lpetrich

I don't think that mythical-Jesus opinion is that differentiated, at least not yet. Most of the mythical-Jesus discussions seem to picture Jesus Christ as having been all those things.

How is one supposed to be "assuming" anything? This seems like special pleading.

Did they state these alleged presuppositions in writing?

The Jesus Seminar is treating those prophecies like the prophecies of other religions. Greco-Roman religion has several fulfilled prophecies, like Zeus overthrowing his father Kronos, Oedipus killing his father Laertes and marrying his mother Jocasta, Perseus killing his grandfather Acrisius, and Romulus killing his great-uncle Amulius. Hinduism has the fulfilled prophecy of Krishna killing his uncle Kamsa. And Buddhism has the fulfilled prophecy of Siddhartha Gautama growing up to be a great religious leader, the Buddha, rather than a successor to his father Suddhodhana's throne. So why believe in New Testament prophecy fulfillment but not Greco-Roman prophecy fulfillment or Hindu prophecy fulfillment or Buddhist prophecy fulfillment?

Here again, why believe one religion's miracles but not another religion's miracles? Can you make an argument for that without resorting to special pleading?

How is that supposed to be one of the Jesus Seminar's presuppositions?

TrueMyth, have you made any effort to follow those teachings to the letter? Or even approximately?

J-D

I would like to see some foundation for your claim that these sayings represented an ethic which was original, or unknown in contemporary Palestine, when they are compared to Exodus 23:4, Leviticus 19:18, Isaiah 57:15, Psalms 37:11, Proverbs 19:11, Proverbs 20:22, Proverbs 24:29, Proverbs 25:21, and Lamentations 3:30.

Alf

What book would that be? The point is that any book that try to write about a historical Jesus - i.e. a Jesus not extracted from the gospels or partially extracted from the gospels is based on pure speculation.

Some has suggested we keep everything that is not miracle or otherwise impossible. However, what justification do we have for that? It is obvious that there are non-miracolous stories about Jesus which are not historical. So we remove those we
suspect are later additions. What is left? What justification do we have for keeping all of that? What justification do we have for selecting some of those things and claim them as historical and others not?

Show me a description of "historical Jesus" that is NOT pure speculation and you might have a case.

Alf

Alf

Actually they did.

Yes, they had an 8 day "week" or period for the market day. However, they also had a 7 day week. It was not of roman origin perhaps but it did enter roman culture before christianity.

The names of the days of the week is quite telling in that respect. It is not "day of Mary" and "day of Jesus" and "day of John" etc... They are "day of Mars", "day of Jupiter", "day of Sun" etc.

The 7 day week was not immediate though. However, it is a result of a 24 hour day (12 hours daytime and 12 hours night time, each hour was not fixed length, in winter the night hours was long and the day hours short in the northern parts of the roman empire, in the summer time it was long day hours and short night hours). Each hour was named for one of the 7 objects in the sky. Starting with Saturn on the first hour and with 7 hour cycle, you had 3 hours left over so that halfway into the fourth cycle the first hour of next day came so that the 1st hour of the following day was 4 hour into into the cycle.

Start with the following sequence: (this sequence was for astrological reasons and was
in ancient times in the rank as how they perceived the objects were removed from earth
with Saturn furher away and Moon nearest).

Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon,

The 1st hour of a day was Saturn so it was "day of saturn" or saturday as it is called in english. The next hour was the hour or jupiter and the 7th hour was on saturday was the hour of the moon and then on the 8th hour it was the hour of saturn again. Same thing in the 15th hour and the 22nd hour. The 23rd hour was the hour of Jupiter again and the 24th
hour was the hour of Mars and then the 1st hour of the following day was the hour of the sun so it became the "day of the sun" or sunday as we call it in english. You quicly see that if you put them on a wheel you simply skip 2 and then find the next day so the sequence of the days in the week became:

Saturn, Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus.

or

Saturday, sunday, monday, tuesday (god of war, equivalent to Mars), wednesday (the messanger wotan or odin same as Mercury), thursday (thor's day god of lightning same as Jupiter), friday (Freia goddess of fertility and beauty same as Venus).

The names tuesday, wednesday, thursday and friday are of course of germanic origin while english has kept the latin day of saturn for saturday while the equivalent name for saturday in norwegian is lørdag which comes from old norse "laugrdagr" or bathing day, it was the day of the week when they took a bath! Germans call wednesday for "mitwoch" or "the day that is in the middle of the week" but other than that they have essentially kept the same.

Some languages have thursday and friday switched in the scheme above as such it is possible that Jupiter and Venus should have swapped places according to that astrological chart I mentioned, I forgot which is which and which country follow it and which has it switched.

None of this has anything at all to do with christianity.

Alf

Alf

I know that many theists make a point of claiming that atheists rule out miracles etc a priori and therefore "close themselves" to that possibility.

However, that is a point they stress too much. For one thing, yes while I in general tend to rule out miracles etc because I have so far never seen any that are actually substantiated, it is unproblematic for me to not make such an assumption in a given discussion. I don't HAVE TO rule out miracles a priori on the basis that "miracles are impossible". That can quickly lead to circular reasoning in rejecting the bible and while it has some merit since it is the theist who should substantiate their claim that miracles CAN happen and they consistently fail to do so I can also understand their point in not ruling them out a priori.

However, I don't have to do that. There are things in the bible that is unhistorical and which is not authentic Jesus - things that are not miraculous.

For example, Jesus tells his disciples some stories. The point is that the form of the story is a form that was unknown at the time that Jesus supposedly lived but a form that became popular around late 1st century and early 2nd century. Either then Jesus was divine and knew about this form before it became known among humans and told his disciples a story in a form where they would just say "Huh? what are you talking about????" OR it is a gospel writer writing in late 1st century or early 2nd century who put this story into Jesus' mouth. Which explanation do you think makes most sense?

This has absolutely ZIP to do with miracles. The form of the story reveal that it is not authentic.

I generally find the seminar to make a lot more sense than most other believers. My problem is that they do not go far enough. However, I can see your point in that someone who is a fundie etc will not accept the premises that the seminar worked under. They will claim that miracles are ruled out a priori etc and claim that is a fallacy. In fact the fallacy is that they claim miracles are possible without substantiating that they are likely to exist but that is a minor point which they generally tend to miss.

The point is: there are many things that are POSSIBLE. It is POSSIBLE that the rock fall to the ground because little green elves pushes it every time. Is it likely? Not a chance.
Just claiming "miracles are possible" says exactly zip. Show me a miracle and you might have a case. Until you do, people have every right to rule out a priori that miracles cannot happen - it is NOT a fallacy or circular logic as some theists claim.

However, I have no problem to NOT rule them out a priori. The theist sitll have no case. Allowing for miracles to be possible does not help the theist in any way. They still seem to struggle upstream to avoid the sinking ship of theism.

They may be authentic but they are not original and they do not even make sense!

Show me a man who literally turn the other cheek and I will show you an idiot. It is self-defeating! If someone comes into your home and rape your wife, should you offer them your daughter also? It is just stupid.

The statements above was "general wisdom of the day" in the form of "not to be taken literally but they conveyed a 'good' intention or meaning". As such they are not original from Jesus but was general wisdom of the area of the time and as shown above they are not supposed to be taken literally and as such they are fairly meaningless. They express a "kind attitude" or "be nice" attitude rather than specific things you should do in specific situations and as such they are quite weak and far from original or innovative.

Also, I do not see the story about the cananite woman who was called a dog by Jesus in that list of yours. I guess they found that to be too gross to match the image of their hero. However, that is one of the few passages which most likely IS authentic if there is a real Jesus behind it all. It is in style with his general attitude. He was a rabbi for the lost sheep of Israel (i.e. jews only). He never preached to gentiles (the story about the roman soldier who came to him etc is most likely not authentic). He also generally avoided larger cities where there were educated people and preferred to preach to ignorant superstitious and gullible peasants. I.e. IF we are to assume that there at all is a historical Jesus hiding behind the gospels.

No. First an "eye for an eye" is STILL the going form of justice in that region. Just watch daily news from the region. Secondly, that they realize or that some realize that there are alternatives has also been known for quite some time. Jesus was not original in this respect, other people expressed it better and more direct. However, most of their sayings has been burned in various book burjnings orchestrated by the church.

Why? If Jesus was authentic he was himself from rural poor country side and he preached for peasants of that region. What other message should he preach? If you took a trip to the ghetto in an average american large city would you start talking about how the kingdom of heaven is only for rich white people? How many people would bother listen to you?

[QUOTE=TrueMyth;3803126]
as would loving one's enemies.
]/quote]
That is also not original from Jesus. It was one of the ideas that was floating around at the time. Again, it is something that is absurd if taken literally. If someone comes and rape your wife should you give them a hug and offer them your daughter and perhaps give them a gift as well? Not at all! It is absurd if taken literally and so when taken non-literally it becomes rather "washed out" and meaningless. It expresses a sentiment that you should not hate back or hit back when someone hate you because hate grows hate and so far it is true and right but you cannot take it beyond that.

Again, Jesus was absolutely not the first to express this but it was "semi common knowledge" at the time.

Your embafflement stems from a strawman. I did not have any of those sayings in mind when I said that. I was among other thinking of the story of the canaanite woman that you left out and other similar stories where Jesus appear to show a completely different side.

"Do not think I have come to bring peace, I have come to put son against father" etc... shows a different and darker side and is probably more authentic if anything is authentic than any of your 5 sayings.

I agree that the passage do not come off as Josephus being a christian - which he wasn't. However, the problem is that as you say he mentioned several Jesuses before and after that passage. Thus, when he says "Jesus, the so-called Christ" or "Jesus who was called Christ" one would expect that he said something about this Jesus. Alternatively, the "Christ" reference is a forgery and this Jesus was actually one of those other Jesuses he has already talked about and so Josephus found no more reason to elaborate more on him but then some copyist changed Josephus reference to become "Christ" and perhaps inserted "who was called" in order to make the forgery not so obvious.

The point is that this is on the whole a very short reference, so it would make more sense if Josephus previously have a paragraph about some Jesus X and then in that referneces says "James, the brother of Jesus X" without saying anything more since he had already told about Jesus X a few paragraphs earlier. Then a later copyist change the reference to "James, the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ" and simply replaced the X with the christ refernece.

The point is that the "Christ" reference here makes no sense unless Josephus has previously talked about this Jesus who was called Christ in some previous paragraph. The lack of such a paragraph and the presence of other Jesus paragraphs suggest therefore that this is a forgery.

True, but this "Jesus, who was called Christ" appear to be hanging in the air. It is like I was talling you a story about Joe and then say "Joe, the brother of Sam" and without ever talking about Sam. It wouldn't make sense. You would just say "Sam who?".

Another explaanation is of course that Josephus DID talk about Jesus the one called Christ but that paragraph has been removed by christians because it pictured their hero in a less than flattering manner. In that case the passage may be authentic but in this case we really would like to know what that less than flattering description would be and the whole thing seem fishy without it.

And why do you think the jewish community did not welcome Paul? Could it be that his religion was too much in conflict with orthodox Judaism? That it bordered to blasphemy or perhaps was considered as blasphemy by some?

Alf

gurugeorge

I'm not denying incidents of charlatanism, but religion is too big and widespread a phenomenon, and too obviously sincerely experienced and undergone by its leading practitioners, to put too big a burden on charlatanism as a cause.

As I see it, the burden of proof is on those who wish to suggest that the majority of religious people who claim to have had enlightenment experiences or communications with discarnate intelligence haven't actually had what seems to them like enlightenment experiences or communication with discarnate intelligence.

There's a temptation amongst rationalists to believe religion is just silliness, or wooly philosophy, or vague daydreaming, or vague visions, or hallucinations, or strong emotions about ideas, or social bonding. Sure, sometimes these things happen - more so obviously for the average religious person - but for the most part there's an element of religious experience that's it's own beast, subjectively strong and real-seeming, different altogether from hallucination or illusion, that can happen to otherwise normal, intelligent people, that's the real motivating factor in religious genius.

That is to say, when it comes down to looking at the part psychological motivating factors play in the growth of religions, that's how you've got to figure it works in the case of religious geniuses or founders - it's not (in a reflection of the rationalist's "tin ear" for religious experience), that these experiences of communication with gods are vague, wooly, dreamy or whatever. They seem very real to those who have them, and the conviction arising from that feeling of reality is a strong motivating factor for those who have them, and a strong cause of people following them.

(Of course whether those experiences are valid is a different issue! But as a motivating force for religion, I think we have to first of all, play along with what founding religious people - the great prophets, charismatics, mystics - themselves say, as representing their experience and motivations, and only then, if it doesn't jibe with facts somewhere, check whether they are charlatans, or fooling themselves, etc.)

jakejonesiv

This in not true. Several passages in Josephus' writings have been questioned.
But perhaps you could explain your logic to me. How does the presumed authenticity of the surroundeing text disprove an interpolation?

The TF has certainly been questioned, and demonstrated to be interpolated either in whole or in part.

"...Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man..."
"He is the Christ."
These statements could only have been made by a Christian.

" ...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..." 20:9.
The awkward construction, mentioning Jesus and his title Christ before ever backing into the true subject James is evidence that the passage has been tampered with. Again, evidence of a Christian hand at work.


The well has been poisoned for both of your Josephus texts, so the above list is suspect.

Jake Jones IV

TrueMyth

From the introduction to The Five Gospels: "The contemporary religious controversy turns on whether the world view reflected in the Bible can be carried forward into this scientific age and retained as an article of faith . . . . the Christ of creed and dogma . . . can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope" (New York:Macmillan, 1993; p. 2)
And again...
"Strauss [the author of The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined] distinguished what he called the ‘mythical’ (defined by him as anything legendary or supernatural) in the Gospels from the historical . . . . The choice Strauss posed in his assessment of the Gospels was between the supernatural Jesus––the Christ of faith––and the historical Jesus" (p. 3)
Strauss' is the model the Jesus Seminar unabashedly adopts from the beginning. They call this distinction-- between a Jesus by definition supernatural and one by definition natural-- "the first pillar of scholarly wisdom" (p. 3)
Thus, it seems to me quite clear that the Jesus Seminar, both in theory and in practice, presupposes a historical Jesus which is by definition non-supernatural. In this way, all references to miracles are expunged.

Another problem with the Jesus Seminar's presuppositions is what is called the criterion of dissimilarity in wider scholarship; they refer to it as a committment to "distinctive discourse" (p. 30) in Jesus' sayings. In this way, everything which Jesus says that reflects either the Jewish culture he existed in or the later Christian culture spawned by him can have doubt cast upon it. In this way, claims to Messiahship are believed to be the result of admiring followers.

Now, there is some good use for the criterion of dissimilarity. It is best used in order to determine what can be, without reasonable doubt, considered as authentic. In this way, it functions like the American justice system: a failure of conviction does not necessarily mean that the accused is innocent; it just means that there was reasonable doubt as to their guilt. In this way, the criterion of dissimilarity is best used to include, and not to exclude. However, it is highly doubtful that the JS used it in a proper manner.

Regarding prophecy, this is the JS's method: When Jesus predicts his death or the destruction of Jerusalem, and we know that the event actually came about, then it must have been added by later Christians. Regarding prophecies made by other religious traditions, the question is not one of my personal opinions. When Josephus predicted that Vespasian would be emperor, and then he became emperor, this is not automatically rejected as authentic. Other considerations are allowed, such as recognition of social patterns, behind-the-scenes work, and the like. It is not automatically assumed that Josephus could not have said this. The only reason this is assumed for Jesus is b/c of the use put to these prophecies by later Christians, namely to prove Jesus' divinity. This no longer seems like an objective use of this principle. As I stated earlier, retroactive criterion such as these are useful for inclusion, but not for exclusion, yet this is how the JS uses them.

Yes, I have. They are extremely difficult. However, with each practice, and with constantly drawing on faith for support, they get easier each time. However, I (and any Christian) am far from perfect, as is often shown in this forum where I let my frustrations get the better of me! :Cheeky:

TrueMyth

There are a couple of clarifications I ought to provide to the term "original". You are right to point out that these principles are alluded to in the Tanakh. However, this is where the claim that Jesus made to be the fulfillment, not the contradiction, of the Law and Prophets comes in. The older Jewish Scriptures were focused on being exhaustive (or nearly so) laws in specific situations. This is why Leviticus, etc. is so difficult to wade through! Jesus, rather than contradicting these laws, translated their spirit into general principles to guide all behavior. This is why he never stated, "Do this;" instead, he would advocate a certain behavior, and then explain why it was good.

Thus, in the sense of being entirely and completely without precedent, Jesus was not original. However, any good moral theorist will not be entirely original in this strict sense; they will develop upon ideas presented earlier and then explore them further, usually tweaking them to reflect increased understanding. Jesus' originality lay in the transition of the Jewish moral system into a universal moral system, built on principles instead of detailed instructions. This shift not only from the specific to the general, but also from the cultural to the universal, is unique to ancient Palestine.

TrueMyth

Fine. I understand your point. However, I am not really referencing miracles per se being ruled out. I am not even criticizing the findings of the JS on objective grounds. My point is merely that by assuming the naturalistic worldview, they limit their findings-- in so far as they are influenced by this assumption-- to those who accept this worldview. Within the choir, so to speak, their preaching is wonderful and edificatory. Outside, the conclusions as a whole cannot be rejected out of hand, but the specific parts which are affected by non-shared assumptions can be rejected on those grounds.

I'm not sure why you're mixing miracles and storytelling; the two never coincide in the Bible (Jesus doesn't sit down and tell stories about his miracles). Which story form are you talking about, though? Parables?

Without launching into a defense of miracles, then I would simply state that I agree with you that fundies ignore their own presuppositions. That's one of the nice things about not being a fundy: being aware of the limitations of one's own presuppositions. However, suffice it to say that the existence of miracles is not one of my presuppositions; it is a conclusion reached via rational thought which is, admittedly, based on other more basic presuppositions, as is rational thought of all ideologies.

The reason why Matt. 15:26 and Mark 7:27 is not in my list is b/c that list was of the 5 passages deemed the most authentic by the JS. Neither of these passages were in that list. In fact, both were listed as black, which means that is is almost certainly inauthentic. So can you please provide some proof for your assertion that it is most likely authentically from Jesus?
What proof you have provided seems very faulty. You state that it is in style with his general attitude. But what proof is there of his general attidue? 1) His sayings? These two passages are the only ones which can be interpreted as bigoted without any violence being done to the text, and they are both deemed inauthentic. If you believe there are others and believe they are authentic, please provide them for me with proof. To use his general attitude as proof is to beg the question. 2) His actions? Fraternization with mostly one's own circle, especially in a segregated society such as existed in ancient Palestine, does not seem to necessitate racism. For example, my growing up in mostly white suburbia does not guarantee that I will be discriminatory. I cannot find an action of Jesus which is considered authentic that obviously evidences his bigotry. As far as his big-city aversion, I would point out that this could be either evidence of his desire to avoid intelligent people (assuming that the big city = intelligent people), or evidence of his desire to shun the traditional trappings of religion and society, and commune with the disadvantaged and the outcast. To determine which it is better evidence of, we must look at what we know of his actions and sayings that is definitely authentic. And what do we find? Luke 6:20 (and Matthew 5:3): "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." Obviously, this is not an end-all proof, but it lends some definite credence to the fact that Jesus preferred the poor and disadvantaged not b/c they were gullible, but b/c they were iconoclastic.

Again, it seem that you are reading much more than is possible into an ancient person's motives. You are assuming that he chooses what to preach based on the crowd, and not choosing his crowd based on his preaching. What basis do you have for the one over the other? I am not necessarily stating that I believe it is the other way around; my contention is that neither of us have sufficient evidence to infer motives of people we meet every day, let alone for an ancient Jew.

I'll let my earlier clarification stand of what I mean by "original" in a reply to J-D as a response to this.

However, I am confused about your statement that "An eye for an eye" is STILL the dominant moral philosophy, as evidenced by the news. If "love your enemies" was semi-common knowledge at the time, what was "an eye for an eye"? Are the two not mutually exclusive? I'm confused; please help me understand. The best I can discern is that you mean that an eye for an eye was and still is the dominant moral philosophy, but there was a strong counter-strain which advocated loving one's enemies. Is this correct?

Your application of the "turn the other cheek" principle seems to me to be a strawman. The principle is not that when something important to you is violated, you should go one up on the violator by giving them something else as well. The principle is that you should not seek retribution for wrongs done to you out of hate. Another aspect of the principle is that worldly things are worthless when compared with your soul. These principles only become difficult in application when we take them in isolation with the rest of Jesus' words. Taken as a whole, the idea of giving one's daughter to your wife's rapist is reprehensible.

You acknowledge in one point that this is indicative of a deeper principle, but you seem to deride it as washed-out and meaningless. You prefer to favor specific rules for specific situations. I must admit, I am baffled by this. I find general principles, such as "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "Do to others what you would have them do to you" to be the most excellent of all moral approaches. As long as one keeps them constantly in mind and asks them of all moral actions one undertakes, how are they useless? I find them much more freeing than a set of exhaustive rules (which I believe to be impossible).

Again, I will require proof of this assertion.

I'm glad you allow for a previous paragraph, b/c that is exactly what the TF is in Book 18, which precedes the James reference in Book 20. Yes, the TF has many difficulties with it, but the vast majority of scholars do not reject the passage entirely, but reject the pro-Christ editorializing done by later Christians. This is a reconstruction of what most scholars think about the TF:

The CAPITAL LETTERS are what are considered later additions. By referencing Christians to Jesus, Josephus is acknowledging that he had the title of "Christ", at least among his followers. Thus, when he references Jesus in the James passage, there is a prior mention of Jesus as known as the Christ, and it is reasonable to think that the James passage is not an addition. To further corroborate the James passage, Origen quotes it in full later on.