The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

Post by outhouse »

Peter Kirby wrote: The candidate that comes to my mind is ‘under the earth': that Jesus descended under the earth and was crucified and buried by the demons there. Perhaps the reader has their own ideas or comments on the subject.

.
My problem with this is that Pauls community wrote rhetorically to build up to persuade its specific readers, to go out of there way to make specific points in their context and meaning. And none of them mean this in conclusion.

To me its taking verses like this one way out of context. In context to me it simply states the typical Jewish place of the dead where people who lived go when they die a mortal death.

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%2010%3A7

“And do not say, ‘Who will go down into the ·world below [or depths; or place of the dead; L abyss; Deut. 30:13; Ps. 107:26]?’” (That means, “Who will go down and bring Christ up from the dead?”) [C Such impossible tasks are not needed for our salvation, since Christ already did them for us.]

NIRV

“And do not say, ‘Who will go down into the grave?’ ” (Deuteronomy 30:13) That means to bring Christ up from the dead.


1 Corinthians 15:47


the second man is the Lord from heaven; as Adam was the first man, Christ is the second man; and these two are spoken of, as it they were the only two men in the world; because as the former was the head and representative of all his natural posterity, so the latter is the head and representative of all his spiritual offspring: and he is "the Lord from heaven"; in distinction from the first man, who was of the earth, and whose lordship reached only to the earth; whereas Christ is Lord of all, not only Lord of lords below, but Lord of angels and saints above; the whole family in heaven and in earth is named of him; and he has all power in heaven and in earth, and a name above every name in this world, and that to come, and is indeed higher than the heavens: this is not to be understood of his human nature, or of his human body, as if that came down from heaven



I don't know Peter I need more
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

Post by Peter Kirby »

outhouse wrote:I don't know Peter I need more
Well, then. Help yourself. Do some digging. I don't own the dig; I just visit now and then and share what I find.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

Post by Bernard Muller »

to MrMacSon,
eg. the False Excluded Middle / No Middle Ground / Polarization Fallacy which occurs when two extreme positions are presented as an 'either/or' proposition, but [the proposition] excludes the middle ground of everything between the extremes.
So what would be the middle ground, between a historical Jesus having existed and one who did not exist?
Do you think that the historical Jesus that I found is extreme? http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 9514
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

Post by MrMacSon »

Bernard Muller wrote:to MrMacSon,
eg. the False Excluded Middle / No Middle Ground / Polarization Fallacy which occurs when two extreme positions are presented as an 'either/or' proposition, but [the proposition] excludes the middle ground of everything between the extremes.
So what would be the middle ground, between a historical Jesus having existed and one who did not exist?
Whether Jesus existed or not is, essentially, a black and white issue.*

My reference/s to a false choice fallacy (such as a false dilemma fallacy or a black-and-white fallacy) was this about three passages -
Bernard Muller wrote:If you cannot prove that ALL the passages I indicated (inferring a historical Jesus) are either interpolations, or subject to alternative (but not far-fetched) probable interpretations, or your mythicist hypothesis is true, I won the argument.
* there are several things that color the seemingly black and white issue about whether Jesus existed or not: it's possible he did exist, but not as a first-century entity as 'He' is largely portrayed. He may have been from another time; the narrative about 'Him' may be colored by conflation with stories of others folded into the NT narrative; or they may reflect embellishment of either OT narratives, or separate fictional stories eg. the Jonah the whale story is apparently known in many other religions or myths from before Judaism or Christianity - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah#Sug ... to_legends - and I have seen commentary about more than in that passage from wikipedia (eg. Eastern / Asia myths and religions)
Secret Alias
Posts: 21154
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

Post by Secret Alias »

This is where the bullshit from the other side comes clearly to the fore. The idea that the preservation of books from the Catholic tradition (c. 200 CE) is reliable and trustworthy is a most ridiculous assertion. Almost as ridiculous as trusting on rabbinic sources to tell us about 'the other side' (variously defined) in their culture.

There is no earlier Catholic user of Paul than Irenaeus. Yes Paul is mentioned in Clement but clearly Irenaeus knows Clement and tells us (effectively) 'I've preserved his works for you.' This goes for all the texts. Irenaeus is the first explicit 'person' whom we meet directly. All the others - Polycarp, Justin, Ignatius, Clement, Paul, Timothy etc. - these are all Irenaeus 'version' of whomever these individuals were originally.

How isn't this obvious? Have the people at this forum even read Adv Haer from end to end? Of course not. At most they read chapters of various New Testament books. But whom do you think preserved these texts for us? Does this question even get asked by the bright minds or do they - as I suppose - trust that somehow these 'underground texts' came down to us faithfully preserved? What is the evidence for this? Why is it the job of the other side to prove the fraudulence of the texts when Irenaeus says explicitly ALL THE CHRISTIAN TEXTS besides my texts were faulty and corrupted by individuals with self-interests which crept into their versions of the Holy Scriptures?

If all the Christian texts were fraudulently copied surely this rule applies also the Catholic texts? If not, why should we imagine a separate rule for the latest 'collection' to come to the table?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 21154
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

Post by Secret Alias »

And let me educate these people. In antiquity scrolls were held in public institutions ('libraries'). They were copied in public places and basically checked against 'canonical' exemplars. If Christianity was until Irenaeus an underground religion with copies of works surviving and multiplying in private collections how on earth do we determine what the true fucking texts are - of Paul for instance? HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO KNOW WHAT 'AUTHENTIC PAUL' IS SUPPOSED TO SOUND LIKE? Seriously this pretense of 'the latest version' of these Christian scriptures were flawless and perfect is so dumb it only demonstrates the stupidity of those who promulgate such notions. What we have are simply THE LAST versions of the scriptures and in almost all cases THE LONGEST versions of the scriptures. This certainly means we have the most corrupt not the least corrupt of the texts. The situation is utterly hopeless. Give up. There are only two possibilities - Marcion was first and nothing is true, everything is bullshit. It simply can't be that Irenaeus somehow 'found' the true texts somewhere and preserved them for us. He never says anything about a vault where all the true books were kept in Rome. He believes that Ezra rewrote the Torah of Moses out of his own imagination. Think about that for a moment when you want to close your eyes and imagine there were 'standards' in the Church for faithfully preserving manuscripts in the second century. Ezra took a blank scroll, rewrote the Torah - and Irenaeus says 'that's perfectly cool.' We accept these texts and embrace them because we do that too. With God anything is possible. Just close your eyes and believe. These are his critical standards. the historical reality is that Irenaeus just edited a version of the scriptures - like Ezra - 'according to the Holy Spirit' and then deposited this edition in a public library. That's the collection which came down to us - the Irenaeus 'moved by the Holy Spirit with additions and subtractions and rearrangements everywhere' version of the Christian scriptures. If he had found 'the true texts' - actual ancient manuscripts from the first century - somewhere he would have told us. Instead he avoids the issue entirely because his audience are mostly made up of New Prophesy movement people who believe any bullshit if it is 'according to the Holy Spirit.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 21154
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

Post by Secret Alias »

And given this situation - what is the reliable estimate that THESE TEXTS that we have preserved by Irenaeus are faithful ones? Less than one percent I imagine.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 21154
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

Post by Secret Alias »

I think 'mythicism' should direct its energies at these texts AND THEN PRESENT the possibility of Jesus being an angel or a pizzamaker. The real 'myth' is that our surviving texts faithfully preserve the originals. That's much easier to demonstrate than arguing that Jesus is an angel based on fraudulent texts. Once the texts are acknowledged to be unreliable anything (or nearly anything) is possible.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 15338
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

Post by Giuseppe »

Adam wrote:Nice argument, Bernard, but it ignores a compromise solution, namely that the early Catholic Church was always right about this, that the so-called "Brothers" were really "cousins" (or for early Orthodoxy and by the Proto-Evangelium of James, "step-brothers"):
This claim is false. Hegesippus was clearly an anti-marcionite proto-Catholic, and yet he was the first to introduce the James ''brother of Lord'' in a biological sense.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

Post by Bernard Muller »

to MrMacSon:
* there are several things that color the seemingly black and white issue about whether Jesus existed or not: it's possible he did exist, but not as a first-century entity as 'He' is largely portrayed. He may have been from another time; the narrative about 'Him' may be colored by conflation with stories of others folded into the NT narrative; or they may reflect embellishment of either OT narratives, or separate fictional stories eg. the Jonah the whale story is apparently known in many other religions or myths from before Judaism or Christianity - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah#Sug ... to_legends - and I have seen commentary about more than in that passage from wikipedia (eg. Eastern / Asia myths and religions)
(bolding mine)
Essentially, you cannot prove he did not exist "as a first-century entity as 'He' is largely portrayed".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply