The Jesus Myth

[Embarkon]

again

what your saying is nothing new and that avenue has been explored

I myself studied the historicity of Nazereth and ran into those linguistics

exactly the linquistics lends itself to the truth, but if you already made up your mind about the matter what use is the linquistics
You came to your original conclusion ithout trying to see Beyond the lingual tie-up
The name of Christ is AINON as is recorded and embedded in the text John the baptist was baptizing near Salem

 

[fallingblood]

Blood, I don't know what training you might've had in literature, but type "oldest English story" into google.

Beowulf.

Beowulf has a lot of historical characters in it (or at least characters based on historical figures. More so, we are talking about a work that was not meant to be a historical account in the first place. So it really doesn't give a good comparison to the Gospels, which are presented as historical works).

We can look at one of the earliest known literature pieces, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and see that again, there is a hero, but it is based off of a historical figure.

That is a common theme in ancient works.

No. It really doesn't matter much. Put on your thinking cap and become the writer of a hero story. No... really... try to imagine it.

Is your hero story based on a physical human being? Well, maybe or maybe not. You might remember some story from your childhood which your father told you. You might misremember the story, but you're pretty sure that your dad had a buddy during the war who performed many outstanding feats of courage.

So is your story based on an historical figure?

What could such a question possibly mean.

If the story is based on a historical figure, then one can not call that figure made up. Was the story of Jesus exaggerated, and did myths enter into his story? Of course. However, we see the same thing with various other historical figures from that time. Such as the Emperor Augustus and Alexander the Great (the only writings we have of the life of Alexander that Great, also come long after he was dead).

So is the story based on a historical figure? Yes. Is it 100% accurate? No.

OK. And young men feel no particular passion for young women.

Whatever we want to say, we can say.

No, you need evidence behind your statement. I'm not denying that people have a passion for heros. What I'm denying is that this passion would cause a person to fabricate a hero, instead of looking at the various heros of their time. A hero does not need to be mythical.

 

[Embarkon]

You know I finally understand why this is happening- Nobody is truly serious about wisdom, i tell you anyman who takes up wisdom will become intimate with sorrow

 

[fallingblood]

For starters, the earliest human religious imagery was not based on historical persons at all, but on animal figures and personifications of other natural forces - the things that sustained life and brought death before the dawn of civilization. Where particular persons became mythologized later, they picked up these attributes from a deeper level of the human psyche.

"Jesus" is full of both Sun God and Vegetal rebirth/spring fertility imagery from deep, deep down in the collective subconscious.

Jesus is not full of either. There is no Sun God in the story of Jesus. Being the Son of God, and being a Sun God are two very different things. And to even equate them is ridiculous.

As for the vegetal rebirth/spring fertility, not even there. The death of Jesus, and his resurrection, did not coincide with the Jewish festival that would equate such an idea. And instead of the usual cycle of death and rebirth (not resurrection for the most part), Jesus only does such once.

 

[fallingblood]

Yeah, and I've come up with a theory which is fairly radical. I think there's a good chance that the gospels were written as fiction and then began to be taken seriously, as non-fiction.

The tipping point would've been the straight-faced claim that Jesus lived in 30ad Jerusalem.

Yet we have a figure, just around 20 years after the death of Jesus, who wrote about him. Paul saw Jesus as a historical figure, and wrote about him as such. He even states that he met the brother of Jesus, which would place Jesus as a recent historical figure.

There is little reason then to assume that the Gospels came around, took this same character, and wrote about him in a fictional account. Since Jesus was already written about as a historical figure before the Gospels, there is little reason to believe the Gospel writers, when writing about this same figure, believe he was fictional. Especially Luke, who even gives an account of the ministry of Paul.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You know I finally understand why this is happening- Nobody is truly serious about wisdom, i tell you anyman who takes up wisdom will become intimate with sorrow

Is this coming from a person who claims to have wisdom, or from someone who is thankful that they are spared from it?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

exactly the linquistics lends itself to the truth, but if you already made up your mind about the matter what use is the linquistics
You came to your original conclusion ithout trying to see Beyond the lingual tie-up
The name of Christ is AINON as is recorded and embedded in the text John the baptist was baptizing near Salem

Why on earth do you believe that?

 

[fallingblood]

Right. Paul seem to not know the man and seemed to get his information from those who said they knew him or was related to him. But there really doesn't seem to be anything in Paul's letters that give us any sense that he was aware of any details in Yeshua's life.....then the gospels start getting written (i.e. Mark)...which seems like a play...but written in a way to try and create a story around the man/myth in order to give it credibility. Matthew and Luke, later gospels, embellished this work of fiction and then John takes it even a step further sensationalizing the story even more. Various elements seem to be pulled from the OT as well as small bits pulled from other pagan religions of the area. I know....that's my mythicist side showing but regardless of what the apologist say I think it's plausible for the biblical Yeshua to have been a totally made up character.

The problem with that though is that even though we have little of what Paul preached (we don't even have all of his letters, and we have none of his sermons, we only have his letters, that were addressing specific questions and problems that had arose in different congregations), Paul still tells us a number of things about the historical Jesus.

We are told that he was a Jew, born of a women, a descendant of David, born of the flesh, was crucified, had siblings who were still living, and had disciples that were still living. He also tells us various saying of Jesus, and even debates at least one point that Jesus raised (concerning divorce). It may not be a whole lot; however, he also tells us very little about himself, or any other figure.

All one can really conclude from Paul's brief mention of the life of Jesus is that no one was having a problem with it. And really, why should they be having problems with specifics on the life of Jesus when it wasn't the life of Jesus that people were mostly interested in. They were interested in his death and resurrection.

 

[outhouse]

although I'm willing to learn more through the process of debate.

never seen a debate course offered in a college to learn a subject.

I have learned quite a bit here, outside sources have given me quite a bit

 

[Embarkon]

AINON is also the name the Gnostic text gives to the Christ , Well it might take SHEMANAwho at least has wisdom to explain that to many here- that this is the structure of Biblical text NT and more so OT, the sub -strata is of more importance
Read Isiah 28 the cipher of the planter- the planter is the writer of the Torah and you might understand

 

[fallingblood]

There's pretty good evidence that "Mark" was written perhaps in part as allegorical fiction meant to memorialize the important events of the Jewish cyclical year. It may have been a teaching story meant to help young Jewish students remember their liturgy. This argument and the evidence for it is summarized in Bishop Spong's Jesus for the Non-Religious.

Can you provide such evidence? Because the life of Jesus really doesn't fit into the Jewish cyclical year. His birth time is not mentioned, so that couldn't have been of help. None of the Gospels state that his ministry was just one year. And his death was on a holiday that didn't have to really do with harvest time or the such, but Jewish freedom from Egypt.

Really, the only thing that is pinpointed in the life of Jesus, as an exact date is his death. I don't see how this would be helpful in teaching the Jewish cyclical year.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

AINON is also the name the Gnostic text gives to the Christ , Well it might take SHEMANAwho at least has wisdom to explain that to many here- that this is the structure of Biblical text NT and more so OT, the sub -strata is of more importance
Read Isiah 28 the cipher of the planter- the planter is the writer of the Torah and you might understand

Yes, but do you think that this name of Christ is embedded in the NT?

And what do you think that AINON means? (simple Greek meaning without Gnostic theologies)

I was under the impression that you were saying that AINON is embedded in the NT, and not directly referring to Gnostic texts.

 

[Embarkon]

it is what i would term a loose notariqon- hidden in plain sight both words AINON & SALEM with BAPTISM means CHRIST was BAPTIZED into the PRIESTHOOD OF MELCHEZEDEK at AiNON which is nigh SALEM
Gnostic text but from Mandaean teext Melchezedek was one over the Great baptism of Kalyptos
How r you angellous lol

 

[fallingblood]

We are all aware that there were many Jesus's in Jewish tradition and they carried a similar story line

No they didn't. Yes, other people had the name Jesus, but they were quite different from the Jesus of the Bible.

 

[fallingblood]

And what of Yeshu Pantera

Nope. Not even close. Just picking out people with the same name will not get you anywhere.

 

[Embarkon]

No they didn't. Yes, other people had the name Jesus, but they were quite different from the Jesus of the Bible.

You are going to have to do a lot better than that sorry, please read the above Quote on Ainon before you comment, thank you

 

[fallingblood]

Learn men must always research their topics fully before they put such sensitive matter out there
As I explain in another thread- the name Yeshu has no mening whatsoever this is confirmed by the Gospel of Phillip of the Nag Hammadi Text,
And further by a great and Ancient tradition among the Hebrews, but you guys never bothered to take that into consideration
That this was something MORE THAN just simply a name

No one is taking it into consideration because it simply is false. Yehua was just a name. It was in fact, a common name. We know this because of the archeological evidence for such.

 

[Embarkon]

Nope. Not even close. Just picking out people with the same name will not get you anywhere.

You know alot of people are saying alot of things archaeologist looking for Solomon and David
there is no historical person with these names
David is Jakeh, Solomon is Jedidiah, Isreal is Jacob, Joshua is Hoshea etc,etc,etc, I think alot of people need to do a lot more research before they publish there findings

 

[outhouse]

it is what i would term a loose notariqon- hidden in plain sight both words AINON & SALEM with BAPTISM means CHRIST was BAPTIZED into the PRIESTHOOD OF MELCHEZEDEK at AiNON which is nigh SALEM
Gnostic text but from Mandaean teext Melchezedek was one over the Great baptism of Kalyptos
How r you angellous lol

if your trying to argue that because some of the NT used OT themes to fufill prophecies, it doesnt discount the historicity of jesus

it is established that biblical jesus is not historical jesus

 

[Embarkon]

i give up, have a nice week guys, peace out