Jane H

Yes, I'm up for that. We have the critical tools for this sort of thing, and the aforementioned Mr Ehrman and I use basically the same ones. We often come to the same conclusions using them, with the notion that Jesus had a basically apocalyptic message being a common example.

The issue of how far the Gospels can be trusted is obviously a contended issue. This (mod note: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (or via: amazon.co.uk)) is worth a read from a Xian perspective. In a mustard seed, the details may be hazy but the main ideas are nailed on.

You're mixing several quite different categories up here. Mithras is a legend, Aboneuticus I don't know about, but then Google doesn't either- is there much more to it than generic nature worship? People don't need a religious component to take drugs, although it might keep the prices down. Transubstantiation is a theory based on exegesis.

And none of these are reported eyewitness testimony.

Furthermore, the New Covenant ideas specifically went against the spectrum of C1 Jewish beliefs. The idea of a Messiah wasn't invented ex nihilo, but the Christian idea was very different to what was expected. It's one thing to sign up for a cult because of the real possibility of horizontal action (with a big “whateve'er” to the legend in consideration). It's quite another to radically change your core beliefs on religious praxis, racial uniqueness and national calling because of an undeniable personal experience.

There is, indeed, a real discussion about what the disciples saw, for another time. That the disciples genuinely believed a massively powerful series of events had occurred seems pretty obvious to me. It's what gave them the kinetic to spread as necessary truth “a stumbling block to Jews”.

Or raisins. They might be raisins.

Jane H

With apologies.



Refers to:


THE MAD PROPHET SKETCH

Customer: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

O: We're closin' for lunch.

C: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this prophet what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

O: Oh yes, the, uh Jesus...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

C: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's mad, that's what's wrong with it!

O: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's got a new analysis of the Jewish meta-narrative.

C: Look, matey, I know a mad prophet when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

O: Nononono, no, no! 'E's reframing the Covenant!

C: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That prophet is definitely mad, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of sense was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged preach.

O: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for his place in the heavenly realm.

C: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's

nutty as a fruitcake, off his rocker, crazy as a loon, bananas, potty, gaga, had a screw loose, had bats in the belfry, a few cards short of a full deck, three french fries short of a happy meal, his antenna didn't pick up all the channels, a few clowns short of a circus, his train of thought was still boarding at the station, knitting with one needle, wheel is turning but the hamster is dead, lights are on but nobodies at home, didn't have both oars in the water, a box of Cracker Jack with no prize, a few feathers short of a whole duck, skylight leaked a little, reading off an empty disk, mouth is in gear but brain is in neutral, had nothing between the stethoscopes, the cheese had slid off his cracker, all booster - no payload, and his little red choo-choo's gone chugging 'round the bend...

O: Well, I'd better replace it, then.

(he takes a quick peek behind the counter)

O: Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of prophets.

C: I see. I see, I get the picture.

O: I got a slug.

(pause)

C: (sweet as sugar) Pray, does it talk?

O: Nnnnot really.

C: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Jane H,

You nailed it. Your being from the UK did have me thinking of the Dead Parrot Sketch. The rant was meant to be spoken in John Cleese' tone of voice.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

spin

I gather then that you'll be using secondary sources such as the gospels.

When conclusions are assumed as is found with what is usually mustered for evidence for Jesus, then one doesn't get to say much.

Not when you look at the believers rather than what is believed. The believing is the issue that you were laboring.

Try: Alexander of Abonoteichus. (Spelling varies.)

Read Julian of Samosata's analysis.

Worship of Dionysus wasn't about the drugs. The drugs just allowed self-mutilation and other signs of faithful reverence.

...That people believe.

No, they are all outrageous beliefs. See the similarity? You can't help being naughty and god sent the law to help, but it didn't, meaning you have to die, so he sent his son to die in your place because god couldn't just send functional laws or change his mind or know what he was doing in the first place. (I.e. outrageous belief.)

The gospels are text. And there is no apparent eyewitness testimony in them. But you have developing traditions. Texts getting rewritten and added to time and again.

Get over this "New Covenant" propaganda. It's insulting to Jews. Try plain old "Christian" ideas.

And nothing to do with a messiah in any respect. No military leader. No battle and victory over the nations. No raising of the Jews to hegemony. Paul's idea was of a savior, which he wrongly called a messiah, and christianity span the rest through the notion of deferment.

Will it jump from text into history? I doubt it.

It sounds like you are trying to convert text into history. As I said, "Conviction doesn't reify".

:huh:

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spin,

Good points.

The susceptibility of modern people to follow and promote bizarre and fantastic programs and our knowledge that ancient peoples did so regularly 2,000 years ago should be enough to counter the argument that people suddenly following a program 2,000 years ago gives that program historical legitimacy. However, I think before getting to this point, and needing to use this argument, we have to determine what is actually known about the disciples of Jesus. Do we really know that the resurrection changed their lives? Does the text actually indicate that?

As you correctly point out, I am here considering the Jesus character as a character in a text. The relationship of the character to any historical personage or personages is extremely problematical

I would take the disciples in the same way. They are characters in the text of different stories and how and if they relate to any historical characters is just as problematic.

In considering these characters, we should be careful about going beyond the text in declaring why they did or did not do somethings. The idea that the resurrection of Jesus had a profound effect upon them is not supported by the text. That they all went around preaching the gospel and suffering and dying after encountering the resurrected Jesus comes from text far removed from the New Testament, written hundreds of years later and does not represent any known historical facts or represent the facts in the early texts.

The actual texts from the New Testament are much more ambiguous about how and why the disciples change or if they change. The gospels show the disciples as certainly doubtful about Jesus during his Earthly episodes and still doubtful after the resurrection.

We should note that the four gospels are in agreement that all the disciples ran away when Jesus was arrested. One would not expect such an action if they really believed he was the Messiah, the son of God, or even a very good teacher or group leader. An alternative view would be that they believed, but they were extreme cowards.

Did the resurrection of Jesus change them into hard core believers in Jesus and his worldview? The text does not say so.

The ending of Matthew says:

The ending of Luke emphasizes that not just some, but they all didn't believe.
...
So in Matthew, they see him on a Mountain in Galilee and some still disbelieved. In Luke, directly contradicting Matthew, they see him in Jerusalem and are startled and frightened and think they see a ghost. He tells them to stay in the city and they'll get magical powers -- "powers from on high."

The original ending of Mark just has Mary Magdalene and Mary, mother of James and Salome, too afraid to tell the disciples about Jesus, so they never hear about the resurrection. In the longer, later ending, they hear and again disbelieve:

Mark tells us that they didn't believe any of the other witnesses. He does not tell us if they believed Jesus when he appeared before him.

So here is the tally so far:

Matthew: Some believed, some didn't believe in the resurrection after seeing him.
Luke: they all believed that they saw a ghost. We do not know if Jesus convinced them he wasn't a ghost.
Mark: They didn't believe prior witnesses. There is no indication if they believed in the resurrection after seeing him.

John is the most confusing account, continually casting doubt on the resurrection itself.
We can assume that they didn't believe and after he showed them his hands and his side they did believe. However, there apparently were only ten disciples there, because we soon learn:

So, apparently Thomas did not even believe in the resurrection of Jesus even after hearing the ten other disciples tell him. Jesus has to put in another appearance:

Since all the disciples required that they see Jesus' wounds before believing, we may assume that none of the disciples were "blessed" for "not seeing and yet believing."

One would imagine that two visits would be enough for the disciples but we soon find that at least seven are having problems believing when Jesus appears for a third time.
It is hard to say why the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. It might be that he was in a different form. This seems to be the indication from the text, "Now none of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord."

Because they were too frightened to ask "Who are you?," we must wonder why they were frightened on this third appearance. The text suggests perhaps that he was a ghost or ghostly apparition, at least in this appearance.

After breakfast with the disciples, Jesus talks to Peter.

This seems to indicate that the Ghostly Jesus is leading Peter away to his death. Another disciple wants to follow Peter to his death. Jesus tells the disciple to stay behind. Because he says this, the disciple gets a reputation for being immortal. This only makes sense if we consider Jesus as the grim-reaper, leading people to their death. The disciple sees Jesus, tries to follow him to Hades, but Jesus doesn't take him. He has only come for Peter.

This "Resurrection-Death of Peter Tale" seems to indicate that the apostles and especially Peter did not preach anything after seeing Jesus, but simply resumed their old lives as Galilee fishermen until the Ghost of Jesus came for Peter.

In general, we can say that the gospel tales do not tell us what happened to the disciples or what effect it had on their lives. They do tell us that some or all were skeptical about the resurrection.

Thus we have to rely on "Acts" to tell us how the resurrection changed the lives of the apostles. The description of Acts is that he was with all the eleven disciples for 40 days in Jerusalem. This seems completely different from the four gospel post-resurrection stories of the Gospels. This is certainly different from Matthew and John where some of the post-resurrection appearances don't even happen in Jerusalem.

If the gospels don't really tell us what happens to the apostles or how the resurrection appearances affected their lives, Acts is quite specific. After Jesus is taken up to heaven on the 40th day on Mount Olivet, the disciples returned to Jerusalem and they "went to the upper room where they all were staying, and (1.14) "They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers."

So, we have these eleven apostles, plus the Virgin Mary, plus at least two brothers of Jesus, plus at least two other women living together in one upper room in Jerusalem. That is at least 16 people sharing one room, if we assume Jesus only had two brothers and there are only two "women" that they are talking about.

Peter announces the death of Judas:
One would think that this would be disturbing news since Judas "was counted among us and received his share in this ministry." After all, didn't Jesus say that the lost sheep were the most important ones to save, and this lost sheep had apparently just exploded. But the only reaction of the apostles is the need to replace him among the twelve:

This is strange because the text told us that Jesus appeared to the disciples and we assumed that it was the eleven disciples. It now appears that Jesus was actually appearing to more than the eleven, at least two more, Joseph and Mattias. Otherwise, how could they be witnesses to the resurrection if they had not seen the resurrection? Or does this indicate that you are allowed to say you are a witness to the resurrection even if you did not see the resurrection? But if there were more witnesses than the eleven, then shouldn't Jesus have said something different about the Holy Ghost to the witnesses besides the eleven? He should have said, you eleven and one more will be baptized by the Holy Ghost, but there is no indication in the text that Jesus was speaking to anybody but the eleven.

After the election, on the Pentecost, 50th day from Passover and Jesus' death, the Holy Ghost comes and gives the apostles magical powers. Since Jesus appears for the first time after his death on the third day and flies off to heaven 40 days later, presumably the 42nd or 43rd day after his death, that means that the Holy Ghost came about a week after Jesus flew off and gave the Apostles magical powers.

My argument is that text does not tell us that the resurrection transformed the lives of the apostles in any significant way. The text indicates it was the magical powers that they received from the Holy Ghost that changed them. In fact, the text seems to indicate that the only reason for the resurrection of Jesus was for Jesus to tell them to hang out in Jerusalem until the Holy Ghost came to give them magical powers. He tells them nothing else in forty days or at least the text does not tell us he said anything else. One wonders why he needed to bother with the whole resurrection trick. Wouldn't a small written will asking the Apostles to stay together have done the trick just as well?

Now, we know that Jesus had already given the Apostles magical powers to heal the sick and bring back the dead to life in the gospels. However, one has to assume that these magical powers faded or failed shortly thereafter. Otherwise, we could have expected them to use their magical powers to bring Jesus back to life.

Since the text does not tell us that the resurrection of Jesus changed their lives, we cannot assume that it was a life-changing experience for the disciple characters. Instead, we have to assume it was the magical powers given by the Holy Ghost that changed their lives.


The argument that the disciples changed because of the resurrection appearance can be compared to an argument that Mina Murray was changed into a vampire by seeing the resurrected Count Dracula. Many people saw the resurrected Count Dracula. Clearly, it was the fact that Dracula fed Mina his blood after drinking hers that turned her into a vampire or at least a semi-vampire.

At best, we may assume that the resurrection appearance described in "Acts" caused the disciples to live together for a week in a room with the Virgin Mary, some brothers of Jesus and some women. The Holy Ghost zapping them really seems to have been the life-changer. But the Holy Ghost could have baptized them at anytime without the resurrection appearance of Jesus. It really makes the whole "It's me, I'm not a ghost" thing seem a real waste of time and energy -- "Special Effects for Special Effects" sake. Isn't that what has ruined Hollywood and the Broadway version of "Spiderman?"

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Vivisector

Very enjoyable thread, appreciate the comments very much. All is very consistent with my own hypothesis (or is it proper to term it an "observation?") that the earliest form of Christianity (as near as it's possible to tell) has been almost totally hijacked by the very wealthy. Almost never in all the time I was a churchgoer did I hear a minister discuss topics such as the camel through the eye of the needle, giving without expectation of repayment, turning the other cheek, or the communal living of Acts, and never without astonishing exegetical gymnastics. I'm not sure when this began, perhaps in earnest during the reign of (cringe) Constantine, but it seems essentially complete now. Maybe there's a wealth tie to Jesus as the sanctioner of killing and destruction (apart from Revelation), since it seems not to be the downtrodden and dispossessed who take nations to war and presumably benefit from either the outcome, the process or both.

Especially appreciated the comments about Christians and anti-Christians - how rich would it be if the anti-Christians were closer in outlook to the early Christians? Gotta enjoy watching the wheel of history turn.

Cheers,

V

Toto

Stuff Fundies Like on Biblical Authority

mountainman

But, it is an undisputed historical fact there was an epoch when the pastor was the Emperor.