Did Jesus want to create a poli-theism religion?

[Eclectic]

This is 2 years for me Google translate has bad translated for me. From 2-3 month before that corona virus epidemi started. Before that it better translated.

Please see:
Persian:
مسیح با مترودین جامعه دوست بود و دایم آنان را مهمان می کرد

Google translate:
Christ was friendly with the community and would constantly guest them.

I forget say:
true translate is:

Christ was friendly with outcasts and guest them.

مطرودین true

[Jehanne]

Reminds me of the apologetics Free spews over at AD.

I've never posted there, but, I reject the mythicist view of Jesus, instead favoring the looney school of thought.

[Silver]

Reminds me of the apologetics Free spews over at AD.

I've never posted there, but, I reject the mythicist view of Jesus, instead favoring the looney school of thought.

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

Enjoy.

[Ranjr]

In his replies to the temptations of Satan, Jesus references Deuteronomy.  For example, "one does not live by bread alone."  These details emerge in Matthew, showing the continued efforts of late 1st century to portray Jesus as fulfillment of Hebrew prophesy.  Jesus was based on Old Testament prophesy, not a new religion.

Judaism contains a hierarchy of angels.  Proverbs shows belief in the personification of Wisdom as a righteous matron.  Christianity's polytheism descends from that.

[Jehanne]

I've never posted there, but, I reject the mythicist view of Jesus, instead favoring the looney school of thought.

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

Enjoy.

It's 201 pages (and, counting!)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Funny, I can't find a post where I said what you quoted me as saying...

Boru

You stated, "It’s a literary criticism, not an historic one."  All the canonical Gospels, along with the Gospel of Thomas, are historical documents, in that they contain historical truths about Jesus of Nazareth, a human being.  The mid 2nd-century non-canonical Gospels are literary documents, in that they do not contain historical information about Jesus.

‘Criticism’ and ‘conclusion’ are not the same word. That’s why they’re spelled differently.

Boru

[Jehanne]

You stated, "It’s a literary criticism, not an historic one."  All the canonical Gospels, along with the Gospel of Thomas, are historical documents, in that they contain historical truths about Jesus of Nazareth, a human being.  The mid 2nd-century non-canonical Gospels are literary documents, in that they do not contain historical information about Jesus.

‘Criticism’ and ‘conclusion’ are not the same word. That’s why they’re spelled differently.

Boru

I would disagree. In conducting historical criticism one is also drawing historical conclusions.

[The Grand Nudger]

The mechanism by which crucifixion brings about death would seem to make it unlikely that he could have  screamed multiple times to be heard from a good distance away a short time before death.    He would barely be able to draw breath and would struggle just to wheeze.

This is false.  The Romans arranged things to allow victims of crucifixion to linger for hours, sometimes days on a cross.  If you can breath, you can scream; that was the whole point of it.

I think you'll find that your ability to linger™ far exceeds your ability to scream, and, to put a very fine point on it - these words were supposed to have been his last in those two highly thematic and culturally appropriate retellings.  So, if you're imagining that, for at least some time, a crucified man might be able to make a good show of it, that particular moment in the scene is unlikely to have been the point at which there would still be any reasonable expectation.

That authors took liberties with their stories isn't in any way a problem for the looney hypothesis, meanwhile, though I do think it's kind of looney to pick that specific detail out as confirming some historical hypothesis.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

‘Criticism’ and ‘conclusion’ are not the same word. That’s why they’re spelled differently.

Boru

I would disagree.  In conducting historical criticism one is also drawing historical conclusions.

But I wasn’t ‘conducting historical criticism’. I was kvetching about the way a particular story was constructed. I wasn’t even doing formal literary criticism, just critiquing a specific element of a specific story. I drew no conclusion about the historicity of the event, I was just puzzling that the story was written a different way, as if I pondered why Clemenza garroted Carlo in the car as opposed to driving him to some out of the way spot and simply shooting him.

For a generally bright person, you’re being stubbornly stupid about this.

Boru

[Jehanne]

For a generally bright person, you’re being stubbornly stupid about this.

Boru

This is a category that you should reserve for mythicists; I am not a mythicist.