Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 06-16-2013, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I see you don't want to deal with it again.

Deal with what? Your will to christianize the narrative? That's what you cannot help doing.

No. You haven't addressed my arguments. The idea that Paul wouldn't address what you claim to be true is absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If your basis for hanging on to this idea is the claim that Paul got his gospel from no man, then I think you have little basis for your conclusion.

Talk about selective blindness, TedM. I've gotta learn that you will not stop. You have completely overlooked facts like the lack of the use of the name Jesus connected to those messianists prior to him,

He didn't have to. He used 'Christ'. He implied it was the SAME faith. His silence about your claims would not be expected. You are the blind one here.

Quote:

you ignore the fact that those messianists didn't learn anything obvious from Jesus, as they were still observing the torah without the freedom of Jesus. These things are important and you ignore them. What can I expect from you?

This assumes the 'freedom of Jesus' is true. Yet you yourself favor the Nazirite idea. If Jesus was a fairly strict observer, a Nazirite like James, then they DID learn from Jesus, and followed his example. Paul was the one who decided not to focus on Jesus the person, and just his resurrection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Common sense DOES make 'sense' sometimes, spin.

When you have an example in our topic, let me know.

I just did. Again.

aa5874 · 06-16-2013, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

aa,

I am not at all sure what exactly you were asserting when you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The conception of Jesus in the NT is mere Mythology. The Jesus cult started when people a fabricated story that the Jews killed the Son of the God of the Jews After the Temple fell and the Holy City was made desolate as predicted by the Words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets.

...

The story [that God had become a human being] was fabricated To deceive the Jews and those who are called Christians BELIEVED the story was true.

The relative lack of punctuation makes it a bit difficult to break this down into sense units, but it appears you were making the following statements:

The conception of Jesus in the NT is mere Mythology.
The Jesus cult started when people fabricated a story
that the Jews killed the Son of the God of the Jews
After the Temple fell and the Holy City was made desolate
as predicted by the Words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets.
The story [that God had become a human being] was fabricated To deceive the Jews
those who are called Christians BELIEVED the story was true.

If I move around these statements, I can make a more or less coherent statement out of them:

[1] The conception of Jesus in the NT is mere Mythology.

[4] After the Temple fell and the Holy City was made desolate
[2] The Jesus cult started when people fabricated a story
[3] that the Jews killed the Son of the God of the Jews
[5] as predicted by the Words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets.
[6] The story [that God had become a human being] was fabricated To deceive the Jews
[7] [but] those who are called Christians BELIEVED the story was true.

I get the impression that you think that the people who fabricated the story of Jesus Christ the Son of God in order to deceive the Jews, were different from those called Christians who actually believed that story.

Who are the "fabricators" of the story? The Roman Government? The Roman aristocracy? Those called Christians?

What was the purpose of this deception? To deflate the expectations of the rebellious faction among the Jews?

Why did those called Christians actually believe a story originally created to deceive the Jews?

"Inquiring minds want to know!" (motto of the National Enquirer tabloid)

DCH

You don't seem to know what you are talking about. You seem not to understand what 'deception' means.

1. It is a fact that the Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE. See Josephus' Wars of the Jews

2. It is also claimed by Church writers that the Fall of the Temple signified that the Christ had already come based on the book of Daniel. See Tertullian's "Against the Jews"

3. It is also admitted that the Jews did NOT did not teach that the Christ had already come. See Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

It is therefore logically deduced that Non-Jews FABRICATED the story that the Christ, born of a Ghost, had aready come and was pierced by the Jews.

Please, you must be able to understand "deductive reasonning".

Deductive reasonning is practised universally at any and every level to resolve any matter.

spin · 06-16-2013, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I see you don't want to deal with it again.

Deal with what? Your will to christianize the narrative? That's what you cannot help doing.

No. You haven't addressed my arguments. The idea that Paul wouldn't address what you claim to be true is absurd.

Waltz away. I'm not dancing this silly tune.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If your basis for hanging on to this idea is the claim that Paul got his gospel from no man, then I think you have little basis for your conclusion.

Talk about selective blindness, TedM. I've gotta learn that you will not stop. You have completely overlooked facts like the lack of the use of the name Jesus connected to those messianists prior to him,

He didn't have to. He used 'Christ'.

And what word did the Greek writers use for "messiah" before christianity???

As I said, you cannot help this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

He implied it was the SAME faith.

Another argument by assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

His silence about your claims would not be expected. You are the blind one here.

Schoolyard argument now: "it's not me. It's you." <tongue out>

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

you ignore the fact that those messianists didn't learn anything obvious from Jesus, as they were still observing the torah without the freedom of Jesus. These things are important and you ignore them. What can I expect from you?

This assumes the 'freedom of Jesus' is true. Yet you yourself favor the Nazirite idea. If Jesus was a fairly strict observer, a Nazirite like James, then they DID learn from Jesus, and followed his example.

There is no indication from Paul that James was a Nazirite. You're using apocryphal sources now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Paul was the one who decided not to focus on Jesus the person, and just his resurrection.

At least you can say he focused on Jesus. All the rest is you believing the propaganda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Common sense DOES make 'sense' sometimes, spin.

When you have an example in our topic, let me know.

I just did. Again.

Nothing comes of nothing. Speak again.

TedM · 06-16-2013, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Waltz away. I'm not dancing this silly tune.

Ok. I'll remain in ignorance. And convinced, at the moment, that you are stretching since you seem to be unwilling to put up a defense. My arguments are reasonable from where I sit. And strong. They aren't orthodox arguments either. They are based on what I have learned. I'm basing them on Galatians, Paul's other epistles, the Nazirite tradition, Acts, Hegesippus, Papius, Jerome, and yes, common sense.

I don't understand what your objective is here if you aren't going to enlighten. I'm willing to learn.

J-D · 06-16-2013, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Thanks aa. You didn't really address what I'm looking for. You address the 2nd century perception of OTHERS. I'm asking for personal opinions as to what it was that was being preached/taught that the early Jewish people responded to, and why they responded to it.

It sounds like your personal opinion is that Aristides account was accurate: there were 12 people who knew Jesus, and thought he had risen from the dead after the Jews killed him. Their preaching and example was so powerful that other Jews believed what they said.

Is that IYO, what started the spread of Christianity among the Jews?

Of course I addressed your questions. Speculation and imagination resolves nothing. It is the witnesses of antiquity who will answer you. Aristides is one of them .

So in other words, you decline to share a personal opinion. ok. This thread is for those that are willing to share an opinion of their own, instead of someone else.

Don't let "aa" or Aristides fool you, Ted. The single 'gospel' passage in that apology is almost certainly a later insertion. I posted here my full Appendix from Jesus: Neither God Nor Man on that subject a couple of months ago Edit

The question that really needs to be examined has a different nuance than what you present, Ted. We need to ask to what extent Christianity actually arose among Jews, and what was the form of it in its initial stage. There is a huge difference between the idea that Jews in Jerusalem responded to a preaching, miracle-working sage and came to take his disciples' word for it that he had walked out of his grave and was consequently the redeemer of the world (all of which enjoys no evidence in the entire epistolary record, in contrast to the 2nd century Acts) and the idea that some Jews in Hellenistic influenced milieus, with many gentiles taking part as well, were persuaded that God had a Son along Logos lines and that scripture revealed activities of that Son in the heavenly realm.

Your "among Jews" really needs to be defined and analyzed first. (My apologies if that has been done in subsequent postings in this thread.)

Earl Doherty

If you hold with the idea that 'some Jews in Hellenistic influenced milieus, with many gentiles taking part as well, were persuaded that God had a Son along Logos lines and that scripture revealed activities of that Son in the heavenly realm', the question that immediately occurs to me is 'How (by whom or by what) were they so persuaded?'

J-D · 06-17-2013, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

We know what started the Jesus story--- it was the Fall of the Temple, the desolation of Jerusalem and the Words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets.

The books of the Prophets are BOLTED to the story of Jesus and it is documented that the Jewish Temple did Fall and that the Jews suffered greatly at that time in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Chapter 1 of Mark doesn't say anything about the fall of the Temple and doesn't come from any of the books you have just been talking about, so where does it come from?

Chapter 2 of Mark doesn't say anything about the fall of the Temple and doesn't come from any of the books you have just been talking about, so where does it come from?

Chapter 3 of Mark doesn't say anything about the fall of the Temple and doesn't come from any of the books you have just been talking about, so where does it come from?

Why don't you just go and read Mark first before you post such absurdities?

At the very begining of gMark the author made references to the Words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets.

Mark 1:2 KJV

Quote:

As[ it is written in the prophets, Behold , I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Now examine the Words of the Lord in the book of the Prophet called Malachi.

Malachi 3:1 KJV

Quote:

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek , shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come , saith the LORD of hosts.

Again, please first read gMark because you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

We know what started the Jesus story--it was the Fall of the Temple, the desolation of Jerusalem and the Words of the Lords in the books of the Prophets.

Just a few examples from Mark of verses that don't come from the words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets:
Mark 1:14
Mark 1:19
Mark 2:15
Mark 3:6
Mark 3:22

That's just a few examples. You may be able to find a few verses here and there that come from the words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets, but most of Mark doesn't.

aa5874 · 06-17-2013, 04:28 PM

Every factor or condition to support the claim that the Pauline writer started the Jesus cult is missing.

The Pauline writers imply that Jesus did exist when they claimed he was raised from the dead and they were witnesses that God raised up the Christ.

1. If Jesus the Christ did exist it is more likely that he started the Jesus cult--Not Paul the persecutor.

2. If Jesus did not exist and people ONLY had revelations of his resurrection then there were OVER 500 persons, including Cephas, the Twelve, the Apostles, and James.

3. The Pauline writers claimed they attempted to waste or destroy the Churches in Christ.

The argument that the Pauline writer started the Jesus cult is extremely hopeless and without a shred of corroboration in or out the Canon.

On the other hand, it is found written that people of antiquity claimed it was predicted in the Words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets that the Jewish Temple and the Hloy city of Jerusalem would become desolate after the advent of Jesus.

So we know what started the Jesus and not only that but also we know who most likely fabricated the Jesus story.

It was Non-Jews who invented the earliest story of Jesus in the Canon.

The author of gMark did NOT know the burial customs of Jews.

The author of gMark claimed the women went to anoint the dead body of Jesus.

Mark 16:1 KJV

Quote:

And when the sabbath was past , Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

The author of gJohn will expose that gMark's author was most likely Not a Jew.

It was the custom of the Jews to wrap a dead body with a linen and spices BEFORE the burial.

John 19

Quote:

39And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

40Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury .
41Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein wasneverman yet laid . 42There laid theyJesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand

We know who, what, when and where the Jesus story and cult most likely started.

Who? ---most likely Non Jews-- See gMark

What?--most likely the Fall of the Temple and the words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets--See writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Tertullian.

When?--most likely the 2nd century--See writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonis, Aristides, Justin, and Origen's "Against Celsus".

Where?--most likely Egypt--See recovered NT papyrus--virtually all of them were found in Egpyt or were in Egypt when they were obtained.

No NT Papyrus has been recovered in Judea dated to any time in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century.

J-D · 06-17-2013, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Where does Paul say that many Jews converted? Does Paul say that the hub of "Christianity" was in Jerusalem? I don't think so - just that there was a Jerusalem Church of some sort that he had some major disagreements with.

What exactly does Acts say? Acts 2 talks about tongues of fire and charismatic preaching, after which some (but not all Jews) were converted by Peter - but after that we don't hear about Jews being converted.

So we don't actually have firm evidence of Jews becoming "Christians." And the only evidence we have is that conversion works more or less as it does now - people are swept up in the emotion of a preacher's message, think they see miracles, or think they want to join in a movement that might be going someplace.

So who was that preacher, and what was that preacher's message?

Who is not important. It wasn't a specific preacher, but "a" preacher. Does it matter if it was a Paul or an Apollos or a Cephas or any of the unnamed itinerant preachers the Didache cautions believers about? The message was the same, salvation, but the packaging was probably different, depending on the preacher and the moment in time.

I don't understand whether you're suggesting it was just one preacher or more than one preacher.

I was trying to clarify what Toto said, yet it would seem you still haven't actually taken in what was said. Toto was not talking about a founder, but about the conversion process. I guess that you are asking about how it all started, which was not Toto's intent, so I can't clarify that.

I'll try to respond with a functional possibility that seems to explain the little evidence there is for me.

What we face is a tradition that existed before the gospels were written. They tell a roughly similar story. How that story relates to reality is not adduceable from the texts. That would simply be accepting stories at face value and there are no external supports for the story, which would suggest that we cannot reclaim any satisfying account of what reality lies behind the gospels.

I personally have pointed to the possibility that the christian religion may have started with Paul. Working from a tentative reading of Paul's literature, especially Galatians, that Paul did not get his knowledge of the Jesus messiah from other people, claiming his gospel came from revelation. If we take him at his word, it would mean that there is no reason to believe that there was a messianic tradition specifically regarding Jesus, though there were messianic traditions in existence at the time, including a somewhat developed Johannine tradition that seems to be behind the story of Apollos and perhaps behind other non-christian baptist movements. Even the gospels indicate that the followers of John didn't just shrivel up after his death.

If we work with Paul providing us our earliest information about the religion, we find that he had been a conservative Jew hassling messianic groups until he had his revelation concerning his savior. He then contacts the Jewish messianists in Jerusalem (James, Cephas & John) to present them with his revelation, but they didn't seem interested enough for Paul. Paul split with them, though kept in contact with Cephas and ridiculed him for not adhering to his Jewish practices (Gal 2:11-14). From Paul we see that the Jerusalem messianists had no knowledge of Jesus having brought a new dispensation, putting aside circumcision and Jewish torah observance.

The Jesus religion that became christianity though definitely present with Paul isn't seen in those before him. If we start with Paul and his christ crucified, we may have the beginning of christianity.

However, people so frequently want to know more about what they are dealing with, as you are trying to understand more of the views you are dealing with here. Once a tradition exists, be it one based on a real person or not, if it is active, it will be expanded upon in the telling of the stories. We have stories for Alexander and for Arthur, the former was definitely real, the second who knows, but the round table was not part of the earliest surviving traditions. Where did Little John, Will Scarlett and Friar Tuck come from, when we look at the earliest indications of Robin Hood? Where did the Talmud get the five diciples of Yeshu ha-Notzri? Traditions develop with the telling. It doesn't matter if somewhere in there was a seed of real events or not. As long as a tradition is maintained through the telling it will evolve.

I was thinking of the question with which this thread started, that is, 'What started Christianity?'

I can see that you are connecting that with other, broader topics, which is fine as far as that goes, but I guess I'm having a little difficulty being sure that I have extracted correctly from your post the part which is an answer to the original question (that being the part I personally am interested in at this point). I don't want to misconstrue you.

Also, I'm not clear on whether you are pointing at what you think is one possible answer to the question among many, or at what you think is the most probable of a number of possible answers, or at what you think is the only plausible answer available, or what.

outhouse · 06-17-2013, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If we take him at his word, it would mean that there is no reason to believe that there was a messianic tradition specifically regarding Jesus,.

If we take Paul at his words, does he not tell us that that there was a pre existing traditions regarding Jesus with pre existing scripture?

As well as pre existing teachers and houses he was trying to correct their wayward views?

J-D · 06-17-2013, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

... The Jews sought means to destroy the moral legitimacy of Rome in ways that would not bring a repeat of the wrath of the legions. ...

I don't see how that can be right, since it's not possible to destroy something that doesn't exist.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.