Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 12-29-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

They argue that Origen said that Josephus believed that Jesus was not the Christ, not because Josephus said anything about Jesus, but because Josephus believed someone else to be the Messiah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus, Jewish War 6.5.4

Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square."

But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.

Yeah, no mention of any messiah there. Just some guy who would be declared ruler of the world on Jewish soil. Has nothing to do with the Jewish messiah prophecized in Hebrew scripture at all.

spamandham · 12-29-2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The Hebrew prophets are characters in fantastic stories. If those stories have some vague basis in reality, surely that reality has not been preserved.

Well we might say that, but what about turn-of-the-era Jews? Josephus seems to read his bible fairly literally. Didn't Pharisees et al assume that Elijah and the others were real people?

I can't tell you what turn-of-the-era Jews believed, though my guess would be they were less gullible regarding their foundational myths than is presumed. Regardless, a turn of the century Jew is no more an expert on 800 year old texts than a modern Christian is on 2000 year old texts.

spamandham · 12-29-2009, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Clarify or correct what you mean per Toto's post, thanks.

Oops. I did mean the Seminar, not the Project.

ApostateAbe · 12-29-2009, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Clarify or correct what you mean per Toto's post, thanks.

Oops. I did mean the Seminar, not the Project.

OK, the Jesus Seminar did confirm a significant portion of the quotes by Jesus to be original and authentic, so I certainly would not label them hyperskeptics. That doesn't mean that I agree with them--I find their model of Jesus to be unlikely. But they do seem to weigh probabilities and take the evidence seriously. Hyperskeptics dismiss every part of the given myth as useless for reconstructing history contrary to the evidence and probability.

spamandham · 12-29-2009, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Hyperskeptics dismiss every part of the given myth as useless for reconstructing history contrary to the evidence and probability.

Myth is the wrong word, and so is legend. The gospels are not myths, nor are they legends, nor are they history. They are an attempt to explain the origins of early/mid 2nd century Christianity, using parables, allegories, and wrapping in common beliefs, themes and expectations of the time.

ApostateAbe · 12-29-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Hyperskeptics dismiss every part of the given myth as useless for reconstructing history contrary to the evidence and probability.

Myth is the wrong word, and so is legend. The gospels are not myths, nor are they legends, nor are they history. They are an attempt to explain the origins of early/mid 2nd century Christianity, using parables, allegories, and wrapping in common beliefs, themes and expectations of the time.

OK, find me a better word and I'll use it when talking to you.

show_no_mercy · 12-29-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Myth is the wrong word, and so is legend. The gospels are not myths, nor are they legends, nor are they history. They are an attempt to explain the origins of early/mid 2nd century Christianity, using parables, allegories, and wrapping in common beliefs, themes and expectations of the time.

OK, find me a better word and I'll use it when talking to you.

I think in order to find a better word (or any word at all) we have to first determine who the author of the (original) gospel was and who his target audience was. Considering that Mark was original and Matt and Luke are corrections, we might conclude that people like Matt and Luke were not Mark's target audience. Matt and Luke seem to be "historicists", since they are interested in proof-texting, clarifying, correcting, and expanding Mark.

But who was Mark (shorthand for whoever wrote the first gospel) and who was his target audience? This is a strategy I would use in my undergraduate Business/Technical writing classes. As an example, Matt seems to be a Jewish-Christian writing to convert Jews. So it would be easier to pinpoint what type of writing Matt is by defining the author and his audience. But what about Mark?

lpetrich · 12-29-2009, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Two of the things that the pastor cites as evidence that Jesus was rich (gifts from the magi and the donkey) are not likely to be historically accurate. The donkey is part of messianic prophecy, and it was not a Cadillac. It was more like a Honda Civic. You would much rather have a horse or a camel.

That brings to mind a textbook of Classical Greek that I vaguely remember. It contained some sayings featuring donkeys suggesting that a donkey was more of a Yugo than a Cadillac. "From horses to donkeys" was a proverbial expression suggesting coming down in the world. "A donkey's wool clippings", etc.

In fact, if JC had wanted to ride a Cadillac sort of vehicle, he would have ridden a chariot that had been pulled by some fine horses.

Zeluvia · 12-29-2009, 09:43 PM

I detest this Ayn Randian Christianity.

spamandham · 12-30-2009, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, find me a better word and I'll use it when talking to you.

"origins story"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-29-2009, 09:43 PM	#49
Zeluvia Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 5,172	I detest this Ayn Randian Christianity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.