Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Juststeve · 09-23-2010, 08:46 AM

bacht:

I think Mark wrote what he believed to be the case so no, I don't think he expected readers to scrape away the fantastic. That Mark believed fantastic things about Jesus doesn't require me to do so as well. Why should it? As a rational person I’m entitled to distinguish between the claim that Jesus was crucified and the claim that after being crucified he came back to life. If you think drawing such a distinction is arbitrary or a game then we just have to agree to disagree.

Steve

bacht · 09-23-2010, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

bacht:

I think Mark wrote what he believed to be the case so no, I don't think he expected readers to scrape away the fantastic. That Mark believed fantastic things about Jesus doesn't require me to do so as well. Why should it? As a rational person I’m entitled to distinguish between the claim that Jesus was crucified and the claim that after being crucified he came back to life. If you think drawing such a distinction is arbitrary or a game then we just have to agree to disagree.

Steve

It's the old problem: Mark is talking about nonsense, but we expect to find sense behind it. That isn't a probability, it's a wish.

At least with Paul we don't have to search for clues on the ground, since the action he describes is somewhere in the heavenly realms.

Juststeve · 09-23-2010, 09:11 AM

Bacht:

I think you state the MJ position well, Since there is no unassailable source of information about the historical Jesus the historical Jesus didn’t exist. Simplistic but if it holds your mind fine.

Steve

No Robots · 09-23-2010, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Since there is no unassailable source of information about the historical Jesus the historical Jesus didn’t exist.

You concede too much here. Read correctly and in context, the NT is in itself unassailable confirmation of the historicity of Christ.

bacht · 09-23-2010, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Bacht:

I think you state the MJ position well, Since there is no unassailable source of information about the historical Jesus the historical Jesus didn’t exist. Simplistic but if it holds your mind fine.

Steve

Okay, let's turn it around: what is the evidence for an historical Jesus?
- the New Testament
- the church fathers
- late, ambiguous references in the Talmud
- controversial passages in Josephus
- notice of Christians by Roman writers

And who is this guy? Born a Jew in Galilee, having a brief public career of magic and exorcism, executed by the Roman authorites. Then, allegedly, this celebrity rose from the dead with a message of salvation to his followers.

Or, as modern secularists would have it, some ordinary guy with an extraordinary message (which was what, exactly? the sharing of the Jewish covenant with the gentiles? Peace, love and good vibrations?)

It's all about as substantial as New Age claims in our own time.

No Robots · 09-23-2010, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Or, as modern secularists would have it, some ordinary guy with an extraordinary message (which was what, exactly? the sharing of the Jewish covenant with the gentiles? Peace, love and good vibrations?)

More like an extraordinary man, an intuitive genius, a volcano of righteousness, who gives us everything we need to throw off the petty moralizing of our scholastic tyrants.

Fenris_Wulf · 09-23-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I don't think Zindler would know. I pointed to the fact that both Tertullian and Eusebius relate "Nazara" to "Nazirite". That should be sufficient to show that the trajectory is valid enough to be proposed. I think they are related, though not directly. "Nazir" is a noun formed from the verb נזר (NZR) which is the source. he verb means "separate"/"dedicate" and "crown". A Nazirite is someone who has separated from others, made a vow or dedication to god. The following is from Eusebius (Dem. Ev. 7.2.41-50):

But He is said to have been brought up at Nazara, and also to have been called a Nazarene. We know that the Hebrew word "Naziraion" occurs in Leviticus [21:12] in connection with the ointment which they used for unction. And the ruler there was a kind of image of the great and true High Priest, the Christ of God, being a shadowy type of Christ. So there it is said about the High Priest according to the Septuagint:

"And he shall not defile him that is sanctified to his God, because the holy oil of his God hath anointed him":

where the Hebrew has nazer for oil. And Aquila reads:

"Because the separation, the oil of God's unction, is on him";

and Symmachus:

"Because the pure oil of his God's anointing is on him ":

and Theodotion:

"Because the oil nazer anointed by his God is upon him."

So that nazer according to the Septuagint is "holy," according to Aquila "separation," according to Symmachus "pure," and the name Nazarene will therefore mean either holy, or separate, or pure. But the ancient priests, who were anointed with prepared oil, which Moses called Nazer, were called for that reason Nazarenes; while our Lord and Saviour having naturally holiness, purity, and separation from sin, needed no human unguent, yet received the name of Nazarene among men, not because He was a Nazarene in the sense of being anointed with the oil called Nazer, but because He naturally had the qualities it symbolized, and also because He was called Nazarene from Nazara, where He was brought up by His parents according to the flesh and passed His childhood. And so it is said in Matthew:

"Being warned of God in a dream he [ie Joseph] departed into the regions of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazara, that the saying of the prophets might be fulfilled, He shall be called a Nazarene."

For it was altogether necessary that He Who was a Nazarene naturally and truly, that is holy, and pure and separate from men, should be called by the name. But since, needing no human unction, He did not receive the name from the oil nazer, He acquired it from the place named Nazara.

spin

Hi, I don't want to derail this fascinating HJ v. MJ mudfest, but I have a question.

Seeing all of the references to oil in this passage coupled with holiness makes me wonder if the answer to the Nasorean question hasn't been under our noses the entire time. Is it possible/probable that an Aramaic speaker who was weak in Greek (or vice versa) would translate Nasorean (NZR) as Christos/Chrestos? This seems to go back to the earliest layers of the cultmyth which may have later been forgotten by the time the gospels were written.

spamandham · 09-23-2010, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Since there is no unassailable source of information about the historical Jesus the historical Jesus didn’t exist.

You concede too much here. Read correctly and in context, the NT is in itself unassailable confirmation of the historicity of Christ.

Yes, of course it is. There can be no doubt at all once read correctly.

Juststeve · 09-23-2010, 10:00 AM

Fenris:

Interesting notion but who is the Aramaic speaker who was weak in Greek you are referring to? I for one am not ready to concede that any of the gospel authors were Aramaic speakers at all. I only know them as writers of Greek. This might show my bias since I am familiar with apologetic attempts to bring the writers as close as possible to Jesus by attributing Aramaic to them. I find these attempts unpersuasive.

Steve

aa5874 · 09-23-2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

bacht:

I think Mark wrote what he believed to be the case so no, I don't think he expected readers to scrape away the fantastic. That Mark believed fantastic things about Jesus doesn't require me to do so as well. Why should it? As a rational person I’m entitled to distinguish between the claim that Jesus was crucified and the claim that after being crucified he came back to life. If you think drawing such a distinction is arbitrary or a game then we just have to agree to disagree.

Steve

But, the unknown author of gMark did NOT claim anywhere that he was writing history and you have IDENTIFIED fiction ALL over gMark.

Even the so-called crucifixion story of Jesus in gMark appears to have been derived from Hebrew Scripture, like Psalms 22.

And further, in the very NT Canon and Church writings, it can be shown where characters were STONED to death, NOT crucified, for saying similar words of blasphemy like Jesus in gMark.

In Acts 7, Stephan was STONED to death for blasphemy.

In Acts 14, Saul/Paul was STONED for preaching blasphemy.

In 2 Cor 11, a Pauline writer claimed he was STONED for preaching Christ.

In "Church History" 2.23, James the Just was CLUBBED to death for blasphemy.

In "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1, some James was delivered to be STONED for breaking Jewish Laws.

Based on the NT Canon, Church writings and Josephus, if Jesus of the NT did actually live and broken Jewish Laws, punishable by death, it would likely be that he would have been STONED to death and NOT crucified.

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

09-23-2010, 08:46 AM	#291
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	bacht: I think Mark wrote what he believed to be the case so no, I don't think he expected readers to scrape away the fantastic. That Mark believed fantastic things about Jesus doesn't require me to do so as well. Why should it? As a rational person I’m entitled to distinguish between the claim that Jesus was crucified and the claim that after being crucified he came back to life. If you think drawing such a distinction is arbitrary or a game then we just have to agree to disagree. Steve

09-23-2010, 09:11 AM	#293
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Bacht: I think you state the MJ position well, Since there is no unassailable source of information about the historical Jesus the historical Jesus didn’t exist. Simplistic but if it holds your mind fine. Steve

09-23-2010, 10:00 AM	#299
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Fenris: Interesting notion but who is the Aramaic speaker who was weak in Greek you are referring to? I for one am not ready to concede that any of the gospel authors were Aramaic speakers at all. I only know them as writers of Greek. This might show my bias since I am familiar with apologetic attempts to bring the writers as close as possible to Jesus by attributing Aramaic to them. I find these attempts unpersuasive. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.