted in text written 40-100 years after his death.


One thing is a fact, how you look at god in context, is different from these people.

then those who don't worship him, and accept him for who he said he was

Wrong my friend. Jesus never wrote a word.


Our earliest book that describes the man, Mark barely even talks about a resurrection, and the ending of Mark added later to meet the early evolving mythology. I don't see Mark gushing on and on as if it was a real physical event. So you need to ask yourself why?

[outhouse]

Phenomenology (from Greek phainómenon "that which appears" and lógos "study": the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness.

I'd like to see studies and discussions abot the appearance, experience, and consciousness of Chrestus, Christos, etc; and the application of those terms before and around the narrative about Jesus of Nazareth.

Wouldn't the cultural and social anthropology cover much of this?


There are so many different forms of philosophy that are more beneficial then obscure imagination based one's.

[Sheshbazzar]

'Aristides' raises a number of important points. Such as an early reference to a 'written' gospel from an outside source, and what that written gospel contained in it. It firmly debunks any notion that the gospel story was written at a much later date. It also debunks any notion that the Gospels were a fabrication of the church in the 4th century. Regarding the issue of when was Jesus worshiped as God, its well established that happened immediately after his crucifixion and resurrection. There is reliable evidence to suggest the book of Acts, which was written by Luke, was written around the 60AD. This is 27 odd years after his death and resurrection and records that Jesus was worshiped as God at that time...and that the early church was greatly persecuted for its worshiping of him.

There are earlier sources which refer to Jesus - but, outside of the Scriptures, 'Aristides' is the earliest (that we know of) who gives a full account of what the gospel message was. Regarding how he became to be worshiped, its all based around the resurrection, if you can prove that the resurrection didn't happen, then those who worship him are fools. But, if you can't prove it happened, then those who don't worship him, and accept him for who he said he was - they are the foolish ones.

There you go outhouse.
Do you worship and accept Jesus for who he said he was? For who Aristides said Jesus was? What does that make your form of belief in Jesus?

And Welcome to the Forum craig.

[MrMacSon]

Constantine and Arius

Constantine the Greek (a.k.a Constantine the Great) Roman Emperor from 306 to 337, is known for being the first Roman emperor to be converted to Christianity which strangely enough, Arius of Libya (256-356 AD) born of African descent centuries after Ptolemy 1, had a problem with the Roman empire teaching the Africans and the people of Rome to worship a statue and celebrating death. He was considered a heretic, a professed believer (of God), who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church (what the religious authorities usually controlled by government deem as the truth). Because he started attracting so many followers due to his teachings that were contrary to the Romans, Constantine called the council by summoning all the bishops to discredit Arius, The Council of Nicaea. During the time when this meeting was called upon, there was no mention of Jesus Christ at all; no man had ever existed by the name JESUS Christ, and an important fact is that this all took place Anno Domino (AD) (which Christians claim means after the death of Christ) but in Latin means ‘in the year of the lord’. The name Jesus Christ didn’t exist before the meeting was called (read the statements made during that timeframe). It was only after this that they presented to the people the name JESUS CHRIST.

What Lord are they referring to? Kings have always been referred to as Lords or gods.

If Jesus Christ didn’t exist during the time this meeting took place nor ever heard of whom are people worshipping today? [see last paragraph below]


Nicean Creed – Jesus Christ is born

[The] Nicean creed, which became the statement of the Christian faith, was written decreed and sanctified by 318 Roman Catholic bishops at the council in 325 AD (some believe this transformation took place “Council of Chalcedon” 451AD).

“We believe in one God the Father all-powerful of all things both seen and unseen one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God the only begotten from the father, that is from the substance of the father, god from god, light from light, true god from true god, begotten not made, consubstantial with the father, through whom all things came to be both those in heaven and those in earth for us humans and for out salvation he came down and became incarnate became human suffered and rose up on the third day went up into the heavens is coming to judge the living and the dead and in the holy spirit” (The origin of the Trinity)

The authorities shut Arius down and threatened him with death to keep his mouth shut. They positioned the creed during the time when people started becoming aware of the lies and deception, and ordered all books to be burned; destroying all ancient writings, “no evidence no argument”, and the outcome was the transformation from Serapis Christus, which means Christ the Savior, to Jesus Christ by edict of Emperor Constantine in 325 AD.

http://www.unbiasedtalk.com/the-intelle ... ne-romans/

[craig benno]

Outhouse.

No one said Jesus wrote a thing. However, that doesn't mean no one else wrote down what he said. It was common in Jewish culture for 12 year old to accurately recite the 1st 5 books of the Torah. With that kind of background, its obvious that one of Christ's disciples could accurately tell their story of what happened, and someone writes that story down. This happens every day in our modern courthouses and sitting parliaments.

It's my own personal experience, having been delivered from real demons; which freed me from a insidious gambling and porn stronghold - the baptism of the Holy Spirit which resulted in speaking in tongues and a radically changed life where the love of God filled me deeply from within - that I will continue to believe the Gospels and the book of Acts in a more literal way. Scripture tells us that a man without the spirit of God cannot receive the things of God and they are foreign to him - its impossible to argue someone into believing. It's obvious your a man of deep unbelief. No one can argue you out of that.

[craig benno]

[quote="

And Welcome to the Forum craig.

Thanks Shebazzer. For the record, I'm the blogger at https://craigbenno1.wordpress.com/ and I discovered this forum, through someone linking to my blog.