jjramsey

In context, the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is probably a personification of Israel itself.

Really? It takes rather creative interpretation even to get references to a messiah at all, let alone a suffering one. To say that the the Hebrew scriptures go on and on about saviors is a gross exaggeration.

Actually, that the death was by crucifixion does make a difference as it was meant to be a particularly degrading and dishonorable death. Also, from the Jews' perspective, the man who was claimed by the Christians to be the messiah was killed just as many insurrectionists were, and life in Israel went on just as it had before his reported death, with the Romans still in control. This is what the Jews expected of a failed messianic claimant, not of the messiah.

Toto

Sai Baba on Wikipedia lists a few TV documentaries, books by western seekers, books by skeptics, books by disillusioned ex-followers, lots of press coverage, and books by Sai Baba himself.

If you want to find a religious group that flies under the radar, you'll have to find a different example.

rob117

But you have to keep in mind that modern society writes a lot more that the ancients and if the printing press was lost none of the books saying anything about Sai Baba would be preserved 2000 years from now.

Josephus wrote a general history of Judea up to his own time and he mentions Jesus twice (the TF, while highly altered by Christian scribes, is generally taken to have an authentic core- see A Marginal Jew Volume 1). If someone wrote a general history of India since, say, the British takeover to the present day, would Sai Baba be mentioned?

GakuseiDon

I mean, in the modern equivalents to Josephus, e.g. in modern history books. I doubt that you'd find any mention there, and probably nothing more than a footnote in any modern book looking at the major religions of India, despite his divine origin and miracles.

Toto

OOOkay, let's test that. Go to google books and search for "Sai Baba."

6830 pages on "sai baba" - it's true, many are books written by him or about him specificially, but we also find on just the first page,

This is Hinduism - Page 60

Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction - Page 118
by Stephen J. Hunt

The Glimpses of Indological Heritage - Page 114
by Uma Deshpande - 1989 - 199 pages

Religion in Modern Times: an interpretive anthology - Page 125
by Linda (EDT) Woodhead, Paul Heelas - Social Science - 2000 -

Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality - Page 429
by Bob Larson - Religion - 2004 - 500 pages

The Godmen of India - Page 1
by Janaki Ram - 2005 - 128 pages

aa5874

And I expected Jesus to have written something for his followers for doctrinal purposes and as testimony of his reality. I cannot conceive that Jesus who, according to the Bible, was at the age of about 12 years teaching in the synagogue, did not leave a written word for his followers.

rlogan

We can't move between two Jesus concepts without clearly distinguishing them or the conversation becomes incoherent.

Clearly, we agree that the gospel accounts of Jesus doing anything of note before large numbers of scribes is not in the least credible.

Now you need to supply us with your proposed alternative Jesus before I can respond to some question about whether "similar figures" would have been written about.

I have numerous times commented on the large number of persons Josephus mentions - many of them named Jesus. My favorite is the one who runs around proclaiming "woe unto Israel". He's killed by a seige engine of the Romans.

So who is it that you are talking about, exactly? Josephus writes on everyone from leading rebels to humorous nutballs. Supply your Jesus so we can actually make some kind of comparison.

Crucifixion means the Romans punished him and now you need to state what he was crucified for. This gets you out on thin ice in terms of asserting he was not of any note.

I commend that you have addressed this honestly, because there we have the crux of the historicist position.

The problem is that the gospels are so emphatic about something we both agree can't be true - not once or twice or a dozen times, but as a central feature of Jesus' meteoric career appearing before scribes constantly and amazing them.

How do you then turn around and propose a Jesus that is completely opposite to that? One is using a story about superman to say that Joe six pack existed. It makes no sense.

In the first and second century and beyond - nobody makes any kind of record about the insignificant Jesus. Not one branch of Christianity or whatever puts forward this concept.

cheers.

EssEff

Scribes were more of a social caste than a bunch of note-takers. They had education enough to copy texts but they weren't likely the originators of anything other than payroll records. This is why Jebus is so harsh towards them -- they know how to write (unlike 99% of the population) yet they don't see the truth of xyz. Whoever invented Jesus knew that flattering the ignorant by showing them how superior they were to the supposed intelligentsia would be good for business. It's still good for business.

Clivedurdle

Maybe the scribes did record stuff about Jesus

http://www.arsmar.com/ce_art.htm

..but not in Palestine. Now why might that be?

yalla

From the link by Clive:
"Paleochristian art stems predominantly from classical graeco-roman art, and its period ranges from the first to the sixth century."

First century????
Really?
The author of this site claims such more than once:
"The simple yet profound and human message left by the hand of a christian two thousand years ago can not but inspire and move us."
2000 years ago??? Circa 6CE???
Obviously meant to be taken wih a grain of salt or several or else just sloppy expression.
No evidence is offered to back up the claims.