Discuss the mythology of Jesus here.
Some say he's the god of Abraham and Noah. Some say he didn't exist at all.
Some say he's the god of Abraham and Noah. Some say he didn't exist at all.
Last edited:
Jesus mythology discussed here
- Thread starter SkinWalker
- Start date
False. YHWH is not 'allah' and even a cursory reading of the cults' respective texts reveals/demonstrates this to be the case.
For example, consider the testimony/relationship of YHWH to Jesus (In both Old and New Testaments) vis a vis these same things (testimony/relationship) of 'allah' to Jesus found in the Quran...
Why? Because YHWH = Jesus = The LOGOS/Word of God Written/Incarnate, so He has everything "to do with it." Refer to YHWH and you refer to Jesus.
Furthermore, Jesus is certainly not that allah character--even allah says so...he (allah) differentiates himself from Jesus. Ergo, allah is not YHWH according to allah himself.
Jesus (YHWH) is both King of the Jews and God of the Jews--and of course King and God of the Gentiles also.
Last edited:
Ugh ah, that just ain't so. The mythos of Jehovah had been around long before the Christian mythos evolved.
Besides, Jesus' main shtick was love and understanding, (ill-respective of the actions of his followers).
While Jehovah's modus operandi seems to be jealousy and exclusion. (On a different day I might use different words for Jehovah.)
And on a more personal level, as said by those sage fathers 'The Doobie Bros.': Jesus is just alright with me'. (Please do not take this as an admission that I'm a christian. I'm not.)
While, to repeat myself, from post #5 on this thread:
Jehovah strikes me as either: a violent psychotic or just plain malevolent.
They are One and The Same...as Jesus states: Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM...So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. -->God said to Moses, I AM Who I AM. And He said, Say this to the people of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.
Jesus' main shtick was to do the will of the One Who sent Him:
So Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise...For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do what I want...Jesus told them, "I'm not teaching my own ideas, but those of God who sent me. Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own... I don't speak on my own authority. The Father who sent me gave me his own instructions as to what I should say.
So, what you perceive to be Jesus' "main shtick" is the same "shtick" as the One who sent Him. Jesus declares Himself to be the "I Am" of the OT (YHWH) and He, in turn, does nothing of His own accord but what He sees the Father doing...ergo, your perception of YHWH is incorrect.
Suffice it to say, then, that for some of those deluded by mythology of Bronze and Iron Age mystics, Jesus is both the son of a god and the god itself.
Clearly, this delusion is contradictory within the mythical text itself and there is more evidence that Jesus was a completely invented figure of those that sought to create a cult based on earlier Jewish writings. This, however, is a separate topic and I'll probably split the posts out of this one if it continues.
Clearly, this delusion is contradictory within the mythical text itself and there is more evidence that Jesus was a completely invented figure of those that sought to create a cult based on earlier Jewish writings. This, however, is a separate topic and I'll probably split the posts out of this one if it continues.
You're blathering. This is the last time I will respond to one of your posts, or read one.
They are One and The Same...as Jesus states: Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM...So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. -->God said to Moses, I AM Who I AM. And He said, Say this to the people of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.
Jesus' main shtick was to do the will of the One Who sent Him:
So Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise...For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do what I want...Jesus told them, "I'm not teaching my own ideas, but those of God who sent me. Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own... I don't speak on my own authority. The Father who sent me gave me his own instructions as to what I should say.
So, what you perceive to be Jesus' "main shtick" is the same as the One who sent Him. Jesus declares Himself to the "I Am" of the OT (YHWH) and He, in turn, does nothing of His own accord but what He sees the Father doing...ergo, your perception of YHWH is incorrect.
Jesus may have been a real person. We just don't know.
The only reliable historical source comes from Josephus, who referred to a man named "Jesus" who preached and was executed by the Romans.
Trouble is, there were a lot of preachers who were executed by the Romans, and "Jesus" was actually a fairly common name. "Jesus" is just a bastardized Greek form of the Aramaic "Yeshua", which is "Joshua" when translated directly.
So, most likely, that man Josephus mentioned by name was the central figure around which the Christian myth formed. His followers just took the historical figure and blew it out of proportion, mythologising his deeds to the point that they were no longer true.
But the man was most certainly not a god, as the Abrahamic god does not exist.
The only reliable historical source comes from Josephus, who referred to a man named "Jesus" who preached and was executed by the Romans.
Trouble is, there were a lot of preachers who were executed by the Romans, and "Jesus" was actually a fairly common name. "Jesus" is just a bastardized Greek form of the Aramaic "Yeshua", which is "Joshua" when translated directly.
So, most likely, that man Josephus mentioned by name was the central figure around which the Christian myth formed. His followers just took the historical figure and blew it out of proportion, mythologising his deeds to the point that they were no longer true.
But the man was most certainly not a god, as the Abrahamic god does not exist.
Some also say he is not a myth
But since there's no evidence to support a physical person of the same name, he remains a myth.
what evidence is there to support the Emperor Augustus or Spartacus ever REALLY lived?
Historical records which are internally consistent with their depiction. Busts and statues contemporary to their lives which are consistent.
Jesus, on the other hands, has few, if any, contemporary sources or evidence. Almost all of it was written long after he supposedly lived.
The only direct evidence contemporary to the supposed time is Josephus' writings, which mention a man by that name.
However, at that time, it was a common name, and preaching a common profession. It literally could have been any number of people.
Jesus, on the other hands, has few, if any, contemporary sources or evidence. Almost all of it was written long after he supposedly lived.
The only direct evidence contemporary to the supposed time is Josephus' writings, which mention a man by that name.
However, at that time, it was a common name, and preaching a common profession. It literally could have been any number of people.
Please list these "few, if any," contemporary sources or evidence".
So, "almost all" and "long after" hmmm? Again, to which records are you refering? Also, that portion of the "historical records" that do not fall into the catagory "almost all"...which records are those?
I wasn't aware that I was asserting that either did exist. Moreover, nothing I believe about the world depends upon their existence or non-existence.
But I ask you: does the existence of Jesus depend upon the existence or non-existence of these two entities.
I guess it just indicates the flimsiness of empiricism as applied to ancient history - since there is not much evidence to back many personalities 2000 years ago - there is probably no evidence of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother's aunt either - I guess that makes her a myth too ...
they are said to be from around the same time era for a start
But how does their existence have anything to do with the alleged existence of Jesus? And where have I ever asserted their existence to begin with. This is a fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.
Back on topic: Jesus Christ.
Back on topic: Jesus Christ.
*************
M*W: Haps, you bring up a very good point as always. Look at all the busts of the Roman emperors, Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Roman soldiers, even saints, but none that I've ever seen or heard about of Jesus and his immediate family! There will always be paintings but not from reality, so paintings don't count. Everything that depicts an image of Jesus is generally found in places of religious worship, but there is no known piece of sculpture depicting Jesus. Why?