Historicity of Jesus - 2

[Husky]

#566 (Disney's Pocahontas rehashed as Cameron's Avatar): Classic hysterics.

So, what's the Avatar song to replace "Ben je blind voor al de kleuren van de wind?" - hmmm, I think the Engels version is "Can you paint with all the colours of the wind?" or whatever.





On #568:

(Now follows probable repetition of stuff already said)



Islamism got its idea of jeebus from some of the heretical christian sects that were kicked out of the empire into Arabia Felix, as well as from hemerobaptists, sabaeans (sp?).



True that jeebus being the son of gawd was not universally recognised even at the start. But then, most things about jeebus that are taken for granted now by the general body of christianism weren't universally recognised by the earliest christian cults at all (like corporeal form i.e. historicity, resurrection, crucifixion, jeebus' alleged divinity).



As for the particular jeebus son of gawd story and where the two main churches stand on it:

[color="#800080"](my inserts in purple)[/color]

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/c...html#jesus

Creeds are formal statements of what the Christian Church believed in. The statements are supposedly formulas that are to be ultimately derivable from the scriptures. The most important statement of Christian doctrine is contained in what is popularly known as the Nicene Creed, after the Council of Nicaea in the year 325. However, the Nicene Creed as we know it today, was not a product of that council. It more probably was developed at the Council of Constantinople in 381, and reached its final form after the Council of Chalcedon in 451.[6] The Nicene Creed is important in that it affirms the full deity of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit. Given below is the creed

THE NICENE CREED

We believe in one God, the Father All Governing, creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all time, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created, of the same essence as the Father, through Whom all things came into being, Who for us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures, and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the living and dead. His Kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father [color="#0000FF"]and the Son[/color], Who is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and Son, Who spoke through the prophets; and in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. We look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.[7]

[color="#0000FF"]With the exception of the three words given in italics, the Nicene Creed is accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches. The three words, and the Son, is what is known as the Filioque Clause ("Filioque" is Latin for "and the Son"), which, as seen in the page on [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/historical.html#schism"]historical origins[/url], was the point of contention between the Eastern and Western Churches. In its original from, the Nicene Creed does not contain the three words, they were added later by the Western Church. This interpolation was affirmed at the western council in Toledo in 589.[8] The Eastern Churches had never accepted that interpolation. The reader will note that if the doctrines in the creed can be traced to the Bible, as some Christian theologians still claim today, this issue would be easily be resolved. The reality shows that this is not the case. The doctrine of Jesus as God is not to be found in the Bible but only in the creeds. How exactly is Jesus God, as the Filioque Clause tries to define, cannot be found in the scriptures. Thus there was no solution except for the Great Schism.[/color]

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/g...#godevolve

The Evolution of the Trinity

Contrary to what most Christians believe, the Christian concept of the triune godhead did not come "pre-packaged" in the teachings of Jesus, Paul or the Bible. The New Testament contained a few vague, triadic, formulas such as that found in II Corinthians 13:13 which are often understood, anachronistically, as Trinitarian. The formulation is more properly understood as speaking of different entities that are closely related to one another. A good example would be the English phrase "fighting for king and country". The terms "king" and "country" are not synonymous but are concepts closely related to patriotism; with the former normally being viewed as the visible symbol of the latter. As the Macmillan Compendium: World Religions explains:

[E]xegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity. God the Father is the source of all that is (Pantokrator) and also the father of Jesus Christ. "Father" is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God. Early liturgical and creedal formulas speak of God as "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"; praise is to be rendered to God through Christ (see opening greetings in Paul and deutero-Paul). There are other binatarian texts (e.g. Rom 4:24, 8:11; 2 Cor. 4:14; Col. 2:12; 1 Tm. 2:5-6, 6:13; 2 Tm. 4:1) and a few triadic texts (the strongest are 2 Cor. 13:13 and Mt. 28:19; others are 1 Cor 6:11, 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 1 Thes. 5:18-19; Gal. 3:11-14) Christ is sent by God and the spirit is sent by Christ so that all may be returned to God. [1]

The final Trinitarian formulation was the result of theological battles that were fought during the first four centuries of the Christian era.



The first battles were fought mainly in the field of Christology.



The statements regarding the nature of Christ in the New Testament were so vague that any attempt at reasoning and elaboration would lead inevitably to differences of opinions. The first attempt at an elaboration on the nature of Christ was [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/gnostic.html"]Gnosticism[/url]. Although Gnosticism was eventually wiped out as a [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/heresies.html"]"heretical"[/url] [a]sect. In the field of Christology, Gnosticism may be thought of as the first, tentative steps towards the deification of Jesus.



After Gnosticism, there were other [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/christologyother.html"]early experiments in Christology[/url]. Eventually, as a backlash against the evolving deification of Jesus, came the most famous theological battle of all, the [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/arian.html"]Arian controversy[/url]. The Arian controversy forced the issue of Jesus' divinity head on. A council was called in 325 CE to resolve the issue once and for all. Thus Jesus can be formally said to have become God in the [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/arian.html#nicaea"]council at Nicaea in 325 CE[/url].



The Arian controversy was just a foretaste of what was to come. The Athanasians (the theological rivals of the Arians-who eventually got to call themselves "orthodox") has substituted the commonsensical Arian idea with one obviously nonsensical. Yet the theological evolution was to develop even further away from common sense to absolute absurdity. The christological evolution was to culminate in a doctrine that was [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html"]completely devoid of any sense or meaning[/url].



Similar theological battles were also fought over the exact definition of the [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/holyspirit.html"]Holy Spirit[/url].



Thus was formed the monstrous three headed god of Christianity!





Back to the top

Plus good to read in entirety:

- The Core Beliefs of Christianity at http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/common.html

- Historical Background of the [color="#800080"](major, known, since paulinism)[/color] Christian Denominations at http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/historical.html

- Repeat: From Nestorianism to Monothelitism http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html, which starts and ends with

From Nestorianism to Monothelitism

The Arian controversy was just a foretaste of what was to come. The Athanasians has substituted the commonsensical Arian idea with one obviously nonsensical. Yet the theological evolution was to develop even further away from common sense to absolute absurdity. The christological evolution was to culminate in a doctrine that was completely devoid of any sense or meaning.



[url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html#nestorian"]Apollinarianism and Nestorianism[/url]

[url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html#monophysite"]Euthychianism or Monophysitism[/url]

[url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html#monothelitism"]Monothelitism[/url]

[url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html#conclude"]Conclusion[/url]

Conclusion

With the condemnation of the monophysitism and monotheletism we have reached the stage of development of Christology that is today shared by the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Churches. Thus was how the Christian concept of God, of the Trinity developed. The Christian concept of God is a monstrosity, an example of how nonsense can be given free reign upon the abdication of reason.



[color="#0000FF"]We found that as Christianity developed the concept of Jesus became more and more absurd and meaningless. The Nicene Creed (325) asserted that Jesus was truly God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. The first council of Constantinople (381) made the contradictory assertion that Jesus was also truly man. Hence Jesus took on two natures in Constantinople. The council in Ephesus (431) asserted that Jesus' two natures were nevertheless indivisibly one. In Chalcedon (451) it was further elaborated that although the two natures were indivisible they were also distinct. [14] Then, in Constantinople (681) the bishops decided that Jesus had two wills, but that they always coincided and acted harmoniously with each other. These formulations are absurd and devoid of any sense.[/color]



As the rationalist J.M.Robertson (1856-1933) pointed out, the Church, claiming its roots in Judaism was committed to monotheism; and yet the main attraction of Christianity to the pagan converts was the apparent divinity of Jesus, which, logically, tend to make the religion a polytheistic one. The only possible solution is to make both affirmations whenever a controversy arises. This led to [color="#0000FF"]a logically contradictory but theologically durable picture of Jesus.[/color] [15]

[color="#800080"](As heathens have ever observed since christianism's manufacture: the eternally-morphing jeebus is made morphable for a purpose: he's tailored for the audience being inculturated upon/marked for conversion and suited to the sheep to be kept in line. Hence Elton John's "Jeebus is gay".)[/color]



But each time an affirmation was made, a new aspect of christology was being added. It is obvious that the Nicene creed would have shocked even Paul, let alone the original apostles!

[color="#800080"](Neither Paul nor the apostles existed, same with jesus)[/color]

Christianity, like all social institutions evolved. As Robert Wilken, Professor of the History of Christianity of the University of Notre Dame said in his book The Myth of Christian Beginnings:

[color="#FF0000"][size="6"]There is no original Christian faith, no native language, no definitive statement of the meaning of Christ for all time...No matter how deeply we probe, how early we extend our search, we will never find an original faith. [16][/size][/color]

Back to the top



Notes

a. If the reader is beginning to feel that all these debate about concepts which already have been reduced to nonsense as ludicrous- the author is in complete agreement with him! But such is Christian theology!

b. The account of how the orthodox church broke away from the Roman church is given in the next section. It was to be the final development in christology.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/h...tml#schism

1054: The Great Schism

In 1054 a more serious break in the main branch of the Christian Church took place. The Western Church which was Latin speaking and the Eastern Church which was mainly Greek speaking never had an easy relationship. The Bishop of Rome used to claim honorary primacy over the rest of the bishops and patriarches by virtue of his residence in the capital city of the Roman Empire. But when the capital city was moved to Constantinople in the year 330, the Patriarch of Constantinople naturally assumed his office to hold primacy. This was not accepted by the Western Church. The quest for supremacy between Rome and Constantinople was to continue for many centuries.



Apart from this mainly political reason, there was also a theological one. It involves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The Western Church inserted an additional point, known as the [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/common.html#filioque"]Filioque Clause[/url], to one of its earlier creeds. The Eastern Church did not accept this addition. To resolve this escalating problem, the Pope sent Cardinal Humbert (d1061) to Constantinople to discuss the issue with the Eastern Patriarch Michael Cerularies (d1058). The discussions did not go well and both Humbert and Michael Cerularies ended up excommunicating[a] one another in 1054. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> The excommunications initiated the break between the Latin and Greek Churches which became known as The Great Schism. It was a large break, for unlike the earlier monophysite splinter, the Eastern Church formed a substantial part of Christendom.[2]



Back to the top.

And I quote the Greek Church: "the pope is satan!"

Look how I didn't say it. (Besides, as a heathen, I don't believe in jeebusjehovallah=satan <- they are indistinguishable because they are the same non-existent imaginary demonic character.)