Christ or Anti-christ. (The choice is yours) (1 Viewer)

[sonic boom]

As far as a Christian perspective, this is really the bottom line. You are either for Christ, or Anti-Christ. You either trust Jesus, or work against Jesus.

Christians are also supposed to love our enemy, so if you are an Anti-Christ, please feel this isn't to cause hate, but rather understanding.




Matthew 12:30 (New Living Translation)

Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me.

 

[SystemShock]

When have I hinted that I think you are intelligent?!?! I see you as a bitter old man, that hates God. Correct me, if I'm wrong. Never seen you cheery or happy generally, or at least your posts reflecting that. You were quite abrasive towards me and my views on the saints report, I do appreciate your change of tone here.

I see the conversation has stalled, but maybe you don't see it. We don't see eye to eye, it's apparent. We are not in agreement. I don't see how the conversation is beneficial to either party, please help me see differently.

So you asked me to keep things civil, and look at you. Must be those Christian values of yours.

It's been literally centuries of indoctrination, so it is going to take a long time, but no matter how much you and apologists deny science, eventually, belief in all powerful metaphysical beings will disappear... it'd be replaced by other ideologies, I am sure,

 

[sonic boom]

So you asked me to keep things civil, and look at you. Must be those Christian values of yours.

It's been literally centuries of indoctrination, so it is going to take a long time, but no matter how much you and apologists deny science, eventually, belief in all powerful metaphysical beings will disappear... it'd be replaced by other ideologies, I am sure,

Christians don't deny science, have you heard of Scientology? (I'm joking here.)

You know I'm a sinner right? Not sure, if you missed that part. Hopefully you can beg my pardon?

Well, I believe in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states....

that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.

This is a complete contradiction to Darwin's theory, survival of the fittest stuff. Not sure how you can believe that people are slowly evolving into a supreme beings, when the law states people are slowly deteriorating?!?!

Knowledge is good, but not all believed science is true. Are you saying science is never wrong? So, if I can find an outdated science book some where that has false information, will you give up hope on science? Of course not, because it's your religion.

 

[SystemShock]

Christians don't deny science, have you heard of Scientology? (I'm joking here.)

You know I'm a sinner right? Not sure, if you missed that part. Hopefully you can beg my pardon?

Well, I believe in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states....

that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.

This is a complete contradiction to Darwin's theory, survival of the fittest stuff. Not sure how you can believe that people are slowly evolving into a supreme beings, when the law states people are slowly deteriorating?!?!

Knowledge is good, but not all believed science is true. Are you saying science is never wrong? So, if I can find an outdated science book some where that has false information, will you give up hope on science? Of course not, because it's your religion.

First, without looking it up, can you tell me what is the 1st law of thermodynamics? How about the 3rd one?

I know you can't.

And just like survival of the fittest, you do not understand what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is something the professional apologists used to bring up a lot. But the claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics refutes evolution has been debunked so many times by so many people, I am not going to bother to do it here.

You absolutely can find old science books that have information which has been proven to be incorrect. But that is a strength, not a weakness of science as you think, and actual proof that science is not a religion, as science always strives for finding better explanations for the world around us; unlike religions, nothing is sacred in science. Yes, even evolution isn't sacred, and many have challenged it, but every time, the method and the evidence has proven evolution correct, so much that is very much considered a fact now.

 

[sonic boom]

First, without looking it up, can you tell me what is the 1st law of thermodynamics? How about the 3rd one?

I know you can't.

And just like survival of the fittest, you do not understand what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is something the professional apologists used to bring up a lot. But the claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics refutes evolution has been debunked so many times by so many people, I am not going to bother to do it here.

You absolutely can find old science books that have information which has been proven to be incorrect. But that is a strength, not a weakness of science as you think, and actual proof that science is not a religion, as science always strives for finding better explanations for the world around us; unlike religions, nothing is sacred in science. Yes, even evolution isn't sacred, and many have challenged it, but every time, the method and the evidence has proven evolution correct, so much that is very much considered a fact now.

This is your perception, not fact. If you scream loud enough that is a fact, maybe someone will believe you.

You see how fruitless the conversation is? That's why I titled the thread, Christ or Anti-christ (The choice is yours).

You obviously are choosing against Christ and the teachings of the Bible, or being an anti-christ. It cuts right to the chase.

Do you at least believe Jesus Christ lived on earth?

 

[SystemShock]

This is your perception, not fact.

Evolution is very much considered a fact. About the only people who deny it are young Earth creationists/deeply religious people who believe in ancient writings... kind of like the only people who deny the Earth is round are fat-Earthers.

If you scream loud enough that is a fact, maybe someone will believe you.

Ironic that you'd say that. In any case, there is no screaming loud enough in science: the scientific method along physical evidence and a testable, repeatable, falsifiable model. that is not even close to "screaming out loud".

You see how fruitless the conversation is? That's why I titled the thread, Christ or Anti-christ (The choice is yours).

That depends what you thought the purpose of the conversation is.

You obviously are choosing against Christ and the teachings of the Bible, or being an anti-christ. It cuts right to the chase.

Ok?

Do you at least believe Jesus Christ lived on earth?

I don't know that there was a preacher named Yeshua born in what's now the Middle East 2020 years ago. Very well may have happened. But I don't believe the son of god was conceived immaculately and went around curing the sick, feeding thousands with a loaf of bread and a few fish, turned water into wine (although any magician can do that), rose from the death, etc.

In either case, there is no evidence of him, or any of his alleged miracles, outside the Bible and a couple after-the-fact religious texts.

 

[sonic boom]

Evolution is very much considered a fact. About the only people who deny it are young Earth creationists/deeply religious people who believe in ancient writings... kind of like the only people who deny the Earth is round are fat-Earthers.

I don't know that there was a preacher named Yeshua born in what's now the Middle East 2020 years ago. Very well may have happened. But I don't believe the son of god was conceived immaculately and went around curing the sick, feeding thousands with a loaf of bread and a few fish, turned water into wine (although any magician can do that), rose from the death, etc.

In either case, there is no evidence of him, or any of his alleged miracles, outside the Bible and a couple after-the-fact religious texts.

"In either case, there is no evidence of him, or any of his alleged miracles, outside the Bible and a couple after-the-fact religious texts".

At least you have a track record of being wrong, you are consistent I will give you that. I mean you are trying real hard to deny that the Bible is true, but one day you will confess Jesus is Lord.

Philippians 2:11
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Ah, don't compare flat earths with Creationist, different ball game. Can I compare atheists and Adolf Hitler? The Columbine shooters were atheists, believed in evolution, and did the massacre on Adolf Hitler's Birthday. By the way, they specifically targeted Christians and an African-American, not to mention many others. A really horrible testimony of your belief system!

Micro-evolution can been seen and observed. Macro-evolution cannot be seen and observed, and that's the part where you have just as much faith as I do in comparison. Micro-evolution does not disprove the Bible, but rather is inline with it. See all the different kinds of people?!?! Different kinds of people, but we are all people.


There are at least four books in the Bible that give an eye witness account of Jesus, record birth, childhood, adulthood, death, and resurrection. And you still have doubt that Jesus lived?

How about a Jewish Historian that has an eye witness account of Jesus and John the Baptist that is outside of the Bible?

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The extant manuscripts of the book Antiquities of the Jews, written by the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus around 93–94 AD, contain two references to Jesus of Nazareth and one reference to John the Baptist.[1][2]

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James."[13] This reference is considered to be more authentic than the Testimonium.[14][1][15][16][17][18] [19]

Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic and not a Christian interpolation.[20][21][22] A number of differences exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the death of John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[20][23] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, since a Christian interpolator would likely have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.[20][24][23]Scholars have provided explanations for their inclusion in Josephus' later works.[25]


Do you still doubt Jesus lived? I mean four books that give an eye witness account of Jesus in the Bible, and one eye witness account outside of the Bible, would probably be good enough proof to convince a jury in court, to prove Jesus existed. Maybe not to atheists, because that goes against their fundamental religious belief system, of not believing in God.

From Adam to Jesus, the lineage is recorded. Not to many people can do that. From the beginning of time to Jesus, history is recorded. I strongly doubt there is a better account of history, than the Bible. Evolutionist have nothing comparable, nothing!

I will let you have the final word, but I'm ending the conversation for now. I really, really enjoyed, this conversation. Skeptics help me understand my faith better, so thank you for that. I believe if someone came here with an open mind, that they can see two different opinions, and decide for themselves.

 

[SystemShock]

"In either case, there is no evidence of him, or any of his alleged miracles, outside the Bible and a couple after-the-fact religious texts".

At least you have a track record of being wrong, you are consistent I will give you that.

What makes me wrong?

I mean you are trying real hard to deny that the Bible is true,

It is not hard at all.

but one day you will confess Jesus is Lord.

Doubt it.

Ah, don't compare flat earths with Creationist, different ball game. Can I compare atheists and Adolf Hitler? The Columbine shooters were atheists, believed in evolution, and did the massacre on Adolf Hitler's Birthday. By the way, they specifically targeted Christians and an African-American, not to mention many others. A really horrible testimony of your belief system!

There is a comparison to be made between flat-Earthers and Creationists in that both groups deny science and make their own "facts", going as far as providing fake science to "prove" their assertions

I guess you can try to compare Hitler with atheists. Go ahead

And yet again, atheism is not a "belief system". It is just a position in one subject.

Micro-evolution can been seen and observed. Macro-evolution cannot be seen and observed, and that's the part where you have just as much faith as I do in comparison. Micro-evolution does not disprove the Bible, but rather is inline with it. See all the different kinds of people?!?! Different kinds of people, but we are all people.

The fossil record and DNA says you are wrong.

BTW, are you going down the list on answers in Genesis?

There are at least four books in the Bible that give an eye witness account of Jesus, record birth, childhood, adulthood, death, and resurrection. And you still have doubt that Jesus lived?

Yes.

How about a Jewish Historian that has an eye witness account of Jesus and John the Baptist that is outside of the Bible?

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Josephus was born 37 CE, so he would not have been an eye witness himself. He was told a story that allegedly happened 30 years prior.

Go ahead and find any writings from 0-33 CE. Surely someone not Chrstian or Jewish would have written about all those miracles and all of those huge gatherings.

Do you still doubt Jesus lived? I mean four books that give an eye witness account of Jesus in the Bible,

You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. That's like proving an alibi because the person telling you of their alibi.

and one eye witness account outside of the Bible,

Not an eyewitness account, according to the dates.

would probably be good enough proof to convince a jury in court, to prove Jesus existed.

It would be hearsay, not admissible in court.

Maybe not to atheists, because that goes against their fundamental religious belief system, of not believing in God.

So you are just going to continue to call atheism a religious belief... good game.

From Adam to Jesus, the lineage is recorded. Not to many people can do that. From the beginning of time to Jesus, history is recorded. I strongly doubt there is not a better account of history, than the Bible. Evolutionist have nothing comparable, nothing!

Is called DNA... it is the lineage record for the species.

I will let you have the final word, but I'm ending the conversation for now. I really, really enjoyed, this conversation. Skeptics help me understand my faith better, so thank you for that. I believe if someone came here with an open mind, that they can see two different opinions, and decide for themselves.

By definition, you can't have an open mind if you are religious. You must believe, and you must believe on faith.
Herein lies the difference: you can convince a skeptic if you provide verifiable evidence, but you will never convince a fervent religious person, no matter how much evidence you provide.

 

[Booker]

Just to jump in here, the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus. There are zero eyewitness accounts of Jesus on earth. As in none, nada, zip.

The earliest surviving Christian documents are the seven Pauline letters that are considered authentic (the others are considered second century forgeries). The only Jesus he references is the one who speaks to him in visions from heaven. There is nothing that references anything about a carpenter from Nazareth who performed miracles or even led a ministry. Paul even takes credit for originating the Lords Supper, which he say was communicated to him from the risen (i.e. heavenly) Jesus, and he also makes it explicitly clear in his letters that he received none of his knowledge from any other man but only from the heavenly Jesus, and discounts the authority of the apostles who preceded him (who supposedly were eyewitnesses).

But let's take a minute to go read the epistles from these supposed witnesses, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. While they claim they are servants of Jesus, they make no references to witnessing any earthly activities. That seems odd, yes? 2 Peter does include a reference to being "witness to His majesty," but it's acknowledged as a mid-second century forgery.

As far as the Gospels go, they are not eyewitness accounts nor do they claim to be. They are anonymous (the names of the "authors" were assigned later) and make no references to any sources. The synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) do tell a similar story, but that's because Matthew and Luke are known to have plagiarized Mark, and Luke almost certainly plagiarized from Matthew (I prefer the Farrer hypothesis, which is simply that Luke had copies of both Mark and Matthew; the competing "Q" hypothesis is that there was a lost gospel that held information that both Matthew and Luke cribbed, but as there is no evidence for this lost gospel, no reference or mention in antiquity, it's basically a Rube Goldberg-esque exercise to create an additional source).

But not only do they freely plagiarize, they also freely change things when it suits their agenda -- they weren't mean to be harmonized, they were meant to replace each other.

Mark, by the way, was written following the Jewish War, so no earlier than the 70's, and as Matthew and Luke copied from it that means they were either later in the first century or early second century. John likewise is considered early second century.

Regarding John, it's a bit of a reboot gospel and retells things (for example, the Lords Supper comes at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, not at the end, and Jesus is much more straightforward of his purpose and power, no longer speaking in parables like in Mark). But it also shows clear signs of literary dependence upon Mark, and also shows awareness of at least Luke (and this again shows that these gospels were in competition with each other). Lazarus does not appear in Mark or Matthew, but Luke mentions a Lazarus. His Lazarus is a poor man who dies but is not resurrected, because (we are told) if people don't listen to the prophets even a resurrected dead man won't convince them. And then here comes John, telling the story of Lazarus, the dead man whom Jesus raised back to life.

Beyond that, the Gospels are full of fanciful stories that there is no evidence for; I fail to see any reason to treat them as anything other than mythology. There are at least 40 other gospels we know of that were not accepted as canon because they were acknowledged as being made up (the Gospel of Peter, for example, includes a talking dog and a talking smoked salmon). The Gospels of the bible were canonized because they told stories in common, but that's what happens when authors plagiarize each other, and that doesn't mean they weren't just made up as well.

Moving along, what about extra-Biblical testimony? There's nothing written about Jesus by a non-Christian within at least 60 years of when he supposedly lived, and even that is shaky. The testimony of Josephus is acknowledged as a forgery, the only question is whether it was a complete forgery or a partial one. I think it's more likely that the whole thing was added in, but even if there was a nugget there that was added to, at that point Josephus would have just been repeating stories from Christians, not validating them (likewise with Tacitus).

The second reference in Josephus is to a "James, brother of Jesus," but when you read the whole chapter it states that James was unfairly executed by one high priest, and to make amends Jesus, son of Damneus, was elevated to high priest -- so the Jesus who was the brother of the slain James is logically Jesus, son of Damneus, who was elevated to high priest to atone for the injustice (there is nothing in the passage that references Christians or Christianity). Not to mention that if James the early Christian had been killed at the direction of a high priest, wouldn't something that high profile have made it into Acts?

So yeah, there's no evidence whatsoever of Jesus on earth. It doesn't mean there wasn't one, but I feel fairly comfortable concluding that even if there was he wasn't a demi-god.

 

[Booker]

I'll add a couple more posts on this when I get some time, but the historicity of Jesus is a fun subject to look at. For example, one of the first questions to look at is "Jesus when?" For such an important figure there's actually a lot of disagreement on this.

The earliest surviving Christian documents, the authentic Epistles of Paul, are silent regarding where and when Jesus is sacrificed and resurrected. There are arguments that he believes Jesus was killed by demons (i.e. "Rulers of this Age") but the specific place and time are not mentioned -- the important thing is his belief that this cosmic event (the death and resurrection of a pre-existent heavenly being) has indeed occurred and what that signifies (i.e. the coming end of the world).

You can try using the Gospels to date Jesus, but they disagree. Regarding when Jesus was born, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are famously at odds (Mark and John don't have a nativity story). According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the time of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. Luke says he was born around the Census of Quirinias, which was around 6 AD. There's an obvious contradiction as both writers can't be right -- but they can both be just making it up as they go.

But his exact birth year could have understandably be unknown to his followers, and it's not unthinkable that legendary embellishments could be added to a real person, so it's really not that big a deal that they came up with independent stories for that. However, you would think there would be some uniformity when it came to his death and resurrection, but again that is also not the case. For example, different years are estimated based on interpretations of the Gospels (generally 30 or 33 AD for John and either 27 or 34 AD for the others).

That is bizarre -- you would think that, if there were a real Jesus who was really executed and his followers really believed that he had risen from death, that the year that this happened would have been recorded and memorialized. But not only is the exact year not known, to early Christians the exact decade and even century that Jesus lived and died in was up for debate.

It would later become an article of the Catholic faith that Jesus died under the rule of Pontius Pilate (26-36 AD), but that was likely in response to a diversity of uncertainty on the subject. The early church figure Irenaeus, for example, is recorded as stating that Jesus was killed during the reign of Emperor Claudius, who ruled from 41-54 AD. The noncanonical Gospel of Peter (second century) also reflects disagreement upon the circumstances of his death, stating that he was killed at the direction of King Herod Antipas, not Pontius Pilate.

And in the fourth Century, the Christian scholar Epiphanius wrote of a sect of Torah observant Christians (suggesting their roots were in pre-Pauline Christianity) east of the Roman Empire called Nazorians. These Christians believed that Jesus lived and was executed during the time of Alexander Janneus, who ruled from 103-76 BC, which places Jesus a full century before his traditional milieu.

If Jesus was a real person that is really bizarre. If Jesus wasn't a real person, not so much.

 

[Booker]

Following up on my last post, if Jesus wasn’t a demigod or even a real guy it begs the question of where did Christianity come from. I think you can break down three general schools of thought when it comes to Jesus and the origination of Christianity:

A. The “fundamentalist” view, the Bible stories are true, Jesus walked the earth, performed miracles, was executed, rose from the dead, etc.

Again, there's no evidence whatsoever for any of those things. The Gospels claim Jesus was known far and wide and performed deeds that would have attracted great attention, but there's nothing in the historical record to support any of that. If Jesus existed, he was unknown outside of his cult of followers.

B. There was a real Jesus who had followers but he was just a man; after his death his followers had visions that he survived death, equated him with a celestial being and then made stories that embellished his activities.

This was what I assumed most of my life, and I think what a lot of people suspect must have been what happened. This is based on an assumption that the Gospels were speaking of a real person, and that once you take away the magic you can find out who he was, be it an apocalyptic preacher, a zealot revolutionary, an exorcist, what have you. I suspect a lot of nominal Christians find themselves somewhere between A and B.

C. There wasn't an historical Jesus, but (oversimplifying things) at some point early Christians began to teach and believe that there had been.

Again, the evidence is thin so there are a number of variations, and a lot of them are crank, such as the idea that Jesus was created as a 'Roman conspiracy' to control the Jews, or that Jesus was a sun god. What I think has a good argument is the idea that Jesus originated as Paul claims, through scripture and revelation (explicitly – see Romans 16:25-26 and Galatians 1:11-12), and then later stories expanded what people would come to believe.

According to Paul the earliest converts believed themselves to have found secret wisdom of a previously unknown servant of God through their scriptural interpretations and then later believed that this being was communicating with them through visions and personal revelation. This is what Paul describes in the two passages I mentioned above:

“May the glory be to God who can strengthen you with my good news and the message that I preach about Jesus Christ. He can strengthen you with the announcement of the secret that was kept quiet for a long time. Now that secret is revealed through what the prophets wrote.”

“Brothers and sisters, I want you to know that the gospel I preached isn’t human in origin. I didn’t receive it or learn it from a human. It came through a revelation from Jesus Christ.”

So Paul claims to have relied on scriptural interpretations to inform him about Jesus, not historically related events (so even if there was an historical Jesus, his activities in life were unimportant compared to his post resurrection revelations).

With both scenarios B and C (in theory) decades later, when original sect members would have died out, the Gospel of Mark was written, allegorizing beliefs into a narrative that was later expanded upon by the other writers. The stories came to be taught as true and became orthodox, and any surviving sects that taught otherwise were rejected as heretics.

Note that this last part would be true for a minimal historical Jesus or a non-historical Jesus that only appeared through revelation -- even if there was a man behind the myth, if he was just a man then the stories that developed should still be classified as mythological. So aside from a fundamentalist view the only divergence is whether the Gospel version of Jesus that was later taught as historical was history mythologized or mythology historicized.

In favor of mythology historicized we can cite some similar examples from other religions:

- Even today there are "Bible coders" who try to weave passages together and look for secret hidden wisdom within the texts (in that time it would have been the Septuagint -- the first collection of old Hebrew scripture, translated to Greek; we know that early Christian authors, who also wrote in Greek, were dependent upon the Septuagint as they reproduced translation errors).

- Modern Jehovah's Witnesses similarly connect Jesus and the Archangel Michael, as they believe scripture suggests they are the same being (likewise, Galatians 4:14 arguably identifies “Christ Jesus” as “an angel of God”).

- Islam began with Muhammad supposedly receiving revelations from the Archangel Gabriel, so for early Christians to claim to receive revelation from Jesus Christ/Christ Jesus isn't unheard of, especially as Paul literally describes him as a “messenger” of God in that passage.

- Similarly, Joseph Smith claimed to receive revelation from the Angel Moroni, first in his dreams but the narrative later evolved to the point that their communion took place in the physical world.

- There are also modern cargo cults, who came to believe that the 'John Frum' and 'Tom Navy' their beliefs centered on were historical beings.

 

[Booker]

I’ve got one more post on this and then I’ll end the thread jack. First, though, I would recommend reading these posts from a different thread about religious syncretism.

So is anyone familiar with Inanna? Also later known as Ishtar. She was an ancient Mesopotamian goddess who was worshiped at least as far back as 4000-5000 years ago.

Inanna - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyway, one of the more interesting stories about Inanna was her descent into the underworld. She passed through a series of gates, with clothes removed as she passed through each one until she's naked. Seven judges then condemned her to death, and her corpse was hung up on a nail where she remained dead for three days and three nights before being resurrected. This story predates the New Testament by several millennia.

What about Dionysus, also known as Bacchus? He predates Christianity by a millennia, give or take. He is generally known as the god of wine (the OG when it came to turning water to wine), but was also the god of the harvest (i.e. bread). One of his myths tells that he was killed, dismembered and eaten by the Titans, but was later resurrected. His followers engaged in rituals where they ate bread (or sometimes raw flesh) and drank wine as a symbolic communion with their god.

Dionysus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Continuing with the theme of outside influences on the development of Christianity, the Inanna story has an interesting parallel with the early Christian document The Ascension of Isaiah. The Ascension of Isaiah is generally dated from the late first century to the early second century (around the same time the canonical Gospels were being written), but it was tinkered with here and there to varying degrees between when it was originally written and the surviving versions we have.

Anyway, the document is made up of two separate works that were written at different times, The Martyrdom of Isaiah and The Vision of Isaiah. The Vision of Isaiah, beginning with Chapter 6 in the link below, is where things get interesting.

The Ascension of Isaiah

The Ascension of Isaiah. On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

In the Vision, Isaiah ascends through the seven heavens until he reaches the seventh heaven "where dwelleth He that is not named and the Elect One, whose name has not been made known, and none of the heavens can learn His name." He learns this secret Elect One who has yet been unrevealed is "the Lord Christ, who will be called "Jesus" in the world, but His name thou canst not hear till thou hast ascended out of thy body," and that he is worshiped by the other angels.

Just as Inanna descends through seven gates of hell, is killed, hung on a nail and then resurrected after three days and nights, Isaiah is told that Jesus is to disguise himself as a human and descend through the gates of the seven heavens, where he will be killed, hung on a tree, and then ascend on the third day back to the seventh heaven.

The interesting thing here is that just as Inanna is slain by the gods of the underworld, "the god of that world" that is to slay Jesus is in fact Satan. Even more interesting, this and other elements actually bear much in common with elements of the Pauline epistles found in the Bible (which of course predate the Gospel narratives):

- Paul speaks of Jesus being hung on a tree (Galatians 3:13 " 13 Christ did redeem us from the curse of the law, having become for us a curse, for it hath been written, `Cursed is every one who is hanging on a tree,'").

- He speaks of Jesus being slain in secret by the "Rulers of this Age," understood to mean Satan and his minions (1 Corinthians 2:7-8 "7 but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, 8 which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified")

- He speaks of "a man in Christ" (himself, but he's trying not to boast) who traveled up and witnessed the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2 "2 I have known a man in Christ, fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I have not known, whether out of the body I have not known, God hath known -- such an one being caught away unto the third heaven.")

So it's likely that either Paul was familiar with this story or that the author of this story was familiar with the Pauline epistles and reflected some common beliefs. Either way, there are some interesting parallels with the mythology of Inanna that suggest derivation.

The idea to keep in mind is that dying and rising personal salvation gods were a common theme in the first century Mediterranean world, from Inanna to Dionysus to Osiris to Zalmoxis, and so on. That a sect of Jews discovered/created their own personal savior god against that background shouldn’t be surprising (as opposed to it having occurred in another region, such as China, where dying and rising personal savior gods were not a thing).

Against that backdrop you have first century zealots searching through the Septuagint, looking for hidden messages to explain why they, supposedly Gods chosen people, were suffering under the yoke of the Persians, then Greeks, and now Romans, and wondering when their deliverance was coming.

 

[Booker]

Alright, this will be my last post on this, but this demonstrates how the original Christians could have teased out a mythological Jesus without needing a historical one to base him upon. I've never actually gone through and stacked them together, so this was fun (and for the tldr version just skip to the bottom)…

2 Samuel 7:12-13 & 16 (God will raise someone up to build the Lords eternal Temple, which being eternal would of course be in heaven)

12 When the time comes for you to die and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your descendant—one of your very own children—to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He will build a temple for my name, and I will establish his royal throne forever.

16 Your dynasty and your kingdom will be secured forever before me. Your throne will be established forever.

Zechariah 3 (The whole chapter is interesting when you read ‘Jesus’ instead of ‘Joshua,’ as they are identical in Greek, which was the language of the Septuagint as well as the language used by early Christian writers; the key thing is on a day to be named God will remove guilt/iniquity/sin from the land in one day and Jesus is to be involved)

9 See this stone that I have put before Joshua Jesus. Upon one stone, there are seven facets. I am about to engrave an inscription on it, says the Lord of heavenly forces. I will remove the guilt of that land in one day.

Zechariah 6:11-13 (Jesus is anointed – yes, Joshua son of Jehozadak translates to Jesus the Son of God, or more literally, the Son of God's Righteousness -- he is to be the one to build the Lords Temple, and they will sit side by side on their thrones and rule)

11 Take silver and gold and make a crown. Place it on the head of the high priest Joshua, Jehozadak’s son Jesus, the Son of God/the Son of God’s Righteousness.

12 Say to him, “The Lord of heavenly forces proclaims: Here is a man. His name is Branch, and he will branch out from his place; he will build the Lord’s temple.

13 He will build the Lord’s temple. He will be majestic; he will sit and rule on his throne. There will be a priest on his throne, the two of them will share a peaceable plan.

Philo Confusion of Tongues 62-63 & 146-147 (First century Jewish Philosopher Philo recognizes that some of his contemporaries view Zechariah 6:12 as a reference to God’s first born son and all that that entails, as "The East" is recognized as referencing "Branch" from Zechariah; this isn’t scripture, but it’s a contemporary commentary on and confirmation of a recognition of a "son of God," and also a equating of the son of God with "the word," i.e. "the logos" -- see John 1:1 " 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; so this is a non-Christian first century Jewish Philosopher writing about a non-historical Son of God who is the Word who is connected to the chapter in Zechariah where he is crowned Jesus, Son God's Righteousness -- I think this is a smoking gun.)

(62) I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East (i.e. Branch)!" A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity.

(63) For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.

(146) And even if there be not as yet anyone who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel.

(147) For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, "We are all one man's Sons."{43} For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word.

Isaiah 53 (The passage is about Gods servant and his suffering; towards the end are a couple of key passages that connect it with Zechariah 3:9 above, as the Lords servant will be sacrificed and will bear the guilt/sin of the world)

5 He was pierced because of our rebellions and crushed because of our crimes. He bore the punishment that made us whole; by his wounds we are healed.

10 But the Lord wanted to crush him and to make him suffer. If his life is offered as restitution, he will see his offspring; he will enjoy long life. The Lord’s plans will come to fruition through him.

11 After his deep anguish he will see light, and he will be satisfied. Through his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant, will make many righteous, and will bear their guilt.

Psalms 89:38 (Note “anointed one” translates as “messiah” who again must suffer)

38 But you, God, have rejected and despised him. You’ve become infuriated with your anointed one messiah.

The Wisdom of Solomon 2 (God’s righteous son will be tested and condemned to a shameful death)

[12] "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man…

[18] …for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.

[19] Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance.

[20] Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.

The Wisdom of Solomon 5 (The righteous man, God’s son, will overcome death and live forever, as will all the righteous)

[1] Then the righteous man will stand with great confidence in the presence of those who have afflicted him, and those who make light of his labors.

[2] When they see him, they will be shaken with dreadful fear, and they will be amazed at his unexpected salvation.

15] But the righteous live forever, and their reward is with the Lord; the Most High takes care of them.

Daniel 9 (The end is coming, and this provides a time frame which the original -- and many current -- Christians interpreted to mean their present day)

24 Seventy weeks are appointed for your people and for your holy city to complete the rebellion, to end sins, to cover over wrongdoing, to bring eternal righteousness, to seal up prophetic vision, and to anoint the most holy place.

Daniel 12 (At the end times the chosen will receive eternal life)

1 At that time, Michael the great leader who guards your people will take his stand. It will be a difficult time—nothing like it has ever happened since nations first appeared. But at that time every one of your people who is found written in the scroll will be rescued.

2 Many of those who sleep in the dusty land will wake up—some to eternal life, others to shame and eternal disgrace.

3 Those skilled in wisdom will shine like the sky. Those who lead many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever and always.

So if you daisy chain just those passages together you will learn…

• God has a righteous first born son named Jesus who will build (or has built) an eternal (therefore heavenly as opposed to earthly) temple for God to reside in.
• At the end times this secret servant will a suffer lowly death and in the act remove sin from the world ("by his wounds we are healed").
• He will then overcome death and return to God’s side to rule eternally, and all the chosen, righteous people will receive eternal life in heaven as well.
• These events are already happening/have already happened – the end is nigh!

This creates a lean gospel but one that would be consistent with the early Corinthian Creed (1 Corinthians 15), which declares Christ was first revealed through scriptures and then appeared through personal revelation, i.e. visions/hallucinations.

3 for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings,
4 and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve...
6 afterwards he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, and certain also did fall asleep;
7 afterwards he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 And last of all -- as to the untimely birth -- he appeared also to me...

Could there have still been a historical Jesus? In that scenario his followers would have deemed him an unjustly killed righteous man, made the scriptural connections above, and then started to communicate with him via visions or hallucinations. It’s possible but a lot more cluttered; you can get to the same point a lot faster and simpler without him, especially in regards to equating a recently executed man with a pre-existent deity, but also considering that from Philo we learn that there was already a belief among some Jews in a "son of God" and that there were a lot of similar dying and rising god mythemes at the time. Occam's razor comes into play a little here.

But to sum up, if you start with the basic gospel above, teased strictly from scripture, then early Christians really didn’t need there to be an historical Jesus, they just needed to believe (a) he was real because scripture said so, and (b) that he was communicating with people through personal revelation. And is that really any different than what we find with modern Christianity?

 

[SystemShock]

Following up on my last post, if Jesus wasn’t a demigod or even a real guy it begs the question of where did Christianity come from. I think you can break down three general schools of thought when it comes to Jesus and the origination of Christianity:

A. The “fundamentalist” view, the Bible stories are true, Jesus walked the earth, performed miracles, was executed, rose from the dead, etc.

Again, there's no evidence whatsoever for any of those things. The Gospels claim Jesus was known far and wide and performed deeds that would have attracted great attention, but there's nothing in the historical record to support any of that. If Jesus existed, he was unknown outside of his cult of followers.

B. There was a real Jesus who had followers but he was just a man; after his death his followers had visions that he survived death, equated him with a celestial being and then made stories that embellished his activities.

This was what I assumed most of my life, and I think what a lot of people suspect must have been what happened. This is based on an assumption that the Gospels were speaking of a real person, and that once you take away the magic you can find out who he was, be it an apocalyptic preacher, a zealot revolutionary, an exorcist, what have you. I suspect a lot of nominal Christians find themselves somewhere between A and B.

C. There wasn't an historical Jesus, but (oversimplifying things) at some point early Christians began to teach and believe that there had been.

Again, the evidence is thin so there are a number of variations, and a lot of them are crank, such as the idea that Jesus was created as a 'Roman conspiracy' to control the Jews, or that Jesus was a sun god. What I think has a good argument is the idea that Jesus originated as Paul claims, through scripture and revelation (explicitly – see Romans 16:25-26 and Galatians 1:11-12), and then later stories expanded what people would come to believe.

According to Paul the earliest converts believed themselves to have found secret wisdom of a previously unknown servant of God through their scriptural interpretations and then later believed that this being was communicating with them through visions and personal revelation. This is what Paul describes in the two passages I mentioned above:



So Paul claims to have relied on scriptural interpretations to inform him about Jesus, not historically related events (so even if there was an historical Jesus, his activities in life were unimportant compared to his post resurrection revelations).

With both scenarios B and C (in theory) decades later, when original sect members would have died out, the Gospel of Mark was written, allegorizing beliefs into a narrative that was later expanded upon by the other writers. The stories came to be taught as true and became orthodox, and any surviving sects that taught otherwise were rejected as heretics.

Note that this last part would be true for a minimal historical Jesus or a non-historical Jesus that only appeared through revelation -- even if there was a man behind the myth, if he was just a man then the stories that developed should still be classified as mythological. So aside from a fundamentalist view the only divergence is whether the Gospel version of Jesus that was later taught as historical was history mythologized or mythology historicized.

In favor of mythology historicized we can cite some similar examples from other religions:

- Even today there are "Bible coders" who try to weave passages together and look for secret hidden wisdom within the texts (in that time it would have been the Septuagint -- the first collection of old Hebrew scripture, translated to Greek; we know that early Christian authors, who also wrote in Greek, were dependent upon the Septuagint as they reproduced translation errors).

- Modern Jehovah's Witnesses similarly connect Jesus and the Archangel Michael, as they believe scripture suggests they are the same being (likewise, Galatians 4:14 arguably identifies “Christ Jesus” as “an angel of God”).

- Islam began with Muhammad supposedly receiving revelations from the Archangel Gabriel, so for early Christians to claim to receive revelation from Jesus Christ/Christ Jesus isn't unheard of, especially as Paul literally describes him as a “messenger” of God in that passage.

- Similarly, Joseph Smith claimed to receive revelation from the Angel Moroni, first in his dreams but the narrative later evolved to the point that their communion took place in the physical world.

- There are also modern cargo cults, who came to believe that the 'John Frum' and 'Tom Navy' their beliefs centered on were historical beings.

The cynic in me things there is a 4th option: that "Jesus" was created, taking bits and pieces of god-born-man stories from different religions, to fit the NT's prophesy of a messiah, in order to create a religion, with the purpose of profit.

I’ve got one more post on this and then I’ll end the thread jack.

What are you talking about? This is the content I'm here for

 

[Booker]

The cynic in me things there is a 4th option: that "Jesus" was created, taking bits and pieces of god-born-man stories from different religions, to fit the NT's prophesy of a messiah, in order to create a religion, with the purpose of profit.


What are you talking about? This is the content I'm here for

I'd definitely agree that once the Gospels were written they made it easier to sell the religion by placing Jesus in a definitive place and time (just like Paul telling converts they didn't have to get circumcised to join made it easier to sell the religion). It also made it easier to control the teachings (i.e. Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Luke's responding Sermon on the Plains) when you could literally put words in Jesus' mouth instead of saying "just trust me, but Jesus said this to me in a vision."

I don't think Mark was intended for that, though, I think it was intended to be read allegorically. But I think when it was later rewritten as the Gospels of Matthew and then Luke and John it was to improve the narrative and correct differences in theologies between the authors for the specific purpose of evangelism. By that time the earliest Christians, Paul and his predecessors, were long dead, so there would have been no one to challenge or correct claims that were being made -- and even if anyone did they would have just been labeled as heretics.

Plus, there's a general gap in the literary records between Paul and second century church fathers, so we don't know what was really going on during that time (though Paul had written that followers were losing patience waiting for Jesus' coming, and Clement's epistle also states that church members were committing "sedition" against the church heads). I think it's likely that it all but died out among the original Jewish converts, and it wasn't until the Gospels started circulating, specifically among a gentile audience, that it began to gain in popularity. But that's just speculation.