FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-24-2010, 09:35 AM   #41
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post

I say: it is not at all implausible that Christians would find this "last supper" significant enough to make a ritual out of it, for two reasons.
  1. It was the Jewish Passover.
  2. Jesus was thought to be the son of God and the messiah, which means he knew the future. In fiction (and presumably in myth), someone who knows that he is just about to die always has something important to say to his people.
But the sacrifice of a man to God is completely foreign to Jews and what is even more ABOMINABLE and NON-HISTORICAL is that a man was promoting this act on the JEWISH PASSOVER.

The ritual of the Eucharist, the symbolic sacrifice of a man to the Jewish God, appears to be highly implausible among Jews of the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-24-2010, 06:55 PM   #42
spamandham
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
I say: it is not at all implausible that Christians would find this "last supper" significant enough to make a ritual out of it, for two reasons.
  1. It was the Jewish Passover.
  2. Jesus was thought to be the son of God and the messiah, which means he knew the future. In fiction (and presumably in myth), someone who knows that he is just about to die always has something important to say to his people.
It's implausible because certainly the last supper is not historical! You yourself agreed that the author probably put the words into Jesus mouth, necessarily implying that the gospels are not intended as history reports.

Yet you then turn around and form a position that depends on high reliability of the account. Your putting the cart before the horse and assuming that the last supper is essentially historical (maybe even including transubstantion :constern01.

Even if there was a historical core to Jesus, the guy riding in to Jerusalem on a donkey is not him.
spamandham is offline  
Old 03-24-2010, 08:31 PM   #43
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
.....Even if there was a historical core to Jesus, the guy riding in to Jerusalem on a donkey is not him.
And Jesus was riding two donkeys simultaneously in gMatthew 21.27.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 09:39 AM   #44
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
I say: it is not at all implausible that Christians would find this "last supper" significant enough to make a ritual out of it, for two reasons.
  1. It was the Jewish Passover.
  2. Jesus was thought to be the son of God and the messiah, which means he knew the future. In fiction (and presumably in myth), someone who knows that he is just about to die always has something important to say to his people.
It's implausible because certainly the last supper is not historical! You yourself agreed that the author probably put the words into Jesus mouth, necessarily implying that the gospels are not intended as history reports.

Yet you then turn around and form a position that depends on high reliability of the account. Your putting the cart before the horse and assuming that the last supper is essentially historical (maybe even including transubstantion :constern01.

Even if there was a historical core to Jesus, the guy riding in to Jerusalem on a donkey is not him.
It is not about whether or not the last supper according to Paul is accurately historical. The issue, as you expressed it, was:
What's the Eucharist all about? "Do this in memory of me". Obviously the explanation put into the mouth of Jesus makes absolutely no sense at all. "Spin around in circles 4 times and slap your ass in memory of me" makes as much sense. The author had no idea why they were doing this bread/wine ritual (or the real reason for it was embarrassing perhaps) and so he made up this silly "and that's why we celebrate the Eucharist" explanation.
And, you made this seeming nonsense into a comparison for the evolution of the baptism ritual. But, neither ritual is especially nonsensical, and they each can be explained with a little intuition without anything extraordinary.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 11:47 AM   #45
show_no_mercy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Why was Jesus' baptism by John only embarrasing to Christians after Mark was written?
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 12:02 PM   #46
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post
Why was Jesus' baptism by John only embarrasing to Christians after Mark was written?
It was embarrassing, I presume, ever since Christians regarded Jesus as the best person in the world (and the better of John the Baptist), which is reflected in the ideology of the gospel of Mark. But, the embarrassment becomes a motivation to adjust the history only after years of receiving ridicule from the Baptists and losing adherents to them.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 12:28 PM   #47
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post
Why was Jesus' baptism by John only embarrasing to Christians after Mark was written?
It was embarrassing, I presume, ever since Christians regarded Jesus as the best person in the world (and the better of John the Baptist), which is reflected in the ideology of the gospel of Mark. But, the embarrassment becomes a motivation to adjust the history only after years of receiving ridicule from the Baptists and losing adherents to them.
The embarrassment only comes with the doctrine that Jesus was born without sin, since John was baptizing for either the remission of sins or as an outward sign that sin had been removed.

This does not necessitate that the original baptismal scene be historic, or that it was changed only in reaction to ridicule by the followers of John.
Toto is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 12:33 PM   #48
show_no_mercy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post
Why was Jesus' baptism by John only embarrasing to Christians after Mark was written?
It was embarrassing, I presume, ever since Christians regarded Jesus as the best person in the world (and the better of John the Baptist), which is reflected in the ideology of the gospel of Mark. But, the embarrassment becomes a motivation to adjust the history only after years of receiving ridicule from the Baptists and losing adherents to them.
Why does it take whenever Matthew - John was written to address this? Unless Mark was written like in 40 CE or something.
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 12:45 PM   #49
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
It was embarrassing, I presume, ever since Christians regarded Jesus as the best person in the world (and the better of John the Baptist), which is reflected in the ideology of the gospel of Mark. But, the embarrassment becomes a motivation to adjust the history only after years of receiving ridicule from the Baptists and losing adherents to them.
Why does it take whenever Matthew - John was written to address this? Unless Mark was written like in 40 CE or something.
That seems like a good objection. Mark was sourced from myths, and I figure myths take time.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 12:53 PM   #50
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
It was embarrassing, I presume, ever since Christians regarded Jesus as the best person in the world (and the better of John the Baptist), which is reflected in the ideology of the gospel of Mark. But, the embarrassment becomes a motivation to adjust the history only after years of receiving ridicule from the Baptists and losing adherents to them.
The embarrassment only comes with the doctrine that Jesus was born without sin, since John was baptizing for either the remission of sins or as an outward sign that sin had been removed.

This does not necessitate that the original baptismal scene be historic, or that it was changed only in reaction to ridicule by the followers of John.
Yes, that seems like a reasonable analysis.
ApostateAbe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:12 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.