RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Second-god (Christ)

Second-god (Christ) | Result: Entered the Eternal Fire

Second-god (Christ) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Nonsensical, barely unreadable, fringe, unsourced, not missional, encyclopedical, you name it. Just more content that the bloated verbal diarrheas we call Jesus myth theory, or Christ myth theory, or Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ or whatever probably already cover. I hate it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   Um. What did I even look at? It looks like thinly-veiled Christ-bashing. I'm refraining from actually voting for now because I'm not even sure what this is. Luigifan18 (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   That's one of the problems of the article. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

2. Christ myth theory is pseudohistorical bullshit. Vee (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Presents a fringe theory uncritically. Devoting an entire article to it gives that fringe theory undue weight. Spud (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
4. It feels borderline incoherent with all its technical jargon yet still feels like it is lacking in content. Plutocow (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
5. I have no idea what it is trying to tell me.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
6. ??? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
7. Finally!Andrew5 (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
8. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
9. on one hand, the bibliography and refs are well-done and i'd consider reading further. on the other hand, who would read this? Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 18:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
10. Delete. Let’s make rationalwiki rational again!Jakester499 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

    Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki Andrew5 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

11. My eyes are glazing over right in the first few seconds in. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
12. I don't even know what I'm reading. Luigifan18 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
13. i don't even know what this article is trying to say to me Edward the eight (Talk) 21:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. "…one pseudohistory promoter, Richard Carrier…" —User:GeeJayK; "Christ myth theory is pseudohistorical bullshit." —User:Vee. They are dispensing the Jim Jone's Kool-Aid of "TRUTH!" and want you to drink up. If one side of the flat-tard coin is "the majority can never be right", then the other side is "the majority can never be wrong" –Dbz (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   1) Can you make a better defense for keeping this page? 2) Do not use ableist slurs gratuitously ("tard"). Bongolian (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   Thats not an ableist slur. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   A sophisticated first_CE Platonist (i.e. middle platonic) would understand evil in the same way that something being “cold”—can be understood as merely the absence of heat. All (Loddy, Doddy, and Everybody) have the potential to be good in the same way that every atom (understood as a ball on the Newtonian billiard table universe) has the potential to have heat. Thus a person is evil if they are not living their full human potential. As the bible says; since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, “men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men … They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice.” because they are ‘COLD’ (i.e. not fulfilling their potential to be good), thus have “a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.” Cf. Romans 1:28 & "Plotinus on Evil". YouTube

   What Middle-Platonism does decisively .. is to push from dualism in a monistic direction. Walsh argues that Paul is uses "middle platonic" philosophy. Cf. Walsh, Robyn Faith (2021). The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-83530-5. (Middle Platonism & Paul the Apostle: pp. 7, 126, 192)

   Linssen, Martijn (2022). From Chrestian to Christian – Philip beyond the grave. Thomas Miscellaneous. Academia.edu. "It ought to be common knowledge that no Greek or Latin manuscript ever writes out the name for Jesus or Christ in full: where the Greek exclusively uses ⲓⲥ ⲭⲥ, the Latin employs ⲓⲏⲥ ⲭⲣⲥ, even literally transcribing those Greek letters." –Dbz (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   Er... what --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

   Paul worshiped Chrest, not Christ, both are abbreviated the same way. People are reaching elbow deep up their ass to claim that they know Paul wrote Christ and not about the two powers in Jewish heaven, El (first-god) & Yahweh (second-god i.e. Chrest), which are well suited to a religious syncretism with first_CE Platonism. Cf. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. Westminster John Knox Press. 1992. ISBN 978-0-664-25395-0. & "Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed - R.G. Price". YouTube. History Valley. 3 December 2022. "@time:00:15:13" –Dbz (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So I am kinda confused about where you are coming from. Some comments above seem to suggest that people believe you are arguing in favour of mythicism - but from the little I can understand from your comments I'm not at all sure that is the case. So are you arguing for mythicism or not? A simple "yes" or "no" would clear it up. Thanks.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly my impression is that your evidence for this "Chrestus" "letterology" is, er, weaksauce (a comment in an atheist blog along with additional blogstuff).

Most sources I piece together seem to say that Greek term Χριστός (Christ) came from χρῑστός ("the annointed one"), and this term was used for what the Hebrews called משיח (Messiah). In fact, this is sort of a descriptive term (like, say, "Alexander the Great" (Μέγας Αλέξανδρος)), even though we kind of treat "Christ" as if it were a full name these days. More emphasis should be put on the actual name -- Ἰησοῦς, from the Hebrew name ישוע, or Yeshua (a derivative of the English name Joshua or the Hebrew name Yehoshua), which is all over the New Testament. (The "Jesus" term comes from the Roman translation.) So I feel this argument falls apart when Paul's letters largely contain terms like Ιησου Χριστου or Χριστου Ιησου. Jesus the Chrest, really? BobJohnson (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"Marcion's Origins - Dr. Markus Vinzent". Youtube.com. 30 September 2022. "@time:00:32:44". Vinzent argues that Marcion demarcates Jewish Messiah (Christ) mythology and the original Chrestian mythology of second-god in his upcoming 2023 work on Marcion's "John the Baptizer".

"Marcion And The Dating Of The Synoptic Gospels - Professor Markus Vinzent". YouTube. History Valley. 27 May 2022. @time:01:00:04. Vinzent notes that a core of the Pauline material may have been authored by Marcion and Co. Vinzent is trying to reconstruct this original Pauline material. –Dbz (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

Why the keen interest here? I’ve never seen 13 votes to delete or keep before. Usually we get like 7 at most for both sides combined. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It's over, I killed it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)