Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 08-18-2010, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziffel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underseer

That one is easy to answer since Biblical literalism is a fairly modern phenomenon.

That's not the literalism I'm referring to. The Gnostics believed Jesus wasn't a literal person. From wiki: [to the Gnostic] "scripture has a deep, hidden meaning whose true message could only be understood through “secret wisdom”; and Jesus was a spirit that “seemed” to be human.

Just a nitpick: The Wiki article appears to be wrong, at least as stated. Docetists believed that Jesus was a spirit that seemed human. Gnostics had varying beliefs, but most appeared to believe that Jesus himself was a man, in whom Christ dwelt as almost a separate entity. Even if docetism is considered part of Gnosticism, the statement "The Gnostics believed Jesus wasn't a literal person" is not correct. Most appeared to believe that Jesus was a literal person.

aa5874 · 08-18-2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziffel

That's not the literalism I'm referring to. The Gnostics believed Jesus wasn't a literal person. From wiki: [to the Gnostic] "scripture has a deep, hidden meaning whose true message could only be understood through “secret wisdom”; and Jesus was a spirit that “seemed” to be human.

Just a nitpick: The Wiki article appears to be wrong, at least as stated. Docetists believed that Jesus was a spirit that seemed human. Gnostics had varying beliefs, but most appeared to believe that Jesus himself was a man, in whom Christ dwelt as almost a separate entity. Even if docetism is considered part of Gnosticism, the statement "The Gnostics believed Jesus wasn't a literal person" is not correct. Most appeared to believe that Jesus was a literal person.

Please name the source of antiquity which clearly state or give a list of the Gnostics who believed Jesus was a literal person, that is, he had an earthly father.

Please name the number of Gnostics that you know believed Jesus was a God/man.

aa5874 · 08-18-2010, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Davka,

I like the phrase "made out of whole cloth". The Jesus stories do not come from whole cloth, but from many bits and pieces of cloth which has been torn and cut from other cloths. For example, the claim that Jesus went to Egypt as a child is ripped from the cloth of Moses being raised in Egypt as a child...

The Jesus story is essentially from "whole cloth" since it is fundamentally fiction.

There is simply no non-apologetic evidence that there was a character who was a Messiah of the Jews called Jesus who did anything as stated in the NT and Church writings.

It is simply of no real value to talk about "trivial historicity" since hundreds if not thousands would qualify to be an "historical Jesus".

Every male who was baptized by John would be qualified to be a "trivial historical Jesus" of the NT.

Any male who claimed they were tempted by the Devil would be qualified to be a " trivial historical Jesus".

Any male who had followers would qualify to be a "trivial historical Jesus"

Any male who claimed to have performed miralcles, any male was crucified would be qualified to be a "trivial historical Jesus".

The "trivial historical Jesus" is endless or a case of futilty.

The Jesus of the NT was fabricated and invented from "whole cloth" since there was no character at all who was fundamentally like Jesus, REAL OR FICTION, born of a Ghost of God and a woman, whose resurrection was for the REMISSION of the sins of ALL mankind.

PhilosopherJay · 08-18-2010, 09:46 PM

Hi aa5874,

I think that the concept of a "trivial historical Jesus" is important. There are constant arguments made that because this or that historical person bears this or that trait that is included in one or another gospel stories that Jesus is likely based on an historical person. I would not deny the similarity, but I would say that at best it makes for a trivial historical Jesus.

For example, there's Jesus Ben Ananias.Josephus tells us (Wars: 6.5.3):

Quote:

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, 23 began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

It is possible that this was a model for some actions of the Jesus character in the gospels. For example, note Matthew has Jesus say

Quote:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Both Jesus Ben Ananias and Jesus of Nazareth predict the downfall of Jerusalem in prophetic tones.

I would label Jesus Ben Ananias not as the historical Jesus, but as a trivial historical Jesus. The gospel writers might very well have taken a bit of his sayings and stories from/about him and included it in the gospels. This only makes Jesus historical in a trivial sense.

In the same way, Jerry Siegel based the character of Superman on the movie screen personae of Douglas Fairbanks and Errol Flynn. This does not make Superman an historical character or Fairbanks or Flynn the historical Superman. It just means that in a trivial (unimportant) way Superman is historical and in a trivial sense, Fairbanks and Flynn are historical models for Superman.

It raises the bar for those claiming an historical Jesus. It demands that they produce evidence not for a trivial historical Jesus, but for a strongly historical Jesus. That is something no historical Jesus hypothesis has done. Until they do, we are left with a mythological Jesus and some evidence for some trivially historical Jesuses.

This leaves Jesus much closer to the universe of Harry Potter and Peter Parker than to us historical humans.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Davka,

I like the phrase "made out of whole cloth". The Jesus stories do not come from whole cloth, but from many bits and pieces of cloth which has been torn and cut from other cloths. For example, the claim that Jesus went to Egypt as a child is ripped from the cloth of Moses being raised in Egypt as a child...

The Jesus story is essentially from "whole cloth" since it is fundamentally fiction.

There is simply no non-apologetic evidence that there was a character who was a Messiah of the Jews called Jesus who did anything as stated in the NT and Church writings.

It is simply of no real value to talk about "trivial historicity" since hundreds if not thousands would qualify to be an "historical Jesus".

Every male who was baptized by John would be qualified to be a "trivial historical Jesus" of the NT.

Any male who claimed they were tempted by the Devil would be qualified to be a " trivial historical Jesus".

Any male who had followers would qualify to be a "trivial historical Jesus"

Any male who claimed to have performed miralcles, any male was crucified would be qualified to be a "trivial historical Jesus".

The "trivial historical Jesus" is endless or a case of futilty.

The Jesus of the NT was fabricated and invented from "whole cloth" since there was no character at all who was fundamentally like Jesus, REAL OR FICTION, born of a Ghost of God and a woman, whose resurrection was for the REMISSION of the sins of ALL mankind.

aa5874 · 08-18-2010, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

I think that the concept of a "trivial historical Jesus" is important. There are constant arguments made that because this or that historical person bears this or that trait that is included in one or another gospel stories that Jesus is likely based on an historical person. I would not deny the similarity, but I would say that at best it makes for a trivial historical Jesus.

I find the "trivial historical Jesus" a rather useless concept. Thousands of males in antiquity may qualify to be a "trivial historical Jesus".

The first anonymous Jesus story was most likely made from "whole cloth", that is, the invention called Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth offspring of a Holy Ghost of God was original. There was no similar concept of a Jewish Messiah as the offspring of a Ghost of God who was executed as a blasphemer by the very Jews, was RAISED from the dead after the third day and then coming in the clouds sitting or standing on the right hand of POWER.

The Messianic offspring of the Ghost of God appeared to be a brilliant new concept using Hebrew Scripture, the writings of Josephus, and Pagan myths to create a believable God/man that has eventually DUPED almost the whole world.

But it should be noted that the original Jesus story was a failure when the Holy Ghost Jesus FAILED to come in the clouds sitting or standing on the right hand of Power. It would appear that the author of gJohn revived the FAILED Jesus.

Wiploc · 08-18-2010, 10:37 PM

I suspect that the Jesus myth grew from stories about a real person.

For reasons I won't go into, the story of Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem doesn't make sense; it's obviously bogus. The only reason I can think of for adding such a transparent falsehood to the Jesus myth is this:

Suppose people knew Jesus was from Galilee. Suppose further that people expected the savior to come from Bethlehem. Then some story had to be invented, no matter how weak, to make a guy from Galilee also be from Bethlehem. Hence, the census tale.

Now I recognize that this is a weak theory. I don't hold it dogmatically. But, for me, it was enough to move me from the slight presumption that Jesus is pure myth to the very very lightly held belief that the myth was based on an actual person. If he didn't really come from Galilee, the myth could have just had him come from Bethlehem.

I mentioned my theory to a guy who studies ancient history, and he said there are lots of other similar reasons for believing that the Jesus myth had a real-world seed.

aa5874 · 08-19-2010, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiploc

I suspect that the Jesus myth grew from stories about a real person...

How can you have suspicion without evidence? Why do you suspect that the Jesus story grew from a real person or one real person? Why not two or three, four....or more?

Why not from Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint, the writings of Josephus and Roman Greek mythology?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiploc

...For reasons I won't go into, the story of Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem doesn't make sense; it's obviously bogus...

So, you start by discrediting the sources of antiquity that mention Jesus. The sources contain information that is obviously bogus so why is the story not bogus.

Why not suspect the Jesus story is bogus since you cannot show that anything in the story is NOT bogus?

Please state what you know is NOT bogus in any Jesus story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiploc

...The only reason I can think of for adding such a transparent falsehood to the Jesus myth is this:

Suppose people knew Jesus was from Galilee. Suppose further that people expected the savior to come from Bethlehem....

Now, suppose no-one ever heard of Jesus or expected Jesus was to come from Bethlehem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiploc

... Then some story had to be invented, no matter how weak, to make a guy from Galilee also be from Bethlehem. Hence, the census tale....

But, the Jesus story was invented long AFTER Jesus was supposedly dead perhaps up to 70 years.

Who was supposed to KNOW Jesus was born in Bethlehem when in the story of gMatthew no one, not even the King Herod, knew where Jesus was born?

Jesus was supposedly born in a manger in Bethlehem, then Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt and went to live in Nazareth.

In the gMatthew story, neither Joseph nor Mary told anyone about the manger when they returned from Egypt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiploc

...Now I recognize that this is a weak theory. I don't hold it dogmatically. But, for me, it was enough to move me from the slight presumption that Jesus is pure myth to the very very lightly held belief that the myth was based on an actual person. If he didn't really come from Galilee, the myth could have just had him come from Bethlehem.

Well, look at this.

1.If Jesus did NOT walk on water why did they make him walk on water? It is because he WALKED on water.

2.If Jesus did not transfigure why did they make him transfigure? It is because Jesus really did transfigure.

3. If Jesus did not raise Lazarus from the dead why did they make him raise Lazarus from the dead? It is because he did raise Lazarus from the dead.

4. If Jesus was NOT raised from the dead why they make him resurrect? It is because he resurrected.

Why do you gravitate to a weak theory? The myth theory is far stronger and need less ad hoc explanations.

Jesus was just an invented story written decades after the time of Pilate and was believed to be true by the DUPED.

Joseph Smith DUPED people. An anonymous writer DUPED people with his Jesus Messiah that would save people from the AWESOME conflagration when heaven and earth would pass away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiploc

...I mentioned my theory to a guy who studies ancient history, and he said there are lots of other similar reasons for believing that the Jesus myth had a real-world seed.

You mean you mentioned your supposition?

There are billions of people who believe Jesus was a God/man.

And they ask a similar question and answer it without evidence.

If Jesus did NOT exist as a God/man why did they claim he existed as a God/man? It is because he was a God/man.

But, a God/man is a MYTH.

Billions of people don't SUSPECT a God/man is a MYTH.

Wiploc · 08-19-2010, 01:00 AM

I'm not sure which side you're on, but I can tell you're excited.

dog-on · 08-19-2010, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiploc

I suspect that the Jesus myth grew from stories about a real person.

For reasons I won't go into, the story of Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem doesn't make sense; it's obviously bogus. The only reason I can think of for adding such a transparent falsehood to the Jesus myth is this:

Suppose people knew Jesus was from Galilee. Suppose further that people expected the savior to come from Bethlehem. Then some story had to be invented, no matter how weak, to make a guy from Galilee also be from Bethlehem. Hence, the census tale.

Now I recognize that this is a weak theory. I don't hold it dogmatically. But, for me, it was enough to move me from the slight presumption that Jesus is pure myth to the very very lightly held belief that the myth was based on an actual person. If he didn't really come from Galilee, the myth could have just had him come from Bethlehem.

I mentioned my theory to a guy who studies ancient history, and he said there are lots of other similar reasons for believing that the Jesus myth had a real-world seed.

Ummm, what does Mark say about Bethlehem?

Wiploc · 08-19-2010, 01:34 AM

Dunno. Haven't read the bible. Like I said, it's a lightly held belief.

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

08-18-2010, 10:37 PM	#26
Wiploc Contributor Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Alaska! Posts: 14,058	I suspect that the Jesus myth grew from stories about a real person. For reasons I won't go into, the story of Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem doesn't make sense; it's obviously bogus. The only reason I can think of for adding such a transparent falsehood to the Jesus myth is this: Suppose people knew Jesus was from Galilee. Suppose further that people expected the savior to come from Bethlehem. Then some story had to be invented, no matter how weak, to make a guy from Galilee also be from Bethlehem. Hence, the census tale. Now I recognize that this is a weak theory. I don't hold it dogmatically. But, for me, it was enough to move me from the slight presumption that Jesus is pure myth to the very very lightly held belief that the myth was based on an actual person. If he didn't really come from Galilee, the myth could have just had him come from Bethlehem. I mentioned my theory to a guy who studies ancient history, and he said there are lots of other similar reasons for believing that the Jesus myth had a real-world seed.

08-19-2010, 01:00 AM	#28
Wiploc Contributor Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Alaska! Posts: 14,058	I'm not sure which side you're on, but I can tell you're excited.

08-19-2010, 01:34 AM	#30
Wiploc Contributor Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Alaska! Posts: 14,058	Dunno. Haven't read the bible. Like I said, it's a lightly held belief.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.