Thomas II

The picture I am seeing of Jesus is that of a man, not of a god at all.
And within the fact of being a man,I see him belonging to a school of thought in line with the Nazoreans.
I also see a man with conviction most of the time, but with some doubts at the end, but understandably so because he knew he would be killed in a nasty way...
In fact I think that the reason we don't have much about Jesus the man is because some people tried to push forward the image of Jesus the GOD, and for that they thought they had to eliminate Jesus,the man, as much as possible...

spamandham

While this is certainly possible, the evidence in support of it is extremely weak.

The problem is that we simply assume there must have been a 1st century human behind the Jesus of the Bible. There is certainly an argument to be made (however weak) that it's more likely there was than there wasn't, but that doesn't solve the fundamental problem that if there was such a person, we know nothing whatsoever about him.

He could have been a Nazorean, he could have been a magician, he could have been an itinerate preacher, etc., but he could also have been the Essene teacher of righteousness, he could also have been Julius Caesar, he could also have been John the Baptist, he could also have been Joshua from the Old Testament, who could have been King Tut, or perhaps he was Buhdda.

The problem is that we can establish nothing about the man Jesus, because everything we know about him is tightly wound up with the legendary Jesus of the Bible. This is as futile as trying to uncover the nature of the historical Santa based only on the legends (assuming there were not an accompanying St. Nicholas story). Jesus could have been a Nazorean, but he could just as easily be a pre-existing legendary figure co-opted by the Nazoreans.

"Well, maybe Santa was a really good climber and he could scale the chimneys really fast and that's how he convinced people he could fly up." - See how rediculous this sounds when we have some insight into how the legend started? The historical Santa (assuming we accept the history of St. Nicholas - which is questionable), did not need to convince people he could fly up chimneys, because that part of the legend came later. If we had no history of St. Nicholas, we would not be able to derive anything of substance about the historical Santa based on the legends.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Thomas II,

Thanks for putting these links together.

I still think the important thing to notice in John is the ambiguity of the healing. We, the reader, are not sure if the Pool cured the man or Jesus. We are not even sure if it is the real man who is cured as the author raises the possibility that it was another man who was blind. In Mark the cures are certainly done by magic. In John, it is quite ambiguous. We are allowed a lot of room to doubt. So we have an early text portraying the signs as ambigious and a later text making them real. Could there have been an even earlier text which clearly debunked the signs? Thus the need for an ambiguous text to cover the fraud texts.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Thomas II

This is a good link for references regarding historicity issues:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ury/chap5.html

Regarding his personality or his daily life, we have little, there is no doubt about that.
But the way I see it,you either go with the "God camp" or with the "no God camp". Since I go with the no God camp, I am not terribly upset about the lack of information about Jesus. What bothers me is the manipulation of the Church in the development of a fictional character,as well as the destruction of original evidence, simply because it's wrong, and it has affected a lot of people in a negative way...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Thomas II,

There are a couple of other things to note in the story.

15
So then the Pharisees also asked him how he was able to see. He said to them, "He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and now I can see."
16
So some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, because he does not keep the sabbath."

Some of the Pharisees are complaining that the making of clay was work and therefore Jesus broke the Sabbath rule against work. This is a joke. In the face of a great miracle like a blindman being healed, how could anyone but the most ridiculous concentrate on the fact that the healer made clay on the Sabbath rather than on the fact that the man was healed. This is nothing but a satirical joke on the Pharisees. Just as in the water/wine sign, there was a joke on the wine stewart who didn't understand the wine was actually water, there is a joke on the Pharisees here.
Just as the feeding sign/miracle comes from Jesus saying "I am the bread of the world," this sign/miracle comes from the saying "I am the light of the world" It is totally invented.
We should also note that the sign/miracle involves a boy and not a man. We discover this through the following text:

21 We do not know how he sees now, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him, he is of age; he can speak for him self."
22
5 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone acknowledged him as the Messiah, he would be expelled from the synagogue.
23
For this reason his parents said, "He is of age; question him."


The text is telling us that the parents are lying when they say their son is "of age". This means that he is actually not 13 and not qualified to testify in a Jewish court. In other words the text is telling us that the witness who sees because of the sign/miracle is not a real witness.

What is extraordinary is that the author is telling us is that, although the story is invented, the witness is only a twelve-year old boy (and therefore should not be believed) but that the parents are so afraid of the Pharisees that they are lying and not defending the man who cured their son.

It appears that the author is making two key points in this funny invented story: 1) Adults were afraid of being associated with the Christ Character, 2) children did believe in him and defend him.

Again, the text seems to be going out of its way to tell us that the Christ character did not perform any real signs/miracles. This is in sharp contrast to the synoptic gospels wherein the ambiguity and doubt regarding the miracles are disgarded.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Thomas II

Jay,
No, Jay, that was not a joke. Some of these orthodox jews, Hasidic Jews, take VERY seriously the Sabbath. What might be ajoke for you and me is serious for them. To give you an idea, I was once staying in a hotel and as I was walking towards my room I saw this woman and two children sitting on the floor by their room door. She seemed happy to see me...
"Sir, please," she said, "I am a Hasidic Jew and I can not operate machinery, any mechanism on a Sabbath. Could you please open our door for us?"
Of course I did, and they happily went in thanking me and their lucky stars for bringing me to their doorstep. Their door lock was an electrical mechanism
which opened with a magnetic card...
So that is to give you an idea of how ridiculous it is...but that is their trip...
Anyway, in this case there is no child involved. The parents are called to testify thet their son was blind but being afraid of being rejected by their religious group they say "Hey,don't ask us about Jesus...He (their son) is old enough to answer for himself, so ask him, not us..."
Also, the Pharisees were out to get Jesus so they were looking for ANY excuse to bring him down...
"What, he told you to MAKE some clay?? WHAT?? To MAKE CLAY is WORK!!
You are not supposed to work on a Sabbath ,so....SIN!!!...SIN!!!"
That is my take on this...

FatherMithras

So, since God doesn't exist, and lacks all those attributes because of that, you mean you don't believe in Jesus? =)

Thomas II

And what shall we make of Luke 9:51-56, where John and James ,aka the Sons of Thunder, are just about ready to bring fire from Heaven to consume
the whole city in Samaria because they had decided not to welcome Jesus...
In this case Jesus said something like "Come on,guys...Stop it..."
Because otherwise,wand in hand,... ZAAAAAAAP!!


www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke9.htm



Oh Happy days!!!

PhilosopherJay

Hi Thomas II,

I was watching a sweet movie called "It Runs in The Family" yesterday. There's a scene at the beginning where Kirk Douglas, age 85. is reading a newspaper in the back of a taxi. He looks at a picture and says to the cabdriver in a surprised voice, "This man, I know him, he was my partner. He died. " One momentarily expects Douglas to break down and cry. Instead he starts to laugh and exclaims, "At long last."
Serious things often make the best subject for humor. The extremism and absurdity of religious practices were a good subject for humor in ancient times as it is now.

Let us look again at the passage to see if we can find if it was intended to be humorous or not.

1
1 As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth.
2
2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3
Jesus answered, "Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him.

The first question we might ask the text is "How do the disciples know that the man was born blind and hadn't been blinded yesterday for trying to kick a god (ala Paul of Tarsus) Regardless of how they found out, neither Jesus nor the disciples suggest the man was not born blind. It is simply a given fact that the man was born blind. This allows the disciples to ask a philosophical question. Why does God punish children by having them born with handicaps. Is God punishing the parents by punishing the child or did the child exist in some pre-natal form in which he did something to deserve punishment. The question is a tricky one. If God is punishing the parents, then it is unfair to the child. On the other hand, if God is punishing the child, then it is unfair to the parents.
Jesus sidesteps the issue by saying that this particular man was born blind simply to make the invisible God visible. In other words, God didn't consider his parents or the man to be sinners, but simply wanted to use him to display or prove himself to people. Jesus, being the light of the world while he's in the world, is going to use him to show God and thus do a work for God.

Now, it really makes no sense to raise this question of the responsibility of the parent versus the responsibility of the child, unless the person in question is actually a boy.

We may be reasonably certain that the original text had Jesus curing a blind boy. Later writers must have felt that it would be better for Jesus to be seen curing a man instead of a boy. Curing a grown blind man would be a far greater feat than just curing a boy. Kittens are born blind for six week, so a skeptic might have suggested that the boy just had a birth condition that passed at that time. While changing the boy to a man, the later editors forgot to remove the many markers that point to him being a boy.

For example the next debate is over the identity of the character.


8 His neighbors and those who had seen him earlier as a beggar said, "Isn't this the one who used to sit and beg?"
9 Some said, "It is," but others said, "No, he just looks like him." He said, "I am."

Neighbors would certainly have known a man who was blind from birth. Only in the case of a boy who had been raised at home and only recently sent out on the streets to beg would there be much question.

Now the Jews seek the testimony of the parents.

9:18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
9:19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?

There is no reason to do this unless they are dealing with a boy instead of a man. Why should a man’s parent’s be more trustworthy than him?

9:20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

The parents are quick to identify the son and his condition. Notice they don’t say “This man is our son.” They simply say, “This is our son.”

9:21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.

The parents don’t know how he was cured. Since the text does not tell us they were present when he was cured, we may assume that they are telling the truth.

9:22 These things his parents said, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had already agreed among themselves, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

Now, the text here is a bit hard to grasp. Does “these things” mean 1)the things they said about who and how their son was cured, or does it mean 2)“he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.” Or does it mean all of them?

If the parents really are afraid of being put out of the synagogue, why are they jeopardizing their son by telling the officials to ask their son. One would rather expect them to say our son is blind so he could not possibly recognize the man who helped him.

We must also strongly suspect that the parents are followers of Jesus. They are not being asked to confess Christ, they are being asked to identify Jesus as the man who helped their son. They won’t even do this. Only followers of Jesus would have a reason not to do this.

9:23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

The text is absolutely specific here about what they are lying about. They are lying about their son being “of age” This explains why they are comfortable about have the Pharisees question him. They know that he is not “of age” and therefore he cannot be thrown out of the synagogue.

We should also note the hilarious answer of the boy to the Pharisees when they want to hear his story again:

9:27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear [it] again? will ye also be his disciples?

The boy is asking the old Pharisees if they want to become Jesus’ students. This scene is simply hilarious and would certainly get a big laugh from any audience that was watching it.

We may be reasonably certain that in the original text, this was a comical scene in which Jesus cured the young son of two of his married followers. His followers were afraid of being thrown out of the synagogue for being caught believing that Jesus was the Christ.

In my judgement the scene is entirely fictional except for the fact that Jesus’ followers were afraid of admitting that they believed that he was the Christ. The author and her audience probably knew people like that. Otherwise the scene is intended to make fun of those who tightly enforced Jewish religious observences.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Thomas II

No,not fictional...Nothing comical...
The apostles bring up a question about reincarnation and "karma"(for lack of a better word),which Jesus answers.
Jesus healed the man as stated.
The Pharisees question the man,and to verify he was BLIND FROM BIRTH, they bring in the parents to attest to this,which they do, but not wanting to get involved further for fear of antagonizing the Pharisees, they state that their word is no better than their son's, since he was an adult (in Jewish terms probably about 30 years old) and could answer for himself, which he does.
The healed man is annoyed by the insistence of the Pharisees in their asking about what had happened,so he mocks them,and he is ejected. The man also states that Jesus had to be a prophet, knowing that a prophet could brake the Sabbath,if deemed necessarty, without braking the law...This is not the demeanor of a child at all...
Then at the end Jesus issues a little curse, for good meassure, against the Pharisees...
He says:
"It is for judgement
that I have come into this world,
so that those without sight may see
and THOSE WITH SIGHT MAY BECOME BLIND "

Hearing this the Pharisees said in jest "What,so we are blind now,aren't we?

And Jesus replied:

"If you were blind
you would not be guilty,
but since you say "We can see",
YOUR GUILT REMAINS!"