O.A.O.
I noticed that the Name of my Lord had been trending for some few hours now. I was perplexed at first, but then I discerned and realized that this wasn’t just an usual trend, but one with spiritual foundations.
As a result, I’m joining others in calling on the blessed Name of JESUS too. – The Name that is greater than all others.
3 …..thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth…” Songs of Solomon 1:3
Let’s release this precious ointment over our land and nation. JESUS.
Steefen
I can respect Jesus to a certain extent; but, 1) he is a composite character of historical fiction; within that fiction, 2) he is a false prophet, and, in the end, 3) he took an atheistic stance against his god. // Jesus is placed in the category of apocalyptic prophets who proclaimed a tribulation for Jerusalem (that happened), followed by judgement (that did not happen), followed by a glorious kingdom of his god (that did not happen). Scholars say he is not 1 for 3 but 0 for 3 because the gospels were written after the tribulation where Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies. What was the atheistic stance? The atheistic stance is telling people to remember him by consuming wine and bread representing his blood and body. That ran afoul of Leviticus 17:10 (God turns his face away from that and separates the offender from his people). // Why would Jesus do this? There are two reasons: Jesus represents those who wanted a better government, some of whom participated in the Revolt against Rome (AD 66 to AD 70 to AD 73). Many lost their religion when they lost their Temple, so they decided to lose their god. That is what the gospel story represents. Second, history is written by the victors. There was a historical Jesus of Galilee. He lost the Battle of Galilee. Jesus of Galilee, John of Gischala, Simon bar Giora … [ran into a character limit]
Second, history is written by the victors. There was a historical Jesus of Galilee. He lost the Battle of Galilee. Jesus of Galilee, John of Gischala, and Simon bar Giora were re-written by the gospel writers. Simon Peter asked what will happen to John, the Beloved Disciple. “What is it to you if he lives? … Someone will lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus of Galilee was probably killed when the land Battle of Galilee moved into the Sea of Galilee. John and Simon were captured. John was showed mercy and got life in prison. Someone led Simon in the triumphal parade for Rome putting down the Revolt, then, he was executed. That is what the gospel story represents.
I still like the Christian music of Bach, Mozart, etc. I still like that Martin Luther King, Jr. was inspired by Christianity.
…history is written by the victors…
This is the whinge of every crank who’s had his pet theory destroyed by legitimate scholarship which in this case has all the best arguments.
Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalyptic prophet who may or may not have had some sort of Messianic self-understanding. He had a small following and a brief itinerant ministry in the Galilee. He taught the imminent unfolding of the Kingdom of God on Earth and was rewarded for his trouble by being crucified in Jerusalem after some sort of disturbance in the Temple during Passover. His followers came to believe he had been resurrected by God. A small Jewish sect morphed over time into a major world religion.
Deal with it.
Stephen said
…history is written by the victors…This is the whinge of every crank who’s had his pet theory destroyed by legitimate scholarship which in this case has all the best arguments.
The aphorism and truism “history is written by the victors” comes from legitimate scholars, journalists, and world leaders.
History is written by the victors is attributed to Winston Churchill.
Stephen thinks Winston Churchill is a crank with a pet theory.
You are approaching my ignore list, Stephen, yet again.
Besides, I am not only using “history is written by the victors.” Everyone reading this thread notice that you purposely chose not to include:
Written by the victors?
Steefen
Written by the victors, on behalf of the victors, in honor/memory of the victors,
by the defeated acknowledging defeat, by the thrice-defeated (there were three Jewish-Roman wars).
Argumentation Specialist
Thank you.
Stephen
Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalyptic prophet who may or may not have had some sort of Messianic self-understanding.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Nazareth is in Galilee.
Jesus of Galilee was an apocalyptic prophet.
Jesus’ prophecy failed. Jesus was a false prophet.
Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction.
Jesus said to tell John the Baptist there is no one else to look for. (Matthew 11:3-5)
Jesus told Peter, my father in heaven revealed to you I am the Christ, son of the living God. (Matthew 16: 16-17)
Despite these two accounts in the gospel of Matthew, Stephen says, “Jesus may not have had Messianic self-understanding.”
At least twice, Jesus exhibited Messianic self-understanding.
What is “yet not my will, be your will be done” and an angel from heaven strengthened Jesus?”
That is a self-understanding if not a self-delusion of being a Savior. I am dying for a salvific reason.
But Stephen misleads by implication when purporting: Jesus (although on three occasions exhibited delusions of grandeur) may not have had Messianic self-understanding. How grand is it to make a holier than you scene in the Temple, turning over tables, knowing from age 12 to 30 money changers were needed in the Temple? Jesus may not have had self-understanding of his importance as a song of god?
Stephen is trying to be a bad-tempered or annoyingly eccentric person (crank).
Yes, Christianity is a major world religion, and in that religion is a virus of self-destruction: take part in Communion and run afoul of Leviticus 17: 10.
Take part in re-enacting the Last Supper and you cancel the power behind the religion: God’s face turns away from the pious and in effect is isolated from other people pious to that god.
Matthew 16: 28
Some who are standing here will not die before seeing the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Apocalyptic prophesy: tribulation > judgment > kingdom
If the youngest person present when Jesus said that was age 12.
The kingdom would have arrived by 112 years later 30 CE to 130 CE to 142 CE.
AD 68-73 tribulation
The Son of Man of Jewish Apocalypticism coming in His kingdom did not happen by 142 CE, did not happen at the end of the Jewish Revolt AD 73 when the tribulation was over.
Who was this third person Son of Man of Jewish Apocalypticism, anyway?
It wasn’t Jesus of Galilee.
It wasn’t James, the brother of Christ.
It wasn’t Simon bar Kokhba.
I don’t suppose poking a stick into an anthill just to watch the little fellers scurry about speaks very well of my character but I just finished a big book and before I begin an even bigger book I need a little time to blow off some steam. Does this make me a bad person?
The aphorism and truism “history is written by the victors” comes from legitimate scholars, journalists, and world leaders.
But it is used as a strategy to deflect criticism without actually responding to it by cranks and zanies and conspiracy mongers.
Stephen thinks Winston Churchill is a crank with a pet theory.
Well in this case not Winston Churchill.
You are approaching my ignore list, Stephen, yet again.
I realize that the extended monologue is your preferred form of discourse but you can’t ignore me for the simple reason that I’m one of the only people at this forum who takes you seriously enough to read your posts.
At least twice, Jesus exhibited Messianic self-understanding.
Well the gospel writers certainly depict Jesus as having Messianic self-understanding. Did the historical Jesus think he was the Messiah? It’s possible. Do you appreciate the distinction being made?
No, Stephen, you haven’t dealt with it.
I did my best. What I didn’t do was create some absurd story just to make seem like it made sense. I accepted that the party was over and I headed on home.
Stephen said
I don’t suppose poking a stick into an anthill just to watch the little fellers scurry about speaks very well of my character but I just finished a big book and before I begin an even bigger book I need a little time to blow off some steam. Does this make me a bad person?
The aphorism and truism “history is written by the victors” comes from legitimate scholars, journalists, and world leaders.
But it is used as a strategy to deflect criticism without actually responding to it by cranks and zanies and conspiracy mongers.
Stephen thinks Winston Churchill is a crank with a pet theory.
Well in this case not Winston Churchill.
You are approaching my ignore list, Stephen, yet again.
I realize that the extended monologue is your preferred form of discourse but you can’t ignore me for the simple reason that I’m one of the only people at this forum who takes you seriously enough to read your posts.
At least twice, Jesus exhibited Messianic self-understanding.
Well the gospel writers certainly depict Jesus as having Messianic self-understanding. Did the historical Jesus think he was the Messiah? It’s possible. Do you appreciate the distinction being made?
No, Stephen, you haven’t dealt with it.
I did my best. What I didn’t do was create some absurd story just to make seem like it made sense. I accepted that the party was over and I headed on home.
I’m one of the only people at this forum — what does that even mean?
Am I impressed with you to care that you, in error, think I am not taken seriously?
Am I impressed with you to care about your name-calling? My line of reasoning is not absurd/illogical. This website is about thinking. If someone has constructive criticism, it registers. I’ve been at this many, many months. I am worthy of being taken seriously, no question about that.
The gospel writers depict Jesus as having messianic understanding, but you try to deconstruct the Jesus of the gospels into some sort of historical Jesus who may not have had messianic self-understanding. What does that even mean? John the Baptist did not see the importance of Jesus? Peter did not see the importance of Jesus? The man at Jesus’ birth did not see the importance of Jesus? The gospel authors and Paul did not see the importance of Jesus? Jesus could teach the Our Father Prayer and not know his importance?
I reject your notion.
In the first half of Jesus’ ministry, he certainly had messianic self-understanding. As he saw Jewish Apocalypticism failing, he changed course.
Jewish Apocalypticism does not change
FROM
Tribulation to Judgment to Glorious Kingdom
TO
Last Supper ritual running afoul of Leviticus 17: 10, execution of the Jewish Messiah for salvation at the spring equinox, no judgment, and no glorious kingdom on earth ruled by a Jewish “Son of Man.”
Those are not equivalents.
Again: Jewish Apocalypticism is not Execution of the Messiah, Destruction of the Holy City, Destruction of the Temple.
Jesus’s version of Jewish Apocalypticism became a failed hypothesis, so its prophet (Jesus) failed, making him a false prophet.
Steefen said
… My line of reasoning is not absurd/illogical. This website is about thinking. If someone has constructive criticism, it registers. I’ve been at this many, many months. I am worthy of being taken seriously, no question about that.
Actually, we get to decide this for ourselves, and what is clear is that your line of reasoning began with a conclusion, which is almost always inherently problematic. As the prime example, your entire position is based on the idea that Jesus is a wholly (pun intended) fictional creation in spite of counter arguments that there was some historical figure around which some degree of mythmaking has perhaps become attached. This is a premise. If we reject this premise, and you have by no means made the argument for it persuasively, then no arguments based on it are worthwhile, no matter how much they might conform to the basic rules of logic. A “logical” argument based on a bad premise is still bad.
JAS
Your entire position is based on the idea that Jesus is a wholly fictional creation in spite of counter arguments that there was some historical figure around which some degree of mythmaking has perhaps become attached.
Steefen
False.
#1 Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction. Some of the figures who make up the composite Jesus are not fictional.
Try again because the rest of what you have to say is irrelevant because your starting point is false.
Steefen said
JASYour entire position is based on the idea that Jesus is a wholly fictional creation in spite of counter arguments that there was some historical figure around which some degree of mythmaking has perhaps become attached.
Steefen
False.
#1 Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction. Some of the figures who make up the composite Jesus are not fictional.
Try again because the rest of what you have to say is irrelevant because your starting point is false.
Your claim, as number 1, is an assertion, not an argument. You have repeated it numerous times, without a shred of evidence. And at least some of the evidence you have attempted to offer has been shown to be utterly misguided (such as claims of a myth about dying and rising gods that has no gods dying at all). The rest is actually the problem with your position.
JAS said
Steefen said
JAS
Your entire position is based on the idea that Jesus is a wholly fictional creation in spite of counter arguments that there was some historical figure around which some degree of mythmaking has perhaps become attached.
Steefen
False.
#1 Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction. Some of the figures who make up the composite Jesus are not fictional.
Try again because the rest of what you have to say is irrelevant because your starting point is false.
Your claim, as number 1, is an assertion, not an argument. You have repeated it numerous times, without a shred of evidence. And at least some of the evidence you have attempted to offer has been shown to be utterly misguided (such as claims of a myth about dying and rising gods that has no gods dying at all). The rest is actually the problem with your position.
Sorry, I am going to have to ignore you because your comments are not based in reality. My book does not include the topic of dying and rising gods.
You tried again and you failed.
#1 You said my position was based on Jesus being entirely fictional. That was wrong.
#2 You said I offered evidence about a myth of a dying and rising gods. That was wrong.
You are ill-informed to have an edifying exchange with me. Please do not address me: you do not know my years of hard work. You cannot speak to my work. All of your snide remarks and putdowns are revealed to be uninformed, off-base, and faulty.
I have not read your book, merely your posts. Maybe your book is far better than your posts, which would not be a difficult standard to exceed. Feel free to ignore my responses, since you clearly cannot address them substantively. You have not said that Jesus is a wholly fictional character? How else is one to interpret “Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction” in your post just above? You cannot even maintain consistency in your own posts, which I admit is probably a challenge given their frequency and the volume of your flights of fancy.
Robert said
JAS said
You have not said that Jesus is a wholly fictional character? How else is one to interpret “Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction” in your post just above?
For Steefen, the composite is modeled on a few different real historical people and at least one type of person:
“… the Apostle Paul, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, a stoic sage, and the rebel Jesus of Galilee who rejected General Vespasian’s diplomacy for surrender and peace by stealing the horses of the party sent to Jesus to avoid the Battle of Galilee where the follower of Jesus were horribly defeated (when history was written by the victors, the biography of the historical Jesus, the Galilean, was rewritten to make him a person in whom Rome found no fault). …”
Unfortunately,
“The stoic sage would not be another historical person …”
Rather, as interpreted by Stephen,
The folks who constructed the composite Jesus went to their local Hobby lobby and purchased an all purpose generic Stoic Sage Template.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
If I were Stephen, I would be displeased with you quoting me in a way that implies (the insult) the scholars (showing readers Jesus fills the role of the sage) used by Steve Campbell in his well-reviewed book Historical Accuracy “went to their local Hobby Lobby and purchased an all purpose generic Stoic Sage Template.”
Ludwig Edelstein, author of The Meaning of Stoicism
Stanley K. Stowers of Brown University, author of “Jesus the Teacher and Stoic Ethics in the Gospel of Matthew” in the book, Stoicism in Early Christianity,
Rasimus Tuomas, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg, editors.
cc: Dr. Bart D. Ehrman
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert