Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 05-21-2004, 08:01 PM

""""""""""""""""""A few problems here from a plausibility standpoint:

1) "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her." Regrettably, the woman's name had already been forgotten by the time the story was written.""""""""""""""""""""""""

First of all, this does not matter in regards to what I posted about Mark and "total failures". In Mark (historically implausible or not) everyone does not fail as this unnamed woman understands and annoints Jesus. It also has not been shown that the woman do not leave the tomb in holy fear silent (just as the textual home of the messianic secret had commanded so many others).

John has the same account and gives the woman a name. Just an fyi. I do not think John actually knew the woman's name. He took over a story and added details. I doubt this story is historical either.

At any rate, views on the ending of Mark have been legion. After I evaluated some of them in a wuick fashion above, do not many of the thoeries have problems and make tenuous leaps in logic just like my Jesus was gay paper?

We assume the women were frightend and ran away silent, not that they had "holy fear and awe" and "finally obeyed Jesus about silence" in this home of the messianic secret and "riddles" which themselves are subject to different and competing explanations.

Vinnie

Toto · 05-21-2004, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

. . . .

For example, Toto writes that the norm is marraige (I agree and said so in the article). But I would counter that the norm was a) not for a man to start up a religious movement, b) not for a man to leave his job and work, c) not for a man to leave family life for an itinerant lifestyle, d) not for a man to do and say certain things that led (directly or indirectly) to his crucifixion, e) it was not normal for a man to have open table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners, f-g) for a man to be as accepting of women and children, and on and on and on.

Very little about Jesus allows him to be classified according to "typical" statistics.

You miss the point. All of those non-normal characteristics of Jesus are mentioned. But his marital status is not mentioned. Ranke-Heinemann's point is that if Jesus had been unmarried, it would have been mentioned along with hanging out with publicans and tax collectors.

Quote:

Moving on, that Jesus was not accused of not having a wife is irrelevant. There is a celibacy saying and also the church only tended to retain material that was useful to it (e.g. the sabbath controversy and so on).

What celibacy saying?

Quote:

But we must also note that Jesus was rejected by his hometown (I do not think this is Markan invention).

Why not?

Quote:

They would have known he did not lead a traditional life better than anyone. The fact that we know Jesus did all the things above shows he was "shamed" in an honor and shame society. His homoetown would have reacted to him in that way. That is simply factual with or without Mark's statement.

What facts are there?

Quote:

Also, the silence of any mention whatsoever of a wife anywhere in any text to me is more indicative of Jesus lacking a wife than is the silence of a "direct accusation that he didn't". How do we settle this issue?

You are the one who thinks that some historical core can be extracted from the gospels, not me.

Quote:

But notice Toto's point:

"""""""Ranke-Heinemann's theory is that marriage was the norm for a Jewish male, that it was a requirement for each Jewish male to get married shortly after puberty and start a family; and that if Jesus had not been married, that fact would have been so remarkable that we would have heard about it. Since we have no indication of his marital status, the default is that he was married. Every other Jewish prophet seems to have married, and Jesus did not preach asceticism like John the Baptist.""""""""

To throw a monkey wrench in we note that most believe Jesus started his "ministry" later in life. Did he have a homelife before this? Or do the Gospels simply falsely invent a short ministry? How do we tell?

See above. We cannot tell.

Quote:

We must also remember that Jesus WAS a follower of JBap under most reconstructions and then broke away. If John taught asceticism and Jesus was originally a disciple of John then abracadabra the rabbit comes out of the hat.

John was an ascetic, but Jesus ate and drank, as we know from one short section. Why assume that Jesus retained only that one part of JBap's message?

Quote:

Lets look at Toto's next point:

Quote:

My own theory is that the lack of references to Jesus' marriage and/or sexuality are further indications that he was not a historical person. If you look at every other cult leader or founder of a new religion, leaders have and use a lot of sexual energy. (The major exception I can think of is the Heaven's Gate cult, which followed Origen's example of turning themselves into eunuchs.) Most cult leaders in the US recently and throughout history have had either multiple wives or some sexual scandal involving their followers, male or female. It is hard to imagine that if Jesus had the following that the gospels allege, that he didn't have women throwing themselves at him, that he wouldn't have taken one as a wife.

How is this even credible in light of what's been posted? This is a perfect example of tenuous leaps of logic. Why is this any more credible than me pulling a gay Jesus out of the texts that I did?

This is speculation based on the proposition that early Christianity was like other new religions, and that some insight can be gained by studying traits that are common to new religiious movements. Rodney Stark wrote a few books about it.

Quote:

Also if we mention that many third questers posit an apocalyptic Jesus who believed in an imminent end and soon world-altering intervention by God his celibacy would be all the more credible.

Toto writes this: "If you look at every other cult leader or founder of a new religion, leaders have and use a lot of sexual energy. "

Hell, maybe Jesus was gay then and had lots of gay sex. That we have no objections ot this practice is irrelevant as Jesus need not have broadcasted it. We know nil in regards to everyday routines of Jesus and what his personal life was actually like. Toto is making all sorts of leaps.

His inferring the non-existence of Jesus on this basis is no more and possible far less rational than my arguments for a "gay Jesus".

. . .

As I said, I am not the one who claims that any history can be known about Jesus.

Vinnie · 05-21-2004, 10:20 PM

""""""""John was an ascetic, but Jesus ate and drank, as we know from one short section. Why assume that Jesus retained only that one part of JBap's message?"""""""

This is a non-issue. Jesus developed his OWN ministry AFTER JBap was killed. Many find indications he broke from it. In fact, these charges about fasting probably start from Jesus' table-fellowship. When that started is anyone's guess.

So there is no evidence that Jesus "ate and drank" to the point of being charged as out of line while a disciple of John's. Tere is also no indication he didn't outside of the notion of him being one of John's disciples and probably likely to uphold his general practices.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 05-21-2004, 10:24 PM

"""""""You are the one who thinks that some historical core can be extracted from the gospels, not me.""""""""

Based upon my analysis of how the Gospel material developed which I outlined in my paper on Mark, the premarcan traditions found also attested in Q, Thomas and other places and so on, I believe a core in spots can be detected. I use a very strict methodology and I am an uber-minimalist.

"""""As I said, I am not the one who claims that any history can be known about Jesus.""""""""""

Except for "non-historicity" which is as much a positive statement as is "historicity" as you framed it. I suppose you could start "lacking belief in Jesus' historicity" but that would put you in the Jesus agnostic camp, not the mythcist camp.

Vinnie

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

05-21-2004, 08:01 PM	#81
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	""""""""""""""""""A few problems here from a plausibility standpoint: 1) "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her." Regrettably, the woman's name had already been forgotten by the time the story was written."""""""""""""""""""""""" First of all, this does not matter in regards to what I posted about Mark and "total failures". In Mark (historically implausible or not) everyone does not fail as this unnamed woman understands and annoints Jesus. It also has not been shown that the woman do not leave the tomb in holy fear silent (just as the textual home of the messianic secret had commanded so many others). John has the same account and gives the woman a name. Just an fyi. I do not think John actually knew the woman's name. He took over a story and added details. I doubt this story is historical either. At any rate, views on the ending of Mark have been legion. After I evaluated some of them in a wuick fashion above, do not many of the thoeries have problems and make tenuous leaps in logic just like my Jesus was gay paper? We assume the women were frightend and ran away silent, not that they had "holy fear and awe" and "finally obeyed Jesus about silence" in this home of the messianic secret and "riddles" which themselves are subject to different and competing explanations. Vinnie

05-21-2004, 10:20 PM	#83
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	""""""""John was an ascetic, but Jesus ate and drank, as we know from one short section. Why assume that Jesus retained only that one part of JBap's message?""""""" This is a non-issue. Jesus developed his OWN ministry AFTER JBap was killed. Many find indications he broke from it. In fact, these charges about fasting probably start from Jesus' table-fellowship. When that started is anyone's guess. So there is no evidence that Jesus "ate and drank" to the point of being charged as out of line while a disciple of John's. Tere is also no indication he didn't outside of the notion of him being one of John's disciples and probably likely to uphold his general practices. Vinnie

05-21-2004, 10:24 PM	#84
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	"""""""You are the one who thinks that some historical core can be extracted from the gospels, not me."""""""" Based upon my analysis of how the Gospel material developed which I outlined in my paper on Mark, the premarcan traditions found also attested in Q, Thomas and other places and so on, I believe a core in spots can be detected. I use a very strict methodology and I am an uber-minimalist. """""As I said, I am not the one who claims that any history can be known about Jesus."""""""""" Except for "non-historicity" which is as much a positive statement as is "historicity" as you framed it. I suppose you could start "lacking belief in Jesus' historicity" but that would put you in the Jesus agnostic camp, not the mythcist camp. Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.