Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 10-21-2011, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

..... I see no reason to assume the gospel authors believed they were telling true stories about a historically real person.

There is no reason to assume anything.

But there are more reasons to think that these writers believed in an actual Jesus than that they didn't.

For starters, it seems very uncommon, if not unique, to write about a recent figure in that way (ie. with the writer not believing in his existence), particularly the writer's own supposed religious leader/founder. Can you think of another example?

Hi Archibald,

I thought I had offered before the example of Dionysus in the Bacchae by Euripides.

History or Allegory?

But let's examine the logic of the "belief" of the evangelists as evidence of a Historical Jesus. There is another possibility, What if the gospel of Mark is an allegory presented (in some respects) as a play like the afore mentioned Bacchae, with the public story revealing Gnostic truth, but in a concealed manner? The entire gospel can be read as a parable, "But to those outside everything comes in parables, so that 'they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand, in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven.'" Mark 4.

In that case, the gospel of Mark (or rather proto-mark) was the outer teachings of the author's Gnostic school, with the inner teachings being withheld for advanced initiates. {A quick example: neither mark nor the other gosples actually reveal what happened inside the tomb at the "resurrection. " The young man, who is not an angel but the narrator, is a Gnostic teacher. This mystery is reserved for higher order initiates}.

But there is a huge Black Hole in Christian history.

The New Testament texts contain a great deal of detail concerning the first few decades of Christianity. From the Virgin Birth of Jesus to the journeys of the Apostle Paul while under arrest to Rome, we find the marvelous tales of St. Jesus and his Spirit filled followers.

With the possible exception of the book of Revelation, the New Testament concerns itself only with the alleged events before the destruction of Jerusalem in the Roman-Jewish war of 66-70 CE. After that, we find an awkward silence that lasts over a generation before the emergence of the second century Apologists and Church Fathers.

Who were the Church's leaders during these tumultuous times? Scarcely more than names on a list of otherwise anonymous people. What do we know of Linus? Nothing.

What do we know of Clement? If he did anything, it didn't include authoring the stupefying tract known as 1 Clement; that attribution doesn't occur until the late second century.

There is a black hole in the middle of Christian history during the later third of the first century CE, and perhaps (depending on one's dating of the epistles of Ignatius etc.) well into the second century.

The solution is quite simple. The origins of Christianity were retrojected into a past safely shrouded by the utter destruction of Jerusalem during the Roman-Jewish war. One could not visit the holy sites of the events of the Passion. One could not question the alleged community that witnessed of the founding events of the Christian faith. These places were all destroyed, the people dispersed, dead. Like Star Wars, these were events that happened long ago and far away; we have only the evangelists words that these things happened at all.

We find no history of the Christian church in the waning years of the first century CE because Christianity as we know it did not yet exist.

But someone will surely object to this conclusion. What about the Gospel according to Mark? What about the testimony of Papais?

As has been noted before, far too much peace and assurance has been wrested from the alleged testimony of Papias, which is at best third or fourth hand information.

The Gospel according to Mark, the earliest of the known Synoptic Gospels, is a very curious document. The Latinisms in it indicate that it was likely written (or redacted) by a Latin speaking author writing for a Roman audience. It is quite obvious that the gospel in its current form was not written from scratch by a single author. For example, the woman who anointed Jesus was to be forever remembered for her deed. But her name has been deleted from the extant version for what must have been a compelling reason.

The apostles and family of Jesus are disparaged as incompetent dunces, but they are surrounded but minor characters that know more than they do! Gnostics!?

The woman who anoints Jesus for death, the owner of the ass, the man carrying water, the owner of the upper room where Jesus and the Twelve took Passover, the young man at the tomb (not an angel); these all had more knowledge than the alleged family, disciples, and women who went to the tomb. This is a not so veiled attack on the churches that claimed
legitimacy from succession from these very same groups. This is all evidence of an originally Gnostic gospel that had been somewhat sanitized for the orthodox. No, GMark as we have it is very far from the first gospel. We are well into the second half of the second century before it achieves its final form.

The legend of Judas is unknown before Irenaeus. We find no mention of the arch betrayer in Justin or the Gospel of Peter.. In GPeter, each of the Twelve in grief retire to their respective homes after the death of Jesus. Thus no member of the Twelve could have been the betrayer. Yet in Mark, we find Judas front and center, even though the crucial scene indicates an
intermediate version in which the betrayer is nameless. And as RPrice has noted, why are the disciples the only ones explicitly said to possess and deploy weapons at the arrest of Jesus? Is this an indication of an even earlier version in which Jesus is captured by his own disciples?

In GMark, the only person who could vouch that Jesus was really dead was Joseph of Arimathea, another follower of Jesus who trumps the disciples! The disciples had all run away, and the women followers were at too great a distance to confirm the events.

Jake

J-D · 10-21-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

..... I see no reason to assume the gospel authors believed they were telling true stories about a historically real person.

There is no reason to assume anything.

But there are more reasons to think that these writers believed in an actual Jesus than that they didn't.

For starters, it seems very uncommon, if not unique, to write about a recent figure in that way (ie. with the writer not believing in his existence), particularly the writer's own supposed religious leader/founder. Can you think of another example?

Hi Archibald,

I thought I had offered before the example of Dionysus in the Bacchae by Euripides.

History or Allegory?

But let's examine the logic of the "belief" of the evangelists as evidence of a Historical Jesus. There is another possibility, What if the gospel of Mark is an allegory presented (in some respects) as a play like the afore mentioned Bacchae, with the public story revealing Gnostic truth, but in a concealed manner? The entire gospel can be read as a parable, "But to those outside everything comes in parables, so that 'they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand, in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven.'" Mark 4.

In that case, the gospel of Mark (or rather proto-mark) was the outer teachings of the author's Gnostic school, with the inner teachings being withheld for advanced initiates. {A quick example: neither mark nor the other gosples actually reveal what happened inside the tomb at the "resurrection. " The young man, who is not an angel but the narrator, is a Gnostic teacher. This mystery is reserved for higher order initiates}.

But there is a huge Black Hole in Christian history.

The New Testament texts contain a great deal of detail concerning the first few decades of Christianity. From the Virgin Birth of Jesus to the journeys of the Apostle Paul while under arrest to Rome, we find the marvelous tales of St. Jesus and his Spirit filled followers.

With the possible exception of the book of Revelation, the New Testament concerns itself only with the alleged events before the destruction of Jerusalem in the Roman-Jewish war of 66-70 CE. After that, we find an awkward silence that lasts over a generation before the emergence of the second century Apologists and Church Fathers.

Who were the Church's leaders during these tumultuous times? Scarcely more than names on a list of otherwise anonymous people. What do we know of Linus? Nothing.

What do we know of Clement? If he did anything, it didn't include authoring the stupefying tract known as 1 Clement; that attribution doesn't occur until the late second century.

There is a black hole in the middle of Christian history during the later third of the first century CE, and perhaps (depending on one's dating of the epistles of Ignatius etc.) well into the second century.

The solution is quite simple. The origins of Christianity were retrojected into a past safely shrouded by the utter destruction of Jerusalem during the Roman-Jewish war. One could not visit the holy sites of the events of the Passion. One could not question the alleged community that witnessed of the founding events of the Christian faith. These places were all destroyed, the people dispersed, dead. Like Star Wars, these were events that happened long ago and far away; we have only the evangelists words that these things happened at all.

We find no history of the Christian church in the waning years of the first century CE because Christianity as we know it did not yet exist.

But someone will surely object to this conclusion. What about the Gospel according to Mark? What about the testimony of Papais?

As has been noted before, far too much peace and assurance has been wrested from the alleged testimony of Papias, which is at best third or fourth hand information.

The Gospel according to Mark, the earliest of the known Synoptic Gospels, is a very curious document. The Latinisms in it indicate that it was likely written (or redacted) by a Latin speaking author writing for a Roman audience. It is quite obvious that the gospel in its current form was not written from scratch by a single author. For example, the woman who anointed Jesus was to be forever remembered for her deed. But her name has been deleted from the extant version for what must have been a compelling reason.

The apostles and family of Jesus are disparaged as incompetent dunces, but they are surrounded but minor characters that know more than they do! Gnostics!?

The woman who anoints Jesus for death, the owner of the ass, the man carrying water, the owner of the upper room where Jesus and the Twelve took Passover, the young man at the tomb (not an angel); these all had more knowledge than the alleged family, disciples, and women who went to the tomb. This is a not so veiled attack on the churches that claimed
legitimacy from succession from these very same groups. This is all evidence of an originally Gnostic gospel that had been somewhat sanitized for the orthodox. No, GMark as we have it is very far from the first gospel. We are well into the second half of the second century before it achieves its final form.

The legend of Judas is unknown before Irenaeus. We find no mention of the arch betrayer in Justin or the Gospel of Peter.. In GPeter, each of the Twelve in grief retire to their respective homes after the death of Jesus. Thus no member of the Twelve could have been the betrayer. Yet in Mark, we find Judas front and center, even though the crucial scene indicates an
intermediate version in which the betrayer is nameless. And as RPrice has noted, why are the disciples the only ones explicitly said to possess and deploy weapons at the arrest of Jesus? Is this an indication of an even earlier version in which Jesus is captured by his own disciples?

In GMark, the only person who could vouch that Jesus was really dead was Joseph of Arimathea, another follower of Jesus who trumps the disciples! The disciples had all run away, and the women followers were at too great a distance to confirm the events.

Jake

The idea that the existing document shows signs of redaction seems to me to be in conflict with the idea of the entire document as a single parable. If the signs of redaction are visible in the document, the result should be a palimpsest, and a single parable might be one layer of that palimpsest but not the entire visibly redacted document.

arnoldo · 10-21-2011, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The solution is quite simple. The origins of Christianity were retrojected into a past safely shrouded by the utter destruction of Jerusalem during the Roman-Jewish war. One could not visit the holy sites of the events of the Passion. One could not question the alleged community that witnessed of the founding events of the Christian faith. These places were all destroyed, the people dispersed, dead. Like Star Wars, these were events that happened long ago and far away; we have only the evangelists words that these things happened at all.

Yup. I agree.
This huge gap in time between Jesus and the Gospels is a key point.

The gospels only appear around early-mid 2nd century - around the Bar Kochbar revolt.

That's a century and two wars with the Romans - Jerusalem had been reduced to knee-high rubble, the Temple was destroyed, Judea was erased from the map, many Jews had been killed, the rest dispersed.

The HJers like to claim that people would have complained that Jesus was not historical, because THEY had been there, and knew better.

But in reality - by the time the Gospels became widely known, (mid 2nd century or so,) there was no-one left from a century earlier to complain.

K.

Justin Martyr certainly felt no need to arduously argue for a historical Jesus in his writing entitled the First Apology.

Quote:

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.

Then again, Justin was allegedly writing to the Emperor of Rome who could've defeated his entire argument by simply responding that Jesus never existed.

Toto · 10-21-2011, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...

Then again, Justin was allegedly writing to the Emperor of Rome who could've defeated his entire argument by simply responding that Jesus never existed.

Do you think that Justin actually had the Emperor's ear? That the Emperor would have bothered to respond? That anyone would have known or cared whether Jesus existed more than a century before Justin wrote?

aa5874 · 10-21-2011, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...

Then again, Justin was allegedly writing to the Emperor of Rome who could've defeated his entire argument by simply responding that Jesus never existed.

Do you think that Justin actually had the Emperor's ear? That the Emperor would have bothered to respond? That anyone would have known or cared whether Jesus existed more than a century before Justin wrote?

Why was the Jewish war fought between the Jews and Romans?

It was the Expectation of a Jewish Messianic ruler that ELEVATED the War according to Josephus

A Jewish Messiah was the MOST SIGNIFICANT Jew and it MUST be expected that BOTH Jews and Romans would be highly interested in such a character a hundred years BEFORE Justin Martyr.

If nobody cared about a Jewish Messiah then why would the Church claim Paul preached Jesus Christ in MAJOR CITIES of the Roman Empire 100 years BEFORE Justin?

The mere FACT that it was in the mid 2nd century that people seem to care about Jesus Christ is a GOOD INDICATION when the Jesus story was REALLY INITIATED.

In the third quarter of the 2ND century Celsus wrote a book "True Discourse" and showed that he did care about the Jesus Christ character.

There was NO Jesus Christ and NO Jesus story in the 1st century that is most likely the reason why NON-APOLOGETIC sources seemed NOT to have cared when it was EXPECTED.

Paul supposedly claimed a Jewish Messiah was the END of the LAW and REMITTED the Sins of all by his resurrection and the JEWS did NOT care.

Paul supposedly claimed a JEWISH Messiah was Given a name ABOVE every name and that ALL on should BOW before the name of a Jew and the Romans did NOT Care.

But a hundred years later Celsus CARED.

No non-apologetic cared about Paul or the Pauline Jewish Messiah because BOTH did NOT exist.

Kapyong · 10-22-2011, 12:23 AM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Justin Martyr certainly felt no need to arduously argue for a historical Jesus in his writing entitled the First Apology.
...
Then again, Justin was allegedly writing to the Emperor of Rome who could've defeated his entire argument by simply responding that Jesus never existed.

How could the Emperor know that Jesus never existed?
Indeed - how could ANYONE know that Jesus never existed?

Who would be able to make such a negative claim ?

Only someone who lived in Jerusalem and knew everyone and everything there, and knew of all the events that happened during that period. Although admittedly it WAS a small town - I've seen estimates of 80,000 for Jerusalem in Jesus time.

Many of us would have lived in towns like that - 80,000 is not that small - twice the size of Bunbury or Geraldton.

If there was a claim that a holy man was causing a stir in such a town, especially if he preached fpr 1-3 years - there is indeed a good chance that you would hear about it - if it was true.

Conversely - if you had not heard of him, you may indeed be a little sceptical about him - because you would know of most of the interesting and unusual events and people that took place.

But -
the key piece of information usually overlooked is the TIME GAP.

The Gospels and their stories don't become known, even to CHRISTIANS, until early-mid 2nd century (I think Ignatius was forged around the 130s.)

Jerusalem was razed, Judea was erased, and many Jews were dead.

How could there be anyone left - after a century later, and 2 wars - who would have known everything, and everyone in Jerusalem from a century before ?

There could not.

Which is why HJers focus on the alleged authorship date of the Gospels, and push their date earlier and earlier. Apologists place G.Mark as early as 52.

But if G.Mark really was written that early - why did it take almost a century till any Christians knew about it ?

There is an obvious SILENCE about the Gospels till around Bar Kochbar in the 130s :

50s
Paul - NO Gospel mentions

60s
Hebrews - NO Gospel mentions

80s
Colossians - NO Gospel mentions
1 John - NO Gospel mentions
James - NO Gospel mentions

90s
Ephesians - NO Gospel mentions
2 Thess. - NO Gospel mentions
1 Peter - NO Gospel mentions
1 Clement - NO Gospel mentions
Revelation - NO Gospel mentions

100s
The Didakhe - NO Gospel mentions
Jude - NO Gospel mentions

110s
Barnabas - NO Gospel mentions

120s
2 John - NO Gospel mentions
3 John - NO Gospel mentions
G.Thomas - NO Gospel mentions

130s
Papias - mentions 2 writings, not called Gospels yet
2 Peter - NO Gospel mentions
The Pastorals - NO Gospel mentions
G.Peter - NO Gospel mentions
Ignatius - mentions a Gospel

140s
to Diognetus - NO Gospel mentions
Ep.Apostles - NO Gospel mentions
2 Clement - NO Gospel mentions
Aristides - calls the singular Gospel newly preached

The Gospels were unknown to Christians till around the 130s or so.

AND -
the Gospel STORIES were unknown to Christians similarly.

Christians learned about Jesus from the Gospel stories - not from any historical tradition. There are no claims to have met Jesus 1st hand. No-one insists THEY met Jesus.

Because Jesus started as a character in religious literature. Later mis-understood (no conspiracy) as historical.

K.

Doug Shaver · 10-22-2011, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Then again, Justin was allegedly writing to the Emperor of Rome who could've defeated his entire argument by simply responding that Jesus never existed.

You mean, if the emperor had denied Jesus' existence, Christians would have taken his word for it and Christianity would have ceased to exist?

arnoldo · 10-22-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Justin Martyr certainly felt no need to arduously argue for a historical Jesus in his writing entitled the First Apology.

Quote:

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.

Then again, Justin was allegedly writing to the Emperor of Rome who could've defeated his entire argument by simply responding that Jesus never existed.

You mean, if the emperor had denied Jesus' existence, Christians would have taken his word for it and Christianity would have ceased to exist?

Justin apparently felt no need to argue for the existence of Jesus which he presumably took that all sides took for granted. On the other hand, another Roman Emperor, named Justinian, does seem to argue for a fictional rather than a historical Jesus.

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth. Now since I intend to treat of all their first dogmas, as they call them, I wish to say in the first place that if my readers desire to try to refute me they must proceed as if they were in a court of law and not drag in irrelevant matter, or, as the saying is, bring counter-charges until they have defended their own views. For thus it will be better and clearer if, when they wish to censure any views of mine, they undertake that as a separate task, but when they are defending themselves against my censure, they bring no counter-charges.
Julian the Apostate, Against the Galileans:This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Toto · 10-22-2011, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

..

Justin apparently felt no need to argue for the existence of Jesus which he presumably took that all sides took for granted. On the other hand, another Roman Emperor, named Justinian, does seem to argue for a fictional rather than a historical Jesus.
...

Stop this misrepresentation !!!

The emperor is Julian, not Justinian. Julian did believe in a historical Jesus - a mere man who was crucified and did not rise from the dead.

Pete has tried to interpret that passage as supporting his views that all of Christianity was forged in the 4th century, but it does not. "fabrication of the Galilaeans" refers to the resurrection, not the existence of Jesus. Read further in what Julian wrote, and this will be clear.

J-D · 10-22-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...

Then again, Justin was allegedly writing to the Emperor of Rome who could've defeated his entire argument by simply responding that Jesus never existed.

Do you think that Justin actually had the Emperor's ear? That the Emperor would have bothered to respond? That anyone would have known or cared whether Jesus existed more than a century before Justin wrote?

Why was the Jewish war fought between the Jews and Romans?

It was the Expectation of a Jewish Messianic ruler that ELEVATED the War according to Josephus

A Jewish Messiah was the MOST SIGNIFICANT Jew and it MUST be expected that BOTH Jews and Romans would be highly interested in such a character a hundred years BEFORE Justin Martyr.

If nobody cared about a Jewish Messiah then why would the Church claim Paul preached Jesus Christ in MAJOR CITIES of the Roman Empire 100 years BEFORE Justin?

The mere FACT that it was in the mid 2nd century that people seem to care about Jesus Christ is a GOOD INDICATION when the Jesus story was REALLY INITIATED.

In the third quarter of the 2ND century Celsus wrote a book "True Discourse" and showed that he did care about the Jesus Christ character.

There was NO Jesus Christ and NO Jesus story in the 1st century that is most likely the reason why NON-APOLOGETIC sources seemed NOT to have cared when it was EXPECTED.

Paul supposedly claimed a Jewish Messiah was the END of the LAW and REMITTED the Sins of all by his resurrection and the JEWS did NOT care.

Paul supposedly claimed a JEWISH Messiah was Given a name ABOVE every name and that ALL on should BOW before the name of a Jew and the Romans did NOT Care.

But a hundred years later Celsus CARED.

No non-apologetic cared about Paul or the Pauline Jewish Messiah because BOTH did NOT exist.

Josephus mentions by name a number of individual claimed messiahs who attempted to lead revolts against the Romans, but none of them are corroborated by surviving Roman sources; there is no reason to expect that Jewish messianic claimants would be mentioned by surviving Roman sources, and the absence of reference to them in surviving Roman sources demonstrates nothing.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.