RUmike

Modern mainstream scholars disagree with you.

I assume you're talking about Mk 2.1-12, when Jesus cured a paralytic by saying "your sins are forgiven." This is NOT a claim to "godhood" as you say. As E.P. Sanders writes in The Historical Figure of Jesus:

Vorkosigan

OF, (1) the Essene connection to the DSS is increasingly questionable and, as Amalek has already pointed out, (2) there was no such animal as "mainstream Judaism" at that time. Additionally, labeling something non-mainstream does not invalidate the point. Clearly one COULD forgive sins and not be considered blasphemous or heretical (being non-mainstream is not the same as being heretical). So your point collapses.

The historical Jesus is an invention out of the Old Testament and other writings. The arrest scene in Gethsemane is taken from 2 Sam, the Temple Ruckus from Nehemiah 13, most of the narrative from the Elijah-Elisha legends in 2 Kings, etc. Whoever wrote Mark stitched Jesus' life together from a variety of sources, including contemporary Greek fiction, where entering cities and being taken for a God, trials, crucifixions, and rising from the dead are staple scenes.

Vorkosigan

Orthodox_Freethinker

Where would you get the identification that they were mainstream? These are men who lived in caves and thought all people besides them, even fellow Jews, were going to face God's wrath.

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

If Jesus was not forgiving sins by his own authority, then why did the Pharisees react with anger against Jesus saying 'your sins are forgiven'? Sometimes, the simplest answer is actually the one on a Christian's side.

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Do you know what typology is?

The majority of Biblical sholars, both religious and secular, agree that a historical Jesus at least existed. Those who believe in the 'Jesus myth' are on the lunatic fringe of modern scholarship. This is not a fallacious appeal to the majority, given that the majority of both Christian and secular scholars disagree with you.

Peace.

Toto

OF:

This is in fact a fallacious appeal to the majority, even if that majority is broken down into Christians and non-Christian scholars.

Mod request:

Please stop using the term "lunatic fringe." It adds nothing to the discussion except emotion. There are completely sane, rational scholars who accept some variety of the Jesus myth. They are in the minority at present, but there is at present no good rebuttal to the case.

The whole question has been hashed out on these boards not that long ago. Chris Price, whose essay you cited, has posted here as Layman, but was not able to convince any skeptic of his case. Bede is a regular here off and on. The Christian apologists want to believe that Jesus mythicism is like creationism, rejected by the academy - but they have only empty rhetoric to back up their case.

Vorkosigan

Why yes. Do you?

That's fine. I hope someday those scholars develop the relevant historical and critical tools to support their conclusions. At the moment, as Crossan noted in an extended passage in The Birth of Christianity, and Porter did in his recent work on historical Jesus methodology, no such tools exist. Until they do, I'll continue to believe that the Jesus Myth makes better sense of the data.

Because, as many scholars have pointed out, the five conflict stories here are fictions designed to portray a conflict. The scene is a typical Cynic chreia, in which the philosopher shows off his wit and vanquishes his opponents. They are known in other the fiction of the time -- see, for example, The Life of Aesop.

Among some scholars the anger of the Pharisees is over the fact that Jesus is behaving as a priest. Crispin Fletcher-Louis has argued that in Mark 1-6 the writer has portrayed Jesus as a priest with the authority to forgive sins. Sometimes the simplest answer is just simpleminded.

Again, can you please tell us what mainstream Judaism was at that time? And also, please show that the Essenes were "heretical". Being non-mainstream does not make one heretical.

Vorkosigan

guy_683930

What part of the bible says that only God can forgive sins? Please include the book, chapter, and verse. Or was it traditional opinion among the pharisees? Include references to the Talmud, Mishnah, etc. to support your claim.

Mk 2:9-11
Note here what Mark does NOT have Jesus say: that only God has authority to forgive sins. And he says here on Earth, suggesting his power is limited to here on the earth.

The easiest reason why the Pharisees get mad is because it advances the storyline to the point where they decide to betray him.

Plus, there's always Mk. 13:32
Mark did not consider the Son to be equal to the Father. Or could God be not all-knowing? Even if God were not all-knowing, how could one person of God know less than another, if they were considered equal?

And Orthodox_Freethinker, I have a question for you. Isn't your name a contradiction? This is the etymology of the term heresy:
Maybe you think that you are a freethinker and you just happen to agree with orthodox doctrine. But, I have a question for you. If orthodoxy changed, and what you believe is now considered heterodox, would you change your mind? Or what if, this is a big if, you were able to go into the past and you went to the year 1400, and you knew that the earth revolved around the sun, would you keep quiet or would you express what you know to be empirically true and be branded a heretic?

Amaleq13

I don't but that really isn't implied by my question at all. I agree with Vorkosigan that there was no "mainstream Judaism" in the 1st century and I am primarily relying on Josephus for my understanding.

Will you answer my question now?

Orthodox_Freethinker

If it were fallacious, it would not transcend religious affiliation among the majority of the scholarly community. Are you somehow implying that you know more than the majority of Biblical scholars, both religious and secular?

Peace.