The Hero Pattern (Could Jesus be fake?)...

reply to post by adigregorio


Like what?

Nothing in Tacitus' passage contradicts with Paul's teachings. Tacitus mentioned Jesus lived, He was the inspiration of Christianity, the movement started in Judea, then subsequently moved to Rome, and He was crucified under Pilate. Pretty much everything the Bible, including Paul, claims.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I'm hunting for the quotes right now, might be a second though. They were bookmarked on my old computer, and not this one. So I have to remember how I found them the first time.

The main one I remember is that he placed the crucifixion, death, and resurrection in a mythical place (might have been heaven, I do not remember)

Again I am searching now for the backup, patience is requested and apologies are offered for my lack of preparedness.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Letter excerpts taken from...
www.missionaryetexts.org...-paul
www.missionaryetexts.org...-paul

Definitions taken from...
www.dictionary.com...
www.dictionary.com...

Second Letter to Corinthians

19For (AI)the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us--by me and (AJ)Silvanus and (AK)Timothy--was not yes and no, but is yes (AL)in Him.

Why did he not mention the "fact" that Jesus preached himself at some point prior to this letter?

Letter to the Galatians

16to reveal His Son in me so that I might (AG)preach Him among the Gentiles, (AH)I did not immediately consult with (AI)flesh and blood,

re·veal /rɪˈvil/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-veel] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to make known; disclose; divulge: to reveal a secret.
2. to lay open to view; display; exhibit.
–noun
3. an act or instance of revealing; revelation; disclosure.
4. Architecture.
a. the part of the jamb of a window or door opening between the outer wall surface and the window or door frame.
b. the whole jamb of an opening between the outer and inner surfaces of a wall.
5. the framework or edge of an automobile window.

**definition of reveal**

So judging by this definition there are only 2 possible applications of this word in this passage. The first implies that Jesus was, until the letter, a secret. And 2, that "God" let Jesus show through Saul. Now people can choose whichever they want to apply, but to me it seems to be a 50/50 shot. One is the correct interpretation, the other is incorrect.

Second letter to the Thessalonians

7and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well (O)when the Lord Jesus will be revealed (P)from heaven (Q)with His mighty angels (R)in flaming fire,

www.dictionary.com...

re·veal 1 (rĭ-vēl') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. re·vealed, re·veal·ing, re·veals

1.
1. To make known (something concealed or secret): revealed a confidence.
2. To bring to view; show.
2. To make known by supernatural or divine means: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven" (Romans 1:18).

**definition of revealed**

Now we have a bit of a problem. I would say that 2 would apply here since it is an "act of god". And since it is "to make known" that would mean it was unknown at the time.

Second letter to the Thessalonians

10when He comes to be (W)glorified in His saints on that (X)day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our (Y)testimony to you was believed.

www.dictionary.com...

come (kŭm) Pronunciation Key
intr.v. came (kām), come, com·ing, comes
2.
1. To make progress; advance: a former drug addict who has come a long way.
2. To fare: How are things coming today? They're coming fine.
3. To reach a particular point in a series or as a result of orderly progression: At last we came to the chapter on ergonomics.
4. To arrive, as in due course: Dawn comes at 5 A.M. in June.
5. To arrive at a particular result or end: come to an understanding.
6. To arrive at or reach a particular state or condition: Come to your senses!
7. To move or be brought to a particular position: The convoy came to an abrupt halt.
8. To issue forth: A cry came from the frightened child.
9. To be derived; originate: Oaks come from acorns.
10. To be descended: They come from a good family.
11. To be within a given range or spectrum of reference or application: This stipulation comes within the terms of your contract.
12. To become: The knot came loose. This is a dream that has come true.
13. To turn out to be: A good education doesn't come cheap.

This word has a huge definition, and I would assume it is too big for a quote, so I pulled out the one that I think applies here. Now if Jesus had already been on the planet would this not be "10when He returns" instead of "come"? Come implies something that has not happened yet.

Now I do not wish to get into semantics debates. I understand that there are different interpretations of these passages. And discussion of those other interpretations is fine. Of course, if there is ample evidence that I am incorrect in my assumptions, there are always exceptions to the semantics rules.

Lastly, one thing I did notice throughout all of the letters is that he never once mentioned that JC lived anytime near the writing of the letters. There were no passages saying something to the effect of:

Do you not remember Him? He who died and arose so recently? How could you forget so quickly?

Look at history, how long does it take for people as a whole to forget an entire event? And it would have to be a BIG event. Something that would be hard to forget, like the son of a god appearing on the planet and teaching doctrines.

[edit]BB code is not my greatest forte!

[edit on 2/21/2008 by adigregorio]

[edit on 2/21/2008 by adigregorio]

reply to post by adigregorio



Just real quick as I don't have much time but what you are doing is completely without merit. The Bible was not written in English.

If you want to pick hairs on definitions of words and use of language you have to use the original text in Greek. I have done a little of this myself and preachers, theologians do it all the time.

To do so you need to understand the context of the passage and the Greek language.


See my thread Actual Picture of Hell where I try my hand at it. it's not so easy as you are trying to make it.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


That is why I didn't want a semantics debate. Unfortunately I do not know Greek, and therefore can not give appropriate definitions. However, the people who translated the Bible I would assume did know Greek.

Either way, if you do know the correct Greek passages, as well as better interpretations by all means post them (the exception to the rule)

Also, the passages I copied are from a pro-Christian site, not sure if that would be more acceptable or not. But I felt it was worth mentioning.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Not to mention many of those scriptures are referring to a SECOND coming.
With a sword of flaming fire.

Paul SAW Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus.

2Cr 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

2Cr 12:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth

Phl 1:20 According to my earnest expectation and [my] hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but [that] with all boldness, as always, [so] now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether [it be] by life, or by death.

Originally posted by adigregorio
Second Letter to Corinthians

Why did he not mention the "fact" that Jesus preached himself at some point prior to this letter?

Because the church at Corinth never met Jesus in person so Paul was mentioning the original missionaries who converted the Corinthians and brought the Gospel to them. Many of the recipients of the epistles (authored by Peter, John, Paul, Jude, James) became Christians due to them and the other apostles. Take BW's advice about the original Greek. It looks like you are taking things out of context in order to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Letter to the Galatians

to reveal His Son in me so that I might (AG)preach Him among the Gentiles, (AH)I did not immediately consult with (AI)flesh and blood

Same thing as above. Christianity started in Judea during Jesus' lifetime and only began to spread to the Gentile territory after His death after the great commission. They didn't travel throughout Asia Minor until then.

And now I urge you to go and look at Paul's epistles when he is inarguably expounding on Jesus' prior teachings. Keep an eye out for his introductions with things like, "Remember when Jesus said..." or "Did Christ our Lord not say..." etc. When getting into textual criticism of the Bible, it's always wise to inspect the original Greek, context, and other passages.

Perhaps there are certain qualities we all look for in a leader. We expect to see those qualities manifested in the biography of our leaders. When recounting their life stories, many leaders may emphasize, embelish, or even fabricate events in order to make themselves appear as if they have desirable qualities. Leaders are not necessarily writing their biographies to satisfy a checklist of life events, but rather they relate life events to satisfy a checklist of personal qualities.

For example, we like to see leaders that pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and rose to great heights from humble origins. In modern times, the leader may portray himself as coming from a working class upbringing. For example Bill Clinton portrayed himself as coming from a broken home in Arkansas. In ancient times, a leader may portray himself as being abandoned as a baby.

We also like to see leaders that were always somehow special, despite their humble origins. Modern leaders may portray themselves as being childhood prodigies or having other precocious qualities as youths. In ancient times the leader may have portrayed himself as being of divine lineage to meet this requirement.

reply to post by AshleyD


As I stated before, I do not know Greek, ancient or modern. However if someone here does, perhaps some translations?

Additionally, why are some of the letters explaining things as if the person/people reading them know what he is talking about? Assuming Asia minor had not been taught these things yet would it not have been wise to start at the beginning?

I do find it interesting that "no fair" is being called. Of course BW might have more to add since they stated that there was not time. I will wait patiently for the outcome of the current topic.

Also, how come Saul never mentions the other deeds of JC, his schooling of the scholars, his birth, his life?

And for Clearskies, I see many things in my dreams that does not make them "real". Visions are visions, JC did not physically walk up to Saul, he appeared in a vision. Of course this does not mean he is or is not real, at least in Saul's and others eyes. But for many, including myself, a vision is not a "real" thing. Well the vision is real, but what appears in it is not.

Originally posted by adigregorio
As I stated before, I do not know Greek, ancient or modern. However if someone here does, perhaps some translations?

HERE is a link to a lexicon. It always helps when I get in a bind and want to see what the original meaning is.

Additionally, why are some of the letters explaining things as if the person/people reading them know what he is talking about? Assuming Asia minor had not been taught these things yet would it not have been wise to start at the beginning?

Look at the epistles closely- almost all of them are follow up letters to places Paul or the apostles had already been. He often opens with things like, "Don't you remember what I said when I was with you?" or "I will do my best to come back and see you again" or "When I was with you, you will recall," etc.

Also, how come Saul never mentions the other deeds of JC, his schooling of the scholars, his birth, his life?

It appears he did so through oral evangelism. Judging by his NT writings, he spread the Gospel and did his preaching in person then used the epistles as follow-ups whenever the churches would need some help, have questions about his previous teachings, etc.

Ash has pretty much covered it. Greek isn't necessary - you just don't understand the context of what you're quoting. That is your main problem in understanding it. I don't think you ever studied it with an open mind. I think you are more familiar with Bible criticism than you are with the Bible itself.

As you see the events forecast in the Bible come true and you will, think about the great war I told you about. The fantastic supernatural tale I wove with fallen Angels and abductions and hybrids. Remember it... I believe you will see it in your lifetime. One last thing I would beg you to consider is

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

I hope you find a hero that works for you.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Hey, Whammy,
I'm interested in the aspect of the fallen angels and history, not covered in The Two Babylons.
What about the Giants?

I will study it and hopefully piece it together.
Giants in Mythology
I didn't know Cronus was supposed to be a Giant, but that would correspond to Nimrod.



[edit on 21-2-2008 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Remember it... I believe you will see it in your lifetime.

So did Saul. And every generation after that.

So that is it? You criticize my view on the Bible? I used to be a "follower", that is when I did most of my learning. So you are telling me that I was looking into "Bible Criticism" while I believed it was the truth.

I can not say I am surprised. From my point of view I have been pointing out things you can not defended to your liking, so you cry "no fair". Every time someone came up with a defense I was able to come back with valid discussion. I never once said, that's no fair! In fact, when I could not defend, or was flat out wrong I admitted it. I am not saying you are wrong, but it looks to me that you are avoiding the discussion, by assuming I will not accept whatever your defense would have been.

Then you seem to call me ignorant, or at least that is what I gathered from your quote. Again I can not say I am surprised. Of course I never expected to be heard in the first place. To me ignorance is denying other possibilities to the unknown/unsure. Ignorance is saying "It's my way or the highway". Neither of which I have done.

Well I did welcome the debate, when it was a debate. Sure started to feel like a battle there at the end though. I say now, and always will, to each their own; however, do not push your own, onto me. (Not that anyone did that, just how I live my life)

Lastly, what is my translating of Greek going to accomplish? Are you actually suggesting that the people who translated the Bible, and your Roman letter, do not know how to do it properly? If that is the case, then how can you expect one to believe they got the whole Jesus part correct?

Now, back to the topic at hand. Any other takers for the possibility Jesus is not who he is depicted in the Bible? (19/22) points is an awful lot to have in common with other gods/heroes. Especially if you are trying to be different, or in this case "right".

Originally posted by AshleyD
It appears he did so through oral evangelism. Judging by his NT writings, he spread the Gospel and did his preaching in person then used the epistles as follow-ups whenever the churches would need some help, have questions about his previous teachings, etc.

It appears he did so...

So my question is: Is it you who came to this judgment, or are there documented cases of this being the general consensus of the Christian faith?

And why would he not have written down the beginnings for future believers. Ones that could not ask him questions? Seems to me that this would be a good way of making sure faith would not dwindle.

Originally posted by adigregorio
[It appears he did so...

It appears he did so because it is stated point blank that he did so many times. This is stated explicitly in his own epistles, in Acts written by Luke, in the works of the early church fathers, and by his own eye witness assistants who traveled with him.

So my question is: Is it you who came to this judgment, or are there documented cases of this being the general consensus of the Christian faith?

Not my own conclusion. It is a general consensus reached after reading the New Testament and the extrabiblical sources. If Paul honestly taught that Jesus never existed as a human being or implied this was his belief then Christians would be talking about it everywhere.

There was a thread a couple of months ago that used Biblical quotes to show Jesus was a parent of small children. It was taken so out of context that when I showed the author the context he realized his error and retracted his claims. Had such a thing been stated in the Bible surely Christians would have noticed it at sometime in the last 2,000 years. So is the same with Paul believing Jesus was a historical figure. It is so obvious once you read the testimonies.

And why would he not have written down the beginnings for future believers. Ones that could not ask him questions? Seems to me that this would be a good way of making sure faith would not dwindle.

He did and so did others.

And it seemed above you might be getting a little flustered or are feeling a little attacked. Please, please don't think so at all. Anyone can tell you are a sweetheart and very sincere in your questions. But go back and read Acts, Paul's epistles, and the works of Ignatius and Clement. It is indisputable Paul evangelized orally and believed Jesus to be a historical figure. Hope that helps, Hon.

reply to post by adigregorio


I never said "No fair".

In spirit, I said "Oh please".

I don't think you ever read the whole New Testament. Maybe I am wrong. If so I apologize. Answer these questions for me then.

What was Pauls job before he converted to Christianity? What was his passion. What did he think of the Christians before he converted?

This is easy for anyone who has read the Bible and should take no research at all.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by adigregorio

 

What was Pauls job before he converted to Christianity? What was his passion. What did he think of the Christians before he converted?

If I remember correctly, he was a high ranking person in the Jewish faith. His passion was persecuting the early Christians. He thought Christians were "wrong", hence the persecution.

After he converted, many Christians were still wary of him. Some wondered if it was a ruse. He actually used his conversions as a tool to prove that Christianity was the "correct" path to follow.

Now if I am incorrect in any of that, it has been a long time since I read the bible. I read it front to back 2 times, this was about 7 or 8 years ago. I would read other parts more often, specifically areas without "begat begat begat begat".

reply to post by AshleyD


If he did write down the early parts of Jesus, where are the records?

And thank you for the kind compliments, I have a tendency to put more into things than is actually there. Even you pointed out that I may be making this into more than it actually was.

reply to post by adigregorio


Ok you got it.
Paul whipped them and hunted them down and killed them.
The Pharisees had Jesus killed. Paul was a big one. He had first hand knowledge of it.

If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

(phil 3)

He spent years chasing down and killing Christians, don't you think he believed Jesus had actually lived?

Why wouldn't he? He's whipping these Christians and killing them and they keep their faith. I makes absolutely no sense that he wouldn't believe at the very minimum Jesus existed and was crucified.

To me it is absolutely ludicrous to come to any other conclusion.