-a man, Acro..the historicists position is that there was a man, the historical jesus is Some Guy™.  Not the apparition of a god.  That's the mythicists position.

If the faith is based on Some Guy™ then there was a historical jesus (or two or ten).

If the faith is based on stories of a gods apparition, then there wasn't.

I can't dumb this down any more for you. Do you understand?

(April 16, 2019 at 12:12 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: -a man, Acro..the historicists position is that there was a man, the historical jesus is Some Guy™.  Not the apparition of a god.  That's the mythicists position.

If the faith is based on Some Guy™ then there was a historical jesus (or two or ten).

If the faith is based on stories of a gods apparition, then there wasn't.

I can't dumb this down any more for you. Do you understand?

This is incoherent nonsense.

Marcion believed Jesus lived in first century Jerusalem, had disciples, went around preaching about the kingdom of God, was seen as the messiah, was brought in front of Pilate, and was subsequently crucified by the Romans.

All of which are accepted by historicist , but rejected by the main proponents of the Jesus myth theory, and a-historicist, such as Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Archaya X, etc...

Do you understand this? I’m not sure how much more plainly I could put it.

You’re just playing a game of equivocation.

Marcion rejected the notion that the apparition of the Alls agent was the messiah -or- a man.  Yahweh was the alien god, evil and cruel.  Christ was a manifestation of the divine.  

The answer to my question, clearly, is no.  You don't understand..and since you're unwilling to work from a basis of common and easily researched facts it's unlikely that this discussion will produce any insight beyond how thoroughly superstitions like yours prevent any useful discussion of the historicity of jesus, or the development of the christian faith.

---

For the rest of those participating, those that have two brain cells to rub together - it's commonly thought that mythicists reject the idea that there were people who believed that jesus was a man.  They don't.  They note that some of the earliest luminaries did not believe in a historical jesus, and that myths commonly are historicized after the fact.  Sometimes with the use of actual people as templates.  The mythicist position is that the story began as a narrative about a divine apparition, regardless of whether later sects historicized it and converted the myth to a legnd, and from legend into assumed reality - as the presence of our resident believers certainly attests to in any case.

Historicists and mythicists both assert that much myth and legend making surrounds jesus and christ, they differ, ultimately - in whether or not a real man preceeded the myths and legends, or some real man (or many men) were later atached to those same myths and legends.  

The christian persecutions are another example of the same.  At best, legend mistaken for fact, but more likely myth converted to legend laundered as fact. A contemporary manifestation of this phenomena would be any instance in which an urban myth, in the fullness of time, takes on the air of a historical fact, or basis in historical fact.

Welfare queens, as a handy example. Was there ever any actual person that this story was based on? No. The idea of the welfare queen was a handy preexisting fiction that found life in one Linda Taylor (who wasn't a welfare queen at all, she was much, much better than that, lol). That later found life in many other people..everywhere believers of welfare queens looked there was another welfare queen. The purpose of the welfare queen narrative was not to record any true thing or true person, but to express an ideological position - but people believed and still believe in them nevertheless. The face of that welfare queen and her assumed positions validating whatever cultural biases we possess in any given decade.

(April 16, 2019 at 12:40 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: the answer to my question, clearly, is no.  You don't understand..and since you're unwilling to work from a basis of common and easily researched facts it's unlikely that this discussion will produce any insight beyond how thoroughly superstitions like yours prevent any useful discussion of the historicity of jesus, or the development of the christian faith.

You haven’t provided a single fact outside or source outside of a wikipedia article.

And your answer is factually incorrect.

Marcion believed Jesus was the messiah:

“for they knew that he was the Christ. “

That he went around preaching about the kingdom of god:

“I must announce as good tidings the kingdom of God to the other cities also: for therefore am i sent. “

That he was brought in front of Pilate:

“1 And the whole company arose,
and brought him before Pilate.
2 And they began to accuse him, saying,
We found this fellow perverting the nation,
and destroying the law and the prophets,
and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,
and turning away the women and children,
saying that he himself is Christ a King. “

And that he was subsequently crucified by the romans:

“And when they were come to the place, which is called the Skull,
there they crucified him, and the malefactors,
one on the right hand, and the other on the left.”

Not only have you been refuted, I actually provided quotes from the early sources indicating this, from Marcion’s Gospel.

You're interpreting that in the light of your own superstitions, not in the context of Marcions rejected heretical superstitions.

This is part of what makes marcion such an interesting character in the development of christian belief. His beliefs, were rejected, but what he thought made for good theological literature wasn't. While his beliefs would not be a significant factor in the current incarnation of christian belief, his selection of texts to prominence actually informs your own. He likely selected paul due to pauls rejection of traditional jewish authority and how neatly it aligned with his (and perhaps pauls) docetism.

That work does go on to form a meaningful basis of christianity as you know it. The dual effect of hellenization and romanization made proto-christianity competitive in the empire. This was a necessarry component of christian success in a crowded demigod market.

(April 16, 2019 at 1:44 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: You're interpreting that in the light of your own superstitions, not in the context of Marcions rejected heretical superstitions.

No, I provided quotes from Marcion's Gospel, and not my interpretation, refuting your claims that lacked zero evidence.

Quote:This is part of what makes marcion such an interesting character in the development of christian belief. His beliefs, were rejected, but what he thought made for good theological literature wasn't. While his beliefs would not be a significant factor in the current incarnation of christian belief, his selection of texts to prominence actually informs your own. He likely selected paul due to pauls rejection of traditional jewish authority and how neatly it aligned with his (and perhaps pauls) docetism.

That work does go on to form a meaningful basis of christianity as you know it.

Marcion main cause of rejection, was the OT God, which he like Richard Dawkins saw as jealous and wrathful, and murderous, unlike Christ, who both he and Dawkins see as “super-nice”. OT God was evil, but was the creator of the defective material world, that only a malicious being would have created a world like our. something he would also find sympathy with among atheists. But he accepted pretty much everything else about Jesus life and ministry, that didn’t negate this.

He not only selected Paul, he also used Luke as well. But Paul didn’t believe the God of Christ, and the God of the OT were two separate entities. And his primary disagreement with Jewish Christians, just involved the role of Jewish Ritual Laws, and whether Gentiles needed to abide by them to be a part of the Christian community.

You seem to have a terrible understanding of Paul and Marcion, to offer anything other than the most cringey and nonsensical arguments about them. If all atheists argued as you do, we’d have very few atheists, lol.

Marcion was rejected for many reasons, you might find one to have some sort of primacy in your own mind over the others, but that doesn't mean that the others weren't an issue.  


He didn't accept anything about jesus "life" - he didn't believe that jesus was a man, for the umpteenth time... you cretin, lol.

Again, his vast divergence from anything that you would recognize as christianity makes his effect on the christian faith all the more interesting.

(April 16, 2019 at 2:35 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: He didn't accept anything about jesus "life" - he didn't believe that jesus was a man, for the umpteenth time... you cretin, lol.

He accepted a variety of things about Jesus life, a number of which I pointed out and quoted his Gospel on.

If all your trying to say by he didn’t believe Jesus was a man, is that he didn’t believe Jesus was composed of literal/material flesh, but just appeared that way, then I’m not sure why you keep repeating this, when I’ve agreed on that from the beginning.

Now if you mean something in addition to this, when you claim he didn’t believe he was a “man”, please elaborate and source, or just crawl back under the bridge you dishonest troll.

His belief that god was not a man, and not the messiah of the ot rippled down though alot of other things.  He didn't believe in a virgin birth, or any birth.  He didn't believe that christ was "the seed of david", he didn't believe that christ preached in a synagogue, he didn't believe in the temptation narrative, he didn't believe that only christians had been saved or any comments to that effect, he was perfectly content to posit that those who -rejected- god were saved, he didn't believe that salvation depended on any death on the cross or that christ died on the cross or that christ was resurrected after dying on the cross, he didn't believe that anyone else would be resurrected, and he did not believe in sin.......

He didn't believe there was any "life" of jesus, he didn't believe that jesus was a man at all. The historical jesus, is a man around whom the myths were hypothetically accrued. Marcions christ was explicitly mythical.

You need to begin with a basis of common and easily researched facts.

(April 16, 2019 at 3:55 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: His belief that god was not a man, and not the messiah of the ot rippled down though alot of other things.  He didn't believe in a virgin birth, or any birth.  He didn't believe that christ was "the seed of david", he didn't believe that christ preached in a synagogue, he didn't believe in the temptation narrative, he didn't believe that only christians had been saved or any comments to that effect, he was perfectly content to posit that those who -rejected- god were saved, he didn't believe that salvation depended on any death on the cross or that christ died on the cross or that christ was resurrected after dying on the cross, he didn't believe that anyone else would be resurrected, and he did not believe in sin.......

He didn't believe there was any "life" of jesus, he didn't believe that jesus was a man at all. The historical jesus, is a man around whom the myths were hypothetically accrued. Marcions christ was explicitly mythical.

You need to begin with a basis of common and easily researched facts, not the batshit desire to pursue your own superstitions and rehabilitate others superstitions in light of them.

Nice dodge, I asked you specifically what you mean by “he didn’t believe he was a man”, if this is suppose to mean something more then what I already indicated that he didn’t believe Jesus was made of flesh, like the rest of us, but only appeared as if he did.

So try again troll.

Please define what you mean by “a man” if it means something more than made of flesh?