| Author |
|
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12464
|
| Posted: 14 September 2017 at 4:22am | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
QUOTE:
| Early Christians had to vamp. |
|
|
And ever since, too.
Whatever could possibly have been the Jewish origin of whatever became Christianity was quickly lost and is irretrievable. Nothing didn't happen, obviously. But between that and the Christian creed affirming that the Jesus of Nazareth as per the Gospels and Church traditions "was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried" is a gulf impossible to span historically.
Edited by Michael Penn on 14 September 2017 at 4:22am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132391
|
| Posted: 14 September 2017 at 5:03am | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
If there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified by the Romans, why would they have 'had to vamp'?••• Here we return to the idea that "Jesus" was built of many parts. That "he" was a collection of stories about several different men over several decades. These stories got folded together, and the form was set before the Christian cult fully asserted itself. (Important to remember that there were many different groups composing this cult, and they did not always agree with each other, even on the most basic points.)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Petter Myhr Ness
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 July 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 3836
|
| Posted: 14 September 2017 at 7:00am | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
...and is only the belief of a segment of Christianity, albeit a significant segment of Western Christianity--
"Jesus died for our sins" is surely one of the most common phrases uttered throughout Christianity.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3491
|
| Posted: 14 September 2017 at 7:52am | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
"Jesus died for our sins" is surely one of the most common phrases uttered throughout Christianity. ------------------------------------------------- But that means different things to different Christians. The idea that an angry God the Father required the blood of his own Son to appease him is a relatively late Western development.
And contra Michael Penn's suggestion, the Greek word 'dei' does not imply all of that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3491
|
| Posted: 14 September 2017 at 7:57am | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Here we return to the idea that "Jesus" was built of many parts. That "he" was a collection of stories about several different men over several decades. These stories got folded together, and the form was set before the Christian cult fully asserted itself. (Important to remember that there were many different groups composing this cult, and they did not always agree with each other, even on the most basic points.) ------------------------------------------------------------ --- And all of that happened in the 12 or 13 years between when Jesus is said to have died and when Paul wrote Galatians? The crucifixion is pretty much the only event of Jesus' life that you can distill from the Pauline corpus, but its there, and its very early.
I'm not just being precious here, this is Bart Ehrman's central argument for the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth: if he was invented, no one ever would have attributed to him the detail of having been crucified by the Romans. That was well known to be what happened to false Messiahs. So if you were trying to put someone, real or imagined, over as the Messiah, that is the absolute last thing you would say about them. To a lesser extent, the fact that he's known as 'Jesus of Nazareth' points in the same direction, as Christians then had to go out of their way (in two different ways) to try to say 'Jesus of Nazareth' was really from Bethlehem. This implies that, before the Christian movement, there were two facts known about the historical Jesus, that he was from Nazareth and that he was crucified by Rome, both of which presented major problems that the Christians needed to work around. They had to work around them because they were known facts.
Edited by Steve De Young on 14 September 2017 at 7:58am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 14 September 2017 at 7:59am | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
I stopped believing when Frankenstein was mentioned in the Gospels. Gold, Frankenstein and myrrh, right? At that point, I knew the books were 'borrowing' elements from Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Bill Collins
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 11255
|
| Posted: 14 September 2017 at 8:16am | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
Robbie,you crack me up!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132391
|
| Posted: 14 September 2017 at 8:29am | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
I stopped believing when Frankenstein was mentioned in the Gospels. Gold, Frankenstein and myrrh, right? At that point, I knew the books were 'borrowing' elements from Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN!•• Well, maybe not -- tho a strong argument can be made that Jesus was a vampire. Rising from the grave. Compelling his followers to drink his blood.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 14 September 2017 at 8:33am | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
Well, maybe not -- tho a strong argument can be made that Jesus was a vampire. Rising from the grave. Compelling his followers to drink his blood.
***
Now that's a graphic novel I'd read.
And, oddly, it's actually true!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132391
|
| Posted: 14 September 2017 at 8:38am | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
Here we return to the idea that "Jesus" was built of many parts. That "he" was a collection of stories about several different men over several decades. These stories got folded together, and the form was set before the Christian cult fully asserted itself. (Important to remember that there were many different groups composing this cult, and they did not always agree with each other, even on the most basic points.)++++ And all of that happened in the 12 or 13 years between when Jesus is said to have died and when Paul wrote Galatians? The crucifixion is pretty much the only event of Jesus' life that you can distill from the Pauline corpus, but its there, and its very early. •• But that doesn't mean it belongs there. Paul pretty much made up anything he needed to support his version of the story. Remember, Paul never met Jesus, nor heard him speak, Everything came to Paul as a patchwork built of what was already there. (And a "vision". But common sense demands we discount the supernatural.) Somebody might have been crucified,* and he might even have been the last one in the "line" -- but the Romans nailed up a LOT of people. Hard to distinguish one from the many. (Altho you'd think it would be easy, what with the recent dead walking the streets and all kinds of grumblings from the sky.) _____________________ * Tho not in the commonly imagined form. The Romans preferred the stauros, a pointed stake on which victims where nailed or impaled. There was no crossbeam.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132391
|
| Posted: 14 September 2017 at 8:39am | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
Well, maybe not -- tho a strong argument can be made that Jesus was a vampire. Rising from the grave. Compelling his followers to drink his blood.+++ Now that's a graphic novel I'd read. And, oddly, it's actually true! •• Except for the Jesus part.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 14 September 2017 at 8:43am | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
Well, yes, the concept is true (I'm with you on the Jesus part).
I found the idea of transubstantiation bizarre. Someone I dated had a gluten allergy. She wasn't Catholic, but I did mention it to a believer: if the bread literally becomes Jesus' body, whilst retaining the appearance/texture of bread, then surely my ex-girlfriend could have eaten 'normal' bread without damaging her gut?
They couldn't answer. The truth is, the bread is bread, it remains bread and no supernatural powers would prevent it from affecting her gluten intolerance.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
