Didn't Nero launch Christianity?

[The Grand Nudger]

The term historical jesus does not refer to a story about a god that appeared to people in human form. Marcion rejected the notion of a historical jesus in preference to a mythical christ.

Perhaps using someone elses mythology will help, since your own belief in mythology is clearly a barrier to understanding the difference in this christian context. There are also stories of pagan gods appearing in human form and "records" of conversations and events that transpired when they did. That people really believed their own mythology just as you believe in yours is not a certification or comment on a historical zues, or a historical odin, or a historical wakan tanka.

The historicist position, the thing that the term historical jesus refers to, is the notion that there was a flesh and blood man who was born, had a human life, and a human death - and that the stories of the mythical christ were meaningfully based on that real person. If, instead, the mythical christ is a story of a god appearing in human form, like any other zeus or odin or wakan tanka, that was later historicized (as a real flesh and blood man with a birth a human life and human death)...this would be the mythicist position.

[Acrobat]

The term historical jesus does not refer to a story about a god that appeared to people in human form.  Marcion rejected the notion of a historical jesus in preference to a mythical christ.

Perhaps using someone elses mythology will help, since your own belief in mythology is clearly a barrier to understanding the difference in this christian context.  There are also stories of pagan gods appearing in human form and "records" of conversations and events that transpired when they did.  That people really believed their own mythology just as you believe in yours is not a certification or comment on a historical zues, or a historical odin, or a historical wakan tanka.

Most christians believe Jesus was God incarnate, god in human form, was resurrected. All of which are faith positions, not historical positions, because history like science isn't capable of confirming or denying any of this, since they're not historical questions. The same can be said of Marcion's belief that Jesus wasn't truly made of flesh. 

The term historical Jesus, refers to a Jesus who lived in the first century, who went around preaching about the kingdom of God, was believed by his followers to be the messiah, and was eventually strung up and crucified by the roman, etc....All of which Marcion believed, duh.

If you want to keep sticking your fingers in your ear by all means go ahead, but at this point you're no longer providing any meaningful objections, and are just reverting to being a troll.

[The Grand Nudger]

The term historical jesus does not refer to a story about a god that appeared to people in human form.  Marcion rejected the notion of a historical jesus in preference to a mythical christ.

Perhaps using someone elses mythology will help, since your own belief in mythology is clearly a barrier to understanding the difference in this christian context.  There are also stories of pagan gods appearing in human form and "records" of conversations and events that transpired when they did.  That people really believed their own mythology just as you believe in yours is not a certification or comment on a historical zues, or a historical odin, or a historical wakan tanka.

Most christians believe Jesus was God incarnate, god in human form, was resurrected. All of which are faith positions, not historical positions, because history like science isn't capable of confirming or denying any of this, since they're not historical questions. The same can be said of Marcion's belief that Jesus wasn't truly made of flesh. 

The term historical Jesus, refers to a Jesus who lived in the first century, who went around preaching about the kingdom of God, was believed by his followers to be the messiah, and was eventually strung up and crucified by the roman, etc....All of which Marcion believed, duh.

If you want to keep sticking your fingers in your ear by all means go ahead, but at this point you're no longer providing any meaningful objections, and are just reverting to being a troll.

What most christians believe is irrelevant to the question of a historical jesus.  Christians, by definition, believe in the christ mytheme.  That's why you're called christians, not jesusists. Most of the atheists here also believe in a historical jesus, though none believe in the christ mytheme.

There's nothing I can add to this that I haven't already explained at least twice.  Perhaps you should simply look it up yourself? I understand that you really, really really really believe in the christ mythos, as Marcion did. Marcion, however, did not believe in the historical jesus, even if you do, whichever historical jesus you might happen to believe in. Obviously, the nascent theological authorities of the time declared his views heretical, which is a fancy religious way of calling them wrong, lol....that generally amounts to something more like "this is deleterious to our religious authority". The continuity of faith between the ot and the nt, the borrowed ladder....and the flesh and blood nature of their sacrifical animal, it's sufficiency.. were both of utmost importance to them.

They really liked his book idea, though, and his chosen authors. Were it not for Marcion, "paul" and "luke" might have ended up as bit players in the construction of a christian canon, like so many others diminished or flat out rejected.

[Acrobat]

Most christians believe Jesus was God incarnate, god in human form, was resurrected. All of which are faith positions, not historical positions, because history like science isn't capable of confirming or denying any of this, since they're not historical questions. The same can be said of Marcion's belief that Jesus wasn't truly made of flesh. 

The term historical Jesus, refers to a Jesus who lived in the first century, who went around preaching about the kingdom of God, was believed by his followers to be the messiah, and was eventually strung up and crucified by the roman, etc....All of which Marcion believed, duh.

If you want to keep sticking your fingers in your ear by all means go ahead, but at this point you're no longer providing any meaningful objections, and are just reverting to being a troll.

What most christians believe is irrelevant to the question of a historical jesus.  Christians, by definition, believe in the christ mytheme.  That's why you're called christians, not jesusists.  Most of the atheists here also believe in a historical jesus, though none believe in the christ mytheme.

There's nothing I can add to this that I haven't already explained at least twice.  Perhaps you should simply look it up yourself?  I understand that you really, really really really believe in the christ mythos, as Marcion did.  Marcion, however, did not believe in the historical jesus, even if you do, whichever historical jesus you might happen to believe in.  Obviously, the nascent theological authorities of the time declared his views heretical, which is a fancy religious way of calling them wrong, lol....that generally amounts to something more like "this is deleterious to our religious authority".  The continuity of faith between the ot and the nt, the borrowed ladder....and the flesh and blood nature of their sacrifical animal, it's sufficiency.. were both of utmost importance to them.

They really liked his book idea, though, and his chosen authors.  Were it not for Marcion, "paul" and "luke" might have ended up as bit players in the construction of a christian canon, like so many others diminished or flat out rejected.

Unlike you I have read it, as well studied NT History in a secular univeristy. You never even read Marcion's Gospel, and only knew as much as his brief wikipedia description. Marcion believe in the Jesus outlined in his Gospels, a Jesus who went around preaching about the kingdom of God, lived in First Century Jerusalem, was brought in front of Pilate, and was subsequently crucified by the Romans, all of which anyone can confirm by reading his Gospel. 

If you were an honest man, you would have just admitted your ignorance and that you were wrong. But since you're just another dishonest atheists, you'll just doubled down, and reduced yourself to nothing but a troll.

[The Grand Nudger]

No one's read Marcion's gospel, nutter.  It didn't survive.  It's hypothetically reconstructed by reference to other authors treatises against it and it's declaration as heresy.  

The character he believed in is the mythical christ, he explicitly rejected the equally hypothetical historical jesus, along, ofc, with other things important to christianity as you know it today. You really really really really believe that a god walked the earth, marcion also believed that a god walked the earth. That is not what the term historical jesus refers to.

[Acrobat]

No one's read Marcion's gospel, nutter.  It didn't survive.  It's hypothetically reconstructed by reference to other authors treatises against it and it's declaration as heresy.  

The character he believed in is the mythical christ, he explicitly rejected the equally hypothetical historical jesus, along, ofc, with other things important to christianity as you know it today.  You really really really really believe that a god walked the earth, marcion also believed that a god walked the earth.  That is not what the term historical jesus refers to.

Lol, so much of Marcion's Gospel has been quoted by his critics, that almost the entirety of his Gospel has been able to be reconstructed. 

Now here's the thing to reveal you continued dishonesty, if you want to exclude the writings of his opponents as you suggest, then you're left with nothing, nothing for you say about anything Marcion believed one way or the other. But you apparently want to have it both ways, to cling to elements in these treatises that you imagine serve your conclusion, while trying  to hand wave away the bulk of which negates your conclusion. 

This is just confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance on full display folks.

[The Grand Nudger]

What on earth are you talking about?  No one's excluding the comments of his critics, I'm simply noting that no one (including you, you...nutter....) has actually read marcions gospel, as it didn't survive, and all we have are the comments of his critics.  It may be, as is so often the case, that they got this or that wrong for convenience, but assuming that they didn't...we can state with certainty that marcion rejected the notion of a historical jesus in favor of a mythical christ.

Believing that a god walked the earth and believing in the historical jesus are not the same thing, Acro.  Do you understand?

[Acrobat]

What on earth are you talking about?  No one's excluding the comments of his critics, I'm simply noting that no one (including you, you...nutter....) has actually read marcions gospel, as it didn't survive, and all we have are the comments of his critics.  It may be, as is so often the case, that they got this or that wrong for convenience, but assuming that they didn't...we can state with certainty that marcion rejected the notion of a historical jesus in favor of a mythical christ.

Believing that a god walked the earth and believing in the historical jesus are not the same thing, Acro.  Do you understand?

DO you understand that you can believe both? That you can believe Jesus was a God, and that he was historical? 

You keep appealing to Marcion God beliefs as if they negate his historical beliefs about Jesus, when the don't. You're operating on a false dichotomy. 

And we don't just have comments, we have direct quotations from the Marcion's Gospel, so much so, that nearly all of his Gospel was able to be reconstructed. If anything the quotations are a far more certain, than anything else you can say of Marcion's beliefs, because they don't rely on his critics interpretations of them. 

we can state with certainty that marcion rejected the notion of a historical jesus in favor of a mythical christ.

No, we can state with as much certainty as anything can be said of Marcion, that he believed in a historical Jesus, but he held supernatural beliefs, regarding the compensation of his fleshly appearance, him being divine, resurrected etc.... This is evident in  Marcion's Gospel.

[The Grand Nudger]

What on earth are you talking about?  No one's excluding the comments of his critics, I'm simply noting that no one (including you, you...nutter....) has actually read marcions gospel, as it didn't survive, and all we have are the comments of his critics.  It may be, as is so often the case, that they got this or that wrong for convenience, but assuming that they didn't...we can state with certainty that marcion rejected the notion of a historical jesus in favor of a mythical christ.

Believing that a god walked the earth and believing in the historical jesus are not the same thing, Acro.  Do you understand?

DO you understand that you can believe both? That you can believe Jesus was a God, and that he was historical? 

Ish.  OFC you can believe the mythos and also believe that it was based on a flesh and blood man who had a mommy and a daddy and who grew up and had a life and a death.  It takes significant contortions of a christian faith, but we're nothing if not clever at compartmentalization. That's the historicists position.  Marcion rejected this in preference for a mythical christ, explicitly.  

You keep appealing to Marcion God beliefs as if they negate his historical beliefs about Jesus, when the don't. You're operating on a false dichotomy. 

And we don't just have comments, we have direct quotations from the Marcion's Gospel, so much so, that nearly all of his Gospel was able to be reconstructed. If anything the quotations are a far more certain, than anything else you can say of Marcion's beliefs, because they don't rely on his critics interpretations of them. 

I keep telling you that believing that a god walked the earth and believing in a historical jesus are not the same thing.  I also keep telling you that you could look this up for yourself.

we can state with certainty that marcion rejected the notion of a historical jesus in favor of a mythical christ.

No, we can state with as much certainty as anything can be said of Marcion, that he believed in a historical Jesus, but he held supernatural beliefs, regarding the compensation of his fleshly appearance, him being divine, resurrected etc.... This is evident in  Marcion's Gospel.

Believing that a god walked the earth in the guise of a man and believing in the historical jesus are not the same thing.  You can look this up for yourself.

Bodily resurrection, along with the notion of continuity of faith between the ot and the nt and the idea that there was a historical jesus, was another thing that Marcion rejected, in point of fact. For Marcion, there was never a body to be missing or resurrected in the first place.

Rehabilitating heretics through historical revisionism is as pointless an endeavor as can be imagined. Marcion did not believe what you believe, he did not believe what the church authorities believed. This is what made his beliefs heresy. He believed that a divine agent of the all was sent to save us from yahweh. Not in a man. Not in any historical jesus. He believed in the mythical christ, an appearance like any other pagan gods appearance. They were not men, though they could seem to be so if they wished.

If you refuse to operate on a basis of common and easily researched facts there can be no productive discussion on the development of christianity between us. Were there christians who did not believe in a historical jesus? Yes, demonstrably so. Marcion was one of them, but not the only one. Paul, whomever he was, may have been such a christian himself, his "authentic" work certainly seemed amenable to the viewpoint in Marcions opinion. He'd realized earlier than most that even in the body of work available to him at the time, serious additions, revisions, and alterations had been made - even if he suspected as much for less than sane reasons, or due to the ideological commitments that his now heretical beliefs contained.

[Acrobat]

Ish.  OFC you can believe the mythos and also believe that it was based on a flesh and blood man who had a mommy and a daddy and who grew up and had a life and a death.  That's the historicists position.  Marcion rejected this in preference for a mythical christ, explicitly.  

No the historicist, position, is that Jesus existed in first century Jerusalem, went around preaching about the kingdom of God, was believed by his followers to be the messiah, and was crucified by the romans, give or take. Marcion believed all these things, just like every pretty much every historicist, secular, christian, or otherwise. Mythicist reject all these elements.


DO you deny that Marcion believed these things? Or are you merely just playing semantics here, on the meaning of "historical"?

Claims about Jesus biological makeup, what type of DNA he had, or whether his body was composed of the same material as ours etc, are not a requirement of the historical equation here. But just that he lived a historical life, walked around first century Jerusalem, subject to it's historical settings and circumstances.

Rehabilitating heretics through historical revisionism is as pointless an endeavor as can be imagined. Marcion did not believe what you believe, he did not believe what the church authorities believed. This is what made his beliefs heresy. He believed that a divine agent of the all was sent to save us from yahweh.

Marcion was a heretic, he didn't share a variety of fundamental beliefs that orthodox believers or the church believed.

But he did share a variety of beliefs as well, such as Jesus being crucified by pilate, living in the 1st century jerusalem, going around preaching about the kingdom of God etc....