The Jesus Myth

[Embarkon]

Linguistics have nothing to do with this. Nazareth, as has been discovered by archeologist, was a small village in Galilee. There is no secret truth to this.

And the name of Christ is not ANION. Christ is the Greek word for Messiah. You are far off of the mark.

THE GNOSTIC TEXT STATES this for your info- his name is AINON, this has noothing to do with his title CHRISTOS- he was not born CHRISTOS he paroused (per Dead Sea Scrols) into that role read the text about him praying in Gethsamane please people

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellos i know you know DAVID is a knickname- the Beloved the very Beloved a name which was applied to him most likely after he conquered JEBUS, he was DVID per the MEsha Stele

OK. It's like you're writing in Sanskrit here.

Just to help me understand where you're coming from here -

Are you influenced by a single book or author?

Are you putting these thoughts together from teachings that you're recalling from several years ago?

Are you just presenting thoughts cultivated from your own research?

 

[doppelganger]

I think that it's an issue of mistaking a philosophical statement for an historical one.

Fallingblood simply didn't change gears.

I suspect he doesn't have that gear available. Really, I can't imagine someone missing the meaning by that much if they did.

 

[fallingblood]

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

I read the above quote and I am not convinced. You have the burden of proof. You are making a claim that disagrees with what is accepted. I don't have to try better to prove something that is accepted.

 

[fallingblood]

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

I think you need to do some more research before you post again. Because archeologists have in fact found evidence of a historical King David.

 

[Embarkon]

the mesha stele is a stele from a period just after his rule about there which refers to Isreal as the House of Omri, later on it refers to DAVID loosely but not as a full name

Hidden in the OT Solomon refers to his father by his name - JAKEH in proverbs 1

 

[angellous_evangellous]

THE GNOSTIC TEXT STATES this for your info- his name is AINON, this has noothing to do with his title CHRISTOS- he was not born CHRISTOS he paroused (per Dead Sea Scrols) into that role read the text about him praying in Gethsamane please people

OK. Have you had any training at all in the interpretation of the Gnostic texts?

The "Gnostics" didn't all believe the same thing, which is a pretty good reason why Jesus is not called AINON in all of the texts... Perhaps he is only called AINON in one text. Other Gnostics believed different things about Jesus and named or described him accordingly.

To claim that Gnostics had any uniformity in their understanding of Christ as AINON is a bit infantile. One text says it. It's been a while since I've read the Gnostic Corpus, but I'm willing to bet that ONLY one text say it.

 

[outhouse]

Now that one isn't dated anywhere near the time of David, and I don't think that the copper mines are, either.

The historicity of David and Solomon is questioned more than Jesus. And the two tiny bits of proof are not substantial at all.

as far as the mines they have been recently dated to the correct period. There was a pbs special on the "lost mines of soloman" really cool history on the subject


well I would never use the bible to date a historical figure as we know the dates are no where near accurate in early story's

David - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A fragment of an Aramaean victory stele discovered in 1993 at Tel Dan and dated c.850-835 BC contains a phrase ביתדוד (bytdwd). Because ancient Aramaic script does not contain vowels, different readings are possible. Scholars agree that the first part should be read בֵּית (beyt), meaning "house". However, the second part can be read as 1) דּוֹד (dod), which means "uncle" or "beloved" or as 2) דָּוִד (David). The phrase therefore can mean either "House of the beloved", "House of the uncle" or "House of David".[52] Since the stele recounts the victory of an Aramean king over "the king of Israel" [53] the translation of "ביתדוד" as "the House of David" is not illogical.[54][55] The Mesha Stele from Moab, dating from approximately the same period, may also contain the name David, in two places: in line 12, where the interpretation is uncertain, and בת[ד]וד in line 31, where one destroyed letter must be supplied (here it is bracketed in the middle).[56] Kenneth Kitchen has proposed that an inscription of c. 945 BC by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq I mentions "the highlands of David."[57] Although a reference to King David in this geographical name is not certain, some scholars suggest it is reasonable.

 

[doppelganger]

To claim that Gnostics had any uniformity in their understanding of Christ as AINON is a bit infantile. One text says it. It's been a while since I've read the Gnostic Corpus, but I'm willing to bet that ONLY one text say it.

The "power of Christ" is called "Ainon" in the Gospel of the Egyptians. I don't recall any text that actually refers to Christ, the person, by the name "Ainon."

 

[fallingblood]

Anyway, I doubt the gospels were first presented as non-fiction. I think their writers would be shocked out of their minds to see how people are taking their stories as historical.

Prove it then.

You continue to ignore all of my points about the historicity of fictional characters, so I don't know what else to say to you.

What points have I ignored? I have answered your questions, and addressed your argument. You on the other hand, have yet to even address half of the rebuttals I offered to your points.

Yikes. Just yikes. And you claim no vested interest in the Bible.

How does my statement even make you come to that idea? Whether or not I have a vested interest in the Bible, in this case, has little to do with what we are discussing.

Paul Bunyon, Bugs Bunny, Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones.

It is passingly easy to disprove you. People make heroes of thin air all the time.

Augustus, Alexander the Great, Houdini, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln. All historical figures that have been called heros. You prove nothing by naming a few modern day figures who are intentionally created to be fictional, and do not fit into the idea of an ancient Hero anyway.

 

[Embarkon]

to say that Gnostic text was not uniformed is crazy, the Gnostic approached wisdom in a pragmatic way, they changed dogma based on new light, this is what most people do not know.
and this is why there text is so marginalized as lies, and sub text- they united Science and Religion into one seamless truth

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The "power of Christ" is called "Ainon" in the Gospel of the Egyptians. I don't recall any text that actually refers to Christ, the person, by the name "Ainon."

I believe AINON here means "eternal" as per the Greek meaning.

 

[Embarkon]

angellous im not saying there was no DAVID im saying it was a knickname-and please remember alot of OMRI's achievement may have been restyled as Davids

 

[fallingblood]

If that's the most you can get out of what I wrote, then nevermind. I'm wasting my time here.

It was the only thing I felt offering a rebuttal to, since it was a ridiculous claim. And actually, I have addressed much more of what you said in later posts. Trying just to dismiss me, instead of actually offering a rebuttal though, is a weak tactic.

 

[doppelganger]

I believe AINON here means "eternal" as per the Greek meaning.

Agreed.

 

[doppelganger]

It was the only thing I felt offering a rebuttal to, since it was a ridiculous claim. And actually, I have addressed much more of what you said in later posts. Trying just to dismiss me, instead of actually offering a rebuttal though, is a weak tactic.

I'm not into playing stupid debate games with you. Bye.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

to say that Gnostic text was not uniformed is crazy, the Gnostic approached wisdom in a pragmatic way, they changed dogma based on new light, this is what most people do not know.
and this is why there text is so marginalized as lies, and sub text- they united Science and Religion into one seamless truth

Well, that's what interpreters have said from the beginning of Gnostic studies.

Try Karen King, What is Gnosticism?

 

[doppelganger]

Well, that's what interpreters have said from the beginning of Gnostic studies.

Try Karen King, What is Gnosticism?

Fantastic book.

 

[Embarkon]

so angellous you dont find its mention i.e. Ainon in the NT in connection with Baptism and Salem
superflous in regards to the surrounding text

 

[fallingblood]

I think I'll go with standard scholarship on this one and disagree with you. Sorry.

What I stated was standard scholarship.

If he met the (physical) brother of Jesus, why didn't he relate anything which James told him about Jesus?

No one asked. If you understand the nature of Paul's letters, you would see that they are answering questions and addressing problems that arose in various communities.

James was not the physical brother of the Jesus who modeled for the biblical Jesus. That seems most likely.

Paul, Josephus, and the Gospels all tell us that James was the physical brother of Jesus.

Paul spoke of Jesus as a mystical, magical creature. The gospelers took Jesus and set him into the recent past.

Paul did no such thing. Paul said that Jesus was born of a woman. Was a descendant to David. Was born according to the flesh. Was a Jew like him. Paul put Jesus in the recent history by saying that he was crucified, and that his brother and disciples were still living.