ApostateAbe

Sort of. It is one of the many passages proposed as a refutation of the position common among MJ advocates that Paul thought of Jesus as purely spiritual and not physical.

Jane H

The pine needles are still on the Christmas tree, and now you've got me thinking about Easter!

That Jesus expected his imminent death required no special super powers; following his criticism of the authorities, and the Temple incident, he was a dead man walking.

One interesting piece of historical evidence for the bread/wine is that although the NT accounts talk of a “seven-action” scheme, the liturgical tradition has always and forever had a “four action” scheme (placing of bread/wine, prayer, fraction and distribution). This must mean that the liturgical tradition developed both independently of and before the NT writings.

Jesus was participating in a chaburah type event (a religious dining society). The command about the bread to “do this” must have been more than a simple command to break bread at the beginning, because this was always done on these occasions anyway. He must have meant to give the event a new significance. The tradition in 1 Corinthians 11 also states that the bread/wine significance came “from the Lord”, presumably via the disciples.

Now enthusiasts of alternative theories must look at

1)the question of Paul's integrity,
2)how the chaburah meal came to be associated with death (in Judaism it is utterly remote from that connection)
3)How the “Lord's Supper” acquired the name, and connection with Jesus, given the unremarkable nature amongst other similar meetings at the time
4)How the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood developed- an outrage amongst Jews of the time.

The historical explanation, as in the NT, is much the best here. But then I'm a Xian, so I would think that, wouldn't I?

ApostateAbe

It is about fitting the most probable theories to what we are given, and a historical cult leader apocalyptic false prophet Jesus is the most probable theory to explain the gospel myths, sort of like how an actual bishop is behind the myths of St. Nicholas, despite miracle stories being woven into the relevant historical information about him. The first-century Roman emperor Vespasian has miracle-healing stories attributed to him, from two trustworthy historical sources no less, but, even if we dismiss the miracle stories, that is no good reason to treat the remaining historical data as an elaborate set of complete falsehood. It is not an all-or-nothing thing.

Steven Carr

So why did it take a betrayal before the authorities could even find Jesus, and even then Pilate was going to let him go.

Jesus was a dead man walking with an impeccable sense of timing. He came up with this ritual meal just hours before his whereabouts were betrayed.

Yes, if Paul says clearly it came 'from the Lord' , he must simply have been silent about the fact that it came from the disciples.

Paul is often silent. The most certain way to know that somebody is silent is not to hear them talking. Paul says it came 'from the Lord'. If we don't hear him say that, then Paul was silent about where this tradition really came from.

Was Jesus not Jewish?

Why was Jesus not outraged by his own actions in telling his followers how to conjure up his flesh and blood after the movement had been crushed by Pilate?

Or perhaps Jesus also knew that he would be betrayed and killed, but that his followers would not be killed,for some unknown reason that only a Jesus,or his scriptwriter, could have worked out in advance?

Of course the mythicist explanation that the Lord had given a way for the cult to gain access to his body is much simpler.

ApostateAbe

My model of typical cult leaders are liars, so, even though such a person may say that the world is coming to an end and he is everyone's salvation, he generally doesn't actually believe it. For such people it is generally a way to make a living and gain social power. Cults are one of my interests of research. Cults are very common, but suicide cults are actually very rare, though they get plenty of cultural attention (man bites dog).

rhutchin

Which does not resolve the issue one way or the other.

Regardless, we read:

Mark 14 (Also, Matthew 26)
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
65 And some began to spit on him,...

Elijah

So you are starting out with a presumption that all religious movements starts with a liar. Or is there something specific about the origin of Christianity that makes it a cult origin? Do you think it’s wise to start out with an encompassing assumption of religious founders like that?
If he was after social or economic power then you could have a case because there would be a motive to lie but what power is Jesus after he’s preaching servitude to the masses and washed his followers’ feet.

I’m not accusing you of this but you should be careful to not have a media induced understanding of religious leaders and religion in general. And by that I mean there are tons of churches and have been millions of church leaders but it’s the con artists and the hypocrites that make good news and entertainment. Most are just trying to help in the best way they know how but it’s the ones who are turning Christ or other religious figures into a way to make a profit or start a war that get the attention because a church that’s just a normal ol gathering and the preacher just trying to set a moral example doesn’t make the news. The ones molesting kids do.

That doesn’t mean that most/all preachers or religious leaders are crooks and frauds. It doesn’t seem like rational assumption until proven otherwise because that’s something that can’t be proven. It’s easy to say Jesus was just a con man but I don’t know what the evidence of it would be other than your assumptions and stereotyping of religious/cult founders.

The messiah complex is an interest of mine and I don’t think it’s the trait of a liar but of someone confident enough to think they can change the world. This board probably has a couple dozen folks who, (though they may not admit it), are making lifelong attempts at fixing the world with some ideological restructuring of society. If one of their attempts takes off, regardless if it’s “let’s get rid or religion and that will fix things” or “let’s make people believe religion X, which is more rational and that will fix things”. There is no reason to assume they are being dishonest about thinking their attempt will fix things.

I’m just not seeing why you believe that an assumption of a liar is the rational approach to this.

And in regards to the world ending. He was trying to replace the normal worship of other men as kings, to try to bring about a more just society. There is no way in hell he could have imagined that transition was going to be peaceful. That and it’s a fairly common belief that mankind makes it’s strides in strife so that if you’re predicting a change in society, you may want to give out vague disasters that could cause the people to change their ways.

ApostateAbe

My presumption is that the vast majority of cult leaders are and were conscious liars, and the probability of a cult leader being a conscious liar is compounded if the cult leader predicts the end of the world. It is a conclusion from intuition, I admit. I can't make sense of any other explanation. Your theory that Jesus was only trying to help society doesn't seem to fit so well. When he predicted the end of the world as he knew it, it wasn't an attempt to bring about social change. He predicted that God himself was going to bring about an apocalyptic calamity immediately, with the stars falling from heaven and the Son of Man leading a heavenly army to overthrow all of the powers on Earth.

Cults are products of social engineering, and it is not done without the leader being aware of the sort of psychological manipulation required. My model of cults is based on Cults 101: Checklist of Cult Characteristics.

Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups - Revised
Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.

Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.

Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

• The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
• Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
• Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
• The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
• The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
• The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
• The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
• The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
• The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
• Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
• The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
• The group is preoccupied with making money.
• Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
• Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
• The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

All of these traits are designed to recruit and to keep the members part of the cult.

I was first introduced to cults with the Lyndon LaRouche group. He has also predicted the end of the existing world order, in the form of an economic catastrophe and social collapse, and his believers think that it is their responsibility to warn the world about it. I haven't kept up to date on the group--they may think that the predicted global calamity is beginning right now.

Early Christianity matches many of these items, evidenced by synoptic verses that Christians would rather leave out of their canon, such as the command by Jesus to hate your family. Such a thing could not have been said had Jesus not known what he was doing. Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist (that is the reason John baptized Jesus in the myth), and Jesus picked up the the techniques from him.

ApostateAbe

It has been the oldest Christian tradition that the "Son of Man" is Jesus, but it would require that Jesus referred to himself in third person. Possible--religious figures sometimes do that--but I find it more likely that Jesus was referring to someone else. Jesus uses the appropriate pronouns for "I" and "me" in all of his other speech.

avi

Thank you Jane, interesting perspective.

Jane, as you are an acknowledged believer in the divinity of Jesus, permit me, as one who believes, contrarily, that Jesus represents a myth, to inquire why you do not accept the teaching that Jesus was/is GOD? If he were God, then, and now, of course, he/it must have been omniscient.

It seems to me illogical to claim that he was a "dead man walking" after xyz incident. If he were truly God, then, he was "dead man walking" from the moment of his "birth", and knew in intimate detail every aspect of his forthcoming demise, from childhood.

It is people, Jane, not omnipotent, omniscient Gods, who can become "dead men walking". Gods are invincible, and certainly can not be harmed in any way by mere mortals....

avi