Mangasarian: THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS IS HE A MYTH? [

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Gnostics or Docetists are the usual claim. Except Ignatius never tells us what these other people believed, only what they did not teach. So we do not know, we can only make an educated guess.

The history of the various inane ideas that tried to co-opt the Christian faith for their own purposes is well known, and why not do so? People like Ignatius were busily co-opting it for their own self-appointed professional clergy*, claiming that a priest had to officiate at Eucharist, as if turning a simple love-feast into a ritual were not bad enough.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Sorry, that was Epiphanius, who said Jesus died during the reign of Jannaeus. One version of the Talmud also makes this claim. Jannaeus reigned until 76 BC.

As for Epiphanius, Wiki has this to say: "He is best known for composing the Panarion, a very large compendium of the heresies up to his own time, full of quotations that are often the only surviving fragments of suppressed texts." so I have no doubt that this will be just another of the various attempts ro divert the gospel. But find it and let's take a look if you will.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

I was not looking for contradictions, I was looking for what the non Gospels (and Acts) said about Jesus. And then I read what Hebrews literally said, that Jesus sacrificed himself once, and once only in a tabernacle not built by human hands. That Jesus was a priest of Melchezidek, not a Levite. That when heaven and earth are compared, Jesus is always in the heaven part.

Try again. As I mentioned, the sacrifice itself was not made in the Holy of Holies, but the BLOOD from it taken into that place for the purpose noted in the first verses of the chapter. The point was that the sacrifice did not need to be made yearly since Christ REMAINED in Heaven fulfilling the PURPOSE of that sacrifice. The passage does not say Christ entered that "tabernacle" to BE sacrificed, but to fulfill the purpose of the sacrifice.

*Who were busily engaged in all that stupid arguing.

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by nateswift

The history of the various inane ideas that tried to co-opt the Christian faith for their own purposes is well known, and why not do so? People like Ignatius were busily co-opting it for their own self-appointed professional clergy*, claiming that a priest had to officiate at Eucharist, as if turning a simple love-feast into a ritual were not bad enough.



As for Epiphanius, Wiki has this to say: "He is best known for composing the Panarion, a very large compendium of the heresies up to his own time, full of quotations that are often the only surviving fragments of suppressed texts." so I have no doubt that this will be just another of the various attempts ro divert the gospel. But find it and let's take a look if you will.



Try again. As I mentioned, the sacrifice itself was not made in the Holy of Holies, but the BLOOD from it taken into that place for the purpose noted in the first verses of the chapter. The point was that the sacrifice did not need to be made yearly since Christ REMAINED in Heaven fulfilling the PURPOSE of that sacrifice. The passage does not say Christ entered that "tabernacle" to BE sacrificed, but to fulfill the purpose of the sacrifice.

*Who were busily engaged in all that stupid arguing.

Co-opt the Christian faith?...You mean like the Christians co-opted the Jewish faith?...

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

Co-opt the Christian faith?...You mean like the Christians co-opted the Jewish faith?...

Not sure what you mean, but it is true that a lot of Christians think that they are a part of the Jewish Faith, so I'd guess that is it. Yes, ideas about the message of Jesus can be amazing. Even more amazing than the idea that the current iterations of the Jewish Faith are the religion of Moses.

But the point of this thread is whether the person of Jesus presented in the "Gospels" was a real person or not, in spite of the clearly legendary elements that were added to the narrative.

[spiros7]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

Co-opt the Christian faith?...You mean like the Christians co-opted the Jewish faith?...

interfaith, religious and non-religious groups who advocate together for the common good, is what jesus intended--- not co-opting. jesus advocated interaction and peace, not self righteousness or judgement of other religiions

when people read luke 12:51-53, they often use it to condone their ignorant hatred of other religions. when jesus said this, he was referring to the inception of the early christians and how intolerant pagans, political leaders and the adherers of the old law will not be so condoning of the early christians new way of thinking and practices. in luke 12-51-53, he gave an example of a family struggling between traditional religious teaching and a family member who became an adherer to jesus teachings. it is obvious that new ways of thinking often clash with old ways of thinking, which is often the cause of divisions.

the epistle of james, one of the oldest new testament book that documents the inception of the early christians, gives credence and interpretation to what jesus was referring too in luke 12:51-53. the epistle of james documents a time of political upheaval, divison and oppression

jesus beseeched peace and non-judgement because it is not easy for humans.

jesus implored us to do things that are not easy. the opposite is always easy. peace, however, requires selflessness which is not easy for most

[spiros7]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

Co-opt the Christian faith?...You mean like the Christians co-opted the Jewish faith?...

excuse unedited cell grammar

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by spiros7

excuse unedited cell grammar

Quit posting this. You're clogging up the whole sub-forum with this repetitive inane comment.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's polite but I agree it can be taken for granted that we excuse it, Spiro. Certainly doesn't need its' own post.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by nateswift

The history of the various inane ideas that tried to co-opt the Christian faith for their own purposes is well known, and why not do so? People like Ignatius were busily co-opting it for their own self-appointed professional clergy*, claiming that a priest had to officiate at Eucharist, as if turning a simple love-feast into a ritual were not bad enough.

As I said, there were other versions of Christianity, teaching things that were very different to that of the writer of Trallians. And if they could invent a different Jesus, so could the sect that was later to evolve into our versions of Christianity with a Jesus on earth.

Originally Posted by nateswift

As for Epiphanius, Wiki has this to say: "He is best known for composing the Panarion, a very large compendium of the heresies up to his own time, full of quotations that are often the only surviving fragments of suppressed texts." so I have no doubt that this will be just another of the various attempts ro divert the gospel. But find it and let's take a look if you will.

Panarion 29 3,3

For at Christ’s arrival the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end. Until his time rulers < were anointed priests > ‘ but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judaea the order ended and changed with Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. (4) After Alexander this heritage from the time of Salina – also known as Alexandra – died out under King Herod and the Roman Emperor Augustus.’ (Though Alexander was crowned also, since he was one of the anointed priests and rulers. (5) For with the union of the two tribes, the kingly and priestly – I mean Judah’s and Aaron’s and the whole tribe of Levi – kings also became priests; nothing based on a hint in holy scripture can be wrong.) (6) But then finally a gentile, King Herod, was crowned, and not David’s descendants any more.

Originally Posted by nateswift

Try again. As I mentioned, the sacrifice itself was not made in the Holy of Holies, but the BLOOD from it taken into that place for the purpose noted in the first verses of the chapter. The point was that the sacrifice did not need to be made yearly since Christ REMAINED in Heaven fulfilling the PURPOSE of that sacrifice. The passage does not say Christ entered that "tabernacle" to BE sacrificed, but to fulfill the purpose of the sacrifice.

11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Hebrews compares earth and heaven. Temple for temple, priesthood for priesthood. I see sacrifice for sacrifice.

[nateswift]

You can see what you want to see. I'm merely pointing out that you have no real basis, not that whether Jesus was as reported matters if His quite simple message is understood and followed.