Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-28-2012, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There are no historical claims made about Hercules, so that comparison is not applicable. More accurate analogies would be Robin Hood, King Arthur or even King David.

The Hercules question is a dodge. I don't fundamentally misunderstand anything, I'm trying to see if we can clarify a consensus on what we mean when we talk about a "Historical Jesus."

The reason I put the supernatural characteristics on the poll is because it seems to me that some mythers are saying that a historical figure has to be magic to qualify as Jesus.

You cannot do history by polling. History is not derived from what people imagine.

Robin Hood, King Arthur and King David are NOT analogies of Jesus of the NT.

You have just exposed your DOUBLE standard.

You accept the description of Robin Hood, King Arthur, and King David exactly as we find them.

We do not POLL the description of Robin Hood, King Arthur and King David.

However, suddenly because the sources which claimed Jesus was baptized by John also claimed Jesus was Fathered by a Ghost in Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke 1.26-35 and was God the Creator in John 1 then we are POLLING.

Please, why can't people accept the statements about History and biography of Jesus just like they accept the statements about Robin Hood, King Arthur and David??

Something has gone radically wrong--an historical Jesus is now being invented by the Ballot Box--only the majority will count.

Evidence from antiquity is no longer required.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-28-2012, 02:59 PM

There is no divine plan.

The role of the money changers in the temple was perfectly legitimate, though, and not just legitimate but necessary to the function of the Temple. The incident described at the Temple could only be interpreted as an attack on the institution itself.

Mark is awfully defensive about the "I will destroy this Temple" charge, but that is backed up by an independent, more primitive saying in the gospel of Thomas ("I will destroy this house and no one will be able to rebuild it").

The incident described at the temple is not one of reform or "cleansing," but symbolic destruction of the Temple institution itself.

spin · 03-28-2012, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There are no historical claims made about Hercules, so that comparison is not applicable. More accurate analogies would be Robin Hood, King Arthur or even King David.

But you can do the same thing with Hercules that you have with Jesus:

He was illegitimate
He was the son of Alcmene
He was an extremely able fighter
He devised a method to killed the Nemean lion (then some or all of his other labors)
etc.

This sort of approach is not particularly meaningful, is it? You realize the issue lies somewhere else. Otherwise you wouldn't make the separation that you make in the portion I cited here. What makes those other figures more accurate analogies?

spin · 03-28-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

They were not even disturbances, if disturbance is impropriety. The traders were the disturbance, and everyone knew that, else the Sanhedrin would have leaped at the chance to arrest Jesus. There is frequent attempt to assert that Jesus acted improperly in the Temple, but it's nonsensical. It's familiar but improper misrepresentation of the record, which is of protection of the Temple, and prophecy (as recorded) of protection— 'zeal for your house'— which makes it more blatant.
Overstatement is counter-productive.

Sot, the coin changers and traders were part of the System.

Where does this System figure in the divine plan?

God's temple had a tax, the half-sheqel tax, which was to be paid in a relatively stable currency (Tyrean) in order for the tax to maintain its value for the temple. That required money changers. Without the tax god's temple could not have sustained itself. How else does one finance a temple, supporting the staff and ritualistic needs? The gospel Jesus should have known the necessity for the money changers. It just goes to show that the gospel writers didn't.

aa5874 · 03-28-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There is no divine plan.

The role of the money changers in the temple was perfectly legitimate, though, and not just legitimate but necessary to the function of the Temple. The incident described at the Temple could only be interpreted as an attack on the institution itself..

Please, why do you PRESUME that gMark is history??? This is most fascinating!!! Do you not know the NT is NOT historically reliable???

The incident could also not have ever happened!!!

sotto voce · 03-28-2012, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

They were not even disturbances, if disturbance is impropriety. The traders were the disturbance, and everyone knew that, else the Sanhedrin would have leaped at the chance to arrest Jesus. There is frequent attempt to assert that Jesus acted improperly in the Temple, but it's nonsensical. It's familiar but improper misrepresentation of the record, which is of protection of the Temple, and prophecy (as recorded) of protection— 'zeal for your house'— which makes it more blatant.
Overstatement is counter-productive.

Sot, the coin changers and traders were part of the System.

Where does this System figure in the divine plan?

God's temple had a tax, the half-sheqel tax, which was to be paid in a relatively stable currency (Tyrean) in order for the tax to maintain its value for the temple. That required money changers. Without the tax god's temple could not have sustained itself. How else does one finance a temple, supporting the staff and ritualistic needs?

Quite so. But this was not the issue.

Now tell us what the issue was.

outhouse · 03-28-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There is no divine plan.

The role of the money changers in the temple was perfectly legitimate, though, and not just legitimate but necessary to the function of the Temple. The incident described at the Temple could only be interpreted as an attack on the institution itself.

Mark is awfully defensive about the "I will destroy this Temple" charge, but that is backed up by an independent, more primitive saying in the gospel of Thomas ("I will destroy this house and no one will be able to rebuild it").

The incident described at the temple is not one of reform or "cleansing," but symbolic destruction of the Temple institution itself.

cleansed of any anti-roman behaviour, including having Pilate wash his hands and putting all the heat on the jews

Vorkosigan · 03-28-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Now tell us what the issue was.

Can you explain your question? It's very unclear what it is you want to know.

outhouse · 03-28-2012, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There is no divine plan.

The role of the money changers in the temple was perfectly legitimate, though, and not just legitimate but necessary to the function of the Temple. The incident described at the Temple could only be interpreted as an attack on the institution itself..

Please, why do you PRESUME that gMark is history??? This is most fascinating!!! Do you not know the NT is NOT historically reliable???

The incident could also not have ever happened!!!

false on all counts

no one stated Gmark was 100% true history, and only the ignorant cant find what history is within its scripture.

the incident didnt have to happen exactly, to really happen. hellenistic people often deified mortal men amnd almost always wrote mythically.

but you have heard this before [facepalm]

sotto voce · 03-28-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Now tell us what the issue was.

Can you explain your question? It's very unclear what it is you want to know.

Then read the Bible.

View Poll Results: Check off everything you would need to see to say a guy was a "Historical Jesus."
God	1	2.63%
Resurrection	3	7.89%
Healed miraculously and drove out real demons	3	7.89%
Was a conventional (non-supernatural) faith healer and exorcist, but did not do miracles	13	34.21%
Performed nature miracles such as walking on water	3	7.89%
Was born of a virgin	2	5.26%
Said all or most of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	4	10.53%
Said at least some of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	21	55.26%
Believed himself to be God	2	5.26%
Believed himself to be the Messiah	5	13.16%
Was believed by his followers to be God	1	2.63%
Was believed by his followers to be the Messiah	16	42.11%
Was involved in some kind of attack on the Temple	9	23.68%
Was crucified	27	71.05%
Was from Nazareth	8	21.05%
Was from Galilee	12	31.58%
Had 12 disciples	3	7.89%
Had some disciples, not necessarily 12	25	65.79%
Raised the dead	2	5.26%
Was believed by his disciples to still be alive somehow after the crucifixion.	17	44.74%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

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

03-28-2012, 02:59 PM	#42
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	There is no divine plan. The role of the money changers in the temple was perfectly legitimate, though, and not just legitimate but necessary to the function of the Temple. The incident described at the Temple could only be interpreted as an attack on the institution itself. Mark is awfully defensive about the "I will destroy this Temple" charge, but that is backed up by an independent, more primitive saying in the gospel of Thomas ("I will destroy this house and no one will be able to rebuild it"). The incident described at the temple is not one of reform or "cleansing," but symbolic destruction of the Temple institution itself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.