GoodAttention
Active Member
That is an interesting view to reconcile life, death, afterlife, and immortality as the same, but I suppose this is the Christian view?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?
- Thread starter Comradio251
- Start date
That is an interesting view to reconcile life, death, afterlife, and immortality as the same, but I suppose this is the Christian view?
Bharat Jhunjhunwala
TruthPrevails
That is secular reasoning because Bible says there is slavery therefore there is slavery. I think one has to look for other evidence. Incidentally, the Bible does not talk about slavery at all, Bible only says that there works load increased that could very much be the work load of wage workers. The whole idea of slavery is biblical innovation to hypnotise the believers.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Can you quote me verses from the Tanakh that mention hell, or any instance of God and Satan duking it out?
Oh no. For one thing, there was more than one god in Persia. Zoroastrianism is a dualistic religion where opposing forces of good and evil are engaged in a cosmic battle (not true in Judaism, where God rules all). In Zorastrianism, you have the good god, Ahura Mazda, battling against the evil god, Angra Mainyu (or Ahriman).
All the Jewish texts from that era refer to YHWH, not either of the two gods above.
Nor did the Jews accept any of the Greek gods. In fact, we revolted against the Greeks because they were trying to force us to worship their gods.
Nope Deuteronomy 24:16 "Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons, nor shall sons be put to death because of fathers; each man shall be put to death for his own transgression." Deuteronomy was compiled in the 7th century BCE, but the texts that are spliced together are far older.
Really? You think Hezekiah was not a historical person? Despite the Assyrian King recording Hezekiah fortifying Jerusalem and withstanding his siege? Despite the Taylor Prism mentioning things Hezekiah did that gel with the Bible? Despite archaeologists finding Hezekiah's Tunnel, the Broad Wall, and his seal?
Yeap. Almost all the science fiction I've watched are simply modern morality plays, with very few exceptions. I think Hollywood has changed modern morality more than any other factor.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Explain to me where in this verse it says that humans are immortal.
I'm fine that the NT is meaningful to you. It's just that it carries no weight with me or my fellow Jews.
Nowadays almost anything can be called a Christian view. I personally try to remain loyal to what Jesus said. And he said:
But concerning the resurrection of the dead, haven't you read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?' God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
Matt. 22:31-32
Because of that I think perhaps there is no afterlife, there is only continuing life for those who are righteous, and death for those who are not.
Difficult to believe that, especially if one reads the rules for slavery.
I don't say it means humans are immortal, only that it shows the idea of living forever.
If you are speaking of "Christians" concepts, shouldn't you know to what they are based on? If you don't know, perhaps it would be best to not make any claims of them.
joelr
Well-Known Member
I meant lover of a Roman Emperor. This was an Egyptian and Roman cult. Not one of the Hellenistic mystery religions.
But either way, a mystery cult being based on an actual teacher is still a myth. Just like the stories of magic and such are made up stories, same with all of them. This was a common practice.
It wasn't close to his like? Paul wrote 20 years later, 40 various Gospels from all types of different versions of the stories were around for an entire century. The beginning of the 2nd century we find the Bishop mentioning Gospels his sect wants to be canon. The modern canon came together during the 2nd century. That is 150 years later.
The Mystery religions all have the same timeline. The nations were occupied by Greek colonists from 300BCE onwards and all developed a Hellenized version with a son/daughter of the supreme God. And they all used the same package of ideas. They are personal salvation cults.
David Litwa has courses on this on his site.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yes each nation makes up all kinds of things. They also don't just say one thing. There are many passages that suggest suffering.
Matthew 8:12
While the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”Mark 9:48
‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’But in the Persian religion it was also said:
"with annihilation of the wicked;" so sometimes they also said simplar things. Depends who is writing, what sect, what beliefs, this is centuries of material. Beliefs change. There are currently hundreds of sects of just Christianity.
The point is there was no hell, then there was after the Persian occupations. That actually demonstrates syncretism perfectly. It's not literal copying, each nation has their own take on the new ideas. Many passages suggest eternal suffering, with or without a soul. So you just pointed out more inconsistencies.
The central ideas of heaven and a fiery hell appear to come directly from the Israelite contact with Iranian religion. Pre-exilic books are explicit in their notions the afterlife: there is none to speak of. The early Hebrew concept is that all of us are made from the dust and all of us return to the dust. There is a shadowy existence in Sheol, but the beings there are so insignificant that Yahweh does not know them. The evangelical writer John Pelt reminds us that “the inhabitants of Sheol are never called souls (nephesh).”4
Saosyant, a savior born from Zoroaster's seed, will come and the dead shall be resurrected, body and soul. As the final accounting is made, husband is set against wife and brother against brother as the righteous and the damned are pointed out by the divine judge Saosyant. Personal and individual immortality is offered to the righteous; and, as a final fire melts away the world and the damned, a kingdom of God is established for a thousand years.7 The word paradis is Persian in origin and the concept spread to all Near Eastern religions in that form. “Eden” not “Paradise” is mentioned in Genesis, and paradise as an abode of light does not appear in Jewish literature until late books such as Enoch and the Psalm of Solomon.
Satan as the adversary or Evil One does not appear in the pre-exilic Hebrew books. In Job, one of the very oldest books, Satan is one of the subordinate deities in God's pantheon. Here Satan is God's agent, and God gives him permission to persecute Job. The Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu, the Evil One, the eternal enemy of God, is the prototype for late Jewish and Christian ideas of Satan. One scholar claims that the Jews acquired their aversion to homosexuality, not present in pre-exilic times, to the Iranian definition of the devil as a Sodomite.8
In 1 Chron. 21:1 (a book with heavy Persian influences), the Hebrew word satan appears for the first time as a proper name without an article. Before the exile, Satan was not a separate entity per se, but a divine function performed by the Yahweh's subordinate deities (sons of God) or by Yahweh himself. For example, in Num. 22:22 Yahweh, in the guise of mal'ak Yahweh, is “a satan” for Balaam and his ***. The editorial switch from God inciting David to take a census in 2 Sam 24:1, and a separate evil entity with the name “Satan” doing the same deed in 1 Chron. 21:1 is the strongest evidence that there was a radical transformation in Jewish theology. Something must have caused this change, and religious syncretism with Persia is the probable cause. G. Von Rad calls it a “correction due to religious scruples” and further states that “this correction would hardly have been carried out in this way if the concept of Satan had not undergone a rather decisive transformation.”
Nick Gier. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy University of Idaho Senior Fellow Martin Institute
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
I would assume this is talking about before the resurrection. Is pointless nit-picking the only point you have?
The Quran says Muhammad is a prophet, Mormon Bible says Joe Smith had revelations. I don't care what a story claims. I care about what is true and what can be demonstrated. Buying into a story doesn't make it true.
I'm still waiting for the evidence to back all of your claims.
joelr
Well-Known Member
I don't care what a fictional story tells us. Do you care what the Quran "tells us"? Or the Hindu scriptures or the Greek mystery religions?
Please demonstrate a God exists.
Then demonstrate the historicity of John. He also looks to have used Mark and added much more supernatural elements to the character.
Originally demigods in personal salvation Mystery religions are not the God, they are a son or daughter of the supreme deity.
Of all the Gospels John is the most likely to be completely made up mythology.
"
The situation only gets worse from there, since the anonymous author of Matthew then borrows from as much as 80% of the material in this earlier anonymous source, which itself was based on oral traditions. Likewise, the anonymous author of Luke copies from 65% of the material of the anonymous author of Mark. Furthermore, the author of Luke even suggests that he did not have personal access to eyewitnesses, since he specifies in the prologue of his gospel (1:1-2) that he was making use of previous written accounts (none of which he identifies by name, but we can tell that he copied material from Mark), which themselves were based on traditions that were “handed down” over a span of time (allegedly from distant, original eyewitnesses, although the author of Luke names none).
John is the only gospel to claim an eyewitness source, and yet the author does not even name this mysterious figure, but simply refers to him as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” This is hardly eyewitness testimony, and it is probably the case that the author(s) of John invented this figure. One possibility is that the anonymous beloved disciple is a character already identified within the text. Verbal parallels suggest that the anonymous disciple may be Lazarus from John 11 (verses 1; 3; 5; 11; 36), whom Jesus raises from the dead in the passage.[30] This Lazarus is likely based on the retelling of a story about an allegorical Lazarus in Luke 16:20-31. In the parable, Lazarus is a beggar who was fed by a wealthy man who dies and goes to Heaven, but the rich man dies and goes to Hell. The rich man begs Abraham in Heaven to send Lazarus to warn his family, since, if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent. In Luke, Abraham refuses to send Lazarus from the dead, arguing that people should study the Torah and the Prophets to believe and will not be convinced even if someone from the dead visits them. In the Gospel of John, however, in which Jesus is more prone to demonstrate his powers through signs and miracles, rather than by appeals to Old Testament verses like in the Synoptic Gospels, the author instead has Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, so that people might believe in him. The author of John thus very likely is redacting a previous story based on an allegorical character.
Regardless, even if the anonymous beloved disciple is not based on Lazarus[31], the Gospel of John is still extremely ambiguous about this character’s identity. The text even refuses to name him at key moments, such as the discovery of the empty tomb (20:1-9), where other characters such as Mary Magdalene and Peter are named, and yet this character is deliberately kept anonymous. The traditional identification of the disciple with John the son of Zebedee is undermined, among many other reasons, by the internal evidence of this beloved disciple’s connection with the high priest of Jerusalem (18:15-16), which could hardly be expected of an illiterate fisherman from backwater Galilee. The Gospel of John likewise shows signs of originally ending at John 20:30-31, and chapter 21, which claims the anonymous disciple as a witness, is very likely an addition from a later author. The chapter (21:24) distinguishes between the disciple who is testifying and the authors (plural) who know that it is true, suggesting that (even in this secondary material) the anonymous disciple is not to be understood as the author of the final version of the text.[32] Furthermore, the final composition of John is dated to approximately 90-120 CE, which is largely beyond the lifetimes of an adult eyewitnesses of Jesus.[33] In order to compensate for this problematic chronology, the author even had to invent the detail that this supposed eyewitness would live an abnormally long life (21:23) to account for the time gap. This detail is further explained if the anonymous disciple is based on Lazarus, who was already raised from the dead and has conquered death. Ultimately, all of these factors suggest that the unidentified “witness” is most likely an authorial invention (probably of a second author) used to gain proximal credibility for the otherwise latest of the four canonical Gospels.[34]
Given all of the problems with the traditional authorship of John, even Christian scholar Raymond Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 368-369) explains: “As with the other Gospels it is doubted by most scholars that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness of the public ministry of Jesus.”
Matthew Ferguson, Biblical scholar
It's also very sad when people take a work of obvious fiction, and think it's real in any sense. Especially when their only evidence is "the book says it's true".
But not other books, just mine.
And even worse, they think they know the book but as we will see below, you really don't.
John is made up, see next post.
"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."
Please tell me what absurd apologetics you have to use to twist the plain meaning of the text to pretend it's not an error.
What you mean is some people don't understand your twisting of obvious statements into bizarre magical explanations that somehow allow something false to be true?
HA, now look who is the one sad person who is taking one line from the Bible and saying it's the only truth. In the very same post HA!!!!
- Luke 17:20-21: Jesus tells the Pharisees that the kingdom of God is "among you" and cannot be observed. Some say that this means the kingdom of God is wherever and whenever God meets the faithful, and that Jesus himself embodies the kingdom.
- Psalm 103:19: This verse states that "The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all".
- Daniel 4:3: King Nebuchadnezzar says that God's kingdom is "eternal".
- Romans 13:1: This verse states that God has established every authority that exists.
- Matthew 3:2: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
- Matthew 4:17: "From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'"
Different people had different ideas. The idea there is only one is a modern invention. That you fell for.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Mark had clearly written when no miracles had yet been imagined for Jesus, as Paul says, no signs were given to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ (1 Cor. 1.22-24). Hence even when Mark invents miracles to put in his story as allegories, he makes sure no one other than the disciples ever either notice or talks about them or understands them. Even the witnesses of the empty tomb never tell anyone about it. 16.8
Matthew had already expanded and corrected Mark by having Jesus say instead that an evil and adulterous generation seeks i sign and therefore "no sign shall be given except the sign of Jonah" meaning the resurrection of Jesus. Matthew thus slightly retreats from Mark by allowing one sign - and accordingly, unlike Mark, Matthew actually narrates a resurrected Jesus and makes sure that in his story the Jews "know" about it. This was not the case before. Matthew is inventing new evidence. The same point was then reinforced by Luke's repetition of Matthew's expanded revision of Mark and by his invention of the parable of Lazurus and the public announcements to the Jews.
"John is a free redaction of the previous Gospels. Some maintain he is independent of them, but there is no evidence of that. To the contrary, the evidence is abundant that John knew all previous Gospels and used them as sources. He simply redacted them more freely, rewriting everything in his own words, which was the more common way ancient writers used sources, In the words of L. Michael White
-John's many changes to the synoptics may well have been made intentionally and with full awareness of the Synoptic tradition,Seceral features of the Johannine narrative seem to reflect such an awareness and use of the Synoptic tradition, including direct verbal similarities with distinctive linguistic formulations or narrative elements in MArk and Luke respectively -
In fact I would say this evidence is adequately conclusive (and That Matthew was also known to John, but less used)..)
For example, John copies Mark's pairing of the feeding of "five thousand and Jesus" walking on the water (John 6 thus derives from Mk 6.31-52), in the exact same sequence. Yet as we saw earlier, this pairing and sequence was a product of Markan literary structure. It also involves absurd events that obviously never really happened. Accordingly, the only likely reason John would connect these same events in the same order is that he is borrowing the whole sequence from Mark. This is alsoi the only likely explanation for why they share so many precise details in common, such as that "five thousand" were fed, that exactly "twelve baskets" of crumbs remained, that Jesus started with exactly "five loaves and two fishes" and that feeding the crowd would otherwise have cost "two hundred denarii".
John likewise borrows the literary structure of Mark's narrative of Peter's denial of Christ: and the notion that Jesus once cured a blind man with spit but had to back that uup with additional magic to get the spell to work. And so on.
(many more examples from Mark and Luke are given)
John "refutes" this entire sentiment by littering his Gospel with explicitely identified "signs" and by reversing Luke's parable of :azurus with an actual tale of Lazurus. Indeed, Johns Jesus fills his ministry with "signs" that "manifested his glory" and it is for this reason "his disciples believed in him", a notion not found in the pervious Gospels.
When Jesus is asked for a sign, he does not declare, as the other Gospels do, that no sign will be given or that only an evil generation would ask for one; rather he simply says that his resurection will be a sign.
This is essentially what Matthew and Luke had Jesus say, "correcting" Mark (who did not allow even for the resurrection to be a sign, for Mark it only accomplishes Jesus defeat of death); but John conspicuously does not say this will be th eonly sign. To the contrary, he immediately tells us, "having seen the signs he did, many believed in his name" and a "great multitude" followed him because the signs he did, and when people see the signs he did they declare him a true prophet and we're told "no one can do these signs that you do unless God be with him" and Jesus says, "you will in no way believe unless you see signs and wonders
" and although this is a rebuke, he nevertheless dutifully performs a miracle to provide them one Jn 4.48-54.
This obsessive focus on signs (proof) is unique to John and characterizes a lot of what he has done to change up the story, including inventing the most absurd resurrection narrative of all: the Doubting Thomas episode. The authors of John are hus very keen to create proof and to insist it is this "evidence" that justifies belief, a concern not voiced in the earlier Gospels. This is why John alone invents an eyewitness source and claims(unnamed, never heard of before) and claims he has this information from him, and obsessively talks about who and what bears witness of Jesus. There is nothing like this in the pervious Gospels. The authors of John were clearly maniacal on the subject and egar to beat that dead horse to a pulp, thereby "improving" on the previous Gospels who didn't do this but even badmouthed the whole idea. This also makes John the most ruthlessly propagandistic, and thus the most thoroughly untrustworthy, of all the canonical Gospels.
Johns Gospel contains long, implauaible, never-before-imagined speeches of Jesus (and yet no Sermon on the Mount, or indeed hardly any moral instruction of any sort), entirely new characters and events also never heard of before (Nicodemus, LAzurus, Cana).
John changes everything around, such as moving Jesus clearing of the temple to the beginning rather than the end of his ministry, expanding his minsitry from one to three years, multiple trips to Judea and Jerusalem, rather than one. moving the date and year of Jesus execution to make Jesus death correspond exactly with the Passover lambs. John has run wild with authorial gluttony, freely changing everything and inventing whatever he wants. By modern standards, John is lying"
The chapter goes on with multiple examples, the structure of the Cana to Cana sequence in John to demonstrate it would be impossible to not copy this and much more.
"The final proof of this is the fact that John has invented this Lazurus tale to reverse and thus refute Luke's parable of Lazurus. The reification of imaginary people into real people is a major marker of mythmaking. And here we have just that. There is in fact only one other mention of any Lazurus in the Gospels: the fictional Lazurus in a parable told by Jesus in Lk. 16.19-31. Luke is the first to have Jesus tell that Parable, and it has key similarities to Greek and Egyptian parables, folk tales and rhetorical exercises in Greek schools of the era. It was almost certainly Luke's invention.
Carrier, OHJ, chapter on John
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
Old Testament Interpretation
Professor John J. Collins
12:10 a possible inspiration for Ezekiel treatment of dead (valley of bones) was Persian myth
14:20 resurrection of dead in Ezekiel, incidentally resurrection of the dead is also attested in Zoroastrianism, the Persians had it before the Israelites. There was no precent for bodily resurrection in Israel before this time. No tradition of bodies getting up from the grave. The idea of borrowing can be suggested.
In Ezekiel this is metaphorical.
The only book that clearly refers to bodily resurrection is Daniel.
17:30 resurrection of individual and judgment in Daniel, 164 BC. Prior to this the afterlife was Sheol, now heaven/hell is introduced. Persian period. Resurrection and hell existed in the Persian religion.
Resurrection of spirit. Some people are raised up to heaven, some to hell. New to the OT.
he Apocalyptic Imagination - An Introduction To Jewish Apocalyptic Literature by Dr John J. Collins
John J. Collins is Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale Divinity School
apocalypse is a mediated revelation usually from an angel (vision or actual) or transportation to heaven or hell mediated by angel. Uses symbolic language as well.
40:43 Persian influence - Dr Collins finds example in Dead Sea Scrolls
1:01:02 one origin of afterlife in Judaism. Big uptake in belief of afterlife after the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes. In the Hebrew Bible you were told if you keep the law you will live long in the land and see your children and your grandchildren. Now a situation arose where if you keep the law you are killed. One solution to this was there must be another life. 4th Ezra, God made not one world but two.
Oh yes. It was monotheism.
God
t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.
The devil was the evil force of nature. Syncretism works that way, concepts are used but made unique to each nation. It wasn't a God but a hostile spirit.
also:
Doctrines taken from Persia into Judiasm.
fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.
Mary Boyce
Seriously, syncretic borrowings don't mean you borrow GODS?!?!?! You apply the theology to your local deity.
Well people who stayed Jewish didn't accept Hellenism. There was a Jewish Hellenism but it died out. Christianity is a Jewish version of the Hellenistic savior demigod cult. Each nation has a new savior.
Deuteronomy was written in periods.
Chapters 12–26, containing the Deuteronomic Code, are the earliest section.[18] Since the idea was first put forward by W. M. L. de Wette in 1805, most scholars have accepted that this portion of the book was composed in Jerusalem in the 7th century BC in the context of religious reforms advanced by King Hezekiah (reigned c. 716–687 BC),[19][20] although some have argued for other dates, such as during the reign of his successor Manasseh (687–643 BC) or even much later, such as during the exilic or postexilic periods (597–332 BC).[13][21] The second prologue (Ch. 5–11) was the next section to be composed, and then the first prologue (Ch. 1–4); the chapters following 26 are similarly layered.[18]
No scholars think he was real, there is evidence as you say. Fransesca Stavrakopolou mentions him and the evidence in a new interview. It's Moses and Abraham and the Patriarchs that are definitely fiction. She says "definitely not real"
Fiction also reflects current ideas of morality, just as ancient myths did back then.
Augustus
…
He was Greek and the cult was popular in Greece.
You said Osiris was a Hellenised deity and Anitinous was grafted onto him with the standard resurrection, raised to heaven, healing and miracle working salvation deity type tropes too.
Christians like Origen attacked the cult for having commonalities with Christianity.
We can clearly see that this type of deity can be based in a real person, so your claims otherwise are false.
Of course the stories based on the human Jesus are mythologised and conform to common tropes.
Same with the life of Muhammad. Most of his biography is likely exegetical in nature from centuries after his life.
This is what we expect even if he was a human.
Again close to his purported life and written by those whose lives overlapped with his.
A feature only found in deified humans, not the purely mythical gods.
And also written down far closer to his life than the sirah of Muhammad was written down and we know he existed.
He also warns people against overfitting causal narratives that support ones prejudices and preferences.
His view is while it is easy to draw commonalities, especially when looking through vast distances of geography and time, but the secondary assumptions of cause and meaning may well be the creation of the historian.
There can be suffering, at the moment one is destroyed. It does not mean that the people are consciously suffering eternally.
How could it be that God does not know them? I don't think your claims are supported with anything substantial.
Eden is the place where the garden is. And the garden can be called the paradise. The word paradise, by what I know, means walled garden. It does not matter, if the same word is not used, when they mean the same.
Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen. 2:8
I can see that. No wonder if you don't understand.
Yes, it tells we should believe Jesus.
They don't seem to tell anything meaningful.
It is a matter of belief. However, that life and Bible exists, is for me good evidence for God.
I don't think it looks like that. But, obviously all history is a matter of belief.
Why would anyone made up such a story, if it is not true?
Does it not bother you to make baseless claims?
I don't think there is a contradiction. Why do you think so?
Ok, if we speak what were the last recorded words of Jesus, before his death, then it is simple, the last words were:
"It is finished." John 19:30
Maybe you now think why, and the reason is, the disciples were scattered, not in the same place at that time. Those who were nearer heard the last words, those who were not, heard only the shouts.
Behold, the time is coming, yes, and has now come, that you will be scattered, everyone to his own place, and you will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
John 16:32
But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magda-lene. Therefore when Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!"
John 19:25-26
Paul doesn't say no signs were given, he says:
For Jews ask for signs, Greeks seek after wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1 Cor. 1.22-24
So, if I understand correctly, people made up the story of resurrected Jesus? Why? Why would they make such s story and become persecuted and likely killed?
Maybe it would be best, if you would just say you don't believe, instead of making up baseless claims.
For example Mark. 6:5 tells Jesus did miracles, healed people. Is that not a sign?
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yes so was Zeus, that was Classical Greek religion. Not Hellenism.
"
After his death, Hadrian had him deified and built the city of Antinopolis in his honor on the shore of the Nile. A cult soon formed around the new god, who was associated with the Egyptian deity Osiris, which spread quickly and became quite popular. Antinous was almost instantly revered as a dying-and-reviving god, a deity who dies and returns to life for the good of humanity. Some sort of personal salvation was involved in the beliefs of the cult which spread quickly from Egypt throughout the provinces of the Roman Empire.
The cult was still popular in the 4th century CE, rivaling the new religion of Christianity. Pagan writers objected to the cult on the grounds that there was no evidence of Antinous’ divinity while Christian writers condemned it on the grounds of promoting immorality. The cult remained active, however, until it was outlawed along with the other pagan belief systems under Emperor Theodosius "
World History.org
Looks like some of those myths were put onto his story as well.
What claims? I never said mythicism is definitely true. The difference is we have a real person, with records from many sources, witnesses writing during his life. What we can say for sure is that many people had these Greek myths put onto their story.
That is my point, weather it's based on a person or fully made up, it's still a mythology.
Also it's not a Hellenized religion. Accounts of people doing this are very common in those times.
"Historian Cassius Dio describes a senator who swore he saw Augustus ascending to heaven in the manner Proculus and Romulus did. Cassius Did, Roman History 56.46"
"Asclepius. Celsus, cited by Origen in Contra Celsius, claimed a multitude of eyewitnesses attested to the miracles of Asclepius. Isyllus, in his Paean to Asclepius, even recounted meeting Asclepius himself. Before the God supposedly helped Sparta win a battle.
-Asclepius performing miracles
-Alexander the Great parting the sea
-Caesar being whisked up to heaven and the dead rising en masse after
-Hadrian’s death to chat with their families?
-Josephus documented an exorcism by a man named Eleazar who using the wisdom and powers of Solomon expelled a demon in the presence of Vespasian and his sons.
-Alexander the Great reportedly caused the sea to recede, an event witnessed by Callis themes and recorded in Eustathius’ Commentary on the Iliad 13.29.
None of these are Hellenized religions.
Right but we don't have anything about Jesus except Paul saw him after he was resurrected and a spirit, 20 years later.
No Paul doesn't say he knew any Jesus. He said he had a revelation 20 years later with a spirit Jesus.
The Gospels are another 20 years later.
" Antinous was almost instantly revered as a dying-and-reviving god,"
Jesus, 20 years before Paul writes, 40 years before an unknown Greek writer makes a complete story out of it. Then 39 other version are written with a wild assortment of beliefs from what we know today to almost Eastern mystical beliefs, Demiurge, and all sorts of bizarre Gnostic sects.
That goes on for ALL of the 2nd century. Each group claimed they were the correct group. One group led by Bishop Irenaeus wants a power structure, specific people teaching scripture, no women leaders and he had a version of Matthew. At the Council of Nicea in 318 AD-ish we have the assembly that included the now-named 4 Gospels.
That was really to establish the creed but we are now almost 200 years later to get a story that is agreed upon.
Some historians believe (since their were Christian churches set up in Rome) that the Emperor choose Christianity because his mother was Christian and he needed a political way to unify Rome. So they took the 4 most popular churches who each may have used one Gospel and worked on harmonizing them a bit.
At any rate there is no "human" story here like with Antinous. This is hardly "instantly".
So what? We have evidence about the founder of Bahai, the prophet, all types, even details about his execution.
Even better for Joseph Smith. Doesn't mean they were giving true information.
You can learn a lot about the 2nd century in Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. She has many letters from Irenaeus about the Gnostics and what his intentions were. There was no standard beliefs, it was half Gnostic.
The Dead Sea Scrolls also show other Gospels that have been found, some in the process of being written.
It was a slow progression, centuries.
Yes and even despite those warnings, which he follows, he still can demonstrate how the Mystery religions were definitely an influence on Christianity.
I gave you the four basic trends seen in Mystery religions, there is also a distinct package of beliefs each took from the Greeks.
Also they all use special terminology that only Mystery religions used.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yes so was Zeus, that was Classical Greek religion. Not Hellenism.
"
After his death, Hadrian had him deified and built the city of Antinopolis in his honor on the shore of the Nile. A cult soon formed around the new god, who was associated with the Egyptian deity Osiris, which spread quickly and became quite popular. Antinous was almost instantly revered as a dying-and-reviving god, a deity who dies and returns to life for the good of humanity. Some sort of personal salvation was involved in the beliefs of the cult which spread quickly from Egypt throughout the provinces of the Roman Empire.
The cult was still popular in the 4th century CE, rivaling the new religion of Christianity. Pagan writers objected to the cult on the grounds that there was no evidence of Antinous’ divinity while Christian writers condemned it on the grounds of promoting immorality. The cult remained active, however, until it was outlawed along with the other pagan belief systems under Emperor Theodosius "
World History.org
Looks like some of those myths were put onto his story as well.
What claims? I never said mythicism is definitely true. The difference is we have a real person, with records from many sources, witnesses writing during his life. What we can say for sure is that many people had these Greek myths put onto their story.
That is my point, weather it's based on a person or fully made up, it's still a mythology.
Also it's not a Hellenized religion. Accounts of people doing this are very common in those times.
"Historian Cassius Dio describes a senator who swore he saw Augustus ascending to heaven in the manner Proculus and Romulus did. Cassius Did, Roman History 56.46"
"Asclepius. Celsus, cited by Origen in Contra Celsius, claimed a multitude of eyewitnesses attested to the miracles of Asclepius. Isyllus, in his Paean to Asclepius, even recounted meeting Asclepius himself. Before the God supposedly helped Sparta win a battle.
-Asclepius performing miracles
-Alexander the Great parting the sea
-Caesar being whisked up to heaven and the dead rising en masse after
-Hadrian’s death to chat with their families?
-Josephus documented an exorcism by a man named Eleazar who using the wisdom and powers of Solomon expelled a demon in the presence of Vespasian and his sons.
-Alexander the Great reportedly caused the sea to recede, an event witnessed by Callis themes and recorded in Eustathius’ Commentary on the Iliad 13.29.
None of these are Hellenized religions.
Right but we don't have anything about Jesus except Paul saw him after he was resurrected and a spirit, 20 years later.
No Paul doesn't say he knew any Jesus. He said he had a revelation 20 years later with a spirit Jesus.
The Gospels are another 20 years later.
" Antinous was almost instantly revered as a dying-and-reviving god,"
Jesus, 20 years before Paul writes, 40 years before an unknown Greek writer makes a complete story out of it. Then 39 other version are written with a wild assortment of beliefs from what we know today to almost Eastern mystical beliefs, Demiurge, and all sorts of bizarre Gnostic sects.
That goes on for ALL of the 2nd century. Each group claimed they were the correct group. One group led by Bishop Irenaeus wants a power structure, specific people teaching scripture, no women leaders and he had a version of Matthew. At the Council of Nicea in 318 AD-ish we have the assembly that included the now-named 4 Gospels.
That was really to establish the creed but we are now almost 200 years later to get a story that is agreed upon.
Some historians believe (since their were Christian churches set up in Rome) that the Emperor choose Christianity because his mother was Christian and he needed a political way to unify Rome. So they took the 4 most popular churches who each may have used one Gospel and worked on harmonizing them a bit.
At any rate there is no "human" story here like with Antinous. This is hardly "instantly".
So what? We have evidence about the founder of Bahai, the prophet, all types, even details about his execution.
Even better for Joseph Smith. Doesn't mean they were giving true information.
You can learn a lot about the 2nd century in Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. She has many letters from Irenaeus about the Gnostics and what his intentions were. There was no standard beliefs, it was half Gnostic.
The Dead Sea Scrolls also show other Gospels that have been found, some in the process of being written.
It was a slow progression, centuries.
Yes and even despite those warnings, which he follows, he still can demonstrate how the Mystery religions were definitely an influence on Christianity.
I gave you the four basic trends seen in Mystery religions, there is also a distinct package of beliefs each took from the Greeks.
Also they all use special terminology that only Mystery religions used.