Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[joelr]

Claims like that ruin your credibility.

Bible tells there is a fire lake, and it is also called hell.

The devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet are also. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Rev. 20:10
If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having your two hands to go into Gehenna [hell], into the unquenchable fire,
Mark 9:43
I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and they opened books. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works. The sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one ac-cording to his works. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Rev. 20:12-15

Oh. My. God. I said, there is no hell in the OT. You go and say "that ruins your credibility" and go on to list 3 books from the NEW TESTAMENT. AFTER THE PERSIAN HELL WAS ALREADY BORROWED AND USED IN TEXT????? Wow.



I wish you had credibility to ruin, but this is actually standard response material.

First you say there is no hell and then you say it was borrowed. Don't you think that is too contradictory?

You cannot be reading my posts, it
s impossible. You cannot mess up this bad?

Do you not know your own Bible???????


There is no hell in the Old Testament. During the 2nd Temple Period, occupation by Persians, they borrowed many of their myths. Hell was one.
EVEN WORSE. I gave you a professors words, he says it literal and SO EASY TO FOLLOW:


"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. "


NONE in the Pre-exilic books







"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"


Sheol is not hell.





"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"


Satan as an evil devil is not in these books, he is a servant of god.







The first appearances, late in the Persian period, late OT books


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.”9



The theory of religious influence from Persia is based not only on the generation spent in exile but the 400 years following in which the resurrected nation of Israel lived under strong Persian dominion and influence. The chronicler made his crucial correction to 2 Sam. 24:1 about 400 B.C.E. Persian influence increases in the later Hebrew works like Daniel and especially the intertestamental books.




Therefore Satan as a separate evil force in direct opposition to God most likely came from the explicit Zoroastrian belief in such an entity. This concept is not consistent with pre-exilic beliefs.


Hell and satan is not consistent with older OT books



There is no question that the concept of a separate evil principle was fully developed in the Zoroastrian Gathas (ca. 1,000 B.C.E.). The principal demon, called Druj (the Lie), is mentioned 66 times in the Gathas. But the priestly Jews would also have been exposed to the full Avestan scripture in which Angra Mainyu is mentioned repeatedly. His most prominent symbol is the serpent, so along with the idea of the “Lie,” we have the prototype for the serpent/tempter, in the priestly writers' garden of Genesis.10 There is no evidence that the Jews in exile brought with them any idea of Satan as a separate evil principle.


The Jews coming home from exile did not think of satan as an evil enemy of god. No hell.

By the NT it's a big thing.

The word paradise is irrelevant in this. The crucial point is, there was a garden and the idea of a paradise fits to it. The important thing is the matter itself, not the name of it

No, the word paradise was not used until the Persian borrowing of it.

The myth that was borrowed was the final battle where all followers get bodily resurrected and live on earth in paradise. I don't care if you "can think" of a garden as paradise. Has nothing to do with anything.

The word paradise being used later is more evidence of Persian borrowing. The entire myth being borrowed is more evidence.


Hebrew borrowings from Persia - 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.

 

[joelr]

There can be controversy about anything written two thousand years ago, but the writings of Josephus can help to show that the man called Jesus did exist, not from the words seen there now but within the spaces where they were written! Just look at where he is mentioned. The space is surrounded by people who were not particularly good, which gives me a fair idea about what Josephus actually thought about him. The mention of John the Baptist (whose memory was respected by Josephus) is far away.

Dr Steve Mason is the leading expert on Josephus.


Dr. Steve Mason: Josephus on Jesus & the Testimonium Flavianum

1:49:00 He may have been writing something skeptical or mocking about Jesus
1:57:00 “It’s clear he doesn’t believe Jesus is the Messiah”
2:04:37 “The Christ” means “smeared one” Josephus says there were many Joseph Messiahs, he was explaining this was the one known as the smeared one.

2:08:07 The idea that all Jews are waiting for the coming Messiah is a mistake. It’s a Christian reading of 1st century life.


Writers of the period never mention a coming Messiah.


Let's look at Josephus himself:


Messiahs in the Time of Jesus


Josephus mentions a dozen or more “messiah” figures beginning with Hezekiah/Ezekias c. 45 BCE whom the young Herod defeated whom he variously labels as “brigands” (ληστής) or “imposters” (γόης)—though he calls Judas the Galilean a “wise man” (σοφιστής) and credits him with the founding a the “fourth philosophy” (Jewish Antiquities18.23). Several of these figures are said to have worn the “diadem” (διάδημα)—which indicates royal or “messianic” claims and aspirations. Philo defines γόηςas one who cloaks himself as a prophet but is an imposter (Special Laws 1.315), compare 2 Timothy 3:13. The following list could be expanded but it includes those who are most obviously named and identified. This does not include, of course, the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran, John the Baptizer, Jesus, or James his brother, who represented scions of the tribes of Levi and Judah or both. And then we could add Barabbas, mentioned in Mark 15:7, and the two crucified “brigands,” (ληστής), one on the right and the other on the left of Jesus (Mark 15:27).


• Hezekiah/Ezekias, defeated by Herod in 47 BCE (Jewish War 1.204-205)


• Judas (aka Theudas) son of Ezekias, 4 BCE/death of Herod (Jewish War 2.56; Acts 5:36)


• Simon of Perea, 4 BCE/death of Herod (Jewish War 2.57-59)


• Athronges the Shepherd, 4 BCE/death of Herod (Jewish War 2:60-65)


• Judas the Galilean, 6 CE/Archaelaus removed (Jewish War 2.118)


• Theudas, c. 44 CE (Jewish Antiquities 20.97; Acts 5:36?)


• James and Simon, c. 46 CE, sons of Judas the Galilean, crucified by Tiberius Alexander, nephew of Philo, who was Procurator 46-48 CE (Jewish Antiquities 20.102)


• “The Egyptian” c. 50s CE (Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171; Jewish War 2.261-263; Acts 21:38)


• Eleazar son of Dineus/Deinaeus, c. 52 CE under Felix (Jewish War 2.253; Jewish Antiquities 20:161)


• Menachem, son of Judas the Galilean, 66 CE (Jewish War 2:433-448)


• Eleazar son of Jairus (ben Yair), commander of Masada, was of the family (γένος) of Menachem (Jewish War 2.447)





James and Simon = brothers of Jesus


Athronges the Shepherd, - another Shepherd


Eleazar son of Dineus/Deinaeus - father/son

But let's see what Jesus's enemies thought. Fortunately the claims of Celcus (Celsus) survived because a respected Christian copied some of his works in order to refute them. Celcus not only told some very interesting anecdotes about Jesus but he clearly believed in his existence.

Celcus, a second century philosopher, was not an "ememy" of Jesus. He didn't like Christianity. Like every one else in the century, he was going on the stories, the 40 Gospels circulating around.

Thirdly, the gospel of Mark (less the Christian edits and insertions) tells the story of a very real man and most of the Miracles described have possible explanations. That includes the walking on water stuff, by the way.

Later gospels turn Jesus in to a Lord, and then a God, so I just tend to look at G-Mark for most of the real story, but it's a story about an amazing man whose mission sadly failed.

Mark is a combination of re-writes of the OT and many other stories. Romulus, Jesus Ben Annaius, and Greek savior deities and their theology.

It used literary fictive language, re-writes Paul, Homer, the list goes on.

The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark

Previously, I’ve written about the historicity of Jesus, and mentioned how the most recent analysis, in Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus (the first comprehensive, academica…

lagevondissen.wordpress.com

this post explains and gives examples of Mark's sources. Based on Dr Carriers work.


This paper goes over the scholarship on Mark's use of Paul to create stories.

Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier Blogs

Many studies have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based some of its content on the Epistles of Paul. Here I’ll discuss this scholarship and its evidence. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then...

www.richardcarrier.info

Carrier is summarizing:

• Michael Bird & Joel Willitts, Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (T&T Clark 2011)
• David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels (Resource 2011)
• Tom Dykstra, Mark: Canonizer of Paul (OCABS 2012)
• Oda Wischmeyer & David Sim, eds., Paul and Mark: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (de Gruyter 2014)
• Eve-Marie Becker et al., Mark and Paul: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (De Gruyter 2014)
• Thomas Nelligan, The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians (Pickwick 2015)
• Christine Jacobi, Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus? Analogien zwischen den echten Paulusbriefen und den synoptischen Evangelien (De Gruyter 2015).
• Mar Pérez I. Díaz, Jesus in the Light of Paul’s Theology (Mohr Siebeck 2020).
• John-Christian Eurell, “Paul and the Jesus Tradition: Reconsidering the Relationship Between Paul and the Synoptics,” Journal of Early Christian History 12.2 (2022): 1-16.

See also (as concurring):

• Michael P. Theophilos, “The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark,” in Paul and Mark Comparative Essays Part I: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity, ed. Oda Wischmeyer, David C. Sim, and Ian J. Elmer (De Gruyter 2014): 45–71 (cf. other scholars in that same volume).
• Harm W. Hollander, “The Words of Jesus: From Oral Traditions to Written Record in Paul and Q,” Novum Testamentum 42.4 (2000): 340–57 (346).

 

[joelr]

I agree.
Select any group of professionals all together and wait for the arguments.
Which is right?......you might as well listen to all and then research for yourself.

The consensus in critical-historical scholarship is the stories are Greek/Persian myth, plus Judaism put onto a Jewish teacher, a human man named Joshua. Gospels are anon, names added 2nd century, all copied Mark, miracles and eye-witnesses were always added to Greco-Roman stories.


From Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted (no historical scholar thinks the supernatural Jesus is real), this is a fiction believers often tell themself.
Until you actually study the field.

Theologians are the scholars who believe. They don't do critical-history, where questions are asked and evidence is looked at.
Islam has theologians who assume the Qurann is true. Mormons have theologians who assume the Mormon Bible is true.

Historians look at actual evidence. No special pleading. None of the supernatural hold up, not even a little.



"A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided


by the historical-critical method. They come in with the expecta¬


tion of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can pass


them along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for


them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their sur


prise they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of


what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of


research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them ir


reconcilable contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the


first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke,


and lohn did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did


not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were consid¬


ered canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by


Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did


not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the


Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds


on numerous points and contain nonhistorical material. It is hard


to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the histori


cal Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are


filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New


Testament contains historically unreliable information about the


life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament


are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers


claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Theologians are the scholars who believe. They don't do critical-history, where questions are asked and evidence is looked at.

All of these? Really? Painting with an absurdly broad brush is a technique best reserved for whitewashes and smears.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?​

The Word in logic to me is the eternal law of infallibility of Creation. And The Word existed before creation was ever created was even created as the Eternal Priestly Authority and Spirit and Life of Eternity.

And the Word through the spirit will of God is conceived by the person of the Father in the person in being through the flesh of the person in the Body of Christ, the Eternal Priestly Authority and New Living Sacrifice, as fulfilled Isaac delivered through the Ark of the New Covenant and from the Faith of Abraham, the Father of Faith.

Jesus is the personal deliverer of the person of the intelligence of the Word, the eternal priestly authority who became flesh that existed before creation was ever created was even created in the power of the Holy Spirit Will of the Creator, God the Father.

What was left for all mankind is the Holy Spirit being Will of God person for all to share, the fulfilled faith and morality and the spirit being Christ, the infallible logic for the manifiestation from the "Holy" spirit power through the new flesh, the New Eve for the souls of the beings in the Body of God, as one in being together with the Father and the Son glorified and transfigured as one in God in being.

We know to keep open the doors to all for salvation for the One God in united being.

Peace always,
Stephen Andrew
There is no greater work possible than for the salvation of souls

 

[oldbadger]

The consensus in critical-historical scholarship is the stories are Greek/Persian myth, plus Judaism put onto a Jewish teacher, a human man named Joshua. Gospels are anon, names added 2nd century, all copied Mark, miracles and eye-witnesses were always added to Greco-Roman stories.


From Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted (no historical scholar thinks the supernatural Jesus is real), this is a fiction believers often tell themself.
Until you actually study the field.

Theologians are the scholars who believe. They don't do critical-history, where questions are asked and evidence is looked at.
Islam has theologians who assume the Qurann is true. Mormons have theologians who assume the Mormon Bible is true.

Historians look at actual evidence. No special pleading. None of the supernatural hold up, not even a little.


"A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided

You've told me what lots of people have decided.
I would like to know what you have decided.
I think that the story in G-Mark is genuine but without it's definitely Christian edits and add-ons.

The miracles in G-Mark nearly all have a temporal explanation and so are probably true. The later gospels lean in towards Church dogma but some of their anecdotes are correct, I think.

It's all about what we have researched and discovered.

 

[jimb]

Yes........Christianity built up, sure.

The church reversed itself in to so many other religions and grew.

But Jesus the man wanted something else, I think.

What do you think He wanted? Don't you think that He wanted 2,500,000,000 to have eternal life? (And that figure is not for all Christians who have ever lived, only those alive today. There are many more.)

You make the statement that "the church reversed itself in to so many other religions and grew". I have no idea what you're trying to say. Christianity is one religion. There may be different denominations, just as there are sub-groups of every other religion, but that doesn't prove anything. Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah who died for their sins and has given them eternal life. (If they don't believe that, then they're not Christians!)

 

[jimb]

Not at all. I've offered my reasoning for believing that the author of G-Mark was a witness at the arrest.

Why don't you offer something 'sensical' to refute that?
Nothing? OK.

It is widely accepted that John Mark, wrote the Gospel and was an eyewitness to Jesus' life, including His arrest. He also served as a companion to the Apostle Paul in his missionary work and later assisted the Apostle Peter in Rome.

BTW, I won't respond to your childish personal insults.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not? I think everyone has right to choose what they believe. I don't believe things that are not well reasoned.

You regularly demonstrated that you believe in things that are not well reasoned. Remember, if you want to claim that you have to show that you do not run away from facts that refute your claims.

And one has the right to believe whatever they want to believe, as you do. Even though you are demonstrably wrong quite often you can still believe in what you want to believe. By the way, you demonstrated in this post of yours that your beliefs are irrational. You simply do not know how you did that.

 

[jimb]

No.
There were two men reported to have been adored by the people.

Both are mentioned in the gospels. The Jesus that you cannot seem to see is Barabbas, called Jesus Barabbas in some earlier bibles.
Bar = Son of (Eastern Aramaic)
Abba= Father (Eastern Aramaic)

The Jesus that you mention was Yeshua BarYosef, he didn't speak Greek, never heard the word haMashiach and the Church built up that title afterwards.

Do you accept that the people loved BarAbbas, that caused mayhem in Jerusalem, that they insisted on his freedom?

Nonsense! "Yeshua" was a fairly common name during the NT era, but there is only one Yeshua Hamashiach.

You seem intent on proving that the Jesus of the New Testament was something other than what the Bible says He was (and is). I don't know what your motive for that is, but it is nonsense. Period.

Matthew 27:16-17, "At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas. So after they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?” Barabbas was a separate person. And there is no evidence that he was "loved", only that the Jewish leaders convinced the crowd to have him released instead of Jesus Christ.

BTW, Jesus Christ spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.

 

[oldbadger]

Nonsense! "Yeshua" was a fairly common name during the NT era, but there is only one Yeshua Hamashiach.

He was Yeshua BarYosef

Later on Christians called him other things, like you do.

You seem intent on proving that the Jesus of the New Testament was something other than what the Bible says He was (and is). I don't know what your motive for that is, but it is nonsense. Period.

Proving?
I'm just telling you what I think, and the gospels describe him in different ways, so you can take your pick.
I accept G-Mark's story, once the Christian additions are removed.

Matthew 27:16-17, "At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas. So after they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?” Barabbas was a separate person. And there is no evidence that he was "loved", only that the Jewish leaders convinced the crowd to have him released instead of Jesus Christ.

Of course Jesus son of the father (Barabbas) was adored.....the people clamoured for his release so much that Pilate had to think of an excuse to release him.

BTW, Jesus Christ spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.

Ha ha! And now you are not making sense. How could a Northern Jewish working man know any languages but the Eastern Aramaic that the peasant classes spoke up there?

Look, the gospels offer such different accounts that you can't be sure who said or did what.
Try this: What did Jesus do at the Temple after entering Jerusalem on Palm Sunday?
Try that, if you can.

Oh, and you've decided to stop calling him 'Hamashiach' now?

 

[oldbadger]

It is widely accepted that John Mark, wrote the Gospel and was an eyewitness to Jesus' life, including His arrest. He also served as a companion to the Apostle Paul in his missionary work and later assisted the Apostle Peter in Rome.

BTW, I won't respond to your childish personal insults.

We are not sure who was the author of G-Mark. I like the idea that he had been a young follower of Cephas.
And like you I think he was present at the arrest.

 

[jimb]

He was Yeshua BarYosef

Later on Christians called him other things, like you do.

Proving?
I'm just telling you what I think, and the gospels describe him in different ways, so you can take your pick.
I accept G-Mark's story, once the Christian additions are removed.

Of course Jesus son of the father (Barabbas) was adored.....the people clamoured for his release so much that Pilate had to think of an excuse to release him.

Ha ha! And now you are not making sense. How could a Northern Jewish working man know any languages but the Eastern Aramaic that the peasant classes spoke up there?

Look, the gospels offer such different accounts that you can't be sure who said or did what.
Try this: What did Jesus do at the Temple after entering Jerusalem on Palm Sunday?
Try that, if you can.

Oh, and you've decided to stop calling him 'Hamashiach' now?

I don't care what you think. Your arguments are worthless, therefore, I have zero interest in continuing this discussion. You are argumentative and simply spoiling for a fight, but you're not going to get it from me.

 

[Betho_br]

Considering that Pliny's report to Emperor Trajan is made by adversaries of christians, this further enhances the authority of the letter as historical evidence that there existed a group venerating/worshipping a Christ as God/deity...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Considering that Pliny's report to Emperor Trajan is made by adversaries of christians, this further enhances the authority of the letter as historical evidence that there existed a group venerating/worshipping a Christ as God/deity...

I do not think that anyone is denying that the man Jesus existed. There is evidence for that. There does not appear to be any reliable evidence that "Jesus Christ" existed, or if you prefer, magical Jesus.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't care what you think. Your arguments are worthless, therefore, I have zero interest in continuing this discussion. You are argumentative and simply spoiling for a fight, but you're not going to get it from me.

I didn't think you could answer that easy question about what Jesus did after arriving in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.

 

[oldbadger]

I do not think that anyone is denying that the man Jesus existed. There is evidence for that. There does not appear to be any reliable evidence that "Jesus Christ" existed, or if you prefer, magical Jesus.

I was chatting with a Christian at a recent church-hall tea event who explained his belief that there was a Jesus and then there was a Christ, which mirrored my feelings and your post, above.

When I mentioned my surprise at his comment, he being a Christian, he explained that while he believed exactly what he had said, he loved, respected and needed the friendship of the traditional (UK) congregation and so had been a part of that through his whole life. I think that many English Christians have always been like that... they have never searched for the truth of any part of their religion or needed to, they simply take part in the community, and at one time that was all that was required of them.

Magic.
I've learned that the Aramaic word for handworker (Greek tecton) was 'Nagar' or 'Nagarra' which is a term connected to snakes or their hissing sounds, and people have written that wood, bone, stone and metal workers were called nagars because their productions were magical, or witchcraft = snakelike And so I think of the real Jesus as a nagar.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

Thanks, You have me thinking, what is the difference in Jesus and The Christ? and in logic, it now becomes clear to me.

To me in logic Jesus is also the person of The "First" Christ, the New Adam to birth back as logically reborn and saved resurrection life and spirit to heaven, the blood and waters flows from the cross for all mankind's flesh and souls entry back to the new heaven and earth, heaven reopened for all mankind's resurrected Christs', we are all son's of God in logic and truth, through the "First" Christ, the logic and truth in the New Adam delivered in the flesh for all mankind, Jesus. Becoming separate beings together.

To me this is the Logic of The Christ the full Body of God, from the Holy Spirit through the flesh for the soul of the being, The Holy Spirit Person as the Paraclete and Jesus the Man. Together they are the Word together, The Christ in the Body, the through the intelligence of infallible creation that became flesh as Jesus, as the Will of the Divine Kingdom, The Power of the Will of God, together as the eternal priestly authority and spirit and life. This to me is the logic I see.

in logic to me, what becomes in the created Body, from created and failed mortal and corrupt flesh and spirits of Adam and Eve is immortality and incorruptibility through our own Christ, our own Body of God from the living waters of Baptism through Jesus and The Holy Spirit Being He delivers as the sanctified spirit, some call the Holy Ghost, the Will of the Father, the Word that became through the flesh for all souls as The Christ in all mankind as shared in being through Jesus.

St Paul defines the Body as in the first spirit manifesting the Body from the spirit through the flesh for the soul of the Created being.
To me in logic, Jesus is also The first Christ of mankind as the new Adam in all mankind is as the Body in The Holy Spirit manifesting the Body from the Holy spirit person through the flesh for the Fulfilled soul of the Being.
To me in logic, this is how mankind saves the angels, creating the new heaven and earth, for all mankind to share with the angels and saints and Old Covenant saved and Dismas, the good thief from the Cross with Jesus when Jesus dies, descends, destroys death and satan forever and resurrects all life and holiness back to from where Jesus in the Power came, The New Heaven

To me in logic, The Christ is our own, we belong to Him and The Christ in us all mankind is the Holy Spirit person Jesus delivered. We are in the Holy Spirit through the flesh for the soul of our being as Our own Christ, pleasing to God as sanctified, just like His Son Jesus in the Jordan river, Baptized by His cousin, John the Baptist. For Jesus' flesh was immortal and could not die without Baptism, the Sacrament of death to life alone with Penance and Sacrifice. We know we need the sacraments and Jesus institutes them as the eternal priestly authority fulfilling the faith of the Old Covenant through all of the wondrous mysteries of the Faith in Our Own Christ, And we know His Spirit is sanctified already as the Holy Spirit person Himself in the being of Jesus. In spirit and flesh, our own personal Pentecost of the flesh and spirit in the souls of Our Christ is through the person of Jesus to become again as glorified and transfigured into the image of the Creator, God the Father and one in being, together, for all mankind.

"In the Bible, says, "With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day". This verse is a simile, or figure of speech, that uses a literal day to contrast with 1,000 years to teach that God is outside of time. The verse is about God's patience and the idea that to God, a short period of time and a long period of time are the same. The verse's context is about the "last days" and scoffers who reject the second coming. It's telling readers not to lose heart if God seems slow to fulfill his promises because he is patient and not bound by time like humans are." Creation.Com 2024

To me in logic the Christ in us, in all mankind is the Divine Kingdom Person in being manifesting our Body of Christ from the spirit through the flesh to the soul of Our own being in the Body, as brothers and sisters of Jesus from the cross when He said, "It is finished." He leaves behind the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit Person in being from the cross for all to share. Jesus is the deliverer of The Christ, the Holy Spirit Person in being that manifests from all mankind's spirit through the flesh for the souls of all mankind as The Will of the Father, through created mortal and corrupt from Adam and Eve becoming transformed immortal and incorruptible into the Body of our own Christ. And then through Jesus and The New Eve into the image of Our Christ as immortal and incorruptible and as confirmed sanctified through all of the wondrous mysteries of The New Eve we become again in the pattern of the intelligence that will never fail through the fulfilled faith and morality of Jesus into the image of the Creator, God. We become as one together with the Father and the Son as glorified and transfigured becoming again the image of the Father, God the Creator, and one God in being together.

To me in logic, We become again glorified and transfigured from our first becoming immortal and incorruptible from created mortal and corruptible from the Bodies of Adam and Eve, creating love. We become in our own personal Body of Christ as brothers and sisters of Jesus in union as one in being together with the Father and The Son, Glorified and Transfigured through The Christ in all mankind in becoming again in union as one in being in the Image of the Creator, God the Father through the Power of The Holy Spirit, fulfilling eternal love through His Passion.

We know to keep open the doors to the Faith of Our Own Christ as One God in Being, together.

Peace always,
Stephen Andrew

 

[1213]

Oh. My. God. I said, there is no hell in the OT. You go and say "that ruins your credibility" and go on to list 3 books from the NEW TESTAMENT. AFTER THE PERSIAN HELL WAS ALREADY BORROWED AND USED IN TEXT????? Wow.

Sorry. I should have read it more carefully.

But still, in the NT "hell" is second death. And death is for unrighteous. The same is also in OT.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23
The righteous shall inherit the land, And live in it forever.
Ps. 37:29

Both new and old tells righteous will live and non righteous will die. That's it.

 

[1213]

...Even though you are demonstrably wrong quite often ...

No fact supports that claim.