show_no_mercy

So did the gospel writers call Jesus a "naggar" or a "tekton"?

We have no writings of Jesus so we can't say whether he was a Jew or not. All we have are the writings of Greeks (Jewish or not) who describe Jesus as talking in Greek, using double entendres that only make sense in Greek, and inserting Aramaic phrases into their work as a parlor trick.

No one knows whether the writers of the gospels were Jews who wrote in Greek or if they were Greeks who got ahold of an LXX and created a Jewish character based on their Greek reading of the LXX. Saying Jesus himself was Jewish is a bit of a stretch. There's nothing Jewish about "burning in the unquenchable fire".

No Robots

For Old Testament analogies compare Isa 1:31; 34:10; 66:24; Jer 4:4; 7:20; 17:27; 21:12; Ezek 20:47,48.--"Unquenchable Fire". In International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Kapyong

Hiyas,

Pardon a little nit-pick :-)

The Greek has "tekton", which means a "master craftsman" (IIRC, specifically someone who works a material like stone, wood, ivory etc.)

"Carpenter" is what the KJV has, and it stuck.


K.

maryhelena

Sure, but he did not write the gospel story......it is these mythologists that I am referring to.....

maryhelena

Interesting. So we actually have a choice of trade for the gospel Jesus - 'master craftsman' to boot..... Whichever trade one picks for the actual gospel verses, it does seem that the Greek word relates to building something - and in connection with the spiritual temple that the NT is building - the trade involved would relate to intellectual logs and stones not their literal counterparts. Particularly since the gospel Jesus left no evidence behind that he was interested in building a physical, earthly,temple. All of this naturally leads one to the conclusion that early Christianity was the result of an elite intellectual movement......

maryhelena

"Saying Jesus himself was Jewish is a bit of a stretch".

Indeed. To do so is once again to cherry pick the gospel story.
The gospel Jesus walked on water - no way; raised the dead - no way - was a Jew - yes.......



Mythicist really do need to check their premises.....

Either there is a possibility that a normal Jesus remains after the mythological clothes are removed from the gospel Jesus (the historical Jesus camp) or there is not. If the mythicist camp decide in the negative - then why continue to cherry pick the gospel story - for what end? All the gospel story can tell a mythicist relates to the fact that the story is date stamped. The story is date stamped - nothing more or less than any work of fiction that seeks to place its story within a historical context. The historical context does not make the fiction, or the gospel story, historical fact.

To my mind, mythicists need to go the whole hog - instead of just dipping their toes in the mythological waters.....

maryhelena

Any historical evidence, unrelated to the NT, prior to 70 CE, that the 'well-to-do Jesus seekers' were giving away their money to the poor?

Actually, I did not think I was so much derailing the thread as adding something to it........'Who was the historical Jesus?'.......that does cover the carpenter element in the gospel story line. Who the historical Jesus was - that is the focus - not how did Christianity get started viewed from a sociological perspective - which is still interesting nevertheless....

fatpie42

Trying to figure out non military options? Have you ever read the Tanakh? It describes the messianic age as a period of peace and unity between all nations. A non military option would seem to be the most sensible option in the first place!

No, the fact is they were trying to figure out a military option because they wanted to use the figure of the messiah as a figure of hope in their plans to overthrow the Roman occuptation. It isn't obvious that the messiah in the Tanakh is meant to be a military figure, but within the more contemporary "Dead Sea Scrolls" it's another matter entirely.

But ALL religions want people to serve a 'spiritual authority'. Are you trying to tell me that religions are always aiming for social change? (And why aren't you claiming that Jesus was a socialist any more?)

He was a theist. He very much supported the idea that God was coming to bring judgement on the world and that God would be doing away with all human rulers and bringing about the messianic age. He appears to be expecting a major apocalyptic event in the near future. Mark 9:1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power." I suppose you could call it social change in the same way that nuclear holocaust would be a social change of sorts, but I'd normally presume social change was brought about by people, not inflicted upon them.

Finally!

Unfortunately you seem to be the only person who interprets it that way.

The hoe? I think you mean "adulterous woman". Interestingly only found in the latest gospel to be written.

While a good choice for your argument, it does not really support women's rights. Jesus does not consider the situation of the woman and even calls her to leave her "life of sin" with absolutely no consideration for sins of the man with whom she is meant to have committed adultery. The main concern of Jesus seems to be to note the hypocrisy of his opponents, not to champion women's rights.

Jesus prefers people to listen to him than to be distracted by housework. Big surprise. You might remember this verse from Paul:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
So Paul preached to slaves. Does that mean that he was interested in liberating them? Why then should we say that Jesus was interested in liberating women just because he preached to them?

In the two earliest gospels there is not a focus on Mary. In Mark there is no birth narrative, while in Matthew the message of Mary's conception by the holy spirit is given to Joseph in a dream. Once again, how does this show that the gospels are interested in women's rights? If anything, it is looking like the interest in women is a later twisting of Jesus' message rather than the other way around.

But the use of women here is an explanation as to why the disciples did not initially believe that Jesus was resurrected. If a man had told them they would have trusted his testimony, but the testimony of women was considered unreliable.

So women represent God? Don't be daft.

Women were commonly associated with death since they were normally expected to deal with dead bodies. (Socrates was concerned before his death to avoid contact with women. He asks women not to be present at his last moments and chastises the men for crying like women would be expected to. Socrates bathes himself prior to taking the hemlock so women will not need to do so after his death.) If a man had anointed Jesus it would not have had the intended symbolism: that Jesus, the anointed one, was going to die.

What, you mean the widow's son and his friend Lazarus. Looks like he's more interested in resurrecting men to me. Ah, you mean the man's daughter? Well yes, that's a more reasonable example. 1 out of 3 people he brings back to life are female? Well naturally he's interested in women's rights..... Um, wait a moment, how does that work?

It seems to me that 'healing' someone doesn't mean you are interested in promoting their rights.

What? Divorce is only allowed in cases of adultery. What if she is beaten by her husband? The move towards women's rights would be to allow women to divorce as well as men. Even Muhammed requests that women be provided with money in case she is abandoned by her husband. Jesus only encourages a stricter following of the existing patriarchal laws, not that they be changed to better support women. Jesus is a conservative thinker, not a progressive.

Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!'Then
" 'they will say to the mountains, "Fall on us!"
and to the hills, "Cover us!" 'For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?"

The daughters of Jerusalem will bear the future generations of Jews. At very least, it sounds like Jesus is claiming that at the judgement of God the men around them will be condemned and so will their children. It certainly does not sound like an encouragement that women's rights are on the horizon....

That is interesting. There certainly seems to be a higher opinion of women in John than in the other gospels. It really does seem like later believers had a greater respect for women than those who wrote the original stories. Very good example.

I wouldn't say that he treated her as an equal. He is quite condescending to her. He shows his powers by recognising that she has had five husbands (clearly a criticism) and says that salvation is not from the Samaritans, but from the Jews. The idea would seem to be that she is an example of a sinner being saved by Jesus, but her central role is intriguing nonetheless.

Wouldn't we expect a feminist to say that they were interested in equality for women? It would seem to be a rather important prerequisite.

Like pretty much every other messiah. Except that they actually did something to make it happen. This might be evidence that Jesus actually meant to be a military messiah, but never had the opportunity due to being arrested before he had the chance. In any case, your original claim was that Jesus was a socialist, not that he encouraged social change (though I'm not sure how a religious teacher saying that God is displeased with the Roman occupation is much of a radical move towards social change).

What did he actually do that was opposed to the authority? Knocking down stalls in the temple perhaps? Then what method did he have in mind for making sacrifices in the temple?

Yeah, that's going to make a big difference.

He talks about God's imminent judgement. Will there even be time for social change?

How do you know that all his apostles were from the lower classes? His fisherman followers appear to actually employ other fishermen themselves, so they actually seem to be big businessmen. When they return after his death they carry on their trade as fishermen, suggesting that they hadn't left everything behind but actually had family and employees maintaining the business while they were gone. He is supposedly witnessed by a centurion and rich men so the idea that everyone who witnessed him was poor is also false. He is often claimed to be doing things in small villages to explain why so few people knew about these over-the-top miraculous acts.

Um, yes?

But God is viewed as a 'Lord' for centuries before Jesus' time!

And so on, either referencing his claims to divine judgement or claims which were shared by the religious authorities of the time. No clear sign of any interest in social change, but rather a more intense following of the existing Jewish law.

After all, why should we expect him to actually mention any intended social changes...? *scratches head* Actually shouldn't we have some specified social change if we are to claim that Jesus was interested such a thing?

Well, in "The Historical Figure of Jesus" by E.P. Sanders he seems to think it fairly uncontroversial that Jesus didn't really say anything that conflicted with the existing Jewish religious figures. Does the work of a Bible scholar count as positive evidence?

I haven't actually got such a reference in regards to feminism, but then again I don't think it's a biting criticism of Jesus that he wasn't a feminist. The feminism movement is very modern really. He might have occaisionally shown more interest in women than was common for the time, but that doesn't make him a feminist. A feminist is actively interested in providing women with equality to men and Jesus' conservative position does not allow for that.

Clearly the latter.

So the lack of women's rights for centuries isn't to do with patriarchal suppression of women, but a lack of women prepared to stand up for themselves? Thank you for that, but that does not sound like a feminist perspective.

aa5874

There are always possibilities, and that is why people investigate to see which possibility the evidence or information at present cofirms or tend to support.

The writings of antiquity can be used to make such an assesment.

The repeated claim that it is possible that there was an historical Jesus is really not anything extra-ordinary. All that is now needed is the evidence, the written texts, the information from antiquity to support the claim.

All I have seen so far are fancy speculative theories about the historical Jesus, yet none of then can answer one single historical fact about their Jesus.

What was the real name of the character they call the historical Jesus? And when did he really die?

And, in the NT, it would appear that the date stamp was backdated. The history of the paper Jesus, the myth that people believed lived during the days of Tiberius, began his paper-life, Jesus was born, maybe long after the Fall of the Temple, possibly during the time of Trajan.

By the way what is a "whole hog" mythicist or "part hog" if that's easier to explain?

bacht

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion:
He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

1 Tim 3.16

Most of the NT is written in the language of myth. It's the historical literalists who want to bring it all "down to earth"

He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.
For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Col 1.15-20