Why do you have to "make up shit" in order to debunk the Jesus miracles?
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
And notably, there are no writings to be found about Jesus the celestial entity (Paul's Jesus) as these were likely systematically destroyed in . . .
No, there are many such writings which survived -- more than those about Jesus the miracle-worker -- and a vastly greater number which did not because they perished. 99% of all the ancient writings perished because they were not copied. There's no evidence of any systematic destruction of literature in those centuries. It's not until the late 5th century that there is finally one dubious reference to books being destroyed by the Church 100 years earlier.
Other than this one reference to an event 100 years earlier there is no evidence of any systematic destruction of books by Christians, or of any orders to destroy books, though there are many edicts preserved which condemn heretics and their teachings.
There is one isolated incident of NON-systematic destruction of books on divination or magic (Acts 19:19), but nothing to do with any alternative beliefs about Jesus or the celestial Christ or anything theological or philosophical. And there is one 11th-century account saying that in the 4th century a pagan temple (in Antioch) containing a library was burned by a mob of Christians.
. . . these were likely systematically destroyed in the second and third centuries by the zealous Christians who . . .
If that were true, they would also have destroyed the Gnostic gospels, and others, also the Book of Revelation. And also many of the Patristic writings would have been destroyed, because most of them also contain references to Jesus the celestial entity. There's no evidence whatever of such writings being destroyed.
. . . by the zealous Christians who wanted to sell their version of flesh and blood, miracle-performing, rising up from dead personal savior Jesus.
You're incoherently confusing the "zealous Christians" Jesus with the Paul Jesus. The "rising up from the dead personal savior Jesus" is the same as Paul's Jesus, so how can you say this was "systematically destroyed" by the "zealous Christians" and yet they want to "sell" it?
separate "versions" of Jesus:
As to the "flesh and blood, miracle-performing" Jesus, which you say they wanted to "sell" -- there is very little of this in all the writings from the period, after the NT. Most of the writings are of the celestial Christ, the Pauline and Johanine Logos Christ, the Gnostic Christ, and the Messiah of Jewish prophecy, not the "flesh and blood, miracle-performing" Jesus. If you review the Patristic writings, after Paul, from Clement and later, you see very little of the miracle-worker Jesus. You have to search through hundreds (thousands) of pages about Paul's celestial risen Christ and the Messiah of Prophecy, in order to find a rare reference to Jesus performing the healing miracles.
If it's true that these "zealous Christians" destroyed the "Jesus the celestial entity" writings, as you falsely claim, and instead promoted their "flesh and blood, miracle-performing" Jesus, why do we find so little of the latter, which you say they wanted to sell, and so much of Paul's "celestial" Jesus which you say they destroyed? Go and look through all the writings after the 1st century, and you'll find the "celestial" Jesus everywhere -- the Gnostic Logos Jesus, and the Virgin-born Messiah of Prophecy -- but virtually none of the "flesh and blood, miracle-performing" Jesus who walked the earth and healed the blind and lepers etc.
The actual evidence shows the OPPOSITE of what you're saying. The writings which prevailed are the ones you're saying were destroyed.
However, you're ignoring that these two kinds of writings don't contradict each other. Rather, the contrast is that the "flesh and blood" miracle-working Jesus is de-emphasized, while it's the cosmic heavenly celestial Christ who gets 90% of the attention in all the Patristic writings. This includes the virgin-born Messiah, fulfiller of ancient prophecies, and the Resurrected Christ.
But there's a joining of the two Christs -- the earthly miracle-worker Jesus and the Cosmic Risen Christ, so they're really the same. It's incorrect to see these as contrary, even though Paul ignores the earthly Jesus almost entirely. Neither makes any sense alone. An abstract non-physical Christ never made any sense, as a Risen entity, unless he was first an earthly person who was killed and then rose.
Outside the earthly component, Paul's Risen Christ has no meaning, and his sermons and writings would have had no effect or acceptance by his audience if it had not been based on the reported earthly Christ. And without the Resurrection and later Salvation possibility, the earthly miracle-worker Jesus has no meaning. The miracles have to point to something farther out into the future. So only the two together can make any sense. Either one alone is meaningless and would have gained no following or believers.
And what we have today are copies of copies of translations of copies of copies of copies.
Like all our historical writings. Again, your observation confirms that these writings are historical. It's such writings as these, copied again and again and again, upon which we rely for 98% of our known history, i.e., the mainline history taught in books and schools, etc.
That is the evidence. There is not enough to establish Jesus as a flesh and blood person, much less . . .
So Josephus and Philo the Alexandrian and Hillel and Spartacus and Attila the Hun and thousands of other characters in the historical record were not "flesh and blood" persons, because written documents are "not enough to establish" that they existed and did what we believe they did? You want to throw out of the historical record all the characters named in the accounts because written documents are "not enough to establish" that they existed physically, in history.
. . . much less attribute any credibility to the miracles claims of the fan-fiction gospels.
Of course you can conclude this if you start out from the premise that no miracle event can ever happen, despite any evidence that it did. However, we are not required to adopt this dogmatic premise. There is nothing in logic or science or math which precludes the possibility of miracle events, when there is evidence that they happened. The reason we generally reject such claims is that there is no evidence. But when there is evidence, as in this case, it becomes a reasonable possibility, and so we consider the evidence, asking the reasonable questions, inquiring further, rather than dogmatically condemning the evidence because it contradicts our ideology that no miracle event can ever happen.
You can polish this turd as much as you like, . . .
What turd is that?
. . . but the stink ain't goin' away.
Wrong topic. Trump's budget deal is found in the Political Issues forum.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
