The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

[arnoldo]

Origen does not support any mythicist claims in any way, shape or form.

" ... mythicist claims .." about what, specifically?

My reason for referring to & citing Origen is more to determine aspects of how the NT might have been developed.

I was referring to Origen supporting the mythicist claim that "the Pauline gospel was a late invention." In reference to how the NT might have developed, Origen can certainly support it's development.

[dewitness]

Origen does not support any mythicist claims in any way, shape or form...

Your statement is wholly in error. Origen's Jesus was a myth--the son of god born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

When Celsus argued for an historical Jesus Origen claimed Celsus was a Liar and that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Origen's Against Celsus 1

.....let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage.

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

You seem not to understand that even Spirits were regarded as actual figures of history.

[arnoldo]

Origen does not support any mythicist claims in any way, shape or form...

Your statement is wholly in error. Origen's Jesus was a myth--the son of god born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Origen didn't believe that Jesus existed?

When Celsus argued for an historical Jesus Origen claimed Celsus was a Liar and that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

So, Celsus is arguing for a historical Jesus and Origen for a mythical Jesus?

Origen's Against Celsus 1

.....let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage.

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

You seem not to understand that even Spirits were regarded as actual figures of history.

I understand that people (even christians who existed in the first century) can believe in Spirits even if they aren't real .

[MrMacSon]

I was referring to Origen supporting the mythicist claim that "the Pauline gospel was a late invention."

I'm still confused. I don't think Origen is in a position to support anything; he is dead, yes?

So, you say Origen's writings do or don't support the claim that the Pauline gospel was a late invention?

In reference to how the NT might have developed, Origen can certainly support it's development.

Again, Origen can't do anything - he's dead.

His writings can be analysed and interpreted .....

[dewitness]

Origen does not support any mythicist claims in any way, shape or form...

Your statement is wholly in error. Origen's Jesus was a myth--the son of god born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Origen didn't believe that Jesus existed?

Origen's Jesus existed mythically.

Origen believed Jesus existed as the son of a Ghost!!

Origen believed the Holy Ghost existed.

At the very same time Origen believed the Holy Ghost existed the Romans believed Romulus existed.

Romulus was the myth founder of Rome and Jesus was the mythological son of a Ghost.

Examine Origen's De Principiis.[/u]

... Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— “For by Him were all things made” — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit....

I understand that people (even christians who existed in the first century) can believe in Spirits even if they aren't real .

Well, you must understand one those Spirits was the father of Jesus.

In other words, Origen's Jesus wasn't real.

[arnoldo]

I was referring to Origen supporting the mythicist claim that "the Pauline gospel was a late invention."

I'm still confused. I don't think Origen is in a position to support anything; he is dead, yes?

So, you say Origen's writings do or don't support the claim that the Pauline gospel was a late invention?

By taking Origen's writings out of context, it's possible to have it support any absurd claim. For example, Origen's writings supports that all christian texts were forged in the following passage.

. . And,I suppose, when we notice such things, we should immediately reject as spurious the copies in use in our churches, and command our Christain brothers to throw away the sacred book they are now using, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies that are untampered with, and free from forgery!

Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: By Anthony Grafton

In reference to how the NT might have developed, Origen can certainly support it's development.

Again, Origen can't do anything - he's dead.

His writings can be analysed and interpreted .....

Allright, Origen's writings can support the development of the NT.

[arnoldo]

Origen's Jesus existed mythically. Origen believed Jesus existed as the son of a Ghost!! Origen believed the Holy Ghost existed. At the very same time Origen believed the Holy Ghost existed the Romans believed Romulus existed. Romulus was the myth founder of Rome and Jesus was the mythological son of a Ghost. . .

And Alexander the Great was believed to be the son of Zeus.

. . .He was pronounced the new "master of the Universe" and son of the deity of Amun at the Oracle of Siwa Oasis in the Libyan desert.[84] Henceforth, Alexander often referred to Zeus-Ammon as his true father, and subsequent currency depicted him adorned with rams horn as a symbol of his divinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

What's your point?

[dewitness]

Origen's Jesus existed mythically. Origen believed Jesus existed as the son of a Ghost!! Origen believed the Holy Ghost existed. At the very same time Origen believed the Holy Ghost existed the Romans believed Romulus existed. Romulus was the myth founder of Rome and Jesus was the mythological son of a Ghost. . .

And Alexander the Great was believed to be the son of Zeus.

Well examine Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews to find out the father of Alexander the Great.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.1

. ABOUT this time it was that Philip, king of Macedon, was treacherously assaulted and slain at Egae by Pausanias, the son of Cerastes, who was derived from the family of Oreste, and his son Alexander succeeded him in the kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

Alexander succeeded his father, Philip II of Macedon, to the throne in 336 BC after Philip was assassinated. Upon Philip's death, Alexander inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army.

. . .He was pronounced the new "master of the Universe" and son of the deity of Amun at the Oracle of Siwa Oasis in the Libyan desert.[84] Henceforth, Alexander often referred to Zeus-Ammon as his true father, and subsequent currency depicted him adorned with rams horn as a symbol of his divinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

What's your point?

Why did you not show that the human father of Alexander the Great was King Philip of Macedon?

You very well know that Jesus of Nazareth had no human father in the Bible and his Holy Ghost conception with the Virgin was documented by the Jesus cult in gMatthew and gLuke.

You will not ever be able to present a human father for Jesus of Nazareth--only a Ghost.

[MrMacSon]

By taking Origen's writings out of context, it's possible to have it support any absurd claim.

"out of context"? "any absurd claim"?

hmmm

For example, Origen's writings supports that all christian texts were forged in the following passage.

. . And,I suppose, when we notice such things, we should immediately reject as spurious the copies in use in our churches, and command our Christain brothers to throw away the sacred book they are now using, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies that are untampered with, and free from forgery!

Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: By Anthony Grafton

That was reference to Origen discussing the relative merits of texts with Africanus - they had the same issues then! - what texts to give priority to!

Allright, Origen's writings can support the development of the NT.

OK

[arnoldo]

Origen's Jesus existed mythically. Origen believed Jesus existed as the son of a Ghost!! Origen believed the Holy Ghost existed. At the very same time Origen believed the Holy Ghost existed the Romans believed Romulus existed. Romulus was the myth founder of Rome and Jesus was the mythological son of a Ghost. . .

And Alexander the Great was believed to be the son of Zeus.

Well examine Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews to find out the father of Alexander the Great.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.1

. ABOUT this time it was that Philip, king of Macedon, was treacherously assaulted and slain at Egae by Pausanias, the son of Cerastes, who was derived from the family of Oreste, and his son Alexander succeeded him in the kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

Alexander succeeded his father, Philip II of Macedon, to the throne in 336 BC after Philip was assassinated. Upon Philip's death, Alexander inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army.

. . .He was pronounced the new "master of the Universe" and son of the deity of Amun at the Oracle of Siwa Oasis in the Libyan desert.[84] Henceforth, Alexander often referred to Zeus-Ammon as his true father, and subsequent currency depicted him adorned with rams horn as a symbol of his divinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

What's your point?

Why did you not show that the human father of Alexander the Great was King Philip of Macedon?

You very well know that Jesus of Nazareth had no human father in the Bible and his Holy Ghost conception with the Virgin was documented by the Jesus cult in gMatthew and gLuke.

You will not ever be able to present a human father for Jesus of Nazareth--only a Ghost.

Josephus does mention James, the brother of Jesus in the following passage.

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

If the above quote is an interpolation, it may be based on Matthew 13:55 which mentions James and his father and mother.

Then they scoffed, "He's just the carpenter's son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers--James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.