How did a Jewish Rabbi (Jesus Christ) end up to be "son" of God?
- Thread starter Picture
- Start date
Good one Killjoy, I've promoted this website, so many times now, yet people seem never to take notice! Here's another that's not very popular with jesus' freaks either;
http://www.bare-jesus.net/etricksindex.htm
http://www.bare-jesus.net/etricksindex.htm
Why? They use "it has been done before" and "this looks like that" as arguments. Why even ponder it? The Bible reflects that there were many wrong ways, and that we shouldn't worship the sun, etc. So even at that time they knew that there were many religions that teached similiar but false teachings.
Why would it suggest that it was man-made, because it looked like something that was done earlier? It isn't the base of my faith that it doesn't look like something that was done earlier, it only reflects that there is a common ground inspiration in us. For example there are very similiar concepts from cultures that haven't been in touch with eachother (like the flood) suggesting that there are what I would call 'truth' in us, that these stories reflects, but that we need the inspiration of God for that truth to be visible in correct context and I believe that the Bible is the result of such inspiration.
They decided he wasn't human when he was born according to a prophecy made centuries earlier.
or maybe all the miracles he pulled off in the name of being the son of god.
or maybe the shaking of the earth at the time of his death.
There are plenty of times when christians on the fence would be considered stupid to not believe he was the son of God.
or maybe all the miracles he pulled off in the name of being the son of god.
or maybe the shaking of the earth at the time of his death.
There are plenty of times when christians on the fence would be considered stupid to not believe he was the son of God.
Please sit down, think about my response and give an honest answer..
Given that you say that the "prophecy was made centuries earlier" would it not stand to reason that any writer creating a 'hero' would be able to have that hero fulfil that prophecy?
(Please note there is only one reasonable answer to that question).
Unfortunately the source for all your information comes from the very same place. Any writer could make claim to any fulfilled prophecy, any supposed miracle - why, he could even claim there were witnesses and if you have that as the only source then the value of it becomes meaningless. Let it also be stated that as time went on the miracles increased. The earlier writings have very few miracles, while the later writings add more and more as they go along. I did have a graph to show this somewhere and am still attempting to locate it for the sake of another thread debate.
Did you feel it? The answer is a certain no, and then it must be questioned what your source for that information is. Is it perhaps the very same source that claims this person did miracles, fulfilled prophecies by this unknown writer that for some reason you would decide to lay complete and utter trust in when you probably wouldn't even display that same trust for most of your friends and colleagues?
And there are far more times when these people must be questioned for giving over all reason for the sake of a story written by person or persons that you have never met, have no knowledge of about stories that you cannot in any way support, substantiate or corroborate - and your only claim comes from the basis that this one source says this, that and this. We know this must be true because this says so which is shown to be true because the next page says it is. It is ludicrous.
One aspect of Jesus was that he was a Jewish carpenter that lived 2000 yrs ago. How many other historical accounts of modest people to we have from that time? Maybe Josef the plumber? Is the Bible not a compilation of accounts? His message does not rely upon whether or not and when exactly, the land known as Nazareth was populated.
Exploration into factual accurracy of the Bible is fascinating, but are you suggesting that because of inconsistencies between present understanding of history and the history as in the Bible, the entire account is wrong?
Using that line of reasoning, you could dissprove just about anything. Maybe everything.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
The original Greek word is actually 'tekton' which means builder.
Its only been translated as 'carpenter', but he could have just as easily been a stone worker.
Greetings,
Who decided?
We have no records of his birth - just legends from long afterwards by anonymous writers who were never there.
According to modern NT scholars - not one of the NT books were written by anyone who met any historical Jesus.
What miracles?
There is no record in history of Jesus or his miracles.
http://qdj.50megs.com/EarlyWriters.html
Paul also mentions no miracles.
Nor do the epistles of James, Peter, John, or Jude.
The miracle stories were unknown to early Christians - until the Gospels started circulating in early-mid 2nd century.
There is no record of such an event in the various lists of such phenomena - they WERE recorded.
Paul also mentions no earthquake.
Nor do the epistles of James, Peter, John, or Jude.
The earthquake story was unknown to early Christians - until the Gospels started circulating in early-mid 2nd century.
Have a look at this chart :
http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html
(sorry bout the ads - had to get a new server.)
It shows in order or writing the various Christian books and what they contain of the Gospel stories.
See how the Gospels and their stories were unknown until early-mid 2nd century?
This ties in with Aristides, who, writing in the period 138-161 called the singular un-named Gospel only recently preached. The Gospels were only finally named in the 180s by Irenaeus.
The Gospels developed over time :
Iasion
Who decided?
We have no records of his birth - just legends from long afterwards by anonymous writers who were never there.
According to modern NT scholars - not one of the NT books were written by anyone who met any historical Jesus.
What miracles?
There is no record in history of Jesus or his miracles.
http://qdj.50megs.com/EarlyWriters.html
Paul also mentions no miracles.
Nor do the epistles of James, Peter, John, or Jude.
The miracle stories were unknown to early Christians - until the Gospels started circulating in early-mid 2nd century.
There is no record of such an event in the various lists of such phenomena - they WERE recorded.
Paul also mentions no earthquake.
Nor do the epistles of James, Peter, John, or Jude.
The earthquake story was unknown to early Christians - until the Gospels started circulating in early-mid 2nd century.
Have a look at this chart :
http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html
(sorry bout the ads - had to get a new server.)
It shows in order or writing the various Christian books and what they contain of the Gospel stories.
See how the Gospels and their stories were unknown until early-mid 2nd century?
This ties in with Aristides, who, writing in the period 138-161 called the singular un-named Gospel only recently preached. The Gospels were only finally named in the 180s by Irenaeus.
The Gospels developed over time :
- 1st century – Gospels and life of Jesus of Nazareth unknown,
- early 2nd century – sayings of Jesus becoming known, a few details of life of Jesus known,
- early-mid 2nd century – early writings mentioned, proto-Gospels appear,
- mid 2nd century – 'memoirs of the Apostles' appear, life of Jesus much better known,
- late-mid 2nd century – Gospels numbered Four with diatessaron,
- late 2nd century – Gospels named and become well known.
Iasion
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
The earliest gospel is Mark (CE 60-70)...well before the mid 2nd century.
The writings of Paul are even earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
The writings of Paul are even earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
Greetings again,
Sorry if I trod on your toes a bit there Medicine Woman
Your input here is welcome and generally informative, I just think you went off track here.
Mind you it's not an uncommon view, and popularised by recent books.
But it seem to me the opposite is true - from folowing the CHRONOLGY of the Christian writings, I think it went like like this:
It started long before Paul - with the son-of-God idea, that an intermediary was needed between the perfect timeless Godhead and the flawed decaying world of matter.
Paul was one the spiritual seekers of his day (along with many others of varying beliefs) and he put into words an idea that had been growing and circulating before him.
The idea of a Son of God that somehow was also the SOUL of every human.
Paul describes Christ in spiritual, esoteric terms :
Gal. 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. "
Christ is living in him.
"Christ in you - the hope of Doxa (glory)"
(Glory here means something like "upliftment" or apotheosis maybe.)
That is clearly nothing to do with any historical Jesus at all - it's spiritual talk.
I think Paul boils down to this :
Some ancients had an idea that divine beings ensouled us - that they "died" our life, and they later "lived" our death.
Paul makes a few odd comments that MAY sound likely earthly references e.g. "born of woman" - simply means this "soul", this Christos, is born every time a woman gives birth. It's simple a way of saying : "every time woman gives birth, the Christos is born again (a new soul is born)"
But, have a hard look through Paul - is there anything CLEARLY refering to an earthly life of Jesus?
Does Paul mention :
No.
Not once !
Paul mentions nothing of the life of Jesus - just a few vague and spiritual comments which can be interpreted many ways.
The essence of history is :
No.
Does Paul mention any DATE about Jesus ?
No.
Does Paul mention any PLACE about Jesus - Nazareth, Bethlehem etc. ?
No.
Does Paul mention and EVENT about Jesus ?
Well, yes.
He does talk about the crucifixion, and dying and raising. But not in any historical sense. It happened up above in the astral realms. Christ was crucified by the "archons" - the beings from the plane just above ours.
Paul goes on about this Iesous Christos like he is some sort of spiritual being, or energy, or something like that.
But nothing about a historical Jesus of Nazareth.
No.
To Paul - Jesus was a spiritual being.
And ONLY that.
Paul did not think Jesus of Nazareth was a historical being.
I don't Paul ever even heard of anyone who thought that
I don't think Paul ever even considered the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical being.
http://qdj.50megs.com/Paul-Gnostic.html
Q.
Sorry if I trod on your toes a bit there Medicine Woman
Your input here is welcome and generally informative, I just think you went off track here.Mind you it's not an uncommon view, and popularised by recent books.
But it seem to me the opposite is true - from folowing the CHRONOLGY of the Christian writings, I think it went like like this:
It started long before Paul - with the son-of-God idea, that an intermediary was needed between the perfect timeless Godhead and the flawed decaying world of matter.
Paul was one the spiritual seekers of his day (along with many others of varying beliefs) and he put into words an idea that had been growing and circulating before him.
The idea of a Son of God that somehow was also the SOUL of every human.
Paul describes Christ in spiritual, esoteric terms :
Gal. 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. "
Christ is living in him.
"Christ in you - the hope of Doxa (glory)"
(Glory here means something like "upliftment" or apotheosis maybe.)
That is clearly nothing to do with any historical Jesus at all - it's spiritual talk.
I think Paul boils down to this :
- * Iesous Christ is the son-of-god - the intermediary between the divine and the physical
- * this Christos somehow is in every human - somewhat like what we call a "soul" maybe
- * the body is the "cross"
- * the Christos is "crucified" on the cross of the body by being incarnated in it.
Some ancients had an idea that divine beings ensouled us - that they "died" our life, and they later "lived" our death.
Paul makes a few odd comments that MAY sound likely earthly references e.g. "born of woman" - simply means this "soul", this Christos, is born every time a woman gives birth. It's simple a way of saying : "every time woman gives birth, the Christos is born again (a new soul is born)"
But, have a hard look through Paul - is there anything CLEARLY refering to an earthly life of Jesus?
Does Paul mention :
- * Mary, Joseph and the birth stories ?
- * Jesus' miracles ?
- * Jesus' healings, e.g. Lazarus ?
- * the speeches of Jesus ?
- * the trial of Jesus and/or Pilate ?
- * the triumphal entry ?
- * Judas ?
- * the empty tomb?
No.
Not once !
Paul mentions nothing of the life of Jesus - just a few vague and spiritual comments which can be interpreted many ways.
The essence of history is :
- * names
- * dates
- * places
- * events
No.
Does Paul mention any DATE about Jesus ?
No.
Does Paul mention any PLACE about Jesus - Nazareth, Bethlehem etc. ?
No.
Does Paul mention and EVENT about Jesus ?
Well, yes.
He does talk about the crucifixion, and dying and raising. But not in any historical sense. It happened up above in the astral realms. Christ was crucified by the "archons" - the beings from the plane just above ours.
Paul goes on about this Iesous Christos like he is some sort of spiritual being, or energy, or something like that.
But nothing about a historical Jesus of Nazareth.
No.
To Paul - Jesus was a spiritual being.
And ONLY that.
Paul did not think Jesus of Nazareth was a historical being.
I don't Paul ever even heard of anyone who thought that
I don't think Paul ever even considered the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical being.
http://qdj.50megs.com/Paul-Gnostic.html
Q.
Greetings,
Indeed.
That is a common dating for G.Mark, based purely on internal considerations.
Edit: Hang on. A better range would be 65-80. But it's still an average of a body of opinion.
However,
the external Christian record clearly shows that the Gospels, and their contents, did not become known to Christian writers until early-mid 2nd C.
Have a look at this chart which makes it crystal clear:
http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html
Indeed they are.
But they contain no certain reference to any Jesus of Nazareth.
They DO however contain references to the Risen Christ - Iesous Christos, a spiritual being of some sort.
Iasion
Indeed.
That is a common dating for G.Mark, based purely on internal considerations.
Edit: Hang on. A better range would be 65-80. But it's still an average of a body of opinion.
However,
the external Christian record clearly shows that the Gospels, and their contents, did not become known to Christian writers until early-mid 2nd C.
Have a look at this chart which makes it crystal clear:
http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html
Indeed they are.
But they contain no certain reference to any Jesus of Nazareth.
They DO however contain references to the Risen Christ - Iesous Christos, a spiritual being of some sort.
Iasion
Last edited:
Next,
Consider the epistles of pseudo Paul (i.e. not by Paul) :
Hebrews,
“So then, if he were on Earth, he would not be a priest”
Colossians,
...the Image of the invisible God,
the first -born of Heaven,
for in him all things were created,
in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions,
principalities or authorities,
all things were created through him and for him
he is before all things,
and in him all things hold together,
he is the Head of the Body, the church,
he is the beginning,
the first born from the dead,
that in all he might be first,
for in him was the Pleroma,
and through him to reconcile to himself all things,
whether on earth or in heaven,
making peace by the blood of his cross ."
Ephesians -
"Awake, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christos will shine on you." ( Eph. 5:13 )
Spiritual concepts and religious formulae.
But nothing about any historical Jesus of Nazareth - no Mary, Joseph, or birth stories, no miracles, no Pilate, no trial - no date, names or places.
So,
whoever thought they were following in the footsteps of Paul also thought of Iesous Christos as a spiritual, not historical being.
Iasion
Consider the epistles of pseudo Paul (i.e. not by Paul) :
Hebrews,
“So then, if he were on Earth, he would not be a priest”
Colossians,
...the Image of the invisible God,
the first -born of Heaven,
for in him all things were created,
in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions,
principalities or authorities,
all things were created through him and for him
he is before all things,
and in him all things hold together,
he is the Head of the Body, the church,
he is the beginning,
the first born from the dead,
that in all he might be first,
for in him was the Pleroma,
and through him to reconcile to himself all things,
whether on earth or in heaven,
making peace by the blood of his cross ."
Ephesians -
"Awake, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christos will shine on you." ( Eph. 5:13 )
Spiritual concepts and religious formulae.
But nothing about any historical Jesus of Nazareth - no Mary, Joseph, or birth stories, no miracles, no Pilate, no trial - no date, names or places.
So,
whoever thought they were following in the footsteps of Paul also thought of Iesous Christos as a spiritual, not historical being.
Iasion
Next,
consider the later NT epistles and other early epistles and documents :
80s -
1 John
James
90s -
1 Peter
1 Clement
Revelation
100s -
the Didakhe
Jude
110s -
Barnabas
120s -
2,3 John
apoc. of Peter
secret James
G.Thomas
preaching of Peter
130s -
2 Peter
Pastorals
G.Peter
Hermas
Among these are letters from James, allegedly the brother of Jesus.
Have a read of James. It's obvious the writer was NOT any brother of any Jesus. In fact the writer shows no knowledge what-so-ever of any historical Jesus.
Have a read of 1 John - the writer has obviously just had a religious (gnostic) experience and is struggling to record it for posterity. But there is nothing there about any historical Jesus.
So too with Jude.
The letters of Peter were obviously not written by anyone who was handed the keys from any historical Jesus.
Have a read of Revelation - no historical Jesus and Mary there - just bizarre symbolism.
Check the pastorals - forged in the name of Paul. Church politics mostly - no historical Jesus there.
The epistle of Clement - allegely quotes the Gospels. It does not.
http://qdj.50megs.com/ClementRome.html
Similarly with the other books listed above - all sorts of religious formulae and spiritual mumbo-jumbo at length -
But,
no mention of any historical Jesus of Nazareth.
No dates,
no places,
no names.
SOME elements of the story start to appear in early 2nd century - such as the concept of Jesus being "pierced" appearing in Barnabas.
Thus we see that about the first TWO DOZEN books of Christian writings do NOT clearly mention any historical Jesus of Nazareth.
But, from the early 2nd century on, the story of Jesus starts to grow, even into a huge debate that lasted most of the century -
Whether Jesus ever came to earth
"in the flesh".
Iasion
consider the later NT epistles and other early epistles and documents :
80s -
1 John
James
90s -
1 Peter
1 Clement
Revelation
100s -
the Didakhe
Jude
110s -
Barnabas
120s -
2,3 John
apoc. of Peter
secret James
G.Thomas
preaching of Peter
130s -
2 Peter
Pastorals
G.Peter
Hermas
Among these are letters from James, allegedly the brother of Jesus.
Have a read of James. It's obvious the writer was NOT any brother of any Jesus. In fact the writer shows no knowledge what-so-ever of any historical Jesus.
Have a read of 1 John - the writer has obviously just had a religious (gnostic) experience and is struggling to record it for posterity. But there is nothing there about any historical Jesus.
So too with Jude.
The letters of Peter were obviously not written by anyone who was handed the keys from any historical Jesus.
Have a read of Revelation - no historical Jesus and Mary there - just bizarre symbolism.
Check the pastorals - forged in the name of Paul. Church politics mostly - no historical Jesus there.
The epistle of Clement - allegely quotes the Gospels. It does not.
http://qdj.50megs.com/ClementRome.html
Similarly with the other books listed above - all sorts of religious formulae and spiritual mumbo-jumbo at length -
But,
no mention of any historical Jesus of Nazareth.
No dates,
no places,
no names.
SOME elements of the story start to appear in early 2nd century - such as the concept of Jesus being "pierced" appearing in Barnabas.
Thus we see that about the first TWO DOZEN books of Christian writings do NOT clearly mention any historical Jesus of Nazareth.
But, from the early 2nd century on, the story of Jesus starts to grow, even into a huge debate that lasted most of the century -
Whether Jesus ever came to earth
"in the flesh".
Iasion
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
What record shows that Mark was not known until mid 2nd century.
The chart linked doesnt even mention Mark, unless Im missing something?
What distinguishes between 'internal' and 'external' records?
Last edited:
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
I dont know if the word Nazareth appears anywhere in Pauls writings, but he certainly mentions Jesus as a being who lived on earth as a man.
That he would emphasize the divine aspect of Jesus is not altogether unexpected, considering his only direct experience was that of alleged spiritual visions.
How did you come to believe that he was gnostic?
Greetings,
The record of Christian writings in that table I linked.
It does mention Mark, using the code "Mk".
See the right hand two columns?
One is labelled "Gospels" - it shows references to the Gospels - "Mk" means a reference to G.Mark.
The next is labelled "Quotes" - it shows quotations of the Gospels.
This chart shows that the first reference to the Gospel of Mark is :
* Papias in the 130s
And the first quotation of G.Mark is :
* Irenaeus in the 180s
Here, I simply meant Gospel vs others.
If the Gospels really were written in the 60s or so - why do no Christian writings meantion them until 130 at the EARLIEST, and late 2nd century at the latest ?
Have a good look at that chart - see how it starts BARE and then gets FULL ?
This shows clearly that the early Christian writings knew almost NOTHING about any life of Jesus.
For instance - the empty tomb.
A crucial element of the story of Jesus.
But no-one clearly mentions the empty tomb meme until about the 130s or so.
Most notably - note how clearly knowledge of the GOSPELS marches in lockstep with knowledge of the LIFE of Jesus.
This is clear evidence that everything we know comes FROM the Gospels - late, anonymous myths.
Not from any persons who knew any historical Jesus - the people EARLIEST in the story knew nothing of the life of Jesus.
The life of Jesus of Nazaeth was essentially UNKNOWN even to Christians, until about a century after it allegedly happened.
Clear and present evidence it's all myth.
Iasion
The record of Christian writings in that table I linked.
It does mention Mark, using the code "Mk".
See the right hand two columns?
One is labelled "Gospels" - it shows references to the Gospels - "Mk" means a reference to G.Mark.
The next is labelled "Quotes" - it shows quotations of the Gospels.
This chart shows that the first reference to the Gospel of Mark is :
* Papias in the 130s
And the first quotation of G.Mark is :
* Irenaeus in the 180s
Here, I simply meant Gospel vs others.
If the Gospels really were written in the 60s or so - why do no Christian writings meantion them until 130 at the EARLIEST, and late 2nd century at the latest ?
Have a good look at that chart - see how it starts BARE and then gets FULL ?
This shows clearly that the early Christian writings knew almost NOTHING about any life of Jesus.
For instance - the empty tomb.
A crucial element of the story of Jesus.
But no-one clearly mentions the empty tomb meme until about the 130s or so.
Most notably - note how clearly knowledge of the GOSPELS marches in lockstep with knowledge of the LIFE of Jesus.
This is clear evidence that everything we know comes FROM the Gospels - late, anonymous myths.
Not from any persons who knew any historical Jesus - the people EARLIEST in the story knew nothing of the life of Jesus.
The life of Jesus of Nazaeth was essentially UNKNOWN even to Christians, until about a century after it allegedly happened.
Clear and present evidence it's all myth.
Iasion
Greetings,
I don't agree.
There are passages which MAY mean an earthly man, none which "certainly" do.
Please cite any if you think they do.
He allegedly met a historical Jesus. His writings do not support that at all. Paul never mentions Jesus, even when the context begs out for it.
See here:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp08.htm
and here:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/silintro.htm
where Earl shows conclusively that Paul did not speak of an earthly Jesus.
Well, the Gnostics thought he was.
And Paul describes himself in ways that match the gnostic world view :
http://qdj.50megs.com/Paul-Gnostic.html
Iasion
I don't agree.
There are passages which MAY mean an earthly man, none which "certainly" do.
Please cite any if you think they do.
He allegedly met a historical Jesus. His writings do not support that at all. Paul never mentions Jesus, even when the context begs out for it.
See here:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp08.htm
and here:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/silintro.htm
where Earl shows conclusively that Paul did not speak of an earthly Jesus.
Well, the Gnostics thought he was.
And Paul describes himself in ways that match the gnostic world view :
http://qdj.50megs.com/Paul-Gnostic.html
Iasion
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Ok, I see the reference to Mark now, but just because Mark is not mentioned by any Christian writer between 60-70CE and 130CE doesnt mean it didnt exist during that period.
Pauls writing is prior or contemporary with the period, and there were very few other (non gospel) Christian writings at the time that we know of...as the chart demonstrates.
Last edited: