The Historical Jesus Never Existed

[freelight]

Understanding terms in proper context, but not forgetting the inner truth revealed...

Understanding terms in proper context, but not forgetting the inner truth revealed...

lain: That's Docetism.


Your esoteric version is also a form of Docetism. As already challenged, read 1,2,3 John It only takes 15 minutes or less for all of them.

I stand by my former observations being a student and purveyor of gnostic thought here for many years, so this is nothing new to myself, athough I can always bear to learn more and expand my horizons. I would first get the basic understanding of what Docetism means by its very etymology first -

In Christian terminology, docetism (from the Greek δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn (to seem) dókēsis (apparition, phantom),[1][2] according to Norbert Brox, is defined narrowly as "the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality."[3][4] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. The word Δοκηταί Dokētaí (illusionists) referring to early groups who denied Jesus' humanity, first occurred in a letter by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (197–203),[5] who discovered the doctrine in the Gospel of Peter, during a pastoral visit to a Christian community using it in Rhosus, and later condemned it as a forgery.[6][7] It appears to have arisen over theological contentions concerning the meaning, figurative or literal, of a sentence from the Gospel of John: "the Word was made Flesh".[8]

- Wiki (Docetism)

So you see,....the presenter in the 2 videos posted earlier, does NOT specify if he believed in a docetic form of Jesus that 'appeared' to people as a historical phenomena or 'phantom', and in fact rejects a 'historical' Jesus if I heard correctly. Hence he goes on as I shared earlier to present the 'logos' as the indwelling 'Christ' that enlightens every man who comes into the world. Now how the story of Jesus plays into this just happens to be the story-format in which God is revealing himself in the person of Jesus the Man, while the 'logos' or 'Christ' is that divinity or 'seed' of 'God' that meets and joins with us in our earthly sojourn. NOTE, that WE are the temple of the Holy Spirit, we have 'Christ' in us, we are the tabernacles of Deity! a fragment of 'God' indwells this finite form, isn't that awesome? The presenter was pointing to the fact that 'Christ' comes to indwell the flesh or soul of every man, NOT just the man Jesus. Jesus embodies and reveals The WAY. Following?

Therefore, the truth of the story of Jesus is greater than we imagine, since the 'Christ-story' is our very own. A universal myth reveals higher cosmic truths of which Jesus is the master archetype, the Adam-Kadmon, or as Paul says...the first or last Adam. We are the body of Christ (the second Adam), the community of Christ in human vessels....the ark of the covenant (remember wood and gold were interwoven together to form the ark). There is no marriage of God and Man, no harmonic convergence or unity of humanity/divinity apart from the logos becoming flesh, indwelling these material bodies, anointing our vessel, etc.

Lets re-cap on what Docetism originally was applied to, and that was some groups who believed Jesus was apparently a historical figure, but that he only 'seemed' to be human, that form being an illusion, a mere phantom or ethereal form, so this view denies entirely a human Jesus, but somehow allows for there being this ethereal form appearing and relating to the apostles. You cannot just throw the label 'docetism' on any esoteric teaching of the 'Christ within', since you would have to deem Paul a Docetist. (actually this is debatable, but on different levels, since he seems to teach mostly a 'cosmic Christ' figure anyways, but that's another chapter.) Paul was gnostic in orientation, teaching a secret knowledge (mysteries) and quite revered by some gnostics as their master teacher (see The Valentinians)

We are reminded again, that no matter if you view Jesus the man as 'historical', 'mythical', 'archetypal' or whatever,....the record in the NT and other non-canonical works about Jesus tell the same story of Jesus as the Son of 'God' and Son of 'Man', so that he is the perfect synthesis, marriage, synergy, unification of humanity and divinity, the perfect exemplar, our goal of perfection. 'God' cannot be known or realized anywhere apart from our own being and consciousness. This is because there is no 'being' or 'consciousness' apart from 'God'. God is the essence, value and reality within all forms.

 

[Lon]

Just showcasing your technique in maintaining your christian bubble.

Unwittingly making the scripture point? :think:

Quite the cutie...don't you think?

It illustrated my point, which you seldom are caught doing, so shock had me a bit beyond seeing much more than you actually unwittingly (or knowingly) supported scriptures, probably for the first time in your life.

 

[quip]

Unwittingly making the scripture point? :think:

It illustrated my point, which you seldom are caught doing, so shock had me a bit beyond seeing much more than you actually unwittingly (or knowingly) supported scriptures, probably for the first time in your life.

LOL....and you've scavenged some spiritual pride from willful ignorance. :wave: Grats!

 

[Lon]

I stand by my former observations being a student and purveyor of gnostic thought here for many years, so this is nothing new to myself, athough I can always bear to learn more and expand my horizons. I would first get the basic understanding of what Docetism means by its very etymology first -

Spoiler

So you see,....the presenter in the 2 videos posted earlier, does NOT specify if he believed in a docetic form of Jesus that 'appeared' to people as a historical phenomena or 'phantom', and in fact rejects a 'historical' Jesus if I heard correctly. Hence he goes on as I shared earlier to present the 'logos' as the indwelling 'Christ' that enlightens every man who comes into the world. Now how the story of Jesus plays into this just happens to be the story-format in which God is revealing himself in the person of Jesus the Man, while the 'logos' or 'Christ' is that divinity or 'seed' of 'God' that meets and joins with us in our earthly sojourn. NOTE, that WE are the temple of the Holy Spirit, we have 'Christ' in us, we are the tabernacles of Deity! a fragment of 'God' indwells this finite form, isn't that awesome? The presenter was pointing to the fact that 'Christ' comes to indwell the flesh or soul of every man, NOT just the man Jesus. Jesus embodies and reveals The WAY. Following?

Therefore, the truth of the story of Jesus is greater than we imagine, since the 'Christ-story' is our very own. A universal myth reveals higher cosmic truths of which Jesus is the master archetype, the Adam-Kadmon, or as Paul says...the first or last Adam. We are the body of Christ (the second Adam), the community of Christ in human vessels....the ark of the covenant (remember wood and gold were interwoven together to form the ark). There is no marriage of God and Man, no harmonic convergence or unity of humanity/divinity apart from the logos becoming flesh, indwelling these material bodies, anointing our vessel, etc.

Lets re-cap on what Docetism originally was applied to, and that was some groups who believed Jesus was apparently a historical figure, but that he only 'seemed' to be human, that form being an illusion, a mere phantom or ethereal form, so this view denies entirely a human Jesus, but somehow allows for there being this ethereal form appearing and relating to the apostles. You cannot just throw the label 'docetism' on any esoteric teaching of the 'Christ within', since you would have to deem Paul a Docetist. (actually this is debatable, but on different levels, since he seems to teach mostly a 'cosmic Christ' figure anyways, but that's another chapter.) Paul was gnostic in orientation, teaching a secret knowledge (mysteries) and quite revered by some gnostics as their master teacher (see The Valentinians)

We are reminded again, that no matter if you view Jesus the man as 'historical', 'mythical', 'archetypal' or whatever,....the record in the NT and other non-canonical works about Jesus tell the same story of Jesus as the Son of 'God' and Son of 'Man', so that he is the perfect synthesis, marriage, synergy, unification of humanity and divinity, the perfect exemplar, our goal of perfection, our apex of worship, worshiping the divine image and likeness in our own human soul. 'God' cannot be known or realized anywhere apart from our own being and consciousness. This is because there is no 'being' or 'consciousness' apart from 'God'. God is the essence, value and reality behind all form.

You are only mincing words over the 'reason' one is docetic and John describes who they were:


1Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

 

[Lon]

LOL....and you've scavenged some spiritual pride from willful ignorance. :wave: Grats!

1) Yes, willfully ignorance of ignorance itself. Just because you ask "Did Abraham Lincoln really exist?" doesn't make you any kind of scholar or asking anything noteworthy or of value. We are in a dumbed down society. You jumping on the bandwagon? Sad. Sorry, that's it. Just sad.
2) Scavenged. Yep. For pride? No, just irony.
3) Ignorance. Nope. But it goes back to he said/she said. Are you noted for your brilliance on TOL? Neither of us can fix delusion and willful neglect. It is what it is, so I was/am done. :wave:

 

[quip]

1) Yes, willfully ignorance of ignorance itself.

Well, you can't claim something as ignorance by ignoring it....as such, that task may only be completed by biased presupposition.

Just because you ask "Did Abraham Lincoln really exist?" doesn't make you any kind of scholar or asking anything noteworthy or of value.

Then one supplies proof that Lincoln existed...explicitly not by (boastfully)placing their faith-based fingers in their ears.

We are in a dumbed down society.

While your mind-set exist as the disease...not the cure.

You jumping on the bandwagon? Sad. Sorry, that's it. Just sad.

It's actually of little concern to me whether Jesus existed or not; it's the dangerous/ignorant dogma wrought from supposed messiahs that concern me more.

2) Scavenged. Yep. For pride? No, just irony.
3) Ignorance. Nope. But it goes back to he said/she said. Are you noted for your brilliance on TOL? Neither of us can fix delusion and willful neglect. It is what it is, so I was/am done. :wave:

:dizzy: Mere prattle...bye Lon.

 

[Lon]

Well, on my way out the door:

Well, you can't claim something as ignorance (gossip) by ignoring it....as such, that task may only be completed by biased presupposition.

Rather I'm tired of inept. This isn't too hard to self-verify for information. Just the opposite in fact. The scholastic world sees it for ignorance. Me? I don't have to be here for that to be true. It just is.

Then one supplies proof that Lincoln existed...explicitly not by (boastfully)placing their faith-based fingers in their ears.

We should probably teach kids there really are questions not worth the time. "No dumb questions" is meant for inquiring minds, not dumbed-down obtuse. Again, this information is hardly obscure.

While your mind-set exist as the disease...not the cure.

This is merely you sharing your dislike, not an intelligent assessment of any sort. Kind of like 'stupid questions' but there you go.

It's actually of little concern to me whether Jesus existed or not; it's the dangerous/ignorant dogma wrought from supposed messiahs that concern me more.

So trolling then. Gotcha (and why the wave goodbye in the first place)

...bye Lon.

Edited for convenience... :wave:

 

[daqq]

You are only mincing words over the 'reason' one is docetic and John describes who they were:


1Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

Cannot remember ever seeing a translation of this passage that I agreed with. You might want to think twice about what was said in the video. The kind of thinking your translation supports is that of one who believes that confession with the mouth is all that is required to be, ehem, "saved". Confession with the mouth is good but it is not enough; one must confess Messiah Yeshua in the flesh, and that is by cutting off sin, mortifying the deeds of the body as Paul says, mortifying "your members which are upon the earth", (your own earth-land-soil of the heart, for every man has his land, it is an allegory), and every one that affirms or confesses Messiah Yeshua in this way, in his or her own body of the flesh by cutting off the flesh and its mindset; that is the spirit that has come from Elohim.

Am I on ignore yet? Ah, doesn't matter.

 

[quip]

This is merely you sharing your dislike, not an intelligent assessment of any sort.

Much in tune with the theme of this thread.

 

[Zeke]

The man Jesus Christ is mentioned in secular history books.

The man Jesus Christ's existence is verified by agnostic scholars.

There is a general dismissal across-board of any contention to the existence of the Historical Jesus that it is summarily trash-binned or met with scathing reprimand, even from skeptic and agnostic scholars as worthless.

And also disputed as fraud by many, Kuhn shows from the quotes of the period that the christian doctrine was plagiarized from pagan sources that taught the logos long before it was high jacked by Rome as their own revelation. most agree with the historic phantom because they know the main stream will reject them if they come out of the closet and reveal their skeptic side. Luke 17:20-21 shows where the Divine is to be sought after just like Galatians 4:20-28 which explains the two natures not two actual siblings and to think so is pure institutionalized blindness.

 

[Zeke]

 

[Zeke]

 

[Zeke]

Allegory not history!

 

[Zeke]

 

[Hawkins]

That nature of human history is that history is for humans to get a clue on what might have happened. It's not for humans to reject any possibilities.

Human history is to selectively (by someone subjectively) record 0.000001% behaviors of 0.00000001% humans. 99.999999% events/behaviors of 99.999999% humans are not recorded. So it's never a surprise for someone existed but not selected to be recorded.

Moreover, even in the case something/someone is recorded down, a large percent of such writings may be lost in history and thus failed to reach today's humans. This is the case especially before paper is invented.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Regarding the video Zeke shared, quoting Alvin Boyd Kuhn, there is nothing false about seeing the esoteric meaning of the Christ-story, understanding it's symbology relating to man's own religious experience. Such is basic to the religious study of every theosophist, one who is a student of divine wisdom, or esoteric philosophy.

I share my own insights of 'the ascension' here, since believers experience a mystical union with Christ in spirit, undergoing death, burial, resurrection and ascension. Such is the journey of mortality engaging and taking on immortality.

As to whether Jesus was an actual historical person, a combination of 2 or 3 personalities, or a pure myth or some variation thereof, the story and what it teaches, conveys or reveals is what matters. My own liberal views include many different aspects of Jesus truth,....from historical to allegorical, and everything in between - dogma is unnecessary.

There are plenty of books written by scholars that question and challenge the historicity of Jesus. Nothing new. Since you've made the outstanding statement in the thread-title, it behooves one to honestly do his own homework and find out answers for himself, which is the path of all truth seekers. Intellectual honesty demands that all facts, evidences or lack thereof be examined in this quest-ion. Let the games begin

There are...But most of them are viewed with a large dose of skepticism as academics and scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus generaly arent taken very seriously. The doubts around Jesus existence started around the so called "Age of Reasoning" (Circa 1800s) whereby Christianity came under serious scrutiny and largely from individuals who were not religious or were atheists. As the world has grown more irreligious this trend has continued into the 21st Century.
Even 'contemporary' critics of Jesus day never doubted his existence, though they did doubt his divinity. Regardless the evidence for Jesus existence is overwhelming. Those that doubt his existence in almost every case have their own 'hidden' agenda usually of the atheistic variety.

 

[freelight]

There are...But most of them are viewed with a large dose of skepticism as academics and scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus generaly arent taken very seriously. The doubts around Jesus existence started around the so called "Age of Reasoning" (Circa 1800s) whereby Christianity came under serious scrutiny and largely from individuals who were not religious or were atheists. As the world has grown more irreligious this trend has continued into the 21st Century.
Even 'contemporary' critics of Jesus day never doubted his existence, though they did doubt his divinity. Regardless the evidence for Jesus existence is overwhelming. Those that doubt his existence in almost every case have their own 'hidden' agenda usually of the atheistic variety.

Perhaps,...then the subject-title of the thread would be to speak to those claiming no historical Jesus existed, and on those grounds we'd have to look at the evidence to support their claim, .....historical records and their reliability, etc. Beyond the gospels, there is not a lot of evidence while outside records are subject to interpolations and just being accounts of what was already being reported about 'christians' or one called 'Chrestos' or christus. The critics treat each of these 'accounts' as well as the apologists explanation of them, so there is the bias,...but the objective research can leave some people hanging.

Even if a Jesus existed,....there is only the gospels, NT record and apocryphal tales about the man and his teachings (beyond modern day channellings), with so many different views and 'Christologies' created to fit him into a particular 'theology'. - all else beyond this in the view of theistic Christianity is a debate over his 'humanity' and 'divinity'.

 

[daqq]

Hey Zeke, the point made in this video about the so-called "Nomina Sacra" is so critical and yet he does not explain his own view of how he understands the overall reason or meanings for/of the Nomina Sacra. Do you know if there is another video or place where he does explain his own understanding of the Nomina Sacra? Most do not realize how even "Kurios" is actually nothing more than an estimated guess by translators when it comes to places that are not known quotes from the Tanach or at least made very clear that the text speaks of the Father. The only way to properly understand what are now called the Nomina Sacra is by the Old Greek Septuagint. There are "Christianized" early versions of the Septuagint with Nomina Sacra in them but I mean without the Nomina Sacra, as in the Jewish versions which are known to have actually had the Tetragrammaton in gold letters, (within the Greek text). However one does not need to have access to anything like that, (I don't think we do anymore anyways), but rather simply needs to realize that the Nomina Sacra were not in the original Septuagint but only added later in Christianized copies which clearly did not even understand why the original authors of the New Testament used such devices, (the Logos-Word of Elohim has a name WRITTEN which no one knows but he himself, [and those to whom he reveals both himself and the Father]). I would be very interested in hearing his views concerning what the Nomina Sacra mean if you know anything about that.

 

[freelight]

Hey Zeke, the point made in this video about the so-called "Nomina Sacra" is so critical and yet he does not explain his own view of how he understands the overall reason or meanings for/of the Nomina Sacra. Do you know if there is another video or place where he does explain his own understanding of the Nomina Sacra? Most do not realize how even "Kurios" is actually nothing more than an estimated guess by translators when it comes to places that are not known quotes from the Tanach or at least made very clear that the text speaks of the Father. The only way to properly understand what are now called the Nomina Sacra is by the Old Greek Septuagint. There are "Christianized" early versions of the Septuagint with Nomina Sacra in them but I mean without the Nomina Sacra, as in the Jewish versions which are known to have actually had the Tetragrammaton in gold letters, (within the Greek text). However one does not need to have access to anything like that, (I don't think we do anymore anyways), but rather simply needs to realize that the Nomina Sacra were not in the original Septuagint but only added later in Christianized copies which clearly did not even understand why the original authors of the New Testament used such devices, (the Logos-Word of Elohim has a name WRITTEN which no one knows but he himself, [and those to whom he reveals both himself and the Father]). I would be very interested in hearing his views concerning what the Nomina Sacra mean if you know anything about that.

Just check out his Youtube channel video listing

I think he was emphasizing that the name Jesus wasn't expressly spelled out, but yes...he was a bit vague and didn't give a more complete explanation of it.

 

[daqq]

Just check out his Youtube channel video listing

I think he was emphasizing that the name Jesus wasn't expressly spelled out, but yes...he was a bit vague and didn't give a more complete explanation of it.

I'm not all that familiar with Youtube, actually only been able to watch vids for about six months now and really only do so when I see one posted around here, occasionally, if it looks interesting. But I will see if I can find anything by going there. Yeah, also, his point was not really what I'm talking about but is related when it comes to Κ̅Ϲ, Κ̅Υ, Κ̅Ν, and Κ̅Ε.