Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by Secret Alias »

You're not listening to me. Just reading books is bullshit. You have to synthesize the information and try to apply it into the real world. That's the problem with being an egghead. You talk to eggheads. You read egghead books. But reality isn't eggheadish. That's why Giuseppe ends up with his bullshit world that never existed. People never hated Jews so much that they joined an anti-Jewish religion. It's just an eggheadish concept that makes sense to eggheads. Why? Because we are too lazy to get out of our armchairs so we imagine history took place with millions of lazy eggheads sitting in armchairs. But it's not so.

When you read about the resurrection and the body and all the controversies that existed here you have to boil it down to something 'real.' Why would the orthodox have taken such an obtuse position? Even my mother-in-law who - as a Catholic - never so much as looked at a Bible can't figure out - which 'her' will come back? The point is the position isn't sensible because 'me' - for anyone - is a fluid concept. I wasn't 'me' at 15 any more than at 50.

So again, why did the orthodox force themselves into - what amounts to being - a stupid position? You can't say the texts of Paul forced them into it because they altered the texts to support the theological viewpoint not the other way around. There were too many signs of textual emendation and textual variants with the heresies where the idea that 'text agrees with the theological viewpoint' and alteration of text to suit theology was openly discussed. In short, they accused the heresies of what they themselves were doing.

The only explanation for saying that the same 'me' comes back at the resurrection was because the heresies were saying we became another 'me' - a new and perfected 'me' which emerged from the sect's ritual initiation for the resurrection. Even among the Jews and Samaritan you have this sectarian idea that religion prepares you for the resurrection. I think the followers of Dositheos are made 'sons and daughters of Dositheos' in the hereafter.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by MrMacSon »

Charles Wilson wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:10 am
... the Jews have developed an enclosed, inward-looking Culture that saw the "Outworld" as horrific, morally perverse. Nero and Sporus, for example, evidently made a huge impression on both Roman and Jew alike and it wasn't a positive one at that. Caligula and Nero were especially hated for their Abominations.
The post-mortem legends about Nero continued for centuries, starting with the Nero redivivus legend and then a contrary Nero the anti-Christ legend. Whether he ever persecuted Jesus-believing Christians is debatable. But the post-mortem legends around Nero are associated with and even likely spawned the legends of the 'martyrdom' deaths of Paul and Peter. And those legends are likely to be oblique digs at the Roman authorities. Some of the writings attributed to Tertullian suggest that. See
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:43 pm
... You have to synthesize the information and try to apply it into the real world.
That is exactly what I have done -ie. I have synthesized the information and applied it into the real world.

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:43 pm When you read about the resurrection and the body and all the controversies that existed here you have to boil it down to something 'real.' ... Even my mother-in-law who - as a Catholic - never so much as looked at a Bible can't figure out - which 'her' will come back? The point is the position isn't sensible because 'me' - for anyone - is a fluid concept. I wasn't 'me' at 15 any more than at 50.

... You can't say the texts of Paul forced them into it because they altered the texts to support the theological viewpoint not the other way around. There were too many signs of textual emendation and textual variants with the heresies where the idea that 'text agrees with the theological viewpoint' and alteration of text to suit theology was openly discussed. In short, they accused the heresies of what they themselves were doing.
I wondered if I should have included your references to Paul and resurrection in the text [of yours] that I quoted in my post. Clearly it was a mistake b/c all you have focused on is your own crap, which is largely irrelevant to my point - I have gone back and edited my post to delete that section -
  • so, Re-Read my post in that new more-limited context - get your head out of your ass ... Go on, re-read it ....

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:43 pm There were too many signs of textual emendation and textual variants with the heresies where the idea that 'text agrees with the theological viewpoint' and alteration of text to suit theology was openly discussed. In short, they accused the heresies of what they themselves were doing.

The only explanation for saying that the same 'me' comes back at the resurrection was because the heresies were saying we became another 'me' during the ritual initiation for the resurrection. Even among the Jews and Samaritan you have this sectarian idea that religion prepares you for the resurrection. I think the followers of Dositheos are made 'sons and daughters of Dositheos' in the hereafter.
Yes, the development of the theology goes beyond Christian texts. which supports the proposition that they developed it over a short time frame.
Why would the orthodox have taken such an obtuse position? .... So again, why did the orthodox force themselves into - what amounts to being - a stupid position? . . .
Because they were developing their theology in both quick collusion and yet in succession to each other. They likely found quick agreement so likely quickly reified the concepts in the texts.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by Secret Alias »

I disagree. You haven't explained why the orthodox held to an untenable position regarding the physical resurrection.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by Ulan »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:35 pm I disagree. You haven't explained why the orthodox held to an untenable position regarding the physical resurrection.
There isn't only one explanation. One issue I already mentioned is that the "doubting Thomas" made it into the NT. I guess this little story was born from apologetic necessities and didn't really look at the consequences. Like many other church doctrines that are obviously incompatible with each other.

I get it that you tried to explain why church fathers were fighting so hard for the resurrection in flesh. Your suggestion is a possibility, but certainly not the only viable explanation. Connected, though not the same, is the issue why they insisted that Jesus was a real criminal who had been executed for his crimes. This is a slightly different battle, but it somewhat undermines the "palatable to the authorities" goal.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by hakeem »

Ulan wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:45 am Reviving the dead is not the same as the idea of resurrection. The resurrection body, made from spirit matter, as described by Paul, replaces the physical body in resurrection. The daughter of Jairus just lived on and died normally, while the resurrection body does not age. Paul's resurrected Jesus was a spirit.

Nobody asks you to believe these things. It's just what the text says.
NT texts completely contradict you.

NT Jesus came back to life, showed his wounds, and ate food in the presence of his disciples.
The resurrected NT Jesus even claimed he was not a spirit .

Luke 24
36 And as they spake these things, he himself stood in the midst of them, [k]and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do questionings arise in your heart? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.

40 [l]And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet

41 And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat?

42 And gave him a piece of a broiled fish[m]. 43 And he took it, and ate before them.

It is quite clear in the NT stories that it is claimed Jesus bodily resurrected and it is also documented that Christian writers used the NT to argue that Jesus bodily came back to life.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by hakeem »

Ulan wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:45 am Reviving the dead is not the same as the idea of resurrection. The resurrection body, made from spirit matter, as described by Paul, replaces the physical body in resurrection. The daughter of Jairus just lived on and died normally, while the resurrection body does not age. Paul's resurrected Jesus was a spirit.

Nobody asks you to believe these things. It's just what the text says.
NT texts completely contradict you.

NT Jesus came back to life, showed his wounds, and ate food in the presence of his disciples.
The resurrected NT Jesus even claimed he was not a spirit .

Luke 24
36 And as they spake these things, he himself stood in the midst of them, [k]and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do questionings arise in your heart? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.

40 [l]And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet

41 And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat?

42 And gave him a piece of a broiled fish[m]. 43 And he took it, and ate before them.

It is quite clear in the NT stories that it is claimed Jesus bodily resurrected and it is also documented that Christian writers used the NT to argue that Jesus bodily came back to life.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:35 pm I disagree. You haven't explained why the orthodox held to an untenable position regarding the physical resurrection.
Fair enough. My post was general, so wasn't about resurrection per se. I was riffing off "we have to consider what it is they were responding to (i.e. the earlier heretical opinion)."
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by Ulan »

hakeem wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:57 pm
Ulan wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:45 am Reviving the dead is not the same as the idea of resurrection. The resurrection body, made from spirit matter, as described by Paul, replaces the physical body in resurrection. The daughter of Jairus just lived on and died normally, while the resurrection body does not age. Paul's resurrected Jesus was a spirit.

Nobody asks you to believe these things. It's just what the text says.
NT texts completely contradict you.
Of course it does in some other places than the ones I mentioned. The NT is generally a mess of incompatible ideas. I was talking about Paul, as you quoted. You can read chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians yourself, and you can see that my summary was completely correct. That chapter characterizes Jesus as a spirit and explains in detail what the spirit body of resurrection is.
1 Corinthians 15 wrote: The Resurrection Body

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”...

42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.

50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Even in gJohn you find Jesus walk through a closed door (20:19). That's hard to do with a fleshly body and suggests that the "doubting Thomas" episode was a later addition to the text.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by hakeem »

Ulan wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:12 pm
hakeem wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:57 pm
Ulan wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:45 am Reviving the dead is not the same as the idea of resurrection. The resurrection body, made from spirit matter, as described by Paul, replaces the physical body in resurrection. The daughter of Jairus just lived on and died normally, while the resurrection body does not age. Paul's resurrected Jesus was a spirit.

Nobody asks you to believe these things. It's just what the text says.
NT texts completely contradict you.
Of course it does in some other places than the ones I mentioned. The NT is generally a mess of incompatible ideas. I was talking about Paul, as you quoted. You can read chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians yourself, and you can see that my summary was completely correct. That chapter characterizes Jesus as a spirit and explains in detail what the spirit body of resurrection is.
1 Corinthians 15 wrote: The Resurrection Body

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”...

42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.

50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Even in gJohn you find Jesus walk through a closed door (20:19). That's hard to do with a fleshly body and suggests that the "doubting Thomas" episode was a later addition to the text.


The very gJohn contradicts you. It is claimed gJohn's resurrected Jesus showed his body to the disciples.

John 20
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.



Galatians contradicts you.
Galatians 4. 4-5
but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


1 Corinthians contradict you.

1 Cor. 15
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;

5 and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; 6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; 7 then he appeared to [f]James; then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also.


1 Corinthians 15:14
and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.


NT Jesus is God born of a woman who bodily resurrected.
Post Reply