Originality Rating for this thread: 3.2/5 (6 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 2.5/5 (6 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 3.7/5 (6 votes cast) |
JOHNNYBEGOOD
Inner Party Leader
Post #30546
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1142
Total Words: 133,166
Average words per post: 116.61
PoliMatch: n/a
    
|
Posted: Sat 2006-07-29 21:41
|
 |
| Politics: Zionist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 3.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| From wikipedia |
Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
Wikipedia:No original research is one of three content-governing policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles. |
_________________
ಠ_ಠ
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #30558
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Sat 2006-07-29 23:22
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
I stand corrected.
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #30662
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-08-01 18:23
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
2 cor 5:16
| Quote: |
Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
Wste hmeiv apo tou nun oudena oidamen (5758) kata sarka; ei kai egnwkamen (5758) kata sarka Xriston, alla nun ouketi ginwskomen. |
This passage definitely proves that Paul is saying “Jesus was known as a human, but he is not in human form anymore.” The preceding is true unless flesh is translated to mean “by human standards/nature” or something of the sort. However, there are weaknesses in this line of argumentation. 1) Paul uses the word flesh to mean either sin or the human body. 2) Sarka, which means “flesh” in Greek, is rarely used to mean “human standards/nature” by Paul or anyone. Even if read as “human nature,” the passage connotes that we knew Jesus in human-like form, and now, the form is no longer there. 3) Lastly, the word according kata means “down from” and “according to.” It is a Greek pun. Paul is saying that Jesus was seen according to human form, implying the human himself descended from heaven.
http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=2co+5:16&translation=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en
2 cor 10:1
| Quote: |
| Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ --I who am meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent ! |
Here, Paul gives a characterization unlikely of a God found in a eastern mystery religion. To be meek and gentle, it is implied these qualities have been physically observed—because it is unlikely that Paul was attributing it to the Spirit, which was never called an adjective which describes a human.
2 Cor 8:9
| Quote: |
| For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich. |
Paul again characterizes Jesus as poor. If we read this in an orthodox fashion, it makes perfect sense. Jesus was enjoying the riches of heaven, went down to Earth to redeem man in the form an impoverished man, and this very act of redeeming helps us all now share in the same heavenly riches. Without such a reading, the passage makes no sense: he was rich and heaven, became poor in heaven, so that we can become rich in heaven? This rendering, though possible is far less likely. There is a reason why the Jesus Myth is a small minority among scholars.
Then we have Paul mentioning that Jesus had brothers (1 Cor 9:5 and Gal 1:10). The proponent of the Jesus Myth, unlike a Catholic who will argue that brother means “cousin,” has to say that being a brother is a sort of special position with the Church. Yet, this is hardly mentioned. Furthermore, we have Josephus in the Antiquities mention the death of James as identified by his relation to “Jesus called the Christ.” This does not mean that Josephus though Jesus was the messiah. He did not. However, not much is known of Jesus’ parents. Furthermore, James as a Christian was a minority and not important to Josephus…and James had no importance to anyone reading the story, besides his connection to the Church. So as not to confuse which James he was talking about, Josephus wrote that this was the one who was related to the cult’s founder. This is the majority position of scholars. Again, if Jesus was purely mythical, they would be hard pressed to argue there was no physical man, and instead focus on the paganesque details people have attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. But even still, the physicality of Jesus cannot be denied.
The last claim that Jesus Myth proponents can argue is that the unoriginality of Christianity makes it a put together religion. The fact that it has been put together with mystery religions would in their mind increase the probability that Jesus was just some sort of made up entity for it. However, this is far too simplified. In actual religious practice, only the Eucharist shares similarities with mystery religions. The Eucharist was supposed to bring one closer to God/gods in both practices. However, Jewish Christians probably followed a different, heavily Jewish version which is in memory of Jesus—it does not invoke the flesh and blood in order to get closer to the God. The paganized Eucharist is a product of “revelation” from Paul…perhaps he modified the original and was in turn being unoriginal by invoking the mystery religions he knew of.
However, Christianity has larger elements from other religions and philosophies. It stresses the moderation of the body in exercising pleasure. This is derived from Epicurianism(sp?). The belief that the “light” or “Spirit” or “Christ in you”—the essence or “spark” of the divine is in each human is classic stoicism. The belief in a positive afterlife, in accordance with deeds (but now faith too) was an idea borrowed from Pharisees within Judaism…who got this idea from Platonists. Judea had been Hellenized by Alexander the Great and had started acquiring Greek ideas, just like the ideas of the Babylonians and Egyptians have become borrowed by the Israelites. Quite simply, very few ideas are entirely original. Does this mean Jesus must not be real? No. More likely, it means that Jesus grew up within this setting, and synthesized all of these different ideas with Jewish morality and applied them within a Jewish setting.
I cannot see the Jesus Myth to be tenable in this light. Granted, it is a minority viewpoint with some warrant, but it is very unlikely true. Its logic is flawed, the evidence is totally lacking, and whatever evidence there is proves the opposite.
________
I add one more criticism, especially as it pertains to it being a criticism in "The God Who Wasn't There."
I believe that the movie, and you (perhaps swayed by the movie,) erred in the representation of a passage's meanings in Hebrews.
Hebrews 8:4
| Quote: |
| Now if he [Jesus] were here on Earth, he would not be a priest at all since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. |
The movie claims "In fact, Paul could not even imagine Jesus having been human" or something of that nature and it shows that quote. However, there are a few problems:
1. We do not know if Paul wrote Hebrews. Hebrews in fact shows an inability to translate Hebrew words. In Hebrews 7:2, "Paul" mistranslates Melchizedek to mean "Righteousness" and Salem to mean "peace." Now, it is possible that the septugent that Paul was reading said "King Shalom" instead of "King Salem," but that does not explain the total botching of the other name (which means "zadek is my king.") "Paul" either knew nothing of Hebrew, and just knew Greekin Aramaic, or it was not Paul.
2. This is further complicated by the fact that 8:4 and other passaghes in Hebrews claim that priests commit sacrifice. They did, but sacrifices ended after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repentance_in_Judaism). That means, Hebrews HAD to be written before this time while the practice was still in full steam. The conducting of sacrifices is discussed in the present tense and often shown to compare the difference between Jesus and the priests of the day.
Timothy is also mentioned (13:23), so it was written sometime during his time as an apostle.
I am aware of dating arguments given on http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/hebrews.html about Hebrews, but I cannot agree with the conclusion that Hebrews is only speaking of the desert tabernacle for 1 reason. The mentioning of sacrifices between 9:1-7 is clearly in the old biblical past tense, while 8:4 (speaking of the immediate present) and 10:1-4 (speaking of the present as well) are very clearly not. While the temple did not exist during the time of 9:1-7, it did during the present times to do sacrifices. Biblical scholars have a tendency to be too critical. While 9:1-7 is clearly in a different context than the others AND the epistle mentions a 50s-60s contemporary in Timothy, it is unlikely to assume a date past 70 CE. It is ancient times. Timothy could have easily died in a time past 70 CE. Scholars point at his youth, but this is only indicated in the Pastoral Epistles...he could have been Paul's age. This, in conjunction with temple sacrifices discussed in the present tense, means that Hebrews is very likely a poduct of the 60s.
3. 8:4 is not saying Jesus was never real on Earth. It is discussing how Jesus would act if he was on Earth during the time Hebrews is written. The reason we know this is true, is because "Paul" references the flesh and blood Jesus at least twice in Hebrews.
Hebrews 7:14 states:
| Quote: |
| For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. |
Here, Hebrews proudly states that Jesus was not a Levite, so without the line of descendents that Levites required to prove that had the right to do sacrifices. Read this in the context of Hebrews 7:1-4. Melchizedek was the first priest given a tithe in all the ble (probably to do sacrifice.) Then the Levites were the second, under "the law," showing that there was a new sort of priesthood and religion to follow. However, due to Psalms 110:4 which said there would be a new Melchizedek, Christians took this to mean there would be a new sort of priesthood, without the family lines of the Levites. Then Hebrews argues that the resurrected Jesus (not the one on Earth) is the new priest, because he commit himself as sacrifice to atone for sins infinitely--thus, there is no need for the system of law to get God's forgiveness of sins.
This is all complicated theology, I understand, but it is central to not misreading the passage. Hebrews 7:3 and 7:14 are not saying that Jesus is not human--they are stressing that Jesus has no ties to the Levites and is part of a new and superior priesthood in heaven. Being that Jesus is from Judah, we can tell that "Paul" meant Jesus toactually be real. However, he says it even plainer than that:
Hebrews 5:7
| Quote: |
| In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. |
Clearly, this passage says Jesus was of flesh, on Earth, and through faith alone in God, he won himself immortality. Now that's a hell of a lot of faith by Biblical standards. Abraham, the guy who won God's favor through faith, failed to trust God twice when there were famines and almost lost is wife to the harom of kings...because he was afraid of starving. Jesus suffered (Hebrews 5:8) and was made perfect through faith (Hebrews 5:9) and supposedly if we obey Jesus by exhibiting the same sort of faith, we will be immortal too. Now, I am not telling you to believe this. I am telling you to understand how "Paul" is very obviously speaking about a physical human being and you should feel betrayed by that movie and "scholars" who have skipped over these obvious facts. Early Christians though Jesus was real, not an imaginary mithra ghost. The amount of sources we have on Jesus by ancient standards, means we have every reason to believe he exists.
A third example is found in Hebrews 10, which I discuss later. A fourth, in Hebrews 12:3, speaks of enduring hostility from sinners. Again, if this is a mitharistic ghost, it is not on earth taking crap from sinners.
Remember, Hebrews was the first Epistle (or any source) ever to be quoted. Clement of Rome did in 95 CE. Internal evidence, showing that the author believed sacrifices were still occuring, shows that the writing itself was dated before 70 CE. With this in mind, the writer was very likely Paul or a close follower. We use internal evidence, which is less direct, to place the Gospels after 70 CE. It is important to note that Jesus did not predict the destruction of the temple. He said that none of Jerusalem's buildings would be left standing. He could have been talking about the second coming, and if so, then the prophecy was not fulfilled and we have nothing to go by in the dating of the gospels besides the mention of Sadduccees, who disappeared with the destruction of the temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadduccees#Reliability_of_claims). This means we have to start considering why someone like Luke would end Acts before the deaths of Paul, Peter, and James...was it because they did not happen yet? That would put Luke's Gospels at around 62. Mark would then have to be earlier.
I am not saying I believe these things. To me, Paul (and even Jesus when he discusses whether anyone is married in heaven) do not share the belief in the Gospels that there was a physical resurrection. My point is to show that with reason, we cannot discount all references to a historical Jesus to a late date. However, we cannot say that these guys didn't do some of their homework.
Then there is the argument from silence. Jesus talks a couple times in 1 Corinthians, he is paraphrased a whole bunch--hell he talks 3 times in Hebrews 10:5-9. The Greek word for "comes" or "came" is eiÎseÑrxomai--it means "to enter," "to arise," and "come into existence." Again, the writer is using a greek word that means the Jesus physically came to Earth but also implies how Jesus, like some sort of God, arose into existence. Hebrews 10:9 uses the word "leÑgw" which means "said" in the past tense. Again, Jesus is being spoken about like he is a real guy.
Nonetheless, let me conclude that unless we can find anything that says Jesus was not real and we have several "early" sources that say it in plain English, we should admit that the Jesus Myth is a fringe belief on a poor basis.
I got some ideas from reading these guys:
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=87
I have also been reading “The Bible: A History of a People.”
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Last edited by sorianofan on Tue 2006-08-01 23:14; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #30663
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-08-01 18:33
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Sweet Tooth wrote: |
| Simple...man wrote the Bible...does it even matter whose words were used...man wrote it... |
No one here doubts that. The applicability of the battle as moral code was defended by me on page 1. The counter argument is that there are more modern and better moral codes. Fair enough.
Then, the issue came up over what authority these teachings came from. Thus, the question over whether Jesus was really real and what biblical sources are actually reliable. It pretty much became BB versus me since then. No one seems they want to get into the middle of this though...
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #30814
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-08-06 05:57
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| My slightly belated 5,000 word reply |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Sweet Tooth wrote: |
| Simple...man wrote the Bible...does it even matter whose words were used...man wrote it... |
I don't think that anybody disputes that.... Except cult members who believe that a powerful entity telepathically transmitted the content of the book to man.
In any case, simple dismissive arguments won’t convince anybody that their 2,000 year old cult is wrong.
============================================
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
Actually... I was going to go back and edit my post too, because when Paul says Cephas, he is referring to a guy named Peter.... as in Saint Peter… one of the leaders of Christian cult in Jerusalem.
Now, one has to wonder why Paul makes this claim that Jesus first appeared to Peter, since NONE of the gospels repeat this version of the story. They all say that it was Mary... or two people named Mary ... or some dude named Cleopas. (You really have to wonder why nobody was able to get the story straight about this key event in Christian "history".) |
It is pretty much proof that the Gospels were written without the knowledge of Paul's first (though in reality it was at least the second) letter to the Corinthians. The Gospels' authors had oral tradition and sayings Gospels…not Epistles. The parallels between Paul's letters and the Gospels s evidence of an earlier common source.
|
Or Paul just made the shit up. He probably wrote it in order to convince his cult members in Corinth that other people had seen Jesus' ghost too. There's no way that Paul could have known that his words would be immortalized and compared with later versions of the tale. The intended audience was a bunch of Greeks who would never actually meet Peter, and Paul probably thought it was safe to make up shit about Jesus in order to convince these people that Jesus was a real entity.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Paul had met Peter 3 years after his conversion (Galatians 1:18). Thus, Paul knew and talked to Peter years before any of his letters.
|
Interesting. So Peter probably told Paul that he was the first to see him. But it is odd that none of the gospel writers bought Peter's story.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Peter, being the first to see Jesus after 3 days of his physical death, was likely there to see him in the flesh.
|
Then why didn't Paul just say so? The only people Paul ever claimed to have ever seen a pre-crucified Jesus were Jesus’ twelve disciples.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Then there is the whole debate over James' being brother of Jesus and 1 Corinthians 9:5 which states "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as to the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" Are these the same brothers (of physical relation) mentioned in 6:2-3:
| Quote: |
When the Sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, "Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands!
Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. |
|
It is interesting that the first two people to write about Jesus (Paul and Mark) both claimed Jesus had brothers. It's clear that the nativity tales presented by Matthew, Luke, and John are fabrications, but you have to wonder if perhaps Paul and Mark might have been telling the truth. Perhaps Jesus was a mortal man who served as the basis for the Jesus myth we have today. But I'm not so sure that this proves that Jesus was a real human being. Fictional characters can have brothers and sisters too.
I certainly agree that Paul and Mark's version of the "real" Jesus is more believable than the crap that Matthew and Luke made up. But none of this really shows that Jesus was a real person. Check out the Wikipedia page on Jean-Luc Picard. If you read the section on Picard's personal life, you'll see that he has a brother. But is Jean-Luc a real person, or just a myth?
In all of Paul's writings, there are only two things Pak says concerning Jesus' supposed time on Earth as a mortal. The first is Jesus' words at the last supper. But as I said before, other savior-gods had last supper as well, and that doesn't make them real. (And the ability to predict one’s own death is a skill normally reserved to fictional characters)
The second thing Paul says that implies Jesus was mortal is that he says that James is Jesus' brother. But in truth, he doesn't really say that at all -- the original Greek word used by Paul is adelphos, which does not necessarily translate into "brother".
| From Wikipedia: Jesus |
The Greek word adelphos in these verses is often translated as brother in many Bible translations. However, the word can refer to any familial relation, and most Catholics and certain other Christians, citing later revelations concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary, contend the correct translation of adelphos is kinsman or cousin.
|
A better English translation would have been "kin", but in some cases the word can also simply mean that two people share some sort of "mutual bond". The word simply means that James had some sort of close relationship to Jesus, and it's possible that it was not even a blood relationship. Take a look at that passage you cited - 1 Corinthians 9:5. Here is the original Greek:
| From studylight.org |
mh ouk exomen (5719) ecousian adelfhn gunaika periagein, (5721) wv kai oi loipoi apostoloi kai oi adelfoi tou kuriou kai Khfav?
|
And here is the definition for "adelfoi" from that same site:
| From a)delfo/v |
- a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
- having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
- any fellow or man
- a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
- an associate in employment or office
- brethren in Christ
- his brothers by blood
- all men
- apostles
- Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
|
That same page also links to 346 other places in the new testament where the word adelphos is used, and if you look at a few of them, you will see that it does not always imply a blood relationship. (For instance, take a look at the 5 occurrences in the Book of Revelation).
| sorianofan wrote: |
For details outside of Jesus sayings, I do not believe the Gospels are good sources. After all, they turn the "pillars of the church," likely not of the twelve because John and James saw Jesus after the crowd of 500 (which leads me to believe that they were converted after Jesus' death and never knew him) into disciples.
It is possible that Paul meant that James' was a follower, not of relation to Jesus, and that 1 Corinthian 9:5 is referring to the same (albeit in a very strange order, if one considers that Paul is writing in order of status, number 1 being Peter, 2 being the relatives of Jesus, and 3 the original apostles, and 4 being the last of the apostles, Paul (and the tag along Barnabbas.) If "brothers" is rendered to merely be "followers of Jesus," the sentence's organization is jumbled and loses the predictable hierarchy. You cannot put it past Paul to have his scribe write in a confused manner, but it is also likely that Paul is speaking of physical relatives, which mans Jesus was physical.
|
Yes, it is possible that there really was a guy named Jesus. But, the thing that really matters here is that all of the writings concerning Jesus were written by people who never met him. Even if you believe that James was Jesus’ brother, that means Paul's account of Jesus was 3rd person (Jesus --> James --> Paul --> Us). And Paul really didn't write an account of Jesus’ life and teachings... we have people like Mark and Luke to thank for that, and these people were even further down the information chain than Paul.
In other words, Mark may have knew Paul, who met with another guy who may or may not have been the brother of somebody who may or may not have existed. Just about every aspect of the Jesus story we know today was plagiarized from previous myths, and the parables didn't appear until several decades after Jesus' supposed death.
So, yes, there may have been a guy named Jesus. But neither his life story nor teachings survive today. So when I say that Jesus is a myth, I mean that the Jesus most people are familiar with did not exist. This is a little like stating that Santa Claus doesn't exist. I am fully aware of the fact that Saint Nicholas was probably a real person. But that in no way makes any part of the Santa Claus myth truthful. Sure, there may have been this charitable guy who lived in the 4th century CE who gave presents to children. But the story of Santa Claus that most kids are taught is a complete fabrication. It’s so far removed from reality it really doesn’t matter that the basic for the character was probably a real guy.
In that same way, it’s correct to say that there may have been a real person named Jesus. But the Jesus they talk about in church really has nothing in common with him.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
Just look at all of the Trekkies and Star Wars fans out there. Only people with a clinical disorder could believe that these two mythologies reflect real events. Yet, that doesn't keep people from gathering to "worship" these stories, nor does it keep them from using the morals contained within these stories as a guide for their lives.
I agree that there are many fanboys that take this shit too seriously, but even the worst offenders pale in comparison to an average Christian. I mean, you're actually feeling guilty for recognizing that this collection of ancient mythology might be fictional. I don't even know how to respond to that. How would you respond to a person who really believed that Luke Skywalker once lived in a Galaxy far, far away?... and who thought that if he believed otherwise, he would be turning to the “dark side”?
|
I chuckled reading this and I understand where you are coming from.
|
I'm glad you have a sense of humor. 
| sorianofan wrote: |
Christian mythology is fictional, a lot that has been attributed to Jesus is fictional too. I do not doubt these things. However, do I believe in some abstract concept of the Spirit? Yes. Do I believe in Jesus as Lord? Yes, though his commands are all second hand because none of us lived to talk with him. Do I believe in God? Yes.
|
How is it possible to acknowledge that the bible in most plagiarized fiction, and still believe that it is true?
| sorianofan wrote: |
When I first started to read scripture for a different reason than to bash Exodus 34's compulsion for human sacrifice, I started to get what the Way was. I repented my sins before I even believed in God. The Way was logical, rational, and a welcomed change from how I was conducting myself.
What bothers me most is my lack of knowledge. I have been getting over that, but I am not over it completely. I do not doubt that what Jesus revealed or devised is the only way towards what any of us can term "salvation" in this life or the possible next. However, what Jesus said and literal belief in Jesus is not what gives any of us salvation. According to Paul, "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires…are a law to themselves." (Romans 2:13-14)
Jesus is a helpful example of life and how to approach death. Faith in Jesus makes it easier to live in the best possible fashion, but this would not be impossible without Jesus. It would be more difficult.
|
Whoa, there. What is this "salvation" that you are talking about? Do you believe that you're immortal? You do realize that this story about being awarded/punished after you're dead was just some crap people made up to control people's behavior on Earth, right?
| sorianofan wrote: |
Now, I can defend my faith in Jesus' ethics easily in a logical fashion, and though we may disagree, none of us would be irrational. But that is just half. Jesus "proved" that there is life after death.
|
We can't even prove that the guy even existed, let alone that he was some sort of ethereal zombie.
| sorianofan wrote: |
I do not believe in ghosts, mediums, or anything like that. In fact, Jesus' "appearance" cannot be described as having a conversation. It is, if you will, an ancient and less intelligent understanding of tapping into the divine. Now, I would never take's someone's account seriously. I can hope that the good things are truth, but only with reason.
|
Now I'm confused. Either people are immortal, or they're not.
| sorianofan wrote: |
What reason do I have? Well, people back then did not know it, but our minds are like little computers. What happens when the computers turns off? The simple, and probably right answer, is that absolutely nothing happens…"disexistence." However, our conception of reality is governed by changes in electric flow between neurons and we really do not know how this works. Nonetheless, we can actually measure this energy as "brain waves" (an unscientific term) and just as Aliens one day might be reading our radio signals that are millions of years old, what happens to the essence of the mind? We cannot feel it now any more than we can feel the present, but what if a signature of our mind's energy "lives" forever? If so, I have one very good piece of advice: think happy thoughts before you die, because you might live with them for eternity.
|
I have heard people say that they believe that their "energy" will survive after they have died. They might even cite the First law of thermodynamics, and claim that since energy cannot be destroyed that is scientifically impossible for your "life energy" to be destroyed. But this is just absurd -- there is no such thing as "life energy".
Your consciousness is a result of the chemical relations in your brain. It is the organization of the matter in your brain that makes you who you are. And while it is correct to say that this matter will not be destroyed after you die, it is wrong to say that this organization of matter will survive. It most certainly does not. And therefore you do not survive.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But the thing about this passage that concerns me is that it doe[s] not appear to have been written by Paul. It appears to be some sort of "introduction" to Paul's letter, probably written at some later time. (Notice how the first line refers to Paul in the 3rd person) It looks as though Paul's original letter started with verse 1:7. (But that’s just my amateur opinion) |
I think you are stretching a bit. What Paul wrote (actually his scribe, named in the end of the letter) was a Salutation. Every epistle begins with one.
|
Yes, they all begin with a salutation. But it is odd to hear Paul state an important (and at the time, controversial) piece of church doctrine in the salutation. Why did he feel the need to state that Jesus was the son of David in the salutation? (And why didn't Paul ever mention the name "Joseph") In the into to 2nd Corinthians, Paul seems to state just the opposite by claiming God was Jesus’ father. I realize that modern Christians have been taught since birth that both of these stories are true, but to a person who doesn't buy into Christian doublethink this duality can be a bit annoying. I just wish Christians would get their story straight... who the hell was the Father of your Messiah?
As an interesting side note, check out the introduction to Galatians...
Here Paul is explicitly stating that he is not spreading the word about a mortal "man", but rather "Jesus Christ" --- Paul's mythical savior who appeared in a vision. The reason Paul needed to state this clearly is that the original Greek word "apostle" simply meant envoy, missionary, or messenger. Today, apostle is only used to describe an envoy of Jesus, but in those days the words usually was used to describe envoys of a King or other important person. And that is why Paul needed to state that here was not the messenger of a mere mortal, but rather that he was sent on a mission by the Jewish god and his god-son Jesus.
| sorianofan wrote: |
My response to the other issue, is that "son" is not used literally, but more in the tense of "special servant." Son of God throughout the bible, including referring to David, is used in this tense.
| Big Brother wrote: |
Then there is this bit a few chapters later...
From Romans 8
8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
So was Paul saying that Jesus was human, or merely that he appeared in the "likeness" of a human? Considering that Paul states in this letter that flesh in inherently flawed and evil, I would tend to think that Paul didn't believe that Jesus was ever really a human. And this verse seems to confirm this:
From http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/15.html#44
15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
The first man sent to Earth by the Jewish god was Adam, who was a regular human being. The second man sent to Earth was Jesus, who was a spiritual entity. (A ghost, not a man) |
Romans 8:3 refers "in the likeness of sinful flesh," because Paul uses the word "flesh" to represent humanity's sinful nature throughout the Epistles. What Paul was saying is that Jesus came as man, but was not a sinner like other men. Paul was most likely wrong, because all humans have sinned, but he is building up Jesus to be this great guy, so he tells us that looks are deceiving, Jesus was more than a mere mortal.
In 1 Corinthians 15:45, what sticks out is "the last Adam became (instead of "was made" in NRSV) a life-giving spirit." You cannot be made something, unless you were something different before. Adam was dust and then a man with a soul. Jesus was a man with a soul, and instead of returning to dust, was made a spirit.
|
I have to disagree. Put 15:45 back into the original context and re-read all of 1st Corinthians 15. Paul says that because of the sins of the "first Adam", all things die. But, thanks to the "second Adam", all things will live eternally. And in 15:45 Paul is comparing two of God's creations -- the "two Adams". He is trying to point out an important distinction between the two -- The first is of the flesh, the second is of the spirit. IF you try to reinterpret this passage to mean that both were mortal humans, the comparison loses its meaning.
Take a look at the original greek:
| From studylight.org 1co 15:45 |
outwv kai gegraptai, (5769) Egeneto (5633) o prwtov anqrwpov Adam eiv yuxhn zwsan; (5723) o esxatov Adam eiv pneuma zwopoioun. (5723)
|
Again...
o prwtov anqrwpov Adam eiv yuxhn zwsan <--- First Adam
o esxatov Adam eiv pneuma zwopoioun. <---- Second Adam
The lines are worded the same, with three exeptions.
1) "prwtov" means "first" // "esxatov" means "second"
2) "yuxhn" means "a living being" // "pneuma" means "spirit"
3) "zwsan" means "to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)" // "zwopoioun" means "to cause to live, make alive, give life" or "to produce alive, begat or bear living young".
A direct literal translation would be something like: "...The first Adam unto living life, the second Adam unto spirit was made alive."
In other words, the first Adam was given a mortal life on Earth, and the second Adam was created as a spirit. It isn't that Jesus became a living spirit after he lived on Earth -- Paul is saying that this was the way God created him in the first place, since "zwopoioun" implies the birth (or initial creation) of a person.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
You have witnessed the inconsistencies of the Christian myth, yet think that the reason the story is so nonsensical is because that you think that you just aren't smart enough to understand it?
It is nonsense because it is nonsense. Don't read any more into the bullshit than you have to. |
To an extent yes, because I will never see the Light in its entirety. I doubt any of use besides a very select few came even close to leaving Plato's cave. I suppose that you are right, I am too defensive, and the truth must also be sought from separate sources and inspirations.
|
Ahh.. I see that you are familiar with Plato's Allegory of the cave. If find it extremely interesting that both Mithras and Jesus began in a cave and ended in a cave -- Just like the character from Plato's story.
| sorianofan wrote: |
I would be interested by your take on the Didache, but because you are not paid for my pleasure, I do not expect it!
|
I'll take a look at it. For now I'll just take a look at the summary on Wikipedia. I like the part on apostles...
| From Wikipedia: Didache |
This section warns the reader about the morals of these traveling ministers: they are to be received if they teach the above doctrine; and if they add the justice and knowledge of the Lord they are to be received as the Lord. However, while every apostle is to be received as the Lord, and he may stay one day or two, if he stay three, he is a charlatan or false prophet. On leaving he shall take nothing with him but bread; if he ask for money, he is a false prophet.
|
Didn't Paul take up a huge collection for the poor of Jerusalem? What does that make Paul? Isn’t it interesting that there is not one mention in the bible of what happened to the money from this collection?
But to get back to the point, does the Didache offer any additional information about Jesus? From what I see, it is just an instruction manual for priests.
On a related note, I think you might find it interesting to see what 2nd century Jews wrote about a guy named Yeshu.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If they were already familiar with Jesus' teachings, why was it necessary for Paul to send these letters to his cult members in order to clarify Jesus' teachings? And how is it possible that Paul never mentioned any of Jesus' actual teachings while explaining Jesus' teachings? |
To give Paul credit, the most troubled Church (Corinth) received 3 Jesus commands in 1 Corinthians (concerning marriage, paying apostles, and the last supper.) Otherwise, he heavily paraphrases. As you stated that the Gospels blatantly disregard Paul, it is because they were no written long enough afterwards to have many, if not any, of Paul's letters. None of them make up Paul as a bad guy or something (which they easily could have.) Instead, they settle on oral tradition, imagination, and circulated Jesus sayings.
|
I wouldn't say that they completely disregard Paul's teachings. Christian lore indicates that both Mark and Luke knew Paul. This information may be false, but since Paul most certainly taught in the areas that the gospel writers lived, it seems likely that even if they didn't know Paul personally, their beliefs were probably influenced by his teachings.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| For a comparison, look through this website and take a look at any discussion of Orwell's "teachings". Take this thread for example. It is a 7000 word discussion which attempts to clarify one aspect of Orwell's teachings (The question was whether or not O'brien was an actual member of the though police). In this thread, you will see at Orwell's words are quoted directly at least 10 times, and quoted indirectly in just about every post. |
Yet, you can read entire books from Quakers that will not quote Jesus directly at all.
|
Really? Can you give an example? Because it seems rather strange to hold somebody in such high regard (and write over 30,000 words about worshipping him), but never mention anything he ever said or did.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul talk about marriage. Why not include Jesus' thoughts on the subject? |
First, he did. He said the lord commanded that there shall be no divorce. Why is there so much emphasis on Jesus' ideas but not sayings? A lot of it is cultural. We have the internet and college educations which are conducive to picking sources and quoting to convey our ideas. If we look at the context in which the Epistles were written, most people did not have access to the scriptures (so you can cherry pick quotes and prove just about anything), had access to a couple pages of Jesus writings, worshipped in an unorganized manner conducive to "the Spirit" speaking through them…all of these things explain why Paul was not an avid Jesus "quoter." Ever 2 Peter, which is blatantly fake, does not extensively quote Jesus or the Gospels. It relies on paraphrases.
|
But if Paul didn't have access to Jesus' writings (or accounts of his teachings) then who did? He met with the Jewish Christian on several occasions, and if they had the Q document, you would think Paul would have at least seen it. But even though Paul discusses disputes with these people, he never makes any mention of them busting out Jesus' teachings. If anybody would have had access to the Q document, it would have been the Jewish Christians (the people who supposedly knew Jesus). So it isn't just that Paul doesn't quote Jesus. It's that he seems oblivious to these teachings ever existing in any written form. And if Jesus' teachings weren't written down by 50CE, the contents of the Q document probably do not represent the original words of a real guy named Jesus. If early Christians were really following the teachings of a flesh-and-blood teacher named Jesus, they should have some concern for what that guy said while he was alive. But instead, they really don't seem to give two shits about what this guy supposedly said while alive. All Paul cares about is his own version of the savior-god myth which he has mixed with his own personal view of morality.
And that is my entire point here. If the narrative of Jesus life isn't true, and if the teachings we read today aren't his original words, then what difference does it make whether or not a guy named Jesus ever existed? Even if he did exist, he was not only ignored by several secular writers, but even his own followers ignored what he had to say.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| The only explanation that people have been able to come up with to explain why it is that Paul never quoted Jesus is that Paul never quoted him because he assumes that all of his followers were already thoroughly familiar with his words. But this seems like an unlikely cause for Paul's silence. It seems that by far, the most likely reason that Paul didn't quote Jesus is because Paul didn't have a collection of his quotes. And the only reason that I can think of o explain why the founders of the Christianity did not have this collection of quotes in 50-58CE is that the collection of quotes did not yet exist. |
For the same, and other reasons I stated, I disagree with this. Paul heavily paraphrases. He is probably trying to write as if the Spirit is his inspiration. This certainly explains his jumpy style in his genuine letters.
|
Can you find some place in Paul's writing that indicates a knowledge of the contents of the Q document (a knowledge of Jesus' supposed teachings while on Earth)? You say that Paul paraphrased Jesus' teachings in his writings, but where? Most of Jesus' teaching presented in the gospels come in the form of parables, but Paul's teachings primarily focus on jewish moral codes (primarily sexual morals). But is there really anything in Paul's writings that would indicate that paul was familiar with Jesus' parables?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
Mark was supposedly written by Mark the Evangelist. This person traveled around with Paul for a few years, but left him after some sort of falling-out. The story goes that Mark then set up shop in Alexandria Egypt and started his own personal Jesus cult. He was a faith healer who claimed that Jesus gave him the power to heal people and perform miracles. The Egyptians got tired of his shit in 68AD and executed him.
The interesting thing here is that Mark's gospel claims that all of Jesus' followers were granted the power to perform miracles -- Paul never mentions anything of the sort. |
Well, Paul actually does, not that I give it much credence. Read 1 Corinthian 12:10-- the "spirit" gave people this power, not Jesus…it is like an untapped ability.
|
Interesting. 12:04-12:11 seems to indicate that Paul believed in miracle workers and faith healers, although he himself was neither. This means he was probably familiar with people like Mark, who claimed they could do magic tricks thanks to their belief in Jesus.
The thing that gets me though is that in every modern cinematic depiction of Jesus' life, I have never seen one that shows Jesus' disciples performing magic tricks. I suppose the reason for this is that there are still some people today who claim that Jesus gives them the power to perform these types of "miracles", and in every case they have been exposed as frauds. It probably makes Christians uncomfortable to think that some of Jesus' early followers were these same types of people.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It seems likely that Mark just made the entire story up in order to use it as a back-story by which he could explain how he obtained his magical powers. And he compiled his story by plagiarizing several myths (including Jewish mythology). If the gospel of Mark was written by this guy… and if the story about his time in Alexandria is correct… it seems to me that Mark was just a magical con-man. And his gospel account was a complete fairy tale (as if we didn’t know that already) |
The name Mark was probably added much later, as with the new ending as you speak of…
|
It certainly is possible that the name "Mark" was added later. It is also possible that the story of Mark's life in Alexandria that I explained is just myth as well. Who the hell knows.
But the one thing we do know is that the version of Mark we have today is not the original version. Particularly, we know that the current ending for Mark was added later. The original ending consisted the two Mary's entering the tomb (cave) and finding a young man in a white robe sitting inside. The young man told the women to go out and Jesus would appear to them later. This here seems like some sort of coded reference to Plato's allegory of the cave. And the fact that Mark's narrative ends with an unnamed youth, seems to lend credence to the theorized existence of a Secret Mark, since most of the cited differences between this original Mark[/i ]and the one we have today have to do with passages concerning this youth. And the fact that Mark's original ending centered un this unnamed youth supports the idea that this youth was an important figure in Mark's original story.
| From From Interpretation of Secret Mark |
Further interpretation of Secret Mark in a context within Canonical Mark, suggests a correspondence between the youth in Secret Mark, and the mysterious almost-naked figure who is in the company of Jesus but flees when he is arrested at Mark 14:51, and also with the figure present in the empty tomb at Mark 16:5. By understanding the earlier incident in secret Mark as an initiation, the figure may be symbolic of an individual's progress through Christianity, or as a gnostic esoteric twin (c.f. the name of Didymous Judas Thomas) of Jesus. |
The version of Mark we have today was probably written in the 70's, but I'm fairly certain that Mark's original was written a decade before -- immediately after Paul's genuine epistles.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I think Paul must have been referring to his own teachings, since he seems unaware of what any of Jesus’ teachings were. |
However, Paul did not found the Roman church, which makes this less likely.
|
Paul formed his own church, with little regard for what other Christians believed.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| If Paul had believed that Jesus was once a human, why is it that the NEVER talks about anything that Jesus did while on Earth? Jesus is no different from many other gods who were worshipped during Paul's time. Many gods had stories about death and resurrection, but nobody believes that these gods ever really walked the Earth... with only one exception - Jesus. But as you can see from Paul's writings, he didn't believe that Jesus walked the Earth either. That belief didn't start to surface until later, when people began taking Peter & Paul's mythology as literal truth, and fictional stories started appearing which contained details of this god's life on Earth. |
However, if Jesus was believed to be a walking talking sage, there might not be much more to talk about aside from his gruesome death. The blandness led people to add stories of miracles and such. The fact that Jesus had anything to say according to Paul makes him much different from the other gods.
|
Other gods had teachings as well. Ever heard of the 10 commandments? (I have already stated my reason for believing that Exodus is pure myth here.)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
I think you're reading a little more into this than you should. Paul is just stating that people should spread the story of Jesus, so that more people can be saved when Jesus returns to destroy the world (which was supposed to be happening very soon).
When Paul says "The word of Jesus", he is not referring to book of Jesus' quotations. He is simply referring to the story of Jesus --- That this son-of-a-god was sacrificed so that his dad might forgive the world of Adam’s sin, and that Jesus would soon be coming to Earth to take up all who believed in him to his new kingdom in Heaven. But, before this can happen, the word of Jesus must be spread. It wouldn’t be fair for Jesus to condemn people for not believing in him, when these people had never heard of him in the first place. |
However, Paul does not write "hear of him." You are reading into that. He said, "heard him." The apostle's dilemma is not only spreading the word as fast as possible, but spreading the word of someone they have never met.
|
What then, was "the word of Christ" that Paul was attempting to spread? Do a search for the word "gospel" in the bible. You will see that Paul uses this word on countless occasions. This may seem odd to some modern readers, since the "Gospels" were not written until after his death. But the menaing of the word "Gospel" is simply "The Good News" (god = Good, spel = news) . And what is the good news?.... The good news if that the sins of Adam have been forgiven thanks to the blood sacrifice of the son of a god. The teachings of Jesus weren't the important thing ... it is the blood sacrifice of this diety that matters. And it is this story which Paul wishes to spread (along with his own fucked up views on human morality).
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| "Teach yourself" is what Gnosticism was all about. It was pretty much what all of the mystery religions were about, including Paul's version of Christianity. But the thing that separated Christianity from the other cults is that it was derived from Judaism. And Judaism had a strict set of moral guidelines. And Paul's Christianity is basically the 10 commandments superimposed onto the cult of Mithraism. But later, the gospel writers added more "riddles" to the tale and made these texts available to everybody, whereas the other mystery cults kept their texts secretive and only allowed certain members to view these "mysteries". |
This is speculative, but interesting.
|
That is my current understanding of what happened (a little simplified, but basically correct).
But the part about Christianity emerging from other similar mystery cults is little more than mere speculation. And I think that the detailed nature of Christian writings (compared to the vague mysteries of other cults), along with it openness about its sacred documents (apposed to keeping sacred documents limited to high-ranking members), which allowed it to eventually beat out its more primitive competitors. I truly believe that if it weren't for a handful of People like Paul and Mark, we would right now be having a discussion of whether or not Mithras was a real historical figure.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| However, if every Christian was forced to learn the history of the church that we have discussed in this thread, I think the church would quickly wither away. Perhaps not right away, but after a couple generations. And in order to speed this process I think we need to follow Paul's lead and spread this "good word" to the masses. You can't fault people for believing in silly things unless they have had an opportunity to learn the "gospel truth" about their silly little gospels. We must teach the people about Mithra… and Dionysus… and Osiris … and Paul. Let them all hear “the good word”, lest they all be damned to a lifetime of burning ignorance. |
People already don't believe in it. They believe in, "Yeah, Jesus was cool. I'm going to go to the bar and fuck a housewife."
What people need to hear is that there are truth's that are larger than we can fathom. That we must be humble and loving. We must not be violent. These messages are much more important. |
I agree with the "not be violent" part. But the rest seems to mean that you think humans are too ignorant to understand the universe, and that they should remain humble before ancient myths of beings that are better than us. That notion makes me feel ill, and it is a belief that does nothing to aid the advancement of civilization. It is precisely that belief that halted the advancement of Western society for over millennia, and it upsets me that some people are still using that argument to keep the human race in ignorance today.
But perhaps I am misunderstanding you. What exactly do you mean when you say that people "must be humble". If you mean that they shouldn't be pompous self-righteous assholes, I might agree with you. But, if you mean that they should bow their heads to imaginary masters...
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #30858
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2006-08-07 16:55
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Or Paul just made the shit up. He probably wrote it in order to convince his cult members in Corinth that other people had seen Jesus' ghost too. There's no way that Paul could have known that his words would be immortalized and compared with later versions of the tale. The intended audience was a bunch of Greeks who would never actually meet Peter, and Paul probably thought it was safe to make up shit about Jesus in order to convince these people that Jesus was a real entity. |
This contradicts your theory that the Gospels ripped off Paul's writings. However, because they contradict Paul on some theologocial and some superficial details (and to be fair, their account of the resurrection is different), they were written using separate sources, which confirms that Paul and the Gospels, had earlier sources which probably pointed to Jesus. Of course, we can say, "Oh, I can fathom how this might not be so." However, by ancient history standards, you would be pushing your own credibility for picking something so unlikely. Unless you doubt the whole of ancient history, one has to admit that a guy named Jesus probably existed and said stuff. Even atheist ancient historians admit this. That's why a very small minority believes in the Jesus Myth in its most extreme form, which you have been arguing in favor of.
| Quote: |
| Interesting. So Peter probably told Paul that he was the first to see him. But it is odd that none of the gospel writers bought Peter's story. |
They all bought Mark's, which added the detail that oppressed women were the first to see Jesus' absence and then according to whomever the gospel writer fancied, Jesus appeared to somebody. Because the consistency dealing with Jesus radically breaks down after his death, it makes it incredibly unlikely that there was ever 1 account of the resurrection. Personally, I doubt it occurred (which I get into in another post.)
| Quote: |
| Then why didn't Paul just say so? The only people Paul ever claimed to have ever seen a pre-crucified Jesus were Jesus’ twelve disciples. |
Not true. Paul does not explitly mention that either. He implies in 1 Cor 15 that 1. Kephas, 2. The Twelve, and 3. 500 random followers of Jesus saw Jesus. The fact that John, James, and Paul came afterwards leads me to believe that they were apostles who never met Jesus at all, that they would come after the 512 initial followers of Jesus.
| Quote: |
| It is interesting that the first two people to write about Jesus (Paul and Mark) both claimed Jesus had brothers. |
Personally, I am not totally sold on the fact Jesus had namable relatives that mattered to the apostles. Mark definitely says Jesus has brothers, arguably Paul does. It is just worth taking note when we assess probability. What sells any James connection to me is that Josephus bothers mentioning it.
| Quote: |
| It's clear that the nativity tales presented by Matthew, Luke, and John are fabrications, but you have to wonder if perhaps Paul and Mark might have been telling the truth. Perhaps Jesus was a mortal man who served as the basis for the Jesus myth we have today. But I'm not so sure that this proves that Jesus was a real human being. Fictional characters can have brothers and sisters too. |
True, but they would be very strange random details to add.
| Quote: |
I certainly agree that Paul and Mark's version of the "real" Jesus is more believable than the crap that Matthew and Luke made up. But none of this really shows that Jesus was a real person. Check out the Wikipedia page on Jean-Luc Picard. If you read the section on Picard's personal life, you'll see that he has a brother. But is Jean-Luc a real person, or just a myth?
In all of Paul's writings, there are only two things Pak says concerning Jesus' supposed time on Earth as a mortal. The first is Jesus' words at the last supper. But as I said before, other savior-gods had last supper as well, and that doesn't make them real. (And the ability to predict one’s own death is a skill normally reserved to fictional characters)
The second thing Paul says that implies Jesus was mortal is that he says that James is Jesus' brother. But in truth, he doesn't really say that at all -- the original Greek word used by Paul is adelphos, which does not necessarily translate into "brother". |
Paul does mention more in 1 Corinthians 9:5. I already discussed this and why it is less likely in that context he is speaking of non-relatives.
BTW, the last supper was a revelation to Paul. It probably never happened because Jewish Christians followed a different eucharist (see Didache.) A huge difference between the Eucharist and mystery cults is that the Eucharist copied the Essene's feasting in their waiting for the end times (this existed way before Jesus in Judea.) That's why Paul and others call the Eucharist a "Love Feast." It is more Jewish in background, the patience awaiting of the end of times promised in Daniel, than Mystery cultish--which had real raw flesh, and dancing women, and sometimes orgies.
A better English translation would have been "kin", but in some cases the word can also simply mean that two people share some sort of "mutual bond". The word simply means that James had some sort of close relationship to Jesus, and it's possible that it was not even a blood relationship. Take a look at that passage you cited - 1 Corinthians 9:5. Here is the original Greek:
From studylight.org
mh ouk exomen (5719) ecousian adelfhn gunaika periagein, (5721) wv kai oi loipoi apostoloi kai oi adelfoi tou kuriou kai Khfav?
And here is the definition for "adelfoi" from that same site:
From a)delfo/v
. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
. any fellow or man
. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
. an associate in employment or office
. brethren in Christ
. his brothers by blood
. all men
. apostles
. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
That same page also links to 346 other places in the new testament where the word adelphos is used, and if you look at a few of them, you will see that it does not always imply a blood relationship. (For instance, take a look at the 5 occurrences in the Book of Revelation). [/quote]
I don't entirely disagree with you, but the hierarchy of 1 Corinthians 9:5, Josephesus mentioning James as Jesus kin, and scholarly consensus makes such a reading of the verse less likely, though I am not accusing you of being wrong.
| Quote: |
| Yes, it is possible that there really was a guy named Jesus. |
Good, we agree with fact #1.
| Quote: |
| But, the thing that really matters here is that all of the writings concerning Jesus were written by people who never met him. Even if you believe that James was Jesus’ brother, that means Paul's account of Jesus was 3rd person (Jesus --> James --> Paul --> Us). And Paul really didn't write an account of Jesus’ life and teachings... we have people like Mark and Luke to thank for that, and these people were even further down the information chain than Paul. |
That's why specific information like, "Did Jesus like onion rings" is not that important. We cannot cross reference these things. However, we can look at separate sources, see a different belief system, and where they have arisen from. The beliefs Jesus had and passed on to others are what's important.
[quotr]In other words, Mark may have knew Paul, who met with another guy who may or may not have been the brother of somebody who may or may not have existed. Just about every aspect of the Jesus story we know today was plagiarized from previous myths, and the parables didn't appear until several decades after Jesus' supposed death.[/quote]
However, the parables speak of relevant beliefs within Christianity. The beliefs are important. I grant you that Greek cultural influences did shape the version of Jesus' teachings we have today.
Take into account that throughout the Gospels, Jesus forecasts the literal ending of the world within "the present generation." If a Greek put this in Jesus' mouth, why would he blunder and make Jesus wrong, and make Jesus' prediction of the end of the world in Mark 13 within "the present generation" when it proves 1. Jesus was wrong or 2. Whomever recorded what Jesus said was wrong.
Details like this show that there were assumptions made during the first generation which were not eliminated by the second and 3rd generation written accounts--which makes those accounts useful to Christians.
| Quote: |
| So, yes, there may have been a guy named Jesus. But neither his life story nor teachings survive today. |
Stories, no, teachings, yes. Refer to my previous comment and my comments on intra-biblical parallels.
| Quote: |
So when I say that Jesus is a myth, I mean that the Jesus most people are familiar with did not exist. This is a little like stating that Santa Claus doesn't exist. I am fully aware of the fact that Saint Nicholas was probably a real person. But that in no way makes any part of the Santa Claus myth truthful. Sure, there may have been this charitable guy who lived in the 4th century CE who gave presents to children. But the story of Santa Claus that most kids are taught is a complete fabrication. It’s so far removed from reality it really doesn’t matter that the basic for the character was probably a real guy.
In that same way, it’s correct to say that there may have been a real person named Jesus. But the Jesus they talk about in church really has nothing in common with him. |
I believe this is an adjustment in your argument from the time you were quoting Hebrews 8:4. However, for the reasons I stated, unlike Santa, we actually have the ideas of Jesus written on paper. With careful thought, we can realize them.
| Quote: |
| I'm glad you have a sense of humor. |
Yes, sometimes I don't when I should.
| Quote: |
| How is it possible to acknowledge that the bible in most plagiarized fiction, and still believe that it is true? |
I believe that with careful reading, I can sort through the bull shit but also give consideration to the ideas of these people. I think biblical historical elements are totally false and unscientific. However, I agree with much of the theology and morality.
| Quote: |
| Whoa, there. What is this "salvation" that you are talking about? |
The Kingdom of God.
| Quote: |
| Do you believe that you're immortal? |
No.
| Quote: |
| You do realize that this story about being awarded/punished after you're dead was just some crap people made up to control people's behavior on Earth, right? |
Plato invented it and he had no such motives. Before him, people believed we just rotted in the ground (most likely going to happen) or we all pretty much went to hell. Plato actually thought that righteousness would effect the good and bad afterlife.
| Quote: |
| We can't even prove that the guy even existed, let alone that he was some sort of ethereal zombie. |
Yes, but we have very good reason to believe he existed.
| Quote: |
| Now I'm confused. Either people are immortal, or they're not. |
They are probably not.
| Quote: |
I have heard people say that they believe that their "energy" will survive after they have died. They might even cite the First law of thermodynamics, and claim that since energy cannot be destroyed that is scientifically impossible for your "life energy" to be destroyed. But this is just absurd -- there is no such thing as "life energy".
Your consciousness is a result of the chemical relations in your brain. It is the organization of the matter in your brain that makes you who you are. And while it is correct to say that this matter will not be destroyed after you die, it is wrong to say that this organization of matter will survive. It most certainly does not. And therefore you do not survive. |
I certainly agree with you. Some people, like Chomsky, do not. We still have not fully figured out the brain.
| Quote: |
| Yes, they all begin with a salutation. But it is odd to hear Paul state an important (and at the time, controversial) piece of church doctrine in the salutation. Why did he feel the need to state that Jesus was the son of David in the salutation? |
Because it was not controversial. The Didache agrees with such sentiment. So does Galatians 4:4 . No one things that Gal 4:4 was an interpolation. As I stated, you are stretching.
| Quote: |
| (And why didn't Paul ever mention the name "Joseph") |
He probably was not real.
| Quote: |
| In the into to 2nd Corinthians, Paul seems to state just the opposite by claiming God was Jesus’ father. |
He probably meant "spiritual" father, as he uses the word "Father [of all creation]" separate from 'Lord [Jesus, master of ethics.]"
| Quote: |
| I realize that modern Christians have been taught since birth that both of these stories are true, but to a person who doesn't buy into Christian doublethink this duality can be a bit annoying. I just wish Christians would get their story straight... who the hell was the Father of your Messiah? |
I was not brought up with these things, but it is a virgin mary obsession.
| Quote: |
From http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gal/1.html
1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Here Paul is explicitly stating that he is not spreading the word about a mortal "man", but rather "Jesus Christ" --- Paul's mythical savior who appeared in a vision. The reason Paul needed to state this clearly is that the original Greek word "apostle" simply meant envoy, missionary, or messenger. Today, apostle is only used to describe an envoy of Jesus, but in those days the words usually was used to describe envoys of a King or other important person. And that is why Paul needed to state that here was not the messenger of a mere mortal, but rather that he was sent on a mission by the Jewish god and his god-son Jesus. |
You have it wrong. Paul is claiming that he is spreading the word of Jesus under Jesus' own authority, as revealed to him…Other apostles have "second hand" stories. Sure, Paul's claim of spiritual authority is today weak, but it was then strong.
| Quote: |
| I have to disagree. Put 15:45 back into the original context and re-read all of 1st Corinthians 15. Paul says that because of the sins of the "first Adam", all things die. But, thanks to the "second Adam", all things will live eternally. And in 15:45 Paul is comparing two of God's creations -- the "two Adams". He is trying to point out an important distinction between the two -- The first is of the flesh, the second is of the spirit. IF you try to reinterpret this passage to mean that both were mortal humans, the comparison loses its meaning. |
I am sorry, but I totally disagree. The comparison is simple.
God, father of-> 1.First Adam -> 2.dies -> 3.dust. Now we will all be dust too.
God, father of-> 1.Last Adam -> 2.dies -> 3.resurrects spiritually. Now we will all resurrect spiritually to.
It is simple. Read what I wrote and reread the passage.
Adam's progeny was merely dust-made beings. Jesus' progeny is spiritual children.
| Quote: |
Take a look at the original greek:
From studylight.org 1co 15:45
outwv kai gegraptai, (5769) Egeneto (5633) o prwtov anqrwpov Adam eiv yuxhn zwsan; (5723) o esxatov Adam eiv pneuma zwopoioun. (5723)
Again...
o prwtov anqrwpov Adam eiv yuxhn zwsan <--- First Adam
o esxatov Adam eiv pneuma zwopoioun. <---- Second Adam
The lines are worded the same, with three exeptions.
1) "prwtov" means "first" // "esxatov" means "second"
2) "yuxhn" means "a living being" // "pneuma" means "spirit"
3) "zwsan" means "to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)" // "zwopoioun" means "to cause to live, make alive, give life" or "to produce alive, begat or bear living young".
A direct literal translation would be something like: "...The first Adam unto living life, the second Adam unto spirit was made alive."
In other words, the first Adam was given a mortal life on Earth, and the second Adam was created as a spirit. It isn't that Jesus became a living spirit after he lived on Earth -- Paul is saying that this was the way God created him in the first place, since "zwopoioun" implies the birth (or initial creation) of a person. |
Again, you are misreading 15:45. Adam was dust to life, jesus is life to eternal life (which 15:35 and on in Corinthians confirms is spiritual.) As the "first adam unto living life" implies his origins as dust,, "second adam until spirt" implies the same origins, but a different outcome. Spirit throughout 1 Cor 15 deals with a mortal's resurrection body, because "flesh and blood does not inherit the kingdom of God' (1 cor 15:50.) It is implied that Jesus has a like resurrection.
Look at 1 Cor 15:21-22, where the analogy is foreshadowed:
| Quote: |
For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
epeidh gar di' anqrwpou qanatov, kai di' anqrwpou anastasiv nekrwn;
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
wsper gar en tw| Adam pantev apoqnh|skousin, (5719) outwv kai en tw| Xristw| pantev zw|opoihqhsontai. (5701) |
"anqrwpou" means man, both adam and Jesus have the same word. This unequivocally proves that Paul was speaking of a mortal. I need to add this on the Jesus Myth page.
| Quote: |
| Ahh.. I see that you are familiar with Plato's Allegory of the cave. If find it extremely interesting that both Mithras and Jesus began in a cave and ended in a cave -- Just like the character from Plato's story. |
Jesus was not born in a cave according to any source, though the beginning of Mark implies that Jesus was a normal guys and God called on him (big surprise, so was EVERY guy in the Old Testament. No one was born to be special. God made Abraham, Moses, and etc. that way.
| Quote: |
| Didn't Paul take up a huge collection for the poor of Jerusalem? What does that make Paul? Isn’t it interesting that there is not one mention in the bible of what happened to the money from this collection? |
The end of Romans implies that the money is going to Jerusalem. Paul also took no money from the Corinthians, though I do wonder if whether he was extortionist in part, though I have no reason to believe to.
| Quote: |
| But to get back to the point, does the Didache offer any additional information about Jesus? From what I see, it is just an instruction manual for priests. |
It quotes him quite a bit and fills in theology, which appears pre-pauline.
| Quote: |
| On a related note, I think you might find it interesting to see what 2nd century Jews wrote about a guy named Yeshu. |
Some nutty guy from what I know. I do not think it is Jesus though.
| Quote: |
| I wouldn't say that they completely disregard Paul's teachings. Christian lore indicates that both Mark and Luke knew Paul. |
Not really. Luke looks at Paul when it is applicable, and judging that it never quotes an epistle, it too relies on oral tradition and different sources.
| Quote: |
| This information may be false, but since Paul most certainly taught in the areas that the gospel writers lived, it seems likely that even if they didn't know Paul personally, their beliefs were probably influenced by his teachings. |
True, but he went place to place and did not stay long. He could have possibly regaled people with tales of Jesus, but the Gospels seem ignorant of Paul's overriding theology. They don't even fully support justification by faith alone.
| Quote: |
| Really? Can you give an example? Because it seems rather strange to hold somebody in such high regard (and write over 30,000 words about worshipping him), but never mention anything he ever said or did. |
Shit, if I read this earlier today, I could have brought one home with me from the meetinghouse (Quaker's don't call them churches…).
Here are random samplings, though short because they are online:
-http://www.tractassociation.org/TrueSpiriutalLiberty.htm
Mentions Jesus a lot, but not what he said.
-http://www.qhpress.org/texts/barclay/apology/
Will quote sometimes, not very often, in defensiveness of avoiding King charles the II's wrath. http://www.qhpress.org/texts/barclay/apology/tables.html#481 shows you exactly what he cited, and often he cites Jesus but will not write out what he said.
-http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/WooJour.html. Woolman's journal is the most popular. He NEVER quotes Jesus at all and wrote during a time where he was not going to be killed for being a Quaker.
-http://www.qhpress.org/quakerpages/qwhp/qwhp.htm. Here's a whole bunch. Again, very little if no quoting of Jesus and they claim to follow Jesus and not the Bible through the "inner light." Some Quakers are bigger quoters than others. However, it is easy to see that before Jesus writings really existed and people had a Quaker-ish mentality, they did not quote him, but instead say things under divine revelation. For theologocial authority against Jewish Christians, then Paul would quote the Old Testament.
During Paul's time, there really was not any written authority on Jesus that was entrenched for centuries, so he did not need to debate some issues (and avoid them if he was wrong.)
| Quote: |
| But if Paul didn't have access to Jesus' writings (or accounts of his teachings) then who did? |
A lot of it was probably oral and some might have been written down.
| Quote: |
| He met with the Jewish Christian on several occasions, and if they had the Q document, you would think Paul would have at least seen it. But even though Paul discusses disputes with these people, he never makes any mention of them busting out Jesus' teachings. |
Perhaps, they had better authority under the historical Jesus, but the "revelation Jesus" agreed with him. That's why in the beginning of Galatians, he says his authority is not lowly man (and perhaps his "lowly" written sources,) but the Jesus ghost which converted him.
| Quote: |
| If anybody would have had access to the Q document, it would have been the Jewish Christians (the people who supposedly knew Jesus). So it isn't just that Paul doesn't quote Jesus. It's that he seems oblivious to these teachings ever existing in any written form. And if Jesus' teachings weren't written down by 50CE, the contents of the Q document probably do not represent the original words of a real guy named Jesus. If early Christians were really following the teachings of a flesh-and-blood teacher named Jesus, they should have some concern for what that guy said while he was alive. But instead, they really don't seem to give two shits about what this guy supposedly said while alive. All Paul cares about is his own version of the savior-god myth which he has mixed with his own personal view of morality. |
Two errors:
1. Jesus' initial followers could have been illiterate.
2. Ancient cultures used memory more than we do now. And I mean a whole lot of memory. Homer's epics were memorized for hundreds of years before they were written…in whole. Genesis and everything else was also memorized before being written down. In Genesis, the patriarchs are named after ancient cities and towns. The writer(s) of Genesis had no idea why, they just were writing what was said for centuries. However, what we have today are names that are the same of ancient towns and cities. These places were probably named after famous clan leaders. So, long after these places were gone, the famous clan leaders in the Israelis' minds were their forefathers.
So, if hundreds of years can preserve stories, so can a decade or so (assuming nothing was written. It could have been both written and oral.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_poetry
| Quote: |
| And that is my entire point here. If the narrative of Jesus life isn't true, and if the teachings we read today aren't his original words, then what difference does it make whether or not a guy named Jesus ever existed? |
For reasons I stated (parallels, things that contradict with the Gospel writers coming out of Jesus' mouth, epic poems being preserved orally), this is not true.
| Quote: |
| Can you find some place in Paul's writing that indicates a knowledge of the contents of the Q document (a knowledge of Jesus' supposed teachings while on Earth)? |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikilagata/Internal_Biblical_Evidence_of_Jesus%27_Historicity#Parallels_Found_Strictly_in_.22Q.22
Yes, I do have a short list. I know there are more, but I have my limits.
| Quote: |
| You say that Paul paraphrased Jesus' teachings in his writings, but where? Most of Jesus' teaching presented in the gospels come in the form of parables, but Paul's teachings primarily focus on jewish moral codes (primarily sexual morals). But is there really anything in Paul's writings that would indicate that paul was familiar with Jesus' parables? |
Theology, beliefs, ideas, and sometimes language. Most of Jesus' parables were on the Kingdom of God, which Paul thinks means "eternal life." He could very well be wrong. Thus, he does not need to quote any of those parables.
Here is a list of all the parallels I found:
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikilagata/Internal_Biblical_Evidence_of_Jesus%27_Historicity#Parallels_Found_Strictly_in_.22Q.22
| Quote: |
Interesting. 12:04-12:11 seems to indicate that Paul believed in miracle workers and faith healers, although he himself was neither. This means he was probably familiar with people like Mark, who claimed they could do magic tricks thanks to their belief in Jesus.
The thing that gets me though is that in every modern cinematic depiction of Jesus' life, I have never seen one that shows Jesus' disciples performing magic tricks. I suppose the reason for this is that there are still some people today who claim that Jesus gives them the power to perform these types of "miracles", and in every case they have been exposed as frauds. It probably makes Christians uncomfortable to think that some of Jesus' early followers were these same types of people. |
Probably, though most Churches hold healing ceremonies. I have been to a Catholic one and had them "cure" a hearing problem. It looks like (though does not feel like) evil demonic stuff…I think they are practicing hypnotism without knowing it.
| Quote: |
It certainly is possible that the name "Mark" was added later. It is also possible that the story of Mark's life in Alexandria that I explained is just myth as well. Who the hell knows.
But the one thing we do know is that the version of Mark we have today is not the original version. Particularly, we know that the current ending for Mark was added later. The original ending consisted the two Mary's entering the tomb (cave) and finding a young man in a white robe sitting inside. The young man told the women to go out and Jesus would appear to them later. This here seems like some sort of coded reference to Plato's allegory of the cave. |
How so? I am intrigued.
| Quote: |
And the fact that Mark's narrative ends with an unnamed youth, seems to lend credence to the theorized existence of a Secret Mark, since most of the cited differences between this original Mark[/i ]and the one we have today have to do with passages concerning this youth. And the fact that Mark's original ending centered un this unnamed youth supports the idea that this youth was an important figure in Mark's original story.
From From Interpretation of Secret Mark
Further interpretation of Secret Mark in a context within Canonical Mark, suggests a correspondence between the youth in Secret Mark, and the mysterious almost-naked figure who is in the company of Jesus but flees when he is arrested at Mark 14:51, and also with the figure present in the empty tomb at Mark 16:5. By understanding the earlier incident in secret Mark as an initiation, the figure may be symbolic of an individual's progress through Christianity, or as a gnostic esoteric twin (c.f. the name of Didymous Judas Thomas) of Jesus.
The version of Mark we have today was probably written in the 70's, but I'm fairly certain that Mark's original was written a decade before -- immediately after Paul's genuine epistles. |
I really do not know to be honest. Without knowing more of secret mark, the mark I see now with the ending at 16:7 flows properly and seems not to have been botched.
| Quote: |
| Paul formed his own church, with little regard for what other Christians believed. |
Still, if they were following a moral code, it could not have been Paul's.
| Quote: |
| Other gods had teachings as well. Ever heard of the 10 commandments? (I have already stated my reason for believing that Exodus is pure myth here.) |
Still, this is much different from a mystery cult.
| Quote: |
| What then, was "the word of Christ" that Paul was attempting to spread? Do a search for the word "gospel" in the bible. You will see that Paul uses this word on countless occasions. This may seem odd to some modern readers, since the "Gospels" were not written until after his death. But the menaing of the word "Gospel" is simply "The Good News" (god = Good, spel = news) . And what is the good news?.... The good news if that the sins of Adam have been forgiven thanks to the blood sacrifice of the son of a god. The teachings of Jesus weren't the important thing ... it is the blood sacrifice of this diety that matters. And it is this story which Paul wishes to spread (along with his own fucked up views on human morality). |
True, but in that situation he was deferring to someone else's teaching (obviously Jesus'.)
| Quote: |
That is my current understanding of what happened (a little simplified, but basically correct).
But the part about Christianity emerging from other similar mystery cults is little more than mere speculation. And I think that the detailed nature of Christian writings (compared to the vague mysteries of other cults), along with it openness about its sacred documents (apposed to keeping sacred documents limited to high-ranking members), which allowed it to eventually beat out its more primitive competitors. I truly believe that if it weren't for a handful of People like Paul and Mark, we would right now be having a discussion of whether or not Mithras was a real historical figure. |
In all likelihood, we would be muslim, because Islam is very close to temple era Judaism. However, for the reasons I stated, we have reason to believe that the moral code of Christianity came from Jesus himself. I am not very interested in the mythical storyline elements surrounding Jesus, and I suppose that you might be playing this up in order to detract from he important (yet simple) ideas Jesus had.
| Quote: |
| I agree with the "not be violent" part. But the rest seems to mean that you think humans are too ignorant to understand the universe, and that they should remain humble before ancient myths of beings that are better than us. |
Not really. We should accept our limited capacities. We should strive to be better (that's the humanist in me,) but we cannot trick ourselves into believing we are independent from God, or worse, gods unto ourselves.
| Quote: |
| But perhaps I am misunderstanding you. What exactly do you mean when you say that people "must be humble". If you mean that they shouldn't be pompous self-righteous assholes, I might agree with you. But, if you mean that they should bow their heads to imaginary masters... |
The self-righteous thing. You know, act like Loki, JK. Seriously, we learn more and are happier when we accept our strengths along with our weaknesses and not tell ourselves our shit doesn't stink.
I know you are behind 2, and now 3 replies to me. Tell me if I should wait for you to catch up before replying again.
_____
On a side note. I was just reading Phillipians and came across a pre-pauline Christian hymn that runs Phil 2:6-11.
Phil 2:7-8 states "...taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross."
Crucifiction was reserved for those poor and low in status. So, what we have here is a very human portrait of Jesus from Paul.
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #31146
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-08-13 09:12
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Damn... over 10,000 words this time. |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Or Paul just made the shit up. He probably wrote it in order to convince his cult members in Corinth that other people had seen Jesus' ghost too. There's no way that Paul could have known that his words would be immortalized and compared with later versions of the tale. The intended audience was a bunch of Greeks who would never actually meet Peter, and Paul probably thought it was safe to make up shit about Jesus in order to convince these people that Jesus was a real entity. |
This contradicts your theory that the Gospels ripped off Paul's writings. However, because they contradict Paul on some theological and some superficial details (and to be fair, their account of the resurrection is different), they were written using separate sources, which confirms that Paul and the Gospels, had earlier sources which probably pointed to Jesus. Of course, we can say, "Oh, I can fathom how this might not be so." However, by ancient history standards, you would be pushing your own credibility for picking something so unlikely. Unless you doubt the whole of ancient history, one has to admit that a guy named Jesus probably existed and said stuff. Even atheist ancient historians admit this. That's why a very small minority believes in the Jesus Myth in its most extreme form, which you have been arguing in favor of.
|
I never said that the gospels were a direct and accurate portrayal of Paul's teachings. I only said that Paul predates the gospels, and that Paul was the person primarily responsible for spreading this Palestinian religion throughout the Mediterranean -- And that since all of the gospel writers did not live in Palestine, they probably learned about Christianity thanks to Paul (and thanks to the "churches" Paul left in his wake).
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Interesting. So Peter probably told Paul that he was the first to see him. But it is odd that none of the gospel writers bought Peter's story. |
They all bought Mark's, which added the detail that oppressed women were the first to see Jesus' absence and then according to whomever the gospel writer fancied, Jesus appeared to somebody. Because the consistency dealing with Jesus radically breaks down after his death, it makes it incredibly unlikely that there was ever 1 account of the resurrection. Personally, I doubt it occurred (which I get into in another post.)
|
Well, I'm glad we agree on something. 
But, yes... If the resurrection actually occurred I don't think you would have such varying opinion about it. Things like that don't happen very often (if at all).
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Then why didn't Paul just say so? The only people Paul ever claimed to have ever seen a pre-crucified Jesus were Jesus’ twelve disciples. |
Not true. Paul does not explicitly mention that either. He implies in 1 Cor 15 that 1. Kephas, 2. The Twelve, and 3. 500 random followers of Jesus saw Jesus. The fact that John, James, and Paul came afterwards leads me to believe that they were apostles who never met Jesus at all, that they would come after the 512 initial followers of Jesus.
|
Paul said that his disciples were with him during his "last supper". As far as I nkow, that is the only reference to anybody seeing the dude before he was strung up.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is interesting that the first two people to write about Jesus (Paul and Mark) both claimed Jesus had brothers. |
Personally, I am not totally sold on the fact Jesus had namable relatives that mattered to the apostles. Mark definitely says Jesus has brothers, arguably Paul does. It is just worth taking note when we assess probability. What sells any James connection to me is that Josephus bothers mentioning it.
|
Josephus? Are you serious? Have you ever actually read that passage?
| From Josephus (maybe) |
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. |
Josephus mentions 19 people named "Jesus" (or rather, "Yeshuah" or "Joshua") in his writings, and it just so happens that one of them had a brother named James. Some later Christian, upon seeing this connection, probably inserted the words "who was called Christ" into the text at a later date. Either that, or you have to believe that Jesus' dad's name was "Damneus"... and that James was killed while Jesus was still alive (if that's true, how did Paul ever meet him?), and before Ananus made Jesus a "High Priest" of Judea.
Even if we assume that Josephus is talking about the "real" Jesus (and that's a big "if"), this little snippet of Jesus' historical life doesn't jive with what appears in the bible at all. Again... if this is the historical Jesus, the guy that people worship in church isn't. And it would be a pretty sad commentary on Jesus' life if the only thing Josephus thought worthy of mentioning about this "great spiritual leader" is the fact that his brother had rocks thrown at him.
And BTW.... do we need to discuss the Testimonium Flavianum, too? Or can we just agree with Bishop Warburton of Gloucester when he said, “This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.”
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
I certainly agree that Paul and Mark's version of the "real" Jesus is more believable than the crap that Matthew and Luke made up. But none of this really shows that Jesus was a real person. Check out the Wikipedia page on Jean-Luc Picard. If you read the section on Picard's personal life, you'll see that he has a brother. But is Jean-Luc a real person, or just a myth?
In all of Paul's writings, there are only two things Pak says concerning Jesus' supposed time on Earth as a mortal. The first is Jesus' words at the last supper. But as I said before, other savior-gods had last supper as well, and that doesn't make them real. (And the ability to predict one’s own death is a skill normally reserved to fictional characters)
The second thing Paul says that implies Jesus was mortal is that he says that James is Jesus' brother. But in truth, he doesn't really say that at all -- the original Greek word used by Paul is adelphos, which does not necessarily translate into "brother". |
Paul does mention more in 1 Corinthians 9:5. I already discussed this and why it is less likely in that context he is speaking of non-relatives.
|
Actually, 1Cor 9:5 makes it clear that Paul's usage of the word "Adelphos" does not indicate a blood relationship.
| From KJV: 1 Corinthians 9 |
9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
|
| From Original Greek: 1 Corinthians 9 |
mh ouk exomen (5719) ecousian adelfhn gunaika periagein, (5721) wv kai oi loipoi apostoloi kai oi adelfoi tou kuriou kai Khfav?
|
First of all, we have to decide if Paul is talking about Jesus leading around his brothers and sisters, or if he is talking about apostles like himself leading around the "brethren of the lord". First of all, if we are to believe Mark, we know that Jesus' family did not follow him. But I think that is pretty irrelevant since it doesn't appear to be what Paul is implying at all. In chapter nine, Paul is talking about himself and the other apostles. And he is saying that the apostles have the power to lead about the "brethren of the lord and Cephas". And in this case, the words "brethren" is a clear reference to all Christians -- the word "brethren" here meaning the "brotherhood of Christ". I'm not sure if there is any other interpretation of this passage that is possible. (but I’ll go into this more in just a bit)
| sorianofan wrote: |
BTW, the last supper was a revelation to Paul.
|
A revelation that he stole from prior myths.
| sorianofan wrote: |
It probably never happened because Jewish Christians followed a different Eucharist (see Didache.) A huge difference between the Eucharist and mystery cults is that the Eucharist copied the Essene's feasting in their waiting for the end times (this existed way before Jesus in Judea.) That's why Paul and others call the Eucharist a "Love Feast." It is more Jewish in background, the patience awaiting of the end of times promised in Daniel, than Mystery cultish--which had real raw flesh, and dancing women, and sometimes orgies.
|
Sound's like Paul might have been talking about Dionysus' [[Bacchanalia]] feast (or rather, the Christian version of it.)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
A better English translation would have been "kin", but in some cases the word can also simply mean that two people share some sort of "mutual bond".
|
I don't entirely disagree with you, but the hierarchy of 1 Corinthians 9:5, Josephus’s mentioning James as Jesus kin, and scholarly consensus makes such a reading of the verse less likely, though I am not accusing you of being wrong.
|
That's good... because I hate to be wrong
As I suggested earlier, 1 Corinthians 9 seems to suggest that Paul's use of the word "brethren" does not imply a blood relationship .... And Josephus' account of James dying while "Jesus" was still alive seems to invalidate Paul's claim of meeting with "James, the brother of Christ" .... And as for the "scholarly consensus", I have to assume that you are talking about Christian scholars. Because only a scholar desperate to defend their faith would try to use these flimsy (and contradicting) accounts in order to prop up their belief in a flesh-and-bone messiah.
I admit that I am not a master for the Greek tongue, but even a cursory look at the 346 occurrences of the word "Adelphos" in the New Testament will demonstrate that most of the time the word did not imply a blood relation. Just look at the first passage of Philemon...
| From Philemon |
Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,
Paulov desmiov Xristou Ihsou kai Timoqeov o adelfov Filhmoni tw agaphtw kai sunergw hmwn |
If Paul's usage of the word "Adelphos" is always meant to be taken literally, then we have to assume that Timothy was Paul's brother. But nobody thinks that. Then why do people try to interpret Paul’s usage of the exact same word to describe James as meaning that James and Jesus had the same mother?
Allow me to create a list of every time Paul uses this word, and in what sense Paul used it. (I'm going to limit this to the seven "undisputed" Pauline Epistles.
Romans (19 occurrences)
Literal brother - 0
Non-literal "Brethren" - 12
Unclear/Debatable - 7
1 Corinthians (35 Occurrences)
Literal brother - 0
Non-literal "Brethren" - 30
Unclear/Debatable - 5
2 Corinthians (12 Occurrences)
Literal brother - 0
Non-literal "Brethren" - 12
Unclear/Debatable - 0
Actually, it's getting late so I'm going to abort this apparently fruitless quest. I doubt if any further research will do anything to turn the tide in this lop-sided tally. Just take a look at some of the links above and see for yourself how often Paul referred to fellow Christians as his "brother" or his "brethren". Once you do that, you'll see how silly it is to interpret that one passage about James as literally meaning that he was the flesh-and-bone brother of Jesus.
Notes - I counted each passage as "literal" when the word was used to describe a blood relationship. The "non-literal" category consist primarily of passages that refer to a congregation of Christians (i.e., Paul addressing his "brethren" in Corinth., or Paul addressing a fellow Christian singularly as a "brother", such as in the Timothy example above). The ones I marked as unclear are generally when the word is used in a phrase such as, "Don't steal your brother's ox". We can assume that Paul meant that you should steal anybody's ox, but the point is debatable so I listed it as such.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Yes, it is possible that there really was a guy named Jesus. |
Good, we agree with fact #1. |
Yes, but as I said, I only mean that in the same sense that there may have been a flesh-and-bone guy which served as the basis for the Santa Claus myth. The question remains if this any remnants of this historical Jesus found their way into the gospels. Jesus (or Yeshua, Joshua) was a very common name back then. So it is fair to say that there were many flesh-and-bone Jews names Jesus who once walked the earth. And it's even quite possible that several of these were rabbis, mystics, or side-show magicians. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not any of these people served as the character basis for the Jesus we see in the gospels.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| But, the thing that really matters here is that all of the writings concerning Jesus were written by people who never met him. Even if you believe that James was Jesus’ brother, that means Paul's account of Jesus was 3rd person (Jesus --> James --> Paul --> Us). And Paul really didn't write an account of Jesus’ life and teachings... we have people like Mark and Luke to thank for that, and these people were even further down the information chain than Paul. |
That's why specific information like, "Did Jesus like onion rings" is not that important. We cannot cross reference these things. However, we can look at separate sources, see a different belief system, and where they have arisen from. The beliefs Jesus had and passed on to others are what's important.
|
Yes, the question is whether or not the teachings in the bible stem from a real guy named Jesus, or if they were a collection of sayings from various authors which were later attributed to a mythical character.
But I guess that in a way, it doesn't really matter. If the system of values presented in the bible is really all that great, it really shouldn't mater whether or not they came from a single author named Jesus, or from various authors named Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and others. If you want to live your life by the lessons of the Jesus character, that's your business.
The only reason that we need to be concerned if Jesus was a real guy (and whether or not he was the actual son of a deity), is that some people actually take this shit seriously and therefore try to force their (possibly) mythical belief system on others. If Jesus isn't the son of a god, then the Christians would lose their prime reason for forcing this modified Jewish moral code on the rest of society. If this whole thing was just made up by a bunch of 1st century cultish nutjobs, somebody might begin to wonder whether or not these cult leader's uninformed ideas on the structure of the society should have any bearing on the modern world.
The whole debate changes if instead of defending the words of an all-knowing deity, they are defending the words of assholes like Paul. Claiming that pre-marital sex is wrong because the Almighty GOD said so carries a little more weight than saying that pre-marital sex is wrong because Paul of Tarsus said so.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Take into account that throughout the Gospels, Jesus forecasts the literal ending of the world within "the present generation." If a Greek put this in Jesus' mouth, why would he blunder and make Jesus wrong, and make Jesus' prediction of the end of the world in Mark 13 within "the present generation" when it proves 1. Jesus was wrong or 2. Whomever recorded what Jesus said was wrong.
|
Actually, I found something interesting recently and have began writing a new section on Wikipedia’s Jesus Myth page.... It's a section on Christianity's connection to astrology.
Before I proceed I feel I should say something. Although I'm a little ashamed to admit it, I am quite learned in this ancient belief system. My dad was into astrology big-time, and started teaching about it when I was very young. One of the very first books I remember reading was "The Compleat Astrologer" (1970 edition) by Derek and Julia Parker. Actually, that very same book is sitting on my desk right now. And right in front of me is a poster that shows the zodiac and the positions of all the stars of the constellations. Additionally, to my right is a poster I drew up myself, which shows the positions of all the planets (and the angular separation between each) at the exact time of my birth (all calculated by yours truly).
Of course, I now realize that this ancient "science" is mostly crap, but there were a few valuable things I learned from it (such as an understanding of the motion of the planets).
In any case, this is why any astrological symbolism is the bible is of special interest to me … and there is a ton of astrological symbolism to be found in the bible. And since you brought up the "end of the world", I think I should point out that this phrase may have been mistranslated. The original phrase may have been "end of the age".
| From Wikipedia (BB): Jesus Myth - Parallels with Astrology |
The Great Year (or Astrological Age) is measured by the Sun's apparent backward movement or precession through the Zodiac. (Note: The Gregorian Calendar ignores the precession of the equinoxes and determines that the Sun enters the first degree of Aries at every vernal equinox.) The sign which represents the current age is determined by the constellation of the zodiac that the sun actually occupies at the vernal equinox. The rate at which the Sun progresses through each of these signs is thought to have first been measured by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus, in the 2nd century BCE. The discovery of the precession of the equinoxes was a revelation that some interpreted as being the act of a powerful new god moving the entire universe.
It has been proposed that the cult of Mithraism was inspired by Hipparchus' discovery of precession. The centerpiece of this theory is the tauroctony an image of Mithras sacrificing a bull. According to David Ulansey, the tauroctony is a star chart. Mithras is the constellation Perseus, and the bull is Taurus, a constellation of the zodiac. In an earlier astrological age, the vernal equinox had taken place when the Sun was in Taurus. The tauroctony, by this reasoning, commemorated Mithras-Perseus ending the "Age of Taurus" about 2000 BCE.
In turn it has been suggested that Christianity was inspired by the dawning of the Age of Pisces, which is symbolized by the fish. The fish has also been used as a symbol used in Christianity. The use of the fish to symbolize Christianity actually predated the use of the crucifix.In Matthew 14:17, Jesus is said to have fed the multitudes with only two fishes. The constellation of Pisces is symbolized by two fishes.
This comparison of Jesus' life to the Astrological Ages continues even further, all the way into the age which follows Pisces, the Age of Aquarius. Chapter 22 of the Gospel of Luke describe the events which occur prior to Jesus' arrest and subsequent crucifixion. The disciples ask Jesus where they shall meet him to prepare for his final Passover (The Last Supper). In Luke 22:10 Jesus responds, "Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in." Some proponents of the Jesus Myth interpret the "man bearing a pitcher of water" to be a direct reference to the symbol of Aquarius, the water-bearer. And furthermore, Jesus' instructions to his followers that they follow this man "into the house where he entereth in" seems to strengthen the connection to astrological symbolism. Proponents claim that Jesus is literally stating that at Jesus' last Passover (the end of the Age of Pisces) that his followers should continue on and follow the man with the water pitcher (Aquarius) into the “house where he entereth” (the next Astrological Age).
The very last line of the Gospel of Matthew alludes to this idea that Jesus is the ruler of the of the Age of Pisces (and that this reign will eventually end and lead to a "New age") when he states in verse 28:20, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age". The are several other references to the "end of the age" and the "coming age" spread throughout the gospels -- two in Mark, six in Matthew, and three in Luke (depending on the translation). Some proponents of the Jesus Myth theory interpret these phrases as a reference to various Astrological Ages. However these passages have traditionally been interpreted as referring to "The end of the world" and the Second coming of Christ.
|
The Greek word in question is "Aion" (from which we get the English word "Eon"). I'm not sure why some versions of the bible chose to translate "end of the Eon" as "end of the world" instead of the more accurate "end of the age".
If the gospel writers were talking about the end of the Age of Pisces when they said "end of the age", that makes all this Christian nonsense about the end of world look pretty silly, doesn’t it? (As if it didn't already look silly enough)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So, yes, there may have been a guy named Jesus. But neither his life story nor teachings survive today. |
Stories, no, teachings, yes. Refer to my previous comment and my comments on intra-biblical parallels. |
The existence of a Q document does not in any way indicate the existence of a guy named Jesus. The Q document is just a collection of out-of-context parables. They could have been written by a single author (like a Jewish Aesop) or they could have been a collection of sayings from various authors (like some form of midrash). Considering that the Q document was formed in several layers, I would vote for the latter. But who knows... Since Jesus was such a popular name, it's possible that some Jewish guy named Jesus may have actually contributed some of the sayings. But that isn't the point.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
So when I say that Jesus is a myth, I mean that the Jesus most people are familiar with did not exist. This is a little like stating that Santa Claus doesn't exist. I am fully aware of the fact that Saint Nicholas was probably a real person. But that in no way makes any part of the Santa Claus myth truthful. Sure, there may have been this charitable guy who lived in the 4th century CE who gave presents to children. But the story of Santa Claus that most kids are taught is a complete fabrication. It’s so far removed from reality it really doesn’t matter that the basic for the character was probably a real guy.
In that same way, it’s correct to say that there may have been a real person named Jesus. But the Jesus they talk about in church really has nothing in common with him. |
I believe this is an adjustment in your argument from the time you were quoting Hebrews 8:4. However, for the reasons I stated, unlike Santa, we actually have the ideas of Jesus written on paper. With careful thought, we can realize them. |
We have the words of Santa written on paper too...
| From The Real Words of Santa |
’TWAS the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that ST. NICHOLAS soon would be there;
The children were nestled all snug in their beds, 5
While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads;
And mamma in her ’kerchief, and I in my cap,
Had just settled our brains for a long winter’s nap,
When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter. 10
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.
The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow
Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below,
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear, 15
But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer,
With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name; 20
“Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!
On, Comet! on, Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!
To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!”
As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly, 25
When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky;
So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,
With the sleigh full of Toys, and St. Nicholas too.
And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
The prancing and pawing of each little hoof. 30
As I drew in my head, and was turning around,
Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound.
He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,
And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot;
A bundle of Toys he had flung on his back, 35
And he looked like a pedler just opening his pack.
His eyes—how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow
And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow; 40
The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath;
He had a broad face and a little round belly,
That shook when he laughed, like a bowlful of jelly.
He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf, 45
And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself;
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread;
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
And filled all the stockings; then turned with a jerk, 50
And laying his finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;
He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew like the down of a thistle,
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight, 55
“Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night.”
|
Here we see the real words of Santa quoted in verses 21-24 and verse 56. We can also see that writer of this gospel clearly does not believe Santa is just a mythical being since he is described as having various human body parts such as "rosy cheeks", "dimples", and a "chin".
So, yes... we have some words attributed to a guy named Jesus written on paper. But the thing that we don't have is anybody who claims to have met the guy while he was alive. All we have is people who claimed to see a poltergeist, and people who wrote allegorical accounts of this guy's life.
At this point, and allow me to pause and reflect on the varying levels of certainty that we posses for the existence of various historical figures.
--------------------------------------------------------
Certainly real beyond a shadow of a doubt - I have never witnessed any historical figures for myself, and neither has anybody else. None of us were alive at the time that these people supposedly lived, so it is possible to devise some sort of Orwellian conspiracy theory which claims that all of the information we have about these people were fabricated. Even though there is no credible reason to believe that the people in the next category weren't real, there is no way to claim that the matter is 100% certain. (I mean, there really is no way to prove with 100% certainty that you even exist.)
Almost certainly real - In this category I would include most emperors, kings, and other people for whom there are multiple eye-witness (and realistic) accounts, with the possible addition of some archeological evidence. Plato would fall into this category, since we have various writings attributed to him, plus the writings of several contemporaries that attest to his existence.
Probably real - In this category I would place people such Socrates. We don't have any of his original writings, but we have credible eye-witness accounts (Such as Plato's accounts of Socrates).... and we have the "argument from silence" that if any of Plato's contemporaries believed that Plato was making this guy up, they probably would have said so.
Uncertain, but most likely real - In this category I would place any number of minor historical figures, whose existence is only attested by one or two second-hand sources. A good example is just about anybody mentioned in the writings of Josephus. For instance, I would place John the Baptist in this category. Josephus discusses the life of John in the framework of a entirely plausible and historically accurate setting. Plus, the existence of John is attested by several others, including early Christians. It's possible that Josephus might have been fooled by a fictitious oral fable of a miracle worker, but there is really no particular reason to believe that this is the case.
Probably fiction - In this category I would place Jesus (although I am strongly tempted to place him in the next category). In this category I would also place people like King Arthur (or rather, the historical king on top of which the King Arthur myth was built). In these cases it is possible that these grand myths were built on top of the stories of real people, but it is difficult to peal the layers of fiction back and reveal the nugget of truth at the center. Therefore very little is known about the “real” lives of these people, or even if they really existed at all.
Almost certainly fictional - In this category we find all of the gods and heroes of myth. These are people for which only we find only outrageously unrealistic tales to attest for their existence. Let's take the example of Hercules. This Roman character is based on the Greek Heracles. Some early Christians believed that this guy was a real person (go figure). The story of Hercules could have quite possibly been based on any number of historical strong-men, but most people agree that the story of his life that we possess today is most certainly mythic fiction.
Definitely fictional - You can't prove a negative. It's entirely possible that a Jedi knight names Luke Skywalker may in fact reside in a galaxy far-far-away. And despite the fact that the author of this fable will voluntarily admit that he just made the guy up, you can't prove that Luke isn't out there until you check each and every planet in the universe. And even if you were able to do this, proponents of the "historical Luke" theory would merely point out that Luke lived "A Long Time Ago" and that you would need to build a time machine to find him. And even if you were able to do that, and watch every planet in the universe at all times throughout history, the proponents would merely switch their story and claim that Luke lives in a parallel universe.
True-believer syndrome is a bitch to deal with.
But the relevant point is that this Luke, even if he ever actually existed, played no part in the creation of the Luke character we see on the screen. And since this Luke plays no part in human history, the possibility of his existence in some far-off corner of the universe is not relevant since he has never interacted with mankind, and most likely never will. So for simplicity, we can treat him as purely fictional… until some whack job comes out of the woodwork and tries to “prove” otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------
The reason I bring all of this up is that christians have this nasty habit of seeing the world in black and white -- things are either good, or they are bad --- things are either true, or they are lies. But the scientific world doesn't work this way. To give one example, think of the value of Pi... Nobody know exactly what the value is. All we have are approximations. Most often, we use the approximation of 3.14. And the accuracy of this approximation varies depending on the scale of the object you are trying to measure. If you wanted to knit a headband for a person who’s head was 8 inches in diameter, you could use the approximation of 3.14 to see that the headband would need to be 25.12 (25 1/8) inches in length. (for the sake of argument, let's ignore the fact that a person's head isn't exactly circular). Of course, the measurement of 25.12 inches isn't exactly precise. If we instead used the approximation of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795, you will see that out original measurement was off by 0.012741228718345907701147066236023 of an inch. But the point is who cares if the original measurement was off by one hundredth of an inch?
However, if we wanted to measure the circumference of the Earth (diameter: 12,756.274km), the difference between the two approximations of PI would be 20.31km, a difference which might be noticeable if you wanted to knit a headband for the Earth.
In that same way, when talking about scientific theories (which includes theories of the existence of historical figures) we can only discuss varying levels of accuracy. And when it comes to Jesus, he is definitely at the lower end of the probability spectrum since his story contains many mythical and obviously fanciful elements, and since we have no first person accounts of his existence, and since the is no archeological evidence for his existence (and in fact, there is a strong "augment from silence" evidence against his existence).
There really is no reason to treat the biblical character of Jesus any differently from any other mythic hero. Just about all mythic heroes could be claimed to based on some historical figure. But that does not change the fact that the stories we have today are pure myth -- and that these myths were most often written by multiple people who had no first-hand knowledge of the original historic figure on which the myth may have been based.
We could sit here all day and debate whether or not Hercules was a real person, but since there is no way to prove the matter either way, it is a bit of a futile effort. All we can do is come to the conclusion that Hercules most probably just a myth, and even if he was based on some ancient muscle-bound king, that has little bearing on the mythical character which appears in The Twelve Labours of Hercules since we know that that story is little more than astrology-based allegorical fiction.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| How is it possible to acknowledge that the bible in most plagiarized fiction, and still believe that it is true? |
I believe that with careful reading, I can sort through the bull shit but also give consideration to the ideas of these people. I think biblical historical elements are totally false and unscientific. However, I agree with much of the theology and morality.
|
I agree. There are many fictional stories which I believe teach a good moral lesson, too. But in each case, there is no debate over whether or not these stories are fictional. But when it comes to Christian myths, most people who follow their moral teachings only do so because they think that he story represents some sort of historical fact. They think that the have to behave certain way because, if they don't, some invisible horned guy is going to torture their imaginary immortal souls for all eternity. Apart from being a stupid set of unfounded beliefs, it seems like the wrong reason to treat your fellow man in a humane manner. There are completely rational reasons for wanting to live in a compassionate and just society, so there is no longer any reason to resort to these ancient fantasies in order to support that opinion.
So for example, if you believe that everybody should contribute 10% of their income to charity, argue the point using modern rational sociological arguments. Don't say that people have to give to charity because an invisible magic-man said you should. That isn't a rational argument at all -- and it is just as easy to claim that this same invisible man wants you to commit genocide, beat your wife, kill the "heretics", or any other number of "evil" activities. Societal rules should be based on sound logic, not nonsensical fairy tales.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Whoa, there. What is this "salvation" that you are talking about? |
The Kingdom of God.
| Quote: |
| Do you believe that you're immortal? |
No.
|
Um... is it just me, or does the first response contradict the second?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You do realize that this story about being awarded/punished after you're dead was just some crap people made up to control people's behavior on Earth, right? |
Plato invented it and he had no such motives. Before him, people believed we just rotted in the ground (most likely going to happen) or we all pretty much went to hell. Plato actually thought that righteousness would effect the good and bad afterlife.
|
Just about every ancient civilization believed some sort of an afterlife, but I think you are mostly right --- The idea of two separate afterlives formed somewhat later, and was finally perfected by the Christians.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| We can't even prove that the guy even existed, let alone that he was some sort of ethereal zombie. |
Yes, but we have very good reason to believe he existed.
|
Dammit.... no we don't. 
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
I have heard people say that they believe that their "energy" will survive after they have died. They might even cite the First law of thermodynamics, and claim that since energy cannot be destroyed that is scientifically impossible for your "life energy" to be destroyed. But this is just absurd -- there is no such thing as "life energy".
Your consciousness is a result of the chemical relations in your brain. It is the organization of the matter in your brain that makes you who you are. And while it is correct to say that this matter will not be destroyed after you die, it is wrong to say that this organization of matter will survive. It most certainly does not. And therefore you do not survive. |
I certainly agree with you. Some people, like Chomsky, do not. We still have not fully figured out the brain.
|
Yes, but nobody has even hypothesized any mechanism by which the activity which used to go on in the brain can continue to occur after the brain has decayed. Therefore, this 'possibility" of an afterlife is based on absolutely nothing at all (except for the human desire for immortality). Calling it a “possibility” is a gross overstatement.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, they all begin with a salutation. But it is odd to hear Paul state an important (and at the time, controversial) piece of church doctrine in the salutation. Why did he feel the need to state that Jesus was the son of David in the salutation? |
Because it was not controversial. The Didache agrees with such sentiment. So does Galatians 4:4 . No one things that Gal 4:4 was an interpolation. As I stated, you are stretching.
|
It is controversial because there were several competing theories on the nature of Jesus' existence. None of the accounts of Jesus' birth (including the apocryphal stories) jive on details of this event... and some ancient Christian didn't believe the guy was actually human at all. But as I admitted originally, there is no evidence to support the idea that the text was inserted at a later time. It's just that these kind of insertions have occurred before (and these insertions generally occur at the beginning or ending of texts), and this seems like the kind of thing that Paul would might not have originally said. Here we have Paul stating that Jesus was born "a descendant of David according to the flesh"... something that he fails to elaborate on in any of his other writings. But you're right ... that's just my unfounded opinion.
And on a side note, were you aware that there really isn't any archeological evidence for the existence of King David either, apart from the books of the old testament? The best we have is several 9th an 8th century BCE artifacts that indicate battles between neighboring nations and several kings of Israel who were of the "House of David" (kings who claimed lineage from David). But there is no direct evidence for David himself, other than partially-mythic biblical tales.
But considering that we are talking about a guy who lived 1000BCE – a time from which no written records of Jewish history survive, I’m willing to put Kind David in the “probably existed” category for now, since there is really no reason to believe that he didn’t (as far as I know). But Jesus is still out of luck.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| (And why didn't Paul ever mention the name "Joseph") |
He probably was not real.
|
It is through Joseph that the lineage from David is argued. Without him (or any other named individual), Paul's suggestion that Jesus is of David's seed doesn't amount to very much.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
Here Paul is explicitly stating that he is not spreading the word about a mortal "man", but rather "Jesus Christ" --- Paul's mythical savior who appeared in a vision. The reason Paul needed to state this clearly is that the original Greek word "apostle" simply meant envoy, missionary, or messenger. Today, apostle is only used to describe an envoy of Jesus, but in those days the words usually was used to describe envoys of a King or other important person. And that is why Paul needed to state that here was not the messenger of a mere mortal, but rather that he was sent on a mission by the Jewish god and his god-son Jesus. |
You have it wrong. Paul is claiming that he is spreading the word of Jesus under Jesus' own authority, as revealed to him…Other apostles have "second hand" stories. Sure, Paul's claim of spiritual authority is today weak, but it was then strong.
|
What I am saying is that there is another "argument from silence" here. Paul could have mentioned the fact that he had met with Jesus' original followers in Jerusalem, and that he is acting on their authority as well. But he doesn't. This is because I'm fairly certain that Paul was aware that these other apostles were acting on the exact same authority as he was -- they had all seen a "vision" of Jesus, just like Paul did (an idea that Paul states explicitly in 1 Corinthians 15).
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| I have to disagree. Put 15:45 back into the original context and re-read all of 1st Corinthians 15. Paul says that because of the sins of the "first Adam", all things die. But, thanks to the "second Adam", all things will live eternally. And in 15:45 Paul is comparing two of God's creations -- the "two Adams". He is trying to point out an important distinction between the two -- The first is of the flesh, the second is of the spirit. IF you try to reinterpret this passage to mean that both were mortal humans, the comparison loses its meaning. |
I am sorry, but I totally disagree. The comparison is simple.
God, father of-> 1.First Adam -> 2.dies -> 3.dust. Now we will all be dust too.
God, father of-> 1.Last Adam -> 2.dies -> 3.resurrects spiritually. Now we will all resurrect spiritually to.
|
So are you saying that Paul believed that Adam (and everybody else born since Adam) didn't have a soul? (Or rather that their souls perished when they died?)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
Take a look at the original greek:
| From studylight.org 1co 15:45 |
outwv kai gegraptai, (5769) Egeneto (5633) o prwtov anqrwpov Adam eiv yuxhn zwsan; (5723) o esxatov Adam eiv pneuma zwopoioun. (5723)
|
Again...
o prwtov anqrwpov Adam eiv yuxhn zwsan <--- First Adam
o esxatov Adam eiv pneuma zwopoioun. <---- Second Adam
The lines are worded the same, with three exeptions.
1) "prwtov" means "first" // "esxatov" means "second"
2) "yuxhn" means "a living being" // "pneuma" means "spirit"
3) "zwsan" means "to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)" // "zwopoioun" means "to cause to live, make alive, give life" or "to produce alive, begat or bear living young".
A direct literal translation would be something like: "...The first Adam unto living life, the second Adam unto spirit was made alive."
In other words, the first Adam was given a mortal life on Earth, and the second Adam was created as a spirit. It isn't that Jesus became a living spirit after he lived on Earth -- Paul is saying that this was the way God created him in the first place, since "zwopoioun" implies the birth (or initial creation) of a person. |
Again, you are misreading 15:45. Adam was dust to life, Jesus is life to eternal life (which 15:35 and on in Corinthians confirms is spiritual.) As the "first Adam unto living life" implies his origins as dust,, "second Adam until sprit" implies the same origins, but a different outcome. |
There is nothing about the "outcome" of their lives in the text. The text is concerned with their initial creations (literally, their "Births" according to the original Greek text), and there really isn't any way that the Greek word "zwopoioun" can be interpreted differently in this context. The same word is used to describe both Adams, and you can’t really use two different meanings for two occurrences of the same word in the same passage.
Either:
1) Adam became flesh after he died, and Jesus became spirit after he died
or
2) Adam was born as a fleshy human, and Jesus was born as an incorporeal spirit.
The first interpretation doesn't really make any sense, and furthermore conveys the idea that nobody went to heaven before Jesus came around -- which contradicts just about everything concerning the afterlife contained in the Old Testament. The second reading makes far more sense, even though it contradicts the long-standing (and unfounded) Christian belief that their mythic savior-god was a real person.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Look at 1 Cor 15:21-22, where the analogy is foreshadowed:
| External site |
For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
epeidh gar di' anqrwpou qanatov, kai di' anqrwpou anastasiv nekrwn;
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
wsper gar en tw| Adam pantev apoqnh|skousin, (5719) outwv kai en tw| Xristw| pantev zw|opoihqhsontai. (5701) |
"anqrwpou" means man, both Adam and Jesus have the same word. This unequivocally proves that Paul was speaking of a mortal. I need to add this on the Jesus Myth page.
|
All Paul is saying here is that death is all Adam's fault. This relates to the old Jewish idea that their perfect god created a perfect world, and that the only reason that the world appears not-so-perfect today (i.e full of disease, death, and misery) is that the first Adam fucked it all up by disobeying god. Hence, the first Adam caused death. And here, Paul is contrasting this belief with his own belief in the "second Adam" -- The second creation of God, whose job it was to atone for the sins of the "first Adam".
None of this proves that Jesus was a real person, any more than it proves that Adam was real person. The use of Anthropos by Paul doesn’t mean that Jesus was a real person, in the same way that calling Hercules a "muscle-man" does not imply that he was real either. "Anthropos" is jest a generic masculine term to describe a person. (A good English equivalent might be the word "dude" or "guy".)
So in 1 Cor 15:21, Paul is saying that the first dude brought death, and the second dude brought life. But this isn't the same as having Paul stating that somebody ever actually knew a flesh-and-bone "dude" named Jesus. So yes, Paul talks about this "dude" named Jesus, but only in generic mythical ways ... Such as in the present case, where Paul compares Jesus to another mythical character (Adam) and has him doing all sorts of mythical things (like being specifically created by a deity so that he can later appease that very same deity through some sort of self-sacrifice).
An ancient reference to a mythical character in the third person cannot be construed as proof of their fleshy existence. If that was all it took to prove the existence of a mythical character, we could probably prove the existence of just about any mythical hero. I'm sure that somewhere in the The Twelve Labours of Hercules, the author probably referred to Hercules as an "Anthropos" as well, but does that prove that Hercules was real?... or even that the author thought he was real? No, it doesn't. The thing that would prove the existence of Hercules would be at least one credible first person account, along with some archeological evidence. But nobody ever claimed to have met a living, breathing Hercules, nor is there any evidence of this kind for a living breathing Jesus.
The one person who could have at least supplied some 2nd-hand evidence of a flesh-and-bone Jesus (Paul) failed to do so. All Paul offers instead is mythic fiction, and this is why the historicity of Jesus is seriously in doubt. NOBODY claims to have met the guy, nor do they claim that ANYBODY ELSE ever met the guy either. Pul mentions several occasions of Jesus' ghost appearing to people, but for some reason never talks about anybody meeting the real Jesus. Christian apologist can try to ignore the facts all they want and come up with various excuses for how this could be, but these are weak excuses at best, and do not change the fact that the is no historical evidence for a Messiah named Jesus --- there is only a gaping hole where the evidence should be.
Yes, it is only an "argument from silence". But it is a very good one. You have the silence of Paul preserved in 30k+ words, the silence of Philo and Josephus preserved in detailed accounts of 1st century Palestine (minus the J-man), and the silence of about 10+ other individual writers who all lived at the time, and who ALL failed to mention Jesus. In each individual case, it may be possible to explain away their silence... but is it really reasonable to explain away ALL them?
The best thing Christians have going for them is a few off-hand (and possibly mistranslated) passages that refer to Jesus as a "guy" or refer to fellow Christians as "brethren", and a couple of passages from Josephus which are either an outright forgery, or a later corruption by Christian scribes…. And in both of these case (Paul and Josephus) neither of them claim to have ever met the guy while he was alive.
The facts being what they are, there's just no reason to treat Jesus as a historical figure. Christian apologists are grasping at straws here when they try to cite this crap as proof of a living, breathing founder of their cult. I mean we can't even show that Paul himself believed in a real human named Jesus. If he would have said something such as....
"I traveled to Jerusalem to meet with the brother of Jesus to discuss some of his teachings. James informed me that during a sermon outside of Jerusalem, Jesus said that we should all continue to follow Jewish law."
.... we would at least be able to confirm that Paul thought this guy was real (Which still wouldn't be proof of Jesus, but at least it would be a friggin' start). But Paul never says anything of the sort, even though there are ample places in his writings where he had the opportunity to do so.
So for the earliest source of the Jesus story we have is Paul, and Paul never sheds any light on the historical life of Jesus. After Paul, we have the writings of Mark -- and everything he wrote was pure mythic fiction. It really makes me wonder how anybody came to the mistaken conclusion that Jesus was a real person in the first place. The Gnostics treated these myths as allegorical stories, so why is it that so many early Romans were fooled into believing they represented some sort of historical fact?
I found a quote from a 2nd century anti-Christian writer which sums it up fairly well...
"[Christianity] continues to spread amongst the vulgar, nay one can even say it spreads because of its vulgarity, and the illiteracy of its adherents. And while there are a few moderate, reasonable, and intelligent people who are inclined to interpret its beliefs allegorically, it thrives in its purer form among the ignorant." - Celsus
This 2nd century non-Christian recognized that the story of Jesus was nothing more than mythic allegory, and states unequivocally that many contemporary Christian leaders understood this fact as well. Furthermore, he claims that the only reason people started taking this story literally was because most early Christians were simply too stupid to recognize the complex allegorical nature of these tall tales.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Ahh.. I see that you are familiar with Plato's Allegory of the cave. If find it extremely interesting that both Mithras and Jesus began in a cave and ended in a cave -- Just like the character from Plato's story. |
Jesus was not born in a cave according to any source, though the beginning of Mark implies that Jesus was a normal guys and God called on him (big surprise, so was EVERY guy in the Old Testament. No one was born to be special. God made Abraham, Moses, and etc. that way.
|
Hmm.. you weren't the guy that edited my comments on the Jesus Myth page, were you? In any case, I've rephrased that section of the page to state:
| From Wikipedia (BB): Jesus Myth: Timeline of Jesus' Life |
This tradition of Jesus being born in a cave is preserved in several of the apocryphal Infancy Gospels, such as the Protevangelion of James and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. However, neither of the canonical accounts of Jesus' life mentions him being born in a cave. Matthew says he was born in a house [20], and Luke claims he was born in a stable[21] (which may or may not have been in a cave). However, near Bethlehem there are many natural caves. It was easier, safer and more economical to block off a cave’s entrance to shelter animals than to build a freestanding stable. The tradition of Jesus being born in a cave is so strong that in the fourth century, St. Helena built the Church of the Nativity over the cave said to be the birthplace of Jesus. [22]
|
I witness proof of this "cave myth" just about every single day. On my way to work, I pass the Lady of the Snows Shrine, which has a recreation of the nativity scene which was built inside of a cave.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Didn't Paul take up a huge collection for the poor of Jerusalem? What does that make Paul? Isn’t it interesting that there is not one mention in the bible of what happened to the money from this collection? |
The end of Romans implies that the money is going to Jerusalem. Paul also took no money from the Corinthians, though I do wonder if whether he was extortionist in part, though I have no reason to believe to.
|
I wonder too. But you're right, there's no proof of this. However, I am always a bit skeptical of people who collect huge sums of money in God's name, without ever mentioning exactly were these monies went. Sure, he said the money was for the poor while he was in the process of collecting it, but he never recounts exactly what happened to the money after that. You would think that Paul would have at least once mention all of the misery that was alleviated due to this great act of charity, but he never does (nor does the author of Acts). I guess he was just being modest.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #31147
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-08-13 09:21
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Damn... there wan't enough space for that last respone |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
(continued from previous post)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But to get back to the point, does the Didache offer any additional information about Jesus? From what I see, it is just an instruction manual for priests. |
It quotes him quite a bit and fills in theology, which appears pre-Pauline.
|
I'll have to check it out. But if the text was written somewhere between 70-160CE, can it really shine any more light on the nature of a historical Jesus? It doesn't seem to quote Jesus directly -- It just sums up some of the teachings found in the gospels. And since it was probably written after the gospels, they could have easily gotten this information directly from them.
I skimmed through the text, but did not really see anything original (i.e. some "lost" teaching of a historical Jesus). Did I miss something?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I wouldn't say that they completely disregard Paul's teachings. Christian lore indicates that both Mark and Luke knew Paul. |
Not really. Luke looks at Paul when it is applicable, and judging that it never quotes an epistle, it too relies on oral tradition and different sources.
|
Luke is the guy who wrote Acts, which includes a lot of information about Paul. Luke certainly knew of Paul's existence, and was familiar with his writings (but whether or not he actually met the guy is debatable).
As for Mark, the details of his relationship to Paul are a little sketchier. But Acts claims that Mark hung around with Paul and Barnabas. It is possible that Luke, being familiar with the gospel of Mark, just made this up in order to put Mark into an historical context. Paul mentions hanging around with a guy named Mark (Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy, 4:11; Philemon 1:24), but whether or not this is the same Mark that wrote the gospel (or if the name "Mark" was added to the gospel at a later time) is debatable. I'm not going to argue the point either way, but I will say the Luke almost certainly knew about Paul, and the Mark might have known about Paul... and I'll leave it at that.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Really? Can you give an example? Because it seems rather strange to hold somebody in such high regard (and write over 30,000 words about worshipping him), but never mention anything he ever said or did. |
Shit, if I read this earlier today, I could have brought one home with me from the meetinghouse (Quaker's don't call them churches…).
Here are random samplings, though short because they are online:
-http://www.tractassociation.org/TrueSpiriutalLiberty.htm
Mentions Jesus a lot, but not what he said.
-http://www.qhpress.org/texts/barclay/apology/
Will quote sometimes, not very often, in defensiveness of avoiding King Charles the II's wrath. http://www.qhpress.org/texts/barclay/apology/tables.html#481 shows you exactly what he cited, and often he cites Jesus but will not write out what he said.
-http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/WooJour.html. Woolman's journal is the most popular. He NEVER quotes Jesus at all and wrote during a time where he was not going to be killed for being a Quaker.
-http://www.qhpress.org/quakerpages/qwhp/qwhp.htm. Here's a whole bunch. Again, very little if no quoting of Jesus and they claim to follow Jesus and not the Bible through the "inner light." Some Quakers are bigger quoters than others. However, it is easy to see that before Jesus writings really existed and people had a Quaker-ish mentality, they did not quote him, but instead say things under divine revelation. For theologocial authority against Jewish Christians, then Paul would quote the Old Testament.
During Paul's time, there really was not any written authority on Jesus that was entrenched for centuries, so he did not need to debate some issues (and avoid them if he was wrong.)
|
I see what you mean. I suppose it is possible to discuss issues of religious law without ever citing a quote from your religious leader. But it's just odd that Paul managed to do this in all seven of his extant letters.
But it needs to mentioned that the Quakers knew every one of their members were familiar with Jesus' story, and had access to copies of the bible. In Paul's time, this was not the case. The people with which he was conversing had only recently heard of Jesus through Paul, and most likely did not have access to any "biblical" texts. Paul thought it was his ordained duty to spread the word about Jesus to these people. Yet in his letters, he tells them very little (in fact, almost nothing) about Jesus himself. Sure it's possible... but I don't think it's very likely that Paul would have failed to include certain information if he was aware of it.
I mean, Paul discusses the mythic elements of the Jesus story several times (i.e the resurrection and ghostly visions), but fails to mention anything other than these obvious myths.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But if Paul didn't have access to Jesus' writings (or accounts of his teachings) then who did? |
A lot of it was probably oral and some might have been written down.
|
A collection of quotes passed down orally for 30 years (and never once mentioned by the primary source from that period of time, Paul) just doesn't seem likely. If that was the way his parables were preserved, it seem very likely that what was preserved probably isn’t very accurate. And if the quotes were written, how is it possible (again) that Paul never mentions this? He never instructs his followers to read and study this collection of quotes, nor does he ever say anything at all that would indicate that he was aware of their existence.
Maybe it's possible that these quotes were buried in a cave somewhere for 30 years, and only resurfaced immediately before Mark, Matthew, and Luke sat down to write their fairy tales. But this seems highly unlikely. Sure, it's possible, but there is no historical or textual evidence to back up this claim. The Q document could have come from just about anywhere, and could have been written by just about anyone.
And in any case, the lessons that these parable teach aren't very important in the first place, so I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If anybody would have had access to the Q document, it would have been the Jewish Christians (the people who supposedly knew Jesus). So it isn't just that Paul doesn't quote Jesus. It's that he seems oblivious to these teachings ever existing in any written form. And if Jesus' teachings weren't written down by 50CE, the contents of the Q document probably do not represent the original words of a real guy named Jesus. If early Christians were really following the teachings of a flesh-and-blood teacher named Jesus, they should have some concern for what that guy said while he was alive. But instead, they really don't seem to give two shits about what this guy supposedly said while alive. All Paul cares about is his own version of the savior-god myth which he has mixed with his own personal view of morality. |
Two errors:
1. Jesus' initial followers could have been illiterate.
|
The literacy rate among Jews has always been high, even back in the 1st century. Even back then, a significant portion of Jewish boys received weekly religious lessons in the Torah in preparation for their Bar Mitzvah. Although it would be wrong to say that all Jewish boys back in Jesus’ time were literate, it is also wrong to portray 1st century Palestine as some sort of stone-age culture. Most men in Jerusalem were literate, even back then.
| sorianofan wrote: |
2. Ancient cultures used memory more than we do now. And I mean a whole lot of memory. Homer's epics were memorized for hundreds of years before they were written…in whole. Genesis and everything else was also memorized before being written down. In Genesis, the patriarchs are named after ancient cities and towns. The writer(s) of Genesis had no idea why, they just were writing what was said for centuries. However, what we have today are names that are the same of ancient towns and cities. These places were probably named after famous clan leaders. So, long after these places were gone, the famous clan leaders in the Israelis' minds were their forefathers.
|
Not to get off the subject, but Genesis was written down long before the Jews got their hands on it (See: the Enûma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh)
(Actually, I guess this is getting back to the original subject of this thread … “Who Wrote the Old Testament”)
| sorianofan wrote: |
So, if hundreds of years can preserve stories, so can a decade or so (assuming nothing was written. It could have been both written and oral.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_poetry
|
Yes, but 1st century Palestine was full of literate Jews, and was occupied by educated Romans. It isn't fair to compare this timeframe to that of the Iliad or the Great Flood. Literacy was certainly low by modern standards, but there were enough educated people living at the time to record any important event. Josephus and Philo both mention innumerable events which pale in importance to Jesus, yet do not mention Jesus – even though the mention several other of the characters which appear in the gospel accounts, such as John the Baptist, Pilate, and King Herod.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And that is my entire point here. If the narrative of Jesus life isn't true, and if the teachings we read today aren't his original words, then what difference does it make whether or not a guy named Jesus ever existed? |
For reasons I stated (parallels, things that contradict with the Gospel writers coming out of Jesus' mouth, epic poems being preserved orally), this is not true.
|
Again... parallels between various writers about a mythical hero do not imply that they are talking about a real person. The people who wrote the gospels didn't know Jesus... nor did they know anybody else who knew Jesus either. This isn't a case of these tales of a real hero (Jesus) being passed down orally and documented by the writers of the Gospels. What we have here is Mark writing an allegorical tale about Jesus (and plagiarizing various other myths in the process, adding almost NO original material of his own).... and then this allegorical work serving as the basis of two other pieces of fiction, which were woven together with some nifty sayings from some sort of Jewish Midrash.
A historical Jesus need not ever had existed for any of this to occur. And every single piece of secondary evidence indicates that a real person named Jesus probably did not exist -- unless he was some sort of minor Jewish rabbi who's original teachings and life story were mostly (if not completely) lost to history.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Can you find some place in Paul's writing that indicates a knowledge of the contents of the Q document (a knowledge of Jesus' supposed teachings while on Earth)? |
Yes, I do have a short list. I know there are more, but I have my limits.
| Quote: |
| You say that Paul paraphrased Jesus' teachings in his writings, but where? Most of Jesus' teaching presented in the gospels come in the form of parables, but Paul's teachings primarily focus on Jewish moral codes (primarily sexual morals). But is there really anything in Paul's writings that would indicate that Paul was familiar with Jesus' parables? |
Theology, beliefs, ideas, and sometimes language. Most of Jesus' parables were on the Kingdom of God, which Paul thinks means "eternal life." He could very well be wrong. Thus, he does not need to quote any of those parables.
Here is a list of all the parallels I found:
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikilagata/Internal_Biblical_Evidence_of_Jesus%27_Historicity#Parallels_Found_Strictly_in_.22Q.22
|
Similar parallels show that Matthew/Mark/Luke weren't the original people who made this shit up, but it doesn't show that somebody else didn't make this shit up before them. I agree that the gospel writers used a common source for their parables --- But there is no reason to believe that the Q document represented the work of a man named Jesus, or even that it represented the work of a single individual at all.
Again... it is important to point out that even though this Q document was apparently wide-spread enough for all the gospel writers to get their hands on it, no copies were preserved, and no 2nd century Christians ever attested to its existence. If the Q document represented the real words of Jesus... and existed at the same time as the letters of Paul and the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.... you really have to wonder why they weren't preserved while these other works were. If a legitimate collection of Jesus' sayings existed, it would not have been discarded on purpose.
However, if the Q document was just some sort of Jewish Midrash (or if it was taken from some other cult) early Christians would have probably ignored it -- that is, they would have ignored it until Matthew and Luke put these words into Jesus' mouth. And the fact that no extant copies of the Q document exist today, and the fact that no 1st or 2nd century Christians ever even commented on its existence, seems to indicate that the Q document probably did not represent the words of a historical Jesus.
Again, it's possible to construct some sort of scenario by which the real words of Jesus may have been inadvertently lost while all of this other mythic fiction survived, this would just be yet another contrived excuse to add to the apologist's collection of bullshit excuses that attempt to explain away the reality of their Church's early history.
An endless stream of improbable excuses does not make for a very good theory.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
It certainly is possible that the name "Mark" was added later. It is also possible that the story of Mark's life in Alexandria that I explained is just myth as well. Who the hell knows.
But the one thing we do know is that the version of Mark we have today is not the original version. Particularly, we know that the current ending for Mark was added later. The original ending consisted the two Mary's entering the tomb (cave) and finding a young man in a white robe sitting inside. The young man told the women to go out and Jesus would appear to them later. This here seems like some sort of coded reference to Plato's allegory of the cave. |
How so? I am intrigued.
|
It's all part of the mystery-religion thing. Jesus represents a man from "another world" (so to speak) who descends down to Earth to try to enlighten it's inhabitants. (Just like the guy in Plato's story returns to the cave to try to enlighten them). And just like the cave-dwellers of Plato's story, the Jews become murderous towards Jesus because they don't understand what he is saying and prefer to remain ignorant of the "real" nature of the universe.
The young man in Mark's story represents a person who does understand what Jesus has said, and has achieved a new level of enlightenment. And at the end of Mark's original story, this young man emerges from the cave and tells others to go seek out this enlightenment (Jesus) for themselves.
Without the knowledge of "Secret Mark", this character of the young man seems a bit out of place and superfluous. Why the hell did a young guy run away naked when Jesus was arrested? And why was there a young man sitting in Jesus' tomb at the end of Mark's story? But the bits from "Secret Mark" help make this character make more sense.
| sorianofan wrote: |
I really do not know to be honest. Without knowing more of secret mark, the mark I see now with the ending at 16:7 flows properly and seems not to have been botched.
|
Secret mark probably ended at 16:7 as well. We don't have any copies of secret Mark available. All we have are a few lines quoted from it by an early Christian who didn’t like what it had to say. But the parts that we do have seem to fit perfectly, and we can only speculate at how much Mark's original tale had been altered before settling on the form we now see today.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Paul formed his own church, with little regard for what other Christians believed. |
Still, if they were following a moral code, it could not have been Paul's.
|
Then whose moral code was it? (And don't say Jesus... Paul never met the guy)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Other gods had teachings as well. Ever heard of the 10 commandments? (I have already stated my reason for believing that Exodus is pure myth here.) |
Still, this is much different from a mystery cult.
|
Yes, the form of Christianity we have today is different. But the original form which existed before Paul was probably wasn't.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| What then, was "the word of Christ" that Paul was attempting to spread? Do a search for the word "gospel" in the bible. You will see that Paul uses this word on countless occasions. This may seem odd to some modern readers, since the "Gospels" were not written until after his death. But the meaning of the word "Gospel" is simply "The Good News" (god = Good, spel = news) . And what is the good news?.... The good news if that the sins of Adam have been forgiven thanks to the blood sacrifice of the son of a god. The teachings of Jesus weren't the important thing ... it is the blood sacrifice of this diety that matters. And it is this story which Paul wishes to spread (along with his own fucked up views on human morality). |
True, but in that situation he was deferring to someone else's teaching (obviously Jesus'.)
|
Jesus was the authority for Paul's teachings, but not necessarily the source. There are many fucked-up evangelical pricks running around the world today claiming to be acting on the authority of their deity, but that doesn't mean that their deity exists (or that he ideas which the preach aren’t fucked-up),
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
That is my current understanding of what happened (a little simplified, but basically correct).
But the part about Christianity emerging from other similar mystery cults is little more than mere speculation. And I think that the detailed nature of Christian writings (compared to the vague mysteries of other cults), along with it openness about its sacred documents (apposed to keeping sacred documents limited to high-ranking members), which allowed it to eventually beat out its more primitive competitors. I truly believe that if it weren't for a handful of People like Paul and Mark, we would right now be having a discussion of whether or not Mithras was a real historical figure. |
In all likelihood, we would be Muslim, because Islam is very close to temple era Judaism. However, for the reasons I stated, we have reason to believe that the moral code of Christianity came from Jesus himself. I am not very interested in the mythical storyline elements surrounding Jesus, and I suppose that you might be playing this up in order to detract from he important (yet simple) ideas Jesus had.
|
Damn you, you saw through my evil scheme. 
No... the point is that these ideas really are very simple, and could have come from anywhere. The "good stuff" that Jesus supposedly said is so simplistic, it makes you wonder why anybody pays any attention at all. There are many other verifiable real human beings who have said many more things about life on this planet (i.e. Plato, Socrates, Aesop, Orwell). So why do people waste their time ranting and raving about the words of some guy who probably didn't exist? If you were to pick out all the things jusus supposedly said and place it in a book all by itself, it would be about the size of an average children's book. It's just silly to pay so much attention to a guy that really said almost nothing at all.
If the teaching of Jesus are so important, my suggestion to Christians would be to distill these lessons from the bible into a concise "10 commandment" format, and throw the rest of the crap away.
Here.... I'll do it for them....
10 Commandments, Part II
1) Thou shalt obey the original 10 commandments, plus these new ones as well.
2) Thou shalt live you life in preparation for your immortal life in God's kingdom.
3) Thou shalt be kind to the poor and unfortunate.
4) Thou shalt not be a greedy, self-righteous asshole.
5) Thou shalt not judge your fellow man. That's my job, dammit.
6) Thou shalt make peace, not war.
7) Thou shalt not attempt to defend yourself from those in authority. Just do what they say.
ummmm.....
Maybe you would be a good sport and finish these for me, because I'm running out of ideas.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I agree with the "not be violent" part. But the rest seems to mean that you think humans are too ignorant to understand the universe, and that they should remain humble before ancient myths of beings that are better than us. |
Not really. We should accept our limited capacities. We should strive to be better (that's the humanist in me,) but we cannot trick ourselves into believing we are independent from God, or worse, gods unto ourselves.
|
Why do you use the word “tricked” to describe altering your world view to eliminate mythical deities? Are kids “tricked” into believing that Santa Claus isn’t real, or rather, were they “tricked” into believing in that jolly fat man in the first place?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But perhaps I am misunderstanding you. What exactly do you mean when you say that people "must be humble". If you mean that they shouldn't be pompous self-righteous assholes, I might agree with you. But, if you mean that they should bow their heads to imaginary masters... |
The self-righteous thing. You know, act like Loki, JK. Seriously, we learn more and are happier when we accept our strengths along with our weaknesses and not tell ourselves our shit doesn't stink.
|
Yes, I agree that people shouldn’t be annoying. But you don’t need a god to tell you that. You should be able to figure that one out on your own.
| sorianofan wrote: |
I know you are behind 2, and now 3 replies to me. Tell me if I should wait for you to catch up before replying again. |
Damn… did I miss something?
_____
| sorianofan wrote: |
On a side note. I was just reading Philippians and came across a pre-Pauline Christian hymn that runs Phil 2:6-11.
Phil 2:7-8 states "...taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross."
Crucifixion was reserved for those poor and low in status. So, what we have here is a very human portrait of Jesus from Paul. |
I came across that too, but didn’t comment on it yet. It’s interesting that this “hymn” says that Jesus took the form of a “slave”. Where the hell did that come from? And what’s up with this notion that Jesus’ death was due to an overabundance of “obedience”? It almost sounds like this hymn is describing a completely different character than the one presented in the gospels. It almost sounds a bit like the story of Simon Magus
And BTW… were you aware that some people are speculating that Paul of Tarsus may have been Simon Magnus? If that were true, most of everything we have said in this discussion about Paul can be chucked right out of the window.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #31156
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-08-13 17:04
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
First I would like to say that what we are doing know is book length. Just this summer, I wrote over 20,000 words for a mobile AC book. We have hundreds of thousands here. Both of us have read book equivalents of the side we do not agree with. Oh my!
The following goes on quite a bit, so you might want to read it first before responding to any part.
Before we start, I need to make something clear. First, "anthropos" does not mean "dude." It means "man." That's where the word "anthropomorphic" and "anthropology" come from. Anthropology is not the study of theoretical "dudes." It is the study of real live human beings.
When Paul says, "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead," he is saying that both Adam and Jesus were human beings. This does not prove that they were, far from it. But it definitively proves that Paul thought they were. The Jesus Myth proponent errs terribly and stupidly if (s)he proposes that Paul did not portray Jesus as real. It is just simply not true. Paul's Jesus talks, gets killed, has lineage, and raises from the dead. The lineage and raising from the dead part are unlikely, but so is the idea that Augustus Caesar was a God. However, Roman historians recorded that. So, what historians do not is negate the obviously fake crap (Godly lineage, miracles, etcetera,) from the most probably true crap. While King Arthur was a story made up by some dude named Paul (yes, just like the apostle,) Jesus stories were purported by a whole church of people, with sects, with a relative plethora of ancient documentation. Sure, the documentation has a lot of crap, but it also agrees upon several things: Jesus was a man, Jesus taught jewish things, Jesus accused the Jews in power of misrepresenting the real message of the bible.
And big surprise! Every prophet before Jesus DID THE SAME EXACT THING. Isaiah claimed to have the authority of God, but was in actuality rehashing parts of scripture he found more important. Do we doubt that an Isaiah existed? Do we doubt a Jeremiah, Amos, or Zechariah existed? Yet, all we have is one writing from them (which could have been edited and put together by followers) and records like Kings and Chronicles, written hundreds of years after the fact, speaking of their existence. However, outside of the fact they claimed to talk directly to God, WE HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THEIR EXISTENCE. Unlike Hercules and Achilles, where every part of the story is obviously legend and we have no teachings, quotes, or ideas from them, we have that for Jesus, who arguably had all of these things written about him in a period of time many times shorter than Isaiah, Alexander the Great, and even Solomon. We do not doubt that any of these people existed, regardless of all the mythic qualities attributed to them.
The Jesus Myth position, by normal historiographical standards, is simply untenable. The fact that the age of biblical manuscripts and the number of them are "criticisms," when the entire Peloponessian War recorded by Thucydides is from one source, who's latest manuscript is from 1050 C.E. No historians see this as a huge problem. However, Jesus Myth proponents, usually not trained historians (but rather opinionated mysticists or atheists with websites,) make absurd criticisms and parallels with no historical basis. Dionysus was NOT CRUCIFIED. Osiris was NOT CRUCIFIED. Very likely, JESUS WAS NOT CRUCIFIED ("crucifixions" were usually on big logs, no cross of logs.) Dionysus and Osiris were torn to shreds and raised up as flesh (inferred to be torn up flesh.) Yet, Jesus Myth proponents ignore these simple facts, and cite that in the second century or so, that followers of these religions had their leaders crucified. Very likely, any historian worth the paper his phd is written on would realize, "Well, that's because mystery cults adjusted their legends to fit Christianity." Bingo. Sure, Christianity borrowed ideas from mystery cults (especially Paul's baseless Eucharist.) However, outside of Christian mysticism decades after Jesus and the Eucharist, there are no parallels between the two. Granted, Christianity borrowed ideas from a lot of different philosophies and belief systems. However, it cannot be denied that the beliefs were synthesized differently. However, Jesus Myth proponents totally ignore us and tell us about the parallels, Parallels, the PARALLELS! Sorry, that is not very good evidence.
Now, I am not speaking a tirade against you. Neither of us are qualified in this subject matter. Instead, I am criticizing the scholarship that supports your position.
Now, before I get back to discussing your position in the regular I quote you and discuss the quote sort of fashion, I need to bring up the simple fact: Paul thought Jesus was a real guy.
What would Paul proclaim to people about this supposed human being he was talking about? If it is easier for you, let's say that Paul is talking about a fake man, but a supposed man nonetheless.
He goes to Corinth, and walks into the synagogue, and says, "The long wait is over, the messiah has come!"
The Jews kick him out for making a ruckus. They have heard about this crazy Jesus wacko crap. They do not care for it.
Then Paul sees prostelytes walking to the synagogue. He tells them, "The messiah promised in the scripture has come, and he was killed and rose from the dead just like the prophets foretold."
They, being less learned in scripture, took this pretty seriously and they would ask Paul to tell him more. So Paul stays as long as 3 months in Corinth helping set up the Church. Now, if this Jesus guy is real as Paul claims, what the hell did he do and talk about the gentiles might wonder.
So Paul had to tell them something. He could not say a real guy did absolutely nothing, got crucified and rose from the dead end of story. Paul probably told them that Jesus said and did a lot of neat stuff.
Now, this is pure speculation, but it is common sense. Religions based upon people, like Moses or Buddha, have that real guy talk. Any religion based upon a God in the nether world usually does not talk, unless purported by the prophet, who is recorded as talking. Now Paul, did not claim to be a prophet (though his talks with God are borderline with that claim.) He COULD NOT pass a religion off to people about some guy who just died and rose from the dead. People would ask, "What did he say that got him killed?" "What did he do?" Etcetera. This is the case of any religion based upon a person. Moses supposedly did book loads of crap. He was portrayed as a real person, he better damn well have done stuff! Now the myths built around this Jesus character formed much quicker, thus had less time to grow into bigger things (though Catholics and Mormons would do that later.) Nonetheless, whatever Paul talked about then about a supposed real person in all likelihood could not be separated from the fact people thought Jesus was a real person.
Paul in Corinthians in one sentence lays out what he preached to Corinthians the first day he met them (1 Corinthians 2:2):
For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
ou gar ekrina (5656) ti eidenai (5760) en umin ei mh Ihsoun Xriston kai touton estaurwmenon
Roughly, if you literally translate the Greek, it could be read differently as (…Jesus Christ and this death-pole killing.)
However, in the context, "this" is usually translated to mean "his." What would the sentence mean if it was meant as "this?" Well or one, the sentence would make no sense unless Paul was pointing to a picture of Jesus being killed, a crucifixion was happening next to him, or "Jesus Christ" meant "crucifixion." Now, you might hop on that rendering, but the problem is, that rendering would make NO SENSE! It would be like babble. Furthermore, the fact that Paul at least believed Jesus was a real-live human being means that Jesus was slightly more than his death.
So, what we can see in the sentence is that it is extremely probable that Paul was not going to talk like a Greek orator, to speak convincingly with polished rhetoric (read 1 Corinthians 2:1.) Instead, he just talked about who Jesus was and the ultimate importance of Jesus' crucifixion. This was Paul's bag. We have no reason to believe that every Gospel quote was a rendering of what Paul had spoken of. Even the Didache, which I will get more into in my response to you, draws parallels even though it was obviously written by someone who was not an adherent of Paul's. Thus, as any historian worth her/his phd would conclude, these guys were speaking of ideas theygot from someone else. So, we can claim that Kephas made it all up. Maybe he did, but that is pure speculation. Evidently, he
Claimed that he was a follower of Jesus and got his ideas from him. So connect the dots. Jesus came up with the ideas.
Most historians take this for granted. However, even if you actually look at the opposing arguments, they totally ignore historiography and often common sense. Sure, there is some probability that they were right, but you can also come up with conspiracy theories that the government blew up the world trade center and that Alexander the Great was a mythological figure that represented symbolically the work of a dozen or so generals who conquered Persia while their king stood at home. We can say, "Well it's possible," but it is also important to say, "Well, it is most likely stupid!"
So, let me wrap up my conclusion out of all of this. Jesus was a prophet. He did something that many prophets do--use scripture to prove that everyone else is missing out on the message and doing it wrong. He might have took Daniel and Greek philosophy too seriously and believed in the afterlife. He might have been cryptic about the matter like the Isaiah. He had some followers, obviously none or very few of them educated, because he was in the impoverished area of Galilee and they wandered place to place, following Jesus' semi-ascetic attitudes. People with any education are not going to avoid work most of the time and leave everything they have (which surprise surprise, Jesus preached this to a degree.) Some guy(s) wrote down the stuff Jesus said the (t)he(y) found most important or talked about it to others. Rumors and legends arose (like about Elvis) and they grew until the point that the Church became hierarchal, and saw new legends as "made up" and "heresy." Thus, the legends mixed in with the truth became the standard for "truth" among the Church. That is my position.
Now, finally to your responses. If I covered them fully in the above, I will skip over them or acknowledge that I responded to them already.
I never said that the gospels were a direct and accurate portrayal of Paul's teachings. I only said that Paul predates the gospels, and that Paul was the person primarily responsible for spreading this Palestinian religion throughout the Mediterranean -- And that since all of the gospel writers did not live in Palestine, they probably learned about Christianity thanks to Paul (and thanks to the "churches" Paul left in his wake).
| Quote: |
| But, yes... If the resurrection actually occurred I don't think you would have such varying opinion about it. Things like that don't happen very often (if at all). |
Precisely. Standard details to the event are not forgotten. For example, John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln, in a theater, and said in latin "death to tyrants." None of this stuff changed over time. Lincoln's love for democracy and honesty sure did change (he was a dictator and flip flopped the slavery issue publicly,) but specific details witnessed by people did not.
| Quote: |
| Paul said that his disciples were with him during his "last supper". As far as I know, that is the only reference to anybody seeing the dude before he was strung up. |
Unless the Didache is earlier, where it quotes Jesus many times (though does not in the demeanor of a sayings Gospel,) Paul's "commands" from the Lord are evidence of a ministry. Furthermore, the last supper was a secret revelation to Paul. It did not happen.
| Quote: |
| Josephus? Are you serious? Have you ever actually read that passage? |
Yes, I have read both and the scholars are still out. Skip the crappy wikipedia article and read this for an unbiased look:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
It is important to note that throughout the first 3 centuries, James was referred to as "the brother of the Lord." Never, is he referred to as "the brother of Jesus." Interpolators are usually morons. They would have made it "the brother of Lord Jesus Christ" or some crap. The fact the interpolator did not copy the Greek of the NT and the Josephus did not think all that much of Jesus (evidenced by the Church Fathers bashing him for it,) the fact he just identifies James as Jesus' brother was to point out that it was that James and that his brother was that Jesus, not the Jesus son of Damaeous who took power. "Christ" was not a Jewish idea. Saying "Christ" as an identifier would have not been painful to a first century Jew. Do not take my word for it. Read the scholarship.
| Quote: |
| Some later Christian, upon seeing this connection, probably inserted the words "who was called Christ" into the text at a later date. Either that, or you have to believe that Jesus' dad's name was "Damneus"... and that James was killed while Jesus was still alive (if that's true, how did Paul ever meet him?), and before Ananus made Jesus a "High Priest" of Judea. |
You are reading the passage incorrectly. Those are different Jesuses. That's why they have different identifiers. The fact that early Church fathers seemed to have not read Josephus and quote a messed up version of the passage (they claim that Josephus claims that James' death caused the destruction of the temple) shows that there was something there, but they did not read seriously into it. Thus, it would have had to be interpolated in the second century by a Christian. Not likely.
[qote]Even if we assume that Josephus is talking about the "real" Jesus (and that's a big "if"), this little snippet of Jesus' historical life doesn't jive with what appears in the bible at all. Again... if this is the historical Jesus, the guy that people worship in church isn't. And it would be a pretty sad commentary on Jesus' life if the only thing Josephus thought worthy of mentioning about this "great spiritual leader" is the fact that his brother had rocks thrown at him. [/quote]
THE BIBLE IS NOT HISTORY! To Josephus, as it is to you, Jesus was a figure with a bunch of fake mythology around him. It was not worth his time to speak much more about him than the fact he was the brother of a James that was killed as part of the politicking of sadduccees and that Jesus was some wise man (not prophet nor son of God) that the tribe of Christians still followed, even after his death (this, if we assume the testimonium flavium has some truth in it.)
| Quote: |
| Actually, 1Cor 9:5 makes it clear that Paul's usage of the word "Adelphos" does not indicate a blood relationship. |
It could. It could not. All that I know is that there is an implied church hierarchy. The fact that it is possible means that Jesus was possibky a real guy. However, this is hardly a sticking point in the argument.
| Quote: |
| A revelation that he stole from prior myths. |
But took out the dancing, animal killing, and flesh eating, and ripped off the Eucharist in the Didache (and Essene love feasts) but made it more cultish.
| Quote: |
| And Josephus' account of James dying while "Jesus" was still alive seems to invalidate Paul's claim of meeting with "James, the brother of Christ" |
Again, you totally misread the passage. Those were different Jesuses.
| Quote: |
| And as for the "scholarly consensus", I have to assume that you are talking about Christian scholars. Because only a scholar desperate to defend their faith would try to use these flimsy (and contradicting) accounts in order to prop up their belief in a flesh-and-bone messiah. |
Flimsiness is at the very basis of Jesus Myth proponents. "It could have been this, it might have been that parallel (from the wrong century entirely,) Paul might have meant this (when he most certainly did not!,) there is no written evidence (there is!,) there is no early enough written evidence (there is a crap load by ancient standards,) all the evidence must be thrown out the windo because there is mythology (okay, no roman emperor ever existed because emperor worship existed,) and etcetera."
The evidence for Jesus actual existence is there from several sources. Even Penn and Teller concede this. Intra-NT parallelism leads us to believe that there was indeed ideas that preceded the sources that came from probably 1 guy.
| Quote: |
| Yes, but as I said, I only mean that in the same sense that there may have been a flesh-and-bone guy which served as the basis for the Santa Claus myth. The question remains if this any remnants of this historical Jesus found their way into the gospels. Jesus (or Yeshua, Joshua) was a very common name back then. So it is fair to say that there were many flesh-and-bone Jews names Jesus who once walked the earth. And it's even quite possible that several of these were rabbis, mystics, or side-show magicians. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not any of these people served as the character basis for the Jesus we see in the gospels. |
You are ignoring the fact that all early sources attribute ideas to Jesus and those ideas are the basis of his religion, so outside of the mysticism, we have not mythical elements we can attribute to that man.
| Quote: |
| Yes, the question is whether or not the teachings in the bible stem from a real guy named Jesus, or if they were a collection of sayings from various authors which were later attributed to a mythical character. |
Then, all those authors wrote in a short period of time, affected the same group of people, who then took what was said and attributed it to Jesus. Furthermore, this would totally fly in the face of a belief system that everyone thought that Jesus was a real guy. If they all thought this, they must have thought someone heard him say things. This makes it all extremely probable that Jesus did.
| Quote: |
| If you want to live your life by the lessons of the Jesus character, that's your business. |
True, but from a historian's standpoint, he is more than a character in a book.
| Quote: |
Before I proceed I feel I should say something. Although I'm a little ashamed to admit it, I am quite learned in this ancient belief system. My dad was into astrology big-time, and started teaching about it when I was very young. One of the very first books I remember reading was "The Compleat Astrologer" (1970 edition) by Derek and Julia Parker. Actually, that very same book is sitting on my desk right now. And right in front of me is a poster that shows the zodiac and the positions of all the stars of the constellations. Additionally, to my right is a poster I drew up myself, which shows the positions of all the planets (and the angular separation between each) at the exact time of my birth (all calculated by yours truly).
Of course, I now realize that this ancient "science" is mostly crap, but there were a few valuable things I learned from it (such as an understanding of the motion of the planets). |
Cool. I wish I knew more about astronomy (not astrology.)
| Quote: |
| In any case, this is why any astrological symbolism is the bible is of special interest to me … and there is a ton of astrological symbolism to be found in the bible. And since you brought up the "end of the world", I think I should point out that this phrase may have been mistranslated. The original phrase may have been "end of the age". |
This makes sense, because Jesus was not being literal. However, "this age"/"this generation" is also found in the Old Testament to mean a present age of sinfulness, within a human generation. I should probably add it to the wiki.
By the way, Jesus feeds a bunch of people with 3 fish once. So the pices symbolism is probably wrong and you should include that.
| Quote: |
| The existence of a Q document does not in any way indicate the existence of a guy named Jesus. The Q document is just a collection of out-of-context parables. They could have been written by a single author (like a Jewish Aesop) or they could have been a collection of sayings from various authors (like some form of midrash). Considering that the Q document was formed in several layers, I would vote for the latter. But who knows... Since Jesus was such a popular name, it's possible that some Jewish guy named Jesus may have actually contributed some of the sayings. But that isn't the point. |
Have you ever read the "International Q Project"'s rendition of Q by the university of Toronto? Read it. Sometimes, the sayings have no context. Sometimes, Jesus' opponents can be found in Q. Thus, not everything was a contextless midrash saying from anywhere. He sayings were sometimes attributed to specific situations.
It is important to point out that midrash began in the second century, AFTER Jesus. So, Jesus began it, or practiced a proto-form of it. This is possible. Jesus, like all prophets in the OT, quotes scripture, expands upon it, reanalyzes it, infers to it, and sometimes is totally original. So, the "random midrash" explanation does not hold, because Jesus is closer to a recorded prophet than a rabbi who takes a psalm, and expands upon it. Jesus' sayings are usually more interconnected in scripture and less "Psalm 110.1 said this, and I would like to add…" Sometimes he DOES do that. But not all the time.
| Quote: |
| Here we see the real words of Santa quoted in verses 21-24 and verse 56. We can also see that writer of this gospel clearly does not believe Santa is just a mythical being since he is described as having various human body parts such as "rosy cheeks", "dimples", and a "chin". |
Bad argument. Do I really need to explain it to you why? You know that the story was written 1500 years after the fact, written purposely as fiction, and thus, did not infer a real person.
Things about Jesus are written as few as a couple of decades after the fact, written purposely as (distorted) theological non-fiction, and did infer a real person.
| Quote: |
| So, yes... we have some words attributed to a guy named Jesus written on paper. But the thing that we don't have is anybody who claims to have met the guy while he was alive. All we have is people who claimed to see a poltergeist, and people who wrote allegorical accounts of this guy's life. |
It is inferred that Kephas knew Jesus…thus, Paul's opposition to him about the Gospel could not prevent Paul from holding him to a higher level.
| Quote: |
At this point, and allow me to pause and reflect on the varying levels of certainty that we posses for the existence of various historical figures.
--------------------------------------------------------
Certainly real beyond a shadow of a doubt - I have never witnessed any historical figures for myself, and neither has anybody else. None of us were alive at the time that these people supposedly lived, so it is possible to devise some sort of Orwellian conspiracy theory which claims that all of the information we have about these people were fabricated. Even though there is no credible reason to believe that the people in the next category weren't real, there is no way to claim that the matter is 100% certain. (I mean, there really is no way to prove with 100% certainty that you even exist.)
Almost certainly real - In this category I would include most emperors, kings, and other people for whom there are multiple eye-witness (and realistic) accounts, with the possible addition of some archeological evidence. Plato would fall into this category, since we have various writings attributed to him, plus the writings of several contemporaries that attest to his existence.
Probably real - In this category I would place people such Socrates. We don't have any of his original writings, but we have credible eye-witness accounts (Such as Plato's accounts of Socrates).... and we have the "argument from silence" that if any of Plato's contemporaries believed that Plato was making this guy up, they probably would have said so.
Uncertain, but most likely real - In this category I would place any number of minor historical figures, whose existence is only attested by one or two second-hand sources. A good example is just about anybody mentioned in the writings of Josephus. For instance, I would place John the Baptist in this category. Josephus discusses the life of John in the framework of a entirely plausible and historically accurate setting. Plus, the existence of John is attested by several others, including early Christians. It's possible that Josephus might have been fooled by a fictitious oral fable of a miracle worker, but there is really no particular reason to believe that this is the case.
Probably fiction - In this category I would place Jesus (although I am strongly tempted to place him in the next category). In this category I would also place people like King Arthur (or rather, the historical king on top of which the King Arthur myth was built). In these cases it is possible that these grand myths were built on top of the stories of real people, but it is difficult to peal the layers of fiction back and reveal the nugget of truth at the center. Therefore very little is known about the “real” lives of these people, or even if they really existed at all.
Almost certainly fictional - In this category we find all of the gods and heroes of myth. These are people for which only we find only outrageously unrealistic tales to attest for their existence. Let's take the example of Hercules. This Roman character is based on the Greek Heracles. Some early Christians believed that this guy was a real person (go figure). The story of Hercules could have quite possibly been based on any number of historical strong-men, but most people agree that the story of his life that we possess today is most certainly mythic fiction.
Definitely fictional - You can't prove a negative. It's entirely possible that a Jedi knight names Luke Skywalker may in fact reside in a galaxy far-far-away. And despite the fact that the author of this fable will voluntarily admit that he just made the guy up, you can't prove that Luke isn't out there until you check each and every planet in the universe. And even if you were able to do this, proponents of the "historical Luke" theory would merely point out that Luke lived "A Long Time Ago" and that you would need to build a time machine to find him. And even if you were able to do that, and watch every planet in the universe at all times throughout history, the proponents would merely switch their story and claim that Luke lives in a parallel universe. |
Again, this is funny, but here are my ratings:
Jesus as a real guy: Probably real.
Quotes from Jesus: Uncertain, but most likely real.
Jesus literally rising from the dead: Fictional.
We have several recent sources, cross-linked sayings, a lack of historically feasible counter-explanations, and guys like Census who did not doubt the real guy. He knew this is how people would have had recorded history about Jesus.
| Quote: |
| There really is no reason to treat the biblical character of Jesus any differently from any other mythic hero. Just about all mythic heroes could be claimed to based on some historical figure. |
Like Roman emperors. Like Alexander the Great. When we have probable reason to believe, "Well, it is likely that some guy said stuff" and a bunch of early sources that said he did, you are really reaching when you say he did not. It is fine to doubt things that are scientifically impossible, but if you use different standards for different historical people, you are a bad historian.
| Quote: |
| Um... is it just me, or does the first response contradict the second? |
Not if we are living in the Kingdom right now. We make our own hell and heaven.
| Quote: |
| Just about every ancient civilization believed some sort of an afterlife, but I think you are mostly right --- The idea of two separate afterlives formed somewhat later, and was finally perfected by the Christians. |
The Sumerians believed you came a shadow for eternity. THAT SUCKS!
| Quote: |
| Dammit.... no we don't. |
Yes we do! Well, your mommy wears army boots. No! Your mommy does. Your mommy! No, your mommy!
| Quote: |
| this seems like the kind of thing that Paul would might not have originally said. |
Well, if you totally distort everything Paul has said, write off the several instances where Jesus is referred to as a human being, then yes, it does not sound like something Paul said. The fact that no ancient manuscripts say otherwise (manuscripts may disagree on a lot of minor things) gives us good reason to believe it was always there.
| Quote: |
Here we have Paul stating that Jesus was born "a descendant of David according to the flesh"... something that he fails to elaborate on in any of his other writings. But you're right ... that's just my unfounded opinion. |
Well, genealogy broke down after the Babylonian captivity…and it was probably falsified since way before that. So, Paul cannot elaborate on something that is unproven.
| Quote: |
| And on a side note, were you aware that there really isn't any archeological evidence for the existence of King David either, apart from the books of the old testament? The best we have is several 9th an 8th century BCE artifacts that indicate battles between neighboring nations and several kings of Israel who were of the "House of David" (kings who claimed lineage from David). But there is no direct evidence for David himself, other than partially-mythic biblical tales. |
We do have evidence of the temple, which indicates, the empire had some power. We also have writings from Isaiah recorded in the 8th century BC, which shows that the lineages found in the Annals of the Kings of Judah were not false.
| Quote: |
| Paul could have mentioned the fact that he had met with Jesus' original followers in Jerusalem, and that he is acting on their authority as well. |
He infers this in Galatians 1! Why would meeting with these fellas have any importance if they did not know more of Jesus. Paul, though he had a different Gospel, needed Kephas' authority for good reason. Kephas was most likely a living link between the Church and Jesus.
| Quote: |
None of this proves that Jesus was a real person, any more than it proves that Adam was real person. The use of Anthropos by Paul doesn’t mean that Jesus was a real person, in the same way that calling Hercules a "muscle-man" does not imply that he was real either. "Anthropos" is jest a generic masculine term to describe a person. (A good English equivalent might be the word "dude" or "guy".)
So in 1 Cor 15:21, Paul is saying that the first dude brought death, and the second dude brought life. But this isn't the same as having Paul stating that somebody ever actually knew a flesh-and-bone "dude" named Jesus. So yes, Paul talks about this "dude" named Jesus, but only in generic mythical ways ... Such as in the present case, where Paul compares Jesus to another mythical character (Adam) and has him doing all sorts of mythical things (like being specifically created by a deity so that he can later appease that very same deity through some sort of self-sacrifice). |
You are way off here. It is okay, we make mistakes. I made the mistake of once believing 2 Peter was real.
The mistake here is huge and a total misreading of the passage and misunderstanding of "anthropos!" Read the passage, realize anthropos means physical man, understand that Jesus was a much more recent purported character in Paul's opinion, and you will see what Paul was saying. If Jesus was not real at all, Paul was certainly not singing this tune.
| Quote: |
| An ancient reference to a mythical character in the third person cannot be construed as proof of their fleshy existence. |
No, it cannot. It means hat the person existed according to that person. Now, we have to assess the probability if any person existed at all, whether other sources speak of it, and whether other historians do. Probability increasingly shows that Paul was right at least about that.
Now, you can argue "None of the other historians talk about it." Why didn't Christian interpolators put Jesus in them by that logic. Why did Pliny the Younger curse "Christus" and instead of talking about how fake he was, said nothing more of it? Remember, his father wrote about the history of the area. Jesus might have not been important enough to write about, but if Pliny the Elder knew Jesus was fake, wouldn't he tell his son???
| Quote: |
| Yes, it is only an "argument from silence". But it is a very good one. |
That might be the over-statement of the century. Arguments from silence are never good. My Pliny the Younger argument is not good. My argument from historical sources and interconnections, in the world of historiography, is "very good" by history standards. However, you have thrown those standards out the window in this instance. It does not mean you are wrong, but you are less likely right. Historians are paid to figure out what happened in the past. That is their job. We should defer to proper historiographical standards like a scientist defers to the historical method.
| Quote: |
| So for the earliest source of the Jesus story we have is Paul, and Paul never sheds any light on the historical life of Jesus. |
Besides the fact that Jesus talks, was killed by the gentiles (says so in 1 Corinthians 8,) had beliefs that correspond with sources which attribute sayings to Jesus, had a supposed genealogy, and was called "anthropos," Paul never indicates Jesus was human. If I was not writing in ms word right now, I would make a rolleyes to indicate the fact that I am being sarcastic, though I am not trying to be malicious.
| Quote: |
| This 2nd century non-Christian recognized that the story of Jesus was nothing more than mythic allegory, and states unequivocally that many contemporary Christian leaders understood this fact as well. |
Yet, he believe that Jesus was a bastard son and a sorcerer. He thinks a lot of things are allegorical and naturally explainable, but none significant. He did not doubt the existence of Jesus himself. Read up on Census.
| Quote: |
| Hmm.. you weren't the guy that edited my comments on the Jesus Myth page, were you? In any case, I've rephrased that section of the page to state… |
Yeah. I am "wikilagata." Sounds gay, but it is named after my cat, Wiskas, who is nick named "Wiki." For example, I wrote the criticisms. Your latest edit is best and more accurate.
| Quote: |
| I witness proof of this "cave myth" just about every single day. On my way to work, I pass the Lady of the Snows Shrine, which has a recreation of the nativity scene which was built inside of a cave. |
Paul started it and gentiles probably attributed this crap all after the fact. It really does nothing to shed any light on the historicity of Jesus. It is a side show.
_________
| Quote: |
I'll have to check it out. But if the text was written somewhere between 70-160CE, can it really shine any more light on the nature of a historical Jesus? It doesn't seem to quote Jesus directly -- It just sums up some of the teachings found in the gospels. And since it was probably written after the gospels, they could have easily gotten this information directly from them.
I skimmed through the text, but did not really see anything original (i.e. some "lost" teaching of a historical Jesus). Did I miss something? |
Well, I argue that the source is much closer to 50 CE if not before. Here is my position on it more specifically:
| Quote: |
I wonder what anyone's opinion here is about the Didache. It is a relatively early Christian work, unless it was totally falsified by piecing together the Gospels and the Epistle of Barnabbas. It claims to be written by the 12 Apostles, but outside of this title, nothing there indicates that. I suspect that it was a brief testement of Jesus and Christian theology spread about relatively early during the Church's formation.
I have several reasons (Keep in mind, my research is limited to reading it and reading articles linked to it in Earlychristianwritings.com and some googing:)
-The content is highly Jewish in character. It calls gentiles "dogs" and it heavily relies upon a Jewish document called "The Two Ways." If it is was a Jewish Christian document, this increases the probability that it preserves less corrupted sayings and thology. The Canonical Gospels appear to be written by greeks towards a gentile audience, and are more probably written after it.
-The instructions for setting up churches asks people to elect members to lead it, probably out of merit. This means that there was not an established Church hierarchy at the time of its creation.
-There are still traveling prophets and apostles at the time of its creation.
-Many of the sayings found in Matthew, but not Mark or Luke are found in the Didache. Mark does not share much at all. This means that when Matthew was written, Didache could have been a source along side of Q and Mark. If the Didache was based on Matthew, because both share the most Jesus sayings, how did it by chance exclude parts of Matthew that are from Mark? This must mean the Didache was not based upon Matthew unless the writer carefully took Matthew, negated everything from Mark, and the compiled the sayings. Of course, this would not make any sense.
-The document's purpose appears to be for founding a Church. While the Epistles are on the most part silent about what Jesus has said, that is because they were letters concerning Paul's (or someone else's) theology, because it was assumed that whomever received the letter already knew of Jesus' teachings, perhaps from a source like the Didache.
-The document does not have any gnostic tendencies, warn against docetism, speak of the destruction of the temple, or mention any element of Christianity proceeding 70 CE.
-Its representation of the eucharist is striking for its more Jewish than pagan character (Pau's contains allusions to flesh and blood eating, seen in mystery cults of the period.) Chapter 9 of the Didache reads as follows:
Quote
Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..
And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.
The wine here does not represent blood, but instead Jesus' role as a successor savior to King David while the bread represents the scattered nature of those in the Church instead of flesh. It can be debated whether Christianity's association with pre-Christian theophagy was the result of an alleged vision of the Apostle Paul (In 1 Corintians 11:23-26, Paul claims that Jesus himself told him what to say during the Eucharist...but Paul never met Jesus during his living ministry) and the practice which resulted from it. If the Didache is indeed an accurate source, Jewish Christians not converted by Paul practiced a different eucharist that has not been practiced for centuries. |
Most convincing for dating is the lack of Mark material (which means that it was not redacted and had to be written before Mark, thus before the destruction of the temple, lack of Church hierarchy, and very Jewish representation of Jesus. Thus, the theology is purer, the sayings are perhaps more accurate, it shows that an early source attributed Jesus as a human being. It is very interesting and should be in the Bible. Well, outside of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church's bible---they put everything in there.
| Quote: |
| Luke is the guy who wrote Acts, which includes a lot of information about Paul. Luke certainly knew of Paul's existence, and was familiar with his writings (but whether or not he actually met the guy is debatable). |
He knows Paul legends. He surprisingly never quotes paul ad verbatim. Unlike the Gospel, where he claims to have read many records on Jesus, he makes no such claim in Acts.
| Quote: |
| I see what you mean. I suppose it is possible to discuss issues of religious law without ever citing a quote from your religious leader. But it's just odd that Paul managed to do this in all seven of his extant letters. |
Or that Quakers do it all the time. Yes, this is my counter argument from silence. It is not great, but at least it is almost like a case study. Take a bunch of Christians, who "live by the spirit" as Paul dictated, and see how they right. They (perhaps coincidentally) write and talk awfully a lot like Paul on these matters.
| Quote: |
| But it needs to mentioned that the Quakers knew every one of their members were familiar with Jesus' story, and had access to copies of the bible. In Paul's time, this was not the case. |
Was it? What if every Church had some oral teachings, a didache like document, a Q, maybe a proto-Thomas (which after reading a good deal of it, I am souring on it--it looks redacted.)
| Quote: |
| I mean, Paul discusses the mythic elements of the Jesus story several times (i.e the resurrection and ghostly visions), but fails to mention anything other than these obvious myths. |
Maybe written records and oral history lacked anything overly mythical and Paul added it for authority. People were stupid and believed it. (Again, argument from silence.)
| Quote: |
| A collection of quotes passed down orally for 30 years (and never once mentioned by the primary source from that period of time, Paul) just doesn't seem likely. |
The Illiad did this for hundreds of years. It is certainly possible. People were more memory oriented back then. It is more of an old world thing. In Arabic nations, many muslims have the entire Qu'ran memorized. It is not impossible. It is that we have not been educated to use memory that way…because it is more accurate to write it down and cite it.
| Quote: |
| If that was the way his parables were preserved, it seem very likely that what was preserved probably isn’t very accurate. |
Again, this is not necessarily true as you claim. Read later when I speak about Genesis for a fuller response to this.
| Quote: |
| And in any case, the lessons that these parable teach aren't very important in the first place, so I really don't see what all the fuss is about. |
Yeah, who needs righteousness and love. That stuff is crap!
| Quote: |
| The literacy rate among Jews has always been high, even back in the 1st century. Even back then, a significant portion of Jewish boys received weekly religious lessons in the Torah in preparation for their Bar Mitzvah. Although it would be wrong to say that all Jewish boys back in Jesus’ time were literate, it is also wrong to portray 1st century Palestine as some sort of stone-age culture. Most men in Jerusalem were literate, even back then. |
Yes. Educated boys who were relatively well off in Jerusalem. From the history I read, Jews in the country side, outside of circumcision and the Sabbath, did not follow dietary law. They were not educated into it. It is akin to how poor stupid people in America know "Jesus is 10rdz05" but know nothing about him. Just like in Socrates time, many Athenians were slave owners and educated…yet, Socrates never wrote a thing. Luckily, Plato and some others were incredibly prolific. In the countryside in Galilee, you are not going to find this. Furthermore, Jesus was not a philosopher in the sense of the word who would write books about his beliefs. He though scripture revealed his beliefs. So, what we have are writings that survived from the gentile church, and due to how history is, almost nothing of the Jewish Church, and possibly zilch from Galilee (though some think the Didache is--I do not agree.)
If Christianity did not spread and all we were left with about Christianity was from a couple Roman historians in the 4th century, we would probably assume that the nutty religion was began by Jesus as purported. This is what historians do. However, we have a lot more than that. Anyone who wants to take the myth position is doing a lot more philosophical exercise (which is fine) than history. Why? Maybe atheists are turned off by Christian theology and smug Christians, so it makes them more comfortable to believe Jesus never existed anyway. I do not know the motivations. All I know is that it is poor and contradictory scholarship. It is a fun issue to speculate about, but to pretend that the Jesus Myth is a serious historical position is ludicrous my the regular standards of historiography.
| Quote: |
Not to get off the subject, but Genesis was written down long before the Jews got their hands on it (See: the Enûma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh)
(Actually, I guess this is getting back to the original subject of this thread … “Who Wrote the Old Testament”) |
LOL! Let's look at Genesis like historians. It probably had 3 main sources, several (if not dozens) random sources, and one redactor. The written sources probably came from oral tradition. The oral tradition was shaped by creative people, the Enuma Elish, and a popular flood story in the fertile crescent. However, isn't it amazing that about 1500 years separated by the culture which created the Enuma Elish, the Israelites retained so many key aspects of it in their oral and later written histories. They were so accurate, we can even catch on the nuances and plot of the Enuma Elish in a source 1500 years separated from it.
Furthermore, Genesis keeps the accurate name of clan and city names as the name of the "patriarchs." So, clans that have been gone for over a dozen decades with their cities, were recorded separately by the correct name in Genesis. Genesis is a mythological triumph of the human memory and even, human proto-history (Thucydides pretty much invented historiography at the same time.) If Oral Tradition can be that accurate over hundreds if not a thousand years in Genesis, how trivial is a couple decades for NT works? It does not mean the sources are totally accurate. It does mean they can keep their story straight and remember key names, phrases, and etcetera. That is why the Gospels break down after Jesus death…because the events afterward did not happen by historical standards.
As a brief note, there are works within the Hindu tradition, much longer than genesis or Homer's works, that were memorized for about 2,000 years before being written down. Whoa to say the least!
| Quote: |
| Yes, but 1st century Palestine was full of literate Jews, |
In Jerusalem among the Pharisee and sadduccee sects…gee, I wonder why the Gospels are so harsh on the educated elite and their lawyers and scribes…
| Quote: |
| was occupied by educated Romans. |
Who did not give a crap about "nutty" Jews. That's why they are all silent on John the Baptist.
| Quote: |
| It isn't fair to compare this timeframe to that of the Iliad or the Great Flood. Literacy was certainly low by modern standards, but there were enough educated people living at the time to record any important event. Josephus and Philo both mention innumerable events which pale in importance to Jesus, yet do not mention Jesus |
Because outside of Jesus miracle stories, Jesus was not "special" by ancient historian standards. Jesus did not politic. That's my counter-argument from silence.
| Quote: |
| even though the mention several other of the characters which appear in the gospel accounts, such as John the Baptist, Pilate, and King Herod. |
As far as I know, only Josephus records John. Pilate and Herod were in politics, thus they would be mentioned.
| Quote: |
| Again... parallels between various writers about a mythical hero do not imply that they are talking about a real person. The people who wrote the gospels didn't know Jesus... nor did they know anybody else who knew Jesus either. This isn't a case of these tales of a real hero (Jesus) being passed down orally and documented by the writers of the Gospels. What we have here is Mark writing an allegorical tale about Jesus (and plagiarizing various other myths in the process, adding almost NO original material of his own).... and then this allegorical work serving as the basis of two other pieces of fiction, which were woven together with some nifty sayings from some sort of Jewish Midrash. |
…before Midrash existed. We have early written accounts by Paul, the Didache, and Q, that speak about Jesus, wish interconnect with each other theologically, and have no evidence of being reliant upon one another. Then we have later sources, the Gospels, which agree theologically and borrow from these sources and add things, but they too interconnect with all the other sources. This is a very good historical argument. It does not answer all the philosophical what ifs, but let me state, if we were historically that critical with everyone, almost nobody really existed.
| Quote: |
| Similar parallels show that Matthew/Mark/Luke weren't the original people who made this shit up, but it doesn't show that somebody else didn't make this shit up before them. |
The sayings magically made up themselves!
| Quote: |
| I agree that the gospel writers used a common source for their parables --- But there is no reason to believe that the Q document represented the work of a man named Jesus, or even that it represented the work of a single individual at all. |
It is more than Q. Q had basis before Paul and itself, that they have things in common. Connect the historical dots! Add Didache in the mix if you believe it is applicable! Add Mark parallels. It all adds up.
Curiously, John has almost no parallels…it might be close to useless to us historically.
| Quote: |
| Again... it is important to point out that even though this Q document was apparently wide-spread enough for all the gospel writers to get their hands on it, no copies were preserved, and no 2nd century Christians ever attested to its existence. If the Q document represented the real words of Jesus... and existed at the same time as the letters of Paul and the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.... you really have to wonder why they weren't preserved while these other works were. If a legitimate collection of Jesus' sayings existed, it would not have been discarded on purpose. |
It could have been lost with Jewish Christianity, which after the deaths of Kephas, Paul, James, and John, those who had kept the separate Churches united no longer existed. Thus, schisms occurred and traditions branched off. Luckily for us, things like the Didache have not been lost to us forever…or we would have no idea what the Jewish Christians really believed.
| Quote: |
| However, if the Q document was just some sort of Jewish Midrash (or if it was taken from some other cult) early Christians would have probably ignored it -- that is, they would have ignored it until Matthew and Luke put these words into Jesus' mouth. |
Wow. Speculation! Where is this other cult?
If you read up on the Jesus sayings, some even found in Thomas but no where else, Clement sometimes talks about them, they are found are inferred from scripture, or they are totally original but theologically similar to what Paul talks about a lot (like concern for the poor, as which we see in Galatians 2, was universal among Christians unlike mystery cults.) What we see is a broad list of ideas and philosophies, seemingly combined into the Jewish context. For all the reasons I stated concerning intra-christian parallelism, this reveals that these ideas existed before the written records we have. Thus, as Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, it really narrows down the amount of people and the time period responsible for the ideas. All the records claim it is Jesus. The evidence supports this, not contradicts this.
| Quote: |
| And the fact that no extant copies of the Q document exist today, and the fact that no 1st or 2nd century Christians ever even commented on its existence, seems to indicate that the Q document probably did not represent the words of a historical Jesus. |
Those Christians liked Matthew and awful lot, which quoted Q. Thus, your conclusion is unlikely.
| Quote: |
| An endless stream of improbable excuses does not make for a very good theory. |
Whoa, we finally agree about something in this million word long post from hell (I missed Church to write this!)
| Quote: |
It's all part of the mystery-religion thing. Jesus represents a man from "another world" (so to speak) who descends down to Earth to try to enlighten it's inhabitants. (Just like the guy in Plato's story returns to the cave to try to enlighten them). And just like the cave-dwellers of Plato's story, the Jews become murderous towards Jesus because they don't understand what he is saying and prefer to remain ignorant of the "real" nature of the universe.
The young man in Mark's story represents a person who does understand what Jesus has said, and has achieved a new level of enlightenment. And at the end of Mark's original story, this young man emerges from the cave and tells others to go seek out this enlightenment (Jesus) for themselves.
Without the knowledge of "Secret Mark", this character of the young man seems a bit out of place and superfluous. Why the hell did a young guy run away naked when Jesus was arrested? And why was there a young man sitting in Jesus' tomb at the end of Mark's story? But the bits from "Secret Mark" help make this character make more sense. |
Hmmm. I agree with that. Perhaps some Hellenized editor took out the overly platonic parts of Mark, because even the added parts are not that Gnostic at all, if not too early to be.
| Quote: |
| Secret mark probably ended at 16:7 as well. We don't have any copies of secret Mark available. All we have are a few lines quoted from it by an early Christian who didn’t like what it had to say. But the parts that we do have seem to fit perfectly, and we can only speculate at how much Mark's original tale had been altered before settling on the form we now see today. |
Judging that the copy of secret mark was not altered at all outside of those parts, it is safe to say that the version we have now (even a secret-fied version if you print it out with the secret part included,) will pretty much look the same as the original if you cut off the extended ending.
| Quote: |
| Then whose moral code was it? (And don't say Jesus... Paul never met the guy) |
Jesus, because Paul heard about the guy and associated himself with Kephas who probably knew the guy, and oh yeah, Jesus "told him stuff."
Just think about Paul's desperate attempt to claim he is a "Pillar" of the church in Galatians. He has to claim that he has special authority, that he is more than a random Apollos or Barnabbas who merely spread the word. His claim to fame is that he talked to Jesus too, at a later date, which would make his message more accurate. He would not need to resort to such claims if he was not being compared to guys who actually knew what they were talking about, possibly from experience. Again, argument from mostly silence!
| Quote: |
| Yes, the form of Christianity we have today is different. But the original form which existed before Paul was probably wasn't. |
The fact that Jewish Christians were mostly Jewish, it was probably much different than a mystery cult (as Paul's Eucharist was cultish, the Jewish one was not.)
| Quote: |
Damn you, you saw through my evil scheme.
No... the point is that these ideas really are very simple, and could have come from anywhere. The "good stuff" that Jesus supposedly said is so simplistic, it makes you wonder why anybody pays any attention at all. There are many other verifiable real human beings who have said many more things about life on this planet (i.e. Plato, Socrates, Aesop, Orwell). So why do people waste their time ranting and raving about the words of some guy who probably didn't exist? |
1. He probably did.
2. His modifactions of Judiasm and other "simple sayings" in my opimnion are more helpful for dealing with the human condition than writing a huge story why we should not lie. I like Plato and Orwell, so I am not going to bash them!
| Quote: |
| It's just silly to pay so much attention to a guy that really said almost nothing at all. |
It is what he said, not how much.
10 Commandments, Part II
1) Thou shalt obey the original 10 commandments, plus these new ones as well.
2) Thou shalt live you life in preparation for your immortal life in God's kingdom.
3) Thou shalt be kind to the poor and unfortunate.
4) Thou shalt not be a greedy, self-righteous asshole.
5) Thou shalt not judge your fellow man. That's my job, dammit.
6) Thou shalt make peace, not war.
7) Thou shalt not attempt to defend yourself from those in authority. Just do what they say.
8) Thoy shalt take no oath, for thou shalt always tell the truth.
9) Thou shalt not get divorced unless a partner adulterers.
10) What powers not delegated here are reserved for the states, or for the people.
10, though funny, is what Jesus essentially meant when he told people to follow the spirit: You figure out what is right if the rules are no explicit are applicable.
I can name a bunch more. Should I bother? Do you care?
| Quote: |
| Why do you use the word “tricked” to describe altering your world view to eliminate mythical deities? |
Tricked if you tell yourself that you are the best thing ever, a God onto yourself. In my view (different topic…) God is extremely obviously out there and only out of pride do we deny it. However, this is debatable and I do not pretend to be an authority.
| Quote: |
| Damn… did I miss something? |
Get busy skippy!
http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/viewtopic.php?p=30366#30366
http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/post-30544.html#30544
http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/post-30662.html#30662
| Quote: |
I came across that too, but didn’t comment on it yet. It’s interesting that this “hymn” says that Jesus took the form of a “slave”. Where the hell did that come from? And what’s up with this notion that Jesus’ death was due to an overabundance of “obedience”? It almost sounds like this hymn is describing a completely different character than the one presented in the gospels. It almost sounds a bit like the story of Simon Magus
And BTW… were you aware that some people are speculating that Paul of Tarsus may have been Simon Magnus? If that were true, most of everything we have said in this discussion about Paul can be chucked right out of the window. |
Some people think Paul McCartney is dead (or find that fun to believe.) I do not take that very seriously.
Concerning Jesus' obedience, he called himself a "slave to all" which connotes obedience.
I await your replies...take your time or be short. I understand.
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RightInquisition
Junior Spy
Post #31200
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 54
Total Words: 6,220
Average words per post: 115.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2006-08-14 16:59
|
|
| Politics: Constitutionalist |
Country: Oceania |
|
| Re: mishmash, hoshposh |
Post Rating: 2.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Nihi wrote: |
It's quite funny how easy it is to make fun of something believed by over a billion people... |
All I find is one heaping pile of bullshit on top of another, and it has become nearly impossible to discuss any of these issues with a Christian without bursting into laughter at the naivety of their beliefs.
I've discussed some of the blatant absurdities in the bible with 3-dimensional Christians before. And most seem to hold this belief that the more they understand the bible, the better they will become at answering the skeptic's questions. They have never bothered to read the bible, so they view it as some sort of magical tome which will reveal all the great answers if only they take the time to study it.
(Or they just believe that, even though they don't know the answer, they think their pastor does.)
|
That's because like in most "cults" as you call them, most of its members are hipocrites. Really all they are doing by trying to answer questions they don't know they as you said make the "cult" look worse. You'll find this to be the major problem with groups that "believe" in something, NO BODY ACTUALLY KNOWS WHAT THEY BELIEVE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #32377
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-09-08 10:05
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Yet another long reply (Part #1) |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
First I would like to say that what we are doing know is book length. Just this summer, I wrote over 20,000 words for a mobile AC book. We have hundreds of thousands here. Both of us have read book equivalents of the side we do not agree with. Oh my!
|
Yeah, it is starting to get a bit ridiculous.
| sorianofan wrote: |
The following goes on quite a bit, so you might want to read it first before responding to any part.
Before we start, I need to make something clear. First, "anthropos" does not mean "dude." It means "man." That's where the word "anthropomorphic" and "anthropology" come from. Anthropology is not the study of theoretical "dudes." It is the study of real live human beings.
|
What I am saying is that just because Paul referred to Jesus as a "man", does not mean that he believed that Jesus walked around Jerusalem. I don't really doubt that Paul believed that Jesus was a real entity, but I'm not sure if his beliefs are exactly in tune with the modern "historic" view of Jesus as some sort of minor Jewish Rabbi. He seems to be completely unaware of anything that this wise-man ever said. And more than that, he doesn't really seem to care about what Jesus may have taught during his time on Earth.
If the original "historic" Jesus was some sort of Jewish teacher, you would think that Paul's pre-mythical-gospel view of Jesus would reflect this. But instead, Paul's Jesus seems to be a more primitive form of the myth that Mark (and later Matthew and Luke) would expand upon.
Paul converted to Christianity some time around the year 35 CE. This occurred after Paul had been persecuting Christians for an indeterminate amount of time. From this, we can see that Christianity was widespread enough to warrant persecution by Paul, yet small enough to escape the attention of Philo. The fact that Philo, nor any other historian, ever mentions it seem to indicate that it was a fairly new religion, probably only getting it's start a few years prior (at about the same time that the gospels claimed Jesus lived). This all leads to the possibility that a guy named Jesus may have actually lived at this time.
But there is still something odd here. If we believe what is written of Paul in Acts, Paul lived in Jerusalem during the time that Jesus supposedly walked the Earth. How is it that Paul missed meeting a living, breathing Jesus? Nothing in Paul's letters indicates that he was aware of Jesus having a ministry of any kind. Nothing in Paul's letters indicates that he was in Jerusalem at the same time Jesus lived. Nor does anything in Paul's letters indicate that he knew anybody who ever heard a mortal man named Jesus speak.
Paul says nothing about persecuting any of Jesus' original disciples, or of persecuting Jesus himself. If Paul was already persecuting Christians in the early 30's, you would think that he would have had some sort of contact with some of the people who knew Jesus while he was alive. It seems odd that Paul never mentions anybody at all who knew a living guy named Jesus. Instead, all Paul ever talks about are people who had visions of Jesus' spirit. I was not unusual at the time Paul lived (or even today for that matter) to claim that they have had contact from "another world". But that doesn't mean that any of it is real. Paul's Christianity came to him in visions ... Just like the way Paul claims that Peter and the rest of the apostles "found Christ". Paul never claims that anybody ever met a living Jesus -- he only speaks of visions. And the fact the Paul lived in the same area as Jesus (and at the same time Jesus supposedly walked the Earth) makes it hard to understand how Paul could be so unaware of any elements of Jesus' mortal life. Paul was supposedly a contemporary of the mortal Jesus, but he sure doesn't act like it.
| sorianofan wrote: |
When Paul says, "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead," he is saying that both Adam and Jesus were human beings. This does not prove that they were, far from it. But it definitively proves that Paul thought they were. The Jesus Myth proponent errs terribly and stupidly if (s)he proposes that Paul did not portray Jesus as real. It is just simply not true.
|
Yes, Paul thought Jesus was real. All religions think that their gods are real. However, history books should differentiate between real-life false prophets and mythical beings. You have to have some criteria for determining which is which And when it comes to Jesus, he has more in common with a mythical Santa Claus than with a real-life jackass like Muhammad or Joseph Smith. Notice that the Wikipedia doesn't have a page on the "Muhammad Myth". You won’t find a Confucius Myth page either. There is a good reason for that... The historicity of these people really isn't in question.
History regards many of the centerpieces of ancient religions as mythical. We have accounts of the life and deeds of Hercules, Dionysus, and others, but these accounts are dismissed as mythical. The reason is that there are no contemporary accounts of these people's lives. Plus the accounts we have contain so many non-naturalistic and unbelievable elements, that they really cannot be taken as literal history.
There are a number of religious figures whose historicity has been recently questioned. Moses is one, since:
1) His story contains many 'magical elements"
2) There are no Egyptian records of the events portrayed in Exodus, or even of hundreds of thousands Jewish slaves ever living in Egypt in the first place.
3) Elements of the Moses story can be found in prior myths and legends. (The receiving of the law by Moses was ripped off from the Babylonian legend of Hammurabi)
Buddha (Gautama) is another figure who's historicity has been called into question, for many of the same reasons as Moses. However, the historicity of Buddha is a little bit harder to determine, since there is no historical evidence either proving or disproving his existence. Plus, Buddha lived in a time and place from which no historical evidence would be expected. (As opposed to Moses and the Jews who lived in Egypt, and Jesus who lived in a province of the Roman empire -- both are periods from which records survive, and from which we would expect to see at least some mention of the basic events detailed in the mythic stories of Moses and Jesus.)
So, I have to ask, what are your views on the historicity of Moses and Buddha?
| sorianofan wrote: |
Paul's Jesus talks, gets killed, has lineage, and raises from the dead. The lineage and raising from the dead part are unlikely, but so is the idea that Augustus Caesar was a God. However, Roman historians recorded that. So, what historians do not is negate the obviously fake crap (Godly lineage, miracles, etcetera,) from the most probably true crap. While King Arthur was a story made up by some dude named Paul (yes, just like the apostle,) Jesus stories were purported by a whole church of people, with sects, with a relative plethora of ancient documentation. Sure, the documentation has a lot of crap, but it also agrees upon several things: Jesus was a man, Jesus taught jewish things, Jesus accused the Jews in power of misrepresenting the real message of the bible.
|
There are many ancient gods who died and who are later resurrected. They all relate back to ancient sun gods, which died in the winter and were later reborn to start off a new year. The fact that it is this element of Jesus' life (death/rebirth) that Paul seems to focus on the most indicates that Paul's Jesus may be precisely this type of myth.
Paul is the only guy who lived at the same time as Jesus who writes about him. And all he ever writes about are blatant myths (i.e. Talking ghosts) mixed in with his own moral viewpoints. The gospel tales are obvious myths. And while it can be argued that they may be myths based on an historical figure, there is really no reason to believe this is the case. I'll break the gospel accounts into 3 stages, so the historicity of each can be discussed
1) Nativity - Matthew & Luke's birth narratives date Jesus' birth over a decade apart (And the gospel of Peter places it several decades prior). Matthew's account centers on King Herod -- A person of whom Josephus writes about in great detail, but failed to include any of the details from Matthew's narrative (i.e. - The slaughter of the innocents). Matthew also claimed that Jesus' birth was predicted by astrologers "from the East", which (along with the bits about Herod) seems to claim that the whole region was aware of the birth of this "new king". Yet, it is funny how nobody seems to remember this.
Luke also claims that Jesus was born under King Herod, but makes the mistake of also claiming that Jesus' birth took place during the census of Caesar Augustus under the governor Caesar Augustus, an event which took place 12 years after Herod's death. Luke also fails to mention Jesus' flight to Egypt. Although these two accounts contain a couple of similar details, they are mostly incompatible. They are similar enough to claim that they were probably based on similar oral traditions, but all of details were apparently fabricated. There is really no reason to regard either account as historical.
2) Ministry - When it comes to the teachings of Jesus, we can pretty much assume that the gospel narratives are not historical. The gospel accounts are a fabricated framework in which to place the sayings from the "Q document" into Jesus’ mouth. So the real question really becomes, does the Q document represent the historical teachings of Jesus? I have already stated my reasons for doubting that this is the case, but I'll go through these again briefly.
For one, even though there is strong textual evidence to indicate that a common written sayings document existed in the second half of the 1st century, there is no evidence that it existed in the first half of the 1st century, or that it survived very long after the beginning of the second century. If the Q document represented the real teachings of Jesus, you have to wonder how it was so easily lost while other documents of less importance (the gospels which were based upon it and the Pauline Epistles) survived.
The Q document was most likely just a collection of common "wisdom sayings". These sayings were written without any sort of narrative context, so there is no reason to believe that they were the teachings of Jesus, or even the teachings a single individual. If the Q document represented the teachings of Jesus, you would think that Paul would have been aware of it. But he is silent. And if they were the teachings of Jesus, 2nd century Christians should have preserved them. But they didn't. For some reason, they seemed to prefer the fairy tales of Mark & company.
3) Passion - This is the one part of the Jesus tale of which Paul seems to be aware. This indicates that perhaps Jesus really was some sort of Jewish teacher who was actually executed for his beliefs. But the details of which Paul seems to be aware are strongly mythical. A Jesus who was executed after only a year or so of teaching could help explain why there is no contemporary record of his existence. However, the account of Jesus' trial and execution as portrayed in the gospels contain many historical improbabilities, and therefore have to dismissed as fictional accounts.
And (as usual) Paul does nothing to shed any light on the matter. He offers no details of Jesus’ death whatsoever, except that Jesus ate dinner with his followers on the night before his arrest. All he describes is the logic behind the Christian Eucharist ceremony, which was (in part) plagiarized from other religions. In other words, it's all a bunch of crap.
So the question is, where exactly in all of this bullshit do you find an historical Jesus? I suppose that it is possible to claim that Jesus was some sort of minor (and short-lived) Jewish "wise man" whose original life story and teachings were almost entirely lost to history. But if that was the case, you have to wonder why Paul does not portray him as such. And you have to explain why Hebrews 8:4 seems to explicitly discount the possibility that Jesus was a priest.
| From KJV: Hebrews 8 |
| 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law. |
In order to claim that Jesus was an historical figure, you have to dismiss just about all of the details claimed in the gospels (Herod's attempt to murder the "new king", Public trials on a Jewish holiday, the dead rising from their graves, etc.). You also have to assume that Paul's version of Jesus represents a slightly exaggerated myth. You pretty much have to make up an entirely new Jesus - one not present in any 1st century writings. You have to assume that almost the entire Jesus story is myth. And although you can maintain that the myth is based on a kernel of truth, this kernel is so small that it really doesn't need to exist at all. It's easier to explain how Christianity developed as an oral myth than it is to explain away the incompetence of 1st century Christians (and secular historians) of failing to preserve a historical record of the teachings of the (supposedly) greatest teacher and prophet to ever walk the Earth.
| sorianofan wrote: |
And big surprise! Every prophet before Jesus DID THE SAME EXACT THING. Isaiah claimed to have the authority of God, but was in actuality rehashing parts of scripture he found more important. Do we doubt that an Isaiah existed? Do we doubt a Jeremiah, Amos, or Zechariah existed? Yet, all we have is one writing from them (which could have been edited and put together by followers) and records like Kings and Chronicles, written hundreds of years after the fact, speaking of their existence. However, outside of the fact they claimed to talk directly to God, WE HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THEIR EXISTENCE. Unlike Hercules and Achilles, where every part of the story is obviously legend and we have no teachings, quotes, or ideas from them, we have that for Jesus, who arguably had all of these things written about him in a period of time many times shorter than Isaiah, Alexander the Great, and even Solomon. We do not doubt that any of these people existed, regardless of all the mythic qualities attributed to them. |
There is an important difference here. The writings of all these false prophets still survive. The writings of Jesus do not survive. No first person accounts of Jesus' life survive. There aren't even any reliable second hand accounts. All there that exists of Jesus is fiction. And that is why he needs to be grouped with Hercules instead of Plato or Confucius.
| sorianofan wrote: |
The Jesus Myth position, by normal historiographical standards, is simply untenable. The fact that the age of biblical manuscripts and the number of them are "criticisms," when the entire Peloponessian War recorded by Thucydides is from one source, who's latest manuscript is from 1050 C.E. No historians see this as a huge problem. However, Jesus Myth proponents, usually not trained historians (but rather opinionated mysticists or atheists with websites,) make absurd criticisms and parallels with no historical basis. Dionysus was NOT CRUCIFIED. Osiris was NOT CRUCIFIED. Very likely, JESUS WAS NOT CRUCIFIED ("crucifixions" were usually on big logs, no cross of logs.) Dionysus and Osiris were torn to shreds and raised up as flesh (inferred to be torn up flesh.) Yet, Jesus Myth proponents ignore these simple facts, and cite that in the second century or so, that followers of these religions had their leaders crucified. Very likely, any historian worth the paper his phd is written on would realize, "Well, that's because mystery cults adjusted their legends to fit Christianity." Bingo. Sure, Christianity borrowed ideas from mystery cults (especially Paul's baseless Eucharist.) However, outside of Christian mysticism decades after Jesus and the Eucharist, there are no parallels between the two. Granted, Christianity borrowed ideas from a lot of different philosophies and belief systems. However, it cannot be denied that the beliefs were synthesized differently. However, Jesus Myth proponents totally ignore us and tell us about the parallels, Parallels, the PARALLELS! Sorry, that is not very good evidence.
|
Yes, the proponents of the Jesus myth sometimes make absurd leaps in identifying parallels. I've seen some people claim that Osiris was born of a Virgin, just like Jesus. But the basis of this claim is that Isis (Osiris' mom) was represented by the constellation of Virgo, which is turn represents the virgin. But this is not the same thing as saying that Osiris was born of a virgin. In other words, they're stretching a bit.
But I disagree that one should be prohibited from applying the scientific method to examine the validity of historical tales. I think it's wrong to simply throw your hands up and claim that since it is impossible to prove anything with 100% certainty, that we should merely take any pseudo-historical oral tale at face value. There are certainly some events in history which are more verifiable than others. And there are some elements of certain mythical tales that call their accuracy into question.
I know that you won’t deny that a large part of the gospels are myth. The problem is that there really isn't any part of the gospels which can be showed to be anything but myth. About the only history that can be gleaned out the gospels is that there was some guy who taught something and who was executed because his teachings pissed off the authorities. But this is very poor history.
I realize that one can point to the example of the Trojan War -- that this event was once believed to be purely fictional, but now which has been archeological verified. Remember that the only source for information about this war came from Homer in his Iliad and Odyssey. And it cannot be denied that these two stories contain many mythical elements. Both books contain many direct inventions in human affairs by various gods, and the Odyssey chronicles confrontations with Cyclops', Sirens, and Nymphs. It didn't sound very historical, so it was not treated as such. And although it is still treated as myth, it is now acknowledged that it is myth based upon real events.
But the Jesus tale is even more mythical than the works of Homer. Apart from the parables, just about every event portrayed in the gospels in un-naturalistic myth, or is historically improbable (i.e. the Jewish high council meeting on a Jewish holy day, Pontius Pilate taking a public vote during the trial of Jesus, etc). If Jesus was a real person, we know next to nothing about him. So claiming that this vague character actually existed is a pretty meaningless claim.
Mythic tales and oral legends to occasionally contain a bit of truth. But historians have learned not to really solely on these stories for historic truth. Up until recently, many historians thought that the mythic tale of Exodus contained historic truth. This is where people got the idea that slaves built the pyramids. Only recently have historians began to drop this “history” from textbooks. Yet, the myth still persists. I recently watched episodes of Family Guy and Futurama which perpetuated the myth that the pyramids were built by Jewish slaves. It made me cringe.
Legends and lore can certainly be used as a guideline for interpreting archeological evidence, but they don’t stand very well on their own.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Now, I am not speaking a tirade against you. Neither of us are qualified in this subject matter. Instead, I am criticizing the scholarship that supports your position.
|
I agree that some "mythers" take their arguments to far in connecting the Jesus story to prior myths. But proving that mythers make mistakes in creating parallels is not the same thing as demonstration that Jesus was an historical figure. The mythers need not prove that every element of the Jesus story has roots in prior myths -- they only need to show that the Jesus tale has more in common with other mythic cults from the same period of time than with an historical prophet named Jesus. And I think that they succeed in that task. Some mythers think that they have to prove that Mark cut-n-pasted his entire story from other legends. But this need not be the case. I'm sure Mark had at least some imagination and could have easily concocted some elements of the story out of thin air.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Now, before I get back to discussing your position in the regular I quote you and discuss the quote sort of fashion, I need to bring up the simple fact: Paul thought Jesus was a real guy.
[…]
|
The thing is that Paul gives no indication of when Jesus supposedly lived. He never mentions King Herod or Pontius Pilate. He never gives any details of Jesus' life at all, so there was nothing for the Jews to question or prove wrong. All the details of Jesus' life come from the gospels, which were written 4 decades after Jesus supposedly lived, and which were written in lands far removed from Jerusalem. Considering that the average life expectance back then was pretty short, there weren't many 60 or 70-year olds around at the time the gospels were written to contradict the tale. And the few people who were still alive and who could disprove the gospel accounts lived in Jerusalem -- not Rome. The gospel writers were free to write whatever crap they wanted. And they certainly seemed to have used this opportunity do exactly that. I mean, they actually claimed that the dead rose from the graves after Jesus' death. Do you think they were concerned that some old farts in Jeruselem would call them liars? Apparently not, because they wrote it -- along with several other rather ridiculous claims.
With this in mind, it is understandable why Paul was so vague about describing his Jesus -- If he would have walked around in 40 and 50 CE making some of the claims that the gospel writers made in 70 and 80 CE, somebody would have called him out on it. But claiming that some sort of mythical life-death-rebirth deity appeared to him (and a few other people) in a vision was a pretty safe claim to make back in those days.
Of course, Paul goofed by claiming that his lord was going to come to Earth "very shortly" to set up a new kingdom -- a claim from which he later had to backtrack a bit.
But I'm pretty sure that if Paul would have read Mark's gospel, even he would have acknowledged that most of it was bullshit.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Paul in Corinthians in one sentence lays out what he preached to Corinthians the first day he met them (1 Corinthians 2:2):
| From studylight |
For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
ou gar ekrina (5656) ti eidenai (5760) en umin ei mh Ihsoun Xriston kai touton estaurwmenon
|
Roughly, if you literally translate the Greek, it could be read differently as (…Jesus Christ and this death-pole killing.)
However, in the context, "this" is usually translated to mean "his." What would the sentence mean if it was meant as "this?" Well for one, the sentence would make no sense unless Paul was pointing to a picture of Jesus being killed, a crucifixion was happening next to him, or "Jesus Christ" meant "crucifixion." Now, you might hop on that rendering, but the problem is, that rendering would make NO SENSE! It would be like babble. Furthermore, the fact that Paul at least believed Jesus was a real-live human being means that Jesus was slightly more than his death.
|
That passage seems to indicate that there were other Christian missionaries that focused more on "wisdom teachings" aspect of Jesus than on Paul's life-death-rebirth focus. This seems to tell us that Paul probably is probably a terrible source for information on a historical Jesus. Perhaps these other missionaries pushed the Q document, while Paul ignored this valuable set of teachings and chose instead to focus on his grand myth. But since Paul is the only early source we have, we'll press on...
| sorianofan wrote: |
So, what we can see in the sentence is that it is extremely probable that Paul was not going to talk like a Greek orator, to speak convincingly with polished rhetoric (read 1 Corinthians 2:1.) Instead, he just talked about who Jesus was and the ultimate importance of Jesus' crucifixion. This was Paul's bag. We have no reason to believe that every Gospel quote was a rendering of what Paul had spoken of. Even the Didache, which I will get more into in my response to you, draws parallels even though it was obviously written by someone who was not an adherent of Paul's. Thus, as any historian worth her/his phd would conclude, these guys were speaking of ideas they got from someone else. So, we can claim that Kephas made it all up. Maybe he did, but that is pure speculation. Evidently, he
Claimed that he was a follower of Jesus and got his ideas from him. So connect the dots. Jesus came up with the ideas.
|
I agree that somebody came up with these ideas. But I think you're making a leap of faith when you assume that these sayings were made up by a persecuted Jew named Jesus. If an extant copy of the Q document were to ever surface, and if that document claimed to be the authentic words of Jesus (Written by somebody who heard him speak), you might have something to back up that claim. But for right now, there is no reason to believe that the Q document represented the teachings of a single mane named Jesus. In fact, it appears as if the Q document was compiled in several layers sometime in the middle of the 1st century (in other words, not written by a guy who died in ~30 CE). And if the Q document is not the genuine words of Jesus, proponents of an historical Jesus lose the most important piece of their historical teacher.
| sorianofan wrote: |
So, let me wrap up my conclusion out of all of this. Jesus was a prophet. He did something that many prophets do--use scripture to prove that everyone else is missing out on the message and doing it wrong. He might have took Daniel and Greek philosophy too seriously and believed in the afterlife. He might have been cryptic about the matter like the Isaiah. He had some followers, obviously none or very few of them educated, because he was in the impoverished area of Galilee and they wandered place to place, following Jesus' semi-ascetic attitudes. People with any education are not going to avoid work most of the time and leave everything they have (which surprise surprise, Jesus preached this to a degree.) Some guy(s) wrote down the stuff Jesus said the (t)he(y) found most important or talked about it to others. Rumors and legends arose (like about Elvis) and they grew until the point that the Church became hierarchal, and saw new legends as "made up" and "heresy." Thus, the legends mixed in with the truth became the standard for "truth" among the Church. That is my position.
|
And that is entirely possible. But the problem is that that position really isn't supported by any historical evidence, and must therefore be viewed with some degree of skepticism.
If even one of Jesus followers had been literate, and if he had bother to jot down some of his teacher's sayings, it would be possible to claim that Jesus was a real person. But Jesus original disciples disappeared without a trace -- even though they should have still been alive at the time Paul lived. All we have in their place are various apostles like Paul, who only know of Jesus through hallucinogenic visions. And that doesn’t count as history.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| But, yes... If the resurrection actually occurred I don't think you would have such varying opinion about it. Things like that don't happen very often (if at all). |
Precisely. Standard details to the event are not forgotten. For example, John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln, in a theater, and said in latin "death to tyrants." None of this stuff changed over time. Lincoln's love for democracy and honesty sure did change (he was a dictator and flip flopped the slavery issue publicly,) but specific details witnessed by people did not.
|
Yes, the canonical gospels are consistent on several points --- Jesus preached in Galilee, and was executed by Pontius Pilate. But then again,you're forgetting about the fact that canonical accounts are not the only stories which existed at the time. Remember that the Gospel of Peter claimed that Jesus was killed by king Herod (i.e. Before 4 BC). The original gospel of Mark does not even claim that Jesus was resurrected -- he only claims that Jesus will someday return. Just about the only thing that is really consistent is the fact that Jesus was crucified. But, as I said before, this is your basic life-death-rebirth deity, and does not necessarily point to an historical figure.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Paul said that his disciples were with him during his "last supper". As far as I know, that is the only reference to anybody seeing the dude before he was strung up. |
Unless the Didache is earlier, where it quotes Jesus many times (though does not in the demeanor of a sayings Gospel,) Paul's "commands" from the Lord are evidence of a ministry. Furthermore, the last supper was a secret revelation to Paul. It did not happen.
|
What kind of "commands" are you talking about? Is there anything that indicates that Paul believes that these words were spoken by a real-life Jewish teacher? Mythical gods can offer commands, too, you know (i.e. The Ten Commandments).
This page lists some of similarities between Paul's teachings and saying later attributed to Jesus in the gospels. The similarities are so limited in number, that I can list them here.
-------------- #1 ------------------
1 Cor 2.8 - "...What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,"
Thomas 17 - Jesus said, "I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind."
-------------- #2 ------------------
1 Cor 7.10 - To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband.
The gospel writers also condemn divorce (Mark 10:11, Matt 5:31, and Luke 16:18).
-------------- #3 ------------------
1 Cor 9.14 - In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
Matt 10.9 Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, 10.10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food.
Luke 10.7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not go from house to house.
- Paul taught that apostles should get a free meal from the people they preach to. Matthew and Luke both say the same thing, and apparently got this saying from the Q document, since the wording is so similar and did not derive from Mark.
-------------- #4 ------------------
Last Supper/Eucharist instructions - Paul’s wording is similar to Mark and the others, but Luke is the only one to include Paul's instruction that this ritual should be performed "in remembrance" of Jesus (1 Cor 11:23-26, Mark 14:22-25, Matt 26:26-29, Luke 22:15-20).
-------------------------------------
And there you have it.... Paul's exhaustive knowledge of the teachings of Jesus -- That divorce is bad, apostles eat for free, and that Jesus wants his followers to perform the Eucharist. The only really interesting thing is the fact that the bit about apostles getting a free lunch seems to have found its way into the Q document, and was later used by both Matthew and Luke. But I'm not sure if I'd consider this one of Jesus' best teachings. And actually, I wouldn’t even consider it one of Jesus’ original teachings. (How did the historical Jesus know that there would be apostles?) I suppose that Jesus could have been talking about himself … that people should feed him free food after his speeches. But for a guy that can feed 5000 people with a couple fish, you would think that obtaining rations would not be a problem for him. ^>^
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Josephus? Are you serious? Have you ever actually read that passage? |
Yes, I have read both and the scholars are still out. Skip the crappy wikipedia article and read this for an unbiased look:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
|
Don't disparage my precious wikipedia now.
But yes, your page offers a fairly comprehensive list of all of the arguments for and against authenticity of the two passages. And on the whole, I think the Testimonium is an outright forgery, while the 20.9.1 Reference is mostly genuine, but with the words "who was called Christ" added by a later Christian scribe
But since Josephus wrote in ~93 CE, the whole debate is a little moot. Even if you believe that the Testimonium is partially authentic, Josephus could have easily gotten his information about Jesus from the gospels which were written 1-2 decades prior. By the 90's. there were enough Christians in existence that Josephus may have been familiar with their belief that Jesus was executed under Pilate -- and it is entirely possible that Josephus may have included this belief in his historical accounts. But being at least 60 years removed from the time of Jesus, anything which Josephus says about Jesus may have come from the Christians themselves, and cannot really be construed as a reliable first-person account. (In any case, we know that Josephus’ writings were tampered with, which in and of itself makes the whole thing a bit unreliable.)
As I said before, the primary problem with the 20.9.1 passage is that it claims that James was stoned to death while Jesus was still alive (which rules out the possibility that the James which Paul knew in Jerusalem was Jesus' actual brother), and it also claims that Jesus was made a high priest of Jerusalem (which goes against everything Christians believed about him), and it also claims that this Jesus was the son of Damneus (Who the heck is that?)
The biggest problem for this passage is the dating. It claims that these events followed the death of Porcius Festus, who died in 62CE. How can Paul be worshipping a crucified Jesus in the 40's and 50's if Jesus became a high priest of Jerusalem in the 60's? The 20.9.1 passage may be authentic, but it is talking about a completely different guy named Jesus. If Josephus really did claim that this Jesus was the one "who was called Christ", Josephus obviously made a mistake.
But to get back to the Testimonium ... I'm sure we can at least agree that the passage has been tampered with significantly. If Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, merely removing the removing the obviously forged bits of text is not sufficient to recover the original passage. And again, even if he did claim that Jesus was executed by Pilate, he may have simply been repeating the words of the gospels. If the gospels were his source, Josephus adds nothing to the discussion of an historical Jesus.
In any case, if some form of the Testimonium was original, you have to wonder why Origen doesn't quote it. He cites the 20.9.1 passage, but not the Testimonium. What up wit dat? You have to assume that either the Testimonium did not exist at that time (240 CE), or that it originally said something so horribly unappealing about Jesus that Origen chose to avoid the passage entirely.
| sorianofan wrote: |
It is important to note that throughout the first 3 centuries, James was referred to as "the brother of the Lord." Never, is he referred to as "the brother of Jesus." Interpolators are usually morons. They would have made it "the brother of Lord Jesus Christ" or some crap. The fact the interpolator did not copy the Greek of the NT and the Josephus did not think all that much of Jesus (evidenced by the Church Fathers bashing him for it,) the fact he just identifies James as Jesus' brother was to point out that it was that James and that his brother was that Jesus, not the Jesus son of Damaeous who took power. "Christ" was not a Jewish idea. Saying "Christ" as an identifier would have not been painful to a first century Jew. Do not take my word for it. Read the scholarship.
|
It would be odd to refer to two different guys named Jesus in the same passage.
| From Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9 |
Concerning Albinus Under Whose Procuratorship James Was Slain; As
Also What Edifices Were Built By Agrippa.
1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
2. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food.
|
The most logical reading of the passage is to assume that King Agrippa punished Ananus by stripping him of his priesthood and giving to the bother of the man he has wrongly executed -- Jesus. It makes sense to read the passage this way, although I suppose the alternate reading isl plausible. After all, Christian tradition claims that James the Just died in 62CE, which precisely matches the timeframe given by Josephus for the death of this particular guy named James.
But in the end, what do we have here? If Josephus was actually talking about the “wrongful” execution of James the Just, the fact that he cites this James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" does not really prove that Jesus existed -- all it proves it that James was believed to be the brother of "The Christ". If the two Jesus' mentioned in the passage refer to two different people, then Josephus is seriously glossing over the life of Messiah Jesus by only mentioning him in passing in a passage about Procurator Albinus. And again, the fact that Josephus wrote in the 90's makes him a pretty poor source of information for a guy which Josephus apparently knows very little about. At best, this passage helps prove that James existed, and that he was known as the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ. But I think we all pretty much knew that already.
But this all assumes that Josephus' original passage included the words "who was called Christ". We know that the Testomonium was tampered with by Christian scribes, so the theory that this passage was tampered with as well has some merit. It's hard to believe that Josephus would have referred to Jesus as "the Christ". I don't doubt that Josephus may have been writing about the martyrdom of James, but when it comes to calling Jesus "Christ", I have my doubts.
I understand that some people translate Josephus’ words as “the so-called Christ” (an English phrasing which implies a bit of distain). But from what I understand, this translation is not very accurate. If the words “the one called Christ” are really the authentic words of Josephus, you almost have to assume that some sort of qualifying statement (i.e. “The one called Christ, but who was nothing but a charlatan”) was later removed by Christian scribes. I don’t doubt that passage is mostly original (or if it is a forgery, it’s a hell of a lot better than that damn Testomonium), but I have a hard time believing Josephus wrote this passage exactly as we see it today. We already know that scribes took liberties with other part of Josephus’ writings, so why should this particular part be any different?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Some later Christian, upon seeing this connection, probably inserted the words "who was called Christ" into the text at a later date. Either that, or you have to believe that Jesus' dad's name was "Damneus"... and that James was killed while Jesus was still alive (if that's true, how did Paul ever meet him?), and before Ananus made Jesus a "High Priest" of Judea. |
You are reading the passage incorrectly. Those are different Jesuses. That's why they have different identifiers. The fact that early Church fathers seemed to have not read Josephus and quote a messed up version of the passage (they claim that Josephus claims that James' death caused the destruction of the temple) shows that there was something there, but they did not read seriously into it. Thus, it would have had to be interpolated in the second century by a Christian. Not likely.
|
The passage is undoubtedly (mostly) original. But if it really was originally written in the form we have today, you have to wonder why Origen claimed that Josephus didn't accept Jesus as the Christ. The passage clearly refers to Jesus was the one "who was called Christ" -- a phrasing which does not question Jesus' Christdom. If this was the original phrasing that Josephus used, why did Origen claim that Josephus didn't believe that he was the Christ? Something is missing here. I don't think Origen was merely talking about some sort of argument from silence. Josephus must have originally said something different about Jesus. (either that, or Origen interpreted the passage as talking about one Jesus instead of two). But whether Josephus originally questioned Jesus' divinity, or whether he questioned his existence altogether cannot be determined. Only through the discovery of pre-corrupted texts can this question be satisfactorily resolved. And the chances of that happening appear to be pretty slim.
But at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Josephus is too far removed from the life of Jesus to supply a first-person account of his existence -- especially when his "testimony" comes in the form of a passing comment about a guy's brother. If Josephus would have given Jesus the same amount of space as he gave John the Baptist, proponents of an historical Jesus might have something to stand on. But the passage in question isn't even about Jesus -- it is about James. And you have to wonder why Josephus would feel compelled to write about the deaths of James the Just and John the Baptist, but snub the crucifixion of Jesus.
There is a writer who was closer to the time and place of Jesus than Josephus --- Philo. And Philo says nothing at all about this Jewish teacher, despite the fact that Philo's theology bears a close resemblance to several Christian beliefs (in fact, some early Christians mistaken believed that Philo was a Christian)… and despite the fact that he lived at the same time as Jesus.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Even if we assume that Josephus is talking about the "real" Jesus (and that's a big "if"), this little snippet of Jesus' historical life doesn't jive with what appears in the bible at all. Again... if this is the historical Jesus, the guy that people worship in church isn't. And it would be a pretty sad commentary on Jesus' life if the only thing Josephus thought worthy of mentioning about this "great spiritual leader" is the fact that his brother had rocks thrown at him. |
THE BIBLE IS NOT HISTORY! To Josephus, as it is to you, Jesus was a figure with a bunch of fake mythology around him. It was not worth his time to speak much more about him than the fact he was the brother of a James that was killed as part of the politicking of sadduccees and that Jesus was some wise man (not prophet nor son of God) that the tribe of Christians still followed, even after his death (this, if we assume the testimonium flavium has some truth in it.)
|
I certainly agree that the bible isn't history. And that is the whole point. The Jesus portrayed in the bible is not historical. Whether or not the character of Jesus in the bible was based on some real-life martyred prophet is almost irrelevant, since it appears that almost nothing of this original inspiration survives in the fictional piece we see today.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Actually, 1Cor 9:5 makes it clear that Paul's usage of the word "Adelphos" does not indicate a blood relationship. |
It could. It could not. All that I know is that there is an implied church hierarchy. The fact that it is possible means that Jesus was possibly a real guy. However, this is hardly a sticking point in the argument.
|
I agree that it's possible that there was a real person named Jesus who served as the basis for the biblical Jesus. But like I said, I believe Mark's Jesus was almost entirely fictional, and moreover I find it hard to believe that this real Jesus had anything to do with the sayings in the Q document since that wasn't compiled until decades after his supposed death (and since we have no idea whether or not the person who wrote Q has any first-hand knowledge of Jesus’ teachings).
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A revelation that he stole from prior myths. |
But took out the dancing, animal killing, and flesh eating, and ripped off the Eucharist in the Didache (and Essene love feasts) but made it more cultish.
|
Yes, Paul altered it a bit. But he still ripped it off from non-Christian sources.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And Josephus' account of James dying while "Jesus" was still alive seems to invalidate Paul's claim of meeting with "James, the brother of Christ" |
Again, you totally misread the passage. Those were different Jesuses.
|
I don't think there is any way to decide the matter conclusively. But the argument that there were two Jesus' does seem to be supported by the fact that the passage dates the events to 62CE, which is precisely the same time that Christian lore claims that James the Just died. The only sticking point is that the manner in which Josephus describes James’ death differs slightly from Church lore about James. But I suppose that his could be explained away since Josephus' purpose here was not to record an account of James' gruesome death, but rather to mention that this swell guy was wrongly murdered, and describe the relevant politics that caused it to happen.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And as for the "scholarly consensus", I have to assume that you are talking about Christian scholars. Because only a scholar desperate to defend their faith would try to use these flimsy (and contradicting) accounts in order to prop up their belief in a flesh-and-bone messiah. |
Flimsiness is at the very basis of Jesus Myth proponents. "It could have been this, it might have been that parallel (from the wrong century entirely,) Paul might have meant this (when he most certainly did not!,) there is no written evidence (there is!,) there is no early enough written evidence (there is a crap load by ancient standards,) all the evidence must be thrown out the windo because there is mythology (okay, no roman emperor ever existed because emperor worship existed,) and etcetera."
|
Any historical story which contains obvious myths in just about every single chapter needs to be viewed with some amount of suspicion. Just take a look at the kind of story Mark wrote.
I now offer to you the "Big Brother Cliff Notes" version of the gospel of Mark.
Chapter 1 - A god produces offspring, his voice booms in the clouds, Satan follows the son around in the wilderness, and then Jesus casts out demons and cures leprosy.
Chapter 2 - Jesus cures more sick people of the palsy, and says a few witty things.
Chapter 3 - Heals a guy with a "withered hand". This pisses off the Jews, so Jesus flees and travels the land curing diseases and casting out demons. He picks up 12 followers, and gives them to power to cure diseases and case out demons as well. Jesus shuns his holy virgin mother.
Chapter 4 - Parables about a mythical place called "heaven". Jesus then plays weatherman and stops a raging sea storm.
Chapter 5 - Casts out another friggin demon, then kills a bunch of pigs. He wraps up by curing a little girl with the plague.
Chapter 6 - Jesus is shunned in his homeland, so his sends out his disciples to perform miracles all over the land. Herod believes that Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the dead (he thinks he is some sort of zombie who seeks revenge for being beheaded). Jesus then feeds 5000 people with five loves of bread and two fish. Jesus' clothing cures people of disease.
Chapter 7 - Discussion of Jewish eating habits and hygiene, another exorcism, followed by the healing of a deaf guy.
Chapter 8 - Jesus again feeds 4000 people with a few pieces of bread and fish, but then bitches at his disciples for not bringing food along with them on the boat they were traveling on. Jesus heals a blind man, followed by a discussion of Jesus being the Christ.
Chapter 9 - Jesus claims that the "kingdom of god" will come within everybody's lifetime. Jesus "transfigures" before Peter, and James, and John, and then they hang out with the ghosts of Moses and Elias (John the Baptist). Jesus suggests that they keep the meeting a secret. Jesus then heals a dumb guy (who was possessed by a dumb spirit, of course). Jesus predicts his own death and resurrection. The disciples complain about seeing other unknown people casting out demons in Jesus’ name (Ghost busting was apparently a popular activity back in those days).
Chapter 10 - Jesus quotes Genesis as factual history and discusses divorce, Jesus tells people that he isn't God, he then misquotes the 10 commandments, he again predicts his own death, and then he cures a blind guy.
Chapter 11 - Jesus enters Jerusalem and starts a riot. He quickly departs from the city. He re-enters the city the next day and argues with the chief priests and elders.
Chapter 12 - Jesus speaks in parables (and drops the bombshell that there is no sex or marriage in heaven ... bummer, eh?).
Chapter 13 - Jesus predicts the destruction of the Jewish Temple and continues on to predict the end of the world and the second coming. He predicts that all of this will happen in "this generation".
Chapter 14 - The priests plot to kill Jesus. Judas betrays Jesus. Last Supper/Eucharist instructions. Jesus is arrested. A naked young man runs away. The trial. Peter denies Jesus three times.
Chapter 15 - Audience with Pilate. Crucifixion of Jesus in "the third hour". Darkness comes in the "sixth hour". Jesus dies in the "ninth hour". "The temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom". Joseph of Arimathaea "craved the body of Jesus", and Jesus is removed from the cross. Pilate is surprised that the death occurred so quickly -- after only 6 hours (Crucifixion usually takes longer than that).
Chapter 16 (Short ending) - The two Mary's visit Jesus' tomb and find a young man in his place. The End.
Chapter 16 (Long Ending) - Jesus’ ghost then appears to Mary Magdalene "out of whom he had cast seven devils", then to two disciples, and then dropped in on the remaining 11 disciples while they were eating dinner and tells them to go preach the gospel. He also tells them to "cast out devils", "speak with new tongues", "take up serpents", drink poison, "lay hands on the sick" -- all in His name.
I realize that you acknowledge that this is not history, but I just wanted to drive the point home – This is not history! It is so far removed from an historical account, it makes me wonder why anybody thinks any part of it is real. This was written in ~70CE (With "Secret Mark" being perhaps a few years older). It's amazing how the life story of historical Jesus could have been so badly mangled within only a few decades (While his sayings and teaching were so faithfully preserved).
There really isn't any single part of the narrative that is believable. The only exception is the part about this guy arguing with Jewish leaders and speaking in parables. But why should that part be regarded as historic simply because it is believable? It's obvious that Mark knew next to nothing about a historic Jesus, so why should we believe that Mark was able to accurately quote a historic Jesus?
If the storyline is fictional, and if the quotes are fictional, what difference does it make if a guy named Jesus ever existed? If everything we know today about Jesus is fictional, then would it not be fair to classify Jesus as a fictional character?
| sorianofan wrote: |
The evidence for Jesus actual existence is there from several sources. Even Penn and Teller concede this. Intra-NT parallelism leads us to believe that there was indeed ideas that preceded the sources that came from probably 1 guy.
|
An oral legend with a similarities between various versions does not indicate an historical figure. There are various versions of the nursery rhyme Jack and Jill -- and all of these are similar in that they involve Jack and Jill going up a hill. But does that mean its history? I'm sure that at once point in human history a boy named Jack and a girl named Jill climbed a hill together. But that does not make the nursery rhyme historical.
You keep saying that common features between the various accounts of Jesus points to an historical figure. This is not the case. It could just as easily point to a common fictional writer. In truth, the only similarity between the Jesus of Paul, the Jesus of the Jewish Christians, and the Jesus of the various Docetic and Gnostic sects is that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead -- a feat which cannot in any way be considered historical, except for he first part... that a guy named Jesus was crucified. I'm sure that throughout history, several people named Jesus were crucified. But if no record of Jesus exists beyond the fact that he was executed, then who really cares?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Yes, but as I said, I only mean that in the same sense that there may have been a flesh-and-bone guy which served as the basis for the Santa Claus myth. The question remains if this any remnants of this historical Jesus found their way into the gospels. Jesus (or Yeshua, Joshua) was a very common name back then. So it is fair to say that there were many flesh-and-bone Jews names Jesus who once walked the earth. And it's even quite possible that several of these were rabbis, mystics, or side-show magicians. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not any of these people served as the character basis for the Jesus we see in the gospels. |
You are ignoring the fact that all early sources attribute ideas to Jesus and those ideas are the basis of his religion, so outside of the mysticism, we have not mythical elements we can attribute to that man.
|
Paul doesn't really seem to attribute any teachings to Jesus. The first person to do that was Mark. And like I said above, the story Mark weaves is so fictional, there is really no reason to believe that the teachings aren't fictional as well.
Again, we return to the question of the Q document. This whole debate really relies on whether or not the sayings in that document represented the words of a real-life martyred wise man named Jesus. No matter what your take on Paul is, you have to admit that he is a rather piss-poor source for information about the historical Jesus. Even you believe that Paul thought the ghost he saw on the road to Damascus was of a Jewish wise man who had died a few years prior, you have to acknowledge that Paul doesn't seem to give two shits about what this guy may have said or did while he was alive. The gospel writers are fairly useless as historical sources as well, which only leaves the Q document -- a neutral collection of sayings, possibly derived from an historical Jesus.
Of course, the fact that no copies of the Q document have ever been found does complicate matters a bit. We can only hope that a copy will someday be unearthed, so we can figure out if it is just a list of generic sayings compiled by early Christians, or sayings which were once spoken by an historical pre-crucifixion Jesus.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, the question is whether or not the teachings in the bible stem from a real guy named Jesus, or if they were a collection of sayings from various authors which were later attributed to a mythical character. |
Then, all those authors wrote in a short period of time, affected the same group of people, who then took what was said and attributed it to Jesus. Furthermore, this would totally fly in the face of a belief system that everyone thought that Jesus was a real guy. If they all thought this, they must have thought someone heard him say things. This makes it all extremely probable that Jesus did.
|
Nope. Even Paul admits that there were other people running around teaching people about Jesus at the same time he was. It's entirely possible that one of these people made up the sayings document sometime in the 50's. This may be why Paul seems to have little reverence for the sayings of the Q document -- he knew that it was fabricated by one (or several) of his contemporaries.
Remember that Paul, the gospel writers, and their flock weren't from Israel. If a guy showed up on the shore of some Mediterranean village and claimed that Jesus said something or another, there would be no reason for his audience to doubt him. Only the "1st generation" of Christian apostles would know better, and they all died during the 60's.
(continued in next post)
Last edited by Big Brother on Sun 2006-09-17 07:14; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #32379
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-09-08 10:08
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Yet anther long reply (Part #2) |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
(continued from previous post)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If you want to live your life by the lessons of the Jesus character, that's your business. |
True, but from a historian's standpoint, he is more than a character in a book.
|
Jesus had no effect on history. It is only people who believed in him that altered the course of history. You couldn't write a history of the last few centuries of the Roman Empire without mentioning Paul and the cult he helped spread. But you certainly can write a history about ancient Palestine without including Jesus. (Josephus pretty much did exactly that)
| sorianofan wrote: |
Cool. I wish I knew more about astronomy (not astrology.)
|
Astrology is a good introductory course to astronomy. Well, Ok... it really isn't all that good. But it is kinda cool that my perception of the universe went through approximately the same stages as did mankind's through the ages. I started off with a fairly geocentric view of the solar system, with an Earth surrounded my magical planets that effect human actions. And I went from that to the more modern view I have today.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| In any case, this is why any astrological symbolism is the bible is of special interest to me … and there is a ton of astrological symbolism to be found in the bible. And since you brought up the "end of the world", I think I should point out that this phrase may have been mistranslated. The original phrase may have been "end of the age". |
This makes sense, because Jesus was not being literal. However, "this age"/"this generation" is also found in the Old Testament to mean a present age of sinfulness, within a human generation. I should probably add it to the wiki.
By the way, Jesus feeds a bunch of people with 3 fish once. So the pices symbolism is probably wrong and you should include that.
|
According to Mark, he feeds the first 5000 people with 2 fish, and then the later 4000 people with "a few small fishes" (Mark 8:7). I guess I could try to stretch the truth and claim that the Greek word Oligos is of indeterminate quantity, and therefore could mean two as well, but I won't waste my time.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The existence of a Q document does not in any way indicate the existence of a guy named Jesus. The Q document is just a collection of out-of-context parables. They could have been written by a single author (like a Jewish Aesop) or they could have been a collection of sayings from various authors (like some form of midrash). Considering that the Q document was formed in several layers, I would vote for the latter. But who knows... Since Jesus was such a popular name, it's possible that some Jewish guy named Jesus may have actually contributed some of the sayings. But that isn't the point. |
Have you ever read the "International Q Project"'s rendition of Q by the university of Toronto? Read it. Sometimes, the sayings have no context. Sometimes, Jesus' opponents can be found in Q. Thus, not everything was a contextless midrash saying from anywhere. He sayings were sometimes attributed to specific situations.
It is important to point out that midrash began in the second century, AFTER Jesus. So, Jesus began it, or practiced a proto-form of it. This is possible. Jesus, like all prophets in the OT, quotes scripture, expands upon it, reanalyzes it, infers to it, and sometimes is totally original. So, the "random midrash" explanation does not hold, because Jesus is closer to a recorded prophet than a rabbi who takes a psalm, and expands upon it. Jesus' sayings are usually more interconnected in scripture and less "Psalm 110.1 said this, and I would like to add…" Sometimes he DOES do that. But not all the time.
|
We seem to agree that despite the lack of physical evidence, the textual analysis seems to require that some sort of Q document must have existed. But the thing that really bugs me is why this document wasn't preserved. Mathew and Luke both wrote independently of each other, and both had a copy of Mark and a copy of this other unknown document. Even the author of Thomas seemed to have knowledge of this sayings collection. Yet, no copy survived very far into the 2nd century (or at least, none of the early church fathers ever mentions it's existence, neither to praise nor disparage it).
I have to believe that many early Christians found something very wrong with what it said. Even Matthew and Luke seemed to use it sparingly, even though they retained most of the bullshit that Mark had written. It seems like Mathew and Luke both took the part of the Q document that they liked, then immediately tossed the rest of it in the waste bin. Why would 1st century Christians do such a thing?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Here we see the real words of Santa quoted in verses 21-24 and verse 56. We can also see that writer of this gospel clearly does not believe Santa is just a mythical being since he is described as having various human body parts such as "rosy cheeks", "dimples", and a "chin". |
Bad argument. Do I really need to explain it to you why? You know that the story was written 1500 years after the fact, written purposely as fiction, and thus, did not infer a real person.
Things about Jesus are written as few as a couple of decades after the fact, written purposely as (distorted) theological non-fiction, and did infer a real person.
|
No. The Night Before Christmas was written about events that occurred just the night before!! All extant copies of this poem vary only in minute detail (the names of the reindeer have changed slightly, but apart from that the story is fairly solid). This clearly indicates a common historical source for the events portrayed in the story. The authorship of this story may be uncertain, but we can infer that it a reliable first-person account because....
Never mind. I'll stop now.
| sorianofan wrote: |
It is inferred that Kephas knew Jesus…thus, Paul's opposition to him about the Gospel could not prevent Paul from holding him to a higher level.
|
Paul certainly claims that Peter saw Jesus' ghost, but he never makes any mention of him (nor anybody else) ever seeing Jesus walk the streets of Jerusalem. And that is why Paul sucks.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
At this point, and allow me to pause and reflect on the varying levels of certainty that we posses for the existence of various historical figures.
[...]
|
Again, this is funny, but here are my ratings:
Jesus as a real guy: Probably real.
Quotes from Jesus: Uncertain, but most likely real.
Jesus literally rising from the dead: Fictional.
We have several recent sources, cross-linked sayings, a lack of historically feasible counter-explanations, and guys like Census who did not doubt the real guy. He knew this is how people would have had recorded history about Jesus.
|
By saying that Jesus was "probably real", you are putting him the same category as Caesar Augustus and Plato. There is absolutely no justification for this. None of Jesus' writings survive, nor do any first person accounts of his life. All we have are the mythical ramblings of Paul and the gospel writers. There is no direct evidence what-so-ever for this guys existence. Paul converted to Christianity just a few years after Jesus supposedly lived, and he fails miserably in providing anything that can concretely be construed as proof that Jewish wise-man formed the cult that Paul spent the rest of his life spreading. Paul doesn't talk about a living Jesus, nor does Philo. About the closest thing to a secular mention of Jesus comes from Josephus... and... well, we’ve already been through that. At best, you could classify Jesus' existence as "uncertain". But if you do that, it would only be fair to afford Hercules and Santa Claus the same courtesy.
And on a side note... Who cares what Celsus wrote? He was 120 years and 1,000 miles removed from the time and place that Jesus supposedly lived, so how can he be viewed as a reliable source? And in any case, Celsus clearly refers to the Gospel tales several times as "allegory", a phrase which does not indicate that Celsus considered the gospel tales historical.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There really is no reason to treat the biblical character of Jesus any differently from any other mythic hero. Just about all mythic heroes could be claimed to based on some historical figure. |
Like Roman emperors. Like Alexander the Great. When we have probable reason to believe, "Well, it is likely that some guy said stuff" and a bunch of early sources that said he did, you are really reaching when you say he did not. It is fine to doubt things that are scientifically impossible, but if you use different standards for different historical people, you are a bad historian.
|
Not at all. Roman Emperors rule a frigin' empire. Alexander the Great's existence is attested to by numerous contemporary sources (and he even left behind a few inscriptions). But Jesus didn't leave behind squat. All we know about Jesus comes from hallucinating cult leaders and overtly fictional mythic tales.
Is there really any reason to believe Jesus was any more real than Hercules? I'm applying the same standard to both, both I'm not sure if you're doing the same. It is entirely possible to strip all the mythic elements away from the story of Hercules, and then claim that what remains represents a real historical figure. But does anybody do that? Not a chance.
Why does Jesus get this special pass by which his mythic story can be entirely stripped away, and the few phrases and allegorical teachings which remain are allowed to be attributed to a "real" guy named Jesus? If Christianity would have died out 1,000 years ago, no historian would waste their time trying to prove that Jesus was real person. The story we have today is myth, and that alone is justification for classifying Jesus as a mythical character. (If there was some sort of archeological evidence to the contray that would change the matter, but there isn’t. ) Modern books of mythic literature may include the side note that the Jesus myth may have been based on a real person, but this would be viewed with roughly the same level of interest as claiming that King Arthur and Santa Claus were based on real people as well. It’s an interesting footnote, but that’s about all.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Dammit.... no we don't. |
Yes we do! Well, your mommy wears army boots. No! Your mommy does. Your mommy! No, your mommy!
|
I know you are, but what am I? 
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| this seems like the kind of thing that Paul would might not have originally said. |
Well, if you totally distort everything Paul has said, write off the several instances where Jesus is referred to as a human being, then yes, it does not sound like something Paul said. The fact that no ancient manuscripts say otherwise (manuscripts may disagree on a lot of minor things) gives us good reason to believe it was always there.
|
Grrrr... Paul says that Jesus assumed the form of a human. But what exactly Paul meant by this is a little unclear. And like I said, the thing that would convince me that Paul believed that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood Jewish wise man would be for him to have mentioned some of the flesh and blood things this Jesus said and did while he was alive. And he fails to do that. He doesn't treat his Jesus like some kind of Jewish wise man. On the whole, he treats him more like some sort of mythical life-death-rebirth deity.
But again, Paul never met a flesh-and-blood Jesus, so at best he is only a 2nd-hand source of information. If an historical Jesus is to be found, Paul is not the place to find him.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| And on a side note, were you aware that there really isn't any archeological evidence for the existence of King David either, apart from the books of the old testament? The best we have is several 9th an 8th century BCE artifacts that indicate battles between neighboring nations and several kings of Israel who were of the "House of David" (kings who claimed lineage from David). But there is no direct evidence for David himself, other than partially-mythic biblical tales. |
We do have evidence of the temple, which indicates, the empire had some power. We also have writings from Isaiah recorded in the 8th century BC, which shows that the lineages found in the Annals of the Kings of Judah were not false.
|
I would tend to agree. But I just wanted to mention it because I was somewhat surprised that we don't have any direct archeological evidence for this great historic leader. But since we are talking about a guy who ruled at a time before the city of Rome was even founded, the lack of historical record is not entirely unexpected.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Paul could have mentioned the fact that he had met with Jesus' original followers in Jerusalem, and that he is acting on their authority as well. |
He infers this in Galatians 1! Why would meeting with these fellas have any importance if they did not know more of Jesus. Paul, though he had a different Gospel, needed Kephas' authority for good reason. Kephas was most likely a living link between the Church and Jesus.
|
How does he infer this in Galatians 1?
And in any case, the fact that Peter was the leader of largest Christian sect (and the sect which happened to reside in the most holiest of cities) was reason enough to desire an agreement with him.
The fact that Joseph Smith was the leader of the Mormons does not mean that the Angel Moroni was real. Just because Peter was the leader (and because later Christian myths claimed that he walked with Jesus) does not mean that Jesus was a real person. Paul never claimed that Peter knew a flesh-and-bone Jesus, and Paul was the only contemporary of Peter to write anything about him. Paul talks about how Peter saw the spirit of Jesus, but nothing else. Either Paul remains silent because he doesn't want to make Peter sound more important than himself, or Peter really wasn't any more important than Paul (i.e. Both received their knowledge of Jesus from the same kind of visions).
In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says that the most important difference between him and the other apostles is that he once persecuted Christians. No mentioned is made of other apostles hearing the teachings of a flesh-and-bone Jesus and walking the Earth with him. You would think that even Paul would have seen this as an important distinctions, or at least a difference worth noting.
| sorianofan wrote: |
You are way off here. It is okay, we make mistakes. I made the mistake of once believing 2 Peter was real.
The mistake here is huge and a total misreading of the passage and misunderstanding of "anthropos!" Read the passage, realize anthropos means physical man, understand that Jesus was a much more recent purported character in Paul's opinion, and you will see what Paul was saying. If Jesus was not real at all, Paul was certainly not singing this tune.
|
Anthropos is not a medical term denoting a flesh and bone human being. It is just a generic term to describe a person. It can easily be used to describe mythical people as well, including mythical people that the speaker believes are real. And the fact is that Paul's use of the word is modified by the description of Jesus as a spirit. 1 Cor 15:21 is saying that one man was flesh, and the other man was spirit. Set down the apologetic literature and walk away from it. You really have to stretch here to claim that Paul's description of "spirit-man Jesus" is proof that Paul thought that Jesus was a mortal Jewish mystic. You're actually trying to claim the exact opposite of what Paul really said. A reading of "Adam was born in the flesh, but Jesus was born in the spirit" makes much more sense than reading it as "Earthly Adam died and became flesh, but Earthly Jesus died and became spirit". The latter reading makes absolutely no sense at all, and is an entirely inappropriate way of trying to prove that Paul thought Jesus walked the Earth.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| An ancient reference to a mythical character in the third person cannot be construed as proof of their fleshy existence. |
No, it cannot. It means hat the person existed according to that person. Now, we have to assess the probability if any person existed at all, whether other sources speak of it, and whether other historians do. Probability increasingly shows that Paul was right at least about that.
|
Although we can't rule out the possibility that Paul was some sort of con-man that started a cult based on a myth he knew to be false, for the sake of argument we’ll assume that Paul believed what he was saying. He thought Jesus Christ appeared to him in a vision, and charged him with a life-long task of spreading the gospel. Therefore, Paul thought Jesus was real. But the question here is whether or not Paul's idea of "real" is compatible with a modern historian's definition of "real".
| sorianofan wrote: |
Now, you can argue "None of the other historians talk about it." Why didn't Christian interpolators put Jesus in them by that logic. Why did Pliny the Younger curse "Christus" and instead of talking about how fake he was, said nothing more of it? Remember, his father wrote about the history of the area. Jesus might have not been important enough to write about, but if Pliny the Elder knew Jesus was fake, wouldn't he tell his son???
|
Pliny the Younger was talking about Christians, not Christ. (Nobody doubts that Christians existed in 112 CE.) And as far as "talking about how fake he was", Pliny does exactly that when he claims that the interrogation of two Christians "discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition". That's Pliny's view of Christianity.... "depraved, excessive superstition". (It sounds a bit like Celsus’ opinion, doesn’t it?) It also sounds pretty much how a modern person might describe Scientology -- As being too utterly ridiculous to warrant a reasoned response.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, it is only an "argument from silence". But it is a very good one. |
That might be the over-statement of the century. Arguments from silence are never good.
|
They absolutely can be. Especially when you have the "argument of silence" of so many individuals. It certainly doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist, but it definitely minimizes the importance that his existence might have had.
| sorianofan wrote: |
My Pliny the Younger argument is not good. My argument from historical sources and interconnections, in the world of historiography, is "very good" by history standards. However, you have thrown those standards out the window in this instance. It does not mean you are wrong, but you are less likely right. Historians are paid to figure out what happened in the past. That is their job. We should defer to proper historiographical standards like a scientist defers to the historical method.
|
Yes, I agree. But I'm telling you, if these methods determine that Jesus was a real person, they would probably determine the same thing about Hercules and Odysseus. Hercules has a mythic tale, and so does Jesus. Hercules has people who worshipped him, and so did Jesus. Mark Antony claimed to be descended from Hercules, while people claimed Jesus was descended from King David. Hercules was said to have personally built his temple in Rome, while Jesus was said to have destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. If Jesus is to be considered a real person, why isn't Hercules? I think the reason is that these "proper historiographical standards" don't work in the way that you seem to think that they do. It takes more than a mythic story and a few cults founded in your name to secure your place within the historical timeline.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So for the earliest source of the Jesus story we have is Paul, and Paul never sheds any light on the historical life of Jesus. |
Besides the fact that Jesus talks, was killed by the gentiles (says so in 1 Corinthians 8,)
|
..Hold it right there.
| From 1 Corinthians 1 |
1:6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1:8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
I don't see anything about the Romans killing Jesus here. All he says it that the Corinthians shall be "blameless" when the end of the world comes. I suppose Paul could be referring the belief that the Romans would be blamed for the death of Jesus, but Paul doesn't exactly say that, does he? He seems to be saying that by "confirming the testimony of Christ" that they will be "blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ". Could this simply mean that by accepting Jesus and their savior that they shall be forgiven of their sins on Judgment day? There is no reference here to Pontius Pilate (or to a crucifixion, for that matter) in this chapter, but the two lines above seems to say that only by "confirming" Jesus that they will become "blameless" at the end of the world. Nowhere else in Paul's writings does he indicate that the Pontius Pilate executed Jesus, so it may be incorrect to interpret this passage in light of what the gospels later said about his Jesus' death.
Take a look at this passage from the Didache… "Blessed is he that gives according to the commandment, for he is guiltless.". Does this mean that a gentile has to give to charity in order to be forgiven of the "guilt" of crucifying Jesus? I think not.
| sorianofan wrote: |
...had beliefs that correspond with sources which attribute sayings to Jesus, had a supposed genealogy, and was called "anthropos," Paul never indicates Jesus was human. If I was not writing in ms word right now, I would make a rolleyes to indicate the fact that I am being sarcastic, though I am not trying to be malicious.
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This 2nd century non-Christian recognized that the story of Jesus was nothing more than mythic allegory, and states unequivocally that many contemporary Christian leaders understood this fact as well. |
Yet, he believe that Jesus was a bastard son and a sorcerer. He thinks a lot of things are allegorical and naturally explainable, but none significant. He did not doubt the existence of Jesus himself. Read up on Census.
|
Yes, read up on him. He says that the stories are allegory and that only fools take these stories literally, and then he proceeds to lampoon the beliefs of these fools. Census' rant seems to be a rather mean-spirited attack on Christian beliefs. A modern parallel might be the episode of South Park which attacks Scientology. It is clear that Trey and Mark think the all of Scientology's beliefs are 100% grade "A" bullshit. However, they go through the little history of Xenu and the Volcano, but do so only with goofy caricatures. Census' writings seem to parallel the way South Park portrays Scientologists' beliefs -- They go through the entire story, but are quietly snickering to themselves the whole time.
Celsus called the gospels allegory. He clearly thinks they are fictional. He also thinks the Jesus story is inferior to "proper" Roman allegories of heroes and gods. And he goes on to drive home this point be re-interpreting Christian lore with alternative literal meanings which repaint Jesus in an unfavorable light. It is anti-Christian propaganda, written for a Christian (or potentially Christian) audience, by a guy who is simply amazed that his fellow countrymen have fallen under the spell of this foreign and obviously fictional pile of crap (Again, it is like the way a modern cartoonist might feel about Scientology).
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Hmm.. you weren't the guy that edited my comments on the Jesus Myth page, were you? In any case, I've rephrased that section of the page to state… |
Yeah. I am "wikilagata." Sounds gay, but it is named after my cat, Wiskas, who is nick named "Wiki." For example, I wrote the criticisms. Your latest edit is best and more accurate.
|
Isn't Wikipedia great?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| I witness proof of this "cave myth" just about every single day. On my way to work, I pass the Lady of the Snows Shrine, which has a recreation of the nativity scene which was built inside of a cave. |
Paul started it and gentiles probably attributed this crap all after the fact. It really does nothing to shed any light on the historicity of Jesus. It is a side show.
|
Yeah, I agree that it is bullshit, too. But the point is that Christians adopted the belief of a rival cult and applied it to the birth of their own deity. Score one for the mythers.
BTW... I'm not so sure that Paul is the one who came up with this belief. Mark doesn't claim the cave thing (he doesn’t talk about Jesus' birth at all). Matthew says that Jesus was born in a house, and Luke says that baby Jesus was laid in a manger... which implies that birth was in a stable... which may or may not imply a cave. The cave thing comes from later oral lore (i.e. Mithraism), and shows up in a couple of the apocryphal nativities (And also shows up on my drive to work).
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
I'll have to check it out. But if the text was written somewhere between 70-160CE, can it really shine any more light on the nature of a historical Jesus? It doesn't seem to quote Jesus directly -- It just sums up some of the teachings found in the gospels. And since it was probably written after the gospels, they could have easily gotten this information directly from them.
I skimmed through the text, but did not really see anything original (i.e. some "lost" teaching of a historical Jesus). Did I miss something? |
Well, I argue that the source is much closer to 50 CE if not before. Here is my position on it more specifically:
| Quote: |
I wonder what anyone's opinion here is about the Didache. It is a relatively early Christian work, unless it was totally falsified by piecing together the Gospels and the Epistle of Barnabbas. It claims to be written by the 12 Apostles, but outside of this title, nothing there indicates that. I suspect that it was a brief testement of Jesus and Christian theology spread about relatively early during the Church's formation.
I have several reasons (Keep in mind, my research is limited to reading it and reading articles linked to it in Earlychristianwritings.com and some googing:)
-The content is highly Jewish in character. It calls gentiles "dogs" and it heavily relies upon a Jewish document called "The Two Ways." If it is was a Jewish Christian document, this increases the probability that it preserves less corrupted sayings and thology. The Canonical Gospels appear to be written by greeks towards a gentile audience, and are more probably written after it.
|
|
I would think that the reason for the "Jewishness" of the text is that it is mostly a plagiarized Jewish text. The part about the "dogs" does not seem to be directed at gentiles per se, but rather at non-Christians (or rather, non-Christian Jews) in general:
| From Didache |
Chap. IX.
5. But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, except those baptized into the name of the Lord; for as regards this also the Lord has said: "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."
|
This is talking about un-baptized people, not uncircumcised people. It is saying that only Christians who have been ritualistically cleaned through baptism are allowed to take part in the Eucharist ceremony. It is basically advocating Closed Communion, the Catholic belief that only church members may partake in the communion (an attitude that was dropped by some protestant denominations).
| sorianofan wrote: |
-The instructions for setting up churches asks people to elect members to lead it, probably out of merit. This means that there was not an established Church hierarchy at the time of its creation.
|
From what I understand, most scholars date the Didache at somewhere between 70 and 160CE. Are you saying that the Church had some sort of significant hierarchy before the 70's?
| sorianofan wrote: |
-Many of the sayings found in Matthew, but not Mark or Luke are found in the Didache. Mark does not share much at all. This means that when Matthew was written, Didache could have been a source along side of Q and Mark. If the Didache was based on Matthew, because both share the most Jesus sayings, how did it by chance exclude parts of Matthew that are from Mark? This must mean the Didache was not based upon Matthew unless the writer carefully took Matthew, negated everything from Mark, and the compiled the sayings. Of course, this would not make any sense.
|
Do you have a source that enumerates all of these similarities? I'd try to do it myself, but I'm feeling lazy.
| sorianofan wrote: |
-The document's purpose appears to be for founding a Church. While the Epistles are on the most part silent about what Jesus has said, that is because they were letters concerning Paul's (or someone else's) theology, because it was assumed that whomever received the letter already knew of Jesus' teachings, perhaps from a source like the Didache.
|
I agree that it was an early document. (Or rather, a compilation of 4 early documents). At first glance, I would have dated this thing to the70's or 80's, since the Christian church didn't really appear to have any organization before this time, apart from the leadership roles of apostles such as Peter, Paul, and James. The need to devise a method of selecting leadership roles would probably not have arisen until the late 60's after all the original apostles were dead. I realize that Paul appointed leadership roles to some of his flock, but it seems that the need for an election would only exist in their absence.
I would agree that Didache is most likely a 1st century document, but I still have doubts that the whole thing was compiled before the late 60's. Perhaps certain parts of it existed before then, however. The "Two Ways" part seems to be very old indeed (or at least, a modified form of an old document). It's possible that this part was not even a Christian creation. There doesn't really seem to be a reference to Jesus anywhere in the first 6 chapters. In fact, the text generally seems to infer that these commandments come directly from God. It looks like some sort of new Jewish commandments, seemingly from the same sort of Jewish thought that later gave rise to Christianity. That is to say, the "Two Ways" seems like a piece of proto-Christian theology (or rather, Essene theology) before the words were tied to a man named Jesus.
Or alternatively, perhaps an Essene teacher named Jesus came up with these new commandments, and was crucified as a heretic by a group of over-zealous Pharisees. It is fair to say that if there was an historical Jesus, he probably would have been an Essene. The gospels mention Jesus having many arguments with Pharisees and Sadducees, but Jesus never argues with any Essenes. The term "Essene" never even appears in the bible once, despite the fact that is was a major movement at the time Jesus supposedly lived. It seems like the reason that Jesus had some major disagreements with the Pharisees and Sadducees, but never with the Essenes, is because he was an Essene (or at least, the fictional character of Jesus was concocted by an Essenes sect).
In any case, you've sparked my interest in this Didache. It seems to shed some light on what Jewish Christianity might have actually looked like before Paul came along and fucked the whole thing up.
| sorianofan wrote: |
-Its representation of the Eucharist is striking for its more Jewish than pagan character (Pau's contains allusions to flesh and blood eating, seen in mystery cults of the period.) Chapter 9 of the Didache reads as follows:
| External site |
Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..
And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.
|
The wine here does not represent blood, but instead Jesus' role as a successor savior to King David while the bread represents the scattered nature of those in the Church instead of flesh. It can be debated whether Christianity's association with pre-Christian theophagy was the result of an alleged vision of the Apostle Paul (In 1 Corintians 11:23-26, Paul claims that Jesus himself told him what to say during the Eucharist...but Paul never met Jesus during his living ministry) and the practice which resulted from it. If the Didache is indeed an accurate source, Jewish Christians not converted by Paul practiced a different eucharist that has not been practiced for centuries. |
I agree that the part about the Eucharist is very interesting indeed. Chapter 9 seems entirely devoid of any reference to the crucifixion. There is no mention of a last supper, or of the bread and wine representing flesh and blood. It doesn't even claim that the instructions for the Eucharist came from Jesus. The whole thing is nothing more than a simple "thanksgiving feast".
| sorianofan wrote: |
Most convincing for dating is the lack of Mark material (which means that it was not redacted and had to be written before Mark, thus before the destruction of the temple, lack of Church hierarchy, and very Jewish representation of Jesus. Thus, the theology is purer, the sayings are perhaps more accurate, it shows that an early source attributed Jesus as a human being. It is very interesting and should be in the Bible. Well, outside of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church's bible---they put everything in there.
|
Where does it say that Jesus was a human?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A collection of quotes passed down orally for 30 years (and never once mentioned by the primary source from that period of time, Paul) just doesn't seem likely. |
The Illiad did this for hundreds of years. It is certainly possible. People were more memory oriented back then. It is more of an old world thing. In Arabic nations, many muslims have the entire Qu'ran memorized. It is not impossible. It is that we have not been educated to use memory that way…because it is more accurate to write it down and cite it.
|
I think I just need to learn that Paul cannot be counted on to provide any sort of information about a historical Jesus. If Christian Theology was founded by some Jewish guy named Jesus, Paul seems to be absolutely clueless about this fact. Paul's Jesus comes to him in visions, and these visions are about the only thing Paul seems to care about.
Paul sucks ass.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And in any case, the lessons that these parable teach aren't very important in the first place, so I really don't see what all the fuss is about. |
Yeah, who needs righteousness and love. That stuff is crap!
|
Glad you're finally seeing things my way.
But seriously... like I said about 100,000 words ago, most of the parables were little more than vague descriptions of heaven. ("The kingdom of god is like a mustard seed", etc, etc, ad nauseum). Most of the "good stuff" comes in the form of those 40 or so new commandments that are laid out in the Didache, and which Matthew shoves into Jesus' mouth in the Sermon on the Mount.
Actually, I just had a thought. I think I just realized why Mathew places this Didache-like sermon on top of a mountain. Most of the first 6 chapters of the Didache sounds an awful lot like the Sermon on the Mount, although they read like a new set of commandments from God. I think Matthew was trying to draw a parallel between Jesus' "new commandments" and Moses on the mountain delivering the original 10 commandments. It seems fitting that Matthew (who was certainly the most "Jewish" of all the gospel writers) would use a Moses-like setting for Jesus to deliver these new commandments to the people.
But you can see signs that this original Jewish document has been edited by Christians. Take a look at the last two verses of Chapter 4.
| From Didacehe |
Chapter IV.
13. Thou shalt not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but thou shalt keep what thou hast received, neither adding [thereto] nor taking away [therefrom].
14. In the congregation (in church) thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and thou shalt not come to thy prayer (or, place of prayer) with an evil conscience.
|
It seems like verse 13 might have originally been the end of the "Jewish" chapter, since it instructs people to neither add nor subtract from these commandments (a commandment that you would think would come last)... and then it appears that some Christian went ahead and added one more commandment to instruct people to confess in church (which sounds like something from later Christianity).
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The literacy rate among Jews has always been high, even back in the 1st century. Even back then, a significant portion of Jewish boys received weekly religious lessons in the Torah in preparation for their Bar Mitzvah. Although it would be wrong to say that all Jewish boys back in Jesus’ time were literate, it is also wrong to portray 1st century Palestine as some sort of stone-age culture. Most men in Jerusalem were literate, even back then. |
Yes. Educated boys who were relatively well off in Jerusalem. From the history I read, Jews in the country side, outside of circumcision and the Sabbath, did not follow dietary law. They were not educated into it. It is akin to how poor stupid people in America know "Jesus is 10rdz05" but know nothing about him. Just like in Socrates time, many Athenians were slave owners and educated…yet, Socrates never wrote a thing. Luckily, Plato and some others were incredibly prolific. In the countryside in Galilee, you are not going to find this. Furthermore, Jesus was not a philosopher in the sense of the word who would write books about his beliefs. He though scripture revealed his beliefs. So, what we have are writings that survived from the gentile church, and due to how history is, almost nothing of the Jewish Church, and possibly zilch from Galilee (though some think the Didache is--I do not agree.)
|
This brings up an interesting possibility. We can't rule out the possibility that a real-life Jesus may have only been responsible for saying a small portion of the things attributed to him.
Essene theology already shared some similarities with the Christian movement that would follow it. It's possible that the "New Commandments" might have been developed separately from the parables seen in the gospels. These new commandments may have been compiled by an off-shoot of the Essenes, either written by a collective group of people, or by one particular Essene leader.
The Essenes were a messianic group, and it seems likely that an individual from their own ranks may have been seen as the Messiah. And it is even possible that one particular Essene, Jesus, was executed for heresy -- and his martyrdom forms the basis of the Christian movement. Perhaps this sub-group of Messianic Essenes found their messiah in a guy named Jesus... and when their supposed "New King" went and croaked on them they went all nutty and proclaimed that their chosen one would still create a new kingdom just like King David -- except that he would do it from the grave.
But it is also possible the Jesus was a fictional character who was created to represent the sort of "self-sacrifice" exemplified by the "way of life" in the "Two Ways". But if Christianity had it roots in Essene Judaism, it seems unlikely that they would have just made the guy up entirely. But the question is whether or not this martyred Jesus Christ was the same guy who compiled the "new commandments", and who spoke the parables later attributed to him.
From what I understand, the Essenes had been around since the second century BCE. So it seems probable the foundations of the "Jewish Christian" philosophy was already in existence by the time Jesus would have came around. There might not have been a lot for a historical Jesus to add to the theology. This is the way Josephus and Philo described the Essenes...
| From Wikipedia: Essenes |
Rules, customs, theology and beliefs
The accounts by Josephus and Philo show that the Essenes (Philo: Essaioi) led a strictly celibate but communal life − often compared by scholars to Buddhist and later [w]Christian[w] monastic living − although Josephus speaks also of another "rank of Essenes" that did get married (War 2.160-161). According to Josephus, they had customs and observances such as collective ownership (War 2.122; Ant. 18.20), elected a leader to attend to the interests of them all whose orders they obeyed (War 2.123, 134), were forbidden from swearing oaths (War 2.135) and sacrificing animals (Philo, §75), controlled their temper and served as channels of peace (War 2.135), carried weapons only as protection against robbers (War 2.125), had no slaves but served each other (Ant. 18.21) and, as a result of communal ownership, did not engage in trading (War 2.127). Both Josephus and Philo have lengthy accounts of their communal meetings, meals and religious celebrations. From what has been deduced, the food of the Essenes was not allowed to be altered (by being cooked, for instance); and they may have been strict vegetarians, eating mostly bread, wild roots and fruits. [citation needed] After a total of three years probation (War 2.137-138), newly joining members would take an oath that included the commitment to practise piety towards the Deity and righteousness towards humanity, to maintain a pure life-style, to abstain from criminal and immoral activities, to transmit their rules uncorrupted and to preserve the books of the Essenes and the names of the Angels (War 2.139-142). Their theology included belief in the immortality of the soul and that they would receive their souls back after death (War 2.153-158, Ant. 18.18).
|
They sound like a sect of early Christians, minus Christ. But considering that they were messianic, it seems probable that the would have found a Christ ... probably several of them. ^>^ And if Jesus was nothing more than a fallen Essene priest, it would explain why Philo and Josephus don't really talk about him -- they didn't need to... They already discussed Essene beliefs, so why focus on the teachings of one particular dead Essenian messianic wannabe? By the thinking of most Jews at the time, a dead messiah isn't a very good messiah, so why waste time discussing a guy who was such an utter failure?
| sorianofan wrote: |
If Christianity did not spread and all we were left with about Christianity was from a couple Roman historians in the 4th century, we would probably assume that the nutty religion was began by Jesus as purported. This is what historians do. However, we have a lot more than that. Anyone who wants to take the myth position is doing a lot more philosophical exercise (which is fine) than history. Why? Maybe atheists are turned off by Christian theology and smug Christians, so it makes them more comfortable to believe Jesus never existed anyway. I do not know the motivations. All I know is that it is poor and contradictory scholarship. It is a fun issue to speculate about, but to pretend that the Jesus Myth is a serious historical position is ludicrous my the regular standards of historiography.
|
The theory that Jesus was based on a myth is just as valid as believing that Moses and Buddha were myths (more or less). You're acting like there is some hard non-mythic evidence for Jesus existence, but there isn't. EVERTHING that was written about the guy is second-hand myth. Suggesting that myth is precisely what Jesus may have been is not an entirely ridiculous position to take. Calling a myth a myth seems like a pretty reasonable position to me.
But let me say this... Even if their was a guy named Jesus, there really is no reason to believe that any particular word or deed attributed to him is factual. It's difficult to cite any single quote and say "Yes, Jesus really said that." Likewise, it is equally hard to point to any of the deeds attributed to Jesus and say "Yes, Jesus actually did that". If there is a kernel of truth in the gospels, it has thus far been fairly elusive -- There is simply too much bullshit to sift through.
So yes... There may have been a wannabe messiah who got himself killed, but he may never have spoken the parables we have today. There may have been a guy who spoke in parables, but he may not have been crucified by Pontius Pilate. And there may have been a group of Essenes who followed an early form of Christian theology, but that theology may not have been created by a single guy.
Even if the story of Jesus was based on some sort of historical fact, the Jesus which Christians worship today is almost entirely mythical. Therefore, I think it's fair to say that Jesus is a myth. As I’ve said before, It's no different than saying that there may have been an historical figure named Saint Nick, but that Santa Claus is make-believe. Actually, I think it's fait to say that ALL myths probably have a kernal of truth somewhere in them. But that does not change the facts that they are still myths. Even if you could demonstrate that the gospels contained 5% truth, that would still leave 95% bullshit, and would therefore place these stories in the bullshit column. The Jesus character portrayed in the bible probably has little to nothing in common with a real-life Yeshua that may have once existed. He is therefore (just like Santa Claus) a myth.
That is not to say that it wouldn't be nice to find a kernal of truth in the Jesus tale, if any such truth actually exists. But thus far, I can't even say with any degree of certainty that the guy really ever existed. If we could find any documents that talked about Jesus in a non-mythical way, the story might be a little easier to believe. But I have not seen any such documents. All I see are mythic fair tales about a dead guy rising from the grave.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
Not to get off the subject, but Genesis was written down long before the Jews got their hands on it (See: the Enûma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh)
(Actually, I guess this is getting back to the original subject of this thread … “Who Wrote the Old Testament”) |
LOL! Let's look at Genesis like historians. It probably had 3 main sources, several (if not dozens) random sources, and one redactor. The written sources probably came from oral tradition. The oral tradition was shaped by creative people, the Enuma Elish, and a popular flood story in the fertile crescent. However, isn't it amazing that about 1500 years separated by the culture which created the Enuma Elish, the Israelites retained so many key aspects of it in their oral and later written histories. They were so accurate, we can even catch on the nuances and plot of the Enuma Elish in a source 1500 years separated from it.
|
The Jews probably had access to the written Babylonian versions of these stories. But yes, it seems that the stories were altered a bit "through the grapevine" before the Jews wrote them down in their own tongue.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Because outside of Jesus miracle stories, Jesus was not "special" by ancient historian standards. Jesus did not politic. That's my counter-argument from silence.
|
Well, it's good that you and I agree that the gospels are primarily mythic fiction (based on a real person, of course) ^>^ ... But now we just have to convince about 1 billion Christians of that fact. I mean, we live in country where almost half of the population still sees the Creation story in friggin' Genesis as literal history. It's nice that you and I seem to possess cooler heads, but what do we do about the rest of the people out there?
[Rant]
Recently, an Italian atheist sued a priest who claimed that Jesus existed. Basically, the guy is charging the Catholics with fraud. Does he have a case? Is the Catholic church knowingly perpetrated fraud by claiming that the bible is accurate and that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels was a real person? Week after week churches around the globe present this piece of shoddy ancient fiction as absolute truth to unsuspecting victims – victims who in turn give the church money, either as charity, in their wills, or as tuition for their children to attend Catholic schools.
You would be hard pressed to find a single Catholic scholar who believes that the gospels were written by the actual disciples of Jesus. Yet, this is exactly the picture that is presented to the flock Sunday after Sunday.
When you claim that “Jesus was an historical figure”, you give off the false impression that there is some sort of evidence that the gospel stories are true. They most certainly aren’t. We can debate back and forth about the source of the parables and “commandments”, but I think we both agree that the gospels are basically fiction. There is simply no way that the bible contains the “true word of God”. And I think a great many church leaders and scholars are coming to that same conclusion. Yet, this information is never shared with the congregation in church. Churches continue to put on the same side-show act that they have been performing for hundreds and hundreds of years. They’re still making money off of it. And for some reason, they’re still allowed to get away with it.
In the U.S., we have that pesky 2nd amendment which allows cult like the Catholic Church and Scientology to peddle known fallacies under the guise of “Religion”. And unfortunately, my “Faith” in the Bill of Rights is more important to me than my disgust of ancient nonsense, so I would not advocate sending in government troops to confiscate church propaganda and to lock the doors to churches. But Italy has no such restrictions. And they also have some fairly strong laws against libel and fraud. What the Catholic church is doing is the very definition of fraud, so it would be interesting to see what would happen if the courts were to declare it as such.
The reason that I call Jesus a myth is because that is exactly what it is. The character may or may not have been partially based on a real-life guy named Yeshua … but none of that changes the fact that Jesus (as he is portrayed by every single church on the planet) is nothing but a myth. There are right-wing groups all over the country, pushing agendas in the name of this myth. And that bugs the hell out of me. 1st century Jewish/Mystical/Pauline philosophy just might not be suited to modern times. And I wish church leaders would stop using ancient myths to bring in supporters for their misguided causes.
[/Rant]
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| even though the mention several other of the characters which appear in the gospel accounts, such as John the Baptist, Pilate, and King Herod. |
As far as I know, only Josephus records John. Pilate and Herod were in politics, thus they would be mentioned.
|
Yes, but Josephus mentions John ... A guy who spent his entire life standing a river giving people holy baths. And really, he does more than just mention him, he even writes a little mini-bio about him. It's difficult to understand why Josephus would spend that much time on John, but ignore Jesus. By the time Josephus wrote the Antiquities in the 90's, John the Baptist had been dead and (mostly) forgotten for over 60 years, but Jesus had a burgeoning cult founded in his name. You would think that this fact alone would have placed Jesus in higher stature in Josephus' eyes, but for some reason Josephus seems to not care at all about Christians or their crucified founder.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Again... parallels between various writers about a mythical hero do not imply that they are talking about a real person. The people who wrote the gospels didn't know Jesus... nor did they know anybody else who knew Jesus either. This isn't a case of these tales of a real hero (Jesus) being passed down orally and documented by the writers of the Gospels. What we have here is Mark writing an allegorical tale about Jesus (and plagiarizing various other myths in the process, adding almost NO original material of his own).... and then this allegorical work serving as the basis of two other pieces of fiction, which were woven together with some nifty sayings from some sort of Jewish Midrash. |
…before Midrash existed. We have early written accounts by Paul, the Didache, and Q, that speak about Jesus, wish interconnect with each other theologically, and have no evidence of being reliant upon one another. Then we have later sources, the Gospels, which agree theologically and borrow from these sources and add things, but they too interconnect with all the other sources. This is a very good historical argument. It does not answer all the philosophical what ifs, but let me state, if we were historically that critical with everyone, almost nobody really existed.
|
By the 50's, it seems that there were several people (like Paul) who were running around peddling various versions of the Christian legend. It is therefore likely that some of these apostles just made some of this shit up themselves (just like Paul apparently did).
As you said, not all of the documents seem to be reliant on one another. The Didache mentions morals and ceremonies, but does not really talk about Jesus or the parables. The Q document listed a bunch of Parables, but may not have had any narrative about Jesus' life. Mark's gospel tells a fabricated version of Jesus' life, but does not include many parables nor does it lay out as many "commandments" as the Didache. The Jesus tale may have had one particular starting point, but it seem likely that several different individuals added their own fabricated pieces along the way.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Similar parallels show that Matthew/Mark/Luke weren't the original people who made this shit up, but it doesn't show that somebody else didn't make this shit up before them. |
The sayings magically made up themselves!
|
Somebody created them, yes. But were they created by a single individual, and was this same individual the Jesus who was executed by the Romans? There is simply no way to tell for sure. If Matthew’s gospel had appeared in 30 CE, it would make the likelihood of a single, historical source for the tale more believable. But instead, it seems like the full story was compiled slowly over the course of several decades by several different people. (Many of which, it seems, had no direct ties to a guy named Jesus). If there was a way to show that the Q document was compiled by one of Jesus' disciples shortly after his death that would show that the parables were probably Jesus' actual words. But we don't know who wrote this document, or even what this document (or documents) said. It's a leap of faith to assume that they reflect the unadulterated words of one particular Jewish leader.
The whole problem here is primarily one of time. Jesus is said to have preached in the 20's or early 30's, but the whole story didn't really seem to have come together until the 70's or 80'. That’s a span of 50 years. Any adults who heard Jesus speak would most likely have been dead by the time the gospels were written. It the decades preceding the writing of the gospels we seem to have various pieces of the Jesus story emerging independently, and some of them seem to contradict one another. (i.e. Luke claiming Jesus was born in 6CE, with Matthew claiming he was born before 4BCE under the reign of Herod ... and the Gospel of Peter setting the birth back several more decades by claiming it was Herod who executed Jesus). The whole process seems to have more in common with a mythic legend which grew over a period of time, than with some real historical event that was remembered shortly after it happened.
If Jesus was a real person, he should have had followers. But these followers aren't anywhere to be found. And even though later Christians tried to claim that some of the Apostles were originally followers of a flesh-and-blood Jesus, Paul's attitude towards the Jewish-Christian leaders seems to dispute this. And this is the biggest problem facing the Jesus-as-History" theory ... the fact that nobody is on record as seeing the guy while he was alive (or even of knowing anybody else who say him while he was alive). And that's the problem here... the people who lived at the same time Jesus supposedly lived don't seem to know the guy. That fact alone makes the myth theory seem a little more likely. (The other possibility is that the timeframe for Jesus' life portrayed in the gospels is way off)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I agree that the gospel writers used a common source for their parables --- But there is no reason to believe that the Q document represented the work of a man named Jesus, or even that it represented the work of a single individual at all. |
It is more than Q. Q had basis before Paul and itself, that they have things in common. Connect the historical dots! Add Didache in the mix if you believe it is applicable! Add Mark parallels. It all adds up.
|
No, it doesn't. Not at all. The Didache doesn't mention parables... it mentions laws. Even if we were to assume that the Didache represents the historic teachings of Jesus, there is no reason to believe that Parables from an entirely different document represent the teachings of the same person. They could easily have come from two different people. (And the fact that the Q document is believed to have been compiled in layers means that it probably came from several different authors.)
| sorianofan wrote: |
Curiously, John has almost no parallels…it might be close to useless to us historically.
|
I agree. Notice that I almost always ignore it.
John can be useful in getting an idea of what early 2nd century Christians thought about Jesus. But since this discussion is about the historic Jesus, John is pretty useless.
(continued in next post) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #32380
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-09-08 10:11
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Yet anther long reply (Part #3) |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
(continued from previous post)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Again... it is important to point out that even though this Q document was apparently wide-spread enough for all the gospel writers to get their hands on it, no copies were preserved, and no 2nd century Christians ever attested to its existence. If the Q document represented the real words of Jesus... and existed at the same time as the letters of Paul and the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.... you really have to wonder why they weren't preserved while these other works were. If a legitimate collection of Jesus' sayings existed, it would not have been discarded on purpose. |
It could have been lost with Jewish Christianity, which after the deaths of Kephas, Paul, James, and John, those who had kept the separate Churches united no longer existed. Thus, schisms occurred and traditions branched off. Luckily for us, things like the Didache have not been lost to us forever…or we would have no idea what the Jewish Christians really believed.
|
It still seems odd that it was lost accidentally while the works of two people who possessed this document survived... Especially when Matthew and Luke were geographically isolated, and separated by a decade or so. If the Q document fell into both of their hands, it must have been fairly widely circulated. Yet, it seems to disappear without a trace at the end of the 1st century. It just makes me think that this document must have painted a picture of Jesus that was repulsive to turn-of-the-century Christians (And even to Matthew and Luke themselves). They really seem to have purposefully preserved the parts they liked within their own gospels, and then promptly shredded the rest.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| However, if the Q document was just some sort of Jewish Midrash (or if it was taken from some other cult) early Christians would have probably ignored it -- that is, they would have ignored it until Matthew and Luke put these words into Jesus' mouth. |
Wow. Speculation! Where is this other cult?
|
It's probably was the worshippers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Actually, it may have come from some sort of proto-Gnostic group. Or it might have even come from some wacky apostles who, in addition to making up the parables, made up a whole bunch of unappealing words coming out of Jesus' mouth. Who knows? The authorship of the Q document isn't known, so any (and I really do mean ANY) attempt to assign authorship would be mere speculation.
| sorianofan wrote: |
If you read up on the Jesus sayings, some even found in Thomas but no where else, Clement sometimes talks about them, they are found are inferred from scripture, or they are totally original but theologically similar to what Paul talks about a lot (like concern for the poor, as which we see in Galatians 2, was universal among Christians unlike mystery cults.) What we see is a broad list of ideas and philosophies, seemingly combined into the Jewish context. For all the reasons I stated concerning intra-christian parallelism, this reveals that these ideas existed before the written records we have. Thus, as Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, it really narrows down the amount of people and the time period responsible for the ideas. All the records claim it is Jesus. The evidence supports this, not contradicts this.
|
The "records" are mythic fiction and the words of a hallucinating cult leader. Neither can be considered to be a very reliable source.
And Clement lived at the same time that Matthew and Luke were compiling their gospels. Perhaps he was familiar with the words of the Q document. But I am curious... what part of the Q document (or Thomas) does he cite?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| And the fact that no extant copies of the Q document exist today, and the fact that no 1st or 2nd century Christians ever even commented on its existence, seems to indicate that the Q document probably did not represent the words of a historical Jesus. |
Those Christians liked Matthew and awful lot, which quoted Q. Thus, your conclusion is unlikely.
|
Why not? Early Christians believed that a dead guy rose from the grave and that this dead guy was going to cause the end of the world. These early Christians really don't appear to be the scholarly types. Do you really think they bothered to check out Matthew's sources for his story? Do you think that Matthew even checked out his sources? Some wandering apostle might have dropped the Q document in his lap, and Matthew may have cited it with no questions asked. As we have learned from Paul, apostles aren't always the best source of information.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| An endless stream of improbable excuses does not make for a very good theory. |
Whoa, we finally agree about something in this million word long post from hell
|
So, are you saying that I'm right?
| sorianofan wrote: |
(I missed Church to write this!)
|
Then my time here has not been wasted.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Secret mark probably ended at 16:7 as well. We don't have any copies of secret Mark available. All we have are a few lines quoted from it by an early Christian who didn’t like what it had to say. But the parts that we do have seem to fit perfectly, and we can only speculate at how much Mark's original tale had been altered before settling on the form we now see today. |
Judging that the copy of secret mark was not altered at all outside of those parts, it is safe to say that the version we have now (even a secret-fied version if you print it out with the secret part included,) will pretty much look the same as the original if you cut off the extended ending.
|
I would tend to agree. But it's difficult to say what the extent of the revision actually was.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Then whose moral code was it? (And don't say Jesus... Paul never met the guy) |
Jesus, because Paul heard about the guy and associated himself with Kephas who probably knew the guy, and oh yeah, Jesus "told him stuff."
Just think about Paul's desperate attempt to claim he is a "Pillar" of the church in Galatians. He has to claim that he has special authority, that he is more than a random Apollos or Barnabbas who merely spread the word. His claim to fame is that he talked to Jesus too, at a later date, which would make his message more accurate. He would not need to resort to such claims if he was not being compared to guys who actually knew what they were talking about, possibly from experience. Again, argument from mostly silence!
|
Hey... Silence is golden. You can learn a lot from it. And when it comes to the historic Jesus, the silence can be deafening.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
No... the point is that these ideas really are very simple, and could have come from anywhere. The "good stuff" that Jesus supposedly said is so simplistic, it makes you wonder why anybody pays any attention at all. There are many other verifiable real human beings who have said many more things about life on this planet (i.e. Plato, Socrates, Aesop, Orwell). So why do people waste their time ranting and raving about the words of some guy who probably didn't exist? |
1. He probably did.
2. His modifications of Judaism and other "simple sayings" in my opinion are more helpful for dealing with the human condition than writing a huge story why we should not lie. I like Plato and Orwell, so I am not going to bash them!
|
Sorry... I prefer Orwell.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It's just silly to pay so much attention to a guy that really said almost nothing at all. |
It is what he said, not how much.
10 Commandments, Part II
1) Thou shalt obey the original 10 commandments, plus these new ones as well.
2) Thou shalt live you life in preparation for your immortal life in God's kingdom.
3) Thou shalt be kind to the poor and unfortunate.
4) Thou shalt not be a greedy, self-righteous asshole.
5) Thou shalt not judge your fellow man. That's my job, dammit.
6) Thou shalt make peace, not war.
7) Thou shalt not attempt to defend yourself from those in authority. Just do what they say.
8) Thoy shalt take no oath, for thou shalt always tell the truth.
9) Thou shalt not get divorced unless a partner adulterers.
10) What powers not delegated here are reserved for the states, or for the people.
10, though funny, is what Jesus essentially meant when he told people to follow the spirit: You figure out what is right if the rules are no explicit are applicable.
I can name a bunch more. Should I bother? Do you care?
|
I'm not sure if I'd agree with all of these. (I guess that's why I'm not a Christian).
But, was Jesus really the first person to say these things? Jesus’ writings (assuming he had any in the first place) don't survive today. He wasn't much of an author. Orwell beats him hands down. At least he managed to find a publisher while he was still alive.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why do you use the word “tricked” to describe altering your world view to eliminate mythical deities? |
Tricked if you tell yourself that you are the best thing ever, a God onto yourself. In my view (different topic…) God is extremely obviously out there and only out of pride do we deny it. However, this is debatable and I do not pretend to be an authority.
|
How do you justify your use of the word "obviously" to describe the existence of something that has never been seen, and which really has not ever even been described in any sort of concrete form. "God" is a vague term of mythic origins who's existence has never been observed, nor who's existence has ever seemed to play any part in the course of human history. This fact means that you are hereby prohibited from using the word "obvious" to describe him.
Damn it all to hell.... It's taken me a week just to finish this one. 
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
I came across that too, but didn’t comment on it yet. It’s interesting that this “hymn” says that Jesus took the form of a “slave”. Where the hell did that come from? And what’s up with this notion that Jesus’ death was due to an overabundance of “obedience”? It almost sounds like this hymn is describing a completely different character than the one presented in the gospels. It almost sounds a bit like the story of Simon Magus
And BTW… were you aware that some people are speculating that Paul of Tarsus may have been Simon Magnus? If that were true, most of everything we have said in this discussion about Paul can be chucked right out of the window. |
Some people think Paul McCartney is dead (or find that fun to believe.) I do not take that very seriously.
Concerning Jesus' obedience, he called himself a "slave to all" which connotes obedience.
|
Hmm... The term "obedience" used to describe Jesus' motivations to purposely let himself get killed still seems a little odd. It doesn't seem like it would be the first term of choice.
| sorianofan wrote: |
I await your replies...take your time or be short. I understand.
|
I decided to take my time and write another 20,000 present for you.
You're welcome.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #32551
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-09-10 20:17
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
I think we are reconciling most of our differences, so excuse my candid remarks.
| Quote: |
What I am saying is that just because Paul referred to Jesus as a "man", does not mean that he believed that Jesus walked around Jerusalem. I don't really doubt that Paul believed that Jesus was a real entity, but I'm not sure if his beliefs are exactly in tune with the modern "historic" view of Jesus as some sort of minor Jewish Rabbi. He seems to be completely unaware of anything that this wise-man ever said. And more than that, he doesn't really seem to care about what Jesus may have taught during his time on Earth.
If the original "historic" Jesus was some sort of Jewish teacher, you would think that Paul's pre-mythical-gospel view of Jesus would reflect this. But instead, Paul's Jesus seems to be a more primitive form of the myth that Mark (and later Matthew and Luke) would expand upon.
Paul converted to Christianity some time around the year 35 CE. This occurred after Paul had been persecuting Christians for an indeterminate amount of time. From this, we can see that Christianity was widespread enough to warrant persecution by Paul, yet small enough to escape the attention of Philo. The fact that Philo, nor any other historian, ever mentions it seem to indicate that it was a fairly new religion, probably only getting it's start a few years prior (at about the same time that the gospels claimed Jesus lived). This all leads to the possibility that a guy named Jesus may have actually lived at this time.
But there is still something odd here. If we believe what is written of Paul in Acts, Paul lived in Jerusalem during the time that Jesus supposedly walked the Earth. How is it that Paul missed meeting a living, breathing Jesus? Nothing in Paul's letters indicates that he was aware of Jesus having a ministry of any kind. Nothing in Paul's letters indicates that he was in Jerusalem at the same time Jesus lived. Nor does anything in Paul's letters indicate that he knew anybody who ever heard a mortal man named Jesus speak.
Paul says nothing about persecuting any of Jesus' original disciples, or of persecuting Jesus himself. If Paul was already persecuting Christians in the early 30's, you would think that he would have had some sort of contact with some of the people who knew Jesus while he was alive. It seems odd that Paul never mentions anybody at all who knew a living guy named Jesus. Instead, all Paul ever talks about are people who had visions of Jesus' spirit. I was not unusual at the time Paul lived (or even today for that matter) to claim that they have had contact from "another world". But that doesn't mean that any of it is real. Paul's Christianity came to him in visions ... Just like the way Paul claims that Peter and the rest of the apostles "found Christ". Paul never claims that anybody ever met a living Jesus -- he only speaks of visions. And the fact the Paul lived in the same area as Jesus (and at the same time Jesus supposedly walked the Earth) makes it hard to understand how Paul could be so unaware of any elements of Jesus' mortal life. Paul was supposedly a contemporary of the mortal Jesus, but he sure doesn't act like it…. Yes, Paul thought Jesus was real. |
So, we agree almost 99%. Jesus was real and Paul thought he was real. Many people, including myself, do not doubt Paul exaggerated things and that Gospel accounts did the same things. They most probably made many things up as well. However, how does that make Jesus himself a myth? It might make his raising lazarus from the dead mythical, or curing all the blind (cough, allegory, cough) mythical, but in line with other Prophets, his call for repentance and stressing important parts of Jewish law? I have no doubts that he had actually done this. His message is what’s important, the specific events, much less so.
| Quote: |
| All religions think that their gods are real. However, history books should differentiate between real-life false prophets and mythical beings. You have to have some criteria for determining which is which And when it comes to Jesus, he has more in common with a mythical Santa Claus than with a real-life jackass like Muhammad or Joseph Smith. Notice that the Wikipedia doesn't have a page on the "Muhammad Myth". You won’t find a Confucius Myth page either. There is a good reason for that... The historicity of these people really isn't in question. |
If you are critical enough, you can doubt just about anybody existed…including muhammed: http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/viewtopic.php?t=2198
| Quote: |
| So, I have to ask, what are your views on the historicity of Moses and Buddha? |
Moses is definitely not real and I cannot pass comment on Buddha.
| Quote: |
There are many ancient gods who died and who are later resurrected. They all relate back to ancient sun gods, which died in the winter and were later reborn to start off a new year. The fact that it is this element of Jesus' life (death/rebirth) that Paul seems to focus on the most indicates that Paul's Jesus may be precisely this type of myth.
Paul is the only guy who lived at the same time as Jesus who writes about him. And all he ever writes about are blatant myths (i.e. Talking ghosts) mixed in with his own moral viewpoints. The gospel tales are obvious myths. And while it can be argued that they may be myths based on an historical figure, there is really no reason to believe this is the case. I'll break the gospel accounts into 3 stages, so the historicity of each can be discussed |
You totally ignored my point that ancient historians garble history when they glorify people…worse yet, the Bible is not history. So, what we are left with are primary sources where we are left to sift through what is history and what is not. The dating of Paul’s letters and their theological accordance with unrelated, but later dated gospels, sows that they share a pre-pauline inspiration. This is Jesus. Now, how much is inspiration and how much is made up? It cannot be quantified. As you later get to, we can debate the sources, like the Q source, and what they represent. However, as I have shown, they correlate with Paul and the didache—which are totally unrelated to it. Thus, it is something more than random wisdom sayings. A great deal of them are highly likely traced to that pre-pauline inspiration. Possibly all of them. We can quantify the degree of accuracy a source has (John has very little,) but we cannot quantify the degree of accuracy in its totality.
| Quote: |
2) Ministry - When it comes to the teachings of Jesus, we can pretty much assume that the gospel narratives are not historical. The gospel accounts are a fabricated framework in which to place the sayings from the "Q document" into Jesus’ mouth. So the real question really becomes, does the Q document represent the historical teachings of Jesus? I have already stated my reasons for doubting that this is the case, but I'll go through these again briefly.
For one, even though there is strong textual evidence to indicate that a common written sayings document existed in the second half of the 1st century, there is no evidence that it existed in the first half of the 1st century, or that it survived very long after the beginning of the second century. If the Q document represented the real teachings of Jesus, you have to wonder how it was so easily lost while other documents of less importance (the gospels which were based upon it and the Pauline Epistles) survived.
The Q document was most likely just a collection of common "wisdom sayings". These sayings were written without any sort of narrative context, so there is no reason to believe that they were the teachings of Jesus, or even the teachings a single individual. If the Q document represented the teachings of Jesus, you would think that Paul would have been aware of it. But he is silent. And if they were the teachings of Jesus, 2nd century Christians should have preserved them. But they didn't. For some reason, they seemed to prefer the fairy tales of Mark & company. |
That’s a very flawed presentation of the era’s history. Just because a document fell out of existence, it does not mean there was a conspiracy to destroy a flawed document. Q, likely an eastern document, could have lacked wide distribution. Once matthew and luke were circulating, Q fell out of favor, probably because those second century chirstians thought that by their completeness, they were more accurate than Q. We really cannot know, either way it is an argument from silence. All we know is that we have a wide array of Jesus ministry sources, where the theology all closely align to a pre-pauline inspiration.
| Quote: |
So the question is, where exactly in all of this bullshit do you find an historical Jesus? I suppose that it is possible to claim that Jesus was some sort of minor (and short-lived) Jewish "wise man" whose original life story and teachings were almost entirely lost to history. But if that was the case, you have to wonder why Paul does not portray him as such. And you have to explain why Hebrews 8:4 seems to explicitly discount the possibility that Jesus was a priest.
From KJV: Hebrews 8
8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.
In order to claim that Jesus was an historical figure, you have to dismiss just about all of the details claimed in the gospels (Herod's attempt to murder the "new king", Public trials on a Jewish holiday, the dead rising from their graves, etc.). You also have to assume that Paul's version of Jesus represents a slightly exaggerated myth. You pretty much have to make up an entirely new Jesus - one not present in any 1st century writings. You have to assume that almost the entire Jesus story is myth. And although you can maintain that the myth is based on a kernel of truth, this kernel is so small that it really doesn't need to exist at all. It's easier to explain how Christianity developed as an oral myth than it is to explain away the incompetence of 1st century Christians (and secular historians) of failing to preserve a historical record of the teachings of the (supposedly) greatest teacher and prophet to ever walk the Earth. |
1. Those details are purposeful myth making, usually inspired by the OT.
2. The Hebrews quotation refers to Jesus not being of the priest class and not conducting sacrifices. I have discussed this in detail.
3. Your conclusion is overdrawn. It is very easy to cut through the BS and see the real person and his ideas. It is not of extreme historical accuracy in a word for word way, which is why there can be so much debate. But how could one argue there was not a Jesus who had Christian ideas without extreme ignorance of the facts?
| Quote: |
| There is an important difference here. The writings of all these false prophets still survive. The writings of Jesus do not survive. No first person accounts of Jesus' life survive. There aren't even any reliable second hand accounts. All there that exists of Jesus is fiction. And that is why he needs to be grouped with Hercules instead of Plato or Confucius. |
Name a book that “Hercules” wrote.
| Quote: |
| I know that you won’t deny that a large part of the gospels are myth. The problem is that there really isn't any part of the gospels which can be showed to be anything but myth. About the history that can be gleaned out the gospels is that there was some guy who taught something and who was executed because his teachings pissed off the authorities. But this is very poor history. |
His ministry and ideas still survive which I have shown at length.
| Quote: |
| But the Jesus tale is even more mythical than the works of Homer. Apart from the parables, just about every event portrayed in the gospels in un-naturalistic myth, or is historically improbable (i.e. the Jewish high council meeting on a Jewish holy day, Pontius Pilate taking a public vote during the trial of Jesus, etc). If Jesus was a real person, we know next to nothing about him. So claiming that this vague character actually existed is a pretty meaningless claim. |
It is not meaningless. Asserting the cast of Homer’s tale are real is a mistake of taking an obviously fake story written hundreds of years after the fact as true. Taking a movement, named after an individual, and sifting through OT mythic elements does not discount the real character.
| Quote: |
| The thing is that Paul gives no indication of when Jesus supposedly lived. He never mentions King Herod or Pontius Pilate. |
He claims that the people who witnessed the initial resurrection are mostly still alive. With short life expectancy and the followers being adults, it would have been hard for Corinthians to be more than a generation removed.
| Quote: |
| The gospel writers were free to write whatever crap they wanted. And they certainly seemed to have used this opportunity do exactly that. |
They made up mythic events, but stuck awfully close to the details when it came to the ministry. Why? Because they were making a myth around a man, who they only had oral history or short sources on.
| Quote: |
| That passage seems to indicate that there were other Christian missionaries that focused more on "wisdom teachings" aspect of Jesus than on Paul's life-death-rebirth focus. This seems to tell us that Paul probably is probably a terrible source for information on a historical Jesus. Perhaps these other missionaries pushed the Q document, while Paul ignored this valuable set of teachings and chose instead to focus on his grand myth. But since Paul is the only early source we have, we'll press on... |
Again, this is an argument from silence and even so, it does not discount Jesus’ ministry.
| Quote: |
| I agree that somebody came up with these ideas. But I think you're making a leap of faith when you assume that these sayings were made up by a persecuted Jew named Jesus. |
I believe you are making a leap of faith if you don’t believe it was Jesus.
| Quote: |
And that is entirely possible. But the problem is that that position really isn't supported by any historical evidence, and must therefore be viewed with some degree of skepticism.
If even one of Jesus followers had been literate, and if he had bother to jot down some of his teacher's sayings, it would be possible to claim that Jesus was a real person. But Jesus original disciples disappeared without a trace -- even though they should have still been alive at the time Paul lived. All we have in their place are various apostles like Paul, who only know of Jesus through hallucinogenic visions. And that doesn’t count as history. |
Yet, if there is a common pre-pauline theological inspiration, who else can it be?
| Quote: |
| Yes, the canonical gospels are consistent on several points --- Jesus preached in Galilee, and was executed by Pontius Pilate. But then again,you're forgetting about the fact that canonical accounts are not the only stories which existed at the time. Remember that the Gospel of Peter claimed that Jesus was killed by king Herod (i.e. Before 4 BC). The original gospel of Mark does not even claim that Jesus was resurrected -- he only claims that Jesus will someday return. Just about the only thing that is really consistent is the fact that Jesus was crucified. But, as I said before, this is your basic life-death-rebirth deity, and does not necessarily point to an historical figure. |
GoP is consistent with Pilate doing the killing: http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagepet.html
| Quote: |
What kind of "commands" are you talking about? Is there anything that indicates that Paul believes that these words were spoken by a real-life Jewish teacher? Mythical gods can offer commands, too, you know (i.e. The Ten Commandments).
This page lists some of similarities between Paul's teachings and saying later attributed to Jesus in the gospels. The similarities are so limited in number, that I can list them here.
-------------- #1 ------------------
1 Cor 2.8 - "...What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,"
Thomas 17 - Jesus said, "I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind."
-------------- #2 ------------------
1 Cor 7.10 - To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband.
The gospel writers also condemn divorce (Mark 10:11, Matt 5:31, and Luke 16:18).
-------------- #3 ------------------
1 Cor 9.14 - In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
Matt 10.9 Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, 10.10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food.
Luke 10.7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not go from house to house.
- Paul taught that apostles should get a free meal from the people they preach to. Matthew and Luke both say the same thing, and apparently got this saying from the Q document, since the wording is so similar and did not derive from Mark.
-------------- #4 ------------------
Last Supper/Eucharist instructions - Paul’s wording is similar to Mark and the others, but Luke is the only one to include Paul's instruction that this ritual should be performed "in remembrance" of Jesus (1 Cor 11:23-26, Mark 14:22-25, Matt 26:26-29, Luke 22:15-20).
-------------------------------------
And there you have it.... Paul's exhaustive knowledge of the teachings of Jesus -- That divorce is bad, apostles eat for free, and that Jesus wants his followers to perform the Eucharist. The only really interesting thing is the fact that the bit about apostles getting a free lunch seems to have found its way into the Q document, and was later used by both Matthew and Luke. But I'm not sure if I'd consider this one of Jesus' best teachings. And actually, I wouldn’t even consider it one of Jesus’ original teachings. (How did the historical Jesus know that there would be apostles?) I suppose that Jesus could have been talking about himself … that people should feed him free food after his speeches. But for a guy that can feed 5000 people with a couple fish, you would think that obtaining rations would not be a problem for him. |
As I have shown, the parallels are not always explicit, but a couple of times, Paul issues Jesus commands (including his justification of not eating Kosher in Romans 12:12). Because Jesus did not actually feed 5,000, he needed food. He probably believed that it was a conflict of interests for holy men like Rabbis to be proto-bankers and such.
| Quote: |
Don't disparage my precious wikipedia now.
But yes, your page offers a fairly comprehensive list of all of the arguments for and against authenticity of the two passages. And on the whole, I think the Testimonium is an outright forgery, while the 20.9.1 Reference is mostly genuine, but with the words "who was called Christ" added by a later Christian scribe
But since Josephus wrote in ~93 CE, the whole debate is a little moot. Even if you believe that the Testimonium is partially authentic, Josephus could have easily gotten his information about Jesus from the gospels which were written 1-2 decades prior. By the 90's. there were enough Christians in existence that Josephus may have been familiar with their belief that Jesus was executed under Pilate -- and it is entirely possible that Josephus may have included this belief in his historical accounts. But being at least 60 years removed from the time of Jesus, anything which Josephus says about Jesus may have come from the Christians themselves, and cannot really be construed as a reliable first-person account. (In any case, we know that Josephus’ writings were tampered with, which in and of itself makes the whole thing a bit unreliable.)
As I said before, the primary problem with the 20.9.1 passage is that it claims that James was stoned to death while Jesus was still alive (which rules out the possibility that the James which Paul knew in Jerusalem was Jesus' actual brother), and it also claims that Jesus was made a high priest of Jerusalem (which goes against everything Christians believed about him), and it also claims that this Jesus was the son of Damneus (Who the heck is that?) The biggest problem for this passage is the dating. It claims that these events followed the death of Porcius Festus, who died in 62CE. How can Paul be worshipping a crucified Jesus in the 40's and 50's if Jesus became a high priest of Jerusalem in the 60's? The 20.9.1 passage may be authentic, but it is talking about a completely different guy named Jesus. If Josephus really did claim that this Jesus was the one "who was called Christ", Josephus obviously made a mistake. |
Again, that IS A DIFFERENT JESUS! Please rectify that on wiki. However, yes, Josephus’ acknowledgment of Jesus only carries weight because he seems to know some specific details of the area, but like all ancient historians, those could have been the weaker parts of his analysis.
| Quote: |
| But to get back to the Testimonium ... I'm sure we can at least agree that the passage has been tampered with significantly. If Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, merely removing the removing the obviously forged bits of text is not sufficient to recover the original passage. And again, even if he did claim that Jesus was executed by Pilate, he may have simply been repeating the words of the gospels. If the gospels were his source, Josephus adds nothing to the discussion of an historical Jesus. |
The burden of proof is on those that say Josephus’ portrayal is entirely factitious, not whether it is partially true.
| Quote: |
| In any case, if some form of the Testimonium was original, you have to wonder why Origen doesn't quote it. He cites the 20.9.1 passage, but not the Testimonium. What up wit dat? You have to assume that either the Testimonium did not exist at that time (240 CE), or that it originally said something so horribly unappealing about Jesus that Origen chose to avoid the passage entirely. |
He said that Josephus did not believe Jesus was divine. The Testimonium, with the obviously fake crap subtracted, reduces Jesus to mere wiseman. This is unacceptable to those who elevated Jesus to mere Godhead. The fact they even both mentioning josephus at all is because they are concerned with the only historical account differing with their views.
| Quote: |
| It would be odd to refer to two different guys named Jesus in the same passage. |
That’s why one Jesus is “called the Christ” and the other specifically “the son of Dameus.”
| Quote: |
| There is a writer who was closer to the time and place of Jesus than Josephus --- Philo. And Philo says nothing at all about this Jewish teacher, despite the fact that Philo's theology bears a close resemblance to several Christian beliefs (in fact, some early Christians mistaken believed that Philo was a Christian)… and despite the fact that he lived at the same time as Jesus. |
A small movement to him, was not worth mention.
| Quote: |
| Whether or not the character of Jesus in the bible was based on some real-life martyred prophet is almost irrelevant, since it appears that almost nothing of this original inspiration survives in the fictional piece we see today. |
We have a good deal of his theology, though through institutionalized lenses.
| Quote: |
| I don't think there is any way to decide the matter conclusively. But the argument that there were two Jesus' does seem to be supported by the fact that the passage dates the events to 62CE, which is precisely the same time that Christian lore claims that James the Just died. The only sticking point is that the manner in which Josephus describes James’ death differs slightly from Church lore about James. But I suppose that his could be explained away since Josephus' purpose here was not to record an account of James' gruesome death, but rather to mention that this swell guy was wrongly murdered, and describe the relevant politics that caused it to happen. |
I think you can decide the matter conclusively. Josephus blatantly used 2 different identifiers.
| Quote: |
I realize that you acknowledge that this is not history, but I just wanted to drive the point home – This is not history! It is so far removed from an historical account, it makes me wonder why anybody thinks any part of it is real. This was written in ~70CE (With "Secret Mark" being perhaps a few years older). It's amazing how the life story of historical Jesus could have been so badly mangled within only a few decades (While his sayings and teaching were so faithfully preserved).
There really isn't any single part of the narrative that is believable. The only exception is the part about this guy arguing with Jewish leaders and speaking in parables. But why should that part be regarded as historic simply because it is believable? It's obvious that Mark knew next to nothing about a historic Jesus, so why should we believe that Mark was able to accurately quote a historic Jesus?
If the storyline is fictional, and if the quotes are fictional, what difference does it make if a guy named Jesus ever existed? If everything we know today about Jesus is fictional, then would it not be fair to classify Jesus as a fictional character? |
There are theological parallels. Quite a bit. I have written them out for you. Historical parallels? No.
| Quote: |
| You keep saying that common features between the various accounts of Jesus points to an historical figure. This is not the case. It could just as easily point to a common fictional writer. In truth, the only similarity between the Jesus of Paul, the Jesus of the Jewish Christians, and the Jesus of the various Docetic and Gnostic sects is that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead -- a feat which cannot in any way be considered historical, except for he first part... that a guy named Jesus was crucified. I'm sure that throughout history, several people named Jesus were crucified. But if no record of Jesus exists beyond the fact that he was executed, then who really cares? |
There is the Pauline camp, Q camp, Didache camp, Mark camp, and maybe even Thomas camp that all look at the same guy from an early time from totally different perspectives. So, there is not 1 jack and jill story. If you argue, that the story comes from 1 myth maker (though this is strange because Paul espoudses personal knowledge of those who are “still alive” having seen the story, then if I granted you this, the story teller would be “Jesus.” However, due to such a lack of uniformity, it is unlikely.
| Quote: |
| Paul doesn't really seem to attribute any teachings to Jesus. The first person to do that was Mark. And like I said above, the story Mark weaves is so fictional, there is really no reason to believe that the teachings aren't fictional as well. |
He attributes directly to Jesus thrice. Hebrews, a separate author (probably) but pre 70 CE also does.
| Quote: |
Again, we return to the question of the Q document. This whole debate really relies on whether or not the sayings in that document represented the words of a real-life martyred wise man named Jesus. No matter what your take on Paul is, you have to admit that he is a rather piss-poor source for information about the historical Jesus. Even you believe that Paul thought the ghost he saw on the road to Damascus was of a Jewish wise man who had died a few years prior, you have to acknowledge that Paul doesn't seem to give two shits about what this guy may have said or did while he was alive. The gospel writers are fairly useless as historical sources as well, which only leaves the Q document -- a neutral collection of sayings, possibly derived from an historical Jesus.
Of course, the fact that no copies of the Q document have ever been found does complicate matters a bit. We can only hope that a copy will someday be unearthed, so we can figure out if it is just a list of generic sayings compiled by early Christians, or sayings which were once spoken by an historical pre-crucifixion Jesus. |
We have enough Q parallels with Paul to surmise that there is a pre-pauline source, even if both Q and paul in their entirety are not totally factual.
| Quote: |
| Nope. Even Paul admits that there were other people running around teaching people about Jesus at the same time he was. It's entirely possible that one of these people made up the sayings document sometime in the 50's. This may be why Paul seems to have little reverence for the sayings of the Q document -- he knew that it was fabricated by one (or several) of his contemporaries. |
Objection! Conjecture. Different people running around shows that there is something pre-pauline going on.
| Quote: |
| Remember that Paul, the gospel writers, and their flock weren't from Israel. If a guy showed up on the shore of some Mediterranean village and claimed that Jesus said something or another, there would be no reason for his audience to doubt him. Only the "1st generation" of Christian apostles would know better, and they all died during the 60's. |
Kephas, the leader of early Christianity, was.
| Quote: |
| I have to believe that many early Christians found something very wrong with what it said. Even Matthew and Luke seemed to use it sparingly, even though they retained most of the bullshit that Mark had written. It seems like Mathew and Luke both took the part of the Q document that they liked, then immediately tossed the rest of it in the waste bin. Why would 1st century Christians do such a thing? |
Why would the mob/cia/aliens kill Kennedy? Conspiracy theories don’t make good history.
| Quote: |
No. The Night Before Christmas was written about events that occurred just the night before!! All extant copies of this poem vary only in minute detail (the names of the reindeer have changed slightly, but apart from that the story is fairly solid). This clearly indicates a common historical source for the events portrayed in the story. The authorship of this story may be uncertain, but we can infer that it a reliable first-person account because....
Never mind. I'll stop now. |
LOL!
| Quote: |
| And on a side note... Who cares what Celsus wrote? He was 120 years and 1,000 miles removed from the time and place that Jesus supposedly lived, so how can he be viewed as a reliable source? And in any case, Celsus clearly refers to the Gospel tales several times as "allegory", a phrase which does not indicate that Celsus considered the gospel tales historical. |
Who cares what a lot of these people wrote or did not write?
| Quote: |
| Not at all. Roman Emperors rule a frigin' empire. Alexander the Great's existence is attested to by numerous contemporary sources (and he even left behind a few inscriptions). But Jesus didn't leave behind squat. All we know about Jesus comes from hallucinating cult leaders and overtly fictional mythic tales. |
Did his hands write those inscriptions? Are those contemporary sources quoted 500 years after the fact? Again, how ridiculous can we get with our bar of accuracy?
| Quote: |
Grrrr... Paul says that Jesus assumed the form of a human. But what exactly Paul meant by this is a little unclear. And like I said, the thing that would convince me that Paul believed that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood Jewish wise man would be for him to have mentioned some of the flesh and blood things this Jesus said and did while he was alive. And he fails to do that. He doesn't treat his Jesus like some kind of Jewish wise man. On the whole, he treats him more like some sort of mythical life-death-rebirth deity.
But again, Paul never met a flesh-and-blood Jesus, so at best he is only a 2nd-hand source of information. If an historical Jesus is to be found, Paul is not the place to find him. |
I am not saying we can construct a biography of Jesus like Alexander. His life is not important The theology is. Paul is a means of seeing that theology.
| Quote: |
| And in any case, the fact that Peter was the leader of largest Christian sect (and the sect which happened to reside in the most holiest of cities) was reason enough to desire an agreement with him. |
I am sure that was just coincidence!
| Quote: |
| The fact that Joseph Smith was the leader of the Mormons does not mean that the Angel Moroni was real. Just because Peter was the leader (and because later Christian myths claimed that he walked with Jesus) does not mean that Jesus was a real person. |
It doesn’t. It is this any many other facts that offer us a view at a pre-pauline inspiration, and petrine as well (because he differed with Paul.) This heavily narrows it down.
| Quote: |
| Anthropos is not a medical term denoting a flesh and bone human being. It is just a generic term to describe a person. It can easily be used to describe mythical people as well, including mythical people that the speaker believes are real. And the fact is that Paul's use of the word is modified by the description of Jesus as a spirit. 1 Cor 15:21 is saying that one man was flesh, and the other man was spirit. Set down the apologetic literature and walk away from it. You really have to stretch here to claim that Paul's description of "spirit-man Jesus" is proof that Paul thought that Jesus was a mortal Jewish mystic. You're actually trying to claim the exact opposite of what Paul really said. A reading of "Adam was born in the flesh, but Jesus was born in the spirit" makes much more sense than reading it as "Earthly Adam died and became flesh, but Earthly Jesus died and became spirit". The latter reading makes absolutely no sense at all, and is an entirely inappropriate way of trying to prove that Paul thought Jesus walked the Earth. |
There is no argument of this point, you are getting silly now. 1 Cor 15:21-22 pretty much states paul’s opinion on Jesus being a man, where later in Corinthians he stresses the resurrected spirit Jesus (which he claims that he is a homie with.)
| Quote: |
| Although we can't rule out the possibility that Paul was some sort of con-man that started a cult based on a myth he knew to be false, for the sake of argument we’ll assume that Paul believed what he was saying. He thought Jesus Christ appeared to him in a vision, and charged him with a life-long task of spreading the gospel. Therefore, Paul thought Jesus was real. But the question here is whether or not Paul's idea of "real" is compatible with a modern historian's definition of "real". |
A con-man, with a bunch of other con-men, disagreeing on everything else but the conning of Jesus’ existence. Who blew up the world trade center, the illuminati or the masons?
| Quote: |
| They absolutely can be. Especially when you have the "argument of silence" of so many individuals. It certainly doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist, but it definitely minimizes the importance that his existence might have had. |
Over a billion people ascribe to some version of his theology. You might want to minimize the theology’s personal importance to you, but you need awful arguments to claim the theology was not grounded in Jesus himself.
| Quote: |
| Yes, I agree. But I'm telling you, if these methods determine that Jesus was a real person, they would probably determine the same thing about Hercules and Odysseus. Hercules has a mythic tale, and so does Jesus. Hercules has people who worshipped him, and so did Jesus. Mark Antony claimed to be descended from Hercules, while people claimed Jesus was descended from King David. Hercules was said to have personally built his temple in Rome, while Jesus was said to have destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. If Jesus is to be considered a real person, why isn't Hercules? I think the reason is that these "proper historiographical standards" don't work in the way that you seem to think that they do. It takes more than a mythic story and a few cults founded in your name to secure your place within the historical timeline. |
Hercules lacks a church and several sources of opposing position written a generation after his “death.” That’s the glaring difference.
| Quote: |
..Hold it right there.
From 1 Corinthians 1
1:6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: 1:8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
I don't see anything about the Romans killing Jesus here. All he says it that the Corinthians shall be "blameless" when the end of the world comes. I suppose Paul could be referring the belief that the Romans would be blamed for the death of Jesus, but Paul doesn't exactly say that, does he? He seems to be saying that by "confirming the testimony of Christ" that they will be "blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ". Could this simply mean that by accepting Jesus and their savior that they shall be forgiven of their sins on Judgment day? There is no reference here to Pontius Pilate (or to a crucifixion, for that matter) in this chapter, but the two lines above seems to say that only by "confirming" Jesus that they will become "blameless" at the end of the world. Nowhere else in Paul's writings does he indicate that the Pontius Pilate executed Jesus, so it may be incorrect to interpret this passage in light of what the gospels later said about his Jesus' death. |
I must have made a wrong citation, but I am so busy, I cannot find the correct one. I apologize.
Edit: 1 Cor 2:8 says the gentiles killed him.
| Quote: |
| Take a look at this passage from the Didache… "Blessed is he that gives according to the commandment, for he is guiltless.". Does this mean that a gentile has to give to charity in order to be forgiven of the "guilt" of crucifying Jesus? I think not. |
It is probably a reference to following mosaic law concerning charity.
| Quote: |
| Isn't Wikipedia great? |
It is, but I am too busy now to do edits on anything.
| Quote: |
| BTW... I'm not so sure that Paul is the one who came up with this belief. Mark doesn't claim the cave thing (he doesn’t talk about Jesus' birth at all). Matthew says that Jesus was born in a house, and Luke says that baby Jesus was laid in a manger... which implies that birth was in a stable... which may or may not imply a cave. The cave thing comes from later oral lore (i.e. Mithraism), and shows up in a couple of the apocryphal nativities (And also shows up on my drive to work). |
You must snicker when you drive by that cave.
| Quote: |
| This is talking about un-baptized people, not uncircumcised people. It is saying that only Christians who have been ritualistically cleaned through baptism are allowed to take part in the Eucharist ceremony. It is basically advocating Closed Communion, the Catholic belief that only church members may partake in the communion (an attitude that was dropped by some protestant denominations). |
Good point, though I disagree with your notion that the Didache purely rips off a Jewish document.
| Quote: |
| From what I understand, most scholars date the Didache at somewhere between 70 and 160CE. Are you saying that the Church had some sort of significant hierarchy before the 70's? |
Or before 100, it is just a point, along with no mention of the temple and no indication of ripping of the gospels. I cannot personally defend the position, but the Didache slyly infers the superiority of charity over sacrifices, which indicates a pre-temple idea. Also, there is no indication of Pauline theology, which would be strange for a later source.
Let me quote some points from Chris Zeichman referring to Milavec 2003:
| Quote: |
- There is no hint that one should face the temple during communal prayer.
- The Understanding of the Eucharist in Ch 14 as a perfect sacrifice renders the temple sacrifice moot.
- The apocalyptic speculation in Ch 16 makes no mention of the temple. I, though speculating, attribute this to a spiritualization of a saying like Mark 14:58, as I mentioned above.
- The prophets seem to be regarded as surrogate priests due to the preference of their prayers and priority in acceptence of gifts. |
If you figure out my real name by this, due not type it out on this forum! I am being cryptic on purpose.
| Quote: |
| Do you have a source that enumerates all of these similarities? I'd try to do it myself, but I'm feeling lazy. |
Sure:
| Quote: |
The following seem to affirm either Jesus' vocal ministry or discussion of it:
4:12 (denounces hypocrites,) 6:2 (mirrors what Jesus and Paul said about sexual morality,) 9:5 (it is like Exodus 22:31 but matches perfectly with Matthew 7:6,) 11:2 (righteous and knowledge of Jesus, so people have an idea of what he said,) 11:5-6 (talk of false prophets), 16:1-8 (quotes Jesus on end of days)
Less specifically, Didache 1-5 seems to be composed of the sermon on the mount. However, it will incorporates sayings missing from Luke, but not Matthew. For example, Matthew 5:41 (no where in Luke.)
Let me make a list:
-Didache 1:2=Matthew 19:19, 22:39, Mark 12:31, 12:33, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8.
-Didache 1:3=Matthew 5:44. The same idea is found in the Old Testament, but never said the same way. See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2023:4,5;%20Proverbs%2019:11;24:17,29;25:21,22;%20Ecclesiastes%207:21;
-Didache 1:4= "Abstain from lusts," Matthew 19:11-13 (See also Paul's discourse on marriage in 1 Corinthians;) "Go the other mile," Matthew 5:41; "turn the other cheeck," Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. See also Lamentations 3:30.
-Didache 1:5=Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:30.
-Didache 1:6=Totally original as far as we know.
Didache 2=All of Exodus 20-23! Slight exageration. It also appears like a sin list. See Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21-22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and Galatians 5:19-21.
Didache 3:7=Matthew 5:5
Didache 4:6=Matthew 20:28?, Mark 10:45?, Hebrews 9:15?; see also concerning deeds John 5:28-29, Romans 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:10, James 2:14.
Didache 4:7=Mark 10:21? Luke 12:33?
Didache 4:13=Totally original.
Didache 4:14=James 5:16. In the Jewish context, see Leviticus 5:5 and Numbers 5:7.
Didache 5:1-2=Again, the sin list. See Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21-22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and Galatians 5:19-21.
Didache 6:3=Paul's stance in 1 Corinthians.
Didache 8:2=Lord's prayer. See Matthew 6:9-13.
I could go more, but it tapers off. Let me highlight 13:1 (apostles will make their living by the Gospel," purported closer to the words of Paul then Q)
11:8 Seems to infer that one should act like Jesus, which means how Jesus acted was spoken of in this circle. |
| Quote: |
| I agree that it was an early document. (Or rather, a compilation of 4 early documents). At first glance, I would have dated this thing to the70's or 80's, since the Christian church didn't really appear to have any organization before this time, apart from the leadership roles of apostles such as Peter, Paul, and James. The need to devise a method of selecting leadership roles would probably not have arisen until the late 60's after all the original apostles were dead. I realize that Paul appointed leadership roles to some of his flock, but it seems that the need for an election would only exist in their absence. |
There was no election per se. There were the people who owned a house to meet in (a good perequisite to be a bishop) or were prophesizing.
| Quote: |
| I would agree that Didache is most likely a 1st century document, but I still have doubts that the whole thing was compiled before the late 60's. Perhaps certain parts of it existed before then, however. The "Two Ways" part seems to be very old indeed (or at least, a modified form of an old document). It's possible that this part was not even a Christian creation. There doesn't really seem to be a reference to Jesus anywhere in the first 6 chapters. In fact, the text generally seems to infer that these commandments come directly from God. It looks like some sort of new Jewish commandments, seemingly from the same sort of Jewish thought that later gave rise to Christianity. That is to say, the "Two Ways" seems like a piece of proto-Christian theology (or rather, Essene theology) before the words were tied to a man named Jesus. |
Possibly, though because it crosses with Q and even Paul, unless they all misunderstood essene ideas with that of a Jesus fellow (who might have borrowed these ideas) what we are left with a lot of parallels from way different angles. As you said, the two ways sounds like new commandments. Perhaps they were, though they are all OT principles. Jesus, as a prophet, would be expected to speak as such.
| Quote: |
Or alternatively, perhaps an Essene teacher named Jesus came up with these new commandments, and was crucified as a heretic by a group of over-zealous Pharisees. It is fair to say that if there was an historical Jesus, he probably would have been an Essene. The gospels mention Jesus having many arguments with Pharisees and Sadducees, but Jesus never argues with any Essenes. The term "Essene" never even appears in the bible once, despite the fact that is was a major movement at the time Jesus supposedly lived. It seems like the reason that Jesus had some major disagreements with the Pharisees and Sadducees, but never with the Essenes, is because he was an Essene (or at least, the fictional character of Jesus was concocted by an Essenes sect).
In any case, you've sparked my interest in this Didache. It seems to shed some light on what Jewish Christianity might have actually looked like before Paul came along and fucked the whole thing up. |
Never thought of the Essene thing, and yes, my reading of the Didache piqued my interest as well. It feels less contaminated so to say.
| Quote: |
| I agree that the part about the Eucharist is very interesting indeed. Chapter 9 seems entirely devoid of any reference to the crucifixion. There is no mention of a last supper, or of the bread and wine representing flesh and blood. It doesn't even claim that the instructions for the Eucharist came from Jesus. The whole thing is nothing more than a simple "thanksgiving feast". |
Exactly. The love feasts the Essenes followed. Perhaps Jesus was an essene prophet?
| Quote: |
| Where does it say that Jesus was a human? |
The Eucharist and the commands of the “Lord” besides the part quoting Malachi. Jesus is referred to coming from David’s lineage, a physical trait.
Phil Collins sucks ass! We want Timmy! We want Timmy!
| Quote: |
But seriously... like I said about 100,000 words ago, most of the parables were little more than vague descriptions of heaven. ("The kingdom of god is like a mustard seed", etc, etc, ad nauseum). Most of the "good stuff" comes in the form of those 40 or so new commandments that are laid out in the Didache, and which Matthew shoves into Jesus' mouth in the Sermon on the Mount.
Actually, I just had a thought. I think I just realized why Mathew places this Didache-like sermon on top of a mountain. Most of the first 6 chapters of the Didache sounds an awful lot like the Sermon on the Mount, although they read like a new set of commandments from God. I think Matthew was trying to draw a parallel between Jesus' "new commandments" and Moses on the mountain delivering the original 10 commandments. It seems fitting that Matthew (who was certainly the most "Jewish" of all the gospel writers) would use a Moses-like setting for Jesus to deliver these new commandments to the people.
But you can see signs that this original Jewish document has been edited by Christians. Take a look at the last two verses of Chapter 4.
From Didacehe
Chapter IV. 13. Thou shalt not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but thou shalt keep what thou hast received, neither adding [thereto] nor taking away [therefrom]. 14. In the congregation (in church) thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and thou shalt not come to thy prayer (or, place of prayer) with an evil conscience.
It seems like verse 13 might have originally been the end of the "Jewish" chapter, since it instructs people to neither add nor subtract from these commandments (a commandment that you would think would come last)... and then it appears that some Christian went ahead and added one more commandment to instruct people to confess in church (which sounds like something from later Christianity). |
It is also important to point out that not everything is a quote or command. Damn ancients did not use quotation marks. They can be quotes, they can be theological commands based on quotes or knowledge of Jesus’ ministry, it can be a mix of Jesus’ and the beliefs espoused in a jewish document. We really cannot know. However, the use of “my child” connotes a teacher’s command, not God’s. God is more removed than that in the OT. It sounds like a prophets original rendering of the OT ideas he found important, thus, I think it is the J-man. If the document infers that it is God alone talking, then we have conclusive proof that Jesus did not invent anything, unless he personally wrote or devised these renderings. However, we have no evidence of Jesus the plagiarizer. It would be easier to assume that Christianity was a misunderstood Essene sect attributed to Jesus.
Again, this is unlikely. God never speaks in the third person in the OT. In the Didache, God would be as such unless the commands come from someone else—the J-man.
The Matthew-Didache mountain parallel is possible, but we cannot really know.
| Quote: |
| This brings up an interesting possibility. We can't rule out the possibility that a real-life Jesus may have only been responsible for saying a small portion of the things attributed to him. |
I am not going to deny this. I read the whole OT. There is nothing Jesus said not found there aside from dietary law and a few small things. Essentially, Jesus revolves around the “two most important commandments” and sorts through other BS matters in Judaism, and adds hope for the coming righteousness of God (like all prophets.) Jesus is part and parcel a prophet. The muslims are correct in this.
| Quote: |
Essene theology already shared some similarities with the Christian movement that would follow it. It's possible that the "New Commandments" might have been developed separately from the parables seen in the gospels. These new commandments may have been compiled by an off-shoot of the Essenes, either written by a collective group of people, or by one particular Essene leader.
The Essenes were a messianic group, and it seems likely that an individual from their own ranks may have been seen as the Messiah. And it is even possible that one particular Essene, Jesus, was executed for heresy -- and his martyrdom forms the basis of the Christian movement. Perhaps this sub-group of Messianic Essenes found their messiah in a guy named Jesus... and when their supposed "New King" went and croaked on them they went all nutty and proclaimed that their chosen one would still create a new kingdom just like King David -- except that he would do it from the grave.
But it is also possible the Jesus was a fictional character who was created to represent the sort of "self-sacrifice" exemplified by the "way of life" in the "Two Ways". But if Christianity had it roots in Essene Judaism, it seems unlikely that they would have just made the guy up entirely. But the question is whether or not this martyred Jesus Christ was the same guy who compiled the "new commandments", and who spoke the parables later attributed to him. |
Likely, an individual did the compiling. My (singular) child is used for example. It is the Didache, with theological connections with other sources and all holding a Jesus character of importance that gives us reason that the theology revolves around Jesus, who probably was that compiler (and teacher.)
| Quote: |
From what I understand, the Essenes had been around since the second century BCE. So it seems probable the foundations of the "Jewish Christian" philosophy was already in existence by the time Jesus would have came around. There might not have been a lot for a historical Jesus to add to the theology. This is the way Josephus and Philo described the Essenes...
From Wikipedia: Essenes
Rules, customs, theology and beliefs The accounts by Josephus and Philo show that the Essenes (Philo: Essaioi) led a strictly celibate but communal life − often compared by scholars to Buddhist and later [w]Christian[w] monastic living − although Josephus speaks also of another "rank of Essenes" that did get married (War 2.160-161). According to Josephus, they had customs and observances such as collective ownership (War 2.122; Ant. 18.20), elected a leader to attend to the interests of them all whose orders they obeyed (War 2.123, 134), were forbidden from swearing oaths (War 2.135) and sacrificing animals (Philo, §75), controlled their temper and served as channels of peace (War 2.135), carried weapons only as protection against robbers (War 2.125), had no slaves but served each other (Ant. 18.21) and, as a result of communal ownership, did not engage in trading (War 2.127). Both Josephus and Philo have lengthy accounts of their communal meetings, meals and religious celebrations. From what has been deduced, the food of the Essenes was not allowed to be altered (by being cooked, for instance); and they may have been strict vegetarians, eating mostly bread, wild roots and fruits. [citation needed] After a total of three years probation (War 2.137-138), newly joining members would take an oath that included the commitment to practise piety towards the Deity and righteousness towards humanity, to maintain a pure life-style, to abstain from criminal and immoral activities, to transmit their rules uncorrupted and to preserve the books of the Essenes and the names of the Angels (War 2.139-142). Their theology included belief in the immortality of the soul and that they would receive their souls back after death (War 2.153-158, Ant. 18.18).
They sound like a sect of early Christians, minus Christ. But considering that they were messianic, it seems probable that the would have found a Christ ... probably several of them. ^>^ And if Jesus was nothing more than a fallen Essene priest, it would explain why Philo and Josephus don't really talk about him -- they didn't need to... They already discussed Essene beliefs, so why focus on the teachings of one particular dead Essenian messianic wannabe? By the thinking of most Jews at the time, a dead messiah isn't a very good messiah, so why waste time discussing a guy who was such an utter failure? |
True. Because the Essenes could have moved on, while the Christian Essenes (jewish Christians) were a small ineffectual group. As I said, Jesus was not original with ideas as he was with interpetation. His stance towards eating and celibacy were less strict. He could have been a “failed” essene, but his beliefs have lived on through his name. He was important enough in the Didache to have been considered an authority. Thus, the prophet’s ideas, like Isaiah’s, live on.
| Quote: |
| The theory that Jesus was based on a myth is just as valid as believing that Moses and Buddha were myths (more or less). You're acting like there is some hard non-mythic evidence for Jesus existence, but there isn't. EVERTHING that was written about the guy is second-hand myth. Suggesting that myth is precisely what Jesus may have been is not an entirely ridiculous position to take. Calling a myth a myth seems like a pretty reasonable position to me. |
I was denouncing the extreme position. The degree of Jesus’ originality and ideas we have today is up for debate…but that does not make it myth. Myth connotes entirely false.
| Quote: |
| But let me say this... Even if their was a guy named Jesus, there really is no reason to believe that any particular word or deed attributed to him is factual. It's difficult to cite any single quote and say "Yes, Jesus really said that." Likewise, it is equally hard to point to any of the deeds attributed to Jesus and say "Yes, Jesus actually did that". If there is a kernel of truth in the gospels, it has thus far been fairly elusive -- There is simply too much bullshit to sift through. |
The kernel of truth is that altered essene theology exist to this day. The theology is what is important.
| Quote: |
| He is therefore (just like Santa Claus) a myth. |
That’s a stretch. Santa is a fictional story. Look at all the fake stories about babe ruth. Just because 95% of it is BS, it does not mean there is truth to the man. Now, look at that by ancient standards. There is a difference between the story of Achilles and the good news about jesus.
| Quote: |
| The Jews probably had access to the written Babylonian versions of these stories. But yes, it seems that the stories were altered a bit "through the grapevine" before the Jews wrote them down in their own tongue. |
I go with the grapevine thing. However, pious jews would never knowingly rip off pagan religions.
| Quote: |
| I mean, we live in country where almost half of the population still sees the Creation story in friggin' Genesis as literal history. It's nice that you and I seem to possess cooler heads, but what do we do about the rest of the people out there? |
Talk to whomever wants to hear it. I was asked in class “who wrote the bible.” As a teacher, I had to give the short social studies answer. I said, “Many people think that it was written by Moses, but there is evidence that it was written by several different stories centuries after the recorded events in it.” Someone then said, “How could we know today what was written in the bible was the same as what was in it 2 thousand years ago?” I replied that we have early manuscripts that do not differ with later ones. However, people either want to believe in the fairy tale or ignore the whole thing. I commend you for being in a middle ground where you actually are inquisitive about the issue.
| Quote: |
[Rant]
Recently, an Italian atheist sued a priest who claimed that Jesus existed. Basically, the guy is charging the Catholics with fraud. Does he have a case? Is the Catholic church knowingly perpetrated fraud by claiming that the bible is accurate and that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels was a real person? Week after week churches around the globe present this piece of shoddy ancient fiction as absolute truth to unsuspecting victims – victims who in turn give the church money, either as charity, in their wills, or as tuition for their children to attend Catholic schools.
You would be hard pressed to find a single Catholic scholar who believes that the gospels were written by the actual disciples of Jesus. Yet, this is exactly the picture that is presented to the flock Sunday after Sunday.
When you claim that “Jesus was an historical figure”, you give off the false impression that there is some sort of evidence that the gospel stories are true. They most certainly aren’t. We can debate back and forth about the source of the parables and “commandments”, but I think we both agree that the gospels are basically fiction. There is simply no way that the bible contains the “true word of God”. |
While a dick has no right to sue over so stupid (“fuck you macy’s, you said there was a santa!”) I do believe that as the bible reflects theological truth, that truth reflects God.
| Quote: |
| And I think a great many church leaders and scholars are coming to that same conclusion. Yet, this information is never shared with the congregation in church. Churches continue to put on the same side-show act that they have been performing for hundreds and hundreds of years. They’re still making money off of it. And for some reason, they’re still allowed to get away with it. |
You’re acting as we need some consumer protection. I believe in a free market. People can buy whatever crap that is sold to them.
| Quote: |
| In the U.S., we have that pesky 2nd [1st] amendment which allows cult like the Catholic Church and Scientology to peddle known fallacies under the guise of “Religion”. And unfortunately, my “Faith” in the Bill of Rights is more important to me than my disgust of ancient nonsense, so I would not advocate sending in government troops to confiscate church propaganda and to lock the doors to churches. But Italy has no such restrictions. And they also have some fairly strong laws against libel and fraud. What the Catholic church is doing is the very definition of fraud, so it would be interesting to see what would happen if the courts were to declare it as such. |
But, if truth is defined as “faith,” then it cannot be considered legalistically false unless we are going to punish people for thinking the wrong way.
| Quote: |
| Yes, but Josephus mentions John ... A guy who spent his entire life standing a river giving people holy baths. And really, he does more than just mention him, he even writes a little mini-bio about him. It's difficult to understand why Josephus would spend that much time on John, but ignore Jesus. By the time Josephus wrote the Antiquities in the 90's, John the Baptist had been dead and (mostly) forgotten for over 60 years, but Jesus had a burgeoning cult founded in his name. You would think that this fact alone would have placed Jesus in higher stature in Josephus' eyes, but for some reason Josephus seems to not care at all about Christians or their crucified founder. |
John almost had an insurrection and was probably involved in politics (the gospels record his death at the hands of a king too.) The Christian “tribe” was small and unpolitical.
| Quote: |
| But were they created by a single individual, and was this same individual the Jesus who was executed by the Romans? |
Most likely. He is the only thing in common in all the sources.
| Quote: |
| The whole problem here is primarily one of time. Jesus is said to have preached in the 20's or early 30's, but the whole story didn't really seem to have come together until the 70's or 80'. That’s a span of 50 years. |
(message truncated)
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #35168
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-11-14 04:47
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Better late than never (part 1) |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
So, we agree almost 99%. Jesus was real and Paul thought he was real. Many people, including myself, do not doubt Paul exaggerated things and that Gospel accounts did the same things. They most probably made many things up as well. However, how does that make Jesus himself a myth? It might make his raising lazarus from the dead mythical, or curing all the blind (cough, allegory, cough) mythical, but in line with other Prophets, his call for repentance and stressing important parts of Jewish law? I have no doubts that he had actually done this. His message is what’s important, the specific events, much less so.
|
The question here is, in what sense did Paul consider Jesus to be "real". Did anybody in the first half of the 1st century believe he was “real”. Did anybody believe that Jesus was a "real" guy who was recently killed in Jerusalem, or did people like Paul believe Jesus was a "real" spirit that appeared before people like Peter and himself? If Paul believed that Jesus a real guy, that would support Jesus' historicity. If he believed that he was a magical ghost that would do little to help the argument.
One question that we must answer is whether or not the Q document represents the work of a single individual named Jesus. Take a good look at Corinthians 2. In 2:2-5, Paul states...
| From 1 Cor 2:2-5 |
2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God
|
Here Paul states that he knows nothing except Jesus and the fact he was crucified. He also seems to make reference to other apostles who teach "wisdom" ... but Paul warns that these teachings of man are of less importance than the sacrifice of Jesus. We can infer from this that at the time of Paul there were other apostles who taught some sort of wisdom sayings. And we can also infer that Paul didn’t care much for this type of “wisdom”. You have to think really hard about how that can be. You have to wonder why Paul cared so little about the supposed words of his supposed messiah.
About the only reason I can think of is because Paul regarded these sayings as the wisdom of man – not his lord and savior. There were several other “mystery” religions which existed at the time. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the wisdom sayings found in the Q document are just that … a collection of wisdom sayings. A collection of sayings that probably came from a different cult, which were later stuffed into Jesus’ mouth.
If this was the case, that would explain why Paul cared so little about them. And that would explain why 1st century Christians cared so little about them … so little that they saw no reason to preserve the Q document into the 2nd century. Matthew and Luke took the bits that interested them and wove them into their narratives, then promptly cast the Q document into the rubbish bin… the same fate that befell most 1st/2nd century Docetic/Gnostic literature.
I suppose another interpretation could be that Paul thought these words were spoken by a mortal Jesus, and that the teachings of the mortal Jesus don't count -- that only things taught by spirit Jesus should matter. But it would seem odd for Paul to dismiss the teachings of a mortal Jesus in this manner. It seems much more likely that the reason that Paul dismissed this "wisdom" is because he knew damn well that Jesus didn't say these things.
In chapter two we find another oddity.
| From 1 Cor 2:2-5 |
2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. |
Here Paul is stating that he believed that Jesus was killed by "the princes of this world". This clearly indicates that Paul thinks Jesus was crucified by people that lived on Earth. But just when you think that you've found hard evidence to demonstrate that Paul thought Jesus was human, Paul screws things up by saying something stupid.
What does he mean that Jesus was killed by "the princes of this world"? Hasn't he ever heard of Pontius Pilate? Was Pilate a prince? Not exactly. So who exactly does Paul think murdered Jesus? Paul never gets into specifics concerning the time or place of Jesus' crucifixion. Why is that? Paul converted to Christianity just a few years after the time Jesus supposedly lived. Why doesn't he ever offer any details of this recent event?
I think one problem here is that, if Jesus was a real person, I don’t believe that Matthew and Luke correctly identified the time of his crucifixion. They didn’t get the time of his birth correct, and the certainly seemed to be ignorant of most of the details of Jesus life. So why do we assume that they were correct in fixing the death of Jesus under the rule of Pontus Pilate?
If the gospel writers got this detail incorrect, that would help explain why Paul (and everybody who lived at the same time) was so woefully ignorant of Jesus’ life. If Jesus had lived in the 1st century B.C., a whole lot of the “arguments from silence” go away.
Of course, it introduces a new problem … namely, why NOBODY mentioned Jesus until over 3 decades after his death.
And there is another problem here. If you read a few verses later, Paul says...
| From 1 Cor 2:2-5 |
2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
|
Here again Paul likens Jesus to Spirit, not a man. It seems like the best way to characterize Paul's beliefs concerning Jesus would be as Docetism. Paul believed that Jesus was real ... a real spirit, that is ... who came to Earth and was crucified by unnamed princes. He isn't a Gnostic, since he seems to have no part in the "wisdom teachings" which other men connected with Jesus. And the most probably reason for this is that Paul considered these teachings to be the work of mortal man, not of his god incarnate.
It seems odd that this type of Docetic belief could spring up so soon after the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived. Jesus’ followers and family members would have still been alive at the time that Paul converted (~32AD). Also, there must have been hundreds or even thousands of people in the holy lands who heard a living Jesus speak, but Paul doesn't seem to care what any of these eyewitnesses had to say about the living Jesus.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| All religions think that their gods are real. However, history books should differentiate between real-life false prophets and mythical beings. You have to have some criteria for determining which is which And when it comes to Jesus, he has more in common with a mythical Santa Claus than with a real-life jackass like Muhammad or Joseph Smith. Notice that the Wikipedia doesn't have a page on the "Muhammad Myth". You won’t find a Confucius Myth page either. There is a good reason for that... The historicity of these people really isn't in question. |
If you are critical enough, you can doubt just about anybody existed…including muhammed: http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/viewtopic.php?t=2198
|
I don't think too many people doubt that Muhammad existed... But they are starting to wonder if the Koran was really written at the time Muhammad was alive. (But I haven't spent a great deal of time researching the issue)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| So, I have to ask, what are your views on the historicity of Moses and Buddha? |
Moses is definitely not real and I cannot pass comment on Buddha.
|
Buddha is a bit tricky. There isn't any evidence to verify his existence, but he lived in a time and place from which no evidence would be expected.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
There are many ancient gods who died and who are later resurrected. They all relate back to ancient sun gods, which died in the winter and were later reborn to start off a new year. The fact that it is this element of Jesus' life (death/rebirth) that Paul seems to focus on the most indicates that Paul's Jesus may be precisely this type of myth.
Paul is the only guy who lived at the same time as Jesus who writes about him. And all he ever writes about are blatant myths (i.e. Talking ghosts) mixed in with his own moral viewpoints. The gospel tales are obvious myths. And while it can be argued that they may be myths based on an historical figure, there is really no reason to believe this is the case. I'll break the gospel accounts into 3 stages, so the historicity of each can be discussed |
You totally ignored my point that ancient historians garble history when they glorify people…worse yet, the Bible is not history. So, what we are left with are primary sources where we are left to sift through what is history and what is not. The dating of Paul’s letters and their theological accordance with unrelated, but later dated gospels, sows that they share a pre-pauline inspiration. This is Jesus.
|
No. No. No. No. No.
Similar theological roots only show that there are … similar theological roots. They may have come from one guy, they may have come from several sources. They may be the work of Yeshua, they may be the work of Zeus. You cannot say that that simply because a handful of similar passages appear here and there that it proves a man named Jesus lived, and was crucified.
Let me give you a hypothetical. Let’s say that next week, archeologist discover a copy of the Q document. Extensive radiometric dating places the document somewhere around 20AD – 30AD. The contents of this document show that ALL of the similarities found in the Jesus tale come from this single document.
Now, the one problem is that whoever wrote this document didn’t sign his name to it. We don’t have any idea who wrote it. Was it one of Jesus’ disciples? Was it Jesus himself? Was it some disgruntled Mithras-cult member who took a sacred Mithras text and replaced every occurrence of “Mithras” with “Jesus”? We haven’t a clue.
So, the question is… does this document prove that Jesus existed? It proves that there is a single source, but does it prove that he existed?
To put it another way… Imagine that the gospel of Mark had been flushed down the memory hole early in the 2nd century. Now, looking at Matthew and Luke, it’s obvious that they shared a common source. But does the existence of a common source prove that the common source was historically accurate? Was Mark historically accurate? If you believe Mark is historically accurate, I have a bridge to sell you…
So, just to re-iterate … the apparent existence of a common source does nothing to prove that this common source is factual. The apparent existence of the Q document only shows that the story came from a common source. But it does not give us any idea of whether this document recorded an historic event (i.e. the teachings of Jesus), or if it was just a bunch of mystical “wisdom teachings” (i.e. gathered from several sources by one or more authors).
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
The Q document was most likely just a collection of common "wisdom sayings". These sayings were written without any sort of narrative context, so there is no reason to believe that they were the teachings of Jesus, or even the teachings a single individual. If the Q document represented the teachings of Jesus, you would think that Paul would have been aware of it. But he is silent. And if they were the teachings of Jesus, 2nd century Christians should have preserved them. But they didn't. For some reason, they seemed to prefer the fairy tales of Mark & company. |
That’s a very flawed presentation of the era’s history. Just because a document fell out of existence, it does not mean there was a conspiracy to destroy a flawed document. Q, likely an eastern document, could have lacked wide distribution. Once Matthew and Luke were circulating, Q fell out of favor, probably because those second century chirstians thought that by their completeness, they were more accurate than Q. We really cannot know, either way it is an argument from silence. All we know is that we have a wide array of Jesus ministry sources, where the theology all closely align to a pre-pauline inspiration.
|
Yes… documents get lost. Many early Christian documents suffered the same fate. But most of them have something in common … they were viewed as heretical (Gnostic texts) or as outright forgeries (i.e. the infancy gospels).
But the Q document is supposed to represent the ACTUAL WORDS OF JESUS. Matthew and Luke only preserved a small part of these words in their gospels. How is it possible that they could have been lost so easily? There were many pieces of apocryphal literature that survived well into the 3rd and 4th centuries. But the Q document seems to have appeared and disappeared within the span of a few decades sometime in the last half of the 1st century.
The Q document wasn’t simply lost .. it was purposefully discarded. And it’s difficult to see why 1st century Christians would have done such a thing if the Q document had represented the ACTUAL words of their lord and savior. It almost easier to believe that the Q document theory is wrong than it is to believe that such an important document could be tossed aside in such a way. I don’t buy the “accidentally lost” theory. The document existed for several decades, and was widely distributed (at least among the gospel writers). It would not have been lost while other works were retained. The only explanation is that it said things that Christians didn’t want to hear (or it showed that the words of Jesus presented in the gospels were not actually spoken by Jesus)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
In order to claim that Jesus was an historical figure, you have to dismiss just about all of the details claimed in the gospels (Herod's attempt to murder the "new king", Public trials on a Jewish holiday, the dead rising from their graves, etc.). You also have to assume that Paul's version of Jesus represents a slightly exaggerated myth. You pretty much have to make up an entirely new Jesus - one not present in any 1st century writings. You have to assume that almost the entire Jesus story is myth. And although you can maintain that the myth is based on a kernel of truth, this kernel is so small that it really doesn't need to exist at all. It's easier to explain how Christianity developed as an oral myth than it is to explain away the incompetence of 1st century Christians (and secular historians) of failing to preserve a historical record of the teachings of the (supposedly) greatest teacher and prophet to ever walk the Earth. |
1. Those details are purposeful myth making, usually inspired by the OT.
2. The Hebrews quotation refers to Jesus not being of the priest class and not conducting sacrifices. I have discussed this in detail.
3. Your conclusion is overdrawn. It is very easy to cut through the BS and see the real person and his ideas. It is not of extreme historical accuracy in a word for word way, which is why there can be so much debate. But how could one argue there was not a Jesus who had Christian ideas without extreme ignorance of the facts?
|
Ignorance of what facts?
- The gospel stories are allegorical myth.
- There is not a single detail in the gospels that jive with all of the others, except one .. that a man named Jesus was crucified. But the details of this man’s life (the time of his life and death, and the deeds he preformed) aren’t consistent at all. In other words, they aren't historical.
- And yes ... there is the Q document. But the question is: Who wrote it? Was it the work of one of Jesus' followers? If not, then who penned those words to paper, and where did he get those words from?
There is nothing in these facts that indicates that a person named Jesus walked the Earth, taught a heretical philosophy, and then was martyred on a cross. Nothing. The story of Jesus could be mythical (all that remains is myth, after all), and Jesus' words could have come from anywhere. There is nothing at all that shows that any of this story is true. Nothing at all.
At best, there may have been an Essene messiah name Jesus who was executed by the state.... and over time a myth developed around him, and various teachings were attributed to him. But the story of Jesus we have today has as much to do with a real-life Yeshua as Santa Claus has to do with Saint Nicholas. But that’s even giving early Christians the benefit of the doubt in believing that this guy was crucified. It's entirely possible that the whole thing is just a bunch of crap.
Regardless of whether or not a guy named Yeshua once lived ... The story of Jesus we have today is mythical, and words ascribed to him came from several unidentified sources.
Hence, Jesus is a myth.
Here's the point ... If you were in charge of publishing history books for school children, and you had to write a chapter about the Roman occupation of Judea, would you include anything about Jesus?
I certainly would talk about the Christian movement which sprouted up in the latter part of the 1st century, but as for Jesus himself ... I wouldn't know what to say. What historically accurate information would I write about him? When did he live? When did he die? Did he have any followers while he was alive? Was Pontius Pilate involved with his execution?
I haven't a clue.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
There is an important difference here. The writings of all these false prophets still survive. The writings of Jesus do not survive. No first person accounts of Jesus' life survive. There aren't even any reliable second hand accounts. All there that exists of Jesus is fiction. And that is why he needs to be grouped with Hercules instead of Plato or Confucius. |
Name a book that “Hercules” wrote.
|
Hercules didn't write a book. That's the point.
Name a book that Jesus wrote.... or a book that anyone who knew Jesus wrote.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| I know that you won’t deny that a large part of the gospels are myth. The problem is that there really isn't any part of the gospels which can be showed to be anything but myth. About the only history that can be gleaned out the gospels is that there was some guy who taught something and who was executed because his teachings pissed off the authorities. But this is very poor history. |
His ministry and ideas still survive which I have shown at length.
|
Christianity certainly survives... but that is not the same thing.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
But the Jesus tale is even more mythical than the works of Homer. Apart from the parables, just about every event portrayed in the gospels in un-naturalistic myth, or is historically improbable (i.e. the Jewish high council meeting on a Jewish holy day, Pontius Pilate taking a public vote during the trial of Jesus, etc). If Jesus was a real person, we know next to nothing about him. So claiming that this vague character actually existed is a pretty meaningless claim. |
It is not meaningless. Asserting the cast of Homer’s tale are real is a mistake of taking an obviously fake story written hundreds of years after the fact as true. Taking a movement, named after an individual, and sifting through OT mythic elements does not discount the real character.
|
But are you prepared to do the same thing for all mythic heroes? Can you sift away the mythical elements of Hercules' life and claim that what remains is historically accurate?
I understand that there are many real-life people whose life story gained many mythical elements later on, but this is not exactly the same thing. Just about ALL of the elements of Jesus' story are mythical.
A good example is the story of William Wallace. Just about everything we know about him comes from the writings of one man ... a minstrel named Blind Harry. The story that Blind Harry wrote (and upon which the movie Braveheart is based) is largely fictional. However, it is believable fiction. Even though Blind Harry wrote of Wallace some 170 years after the fact, he claimed to have based his story on an earlier (and now lost) account written by John Blair. Blind Harry's Wallace didn't shoot fireballs from his eyes, bolts of lightning from his arse, or walk on water. Blind Harry based his story on oral tales, and filled in the rest himself to construct a narrative.
Yet, there are several documents from the period that attest to Wallace's existence. And these document correlate with Blind Harry's tale.
So...
Was William Wallace a real person?... Yes.
Did he fight in several battles against the English?... Yes.
Was he executed or treason in 1305?... Yes.
Did he give that "Freedom!!" speech we see in the movie?... Not a chance.
So yes, what we have here is a slightly-mythical hero. But this guy really did walk the Earth, and most of the key parts of his story are verifiable accurate. He was a real person, not just a myth.
But can we say the same thing about Jesus? What parts of Jesus' story are accurate?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| The gospel writers were free to write whatever crap they wanted. And they certainly seemed to have used this opportunity do exactly that. |
They made up mythic events, but stuck awfully close to the details when it came to the ministry. Why? Because they were making a myth around a man, who they only had oral history or short sources on.
|
What details did they stick close to? The only reason that the details jive is because they used the same sources. But I certainly don't consider Mark to be an accurate source ... and I think it's a leap of faith to assume that the "Q document" was an accurate source either. (I mean, we don't even know what the document actually said ... or who wrote it ... or when is was written ... really, we don’t know anything about it, except that the gospel writers used it, and that early Christians ignored it.)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That passage seems to indicate that there were other Christian missionaries that focused more on "wisdom teachings" aspect of Jesus than on Paul's life-death-rebirth focus. This seems to tell us that Paul probably is probably a terrible source for information on a historical Jesus. Perhaps these other missionaries pushed the Q document, while Paul ignored this valuable set of teachings and chose instead to focus on his grand myth. But since Paul is the only early source we have, we'll press on... |
Again, this is an argument from silence and even so, it does not discount Jesus’ ministry.
|
Arguments from silence aren't proof. But when you have so many of them, it does make you wonder.
When you wash away all of the myth surrounding Jesus, all you have left is a simple Jewish teacher who was executed for some sort of blasphemy or insurrection. But, if this is the historical Jesus, you really have to wonder who the hell Paul was worshipping. Because nothing in his writings indicates that he was aware that any such person ever existed.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| I agree that somebody came up with these ideas. But I think you're making a leap of faith when you assume that these sayings were made up by a persecuted Jew named Jesus. |
I believe you are making a leap of faith if you don’t believe it was Jesus.
|
You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it logical.
As I said, we don't know where the Q document came from. We don't know who wrote it. If 1st century Christians would have had the authentic writings of somebody who knew Jesus, they wouldn't have needed to write all of those pseudepigraphical epistles and gospels.
In order for the Q document to be considered proof of Jesus’ historicity, it would have had to have been written by somebody who knew Jesus, or by Jesus himself. And there is absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that this is the case.
It isn't a leap of faith ... it's just rational, un-biased reasoning. The Q document was probably similar in form to the Gospel of Thomas. There is no reason to believe that that document represents a first hand account of Jesus' teachings. What make you think that Q is any different?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
And that is entirely possible. But the problem is that that position really isn't supported by any historical evidence, and must therefore be viewed with some degree of skepticism.
If even one of Jesus followers had been literate, and if he had bother to jot down some of his teacher's sayings, it would be possible to claim that Jesus was a real person. But Jesus original disciples disappeared without a trace -- even though they should have still been alive at the time Paul lived. All we have in their place are various apostles like Paul, who only know of Jesus through hallucinogenic visions. And that doesn’t count as history. |
Yet, if there is a common pre-Pauline theological inspiration, who else can it be?
|
A myth. Myths were really popular back in those days. Even more so than today, since many people had a hard time differentiating fiction from fact. (Well, maybe it wasn't all that different from today.)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| But to get back to the Testimonium ... I'm sure we can at least agree that the passage has been tampered with significantly. If Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, merely removing the removing the obviously forged bits of text is not sufficient to recover the original passage. And again, even if he did claim that Jesus was executed by Pilate, he may have simply been repeating the words of the gospels. If the gospels were his source, Josephus adds nothing to the discussion of an historical Jesus. |
The burden of proof is on those that say Josephus’ portrayal is entirely factitious, not whether it is partially true.
|
Not really, since...
1) We know the text has been corrupted
2) Origen doesn't mention the "original" passage.
What we have here is an out of place paragraph, saying something that the author never would have said, that was over-looked by a guy (Origen) who was looking for evidence of an historic Jesus. (And also, which was supposedly written 60 years after the fact, and at least 10-25 years after the Gospel of Mark). The burden of proof is not on those who say that the passage is forged ... we know at least part of it was forged. The challenge here is to determine what, if any, part of the text was original. And Origen's silence is fairly deafening here.
We KNOW that Origen had copies of Josephus' works, and we KNOW that he didn't mention this passage. If Josephus' "original" passage consisted of the "residue" which is left behind after the obvious forgeries are removed, then Origen would have quoted that. But Origen didn't. This means that Josephus must have originally said something completely different, or he said nothing at all.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| It would be odd to refer to two different guys named Jesus in the same passage. |
That’s why one Jesus is “called the Christ” and the other specifically “the son of Dameus.”
|
Yes, it could be referring to two different Jesus’. But, the question is whether or not the text was corrupted. The whole thing relies on four little words ... "who was called Christ".
We need to determine:
1) If those words are original
2) If they are original, was Josephus testifying to the historicity of Jesus? Or was he merely repeating the early Christian belief that James the Just was the brother of Jesus?
I must admit, out of all the ancient "evidence" we have discussed thus far, this passage comes the closest to showing that Jesus may have been a real person. Nevertheless, it still falls a little short. This passage isn't about Jesus at all... it is about James. And there is a considerable amount of doubt whether or not James really was the flesh-and-blood brother of Jesus.
I know we've discussed this before, but I feel that the whole matter is the result of confusion on the part of early Christians.
Mark's (and Mathew's) gospels mention that Jesus had a brother named James, but they say absolutely nothing else about him. Luke and John don't even bother mentioning him.
Mark 6:3 - Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Matthew 13:55 - Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
But the gospels do mention another James. This is the disciple named James. Actually... there were two disciples named James. Here is a list of disciples according to each of the gospels...
Mark 3:16 - And Simon he surnamed Peter;
Mark 3:17 - And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
Mark 3:18 - And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,
Mark 3:19 - And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.
Matthew 10:2 - Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Matthew 10:3 - Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Matthew 10:4 - Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Luke 6:13 - And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
Luke 6:14 - Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
Luke 6:15 - Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
Luke 6:16 - And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
But John doesn't mention a single person named James anywhere in his Gospel.
So we have at least 3 James' here...
1) James, the brother of Jesus (according to Mark and Matthew)
2) James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John (According to all three synoptics)
3) James, the son of Alphaeus and brother of Levi (According to all three synoptics)
We also have several Judas' floating around
1) Judas, the brother of Jesus (according to Mark and Matthew)
2) Judas, the brother of James. (according to Luke)
3) Judas Iscariot, the traitor (According to all three synoptics)
(And, just to confuse matters, John says that Judas is the son of Simon)
And, just to really confuse things, the bible lists three different Mary's.
1) Mary, mother of Jesus
2) Mary Magdalene
3) Mary, mother of the Zebedees (James and John)
So you can see, there are several places where people named Mary, James, Judas, and Simon are said to be related. It's easy to see how things cold get confusing.
Outside of the gospels, we have a single reference by Paul to "James, the lord's brother". But, as we can see from our original discussion of the word Adelphos, it is not clear if Paul is implying a blood relationship between Jesus and James the Just.
The question is, which one of these Gospel James' is the same James that Paul spoke of?
In Acts, Luke claims that James Zebedee (James the Great) was executed by King Herod. Acts also mention the other James... the same James that Paul knew.
And just to confuse mattes further (once again), check this out..
| From Wikipedia: Saint James the Less |
Hegesippus, reported by Eusebius, records that Alphaeus/Clopas was the brother of Joseph. (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 11) hence James, the "Lesser" and Matthew (Levi) were, like James, the "Greater" and John, cousins of Jesus. According to Eusebius, James, the Less's (and Matthew's) brother Symeon succeeded Jesus' brother James, the Just as head of the Jerusalem Church in 62 CE.
|
So... James the Less was Jesus' cousin?
Allow me to put forth a different interpretation. If the tale of Jesus' life really was myth, it's possible that James the Just (the James that Paul knew) had nothing at all to do with any of the James' portrayed in the mythic tale. Only Mark (and Matthew) explicitly say that Jesus had a brother named James.... but neither of them speak of the James who was in Jerusalem at the time of Paul. (They instead mention two more disciples named James).
Paul only speaks of one James ... the James who is the "pillar of the church". Paul once refers to him as a "Brother (Adelphos) of the Lord". But it seems more likely that Paul was using this term figuratively, not literally.
And although Acts seems to mention three different James' (The two disciples and the guy in Jerusalem ... which may have been one of the disciples), there is not a single reference to any of these guys being the brother of Jesus.
So, getting back to the original discussion, what the hell was Josephus talking about when he said the words "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (assuming that this is his actual words). Given the fact that this was written in 92AD, Josephus could have merely been recounting what Christians of the time (mistakenly) believed about James the Just.
In short, James the Just is not the same person that Mark listed as one of Jesus' brothers. And Josephus (or whoever stuck those words in Josephus' mouth) erred in saying that he was.
As an afterthought, there is another reason for doubting that James was the brother of Jesus. If James really was Jesus' brother, he would have been a valuable source for information about Jesus' early life. Yet, 1st century Christians seem woefully ignorant of the details of their savior's early life.
And as another afterthought... nowhere in the NT does it explain how Jesus' brother James came to be the leader of the post-crucifixion church. The gospels speak of two disciples named James, but there is no mention of Jesus' brother James joining Jesus’ followers. Acts seems to imply that it is one of these two disciples named James who was the leader of the church after Jesus' death (Acts never mentions Jesus having a brother at all). But for some reason, Christian tradition holds that James the Just was the James listed my Mark as being Jesus' brother. I seriously think that all of this just a simple case of confusion, caused by existence of 3 fictional James' (who were variously related to various people named Mary, Judas, Joseph, and Jesus) and 1 real guy named James (who obviously could not be related to fictional characters).
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Nope. Even Paul admits that there were other people running around teaching people about Jesus at the same time he was. It's entirely possible that one of these people made up the sayings document sometime in the 50's. This may be why Paul seems to have little reverence for the sayings of the Q document -- he knew that it was fabricated by one (or several) of his contemporaries. |
Objection! Conjecture. Different people running around shows that there is something pre-Pauline going on.
|
Conjecture is the only thing we have here to work with. Paul & Company didn't leave us with much else.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I have to believe that many early Christians found something very wrong with what it said. Even Matthew and Luke seemed to use it sparingly, even though they retained most of the bullshit that Mark had written. It seems like Mathew and Luke both took the part of the Q document that they liked, then immediately tossed the rest of it in the waste bin. Why would 1st century Christians do such a thing? |
Why would the mob/cia/aliens kill Kennedy? Conspiracy theories don’t make good history.
|
What conspiracy theory? We know the Q document was lost, yet we know that it was circulated widely enough for both Matthew and Mark (and "Thomas") to get their hands on it. Yet, even though these early Christians used it as a source for their wisdom sayings, no 2nd century apologists ever mention its existence. You either have to believe that early Christians purposefully flushed it down the memory hole, or that perhaps the Q document wasn’t actually a Christian document (i.e. Christians didn't preserve it because it wasn't the words of Jesus… it was just a bunch of Jewish sayings).
If you're looking for a conspiracy theory, I suppose one could claim that Satan caused all the copies of Jesus true words to spontaneously combust around the year 80AD in order to hide the "true word" from the human race.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not at all. Roman Emperors rule a frigin' empire. Alexander the Great's existence is attested to by numerous contemporary sources (and he even left behind a few inscriptions). But Jesus didn't leave behind squat. All we know about Jesus comes from hallucinating cult leaders and overtly fictional mythic tales. |
Did his hands write those inscriptions? Are those contemporary sources quoted 500 years after the fact? Again, how ridiculous can we get with our bar of accuracy?
|
It would be fairly ridiculous to claim that Alexander the Great didn't exist, while claiming that Jesus did. The "bar" is that there must be some sort of evidence of a person's existence. And that is something that Jesus doesn't have. All it would take to give Jesus a chance at historicity would be for SOMEBODY to claim that they saw the guy while he was alive... or for some writings or other evidence to be left behind by Jesus himself. That's it. It's something that historical figures have, but mythical characters lack. It's how we tell them apart.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #35169
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-11-14 04:52
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Better late than never (part 2) |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
(continued from previous post)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
Grrrr... Paul says that Jesus assumed the form of a human. But what exactly Paul meant by this is a little unclear. And like I said, the thing that would convince me that Paul believed that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood Jewish wise man would be for him to have mentioned some of the flesh and blood things this Jesus said and did while he was alive. And he fails to do that. He doesn't treat his Jesus like some kind of Jewish wise man. On the whole, he treats him more like some sort of mythical life-death-rebirth deity.
But again, Paul never met a flesh-and-blood Jesus, so at best he is only a 2nd-hand source of information. If an historical Jesus is to be found, Paul is not the place to find him. |
I am not saying we can construct a biography of Jesus like Alexander. His life is not important The theology is. Paul is a means of seeing that theology.
|
Paul didn't know squat about Jesus' philosophy. Paul's philosophy is almost entirely his own. It's based on highly moralistic Jewish philosophy, with most of the silly bits of Jewish custom removed. Apart from that, just about the only identifiable "Christian" aspect of Paul's philosophy was his belief in charity
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Anthropos is not a medical term denoting a flesh and bone human being. It is just a generic term to describe a person. It can easily be used to describe mythical people as well, including mythical people that the speaker believes are real. And the fact is that Paul's use of the word is modified by the description of Jesus as a spirit. 1 Cor 15:45 is saying that one man was flesh, and the other man was spirit. Set down the apologetic literature and walk away from it. You really have to stretch here to claim that Paul's description of "spirit-man Jesus" is proof that Paul thought that Jesus was a mortal Jewish mystic. You're actually trying to claim the exact opposite of what Paul really said. A reading of "Adam was born in the flesh, but Jesus was born in the spirit" makes much more sense than reading it as "Earthly Adam died and became flesh, but Earthly Jesus died and became spirit". The latter reading makes absolutely no sense at all, and is an entirely inappropriate way of trying to prove that Paul thought Jesus walked the Earth. |
There is no argument of this point, you are getting silly now. 1 Cor 15:21-22 pretty much states paul’s opinion on Jesus being a man, where later in Corinthians he stresses the resurrected spirit Jesus (which he claims that he is a homie with.)
|
I'm not sure how we can differ so greatly on this point. But, in the interest of keeping things civil, I'll move on.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Although we can't rule out the possibility that Paul was some sort of con-man that started a cult based on a myth he knew to be false, for the sake of argument we’ll assume that Paul believed what he was saying. He thought Jesus Christ appeared to him in a vision, and charged him with a life-long task of spreading the gospel. Therefore, Paul thought Jesus was real. But the question here is whether or not Paul's idea of "real" is compatible with a modern historian's definition of "real". |
A con-man, with a bunch of other con-men, disagreeing on everything else but the conning of Jesus’ existence. Who blew up the world trade center, the illuminati or the masons?
|
I know.... history is full of people who have used false religions in order to collect a flock of worshipping (and donating) followers. But there is no way that the guy who founded my religion was this type of person.
In 1 Corinthians 9:20 Paul says that he changes his message to suit his audience (so he can gain more followers). In 1 Cor 9.14, Paul states that apostles (such as himself) shouldn't have to work for a living. In 1 Corinthians 16, Paul request that his flock hand over a huge sum of cash... buy nobody is really sure what ever became of this huge pile of booty. And if you believe that the Jewish Christians followed the actual teachings of Jesus, you have to wonder why Paul was so quick to ignore them.
And, oh yeah... one more thing... Paul claimed that he talked to ghosts. This means he was either delusional, medically ill, or full of shit.
If you take a look at all the other people throughout human history who have claimed to speak to god, they usually fall into the last category. It's perfectly reasonable to ponder weather or not Paul was this type of person as well. Most of the rest of them fall into that category, so why not Paul? There is no evidence of this. But you have to wonder why Paul seems to be reviled by so many early Christians. And you have to wonder if the rules presented in the Didache against false prophets were written with Paul in mind. They wouldn't have written the following unless some money-grubbing apostles had existed...
| From The Didache |
11:1 Whosoever, therefore, shall come and teach you all these things aforesaid, him do ye receive;
11:2 but if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine with a view to subvert you, hearken not to him; but if he come to add to your righteousness, and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.
11:3 But concerning the apostles and prophets, thus do ye according to the doctrine of the Gospel.
11:4 Let every apostle who cometh unto you be received as the Lord.
11:5 He will remain one day, and if it be necessary, a second; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet.
11:6 And let the apostle when departing take nothing but bread until he arrive at his resting-place; but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet.
11:7 And ye shall not tempt or dispute with any prophet who speaketh in the spirit; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.
11:8 But not every one who speaketh in the spirit is a prophet, but he is so who hath the disposition of the Lord; by their dispositions they therefore shall be known, the false prophet and the prophet.
11:9 And every prophet who ordereth in the spirit that a table shall be laid, shall not eat of it himself, but if he do otherwise, he is a false prophet;
11:10 and every prophet who teacheth the truth, if he do not what he teacheth is a false prophet;
11:11 and every prophet who is approved and true, and ministering in the visible mystery of the Church, but who teacheth not others to do the things that he doth himself, shall not be judged of you, for with God lieth his judgment, for in this manner also did the ancient prophets.
11:12 But whoever shall say in the spirit, Give me money, or things of that kind, listen not to him; but if he tell you concerning others that are in need that ye should give unto them, let no one judge him.
|
According to the above criteria, Paul would certainly qualify as a "false prophet". In fact, it almost seems like these words were tailored specifically with Paul in mind.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| They absolutely can be. Especially when you have the "argument of silence" of so many individuals. It certainly doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist, but it definitely minimizes the importance that his existence might have had. |
Over a billion people ascribe to some version of his theology. You might want to minimize the theology’s personal importance to you, but you need awful arguments to claim the theology was not grounded in Jesus himself.
|
Just because a billion people believe it doesn't make it correct. How many of them do you think have looked into the matter as we have? Not many. And of those who have, many of come to the conclusion that it is all a bunch of mythological B.S.
As for the theology, I suppose it doesn't really matter whether or not it was developed by a single person, or whether it was created by several layers of various contributors. Personally, it seems like the philosophy probably had its roots in the Essenes, was blended with the philosophies of Philo and others, and was finally hammered into its (more-or-less) final form by people like Paul, the gospel writers, and the people who forged all of the epistles.
The only reason to believe that it was all the work of a single individual is the desire on the part of some people for Jesus to be "special"... If not in a meta-physical way, at least as a major philosopher. But the problem is that Christian philosophy wasn't created by a single individual. This is only a problem for people who are intent on worshipping Jesus. If people only cared about the philosophy, it wouldn't really matter who created it.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, I agree. But I'm telling you, if these methods determine that Jesus was a real person, they would probably determine the same thing about Hercules and Odysseus. Hercules has a mythic tale, and so does Jesus. Hercules has people who worshipped him, and so did Jesus. Mark Antony claimed to be descended from Hercules, while people claimed Jesus was descended from King David. Hercules was said to have personally built his temple in Rome, while Jesus was said to have destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. If Jesus is to be considered a real person, why isn't Hercules? I think the reason is that these "proper historiographical standards" don't work in the way that you seem to think that they do. It takes more than a mythic story and a few cults founded in your name to secure your place within the historical timeline. |
Hercules lacks a church and several sources of opposing position written a generation after his “death.” That’s the glaring difference.
|
Hercules most certainly did have his own churches. And the amount of time which passed between their supposed deaths and the founding of their cults is almost irrelevant, since in neither case was their church founded by people who actually knew them physically. In other words, both of their churches were founded on oral legends. They really aren’t as different as they might appear.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| From what I understand, most scholars date the Didache at somewhere between 70 and 160CE. Are you saying that the Church had some sort of significant hierarchy before the 70's? |
Or before 100, it is just a point, along with no mention of the temple and no indication of ripping of the gospels. I cannot personally defend the position, but the Didache slyly infers the superiority of charity over sacrifices, which indicates a pre-temple idea. Also, there is no indication of Pauline theology, which would be strange for a later source.
Let me quote some points from Chris Zeichman referring to Milavec 2003:
| Quote: |
- There is no hint that one should face the temple during communal prayer.
- The Understanding of the Eucharist in Ch 14 as a perfect sacrifice renders the temple sacrifice moot.
- The apocalyptic speculation in Ch 16 makes no mention of the temple. I, though speculating, attribute this to a spiritualization of a saying like Mark 14:58, as I mentioned above.
- The prophets seem to be regarded as surrogate priests due to the preference of their prayers and priority in acceptance of gifts. |
If you figure out my real name by this, due not type it out on this forum! I am being cryptic on purpose.
|
Umm... hmmmm....
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Do you have a source that enumerates all of these similarities? I'd try to do it myself, but I'm feeling lazy. |
Sure:
|
Kewl. 
| sorianofan wrote: |
| External site |
The following seem to affirm either Jesus' vocal ministry or discussion of it:
4:12 (denounces hypocrites,) 6:2 (mirrors what Jesus and Paul said about sexual morality,) 9:5 (it is like Exodus 22:31 but matches perfectly with Matthew 7:6,) 11:2 (righteous and knowledge of Jesus, so people have an idea of what he said,) 11:5-6 (talk of false prophets), 16:1-8 (quotes Jesus on end of days)
Less specifically, Didache 1-5 seems to be composed of the sermon on the mount. However, it will incorporates sayings missing from Luke, but not Matthew. For example, Matthew 5:41 (no where in Luke.)
Let me make a list:
-Didache 1:2=Matthew 19:19, 22:39, Mark 12:31, 12:33, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8.
-Didache 1:3=Matthew 5:44. The same idea is found in the Old Testament, but never said the same way. See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2023:4,5;%20Proverbs%2019:11;24:17,29;25:21,22;%20Ecclesiastes%207:21;
-Didache 1:4= "Abstain from lusts," Matthew 19:11-13 (See also Paul's discourse on marriage in 1 Corinthians;) "Go the other mile," Matthew 5:41; "turn the other cheeck," Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. See also Lamentations 3:30.
-Didache 1:5=Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:30.
-Didache 1:6=Totally original as far as we know.
Didache 2=All of Exodus 20-23! Slight exaggeration. It also appears like a sin list. See Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21-22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and Galatians 5:19-21.
Didache 3:7=Matthew 5:5
Didache 4:6=Matthew 20:28?, Mark 10:45?, Hebrews 9:15?; see also concerning deeds John 5:28-29, Romans 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:10, James 2:14.
Didache 4:7=Mark 10:21? Luke 12:33?
Didache 4:13=Totally original.
Didache 4:14=James 5:16. In the Jewish context, see Leviticus 5:5 and Numbers 5:7.
Didache 5:1-2=Again, the sin list. See Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21-22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and Galatians 5:19-21.
Didache 6:3=Paul's stance in 1 Corinthians.
Didache 8:2=Lord's prayer. See Matthew 6:9-13.
I could go more, but it tapers off. Let me highlight 13:1 (apostles will make their living by the Gospel," purported closer to the words of Paul then Q)
11:8 Seems to infer that one should act like Jesus, which means how Jesus acted was spoken of in this circle. |
|
There are a couple of very loose connections to the words of Paul, but the only thing that appears concrete is the phrase "love thy neighbor as thyself". But I'm not sure if this single phrase demonstrates a concrete written connection between the Didache and the teachings of Paul. It's a connection, yes... but it really doesn't come as a surprise. Paul knew other Christians, so it shouldn't come as a big surprise that he remembered one or two short phrases.
The connections are interesting, but don't really tell us anything we already didn't know. The original bits are interesting as well, but it's a bit unclear where exactly they came from.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I agree that the part about the Eucharist is very interesting indeed. Chapter 9 seems entirely devoid of any reference to the crucifixion. There is no mention of a last supper, or of the bread and wine representing flesh and blood. It doesn't even claim that the instructions for the Eucharist came from Jesus. The whole thing is nothing more than a simple "thanksgiving feast". |
Exactly. The love feasts the Essenes followed. Perhaps Jesus was an essene prophet?
|
Perhaps. Philo and Josephus both discuss Essene beliefs at length, and it's easy to see how these beliefs could have served as the basis for Christianity. The Essenes were also Messianic, so it's entirely plausible that one of their own ranks might have been seen as the messiah.
On the other hand, according to Martin A. Larson, the Essenes were heavily influenced by Orphism (The cult of Dionysus). And... well... I think you can see where I'm going here...
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Where does it say that Jesus was a human? |
The Eucharist and the commands of the “Lord” besides the part quoting Malachi. Jesus is referred to coming from David’s lineage, a physical trait.
|
Does it really say that?
| From Didache |
9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
|
It says that they give thanks for the holy vine (wine), for God's son David (Huh?), and.... a statement which appear to indicate that they believe that Jesus was a re-incarnation of David. It doesn't really say that Jesus descended from David ... it says that David "was made known" to them through Jesus Christ.
What a strange thing to say.
Perhaps it is just a messianic reference ... that Jesus was a messiah, just like King David.
In any case, it doesn't say that Jesus is David's blood relative.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This brings up an interesting possibility. We can't rule out the possibility that a real-life Jesus may have only been responsible for saying a small portion of the things attributed to him. |
I am not going to deny this. I read the whole OT. There is nothing Jesus said not found there aside from dietary law and a few small things. Essentially, Jesus revolves around the “two most important commandments” and sorts through other BS matters in Judaism, and adds hope for the coming righteousness of God (like all prophets.) Jesus is part and parcel a prophet. The muslims are correct in this.
|
I agree. If an historical Jesus is to be found, he probably was an Essene Messiah who was executed for heresy. After all, the Essenes were a fairly blasphemous bunch ... they even went as far as to claim that most of the Old Testament was fictional mythology. This may have been precisely the type of thing that might have gotten a person stoned (or crucified) for blasphemy.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
From what I understand, the Essenes had been around since the second century BCE. So it seems probable the foundations of the "Jewish Christian" philosophy was already in existence by the time Jesus would have came around. There might not have been a lot for a historical Jesus to add to the theology.
They sound like a sect of early Christians, minus Christ. But considering that they were messianic, it seems probable that the would have found a Christ ... probably several of them. ^>^ And if Jesus was nothing more than a fallen Essene priest, it would explain why Philo and Josephus don't really talk about him -- they didn't need to... They already discussed Essene beliefs, so why focus on the teachings of one particular dead Essenian messianic wannabe? By the thinking of most Jews at the time, a dead messiah isn't a very good messiah, so why waste time discussing a guy who was such an utter failure? |
True. Because the Essenes could have moved on, while the Christian Essenes (jewish Christians) were a small ineffectual group. As I said, Jesus was not original with ideas as he was with interpetation. His stance towards eating and celibacy were less strict. He could have been a “failed” essene, but his beliefs have lived on through his name. He was important enough in the Didache to have been considered an authority. Thus, the prophet’s ideas, like Isaiah’s, live on.
|
I agree that if there is an historical Jesus to be found, this is it. The problem is that this is just conjecture. There is no reference anywhere in ancient texts to Jesus being an Essene leader.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The theory that Jesus was based on a myth is just as valid as believing that Moses and Buddha were myths (more or less). You're acting like there is some hard non-mythic evidence for Jesus existence, but there isn't. EVERTHING that was written about the guy is second-hand myth. Suggesting that myth is precisely what Jesus may have been is not an entirely ridiculous position to take. Calling a myth a myth seems like a pretty reasonable position to me. |
I was denouncing the extreme position. The degree of Jesus’ originality and ideas we have today is up for debate…but that does not make it myth. Myth connotes entirely false.
|
Myths can be based on real people. But they are still myths. Like I said earlier, it's possible that many of the ancient Greek heroes were based on real people too. Just like Hercules may have been based on a really strong guy who one lived... just like the myth of Perseus may have been based on a real-life Mycenaean king... and just like Santa Claus is based on a real person who is known to have lived.
But are these people considered to be historical figures, or are they just myths? The determining factor is whether or not we know anything about the history of the real-life person upon which these tales are based. In the case of Santa Claus, we are able to trace the story back to a real life person named Saint Nicholas. Therefore a person can state that Saint Nicholas is real but Santa is a myth. No doublethink is required to make such a statement, even though you are essentially talking about the same person.
In the same way, I can say that the mythical character of Jesus (the one most Christians are familiar with) is purely mythical, although this character may have been based a real-life Jew named Yeshua. No doublethink is required here either. And here’s why.
Ask a kid to tell you what they know about ol' St. Nick. I guarantee that everything they tell you will be myths about flying reindeer and magical toy-making. Not a single one of them is going to know that St. Nick lived in the Byzantine Empire during the 4th century. They know the myth... not the real person.
In the same way, ask a Christian to tell you what they know about Jesus. All they know is the myth. And really, that's all anybody knows about Jesus. We can sit here and theorize about what kind of historical person this myth may have been based on, but we can't really claim that we know anything with any certainty.
It's as if we would start off with the myth of Santa Claus, and work backwards to hypothesize that the Santa myth may have been based on a real-life generous toy-maker. It’s a reasonable assumption to make, but it would be incorrect. This isn't who the real-life Saint Nicholas was. There is only one event in St. Nicholas' life (which may be mythical as well) which parallels the Santa Claus myth...
| From Wikipedia: Saint Nicholas |
In his most famous exploit however, a poor man had three daughters but could not afford a proper dowry for them. This meant that they would remain unmarried and probably, in absence of any other possible employment would have to become prostitutes. Hearing of the poor man's plight, Nicholas decided to help him but being too modest (or too shy) to help the man in public, he went to his house under the cover of night and threw three purses filled with gold coins through the window opening onto the man's floor. One version has him throwing one purse for three consecutive nights. Another has him throw the purses over a period of three years, each time the night before one of the daughters comes "of age". Invariably the third time the father lies in waiting, trying to discover their benefactor. In one version the father confronts the saint, only to have Saint Nicholas say it is not him he should thank God alone. In another version, Nicholas learns of the poor man's plan and drops the third bag down the chimney instead.
|
From this, you can see the problem with starting with a mythical tale and attempting to filter away the myth to find the historical truth at the core. The real-life St. Nick wasn't a generous toy-maker, and likewise, the real-life Yeshua may bear little resemblance to the mythical character named after him. (That is, assuming that the myth is based on a real person in the first place).
In the absence of any verifiable information about the real-life Yeshua, we have little choice but to regard Jesus as myth, since myth is the only thing we have.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| But let me say this... Even if their was a guy named Jesus, there really is no reason to believe that any particular word or deed attributed to him is factual. It's difficult to cite any single quote and say "Yes, Jesus really said that." Likewise, it is equally hard to point to any of the deeds attributed to Jesus and say "Yes, Jesus actually did that". If there is a kernel of truth in the gospels, it has thus far been fairly elusive -- There is simply too much bullshit to sift through. |
The kernel of truth is that altered Essene theology exist to this day. The theology is what is important.
|
But what if the martyred Jewish messiah wannabe named Yeshua had nothing at all to do with this Essenian philosophy? Perhaps Yeshua was just some random nut who tried to start a riot during Passover (and was executed because of it), and later the Essene wrote a legend about this guy who stood up against their Pharisee enemies... and later more and more Essene philosophies were attributed to this supposed hero. It isn't out of the question. And thanks to the lack of verifiable information of Yeshua’s life, this conjecture is just about as valid as any other.
And that's the real problem... we have no idea how much of this myth (if any) is factual. But I can't help but think that if Jesus had been the creator of some sort of new philosophy, somebody would have preserved it. By that I mean, we should have the writing of either Jesus himself, or of one of his followers. If the Q document represents the actual teachings of a real-life wise-man, it would seem likely that it would have had to have been compiled by one of his followers. Yet, no ancient Christian every ascribed authorship of the Q document to a person who knew Jesus personally. And I have a hard time believing that it was.
But this leads to the obvious question... If the person who wrote down the Q document didn't know Jesus personally, then where the hell did he find the words to write? From oral tradition? From the writings of various Jewish philosophers? Or did they just make the words up themselves? None of these options can really be considered historically accurate, and most do not require a real-life Messiah named Jesus to ever have actually existed.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| He is therefore (just like Santa Claus) a myth. |
That’s a stretch. Santa is a fictional story. Look at all the fake stories about babe ruth. Just because 95% of it is BS, it does not mean there is truth to the man. Now, look at that by ancient standards. There is a difference between the story of Achilles and the good news about Jesus.
|
Yes, but we know a little more about Babe Ruth than the myth. And that is what I was saying before... Just because we know that 95% of the gospels are BS, that does not automatically mean that the other 5% is truthful. In the absence of any reliable evidence, it's possible that that last 5% may be fiction as well. We simply have no way of knowing.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Jews probably had access to the written Babylonian versions of these stories. But yes, it seems that the stories were altered a bit "through the grapevine" before the Jews wrote them down in their own tongue. |
I go with the grapevine thing. However, pious jews would never knowingly rip off pagan religions.
|
Jews didn't become "pious" until after their religion had been formed. And Babylonian myths could easily transform into Jewish history within a couple generations. And this is precisely what appears to have happened.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I mean, we live in country where almost half of the population still sees the Creation story in friggin' Genesis as literal history. It's nice that you and I seem to possess cooler heads, but what do we do about the rest of the people out there? |
Talk to whomever wants to hear it. I was asked in class “who wrote the bible.” As a teacher, I had to give the short social studies answer. I said, “Many people think that it was written by Moses, but there is evidence that it was written by several different stories centuries after the recorded events in it.” Someone then said, “How could we know today what was written in the bible was the same as what was in it 2 thousand years ago?” I replied that we have early manuscripts that do not differ with later ones. However, people either want to believe in the fairy tale or ignore the whole thing. I commend you for being in a middle ground where you actually are inquisitive about the issue.
|
Ditto.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
[Rant]
Recently, an Italian atheist sued a priest who claimed that Jesus existed. Basically, the guy is charging the Catholics with fraud. Does he have a case? Is the Catholic church knowingly perpetrated fraud by claiming that the bible is accurate and that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels was a real person? Week after week churches around the globe present this piece of shoddy ancient fiction as absolute truth to unsuspecting victims – victims who in turn give the church money, either as charity, in their wills, or as tuition for their children to attend Catholic schools.
You would be hard pressed to find a single Catholic scholar who believes that the gospels were written by the actual disciples of Jesus. Yet, this is exactly the picture that is presented to the flock Sunday after Sunday.
When you claim that “Jesus was an historical figure”, you give off the false impression that there is some sort of evidence that the gospel stories are true. They most certainly aren’t. We can debate back and forth about the source of the parables and “commandments”, but I think we both agree that the gospels are basically fiction. There is simply no way that the bible contains the “true word of God”. |
While a dick has no right to sue over something so stupid (“fuck you macy’s, you said there was a santa!”) I do believe that as the bible reflects theological truth, that truth reflects God.
|
But that isn't the way it's packaged to church patrons. Believe it or not, I've been to church before. And I can recall the priest claiming that "the Apostle Peter said this" and "the disciple Mathew said that", even though none of it is true.
I realize that Christianity has been around with us for a while. Therefore, this kind of fraud doesn't seem out of the ordinary. But take a look at how other modern false mythologies are treated. Take a look at Scientology. We know that Hubbard's little "space opera" is nothing but BS. Yet, he is allow to peddle his pseudoscientific philosophy under the guise of "religion". Or rather, I should say that he is allowed to peddle it in this country because our constitution has the word "religion" in it. But other European nations aren't constrained by such restrictions. Some have decided to ban it altogether because it is nothing but a money-making fraud.
But why should Christianity be afforded a free pass for doing basically the same thing?
You don't become one of the largest land-owners in the world by giving all of your possessions to the poor.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| And I think a great many church leaders and scholars are coming to that same conclusion. Yet, this information is never shared with the congregation in church. Churches continue to put on the same side-show act that they have been performing for hundreds and hundreds of years. They’re still making money off of it. And for some reason, they’re still allowed to get away with it. |
You’re acting as we need some consumer protection. I believe in a free market. People can buy whatever crap that is sold to them.
|
Not really. Even in this country, the "Freedom of Religion" defense will only get you so far. Fraud is still fraud. And if you can show that the people perpetrating the fraud are doing it knowingly, it's difficult to plead a religious defense. And you can't really argue against the fact that church services (which provide 99.99% of the flock with their only source of religious information) purposefully bend the truth in order to further their cause. Priests still present the gospels as 1st-hand eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, and they present the pseudepigraphical texts as being authentic as well.
Perhaps they should require churches to post a little disclaimer similar to the one you see after motion pictures... "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| In the U.S., we have that pesky 1st amendment which allows cult like the Catholic Church and Scientology to peddle known fallacies under the guise of “Religion”. And unfortunately, my “Faith” in the Bill of Rights is more important to me than my disgust of ancient nonsense, so I would not advocate sending in government troops to confiscate church propaganda and to lock the doors to churches. But Italy has no such restrictions. And they also have some fairly strong laws against libel and fraud. What the Catholic church is doing is the very definition of fraud, so it would be interesting to see what would happen if the courts were to declare it as such. |
But, if truth is defined as “faith,” then it cannot be considered legalistically false unless we are going to punish people for thinking the wrong way.
|
Yes. And that is why the first amendment exists. But the question is, does the clergy really believe the things they are telling their flock?
It's hard to believe that any person who attended seminary school truly believes that the gospels are reliable first-person accounts of Jesus' life and deeds. But how many of them share this information from the pulpit on Sunday morning?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But were they created by a single individual, and was this same individual the Jesus who was executed by the Romans? |
Most likely. He is the only thing in common in all the sources.
|
We don't know that for sure. It's quite possible that a collection of parables or Essene beliefs existed before Jesus' name was tacked on to them.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The whole problem here is primarily one of time. Jesus is said to have preached in the 20's or early 30's, but the whole story didn't really seem to have come together until the 70's or 80'. That’s a span of 50 years. |
(message truncated) |
It looks like you exceeded the posting limit. Sorry... it's a database thing. The text field in the database only allows 65,535 characters. I'm going to add a programming change right now that will calculate the number of characters and display the total in the "message preview".
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #36113
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-12-17 13:16
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
I am not going to be able to reply to your posts for a bit, but you can chew on this for a little bit:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/Didache
Edit: The site is down a lot...
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Last edited by sorianofan on Sun 2008-01-20 21:11; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #36116
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-12-17 19:28
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| The infamous "missing post" of Sorianofan |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
I am sure you were wondering, "What did the rest of that post say?" It kept you up at night, didn't it? JK.
I actually had it on my PC, here's the rest of it:
| External site |
| Quote: |
| The whole problem here is primarily one of time. Jesus is said to have preached in the 20's or early 30's, but the whole story didn't really seem to have come together until the 70's or 80'. That’s a span of 50 years. Any adults who heard Jesus speak would most likely have been dead by the time the gospels were written. It the decades preceding the writing of the gospels we seem to have various pieces of the Jesus story emerging independently, and some of them seem to contradict one another. (i.e. Luke claiming Jesus was born in 6CE, with Matthew claiming he was born before 4BCE under the reign of Herod ... and the Gospel of Peter setting the birth back several more decades by claiming it was Herod who executed Jesus). The whole process seems to have more in common with a mythic legend which grew over a period of time, than with some real historical event that was remembered shortly after it happened. |
Just like Marxism. If the founders are still alive, they can correct you. It prevented Marxism’s spread as a movement, because Karl can say, “Hey, you’re full of crap.” For Christianity to grow, the core needed to be dead, so the system could be amorphous and assume different forms to appeal to different people.
| Quote: |
| If Jesus was a real person, he should have had followers. But these followers aren't anywhere to be found. And even though later Christians tried to claim that some of the Apostles were originally followers of a flesh-and-blood Jesus, Paul's attitude towards the Jewish-Christian leaders seems to dispute this. And this is the biggest problem facing the Jesus-as-History" theory ... the fact that nobody is on record as seeing the guy while he was alive (or even of knowing anybody else who say him while he was alive). And that's the problem here... the people who lived at the same time Jesus supposedly lived don't seem to know the guy. That fact alone makes the myth theory seem a little more likely. (The other possibility is that the timeframe for Jesus' life portrayed in the gospels is way off) |
Some truth in this, though Kephas’ elevation in 1 Cor 15 infers otherwise. But only infers.
| Quote: |
| No, it doesn't. Not at all. The Didache doesn't mention parables... it mentions laws. Even if we were to assume that the Didache represents the historic teachings of Jesus, there is no reason to believe that Parables from an entirely different document represent the teachings of the same person. They could easily have come from two different people. (And the fact that the Q document is believed to have been compiled in layers means that it probably came from several different authors.) |
Layers is a theory. The Didache is not the sole source of Jesus. Theological similarities between it and Q and Paul show a common source—Jesus.
| Quote: |
| It still seems odd that it was lost accidentally while the works of two people who possessed this document survived... Especially when Matthew and Luke were geographically isolated, and separated by a decade or so. If the Q document fell into both of their hands, it must have been fairly widely circulated. Yet, it seems to disappear without a trace at the end of the 1st century. It just makes me think that this document must have painted a picture of Jesus that was repulsive to turn-of-the-century Christians (And even to Matthew and Luke themselves). They really seem to have purposefully preserved the parts they liked within their own gospels, and then promptly shredded the rest. |
Again, the conspiracy theory! I always thought second century Christians were stupid and looked at Q as incomplete, because matthew was the word of God, Q was then incomplete and ignored. The Didache was almost just as close as never existing (though, it at least had historical mentioning. Q is never floated around, but neither are little pieces of 1st century Jesus manuscripts.
| Quote: |
| Actually, it may have come from some sort of proto-Gnostic group. Or it might have even come from some wacky apostles who, in addition to making up the parables, made up a whole bunch of unappealing words coming out of Jesus' mouth. Who knows? The authorship of the Q document isn't known, so any (and I really do mean ANY) attempt to assign authorship would be mere speculation. |
Point taken. Though if Q initially said, “Jesus said, ‘…’” then that would solve that. It is likely this was Q’s construction.
| Quote: |
| And Clement lived at the same time that Matthew and Luke were compiling their gospels. Perhaps he was familiar with the words of the Q document. But I am curious... what part of the Q document (or Thomas) does he cite? |
I am going by my study bible’s discussion of Matthew’s dating. Check earlychristianwritings.com or google it. I would elaborate more, but I am very busy.
| Quote: |
| So, are you saying that I'm right? |
Yes, no kidding!
| Quote: |
| Then my time here has not been wasted. |
LOL!
| Quote: |
| But, was Jesus really the first person to say these things? Jesus’ writings (assuming he had any in the first place) don't survive today. He wasn't much of an author. Orwell beats him hands down. At least he managed to find a publisher while he was still alive. |
I wonder where Orwell will be 2,000 years from now. Probably not the head of religion where everyone orgy porgies…that’s for Henry Ford.
| Quote: |
| How do you justify your use of the word "obviously" to describe the existence of something that has never been seen, and which really has not ever even been described in any sort of concrete form. "God" is a vague term of mythic origins who's existence has never been observed, nor who's existence has ever seemed to play any part in the course of human history. This fact means that you are hereby prohibited from using the word "obvious" to describe him. |
We are observing God’s creation right now. Every observation I make confirms the obvious.
You did not tell me to stop writing, though gradschool work load will do that soon. Writing this post is one of my few luxuries. If you need time to catch up, let me know. |
I would like to add one quick point about Origen, who you claim "confirms" tha Josephus did not write the Jesus passages. However, Origen clearly stated that "Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ." This does not mean that Josephus did not write anything. If anything, it shows that Josephus wrote something (which made clear Jesus was not divine). If Josephus wrote nothing, like Pliny the Elder, then Origen would have not brought the subject up to begin with. Nonetheless, the scholars mostly believe the 1st christian reference is fake and the James reference is real.
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #36189
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-12-21 21:41
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The question here is, in what sense did Paul consider Jesus to be "real". Did anybody in the first half of the 1st century believe he was “real”. Did anybody believe that Jesus was a "real" guy who was recently killed in Jerusalem, or did people like Paul believe Jesus was a "real" spirit that appeared before people like Peter and himself? If Paul believed that Jesus a real guy, that would support Jesus' historicity. If he believed that he was a magical ghost that would do little to help the argument. |
Paul and early Christians very clearly wrote that Jesus was real. The evidence is staggering. I wrote the following on wiki:
| Quote: |
| Proponents of the Jesus Myth disagree with the notion that the Apostle Paul did speak of Jesus as a physical being. This is largely an argument from silence. Furthermore, it is slightly a distortion, because the Apostle Paul contradicts this viewpoint. He claims that Jesus "descended from David according to the flesh",[33] (Romans 1:3) took "the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, And being found in human form,"( Philippians 2:7).[34] Paul also states that "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law." (Galatians 4:4)[35] and "the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being." (1 Corinthians 15:21)[36] Paul clearly states in "taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, And being found in human form, he [Jesus] humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:7-8) [37] Furthermore, he invokes the "command," "charge," or "word" of Jesus four times[38] (Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 7:10 and 9:14, and 1 Thessalonians 4:15) in the Epistles. |
We also have several Pauline parallels with Jesus quotations, which can only be discounted IF the Gospel writers loosely stole from Paul. However, we can find no clear pattern of Q being the Paul copy culprit, or Mark. Even Matthew and Luke have separate parallels. What there appears to be, as most scholars maintain, that most of these sayings were floating around in early oral tradition and proto-gospels. Again, here’s my incomplete list of parallels: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikilagata/Internal_Biblical_Evidence_of_Jesus%27_Historicity#Excample_36:)
| Quote: |
One question that we must answer is whether or not the Q document represents the work of a single individual named Jesus. Take a good look at Corinthians 2. In 2:2-5, Paul states...
From 1 Cor 2:2-5
2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God
Here Paul states that he knows nothing except Jesus and the fact he was crucified. |
No, he knows both Jesus AND his crucifixion. Being that you are not Christian, and most Christians don’t reread Corinthians a billion times, you might have missed that Paul is apologizing that he sounds so meek and ignorant compared to a man named Apollos, who sounds more wise and learned. Paul essentially argues, though he may not sound as smart, he purports God’s wisdom, which trumps what Apollos says. This is not much of a convincing argument to modern sensibilities, but Paul is invoking the Wisdom tradition and the idea that “the least among you shall be greatest”-Jesus. Wisdom is not essentially high sounding rhetoric. That’s Paul’s argument.
| Quote: |
| He also seems to make reference to other apostles who teach "wisdom" ... but Paul warns that these teachings of man are of less importance than the sacrifice of Jesus. We can infer from this that at the time of Paul there were other apostles who taught some sort of wisdom sayings. And we can also infer that Paul didn’t care much for this type of “wisdom”. You have to think really hard about how that can be. You have to wonder why Paul cared so little about the supposed words of his supposed messiah. |
Paul invokes “hidden wisdom,” an idea found in Jewish works like Wisdom of Solomon quite often. He is arguing against no people invoking the words of Jesus, but people employing Greek philosophy instead of citing the dogmas revealed to him by revelation.
It reminds me of Jefferson, who said in his inaugural address, “We are all Federalists. We are all Republicans [We’re all Americans].” Paul makes clear that it is Jesus and his crucifixion that is important, not whether you follow Cephas, Apollo, or him…of course, Paul slyly implies that Jesus, and him crucified, thus Paul’s dogma, is most important. Yes, this is not exactly straight forward, but Paul is not showing that he did not think Jesus talked.
| Quote: |
If this was the case, that would explain why Paul cared so little about them. And that would explain why 1st century Christians cared so little about them … so little that they saw no reason to preserve the Q document into the 2nd century. Matthew and Luke took the bits that interested them and wove them into their narratives, then promptly cast the Q document into the rubbish bin… the same fate that befell most 1st/2nd century Docetic/Gnostic literature.
I suppose another interpretation could be that Paul thought these words were spoken by a mortal Jesus, and that the teachings of the mortal Jesus don't count -- that only things taught by spirit Jesus should matter. But it would seem odd for Paul to dismiss the teachings of a mortal Jesus in this manner. It seems much more likely that the reason that Paul dismissed this "wisdom" is because he knew damn well that Jesus didn't say these things. |
“Wisdom” invokes the “wisdom tradition,” not Jesus’ words. The Didache, has only 2 surviving documents. It could have easily fell into the dust bin of history. The same can be true of Q. However, if I want to make a conspiracy theory, I could claim that Q was destroyed because it proved that Matthew and Luke were not written by Matthew and Luke.[
| Quote: |
In chapter two we find another oddity.
From 1 Cor 2:2-5
2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Here Paul is stating that he believed that Jesus was killed by "the princes of this world". This clearly indicates that Paul thinks Jesus was crucified by people that lived on Earth. But just when you think that you've found hard evidence to demonstrate that Paul thought Jesus was human, Paul screws things up by saying something stupid.
What does he mean that Jesus was killed by "the princes of this world"? Hasn't he ever heard of Pontius Pilate? Was Pilate a prince? Not exactly. So who exactly does Paul think murdered Jesus? Paul never gets into specifics concerning the time or place of Jesus' crucifixion. Why is that? Paul converted to Christianity just a few years after the time Jesus supposedly lived. Why doesn't he ever offer any details of this recent event? |
Now you are getting into semantics. The Greek word used is “arxontwn” which means “a ruler, commander, chief, leader.” Paul could have been blaming Jewish and Roman leadership in a blanket statement. Being that Mark was the first to write about Pontius Pilate being the executor, we really do not know if he was. He might have been. But, what Paul writes confirms his belief Jesus was human (he was killed by mortals), but it neither confirms nor denies precisely who is responsible. Apparently, no one person is to blame.
| Quote: |
I think one problem here is that, if Jesus was a real person, I don’t believe that Matthew and Luke correctly identified the time of his crucifixion. They didn’t get the time of his birth correct, and the certainly seemed to be ignorant of most of the details of Jesus life. So why do we assume that they were correct in fixing the death of Jesus under the rule of Pontus Pilate?
If the gospel writers got this detail incorrect, that would help explain why Paul (and everybody who lived at the same time) was so woefully ignorant of Jesus’ life. If Jesus had lived in the 1st century B.C., a whole lot of the “arguments from silence” go away.
Of course, it introduces a new problem … namely, why NOBODY mentioned Jesus until over 3 decades after his death. |
Well, we have some chronology offered by Paul, which I wrote previously: Gal 1:18 states Paul went to Syria for 3 years after being converted and Gal 2:1 says an additional 14 years passed before Paul expanded preaching past Turkey (Cilicia) and Syria. This means that Corinthians was not written until at least 17 years after Paul’s conversion. Does this show that Jesus did not live in the 1st century BC? No. But, it does show that Paul’s conversion likely occurred not long after Jesus’ death, being that in 1 Cor 15 he claims about 500 people who witnessed the resurrection are still alive.
| Quote: |
And there is another problem here. If you read a few verses later, Paul says...
From 1 Cor 2:2-5
2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Here again Paul likens Jesus to Spirit, not a man. It seems like the best way to characterize Paul's beliefs concerning Jesus would be as Docetism. Paul believed that Jesus was real ... a real spirit, that is ... who came to Earth and was crucified by unnamed princes. He isn't a Gnostic, since he seems to have no part in the "wisdom teachings" which other men connected with Jesus. And the most probably reason for this is that Paul considered these teachings to be the work of mortal man, not of his god incarnate.
It seems odd that this type of Docetic belief could spring up so soon after the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived. Jesus’ followers and family members would have still been alive at the time that Paul converted (~32AD). Also, there must have been hundreds or even thousands of people in the holy lands who heard a living Jesus speak, but Paul doesn't seem to care what any of these eyewitnesses had to say about the living Jesus. |
All early Christians believed that the holy spirit was left in Jesus’ absence. Paul is arguing that those who use logic and human smarts miss out of God’s wisdom, because they are not tuned into the spirit. He’s slyly bashing Apollos.
| Quote: |
Similar theological roots only show that there are … similar theological roots. They may have come from one guy, they may have come from several sources. They may be the work of Yeshua, they may be the work of Zeus. You cannot say that that simply because a handful of similar passages appear here and there that it proves a man named Jesus lived, and was crucified.
Let me give you a hypothetical. Let’s say that next week, archeologist discover a copy of the Q document. Extensive radiometric dating places the document somewhere around 20AD – 30AD. The contents of this document show that ALL of the similarities found in the Jesus tale come from this single document.
Now, the one problem is that whoever wrote this document didn’t sign his name to it. We don’t have any idea who wrote it. Was it one of Jesus’ disciples? Was it Jesus himself? Was it some disgruntled Mithras-cult member who took a sacred Mithras text and replaced every occurrence of “Mithras” with “Jesus”? We haven’t a clue.
So, the question is… does this document prove that Jesus existed? It proves that there is a single source, but does it prove that he existed? |
Mithras or other mystery Gods never spoke, and if they did, they did not speak in such a Jewish way. The speaker is definitely Jewish, this cannot be doubted.
It is the fact that there are a combination of documents, not just 1 that show Jesus is the most likely speaker. Paul shows us there was a guy named Jesus and gives us his opinion of the man’s significance. Then we have the possible Q, Mark, Didache, and etc. Granted, if Q and Didache are the earliest sayings documents, neither may have quoted Jesus at all (we really don’t know who Q was quoting or Didache.) However, being that we have no evidence to suggest that they did not come from Jesus, we should make the simple assumption that they likely are.
| Quote: |
To put it another way… Imagine that the gospel of Mark had been flushed down the memory hole early in the 2nd century. Now, looking at Matthew and Luke, it’s obvious that they shared a common source. But does the existence of a common source prove that the common source was historically accurate? Was Mark historically accurate? If you believe Mark is historically accurate, I have a bridge to sell you…
So, just to re-iterate … the apparent existence of a common source does nothing to prove that this common source is factual. The apparent existence of the Q document only shows that the story came from a common source. But it does not give us any idea of whether this document recorded an historic event (i.e. the teachings of Jesus), or if it was just a bunch of mystical “wisdom teachings” (i.e. gathered from several sources by one or more authors). |
The Q aource has no miracles or storyline, increasing the likelihood of it being accurate. However, Mark blatantly plagiarizes from Wisdom of Solomon 2. Observe:
| Quote: |
Quote
2:10 [Corrupt Jews talking:]
Let us oppress the needy just man; let us neither spare the widow nor revere the old man for his hair grown white with time.
11
But let our strength be our norm of justice; for weakness proves itself useless.
12
2 3 Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
13
He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
This is the central conflict in the Gospels. Crooked Pharisees and such and the "just one," who corrects people, and invokes authority from God and calls himself God's son.
Quote
14
To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
15
Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways.
16
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
17
Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18
For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
More of the same, but in 2:18 is copied in the Gospels when Jesus is mocked, "If you are the son of God, come down from the cross." (I'm paraphrasing of course.)
Quote
19
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
20
Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."
Again, the crucifiction is an allusion to this.
Quote
21
These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them,
22
And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls' reward.
23
For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him.
24
But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.
2:21 appears to allude to when Jesus asks God not to judge those crucifying him, because they know not what they are doing.
I believe this chapter in WoS suggests a very strong possibility behind the Gospel stories being fashioned almost entirely with the ideas found here. Paul, whose writings are the earliest known Christian writings we have, certainly appear thematically impacted by WoS as well as what can be found in the Gospels. The question is what impacted Paul more. |
The Spark notes for Mark is WoS chapter 2.
| Quote: |
Yes… documents get lost. Many early Christian documents suffered the same fate. But most of them have something in common … they were viewed as heretical (Gnostic texts) or as outright forgeries (i.e. the infancy gospels).
But the Q document is supposed to represent the ACTUAL WORDS OF JESUS. |
So did the Gospel of Thomas, the Sophia (in some forms), and etc. What every happened to Oxyrhyncun or Egerton? Who knows. Thinks get lost for reasons that are not always clear cut. Why are works of Cicero’s missing, even though they continued to exist throughout the Mediterranean years after his death? Cicero was a billion times more popular than Q and older than Q. Shit happens with ancient manuscripts.
| Quote: |
Matthew and Luke only preserved a small part of these words in their gospels. How is it possible that they could have been lost so easily? There were many pieces of apocryphal literature that survived well into the 3rd and 4th centuries. But the Q document seems to have appeared and disappeared within the span of a few decades sometime in the last half of the 1st century.
The Q document wasn’t simply lost .. it was purposefully discarded. And it’s difficult to see why 1st century Christians would have done such a thing if the Q document had represented the ACTUAL words of their lord and savior. It almost easier to believe that the Q document theory is wrong than it is to believe that such an important document could be tossed aside in such a way. |
I disagree. Q could have disappeared as soon as Matthew or Luke went mainstream. It could have had a much smaller circulation then it seems and by chance, both Luke and Matthew got their hands on it. Q includes parables and even situations (like a scribe questioning Jesus) that a conflict and situation is written about. Someone is being talked about. The only thing to support your theory is if the name was clearly not Jesus, and if so, it is odd that 2 separate writers (Matthew and Luke) would knowingly deceive in precisely the same way. One may have taken the source and lied, hell Matthew ripped off of Aesop. However, the chances decline when you take 2 writings doing the same thing in regard to copying a work explicitly not concerning Jesus.
| Quote: |
| I don’t buy the “accidentally lost” theory. The document existed for several decades, and was widely distributed (at least among the gospel writers). It would not have been lost while other works were retained. The only explanation is that it said things that Christians didn’t want to hear (or it showed that the words of Jesus presented in the gospels were not actually spoken by Jesus) |
That’s not the only explanation. How did some of Cicero’s works disappear yet we have a plethora of his personal letters? Sometimes, it is dumb luck.
| Quote: |
| There is not a single detail in the gospels that jive with all of the others, except one .. that a man named Jesus was crucified. But the details of this man’s life (the time of his life and death, and the deeds he preformed) aren’t consistent at all. In other words, they aren't historical. |
The theology shares a lot in common. Jewish ideas are clear. Furthermore, a clear theological shift occurred. Not strange occurrences when people follow the teachings of a new prophet.
| Quote: |
| There is nothing in these facts that indicates that a person named Jesus walked the Earth, taught a heretical philosophy, and then was martyred on a cross. Nothing. The story of Jesus could be mythical (all that remains is myth, after all), and Jesus' words could have come from anywhere. There is nothing at all that shows that any of this story is true. Nothing at all. |
Paul’s writings attest to the preceding very clearly. As I wrote previously, the events occurred in his lifetime. His audience does not question him on those matters, so obviously, he was not the only one saying them. As I said previously, there is more evidence for Jesus in the Epistles (by a lot) then a lot of characters in Thucydides’ writings and etc. Where do you set your historical bar? You are on shaky grounds. The evidence dictates Jesus existed, he was executed, and he (in some way) stressed certain theological shifts from present Jewish practice.
| Quote: |
| At best, there may have been an Essene messiah name Jesus who was executed by the state.... and over time a myth developed around him, and various teachings were attributed to him. But the story of Jesus we have today has as much to do with a real-life Yeshua as Santa Claus has to do with Saint Nicholas. |
Not quite. Here’s an example:
1. St. Nick lives in Turkey, Santa lives in the North Pole.
Yeshua lives in Israel, Jesus lives in Israel.
It is patently insulting to compare the two figures. The Gospels contain likely details of Jesus’ life and teachings, though not entirely accurate, but do you doubt Jesus walked around preaching saying that the world was ending? Yet, we may all doubt that Santa distributes gifts on xmas day. The comparison is not valid.
Are there questionable supernatural elements? Certainly. However, Santa has no ideas, he really does not do anything but give presents. We know more about Jesus’ supposed actions than Santa. Please, don’t go complaining about the supposed miracles and virgin birth. This is such a subjective and non-historical comparison, I don’t think it warrants our time.
| Quote: |
Regardless of whether or not a guy named Yeshua once lived ... The story of Jesus we have today is mythical, and words ascribed to him came from several unidentified sources.
Hence, Jesus is a myth. |
Andrew Johnson never said, “Let’s see the Supreme Court enforce it.” George Washington never chopped down the cherry tree. Hence, they are myths. Again, this is an equally bad comparison from the opposite direction. Myth means totally fake story with a totally fake person. The only thing Santa Claus has in common with St. Nick is a nick name. No one really knows exactly how santa claus was invented.
| Quote: |
| Here's the point ... If you were in charge of publishing history books for school children, and you had to write a chapter about the Roman occupation of Judea, would you include anything about Jesus? |
If we did not live in a Christian society, no. However, being that there are a billion Christians, it’s hard to ignore the man. Babe Ruth was not important, but because there are millions of baseball fans, he’s included in history books. The fan factor cannot be ignored.
| Quote: |
Hercules didn't write a book. That's the point.
Name a book that Jesus wrote.... or a book that anyone who knew Jesus wrote. |
I still think the Epistles of James and Jude are authentic.
| Quote: |
| But are you prepared to do the same thing for all mythic heroes? |
Yes, if they were a significant subject of study. I mean, people went looking for the Amazons because so many Greek works talk about them. A lot of these things had been investigated.
| Quote: |
| Can you sift away the mythical elements of Hercules' life and claim that what remains is historically accurate? |
I could not tell you, I know nothing of him.
| Quote: |
| Just about ALL of the elements of Jesus' story are mythical. |
Slight hyperbole. Jesus taught stuff, he got killed…not so mythical.
| Quote: |
| A good example is the story of William Wallace. Just about everything we know about him comes from the writings of one man ... a minstrel named Blind Harry. The story that Blind Harry wrote (and upon which the movie Braveheart is based) is largely fictional. However, it is believable fiction. Even though Blind Harry wrote of Wallace some 170 years after the fact, he claimed to have based his story on an earlier (and now lost) account written by John Blair. |
Wait, you think John Blair’s work was “lost”? Blair revealed that Wallace never existed, he was talking about another character. Harry destroyed his work and wrote about William Wallace, because he wanted the hero to be a scot. Yes, I am being facetious.
Harry wrote 170 years after the fact. Blair “knew” Wallace, but hey, do we know that to be true? He could have made it up. After all, the London, Bristol, and Liverpool Chroniclers wrote nothing of him… How ridiculous can we get?
Paul wrote 20 years after the fact (pretty good by ancient history standards) and we have several accounts written within 60 years. Again, by ancient history standards, this is not all that bad. Does that mean we should trust every detail? No.
| Quote: |
| When you wash away all of the myth surrounding Jesus, all you have left is a simple Jewish teacher who was executed for some sort of blasphemy or insurrection. But, if this is the historical Jesus, you really have to wonder who the hell Paul was worshipping. Because nothing in his writings indicates that he was aware that any such person ever existed. |
I already shown that Paul wrote that Jesus was a jew who walked the Earth and was killed.
| Quote: |
| As I said, we don't know where the Q document came from. We don't know who wrote it. If 1st century Christians would have had the authentic writings of somebody who knew Jesus, they wouldn't have needed to write all of those pseudepigraphical epistles and gospels. |
This is getting tiresome. Stop with the assumptions and stick with what we know. “needed to write all of those pseudepigraphical epistles and gospels”? Give me a break! You are now inferring at motives and etc. We know Q shares things with Didache. Now, either the Didache is phony, or it redacted from a jewish work, OR it is attributing things to Jesus. If these things were not said by Jesus, why did not the Jews, like Josephus, keep their hands on such documents to discount the religion if it was so easily refutable? The answer is that there were Qs and etcs floating around, and to the dismay of conspiracy theorists everywhere, said things about Jesus and were clearly about Jesus. If Q was a widespread work in the first century that was not about Jesus, then Josephus or any Jew could have got their hands on it to debunk the blasphemers.
| Quote: |
| In order for the Q document to be considered proof of Jesus’ historicity, it would have had to have been written by somebody who knew Jesus, or by Jesus himself. And there is absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that this is the case. |
A lot of ancient history is second hand. Deal with it. We have purported words from Jesus. Do we doubt a newspaper who quotes someone? Under what circumstances? You are being overly simple.
| Quote: |
| It isn't a leap of faith ... it's just rational, un-biased reasoning. |
It is only that if you held all ancient figures to the same standard. The fact that you clearly misunderstand that Paul was talking about a human being right of the bat shows even if you are being unbiased, your postulates are totally off.
| Quote: |
Not really, since...
1) We know the text has been corrupted
2) Origen doesn't mention the "original" passage. |
Origen specifically wrote that Josephus doubted Jesus divinity. Why invoke Josephus if he wrote nothing at all? More likely, he wrote Jesus off, and Origen would not cite a source which would discount Jesus’ divinity.
So, the extent of corruption is debatable, to say that all mention of Jesus is entirely interpolated cannot be assumed. It must be proved.
| Quote: |
| What we have here is an out of place paragraph, |
Footnotes did not exist back then. Josephus’ writing was littered with asides.
| Quote: |
| Yes, it could be referring to two different Jesus’. But, the question is whether or not the text was corrupted. The whole thing relies on four little words ... "who was called Christ". |
Most scholars disagree with you. I already stated my reasoning (being that “who was called Christ” would be a neutral indicator for a man called Jesus Christ in the present. You have to remember, Christ has no meaning to Jews. There is not 1 christ in the OT. Him writing “who was called Christ” is not evidence of him conceding to Christ’s divinity. It’s mere identification.
| Quote: |
| If you're looking for a conspiracy theory, I suppose one could claim that Satan caused all the copies of Jesus true words to spontaneously combust around the year 80AD in order to hide the "true word" from the human race. |
Are you saying satan took part in the controlled demolition of Q?
| Quote: |
| The "bar" is that there must be some sort of evidence of a person's existence. |
I would think the 8 epistles gushing about you and numerous saying sources that as of the present know could only be attributed to one man is at the very least, some evidence. I mean, we don’t even have a debate of a full “The Two Ways” as a Jewish source, which would call into question the Jesus sayings. The debate would be whether the jews or the Christians forgered it. However, all we have is Jesus, Jesus, and JESUS.
| Quote: |
| Paul didn't know squat about Jesus' philosophy. Paul's philosophy is almost entirely his own. It's based on highly moralistic Jewish philosophy, with most of the silly bits of Jewish custom removed. Apart from that, just about the only identifiable "Christian" aspect of Paul's philosophy was his belief in charity |
I disagree after reading everything he has written. Clearly, he had his own ideas and agendas though.
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure how we can differ so greatly on this point. But, in the interest of keeping things civil, I'll move on. |
I have no problem with civility, but as I shown previously, there are at least a half a dozen passages where Paul calls Jesus a flesh and blood man.
| Quote: |
| I know.... history is full of people who have used false religions in order to collect a flock of worshipping (and donating) followers. But there is no way that the guy who founded my religion was this type of person. |
I do not doubt the possibility. However, if we even had a bunch of loonies claiming that Bush blew up the WTC and 2000 years in the future, all we have are these nutjobs’ complaints, the one thing we can walk away with is that there was a guy named Bush who had some connection with the events on 9/11. We have evidence that people were disputing over Jesus. They all clearly emphasized moral behavior, but disagreed on faith v. works. So, though we cannot conclude fully where Jesus landed (I think I can, but its my opinion), we know there was a Jesus who started this dispute and stressed ethics. This cannot be doubted unless we are to throw the book away on historiography.
| Quote: |
| In 1 Corinthians 9:20 Paul says that he changes his message to suit his audience (so he can gain more followers). |
No. He is boasting that he can relate with everyone and play up his life experience to appeal to each audience. He is not saying, “Lie like I lie.”
| Quote: |
| In 1 Cor 9.14, Paul states that apostles (such as himself) shouldn't have to work for a living. |
True. Didache carries a similar passage in 13:2 (“Similarly, a genuine teacher himself, just like a "workman, has a right to his support."). Paul may have been using it to his advantage.
| Quote: |
| In 1 Corinthians 16, Paul request that his flock hand over a huge sum of cash... buy nobody is really sure what ever became of this huge pile of booty. |
True, but the jewish Christians never accused him of stealing it, or he would have answered to those accusations.
| Quote: |
| And if you believe that the Jewish Christians followed the actual teachings of Jesus, you have to wonder why Paul was so quick to ignore them. |
The ghost told him to.
| Quote: |
| This means he was either delusional, medically ill, or full of shit. |
True. But the flocks of Jewish Christians, Cephas, were they all full of shit in different directions from the same steaming turd? The simplist explanation is that they all added shit from one common theme/person.
| Quote: |
| According to the above criteria, Paul would certainly qualify as a "false prophet". In fact, it almost seems like these words were tailored specifically with Paul in mind. |
True. 11:6 uses the word apostle, a term that fell out of favor after the first generation of proselytizers died off. One can only technically be an apostle if you knew Jesus (and Paul supposedly did through revelation.) The passage could have specifically had Paul, Titus, Barnabbas, and Timothy in mind. However, though they disagreed with those “apostles,” they still agree largely about Jesus.
To theorize some more. Paul in 1 Cor 11 criticizes the “super apostles.” Were the super apostles those who knew Jesus and disagreed with Paul, thus claiming that they were above him?
| Quote: |
| Just because a billion people believe it doesn't make it correct. |
True, but it makes it important.
| Quote: |
As for the theology, I suppose it doesn't really matter whether or not it was developed by a single person, or whether it was created by several layers of various contributors. Personally, it seems like the philosophy probably had its roots in the Essenes, was blended with the philosophies of Philo and others, and was finally hammered into its (more-or-less) final form by people like Paul, the gospel writers, and the people who forged all of the epistles.
The only reason to believe that it was all the work of a single individual is the desire on the part of some people for Jesus to be "special"... If not in a meta-physical way, at least as a major philosopher. But the problem is that Christian philosophy wasn't created by a single individual. This is only a problem for people who are intent on worshipping Jesus. If people only cared about the philosophy, it wouldn't really matter who created it. |
Very true points. To be honest, I would not be all that bothered following a belief system hammered out by many people over many years. Judaism is one such example. However, my honest impression is that there was such a radical shift in beliefs which people all attributed to one guy during the time of Paul, that it is safe to say that Jesus at the very least portrayed the culmination of these developing beliefs.
| Quote: |
| Hercules most certainly did have his own churches. And the amount of time which passed between their supposed deaths and the founding of their cults is almost irrelevant, since in neither case was their church founded by people who actually knew them physically. In other words, both of their churches were founded on oral legends. They really aren’t as different as they might appear. |
I don’t know much about Hercules, but I am sure those oral traditions were very old and the churches did not begin within a generation of those myths first beginning.
| Quote: |
There are a couple of very loose connections to the words of Paul, but the only thing that appears concrete is the phrase "love thy neighbor as thyself". But I'm not sure if this single phrase demonstrates a concrete written connection between the Didache and the teachings of Paul. It's a connection, yes... but it really doesn't come as a surprise. Paul knew other Christians, so it shouldn't come as a big surprise that he remembered one or two short phrases.
The connections are interesting, but don't really tell us anything we already didn't know. The original bits are interesting as well, but it's a bit unclear where exactly they came from. |
They could come from Jesus.
On Paul, I count the Didache showing significant correlations with the following passages:
Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Cor 7:23, 1 Cor 9:14, 1 Cor 5:11, Gal 3:3, and 1 Thes 4:16.
There is a lot from 1 Cor, namely because that’s the work I know best and the fact that Paul quotes Jesus there more than any other work. He might have been paraphrasing straight from a proto-gospel.
| Quote: |
| On the other hand, according to Martin A. Larson, the Essenes were heavily influenced by Orphism (The cult of Dionysus). And... well... I think you can see where I'm going here... |
I don’t see how that would discount Jesus being a real person. It would explain that his followers claimed a resurrection occurred.
| Quote: |
| It says that they give thanks for the holy vine (wine), for God's son David (Huh?), |
Son could mean “servant” or special “son,” because technically everyone is a child of God.
| Quote: |
Perhaps it is just a messianic reference ... that Jesus was a messiah, just like King David.
In any case, it doesn't say that Jesus is David's blood relative. |
I agree.
| Quote: |
| I agree that if there is an historical Jesus to be found, this is it. The problem is that this is just conjecture. There is no reference anywhere in ancient texts to Jesus being an Essene leader. |
Was Marcus Auralias a real philosopher, or did he just stick his name on other people’s works? Well, we definitely know there was a Marcus.
| Quote: |
| Myths can be based on real people. But they are still myths. |
I have no interest in semantics. Does the historical evidence clearly indicate there was a man named Jesus? Yes. Did he do religious stuff? Yes. Everything else is conjecture.
| Quote: |
| But what if the martyred Jewish messiah wannabe named Yeshua had nothing at all to do with this Essenian philosophy? Perhaps Yeshua was just some random nut who tried to start a riot during Passover (and was executed because of it), and later the Essene wrote a legend about this guy who stood up against their Pharisee enemies... and later more and more Essene philosophies were attributed to this supposed hero. It isn't out of the question. And thanks to the lack of verifiable information of Yeshua’s life, this conjecture is just about as valid as any other. |
That’s wouldn’t bother me. However, due to the fact that the events happened within Paul’s generation (and we have Jesus quotes that sound silly now that this generation is gone, namely “this generation shall not pass before the events I speak of occur.” To be honest, I am surprised that the Gospel writers let that one slip through…it shows Jesus was off with is timing. Paul obviously knew of the passage, because in 1 Thes 4, he is convinced the world may end any day.
| Quote: |
| Jews didn't become "pious" until after their religion had been formed. And Babylonian myths could easily transform into Jewish history within a couple generations. And this is precisely what appears to have happened. |
They were fully formed during Jesus’ time.
| Quote: |
But that isn't the way it's packaged to church patrons. Believe it or not, I've been to church before. And I can recall the priest claiming that "the Apostle Peter said this" and "the disciple Mathew said that", even though none of it is true.
I realize that Christianity has been around with us for a while. Therefore, this kind of fraud doesn't seem out of the ordinary. But take a look at how other modern false mythologies are treated. Take a look at Scientology. We know that Hubbard's little "space opera" is nothing but BS. Yet, he is allow to peddle his pseudoscientific philosophy under the guise of "religion". Or rather, I should say that he is allowed to peddle it in this country because our constitution has the word "religion" in it. But other European nations aren't constrained by such restrictions. Some have decided to ban it altogether because it is nothing but a money-making fraud.
But why should Christianity be afforded a free pass for doing basically the same thing?
You don't become one of the largest land-owners in the world by giving all of your possessions to the poor. |
I’m a libertarian. Buyer beware!
| Quote: |
Not really. Even in this country, the "Freedom of Religion" defense will only get you so far. Fraud is still fraud. And if you can show that the people perpetrating the fraud are doing it knowingly, it's difficult to plead a religious defense. And you can't really argue against the fact that church services (which provide 99.99% of the flock with their only source of religious information) purposefully bend the truth in order to further their cause. Priests still present the gospels as 1st-hand eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, and they present the pseudepigraphical texts as being authentic as well.
Perhaps they should require churches to post a little disclaimer similar to the one you see after motion pictures... "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental." |
I don’t think there should be forced disclaimers on anything. When the first amendment was made, Jefferson (he was in france though) amongst other deists knew what freedom of religion entailed.
| Quote: |
| Yes. And that is why the first amendment exists. But the question is, does the clergy really believe the things they are telling their flock? |
They double think, or some do.
| Quote: |
| We don't know that for sure. It's quite possible that a collection of parables or Essene beliefs existed before Jesus' name was tacked on to them. |
The one thing we do know for sure is that all of them mentioned Jesus. Sure, a proto-Didache or a proto-Q, or a proto-Mark may have been quotations from someone else, but the probability increasingly decreases when all we have is Jesus Jesus and Jesus.
| Quote: |
| It looks like you exceeded the posting limit. Sorry... it's a database thing. The text field in the database only allows 65,535 characters. I'm going to add a programming change right now that will calculate the number of characters and display the total in the "message preview". |
I corrected that luckily…
Thanks for your reply and keep the Christ in Christmas!
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Last edited by sorianofan on Tue 2007-01-02 14:10; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JOHNNYBEGOOD
Inner Party Leader
Post #36191
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1142
Total Words: 133,166
Average words per post: 116.61
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-12-22 01:41
|
|
| Politics: Zionist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
Andrew Johnson never said, “Let’s see the Supreme Court enforce it.” |
Sorry to be nitpicky, but I think you mean Andrew Jackson.
_________________
ಠ_ಠ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #36201
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-12-22 12:19
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote: |
| sorianofan wrote: |
Andrew Johnson never said, “Let’s see the Supreme Court enforce it.” |
Sorry to be nitpicky, but I think you mean Andrew Jackson. |
Yes, my bad. Andrew Johnson did justify his plan of Presidential Reconstruction by saying that the President was ellected by the people and therefore had a mandate. One senator observed, "That's a modest claim from a man elected by an assassin's bullet."
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #36229
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-12-26 19:37
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: The infamous "missing post" of Sorianofan |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
I am sure you were wondering, "What did the rest of that post say?" It kept you up at night, didn't it? JK.
|
Nah... I just assumed that it said something like, "I admit, you're right!" ^>^
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| The whole problem here is primarily one of time. [...] The whole process seems to have more in common with a mythic legend which grew over a period of time, than with some real historical event that was remembered shortly after it happened. |
Just like Marxism. If the founders are still alive, they can correct you. It prevented Marxism’s spread as a movement, because Karl can say, “Hey, you’re full of crap.” For Christianity to grow, the core needed to be dead, so the system could be amorphous and assume different forms to appeal to different people.
|
Yes, and that's the part that disturbs me. The gospels were all written after any potential witnesses were already dead, and were primarily distributed in lands far removed from the place where his all supposedly happened. They could have written just about anything they wanted, and nobody would know if it were true or not.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If Jesus was a real person, he should have had followers. But these followers aren't anywhere to be found. [....] (The other possibility is that the timeframe for Jesus' life portrayed in the gospels is way off) |
Some truth in this, though Kephas’ elevation in 1 Cor 15 infers otherwise. But only infers.
|
1Cor 15 only talks about people seeing Jesus' ghost. It talks about Jesus rising again on "the third day according to the scriptures", which seems to indicate that we’re talking about a real people who was recently buried. But the odd thing here is that "according to the scriptures" part. What “scriptures” is Paul talking about?
This leads me to an important question... How do we know that the version of Paul's letters we see today are actually the original versions? I can only thing of a few explanations for this...
- Paul is referring to some sort of pre-Markian gospel which is lost to history.
- This line was added later by some jackass Christian scribe.
- Paul is referring to old testament "scriptures" which prophesize that the messiah will rise on the 3rd day.
Lets take a look at the 3rd one first. This site lists 12 messianic prophecies supposedly fulfilled by Jesus, but there is no mention of rising on the third day. This site really stretches the truth just a bit in order to claim that Jesus's resurrection was prophesized in Psalms 16:10. But if you take a look at the actual passage, you really have to wonder how it is possible to call that line a "prophecy".
I did a search to find all of the places where Paul used the word "scripture". Most of the time the word is unmistakably used to refer to the Old Testament, except two places. 1Cor 15:3-4, and Romans 10:11.
- 1Cor 15:3-4 - Says that the scriptures talk about Jesus' resurrection on the 3rd day.
- Romans 10:11 – "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." I have absolutely no idea what "scriptures" he is talking about here. I did a search for the word "ashamed" and there are several passages in the Gospels and General Epistles which seem to be similar to what Paul said, but nothing that I would consider an exact textual match.
Here are a couple of possible sources for Paul’s statement in Romans 10:11:
- Psalm 25:2-3 - "O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let not mine enemies triumph over me. Yea, let none that wait on thee be ashamed: let them be ashamed which transgress without cause. "
- Psalms 31:1,17 - In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness. - Let me not be ashamed, O LORD; for I have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave."
- Psalm 109:28- "Let them curse, but bless thou: when they arise, let them be ashamed; but let thy servant rejoice."
From this, we can see that Paul may have been talking about the O.T. when he refers to "scriptures" in Romans 10:11. If that is true, that leaves only one oddity... 1Cor 15:3-4.
Is it possible that this line was added later? I've already discussed the possibility that the first few lines of Romans were added later (the part about "according to the flesh"). I realize that it not very reasonable to remove lines that I don't agree with without cause. But it seems odd for Paul to be talking about writings which don't yet exist (1Cor 15:3-4), or for controversial doctrine to appear in lines that are obviously written in the 3rd person (such as the intro to Romans).
Another point of concern is that only 7 of the 13 letters which attributed to Paul were actually written by him. There seems to be an awful lot of forgery going on in the 2nd century. And if entire letters can be forged without notice, why not a few lines here and there? Celsus commented on how readily Christians manipulated their own scripture, and Origen spoke of the "great" number of differences among Gospel manuscripts. (source).
| From Origen: Contra Celsus, Book II, Chap XXVII |
After this [Celsus] says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the. followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.
|
Here Origen admits that just about every sect of Christianity has altered sacred texts (except for his own sect, of course). What this means is that there is absolutely no guarantee that any ancient text we now have today is in its original form.
Paul's version of Christ appears mostly Docetic. He generally only talks about Spirit-Christ. Marcion was a tremendous fan of Paul, and Marcionism was a Docetic cult. So when we see one or two lines in Paul's writing that contradict this Docetic view, it makes me wonder if they are Paul's original words.
Like I said before, the thing that would convince me that Paul thought of Jesus as a flesh-and-blood human would be if Paul treated Jesus as such. I think we both agree that if Jesus was a real historical figure, he was probably some sort of martyred Jewish teacher. But Paul doesn't ever treat him as such ... he only seems to be interested in the mythical elements of the gospel story. The “wise” sayings of this great Jewish teacher seem to mean nothing to him.
And even if we were to assume that everything attributed to Paul in the bible is genuine, we are still left with question of why it was necessary for Paul to specify in 50 A.D. that Jesus was a flesh and blood human. The only reason for such a statement would be to counter the opinions of others that Jesus wasn't. It's pretty amazing that in the mere 15-20 years after the time Jesus supposedly lived that people were already forgetting he was a real person.
So to make a long story short, I've pretty much given up on Paul as a source about an historical Jesus. His epistles are interesting because they are the earliest known writings, but I think we can both agree that they seem to lack any concrete historical information concerning Jesus. Even if Paul would have continuously exclaimed, ”JESUS IS REAL, DAMMIT!”, that would not make it true. There are plenty of modern Christians who make the same claim, and I find their statements equally unconvincing.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No, it doesn't. Not at all. The Didache doesn't mention parables... it mentions laws. Even if we were to assume that the Didache represents the historic teachings of Jesus, there is no reason to believe that Parables from an entirely different document represent the teachings of the same person. They could easily have come from two different people. (And the fact that the Q document is believed to have been compiled in layers means that it probably came from several different authors.) |
Layers is a theory. The Didache is not the sole source of Jesus. Theological similarities between it and Q and Paul show a common source—Jesus.
|
I'll say it again.... A common source does NOT indicate that it was Jesus. A common source only indicates that there was a common source, but provides no information on who that source was.
I think we both agree that Q was not penned by Jesus himself. And I find it doubtful that it was penned by one of the "disciples" either. If writings from the original disciples has survived into the 2nd century, they would have been of great interest to Christians of the time. (They wouldn't have had to forge epistles if they had the actually writings of a disciple).
We know the teachings of Socrates through his student Plato. But there isn't a similar analogy in the case of Jesus. We know that Mathew and Luke used a similar collections of sayings when composing their gospels, but we have no idea where this document originally came from. It seems most likely that the document was compiled by some unnamed apostle (somebody who didn't know Jesus personally). And if that is the case, you really have to wonder who his source was. It doesn't appear to be Jesus, so who was it?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It still seems odd that it was lost accidentally while the works of two people who possessed this document survived [... |
Again, the conspiracy theory! I always thought second century Christians were stupid and looked at Q as incomplete, because Matthew was the word of God, Q was then incomplete and ignored. The Didache was almost just as close as never existing (though, it at least had historical mentioning. Q is never floated around, but neither are little pieces of 1st century Jesus manuscripts.
|
The fact that "Q" was lost isn't a conspiracy theory....it's just a fact. All I have tried to do is figure out a reasonable explanation for this loss. Early-2nd century Christians seems to have a craving for the original writings of Jesus and his disciples (hence, the forgeries). But if Q was available into the 2nd century, why was it ignored?
Neither Matthew nor Luke preserved the "complete" Q collection in their gospels. At best, each only preserved about 30-50% of it (and some of that overlaps between the two of them). Both of these authors had access to the document, yet they seem to be the only two people in the world to ever take notice of it. Paul seems largely unaware of these sayings, which is odd considering that Paul knew all of the early Christian apostles. Paul's ignorance is difficult to explain if the Q sayings came from Jesus ~30 A.D.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Actually, it may have come from some sort of proto-Gnostic group. Or it might have even come from some wacky apostles who, in addition to making up the parables, made up a whole bunch of unappealing words coming out of Jesus' mouth. Who knows? The authorship of the Q document isn't known, so any (and I really do mean ANY) attempt to assign authorship would be mere speculation. |
Point taken. Though if Q initially said, “Jesus said, ‘…’” then that would solve that. It is likely this was Q’s construction.
|
But it could have also said, "Mithras Said....". Their were several "mystery religions" around at the time, and it seem that a collection of "wisdom sayings" such as this might have been right up their alley. Or it could have simply been a bunch of Jewish sayings. The Didache demonstrates that early Christians were not above taking an old Jewish document and rewording it into a Christian one. Like we’ve already discussed, most of the sayings attributed to “Q” were not parables about Christian theology or morality … they were just generic analogies which discussed the nature of heaven and the afterlife. It is not necessary for these to have come from Jesus, or even from early Christians at all.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| And Clement lived at the same time that Matthew and Luke were compiling their gospels. Perhaps he was familiar with the words of the Q document. But I am curious... what part of the Q document (or Thomas) does he cite? |
I am going by my study bible’s discussion of Matthew’s dating. Check earlychristianwritings.com or google it. I would elaborate more, but I am very busy.
|
I cant find any reference to Clement talking about Q.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| But, was Jesus really the first person to say these things? Jesus’ writings (assuming he had any in the first place) don't survive today. He wasn't much of an author. Orwell beats him hands down. At least he managed to find a publisher while he was still alive. |
I wonder where Orwell will be 2,000 years from now. Probably not the head of religion where everyone orgy porgies…that’s for Henry Ford.
|
I think Orwell deserves a cult ore than that Jesus guy. I'll get to work on it right away...
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| How do you justify your use of the word "obviously" to describe the existence of something that has never been seen, and which really has not ever even been described in any sort of concrete form. "God" is a vague term of mythic origins who's existence has never been observed, nor who's existence has ever seemed to play any part in the course of human history. This fact means that you are hereby prohibited from using the word "obvious" to describe him. |
We are observing God’s creation right now. Every observation I make confirms the obvious.
|
Care to name a couple of these "obvious observations"? A lack of understanding about any particular phenomenon does not necessarily point to the existence of the supernatural – it only points to a lack of understanding. That's one of the most important lessons mankind has learned over the ages.
| sorianofan wrote: |
You did not tell me to stop writing, though gradschool work load will do that soon. Writing this post is one of my few luxuries. If you need time to catch up, let me know. |
That 2-month break was sufficient for me.
| sorianofan wrote: |
I would like to add one quick point about Origen, who you claim "confirms" tha Josephus did not write the Jesus passages. However, Origen clearly stated that "Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ." This does not mean that Josephus did not write anything. If anything, it shows that Josephus wrote something (which made clear Jesus was not divine). If Josephus wrote nothing, like Pliny the Elder, then Origen would have not brought the subject up to begin with. Nonetheless, the scholars mostly believe the 1st christian reference is fake and the James reference is real. |
I agree that Josephus must have said something about Jesus in order for Origen to dismay at Josephus' lack of belief in Jesus. But the writings that survive today don't give any indication of what Origen based this statement on. I doubt that Origen was talking about some sort of "argument from silence". But It's difficult to determine what kind of complaint against Jesus that Josephus had.
However, Origen may have given us a clue. After he claims that Josephus didn't believe in Jesus Origen said, "And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning him that Jesus was not a man but something diviner". From this, it would seem to indicate that Josephus said something about Jesus not being a man. This reminiscent of Josephus' alleged comment, "if it be lawful to call him a man". I think we can both agree that Josephus never said that. But it does seem that Josephus must have originally said something to indicate that he had doubts that Jesus was actually a man. To Christian ears, this would seem to indicate that Josephus thought Jesus was some sort of divine spirit. But I doubt this was the original meaning of Josephus' words.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #36308
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2007-01-02 14:12
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
First see this: http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/viewtopic.php?p=36189#36189
Then see this:
| Quote: |
| Yes, and that's the part that disturbs me. The gospels were all written after any potential witnesses were already dead, and were primarily distributed in lands far removed from the place where his all supposedly happened. They could have written just about anything they wanted, and nobody would know if it were true or not. |
Well, no one knows where the Gospels are written, but yes, I do agree that Christianity as we know it strayed from Jesus, even Paul. However, I again assert that the Gospels are fairly accurate portrayals of Jesus theology, altered to a pro-gentile perspective.
You disagree, and assert that they are not accurate portrayals concerning Jesus. However, let me interject the following counterpoint. We never talk about the Gospel of John or John’s letters. Why? Because they are obviously nothing close to early Christianity in a historical sense (theological sense is arguable.) So, we have already made a distinction that Mark, Matthew, and Luke are closer to the Pauline Epistles without showing evidence of reliance (which would be obvious, considering one can easily see if Greek has been lifted from Paul or even see Paul take stances that are not the same as those espoused from Jesus, etc.) So, are the Gospels a highly mythic and epic portrayal of the life of Jesus and his teachings? Certainly. But a Gospel is not a biography to begin with. Gospel means “good news.” The Gospels were purposely shaped in such a fashion to convey the good news, being the theology of Jesus. If the NT was made up of 4 totally of the wall Gospels, like John, Judas, Truth, and Pilate, you would have a very strong argument that we have absolutely nothing to base “Jesus” of from. However, the early Church fathers were not always stupid. In fact, it is pretty admirable that without being trained historians, about 60 percent of their choices for the cannon are fairly reliable and early sources from the first century. Are they 100 percent accurate? No. Do they prove the existence of supernatural feats? No. Do they represent a reinterpretation of Judaism, a calling to repent, a new non-violent, unconditional love. and pro-lower class religion? Certainly. It is this that it is important, because this lives on long after those who developed and espoused these ideas were dead.
| Quote: |
| 1Cor 15 only talks about people seeing Jesus' ghost. It talks about Jesus rising again on "the third day according to the scriptures", which seems to indicate that we’re talking about a real people [sic, person] who was recently buried. But the odd thing here is that "according to the scriptures" part. What “scriptures” is Paul talking about? |
Paul frequently cut up pieces of the septugient and formulated quotations from the scriptures. The three day thing, whether it be a loose connection to a part in Psalms, Amos, or Jonah (probably Jonah, being that Matthew explicitly makes the connection that Jonah was in the whale three days will be akin to what Jesus will do—this shows this is how early Christians chose to interpret the passage), is obviously Paul stretching a bit, to put it lightly. Do I doubt he would stretch the truth when he was totally convinced that Jesus was foretold in the OT? No. He could easily be mistaken out of shear zeal. This kind of reminds me how befuddled medieval churchmen tried to interpret Leviticus, being that the Bible was the word of God, what the hell would Leviticus have had anything to do with the NT? The result was they made zany reinterpetations.
| Quote: |
This leads me to an important question... How do we know that the version of Paul's letters we see today are actually the original versions? I can only thing of a few explanations for this...
1. Paul is referring to some sort of pre-Markian gospel which is lost to history.
2. This line was added later by some jackass Christian scribe.
3. Paul is referring to old testament "scriptures" which prophesize that the messiah will rise on the 3rd day.
Lets take a look at the 3rd one first. This site lists 12 messianic prophecies supposedly fulfilled by Jesus, but there is no mention of rising on the third day. This site really stretches the truth just a bit in order to claim that Jesus's resurrection was prophesized in Psalms 16:10. But if you take a look at the actual passage, you really have to wonder how it is possible to call that line a "prophecy".
I did a search to find all of the places where Paul used the word "scripture". Most of the time the word is unmistakably used to refer to the Old Testament, except two places. 1Cor 15:3-4, and Romans 10:11.
• 1Cor 15:3-4 - Says that the scriptures talk about Jesus' resurrection on the 3rd day.
• Romans 10:11 – "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." I have absolutely no idea what "scriptures" he is talking about here. I did a search for the word "ashamed" and there are several passages in the Gospels and General Epistles which seem to be similar to what Paul said, but nothing that I would consider an exact textual match.
Here are a couple of possible sources for Paul’s statement in Romans 10:11:
• Psalm 25:2-3 - "O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let not mine enemies triumph over me. Yea, let none that wait on thee be ashamed: let them be ashamed which transgress without cause. "
• Psalms 31:1,17 - In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness. - Let me not be ashamed, O LORD; for I have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave."
• Psalm 109:28- "Let them curse, but bless thou: when they arise, let them be ashamed; but let thy servant rejoice."
From this, we can see that Paul may have been talking about the O.T. when he refers to "scriptures" in Romans 10:11. If that is true, that leaves only one oddity... 1Cor 15:3-4. |
It really is not that much an oddity. It is Paul just making very loose connections with the OT. I believe the chief oddity is 1 Corinthians 2 “But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him." This is no where in the OT or even the aprophyca. In fact, it is found in some early manicee works and Gospel of Thomas 17. In my honest opinion, it is either early Thomas (which I have soured on, I now think it is a forgery) or just Isaiah 64:4 elaborated upon.
| Quote: |
| Is it possible that this line was added later? I've already discussed the possibility that the first few lines of Romans were added later (the part about "according to the flesh"). I realize that it not very reasonable to remove lines that I don't agree with without cause. But it seems odd for Paul to be talking about writings which don't yet exist (1Cor 15:3-4), or for controversial doctrine to appear in lines that are obviously written in the 3rd person (such as the intro to Romans). |
However, Paul wrote all his intros in the third person. Paul loosely quotes scripture all the time. None are really all that odd in light of this. Being that we have scraps of early manuscripts and several ancient complete ones, it is possible to see where they differ. The truth is, they barely do at all, and without any evidence (even internal) to suggest those passages are false, there is no reason to believe that they are.
[uote]Another point of concern is that only 7 of the 13 letters which attributed to Paul were actually written by him. There seems to be an awful lot of forgery going on in the 2nd century. And if entire letters can be forged without notice, why not a few lines here and there?[/quote]
While a few lines may be corrupted, for example different traditions of Sirach (aprochycal work) different with lines, the lack of obviously different versions of the epistles shows that there was not much tampering. My opinion is that an original version would have been copied and recopied longer than altered ones and therefore it is more probable that it would be the version we have today.
On a brief aside, I do believe that Colossians is authentic, having read into the scholarship and finding objections to it lacking.
| Quote: |
Celsus commented on how readily Christians manipulated their own scripture, and Origen spoke of the "great" number of differences among Gospel manuscripts. (source).
From Origen: Contra Celsus, Book II, Chap XXVII
After this [Celsus] says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the. followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.
Here Origen admits that just about every sect of Christianity has altered sacred texts (except for his own sect, of course). What this means is that there is absolutely no guarantee that any ancient text we now have today is in its original form. |
Celsus, being very critical, does offer a valid point. Christians have changed Gospels and texts. Granted, there are sections of epistles (though, not that numerous) that we are not sure are insertions are brief asides from Paul. Nonetheless, what Celsus was most likely making note of was the huge amount of Gospels, nearing a hundred, that sprouted out during the second century (compared to the less than 5 during the first). He could not help but notice that there was just blatant story retelling on the part of Christians. Even Gnostic texts and many aprophycal works were respected and read by proto and regular Catholics. You can go to italy and look at frescos of “bible stories” showing Mary’s parents and Mary’s mother being a virgin as well. So Celsus definitely was not wrong. However, he was likely referring to the vast majority of texts which are as of the present not canon. In order to determine whether canonical texts have been fiddled with, we need to look for internal evidence and differences between manuscripts. For example, we have different endings for Mark. Yet, we do not have large parts of the middle missing. We have in Romans where Paul calls politicians God’s appointed leaders out of nowhere, but we don’t have high (or much at all) incident of that elsewhere. There simply is not evidence of it.
| Quote: |
| Paul's version of Christ appears mostly Docetic. He generally only talks about Spirit-Christ. Marcion was a tremendous fan of Paul, and Marcionism was a Docetic cult. So when we see one or two lines in Paul's writing that contradict this Docetic view, it makes me wonder if they are Paul's original words. |
The Docetic view was that the crucifixion itself was not physical. Paul never explicitly supports or denounces this in the genuine epistles. However, he does go at length to confirm Jesus’ very humanity in several other epistles, which I have already quoted above. My personal opinion is that Paul was not docetic.
| Quote: |
| Like I said before, the thing that would convince me that Paul thought of Jesus as a flesh-and-blood human would be if Paul treated Jesus as such. |
He does though. He calls Jesus flesh and blood several times.
| Quote: |
| I think we both agree that if Jesus was a real historical figure, he was probably some sort of martyred Jewish teacher. But Paul doesn't ever treat him as such ... he only seems to be interested in the mythical elements of the gospel story. The “wise” sayings of this great Jewish teacher seem to mean nothing to him. |
He infers and loosely quotes Jesus sayings many times, as I have shown you with my parallel thing. So, he had some respect for Jesus’ commands, though he was not modest in his own dishing out of commands on his own authority. However, being that the early church, possibly in accordance with Jesus’ will, had a “[holy] spirit”-led emphasis, there is no reason why they would hang on every last word of Jesus when they got updates every Sunday at church thanks to “the spirit.”
| Quote: |
| And even if we were to assume that everything attributed to Paul in the bible is genuine, we are still left with question of why it was necessary for Paul to specify in 50 A.D. that Jesus was a flesh and blood human. The only reason for such a statement would be to counter the opinions of others that Jesus wasn't. It's pretty amazing that in the mere 15-20 years after the time Jesus supposedly lived that people were already forgetting he was a real person. |
Look at the situations where Paul makes note of it:
Romans 1:3 Jesus "descended from David according to the flesh”
Here, Paul is drawing parallels between biblical prophecy (of a seed of David being the messiah) and Jesus. So, he’s defending Jesus claim to the throne more than defending Jesus from those who claim he was not real.
Phillipians 2:7 Jesus took "the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, And being found in human form."
Here, Paul is stressing how the “Lord,” a man of divine qualities (Paul is never clear if Jesus is a god, a chosen son of God, a son of God, etc.) took the low down and dirty form of a “slave” (either stressing his poorness, his devotion to a great God, or both. The stress on humanity is the stress on “God made Man.” So again, Paul is making more of a theological defense than a defense against those who doubt Jesus’ humanity.
Galatians 4:4 Paul states that " God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law."
Again, Paul is stressing the “God made Man” thing again, and stressing the genetic [and therefore moral by Jewish standards] purity of Jesus. The God of Abraham would not send his son through a gentile. So, again we have a theological defense.
1 Cor 15:21 States "the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being."
Again, as we discussed in the past, Paul is stressing that because death came through man (Adam) life came through a man (Jesus).
| Quote: |
| So to make a long story short, I've pretty much given up on Paul as a source about an historical Jesus. His epistles are interesting because they are the earliest known writings, but I think we can both agree that they seem to lack any concrete historical information concerning Jesus. Even if Paul would have continuously exclaimed, ”JESUS IS REAL, DAMMIT!”, that would not make it true. There are plenty of modern Christians who make the same claim, and I find their statements equally unconvincing. |
Paul lived during the events. Then we have Gospels. We have probabilities and no good reasons to doubt them.
| Quote: |
| I'll say it again.... A common source does NOT indicate that it was Jesus. A common source only indicates that there was a common source, but provides no information on who that source was. |
True, but if they all call that source the same thing, then we have nothing else to call it. We don’t have any sources with a Jewish guy for 50 BC saying the same exact things as Jesus. We don’t have a like contemporary source either. Therefore, to doubt who are what that source is inspired is at the very least, not scholarly.
| Quote: |
| I think we both agree that Q was not penned by Jesus himself. And I find it doubtful that it was penned by one of the "disciples" either. If writings from the original disciples has survived into the 2nd century, they would have been of great interest to Christians of the time. (They wouldn't have had to forge epistles if they had the actually writings of a disciple). |
What are you talking about? The Didache was written by the 12 disciples! (Just kidding.) My opinion
| Quote: |
| We know the teachings of Socrates through his student Plato. But there isn't a similar analogy in the case of Jesus. We know that Mathew and Luke used a similar collections of sayings when composing their gospels, but we have no idea where this document originally came from. It seems most likely that the document was compiled by some unnamed apostle (somebody who didn't know Jesus personally). And if that is the case, you really have to wonder who his source was. It doesn't appear to be Jesus, so who was it? |
You really don’t know. It could have been an apostle (only a proselytizer who had met Jesus can be one, Paul claims himself to be an apostle because he met Jesus via a vision), it could have been a gentile proselytizer who was taking information from a supposed authority. However, Q has parables and deeply religious ideas—more Jewish than even Paul’s, who himself was a Jew. Paul followed more closely the wisdom tradition than Q. Q is likely Jewish/Jewish Christian. This leads me to believe that if it were indeed Christian, it can very likely be from a bona fide apostle recounting popular things Jesus said.
I find 8 Q-genuine Paul parallels in my incomplete list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikilagata/Internal_Biblical_Evidence_of_Jesus%27_Historicity#Parallels_Found_Strictly_in_.22Q.22). This does not include extra Matthew and Luke passages that stand alone that may theoretically be from Q. Furthermore, there are at least 2 additional parallels with James, which I consider to be authentic. So, if three different people from an early time, Paul, James, and Q-author are writing about the same thing, that thing preceded them. They also, as far as we know, are citing the same guy. This is very good evidence for earlier inspiration—the historical Jesus. Even if James is fake, it is hard to argue that Paul was not talking about Jesus, unless both Q and Mark both paraphrased Paul’s words and put it in Jesus’ mouth, and being early sources made during a time where plagiarism was fairly obvious (usually lifted straight from the greek of something else), the highest probability is an earlier inspiration—Jesus.
| Quote: |
| The fact that "Q" was lost isn't a conspiracy theory....it's just a fact. All I have tried to do is figure out a reasonable explanation for this loss. Early-2nd century Christians seems to have a craving for the original writings of Jesus and his disciples (hence, the forgeries). But if Q was available into the 2nd century, why was it ignored? |
Well, I think a perfectly good explanation would be that Q was seen as an incomplete Matthew or Luke and disregarded. The Ebionites (Jewish Christians of the post temple era) floated around an edited version of Matthew with strange additions and subtracting the virgin birth and resurrection. They did not even have Q. Q was gone before the second century, where it was in vogue to make more gospels with stories about the disciples and such
| Quote: |
| Neither Matthew nor Luke preserved the "complete" Q collection in their gospels. At best, each only preserved about 30-50% of it (and some of that overlaps between the two of them). Both of these authors had access to the document, yet they seem to be the only two people in the world to ever take notice of it. Paul seems largely unaware of these sayings, which is odd considering that Paul knew all of the early Christian apostles. Paul's ignorance is difficult to explain if the Q sayings came from Jesus ~30 A.D. |
Well, Paul’s genuine Epistles and Didache do show concurrence.
| Quote: |
| But it could have also said, "Mithras Said....". Their were several "mystery religions" around at the time, and it seem that a collection of "wisdom sayings" such as this might have been right up their alley. Or it could have simply been a bunch of Jewish sayings. The Didache demonstrates that early Christians were not above taking an old Jewish document and rewording it into a Christian one. Like we’ve already discussed, most of the sayings attributed to “Q” were not parables about Christian theology or morality … they were just generic analogies which discussed the nature of heaven and the afterlife. It is not necessary for these to have come from Jesus, or even from early Christians at all. |
Unlikely though, considering the Q passages sounds very Jewish. It could have been “the prophet said” or “the saints said,” but because Q clearly had some minimal context in sections and characters, it is likely that it was naming Jesus.
| Quote: |
| I cant find any reference to Clement talking about Q. |
He quotes some Matthew passages. They could be Q…they could not be. Q likely died out by 90 CE, where a church conspiracy to destroy it would be incredibly unlikely, due to the fact that it was too early.
| Quote: |
| I think Orwell deserves a cult ore than that Jesus guy. I'll get to work on it right away... |
Well, he did not make a religion.
| Quote: |
| Care to name a couple of these "obvious observations"? A lack of understanding about any particular phenomenon does not necessarily point to the existence of the supernatural – it only points to a lack of understanding. That's one of the most important lessons mankind has learned over the ages. |
Granted, just because we do not know an answer, that does not mean we should just contrive one under the name of God. However, the fact that I see and feel existence, which did not create itself, and see order that is not arbitrary or chaotic, and see unmitigated goods in existence like beauty leads me to no other conclusion and continues to verify itself.
| Quote: |
| I agree that Josephus must have said something about Jesus in order for Origen to dismay at Josephus' lack of belief in Jesus. But the writings that survive today don't give any indication of what Origen based this statement on. I doubt that Origen was talking about some sort of "argument from silence". But It's difficult to determine what kind of complaint against Jesus that Josephus had. |
It is likely a deviation of something we already have, unless Josephus wrote something like, “by the way, Jesus the Christ really was a pretender.” But, he did not have to write that in order to convey Jesus was not divine. Writing that jesus was a mere “teacher” would have conveyed the same, and it is this message we can gleam from the manuscripts. Even Penn and Teller do not make an issue out of Josephus…then again, they only had 30 minutes to debunk the bible.
| Quote: |
| However, Origen may have given us a clue. After he claims that Josephus didn't believe in Jesus Origen said, "And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning him that Jesus was not a man but something diviner". From this, it would seem to indicate that Josephus said something about Jesus not being a man. This reminiscent of Josephus' alleged comment, "if it be lawful to call him a man". I think we can both agree that Josephus never said that. But it does seem that Josephus must have originally said something to indicate that he had doubts that Jesus was actually a man. To Christian ears, this would seem to indicate that Josephus thought Jesus was some sort of divine spirit. But I doubt this was the original meaning of Josephus' words. |
I think you are misunderstanding Origen’s comment.
| Quote: |
| "And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning him that Jesus was not a man but something diviner". |
The “new doubt” belongs to Josephus, not Origen. The doubt itself not believing Jesus “was not something diviner” than a man.
Furthermore, Origen verifies that the James passage in Josephus’ is true:
| Quote: |
| "Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James." (On The Gospel Of Matthew, 1:15) |
Celsus’ criticism is pretty weak:
| Quote: |
| "It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have even heard that some of your interpreters, as if they had just come out of a tavern, are onto the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism." |
His argument is that he heard that there has been a whole lot of rewriting. There was certainly some. Look at the Sophia of Jesus Christy, Josephus’ Testimonium, and etc. However, look at the inconsistencies in the sources currently in the NT and the amount of manuscripts for them that we have. It does not look there has been any substantial tampering, besides the end of Mark, that Celsus heard about.
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #36479
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2007-01-11 05:12
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Woo-Hoo! This 63,000 character response fits in one post! |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| The question here is, in what sense did Paul consider Jesus to be "real"? Did anybody in the first half of the 1st century believe he was “real”. Did anybody believe that Jesus was a "real" guy who was recently killed in Jerusalem, or did people like Paul believe Jesus was a "real" spirit that appeared before people like Peter and himself? If Paul believed that Jesus a real guy, that would support Jesus' historicity. If he believed that he was a magical ghost that would do little to help the argument. |
Paul and early Christians very clearly wrote that Jesus was real. The evidence is staggering. I wrote the following on wiki:
| External site |
| Proponents of the Jesus Myth disagree with the notion that the Apostle Paul did speak of Jesus as a physical being. This is largely an argument from silence. Furthermore, it is slightly a distortion, because the Apostle Paul contradicts this viewpoint. He claims that Jesus "descended from David according to the flesh",[33] (Romans 1:3) took "the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, And being found in human form,"( Philippians 2:7).[34] Paul also states that "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law." (Galatians 4:4)[35] and "the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being." (1 Corinthians 15:21)[36] Paul clearly states in "taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, And being found in human form, he [Jesus] humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:7-8) [37] Furthermore, he invokes the "command," "charge," or "word" of Jesus four times[38] (Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 7:10 and 9:14, and 1 Thessalonians 4:15) in the Epistles. |
|
Notice that most of these talk about Jesus taking the “form” or “likeness” of man. When I hear comments like these, it reminds me of the way that ancient Greeks talked about Zeus taking the “form” of a eagle, a swan, a a beam of sunlight, or of a man. Saying that the Jesus-god took the form of a man is not the same thing as saying that he was actually a flesh-and-blood human.
And as for Jesus issuing “commands”, I don’t think I need to provide examples of mythical gods performing the same activity.
Paul’s ministry occurred immediately after the time of Jesus was supposed lo have lived. Yet, you would never know it from anything that Paul wrote. He never refers directly to the teachings of this great Jewish wise man, nor does he ever talk about anybody else seeing a living Jesus. He only talks about people seeing Jesus’ spirit. You can try to reinterpret his words into conforming with the idea of a real Jewish rabbi named Jesus, but nothing in Paul’s original words would lead somebody to this conclusion. He clearly talks about Jesus being a spirit-god who took the form of a human. I realize that this could be interpreted as meaning that a real flesh-and-blood human was “possessed” by the spirit of Jesus. But Gnostic interpretations are possible as well.
| sorianofan wrote: |
We also have several Pauline parallels with Jesus quotations, which can only be discounted IF the Gospel writers loosely stole from Paul. However, we can find no clear pattern of Q being the Paul copy culprit, or Mark. Even Matthew and Luke have separate parallels. What there appears to be, as most scholars maintain, that most of these sayings were floating around in early oral tradition and proto-gospels. Again, here’s my incomplete list of parallels: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikilagata/Internal_Biblical_Evidence_of_Jesus%27_Historicity#Excample_36:)
|
Those parallels are extremely weak. And in any case they are pretty much irrelevant since the gospels were written 1-3 decades after Paul penned his epistles.
| sorianofan wrote: |
No, he knows both Jesus AND his crucifixion. Being that you are not Christian, and most Christians don’t reread Corinthians a billion times, you might have missed that Paul is apologizing that he sounds so meek and ignorant compared to a man named Apollos, who sounds more wise and learned. Paul essentially argues, though he may not sound as smart, he purports God’s wisdom, which trumps what Apollos says. This is not much of a convincing argument to modern sensibilities, but Paul is invoking the Wisdom tradition and the idea that “the least among you shall be greatest”-Jesus. Wisdom is not essentially high sounding rhetoric. That’s Paul’s argument.
|
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying, but that was pretty much what I was saying. The think the only point of contention was that I was wondering if perhaps these other “wise” apostles might have had in their possession a collection of “wisdom sayings” (i.e. The Q Document).
| sorianofan wrote: |
It reminds me of Jefferson, who said in his inaugural address, “We are all Federalists. We are all Republicans [We’re all Americans].” Paul makes clear that it is Jesus and his crucifixion that is important, not whether you follow Cephas, Apollo, or him…of course, Paul slyly implies that Jesus, and him crucified, thus Paul’s dogma, is most important. Yes, this is not exactly straight forward, but Paul is not showing that he did not think Jesus talked.
|
I wasn’t saying that this proved that Paul didn’t think Jesus talked. I relation to my previous conjecture (i.e. that these other apostles might have had the Q document) , I was wondering why Paul didn’t care about these sayings. I’m simply trying to make sense out of how Paul could have ignored the Q document, if indeed it did exist during the 50’s. (And in order to be the real words of Jesus, the document must have existed at this time)
| sorianofan wrote: |
“Wisdom” invokes the “wisdom tradition,” not Jesus’ words. The Didache, has only 2 surviving documents. It could have easily fell into the dust bin of history. The same can be true of Q. However, if I want to make a conspiracy theory, I could claim that Q was destroyed because it proved that Matthew and Luke were not written by Matthew and Luke. |
Again, saying that the Q document was lost early in church history is not a conspiracy theory… it’s a fact. I’m just trying to figure out how such an important document could be lost while things of lesser importance were retained. The problem here is not that no copies of Q have survived to the year 2000 … the problem is that no copies appear to have even survived to the year 100-150 CE. This wouldn’t be too hard to explain if only one gospel writer had used it.. but the fact that two different writers (who were separated by geography, theology, and perhaps by 1-2 decades) both had copies of it. Things are complicated further by the fact that the author of Thomas seemed to have a copy as well. And the thing that I have a problem understanding is how this could happen without any early Christians explicitly writing about it’s existence.
Something happened between the time that all these writers used Q as a source, and the time that the apologists (such as Justin Martyr) started writing a few decades later. I’m just trying to understand what that “something” is.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
What does he mean that Jesus was killed by "the princes of this world"? […]
|
Now you are getting into semantics. The Greek word used is “arxontwn” which means “a ruler, commander, chief, leader.” Paul could have been blaming Jewish and Roman leadership in a blanket statement. Being that Mark was the first to write about Pontius Pilate being the executor, we really do not know if he was. He might have been. But, what Paul writes confirms his belief Jesus was human (he was killed by mortals), but it neither confirms nor denies precisely who is responsible. Apparently, no one person is to blame.
|
Another possibility is that Paul didn’t want to piss off the Roman authorities. But this is just one of several places in Paul’s writings where he could have given us more detail about the life of Jesus, but failed to do so.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
I think one problem here is that, if Jesus was a real person, I don’t believe that Matthew and Luke correctly identified the time of his crucifixion. […]
|
[…] it does show that Paul’s conversion likely occurred not long after Jesus’ death, being that in 1 Cor 15 he claims about 500 people who witnessed the resurrection are still alive.
|
This claim is a bit unreliable because it seems that it is most likely untue. But it’s possible that these “500 people” Paul is talking about is referring to the number of Christians in Jerusalem – He is saying that 500 people have “seen Christ” and now follow him (either that or he is just making it up and picking this number out of the air).
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
It seems odd that this type of Docetic belief could spring up so soon after the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived. Jesus’ followers and family members would have still been alive at the time that Paul converted (~32AD). Also, there must have been hundreds or even thousands of people in the holy lands who heard a living Jesus speak, but Paul doesn't seem to care what any of these eyewitnesses had to say about the living Jesus. |
All early Christians believed that the holy spirit was left in Jesus’ absence. Paul is arguing that those who use logic and human smarts miss out of God’s wisdom, because they are not tuned into the spirit. He’s slyly bashing Apollos.
|
I’m not sure if you can say that “all early Christians” believed that. Docetic and Gnostic ideas seem to spring up fairly quickly, and we can’t be certain that these beliefs didn’t exist during Paul’s time (and may have been held by Paul himself). And as I said, it seems odd that these types of beliefs could spring up so soon after the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived. Even if Jesus was a real person, it is apparent that early on there were attempts by various people to deny this fact.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
Similar theological roots only show that there are … similar theological roots. […] So, the question is… does this document prove that Jesus existed? It proves that there is a single source, but does it prove that he existed? |
Mithras or other mystery Gods never spoke, and if they did, they did not speak in such a Jewish way. The speaker is definitely Jewish, this cannot be doubted.
|
There really isn’t anything particularly “Jewish” about most of the sayings in the Q document – most are just generic references to the kingdom of heaven or the importance of religious belief. The Jewish nuances could have been added later.
That being said, the document could have had Jewish origins. But here again, the document could have been altered by Christians to fit with their ideology. It appears that this sort of thing happened in the Didache.
And while we’re on the subject, you might find this dead sea scroll or particular interest.
| sorianofan wrote: |
It is the fact that there are a combination of documents, not just 1 that show Jesus is the most likely speaker. Paul shows us there was a guy named Jesus and gives us his opinion of the man’s significance. Then we have the possible Q, Mark, Didache, and etc. Granted, if Q and Didache are the earliest sayings documents, neither may have quoted Jesus at all (we really don’t know who Q was quoting or Didache.) However, being that we have no evidence to suggest that they did not come from Jesus, we should make the simple assumption that they likely are.
|
The thing is that I have trouble connecting the dots between these documents and a flesh-and-blood Jesus. By that I mean, there is no indication that the person who wrote this documents actually was a student of Jesus.
For example, take a look at the Gospel of Thomas. Here we see a collection of Jesus’ sayings. But is there any indication that whoever wrote that document actually heard Jesus speak? Not at all. If the Q document is ever unearthed, I would imagine that it might possibly have a similar tone to that of Thomas. (i.e. It will be a collection mystery sayings, rather than a first-person recording of a real-life Jewish rabbi) If the document contained anything that sounded similar to the gnostic-sounding verses 12, 24, 30, 37, 43, 50, 52, 77, 91 ofThomas, that would call its historicity into question.
While we’re on the subject of Thomas, I just wanted to mention that I found another parallel between the words of Jesus and Aesop’s fables.
| From Gospel of Thomas |
102. Jesus said, "Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat."
|
now compare…
| From The Dog in the Manger |
There was a wicked dog lying in a manger full of hay. When the cattle came and wanted to eat, the dog barred their way, baring his teeth. The cattle said to the dog, 'You are being very unfair by begrudging us something we need which is useless to you. Dogs don't eat hay, but you will not let us near it.' The same thing happened when a dog was holding a bone in his mouth: the dog couldn't chew on the bone that way, but no other dog was able to chew on it either.
|
Damn copycats.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
So, just to re-iterate … the apparent existence of a common source does nothing to prove that this common source is factual. The apparent existence of the Q document only shows that the story came from a common source. But it does not give us any idea of whether this document recorded an historic event (i.e. the teachings of Jesus), or if it was just a bunch of mystical “wisdom teachings” (i.e. gathered from several sources by one or more authors). |
The Q source has no miracles or storyline, increasing the likelihood of it being accurate. |
Thomas doesn’t have these things either. Are you saying that Thomas looks like an historical document?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
[…] It almost easier to believe that the Q document theory is wrong than it is to believe that such an important document could be tossed aside in such a way. |
[…] The only thing to support your theory is if the name was clearly not Jesus, and if so, it is odd that 2 separate writers (Matthew and Luke) would knowingly deceive in precisely the same way. One may have taken the source and lied, hell Matthew ripped off of Aesop. However, the chances decline when you take 2 writings doing the same thing in regard to copying a work explicitly not concerning Jesus. |
It’s possible that one the name was not changed by the gospel writers, but by somebody else. Or perhaps the Q document merely recounted the words of some other “messiah” (or some other generic name), and both Matthew and Luke mistook this messiah for their lord Jesus. There were a lot of Essene writings concerning the coming messiah. It’s possible that a collection of their sayings made it into the hands of these early Christian writers.
As a side note, this might explain why the Q document was lost. Perhaps it was a Hebrew document that was simply never translated into Latin or Greek. But then again, if Mathew and Luke could read Hebrew, why does it appear that they relied of the Septuagint translation of the Torah?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
I don’t buy the “accidentally lost” theory. The document existed for several decades, and was widely distributed (at least among the gospel writers). It would not have been lost while other works were retained. The only explanation is that it said things that Christians didn’t want to hear (or it showed that the words of Jesus presented in the gospels were not actually spoken by Jesus) |
That’s not the only explanation. How did some of Cicero’s works disappear yet we have a plethora of his personal letters? Sometimes, it is dumb luck.
|
Again, I’m not asking why they didn’t survive for 2000 years. I’m wondering why they didn’t survive for 20.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
There is not a single detail in the gospels that jive with all of the others, except one .. that a man named Jesus was crucified. But the details of this man’s life (the time of his life and death, and the deeds he preformed) aren’t consistent at all. In other words, they aren't historical. |
The theology shares a lot in common. Jewish ideas are clear. Furthermore, a clear theological shift occurred. Not strange occurrences when people follow the teachings of a new prophet. |
The theology of early Christianity simply seems like an Hellenized version of Essenian beliefs (with some of Paul’s personal beliefs stirred in the mix). You don’t need a single prophet named Jesus in order to accomplish this.
The Dead Sea scrolls appear to have been heavily influence by the “Ossaeanes" Essenes, and in their writings you can see some similarity to early Christian theology. However, Josephus informs us that this sect is different from the "Nazarean" Essenes. (Do you want to venture a guess at where the term “Nazarean” might have come from?)
In any case, it is difficult to determine of these Essenes might have been a follower of a real teacher named Jesus, or if these Essene created a fictional character named Jesus to represent their ideal messiah. I can only hope that some day some of the writings of these "Nazarean" Essenes may one day be found. I truly believe that if information on a historical Jesus is ever to be found, it will come from the writings of this single Jewish sect.
I also believe that if such evidence is ever found, it will show that modern Christianity’s view of Jesus probably has little in common with the reality of this ancient Jewish teacher. If the evidence ever proved that Jesus was a simple non-divine Jewish teacher, I wonder if modern Christians would be willing to shift their beliefs to follow that of a simple Jewish philosopher. It’s really difficult to understand how Catholicism and evangelical Christians would be able to cope with this news. I truly don’t see how they could survive (Unless they simply ignored the evidence and continued to believe in their myths).
| sorianofan wrote: |
Where do you set your historical bar? You are on shaky grounds. The evidence dictates Jesus existed, he was executed, and he (in some way) stressed certain theological shifts from present Jewish practice.
|
I think we are going about this problem in two different ways. I agree that it is possible that the Jesus character presented in the bible may have been based on a real-life person. The question is, how much of the information in the bible can be considered historic. The range of possible answers goes from 0% to 100%. We need to determine just how much mythology is allowed to seep into an historical account before that historical account is considered myth.
This was the point I was trying to make with my Saint Nicolas/Santa Claus analogy. Just because a myth is based on a real person does not change the fact that the story is a myth. The gospel stories are myths – That is pretty much undeniable. When it comes to determining the historicity of Jesus, we are left with the task of sorting through these myths to try to find any historical facts they contain. This is not an easy task, since the stories are so overwhelmingly mythical. The problem is that there really isn’t any single “fact” in the bible that we can call historical with any degree of with certainty. Even when it comes to the teachings of Jesus, we currently have no way of determining whether or not these parables represent his actual words. Nobody on record ever claims they ever heard Jesus say these things.
So, yes. There may have been an Essene named Jesus. But we really don’t know anything at all about this historical character. What we do know is that the Jesus that is described in the gospels can only be called mythical. Hence, the way that most Christians view this character can only be described as myth as well. Just as I said before, the fact that Saint Nicolas was real in no way changes the fact that Santa Claus is a myth. Both characters have a similar generous philosophy and both are said to have delivered gifts through a chimney, but that has no bearing what-so-ever on whether or not we consider Santa Cause to be a myth.
Do you understand where I coming from here? When most people here a biblical scholar claim that there is historical evidence for Jesus, most Christians take this to mean that there is historical evidence for the Jesus that they know. And this is most definitely not the case. The Jesus that they know is a myth, and I think it is important that this distinction be made. To me, saying that there is evidence for the historicity of Jesus almost as bad as saying that there is evidence for the historicity of Santa Claus or King Arthur. Most people are going to misunderstand the nature of what this evidence shows, and my mistakenly believe that their myths are true.
Just to give you an example of what I am talking about, let me tell you about something I recently heard on a local radio station. A conservative talk show host mentioned that fraud trial in Italy against the Catholic Church, and this announcer dismissed the case as being “completely outrageous” since there was “overwhelming evidence” for the existence of Jesus. He even made mention of the writings of Josephus and “countless other” historians who (in his words) verified that the gospels were true. I think we both will agree that this was a gross overstatement, and that many of his Christian listeners were mislead by his remarks.
This is why I prefer to refer the gospels as myths which may have been based on the teachings a real life Jew. I feel that this is a fitting description, and I think it helps to avoid any confusion about the reality of Lord Jesus Christ
| sorianofan wrote: |
Not quite. Here’s an example:
1. St. Nick lives in Turkey, Santa lives in the North Pole.
Yeshua lives in Israel, Jesus lives in Israel.
It is patently insulting to compare the two figures. The Gospels contain likely details of Jesus’ life and teachings, though not entirely accurate, but do you doubt Jesus walked around preaching saying that the world was ending? Yet, we may all doubt that Santa distributes gifts on xmas day. The comparison is not valid.
|
It most certainly is valid. Yes, Jesus in not Santa Claus. But the thing is that we know more about the real-life Saint Nicolas than we do about a potential real-life Yeshua. The fact that the geography agrees between Jesus and Yeshua is of little importance. (Just because we found ruins of the city of Troy, that does not make the Iliad factual) We know next to nothing about Yeshua apart from what we find in the mythic tales of Jesus, and this is why his historicity is in question. Just like it would be futile to try to learn about the real-life Nicolas by looking at the Santa Claus myth, I think there are similar problems with trying to learn about a real-life Yeshua by looking at the Jesus myth.
The gospel writers did not know Jesus, nor did they claim to be recounting the words of somebody else who knew Jesus. These stories are all based on oral tales, and previous (and possibly fictitious) written accounts. We cannot allow history books to be based on this kind of mythical data.
This is not simply an “anti-Christian” view. For instance, there is some slight historical evidence that mythological character of Perseus might have been based on a real-life Mycenae King. But just look at the way historians treat this story. Even though it is perfectly logical that Mycenae might have been founded by a single historical figure, and even though there are some believable details in the historical accounts of this ancient King, historians never the less still consider Perseus to be mythical. And this is primarily because the historical accounts which exist are so overwhelmingly mythical, that no modern historian takes them seriously. Do you think that their judgment is in error? I certainly don’t. Nor do I think that a different standard should be applied to the mythical accounts of Jesus.
I think some of our disagreement here is one of semantics. I am saying that the Jesus that appears in the bible is mythical, and that his story is syncretism of earlier myths. You, on the other hand, are saying that this story is based on a real-life person. You seem to be more certain of this than I, but I in no way discount this possibility. The problem is that I am open to another possibility as well, namely, that the entire story may be mythical just like countless other myths from the same period. By calling Jesus a “myth”, I am in no way saying that evidence of an historical Yeshua will never be discovered. What I am saying is that until such evidence surfaces, Jesus should be classified as a myth – Just like Perseus is today, and how the city of Troy was viewed before it was uncovered. The reason for this distinction is that, in the lack of any verifiable information, we are left with the task of trying to read fact out of myth. And like I said, that is not always possible.
If we both can agree with the above paragraph, we can both end this thread and go home.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
Regardless of whether or not a guy named Yeshua once lived ... The story of Jesus we have today is mythical, and words ascribed to him came from several unidentified sources.
Hence, Jesus is a myth. |
Andrew Johnson never said, “Let’s see the Supreme Court enforce it.” George Washington never chopped down the cherry tree. Hence, they are myths. Again, this is an equally bad comparison from the opposite direction. Myth means totally fake story with a totally fake person. The only thing Santa Claus has in common with St. Nick is a nick name. No one really knows exactly how santa claus was invented.
|
Andrew Johnson and George Washington myths are bad examples because we have historical evidence for the existence of these two people. This is an important difference that I think you are overlooking.
And BTW… just for the record… we do have a good idea of how the Santa Claus myth developed. It’s an interesting tale. It shows how easily real events can by overtaken by mythology, and be altered to the point that the original “kernel of truth” becomes almost impossible to discern --- Origins of Santa Claus
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Here's the point ... If you were in charge of publishing history books for school children, and you had to write a chapter about the Roman occupation of Judea, would you include anything about Jesus? |
If we did not live in a Christian society, no. However, being that there are a billion Christians, it’s hard to ignore the man. Babe Ruth was not important, but because there are millions of baseball fans, he’s included in history books. The fan factor cannot be ignored.
|
I understand what you are saying, but you didn’t really answer the question. -- If you were writing a history book, and you were compiling a chapter on 1st century Palestine, what information would you include about an historical Jesus?
The point is that there isn’t any historically verifiable information you could include about the man. In truth, he had no noticeable effect on 1st century Palestine, and could be completely ignored with no ill effect. This is something that I think would shock most modern Christians, since their myths contradict this.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
Hercules didn't write a book. That's the point.
Name a book that Jesus wrote.... or a book that anyone who knew Jesus wrote. |
I still think the Epistles of James and Jude are authentic.
|
James? Historians aren’t even sure about which of three James’ wrote it, let alone whether or not it was authentic. In any case, neither James nor Jude provide information about an historical Jesus – Both are merely discussions of theology. Nothing in them gives us the slightest hint that they were written by somebody that knew a teacher named Jesus.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Can you sift away the mythical elements of Hercules' life and claim that what remains is historically accurate? |
I could not tell you, I know nothing of him.
|
That’s the whole point.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Just about ALL of the elements of Jesus' story are mythical. |
Slight hyperbole. Jesus taught stuff, he got killed…not so mythical.
|
Mythical people taught lessons as well. If fact, I think that was the entire point of most myths. They may not have taught these lessons as explicitly as Jesus did, but then again, these other myths weren’t woven together with a collection wisdom sayings.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
A good example is the story of William Wallace.[…]
|
Harry wrote 170 years after the fact. Blair “knew” Wallace, but hey, do we know that to be true? He could have made it up. After all, the London, Bristol, and Liverpool Chroniclers wrote nothing of him… How ridiculous can we get?
|
There are historical records of the battles that Wallace was involved in, and there are records of Wallace’s trial and execution (including exact dates). This is something that the Jesus story lacks… evidence. I realize that you might see this distinction as trivial, but evidence has a way of making certain stories more believable. And there is enough factual information about William Wallace available that we can begin to separate the man from the myth. Again, this is something that Jesus lacks.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Paul wrote 20 years after the fact (pretty good by ancient history standards) and we have several accounts written within 60 years. Again, by ancient history standards, this is not all that bad. Does that mean we should trust every detail? No.
|
Actually, if you believe Paul (and correlate his stories to the timetable presented in the Gospels), Paul’s conversion took place just a couple of years after the time of Jesus. But Paul doesn’t really concern me, since he said next to nothing about Jesus. I am more interested in the gospels, which were written after most of the people alive during Jesus’ time were dead.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
When you wash away all of the myth surrounding Jesus, all you have left is a simple Jewish teacher who was executed for some sort of blasphemy or insurrection. But, if this is the historical Jesus, you really have to wonder who the hell Paul was worshipping. Because nothing in his writings indicates that he was aware that any such person ever existed. |
I already shown that Paul wrote that Jesus was a Jew who walked the Earth and was killed.
|
This is a rather selective interpretation of what Paul said. Paul doesn’t treat Jesus in the same way as, for example, Plato treated Socrates. Paul’s writings sound nothing like that of a student talking of great philosophical teacher. They sound more like a pagan talking about their magical god. If I were to sum up the gist of Paul’s message it would be this … “I have received a vision from the divine one, and this is how he told me you should behave”. He never talks about a real-life rabbi named Jesus. He only speaks of visions. The only exception is when he talks about the Eucharist ceremony, but since this was based on a Pagan ceremony, I have a hard time believing that rabbi Jesus would have asked his followers to do this. Either Jesus was copying a pagan ceremony, or Paul was.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
As I said, we don't know where the Q document came from. We don't know who wrote it. If 1st century Christians would have had the authentic writings of somebody who knew Jesus, they wouldn't have needed to write all of those pseudepigraphical epistles and gospels. |
This is getting tiresome. Stop with the assumptions and stick with what we know. “needed to write all of those pseudepigraphical epistles and gospels”? Give me a break! You are now inferring at motives and etc.
|
If they didn’t “need” to forge these documents, why did they do it? The only reason a person has to forge documents is to help support an unsubstantiated claim. What other explanation is there? The number of forgeries that made it into the canonical bible is troubling enough. But when you consider the sheer number of apocryphal texts (which includes many more forged epistles as well), it really starts to boggle the mind. There were so many bogus documents produced in the early church that you really have to wonder how the early church fathers were able to sort through it all to develop the canon. Just because the documents that made their way into bible are generally older than the other apocrypha, that does not necessarily mean that it is factual. For the most part, it really seems like the criteria for selection had less to do with the historical accuracy of the documents than it did with whether or not the documents concurred with the 4th century view of Christianity.
And even when we have documents that we agree a genuine, we are still left with the question of whether or not they have been altered in some way. The level of fraud is deeply discouraging when trying to sort through all these documents to sift out any historical truth.
| sorianofan wrote: |
We know Q shares things with Didache. Now, either the Didache is phony, or it redacted from a jewish work, OR it is attributing things to Jesus. If these things were not said by Jesus, why did not the Jews, like Josephus, keep their hands on such documents to discount the religion if it was so easily refutable?
|
Refuting a religion is a difficult thing to do, even in modern times. (Just look at Scientology and Mormonism) Josephus (and his contemporaries) didn’t seem to care about Christianity, because to them it probably wasn’t any different to them than any of the other crack-pot religions which were being practiced at the time. Josephus was trying to record history, not debunk crackpot cults.
| sorianofan wrote: |
The answer is that there were Qs and etcs floating around, and to the dismay of conspiracy theorists everywhere, said things about Jesus and were clearly about Jesus. If Q was a widespread work in the first century that was not about Jesus, then Josephus or any Jew could have got their hands on it to debunk the blasphemers.
|
This is why I think Christianity never took hold in Jerusalem. They all knew it was a bunch of crap.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In order for the Q document to be considered proof of Jesus’ historicity, it would have had to have been written by somebody who knew Jesus, or by Jesus himself. And there is absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that this is the case. |
A lot of ancient history is second hand. Deal with it. We have purported words from Jesus. Do we doubt a newspaper who quotes someone? Under what circumstances? You are being overly simple.
|
You are being overly accepting of a document that has no source. If the Q document is ever found, and the document gives some hint that the person that wrote it heard Jesus speak, you may have something to rest your case on. But until such a discovery occurs, there is no reason to believe that the author of the Q document was taking dictation from Rabbi Jesus. And if the Q document turns out to looks anything like the Gospel of Thomas, that will do nothing to help the theory that these sayings are the historical teachings of a real-life Jewish wise man. You are seriously jumping the gun by assuming that a collection of generic un-sourced sayings proves the existence of Jesus. The sayings of Jesus could have just as easily been the 1st century equivalent to the collection for stories compiled by the Brothers Grimm.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The "bar" is that there must be some sort of evidence of a person's existence. |
I would think the 8 epistles gushing about you and numerous saying sources that as of the present know could only be attributed to one man is at the very least, some evidence. I mean, we don’t even have a debate of a full “The Two Ways” as a Jewish source, which would call into question the Jesus sayings. The debate would be whether the jews or the Christians forgered it. However, all we have is Jesus, Jesus, and JESUS.
|
It’s not the number of documents … it’s what those documents say. They all talk about an obviously mythical character. And the Didache just gives us a clear indication that early Christians were able to take pre-existing Jewish texts and insert the word “Jesus” in them to transform them into Christian documents.
I seriously think that if we were to apply the same standards to other mythological characters that you wish to apply to Jesus, our history books would be in serious trouble. There are countless myths from this period in history, and there were many people during this period that believed that these myths were true. You have to imagine that all these other cults probably had epistles of their own – Letters written between various centers of worship to discuss their theology. The fact that some people believed a myth does not make that story true. It is by the sheerest luck that the writings of Christians have survived while the writings of members of similar cults were lost to history. (Well… it wasn’t actually sheer luck. Early Christians were extremely efficient at destroying all “pagan” documents. See: Destruction of the Library of Alexandria)
History is written by the victors. Christianity won the battle over all competing faiths in Europe. For over a thousand years, all scribes were Christians. This means that there was undoubtedly a tendency to “enhance” certain text to improve the character of Jesus, while at the same time all “heretical” texts were altered or suppressed. If fear that even if there were once texts in existence that described Jesus as a normal human being, Christians would have probably discarded or “corrected” them. It seems that Josephus’ works were subject to this sort of Orwellian correction. I think we both agree to some extent that Origen’s comment about the beliefs of Josephus indicate that there is something that was removed from the text. We can only speculate about what he originally said, but we can be certain that whatever it was, Christians didn’t like it.
A similar fate might have come upon other texts as well. We really don’t know the extent to which the Christian “Ministry of Truth” has succeeded in altering history. But it’s entirely possible that the lack of non-mythical information about Yeshua may be entirely the fault of early Christians. If there were any writings which once talked about the real life Yeshua, the only way these would have survived is if the Nazarean Essenes pulled a trick similar to their Ossaeanes brethren and hid them away inside of a cave.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Paul didn't know squat about Jesus' philosophy. Paul's philosophy is almost entirely his own. It's based on highly moralistic Jewish philosophy, with most of the silly bits of Jewish custom removed. Apart from that, just about the only identifiable "Christian" aspect of Paul's philosophy was his belief in charity |
I disagree after reading everything he has written. Clearly, he had his own ideas and agendas though.
|
Amen.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In 1 Corinthians 16, Paul request that his flock hand over a huge sum of cash... buy nobody is really sure what ever became of this huge pile of booty. |
True, but the jewish Christians never accused him of stealing it, or he would have answered to those accusations.
|
Actually, you bring up an interesting question. Paul sure seems to have spent a lot of time in prison, didn’t he? I know that most people think that this was due to his preaching of the gospel. But the thing is, Christianity was not illegal. Christians were certainly persecuted at various times in history, but Paul’s incarcerations seems to predate these persecutions. While Paul was in prison, he talks of other apostles mocking him from the outside. Why weren’t these other apostles locked up as well? He never mentions any of these other apostles being arrested. It really seems as if Paul was the only apostle to be subjected to this treatment. And since Paul never once explains why he was in prison, you have to wonder what crimes he was accused of.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As for the theology, I suppose it doesn't really matter whether or not it was developed by a single person, or whether it was created by several layers of various contributors.[…] This is only a problem for people who are intent on worshipping Jesus. If people only cared about the philosophy, it wouldn't really matter who created it. |
Very true points. To be honest, I would not be all that bothered following a belief system hammered out by many people over many years. Judaism is one such example. However, my honest impression is that there was such a radical shift in beliefs which people all attributed to one guy during the time of Paul, that it is safe to say that Jesus at the very least portrayed the culmination of these developing beliefs.
|
From what we know about the Essenes, it does not appear that a radical shift really occurred. The Essenes pre-date Christianity by about 200 years, and this philosophy seems to provide a sort of “missing link” between Judaism and Christianity. Additional elements may have been acquired from other mystery cults and from philosophers such as Philo. It’s possible that a jew named Yeshua put all of these elements together to form a “new” philophy. But it’s also possible that these elements were picked up by a group of Essenes on their own.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| On the other hand, according to Martin A. Larson, the Essenes were heavily influenced by Orphism (The cult of Dionysus). And... well... I think you can see where I'm going here... |
I don’t see how that would discount Jesus being a real person. It would explain that his followers claimed a resurrection occurred.
|
But if the Essenes had tried to merge their philosophy with the symbols and practices of Orphism…
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Myths can be based on real people. But they are still myths. |
I have no interest in semantics. Does the historical evidence clearly indicate there was a man named Jesus? Yes.
|
No.
As I said, we cannot base our history on myths. For many years, people thought that Jewish slaves built the pyramids. Now we know better. History cannot be based on myths and legends alone. We have to seek information outside the myths to validate any historical information that the myths may contain. And there simply isn’t any such information available for Jesus. All the early writings which discuss Jesus do so in a highly unbelievable and miraculous way. Historians have learned that they can not rely on such information alone when reconstructing history. I realize that it may annoy Christians that evidence is required to validate history, but that is just the way it is. There are countless other myths which are just as factual as the Jesus myth, and I don’t want to see any of these in a history book either.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Perhaps they should require churches to post a little disclaimer similar to the one you see after motion pictures... "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental." |
I don’t think there should be forced disclaimers on anything. When the first amendment was made, Jefferson (he was in france though) amongst other deists knew what freedom of religion entailed.
|
I understand the libertarian perspective and the desire not to suppress any ideas. But would something like this be too much to ask?...
Done.
| sorianofan wrote: |
You disagree, and assert that they are not accurate portrayals concerning Jesus. However, let me interject the following counterpoint. We never talk about the Gospel of John or John’s letters. Why? Because they are obviously nothing close to early Christianity in a historical sense (theological sense is arguable.) So, we have already made a distinction that Mark, Matthew, and Luke are closer to the Pauline Epistles without showing evidence of reliance (which would be obvious, considering one can easily see if Greek has been lifted from Paul or even see Paul take stances that are not the same as those espoused from Jesus, etc.)
|
But this raises an interesting point… Where did John’s philosophy come from? And while we’re on the subject, where did the Gnostic view of Jesus come from? These competing viewd popped up no later than a few decades after Paul’s death, and quite possibly may have existed during Paul’s time. We generally ignore these views because the oldest writings come from Paul and the synoptic gospels, but this may be an error on our part. It’s possible that these other views are just as old, but happened not to leave a paper trail. We both agreed to ignore them because adding them into the present discussion would only confuse matters further. Plus the lack of written evidence of these belief’s origins give us reason to doubt their validity. But I think we need to keep it at the back of our minds that it’s possible that some of Paul’s contemporary apostles may have been held views similar to these later movements.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Corinthians 2 “But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him." This is no where in the OT or even the aprophyca. In fact, it is found in some early manicee works and Gospel of Thomas 17. In my honest opinion, it is either early Thomas (which I have soured on, I now think it is a forgery) or just Isaiah 64:4 elaborated upon.
|
That is a very interesting connection. There are only a few possible explanations for the similarity. Either….
- Paul knew about Q
- Thomas knew about Paul
- Both Thomas and Paul were familiar with some other similar source (maybe an oral saying)
- The passage was added later to either Paul’s writings or a later version of the gospel of Thomas
In any case, the connection is interesting due the high similarity in the phrasing, and the fact that this doesn’t appear in any of the canonical gospels.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
Celsus commented on how readily Christians manipulated their own scripture, and Origen spoke of the "great" number of differences among Gospel manuscripts. (source).
Here Origen admits that just about every sect of Christianity has altered sacred texts (except for his own sect, of course). What this means is that there is absolutely no guarantee that any ancient text we now have today is in its original form. |
Celsus, being very critical, does offer a valid point
|
I am not saying that everything is a forgery, but rather I am merely bringing up the fact that we need to keep this in mind. It certainly makes an already difficult task even more difficult.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Paul's version of Christ appears mostly Docetic. He generally only talks about Spirit-Christ. Marcion was a tremendous fan of Paul, and Marcionism was a Docetic cult. So when we see one or two lines in Paul's writing that contradict this Docetic view, it makes me wonder if they are Paul's original words. |
The Docetic view was that the crucifixion itself was not physical. Paul never explicitly supports or denounces this in the genuine epistles. However, he does go at length to confirm Jesus’ very humanity in several other epistles, which I have already quoted above. My personal opinion is that Paul was not docetic.
|
I have to disagree here due to the numerous reference to Jesus being a spirit in human form. But I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point. Paul never explicitly states his belief either way, so it all depends on how you interpret his words.
Personally, I choose to interpret the word “spirit” as meaning “spirit”, and references to this spirit taking human form as meaning… well… never mind… I’ll move on…
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So to make a long story short, I've pretty much given up on Paul as a source about an historical Jesus. His epistles are interesting because they are the earliest known writings, but I think we can both agree that they seem to lack any concrete historical information concerning Jesus. Even if Paul would have continuously exclaimed, ”JESUS IS REAL, DAMMIT!”, that would not make it true. There are plenty of modern Christians who make the same claim, and I find their statements equally unconvincing. |
Paul lived during the events. Then we have Gospels. We have probabilities and no good reasons to doubt them.
|
We have an excellent reason to doubt them… they are myths. Historians tend to ignore people who claim ridiculous things, and rightly so.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I'll say it again.... A common source does NOT indicate that it was Jesus. A common source only indicates that there was a common source, but provides no information on who that source was. |
True, but if they all call that source the same thing, then we have nothing else to call it. We don’t have any sources with a Jewish guy for 50 BC saying the same exact things as Jesus. We don’t have a like contemporary source either. Therefore, to doubt who are what that source is inspired is at the very least, not scholarly.
|
We don’t even know who wrote the Q document, let alone whether or not the ideas in it came from a martyred Jew named Jesus. The basis for this claim comes from myths written long after Jesus was dead. And myths are a poor source of history.
I’d also like to take his opportunity to inject a few other questions about the lack of historical evidence for Jesus. I recently stumbled upon a video clip which mentioned the Raglin’s Hero Pattern. I know I’ve posted about this before, but I feel the need to reiterate some questions raised by this.
For one, do you really buy the story about Jesus coming down and carrying his dead body off to heaven? Real people leave bodies behind when they die. Jesus did not. Item #21 on Raglin’s lists points out that this is a common feature of mythological characters – There is typically an excuse given for why the location of their bodies are not known
Number 20 on the list is important as well. Real people often leave behind a family. Mythical people do not. The only real evidence for Jesus having a family comes from a potentially mistranslated comment by Paul, and from a dubious mention by Josephus. We also have the claims of the Merovingian, but these are highly dubious as well.
There are other such “excuses” given for the lack of evidence. #7 and #8 on the list say that most hero figures spent their childhoods hidden away in a foreign land. This is obviously an attempt to explain way the lack of information about the hero’s childhood, and to explain why nobody in the land ever heard of this fellow while he was growing up. This is another element also found in the Jesus story. The Catholic tale of the Assumption of Mary attempts to explain away the lack of a tomb for Jesus’ mom as well.
None of this is conclusive, but it is interesting that the gospels present ready-made excuses to explain away the lack of evidence for an historical figure.
| sorianofan wrote: |
I find 8 Q-genuine Paul parallels in my incomplete list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikilagata/Internal_Biblical_Evidence_of_Jesus%27_Historicity#Parallels_Found_Strictly_in_.22Q.22). |
I wouldn’t be so quick to ascribe these parallel to influence by Q. Theological similarities are just as easily explained by the fact that the Gospels were written after the time of Paul’s death. Paul had great influence on the church outside of Jerusalem, so the fact that the gospel writers incorporated some of these beliefs into their gospels is not very surprising. It does seem that Paul may have been slightly familiar with Q. But it is also possible that Paul was familiar with the oral tradition that later gave rise to Q. Even when Paul says something similar to that of Q, the wording is usually different. There are a couple places where short phrases from Q appear in the epistles, but these may have just as likely been recalled by Paul from oral traditions. There really is nothing in Paul’s letters which lead us to believe that while writing his epistles Paul broke out a copy of Q and quoted directly from it.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think Orwell deserves a cult ore than that Jesus guy. I'll get to work on it right away... |
Well, he did not make a religion.
|
Neither did Jesus. Jewish Christians still considered themselves to be Jews.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Care to name a couple of these "obvious observations"? A lack of understanding about any particular phenomenon does not necessarily point to the existence of the supernatural – it only points to a lack of understanding. That's one of the most important lessons mankind has learned over the ages. |
Granted, just because we do not know an answer, that does not mean we should just contrive one under the name of God. However, the fact that I see and feel existence, which did not create itself, and see order that is not arbitrary or chaotic, and see unmitigated goods in existence like beauty leads me to no other conclusion and continues to verify itself.
|
Don’t start up that “first cause” shit again.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I agree that Josephus must have said something about Jesus in order for Origen to dismay at Josephus' lack of belief in Jesus. But the writings that survive today don't give any indication of what Origen based this statement on. I doubt that Origen was talking about some sort of "argument from silence". But It's difficult to determine what kind of complaint against Jesus that Josephus had. |
It is likely a deviation of something we already have, unless Josephus wrote something like, “by the way, Jesus the Christ really was a pretender.” But, he did not have to write that in order to convey Jesus was not divine. Writing that jesus was a mere “teacher” would have conveyed the same, and it is this message we can gleam from the manuscripts. Even Penn and Teller do not make an issue out of Josephus…then again, they only had 30 minutes to debunk the bible.
|
I was a little dismayed by P&T’s acceptance of Josephus as well. But I agree that they probably didn’t want to spend too much time on it. It was easier for them just to quickly point out the fact that Josephus wasn’t an eyewitness and move on.
In any case, I think we are pretty much in agreement about what Josephus may or may not have said. I think we might assign slightly different probabilities to various theories, but I don’t want to split hairs.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Origen: "And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning him that Jesus was not a man but something diviner". |
The “new doubt” belongs to Josephus, not Origen. The doubt itself not believing Jesus “was not something diviner” than a man.
|
Yes. That is what I’m trying to figure out. Josephus must have said something to indicated that he didn’t believe Jesus was a man. I doubt think that Josephus merely called Jesus a false prophet. In order for Origen to twist Josephus’ words into mean that Jesus was “not a man, but something diviner”, Josephus must have indicated some sort of doubt that Jesus was actually a man. I’m not sure what else Josephus could have said to warrant this response from Origen. Origin seems to be attempting to twist Josephus’ words to mean that Jesus was something “diviner” than a man, but I think we both agree that there is no way in hell that Josephus ever would have said this.
It’s obvious that whatever it was that Josephus said, it pissed off Christians enough to eventually shove his original words down the memory hole. And here Origen gives us a clue of what that “something” might have been … Josephus said something about Jesus that allowed Origen to twist his words into mean that Jesus “wasn’t a man, but something diviner”. This is supported by the fact that the text which survives today includes the phrase “if it be lawful to call him a man”. It seems that the forger was merely twisting of Josephus’ original words, and it seems that he twisted them to mean the opposite of what Josephus actually said.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Furthermore, Origen verifies that the James passage in Josephus’ is true:
| External site |
| "Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James." (On The Gospel Of Matthew, 1:15) |
|
I agree that the passage in question talks about the death James the Apostle. I just have doubts if this James was actually Jesus’ flesh-and-blood brother.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #36493
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2007-01-11 23:12
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Notice that most of these talk about Jesus taking the “form” or “likeness” of man. When I hear comments like these, it reminds me of the way that ancient Greeks talked about Zeus taking the “form” of a eagle, a swan, a a beam of sunlight, or of a man. Saying that the Jesus-god took the form of a man is not the same thing as saying that he was actually a flesh-and-blood human. |
Yes it is. A fake godling is not “descended from david according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3), “born in human likeness” (Philippians 2:7), “human being” (1 Cor 15:21), and “born of a woman” (Gal 4:4). Look at the italicized. We don’t have just 1 passage, open to interpretation, about whether Jesus was flesh and bone. Paul, very clearly[/i] states it 4 times. There is no dispute. Now, just because Paul says a God-man is born, it does not make it true…but to deny that he is saying that is ignorant to say the least and sophistic at worst. The fact that other people at the same time argued about this Jesus character, whose death (1 Cor 15) happened about 20 years previously gives us further reason to believe there’s a man involved.
However, this is no longer your argument anymore anyhow. You are arguing that Paul’s Jesus is entirely mythical. Yes, a lot of it is (after all, paul’s religion is based on his imaginary conversations.) However, there are parts that are not, such as evidence of Jesus vocal ministry, and with separate sources portraying them, by ancient history standards, very good evidence that it occurred. It is this element of Christianity I am concerned with.
| Quote: |
| And as for Jesus issuing “commands”, I don’t think I need to provide examples of mythical gods performing the same activity. |
It would be tough to find examples of such sayings found in different sources 40-60 years after the fact and alluded to 20 years after the fact. I’m not saying that we have a precisely accurate guide here, but we have obvious recordings of human behaviors and beliefs attributed to a man, not something written about what zeus said 400 years after the zeus cult began. Furthermore, most of those Jesus commands are found in the Gospels. You might argue that Mark made them all up. However, 1 Cor 9:14 is only found in Matthew, Luke, and Didache. So, it is not that simple.
Lastly, because it is likely Luke or a follower of Paul wrote Luke and Acts (see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html), if Paul was not speaking of a man, and the very follower of Paul had no writings of his in which to plagiarize, why assume that it is likely that Mark plagiarized Paul or that Paul was not speaking about a man to begin with. All things considered, it appears that we have different sources talking about the same thing…not Paul; making every last thing up and people copying him.
| Quote: |
| Paul’s ministry occurred immediately after the time of Jesus was supposed lo have lived. Yet, you would never know it from anything that Paul wrote. He never refers directly to the teachings of this great Jewish wise man, nor does he ever talk about anybody else seeing a living Jesus. He only talks about people seeing Jesus’ spirit. You can try to reinterpret his words into conforming with the idea of a real Jewish rabbi named Jesus, but nothing in Paul’s original words would lead somebody to this conclusion. He clearly talks about Jesus being a spirit-god who took the form of a human. I realize that this could be interpreted as meaning that a real flesh-and-blood human was “possessed” by the spirit of Jesus. But Gnostic interpretations are possible as well. |
Being that Gnostic texts don’t mesh with first century ones, it is unlikely. IMO, Paul often paraphrases Jesus. In one instance, he appears to be telling the Corinthians that his idea (love) trumps Jesus’ vocal teachings:
| Quote: |
1 Corinthians 13:1-4:
Quote
1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
|
See "faith that can move mountains" (Mathew 21:20-22) or "selling everything you have and giving it to the poor" (Mark 10:21). If someone was copying Paul’s ideas (scholars agree that his letters were not circulated until the second century), it is unlikely they would copy those brief snipplings and leave out the fact that Paul says love trumps them. They would have put the love stuff in Jesus’ mouth. Thus, we are looking at the Gospels representing ministry recorded or known before Paul wrote the letters, and now that ministry is found in the Gospels. Thus, the ideas in the Gospels precede Paul and the ideas Paul is building upon precede him. Surprise, surprise, it looks like its Jesus. I very much doubt that Paul was rectrifying the understandings of some midrash….he was rectifying the real-live Jesus.
| Quote: |
| Those parallels are extremely weak. And in any case they are pretty much irrelevant since the gospels were written 1-3 decades after Paul penned his epistles. |
Some are weak. Some are pretty strong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikilagata/Internal_Biblical_Evidence_of_Jesus%27_Historicity#Example_3). And, though they were recorded years after Paul, Paul was not widely circulated then. You could not find parallels with all of his epistles if they were not widely circulated. Look at Luke, who in Acts, blatantly contradicts things Paul has written and ignores Paul’s letters, though he [u]knew Paul. If he had Paul, he would of plagiarized him (after all, he plagiarized Mark amd Q/Matthew to say the least.)
So, if Paul and the Gospel have something in common, it is not because the Gospel copied Paul (after all, Jesus is not all that clear on how you go to heaven, instead offering ethical advice. Paul is very clear with his ideas on faith in the resurrection.) A Paul plagiarism would not be like this. However, two sources that looked at earlier renditions of what Jesus said would.
| Quote: |
| The think the only point of contention was that I was wondering if perhaps these other “wise” apostles might have had in their possession a collection of “wisdom sayings” (i.e. The Q Document). |
Who knows. After all, there may be no Q:
http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/ten.htm
| Quote: |
| I wasn’t saying that this proved that Paul didn’t think Jesus talked. I relation to my previous conjecture (i.e. that these other apostles might have had the Q document) , I was wondering why Paul didn’t care about these sayings. I’m simply trying to make sense out of how Paul could have ignored the Q document, if indeed it did exist during the 50’s. (And in order to be the real words of Jesus, the document must have existed at this time) |
If anything, proto-Mark existed in the 50s, or very strong oral tradition of Mark. However, I do not doubt, for the reasons I previously stated, that there was some agreement over what Jesus said.
| Quote: |
Again, saying that the Q document was lost early in church history is not a conspiracy theory… it’s a fact. I’m just trying to figure out how such an important document could be lost while things of lesser importance were retained. The problem here is not that no copies of Q have survived to the year 2000 … the problem is that no copies appear to have even survived to the year 100-150 CE. This wouldn’t be too hard to explain if only one gospel writer had used it.. but the fact that two different writers (who were separated by geography, theology, and perhaps by 1-2 decades) both had copies of it. Things are complicated further by the fact that the author of Thomas seemed to have a copy as well. And the thing that I have a problem understanding is how this could happen without any early Christians explicitly writing about it’s existence.
Something happened between the time that all these writers used Q as a source, and the time that the apologists (such as Justin Martyr) started writing a few decades later. I’m just trying to understand what that “something” is. |
Thomas in my opinion is totally phony. I read a great deal of it and it just felt fake. The Didache has some “Q” though.
Nonetheless, Q might not exist for the same reason why a proto-Mark, or if no Q, proto-Matthew didn’t exist. It could have been written, but was so early, it did not make it out of the first century. However, if Q is not real, it appears the Mark and Matthew are the real written goliaths, and that they are a combination of art, oral tradition, scraps of Jesus stuff, and plagiarism (from Aesop for example.)
[quot]Another possibility is that Paul didn’t want to piss off the Roman authorities. But this is just one of several places in Paul’s writings where he could have given us more detail about the life of Jesus, but failed to do so. [/quote]
True. He was very much unconcerned. Paul, in my opinion, was in the mold of a Buddha. A guy who makes up his own religion from the old. He took Jesus ideas, his old Jewish ideas, and much like mystery religions was only concerned with strange dogmas handed down by heaven instead of taught on Earth. However, he may emphasize this, but this does not show there was not vocal ministry for reasons I previously stated.
| Quote: |
| This claim is a bit unreliable because it seems that it is most likely untue. But it’s possible that these “500 people” Paul is talking about is referring to the number of Christians in Jerusalem – He is saying that 500 people have “seen Christ” and now follow him (either that or he is just making it up and picking this number out of the air). |
I’m sure the number of Christ-seeers in (1 Cor 15) is inaccurate. However, he is clearly stating that there were people who were (more importantly for us) alive 3 days after Jesus’ death. It is safe to assume that they were alive 3 days before it. Now, it was not just seeing a spirit, as had happened to Paul. 1 Cor 15 argues that these people saw the resurrected Jesus after he was dead and buried (while Paul saw Jesus God knows how long afterwards.)
| Quote: |
| I’m not sure if you can say that “all early Christians” believed that. Docetic and Gnostic ideas seem to spring up fairly quickly, and we can’t be certain that these beliefs didn’t exist during Paul’s time (and may have been held by Paul himself). And as I said, it seems odd that these types of beliefs could spring up so soon after the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived. Even if Jesus was a real person, it is apparent that early on there were attempts by various people to deny this fact. |
Gnostics and docetists never denied that Jesus walked around on Earth. However, their claim is that he looked human but was actually spiritual, like an angel. I concede to you, Paul at points makes Jesus seem this way. However, they all agree that there was this Jesus born and then killed. Whether they were nuts enough to believe he was not really human, but God itself, that’s not my religious concern.
I say “all Christians” believed in the Spirit, because early Christian worship was much like Quaker worship—extremely spirit oriented (1 Cor 14:26-40).
| Quote: |
| There really isn’t anything particularly “Jewish” about most of the sayings in the Q document – most are just generic references to the kingdom of heaven or the importance of religious belief. The Jewish nuances could have been added later. |
I disagree. The importance of belief has a very strong emphasis on OT and apocryphal understandings of faith…very muck unlike mystery religions in important ways. Hoiwever, because one can argue ad nauseum whether jewish “nuances” were added, I’m going to drop the issue. Just, to me, they sound jewish in emphasis. I can be wrong, but that’s how they sound to me.
| Quote: |
That being said, the document could have had Jewish origins. But here again, the document could have been altered by Christians to fit with their ideology. It appears that this sort of thing happened in the Didache.
And while we’re on the subject, you might find this dead sea scroll or particular interest. |
There was not too much info in that wiki, but it does show that Jesus was likely Essene.
| Quote: |
The thing is that I have trouble connecting the dots between these documents and a flesh-and-blood Jesus. By that I mean, there is no indication that the person who wrote this documents actually was a student of Jesus.
For example, take a look at the Gospel of Thomas. Here we see a collection of Jesus’ sayings. But is there any indication that whoever wrote that document actually heard Jesus speak? Not at all. If the Q document is ever unearthed, I would imagine that it might possibly have a similar tone to that of Thomas. (i.e. It will be a collection mystery sayings, rather than a first-person recording of a real-life Jewish rabbi) If the document contained anything that sounded similar to the gnostic-sounding verses 12, 24, 30, 37, 43, 50, 52, 77, 91 ofThomas, that would call its historicity into question.
While we’re on the subject of Thomas, I just wanted to mention that I found another parallel between the words of Jesus and Aesop’s fables.
From Gospel of Thomas
102. Jesus said, "Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat."
now compare…
From The Dog in the Manger
There was a wicked dog lying in a manger full of hay. When the cattle came and wanted to eat, the dog barred their way, baring his teeth. The cattle said to the dog, 'You are being very unfair by begrudging us something we need which is useless to you. Dogs don't eat hay, but you will not let us near it.' The same thing happened when a dog was holding a bone in his mouth: the dog couldn't chew on the bone that way, but no other dog was able to chew on it either.
Damn copycats. |
IMHO, Thomas plagiarize widely available Gospels…and Aesop as well. I cannot comment whether the documents were made from a student of Jesus, I do know that they are purported Jesus sayings from pre-pauline times, recorded by second generation Jesus followers. Didache, arguably, might have been written by early apostles. It actually speaks as if apostles are still walking around (Didache 11:4.) It speaks of the “Saints,” which are likely jewish Christians, apostles, or plain jews (if a jewish document.) The title might have been “The teaching of the apostles to the gentiles,” instead of the “12 apostles” as is currently found. We don’t know, but I believe evidence strongly suggests (because statistically, it is unlikely the didache copied matthew), it preceded all of the gospels and it speaks of pauline era questions in Christianity. So, the Didache can indeed be a document written by Jesus’ follower(s).
| Quote: |
| Thomas doesn’t have these things either. Are you saying that Thomas looks like an historical document? |
I was mistaken. If Q is real, it has Markan crossover and story elements (like Jesus and Stan talking to each other.)
| Quote: |
| It’s possible that one the name was not changed by the gospel writers, but by somebody else. Or perhaps the Q document merely recounted the words of some other “messiah” (or some other generic name), and both Matthew and Luke mistook this messiah for their lord Jesus. There were a lot of Essene writings concerning the coming messiah. It’s possible that a collection of their sayings made it into the hands of these early Christian writers. |
This is likely, but that means Paul also made the same mistake (because he makes at least 5 or 6 solid allusions to Q (see examples 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12? (an I include James parallels 4 and 8) in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikilagata/Internal_Biblical_Evidence_of_Jesus%27_Historicity#Parallels_Found_Strictly_in_.22Q.22).
| Quote: |
| As a side note, this might explain why the Q document was lost. Perhaps it was a Hebrew document that was simply never translated into Latin or Greek. But then again, if Mathew and Luke could read Hebrew, why does it appear that they relied of the Septuagint translation of the Torah? |
It was unlikely ever in Hebrew. It was based on oral tradition (likely from Jewish apostles) and written in Greek.
| Quote: |
| Again, I’m not asking why they didn’t survive for 2000 years. I’m wondering why they didn’t survive for 20. |
True, but Cicero was 1,000 times more popular than Jesus in 400 AD than Jesus was in 40 AD.
| Quote: |
| I also believe that if such evidence is ever found, it will show that modern Christianity’s view of Jesus probably has little in common with the reality of this ancient Jewish teacher. If the evidence ever proved that Jesus was a simple non-divine Jewish teacher, I wonder if modern Christians would be willing to shift their beliefs to follow that of a simple Jewish philosopher. It’s really difficult to understand how Catholicism and evangelical Christians would be able to cope with this news. I truly don’t see how they could survive (Unless they simply ignored the evidence and continued to believe in their myths). |
I concede to you, in my mind the myth would be something the evangelicals would hold onto in such an event. The truth would live on however.
| Quote: |
I think we are going about this problem in two different ways. I agree that it is possible that the Jesus character presented in the bible may have been based on a real-life person. The question is, how much of the information in the bible can be considered historic. The range of possible answers goes from 0% to 100%. We need to determine just how much mythology is allowed to seep into an historical account before that historical account is considered myth.
This was the point I was trying to make with my Saint Nicolas/Santa Claus analogy. Just because a myth is based on a real person does not change the fact that the story is a myth. The gospel stories are myths – That is pretty much undeniable. When it comes to determining the historicity of Jesus, we are left with the task of sorting through these myths to try to find any historical facts they contain. This is not an easy task, since the stories are so overwhelmingly mythical. The problem is that there really isn’t any single “fact” in the bible that we can call historical with any degree of with certainty. Even when it comes to the teachings of Jesus, we currently have no way of determining whether or not these parables represent his actual words. Nobody on record ever claims they ever heard Jesus say these things.
So, yes. There may have been an Essene named Jesus. But we really don’t know anything at all about this historical character. What we do know is that the Jesus that is described in the gospels can only be called mythical. Hence, the way that most Christians view this character can only be described as myth as well. Just as I said before, the fact that Saint Nicolas was real in no way changes the fact that Santa Claus is a myth. Both characters have a similar generous philosophy and both are said to have delivered gifts through a chimney, but that has no bearing what-so-ever on whether or not we consider Santa Cause to be a myth.
Do you understand where I coming from here? When most people here a biblical scholar claim that there is historical evidence for Jesus, most Christians take this to mean that there is historical evidence for the Jesus that they know. And this is most definitely not the case. The Jesus that they know is a myth, and I think it is important that this distinction be made. To me, saying that there is evidence for the historicity of Jesus almost as bad as saying that there is evidence for the historicity of Santa Claus or King Arthur. Most people are going to misunderstand the nature of what this evidence shows, and my mistakenly believe that their myths are true. |
However, you are speaking to me, not an evangelical. Furthermore, you are intelligent enough to know that knowledgable evangelicals separate between the “facts” and the “faith (resurrection).” No one is going to argue with you that the faith is mythical, besides Swinburne. However, are the facts mythical? On the most part, no.
| Quote: |
| Just to give you an example of what I am talking about, let me tell you about something I recently heard on a local radio station. A conservative talk show host mentioned that fraud trial in Italy against the Catholic Church, and this announcer dismissed the case as being “completely outrageous” since there was “overwhelming evidence” for the existence of Jesus. He even made mention of the writings of Josephus and “countless other” historians who (in his words) verified that the gospels were true. I think we both will agree that this was a gross overstatement, and that many of his Christian listeners were mislead by his remarks. |
I was subbing a Spanish class today, and read the stuff about Jesus they had to read about him in history class. Even I thought it was going to far history wise. I am not going to argue with it here. If I taught the subject, I would emphasize the apostles and the beliefs that they purported, because that’s what we know. Conjecturing about the man is for scholars or churches.
| Quote: |
| This is why I prefer to refer the gospels as myths which may have been based on the teachings a real life Jew. I feel that this is a fitting description, and I think it helps to avoid any confusion about the reality of Lord Jesus Christ |
With evidence that people are talking about a man, I am thinking about the myths made after him, not the other way around.
| Quote: |
I think some of our disagreement here is one of semantics. I am saying that the Jesus that appears in the bible is mythical, and that his story is syncretism of earlier myths. You, on the other hand, are saying that this story is based on a real-life person. You seem to be more certain of this than I, but I in no way discount this possibility. The problem is that I am open to another possibility as well, namely, that the entire story may be mythical just like countless other myths from the same period. By calling Jesus a “myth”, I am in no way saying that evidence of an historical Yeshua will never be discovered. What I am saying is that until such evidence surfaces, Jesus should be classified as a myth – Just like Perseus is today, and how the city of Troy was viewed before it was uncovered. The reason for this distinction is that, in the lack of any verifiable information, we are left with the task of trying to read fact out of myth. And like I said, that is not always possible.
If we both can agree with the above paragraph, we can both end this thread and go home. |
I believe the possibility that Jesus was not a man is far too low to take seriously, so that I may conjecture if the whole thing is mythical. Too many people treat him as real and argue about him after not long “after the fact.”
| Quote: |
| And BTW… just for the record… we do have a good idea of how the Santa Claus myth developed. It’s an interesting tale. It shows how easily real events can by overtaken by mythology, and be altered to the point that the original “kernel of truth” becomes almost impossible to discern --- Origins of Santa Claus |
You’re right about that. My bad.
| Quote: |
I understand what you are saying, but you didn’t really answer the question. -- If you were writing a history book, and you were compiling a chapter on 1st century Palestine, what information would you include about an historical Jesus?
The point is that there isn’t any historically verifiable information you could include about the man. In truth, he had no noticeable effect on 1st century Palestine, and could be completely ignored with no ill effect. This is something that I think would shock most modern Christians, since their myths contradict this. |
I would talk about Essenes, Christians, conjecture of Jewish Christians, and conjecture on Jesus. However, would I write that followers of a man made Jesus spread a religion in his name? Yes. The evidence exists for that.
| Quote: |
| James? Historians aren’t even sure about which of three James’ wrote it, let alone whether or not it was authentic. In any case, neither James nor Jude provide information about an historical Jesus – Both are merely discussions of theology. Nothing in them gives us the slightest hint that they were written by somebody that knew a teacher named Jesus. |
James and Jude, like Luke-Acts, are not pretentious. Even Paul, is sometimes not pretentious (not every single epistle emphasizes he “saw” Jesus.) I don’t think these guys offer us a biography of Jesus, but they do offer us a window into his beliefs.
| Quote: |
| Mythical people taught lessons as well. If fact, I think that was the entire point of most myths. They may not have taught these lessons as explicitly as Jesus did, but then again, these other myths weren’t woven together with a collection wisdom sayings. |
The sayings that are all connected to this Jesus character, but no one else. Even “the two ways,” is found no where in Judaism. Jews want to claim it, but their writings from the era are fairly well recorded, better than early Christianity. And, if early Christians have a two ways and the jews don’t, it is likely a Christian document. And, if that document purports sayings that other unrelated Christian documents allude to withoutr knowing the Didache, it is likely from Christ (because he is all of their subject).
| Quote: |
| There are historical records of the battles that Wallace was involved in, and there are records of Wallace’s trial and execution (including exact dates). This is something that the Jesus story lacks… evidence. I realize that you might see this distinction as trivial, but evidence has a way of making certain stories more believable. And there is enough factual information about William Wallace available that we can begin to separate the man from the myth. Again, this is something that Jesus lacks. |
Are those battles explicitly led by Wallace? Again, I do not doubt that he is real. However, for the reasons I stated, I do not doubt Jesus was real.
| Quote: |
| Actually, if you believe Paul (and correlate his stories to the timetable presented in the Gospels), Paul’s conversion took place just a couple of years after the time of Jesus. But Paul doesn’t really concern me, since he said next to nothing about Jesus. I am more interested in the gospels, which were written after most of the people alive during Jesus’ time were dead. |
And I am interested in the original theology that all those sources have in common.
| Quote: |
| This is a rather selective interpretation of what Paul said. |
No, not really. I challenge you to find gospel passages that say otherwise.
| Quote: |
| Paul doesn’t treat Jesus in the same way as, for example, Plato treated Socrates. Paul’s writings sound nothing like that of a student talking of great philosophical teacher. |
That’s because Paul was busy claiming Jesus was divine.
| Quote: |
| They sound more like a pagan talking about their magical god. If I were to sum up the gist of Paul’s message it would be this … “I have received a vision from the divine one, and this is how he told me you should behave”. He never talks about a real-life rabbi named Jesus. He only speaks of visions. The only exception is when he talks about the Eucharist ceremony, but since this was based on a Pagan ceremony, I have a hard time believing that rabbi Jesus would have asked his followers to do this. Either Jesus was copying a pagan ceremony, or Paul was. |
Paul, at times, definitely sounds like that. At others, he is paraphrasing things that the Gospels purport to Jesus.
| Quote: |
| If they didn’t “need” to forge these documents, why did they do it? The only reason a person has to forge documents is to help support an unsubstantiated claim. What other explanation is there? |
That 50 years after the fact, you don’t have enough material that is relevant for whatever problem you are dealing with, or like a ufo believer, want to believe in something so much, you make stuff up. However, this is conjecture.
| Quote: |
| The number of forgeries that made it into the canonical bible is troubling enough. But when you consider the sheer number of apocryphal texts (which includes many more forged epistles as well), it really starts to boggle the mind. There were so many bogus documents produced in the early church that you really have to wonder how the early church fathers were able to sort through it all to develop the canon. Just because the documents that made their way into bible are generally older than the other apocrypha, that does not necessarily mean that it is factual. For the most part, it really seems like the criteria for selection had less to do with the historical accuracy of the documents than it did with whether or not the documents concurred with the 4th century view of Christianity. |
Many true points. But they did a good job with getting 75% good gospels and 60% or so good epistles. Now, is there fake stuff made up in the earliest stuff? Yes. Regardless, with the fact that there were obvious ideas found in the earliest stuff predating the earliest of them (Paul) shows there’s something to it.
| Quote: |
| And even when we have documents that we agree a genuine, we are still left with the question of whether or not they have been altered in some way. The level of fraud is deeply discouraging when trying to sort through all these documents to sift out any historical truth. |
Well, its discouraging if you are trying to prove someone rose from the dead. Not so if you are trying to prove something else.
| Quote: |
| Refuting a religion is a difficult thing to do, even in modern times. (Just look at Scientology and Mormonism) Josephus (and his contemporaries) didn’t seem to care about Christianity, because to them it probably wasn’t any different to them than any of the other crack-pot religions which were being practiced at the time. Josephus was trying to record history, not debunk crackpot cults. |
True. Which is why he would speak of James a brother of Jesus Christ and elaborate no more.
| Quote: |
| This is why I think Christianity never took hold in Jerusalem. They all knew it was a bunch of crap. |
Not really. Most people stick with their old beliefs. Especially Jews. They cling tight. My point though was that we lack evidence that first century writings are forgeries.
| Quote: |
| And if the Q document turns out to looks anything like the Gospel of Thomas, that will do nothing to help the theory that these sayings are the historical teachings of a real-life Jewish wise man. You are seriously jumping the gun by assuming that a collection of generic un-sourced sayings proves the existence of Jesus. The sayings of Jesus could have just as easily been the 1st century equivalent to the collection for stories compiled by the Brothers Grimm. |
I think I have been more sophisticated than that, arguing that the sayings seem to predate Paul. I am not saying that we have this one thing and we should not doubt it. We have several, who all purport the same thing, and predate Paul.
| Quote: |
| It’s not the number of documents … it’s what those documents say. They all talk about an obviously mythical character. And the Didache just gives us a clear indication that early Christians were able to take pre-existing Jewish texts and insert the word “Jesus” in them to transform them into Christian documents. |
Again, the burden of proof is on one who wants to say the two ways is Jewish. There is no Jewish version of the document. Only Christian ones.
| Quote: |
History is written by the victors. Christianity won the battle over all competing faiths in Europe. For over a thousand years, all scribes were Christians. This means that there was undoubtedly a tendency to “enhance” certain text to improve the character of Jesus, while at the same time all “heretical” texts were altered or suppressed. If fear that even if there were once texts in existence that described Jesus as a normal human being, Christians would have probably discarded or “corrected” them. It seems that Josephus’ works were subject to this sort of Orwellian correction. I think we both agree to some extent that Origen’s comment about the beliefs of Josephus indicate that there is something that was removed from the text. We can only speculate about what he originally said, but we can be certain that whatever it was, Christians didn’t like it.
A similar fate might have come upon other texts as well. We really don’t know the extent to which the Christian “Ministry of Truth” has succeeded in altering history. But it’s entirely possible that the lack of non-mythical information about Yeshua may be entirely the fault of early Christians. If there were any writings which once talked about the real life Yeshua, the only way these would have survived is if the Nazarean Essenes pulled a trick similar to their Ossaeanes brethren and hid them away inside of a cave. |
This is an extremely complicated subject. Usually, you can tell when something is fake (like in Josephus), but you can also tell what was usually before an interpolation. That’s what historians do. They look at this on a case by case basis. You cannot denounce everything in a blanket statement as you have done.
| Quote: |
| Actually, you bring up an interesting question. Paul sure seems to have spent a lot of time in prison, didn’t he? I know that most people think that this was due to his preaching of the gospel. But the thing is, Christianity was not illegal. Christians were certainly persecuted at various times in history, but Paul’s incarcerations seems to predate these persecutions. While Paul was in prison, he talks of other apostles mocking him from the outside. Why weren’t these other apostles locked up as well? He never mentions any of these other apostles being arrested. It really seems as if Paul was the only apostle to be subjected to this treatment. And since Paul never once explains why he was in prison, you have to wonder what crimes he was accused of. |
I do not know enough about Roman law (and the dating of Paul’s incarcerations) to speculate on this. However, if Paul was a con man, he would have defended his charity work against charges of fraud. No such charges appear to be made.
| Quote: |
| From what we know about the Essenes, it does not appear that a radical shift really occurred. The Essenes pre-date Christianity by about 200 years, and this philosophy seems to provide a sort of “missing link” between Judaism and Christianity. Additional elements may have been acquired from other mystery cults and from philosophers such as Philo. It’s possible that a jew named Yeshua put all of these elements together to form a “new” philophy. But it’s also possible that these elements were picked up by a group of Essenes on their own. |
However, the Essenes did not emphasize the “spirit” or were they so lax with the useless Jewish laws (Paul in Galatians 2 shows that even Kephas has been known to break the law because of Jesus.) So, some guy figured out that the legalism of Judaism was crap. I’m sure that was Jesus.
| Quote: |
| I understand the libertarian perspective and the desire not to suppress any ideas. But would something like this be too much to ask?... |
Yes. I hate those warning labels.
| Quote: |
| But this raises an interesting point… Where did John’s philosophy come from? And while we’re on the subject, where did the Gnostic view of Jesus come from? These competing viewd popped up no later than a few decades after Paul’s death, and quite possibly may have existed during Paul’s time. We generally ignore these views because the oldest writings come from Paul and the synoptic gospels, but this may be an error on our part. It’s possible that these other views are just as old, but happened not to leave a paper trail. We both agreed to ignore them because adding them into the present discussion would only confuse matters further. Plus the lack of written evidence of these belief’s origins give us reason to doubt their validity. But I think we need to keep it at the back of our minds that it’s possible that some of Paul’s contemporary apostles may have been held views similar to these later movements. |
John, in my opinion, more heavily borrows from Pauline theology than even Mark. John’s Jesus will flat out talk about the need to be born again as a Christian through baptism, how you have to believe in him to go to heaven, etc. John clearly is a gospel written by people who fully believed in Pauline theology. Mark and co. are written by Paul followers who used prepauline sources. That’s precisely why they are the most accurate. Gnosticism is older than Paul, simply because even if Paul had Gnostic tendencies (gnosticismm DID predate Christianity after all), he is not a full blown Gnostic and he never speaks of Gnostics./ He does speak of Jewish Christians however. Thus, we know that jewish-Christians are obviously first.
| Quote: |
That is a very interesting connection. There are only a few possible explanations for the similarity. Either….
1. Paul knew about Q
2. Thomas knew about Paul
3. Both Thomas and Paul were familiar with some other similar source (maybe an oral saying)
4. The passage was added later to either Paul’s writings or a later version of the gospel of Thomas
In any case, the connection is interesting due the high similarity in the phrasing, and the fact that this doesn’t appear in any of the canonical gospels. |
True. As Dio said, “It’s only a mystery. It’s not what it seems to be.”
| Quote: |
| We have an excellent reason to doubt them… they are myths. Historians tend to ignore people who claim ridiculous things, and rightly so. |
We are talking about the history of a myth. You cannot just disregard it when it is so big. If Christianity and abrahamic religions were as big as scientology, they would warrant no mention in the history books. However, they are big, so we do have reason to see what this myth is about.
And unlike many myths, like the existence of Moses or even David…or even muhammed, we have a plethora of 1st generation and 2nd generation sources attesting to the existence of their founder. That’s extremely good by historic sources. So, may we conclude that an overall myth has its basis in a real person? Absolutely. Do we have evidence that within the myth, we have genuine teachings, liely from its founder? Absolutely. After all, we are not talking about politiucs. We are talking about a religion. The way we historically approach it is different. It does not mean we are less critical, but it does mean we have to disregard the physically impossible stiff and see if there is something to the stuff that is possible. For example, theology atytributed to Jesus. Humans make theology. If it predates Paul, there’s something to it. Now, a lot of crap can be made up in 20 days, let alone 20 years. However, if we have a bunch of people calling themselves Christians 20 years after the death of their Christ, AND THEY DISAGREE ABOUT ALL THIS STUFF, BUT NOT OTHER STUFF (LIKE CHARITY, ETC.) WE MAY DEDUCE THAT THEIR Christ was in favor of charity and etc.
Sorry about the caps, my finger slipped and I’;m too lazy to rewrite it (I’m rushing.)
| Quote: |
| For one, do you really buy the story about Jesus coming down and carrying his dead body off to heaven? Real people leave bodies behind when they die. Jesus did not. Item #21 on Raglin’s lists points out that this is a common feature of mythological characters – There is typically an excuse given for why the location of their bodies are not known |
Again, even religious people see this as faith and not fact. I don’t think faith gets factored in historically.
| Quote: |
| It’s obvious that whatever it was that Josephus said, it pissed off Christians enough to eventually shove his original words down the memory hole. And here Origen gives us a clue of what that “something” might have been … Josephus said something about Jesus that allowed Origen to twist his words into mean that Jesus “wasn’t a man, but something diviner”. This is supported by the fact that the text which survives today includes the phrase “if it be lawful to call him a man”. It seems that the forger was merely twisting of Josephus’ original words, and it seems that he twisted them to mean the opposite of what Josephus actually said. |
It could have simply been, “if he was a man.” IMHO, he did not study into it. Her just went buy what he heard on the grapevine and that came from Christians. Maybe only James death was deduced from his own (Jewish) sources.
| Quote: |
| I agree that the passage in question talks about the death James the Apostle. I just have doubts if this James was actually Jesus’ flesh-and-blood brother. |
He could have been a pretender. But, it does sow that people knew Jesus himself was a real guy. However, by ancient standards, two mentions that you are someone’s brother (Paul and Josephus) is pretty good.
Gee whiz, I was hoping you would comment on the Wisdom of Solomon!
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Filthy Animal
Post #50928
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Filthy Animal
Post #58746
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2009-03-16 11:34
|
|
| Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 3.3/4 (4 votes cast) |
|
|
| Mephistopheles wrote: |
| sorianofan wrote: |
Actually, Psalm 110 I believe is a third account of creation. So, there are 3 accounts that contradict each other and have no bearing in reality.
However, like I said, you have to emphasize the good and understand the "bad" was written by a backward culture in a backward time. Yet, these people still have something the teach us, "the good." We are not so awesome that we have figured everything out. Most of us don't treat our own family right. We have a lot to learn.
_____
BTW, that's an interesting take Gold Rust. |
I'd hardly want to adhere to rules set forth by an archaic book riddled with contradictions and ignorance. Perhaps some of the commandments were meant to provide a framework for a more stable society. Thing is, I don't really care. Jurisprudence to must not depend on superstition or else you might as well call your nation a theocracy. |
Boring and very vain secular posturing, holier than thou feels good for the ego, doesn't it mephie.
_________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
seeing trees from the forest?
