Doctor X

IAsimisI::

Not to post for Mageth, but I think I might be able to address a few things in your reply to him as well as me.

Actually, "a Messiah" never fulfilled the prophecies, and Junior certianly was not a Messiah figure. If you want a verse-by-verse treatment--such as the Isaiah "young woman" passage--it will take some time. Methinks there is a treatment in the reading section on prophecies.

"That which is forbidden in text was practiced widely," is a good rule. There is quite a tradition of polytheism in the OT what with two gods--El and YHWH who were not the same god, plus references to worship of Asherah. We also have iconographic evidence. So you have to be a bit careful with such statements.

Actually they were written to support a view often againt other texts. Writers did not expect to be lumped in the same book! The reference below gives a good overview of this process for the OT, while Burton Mack's, Who Wrote the New Testament? does the same for the NT.

Actually, it provides the opposite. "Quality not quantity" is the rule. First, the texts disagree with one another: Mt and Lk rewrite Mk. Mt and Lk-Acts cannot be reconciled with regards to birth and passion narratives. So, by your own argument, you support the invalidity of the documents!

Also, the history is wrong--descriptions of geography, practices, customs, et cetera. However, there are significant textual difficulties with the texts. Finally, the texts are not eyewitnesses.

Now to Moi. . . .

First, Paul did not quote Jeremiah because Paul did not write Hebrews! Second, NOGO demonstrates how the Jeremiah passage, in full context, does not refer to Junior.

"Who" wrote Jeremiah and why is part of the version of the Documentary Hypothesis esposed by Friedman--Who Wrote the Bible?. I believe his reconstruction of the Deuteronmistic School--which composed Deuteronomy against the Pentateuch of the P school--is generally accepted. Scholars argue about dates. Anyways, that reference is excellent for understanding multi-authorship of the OT texts and why it happened.

--J.D.

capnkirk

I am not saying that Xtianity BECAME what it opposed most. I am saying it was congenital. Paul's pagan childhood seriously colored the Jesus of his visions. That it was this conflation of the resurrected Jesus and the pagan deities of his childhood in Tarsus that forms the nucleus of the Christ most Xtians worship today.

If you were to start out with two lists, one with all the features of a conventional (exclusively human) Jewish Messiah, and another with all the features of, say Mithras, or Attis, or some other gnostic, dying-resurrected divine savior...and then start pulling features from first one list then the other, pretty soon you would have a startlingly close facsimile of Jesus Christ.

We are saying that this is not coincidental that the first major Xtian missionary, who had connections to Judaism and to the pagan worship of his youth, after a cathartic event began to evangelize about a savior deity that was a conflation of the two.

Evoken

To Mageth:

I do not think I am assuming a lot since all I have used for my claims is in The Bible. Below is a list of some prophecies Jesus fulfilled:

-Jesus was God with us: Isaiah: 9:6 / John 1:14
-He was born of a virgin: Isaiah 7:14 / Matt. 1:18,25
-Born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:2 / Matt. 2:1
-He would be preceded by a Messenger: Isaiah 40:3 / Matt. 3:1-2, John 1:6-8
-Rejected by His own people: Isaiah 53:3/ John 7:5; 7:48
-His side pierced: Zech. 12:10 / John 19:34
-Crucifixion: Psalms 22 / Luke 23:33
-Resurrection: Psalms 16:10 / Acts 13:34-37

(credit: www.carm.org)

Weather or not they are later additions made in order to harmonize both testaments is debatable but it is an accusation that lacks evidence as far as I am concerned.

If you know of any source that could shed more light into this I would gladly read it.

And what would be those?

Remember that followers of Jesus were called Christians later on and the OT contains the prophecies of Christianity that are fulfilled in the NT and not Christianity (which is the new covenant) itself. Also because Christianity was transmitted orally at first, not all of the doctrine was preached but only the life of Jesus and his resurrection and how it forgives sins which was considered the most important to reach non-believers..

Also the parallels I have seen that are made between Christianity and other religions are based on wild claims and speculation, they also distort the story in order to fit their goal.

That is why Jesus is God with us, the word was made flesh so that it could dwell among us. The Jews always rejected the living prophets but recognized the dead ones as it is clearly stated in the NT by Jesus when they rejected him too as it was also prophesized of him in Isaiah 53:3.

I agree with you on that, the fact that they died for it doesn’t makes it true..

..but then again what made them want to emulate Christ? Specially in a time were alleged messiahs popped out of nowhere proclaiming new doctrines and in a time when it was fashionable to start new cults? How did Christianity stand out? How could it rise above everything that was established already and become the state religion? And how it generated so much controversy with it’s teachings? It didn’t comfort to pagan customs and traditions, it rejected and opposed them. Christians held a doctrine that paid no reverence to pagan gods or to the Roman Emperor (both of which walked hand in hand at that time) and only to Jesus.

The Gnostic considered martyrdom silly because to them when Jesus was crucified his divine nature was ‘”rejoicing on the top of the three” while his carnal nature was suffering. To them Christians worship the dead Jesus and not the living one.

I fully agree that there are books that were left out of The Bible that were written by Christians like the Gnostics or the Essenes who are the ones who wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls and there are many more. I also agree that they were left out because they held views contradictory to the view of the early church. But, for my part I recognize the Gnostic writings as valid accounts that in my opinion complement with what is written in The Bible when not interpreted literally, which is what I do and as Gnostic Christian I find both sources true and valid.

They didn’t ‘survived’, they were written with the intention to preserve the teachings of Jesus. They were transmitted orally at first, like the other religions, but since the first hand witnesses were dying they decided to write them down in order to preserve them and to be able to spread the message and distribute the writings.

Also the church was concerned with the fact that a lot of people were starting to interpret the teachings of Jesus in their own way and new cults were starting to arise (like the Gnostics for example). To prevent that, they collected their writings and also organized themselves.

Yes the Dead Sea scrolls are mostly OT documents and I am not too familiar with them either, as for the Gnostic texts yes I have read them, they are a different interpretation of Jesus message but still deal with Jesus, crucifixion, resurrection of the dead, original sin and the like, just in a different fashion. Between Christians and Gnostics happened the same that we see today, they both claimed to be right. What interpretation of Jesus message took the upper hand is irrelevant what is relevant is the evidence they provide for the authenticity of Christianity.

I am not trying to imply that Christianity was the first religion and that others copied it or that it is the only way, I know that religions existed prior to Christianity but to invalidate a religion based on the fact that another one existed before it is not right, if we are to do that then we would be left only with what the caveman believed.

Also I don’t think that it was made by some mad men that copied previous myths and burned the evidence like many claim, the parallels I have seen between Christianity and other religions are merely done based on wild claims and lots of speculation, they also distort the message of the other religions to make them fit their goal.

Zoroastrianism is said to have been an great influence on Christianity especially during the time of the exile of the jews during the time of Cyrus, but I still need to read it’s sacred texts to confirm and read more both points of view and clash the evidence in order to draw my conclusion.

I am always open to research, that is why I come to this board and debate..well not debate because that sounds like fighting..to discuss would be more appropriate. What I am looking for is to better understand Christianity, not to convert anyone or anything of the sort.

I will do some reading of Hellenism to learn about it and also to see what similarities it has with Christianity.

Evoken

To Doctor X:

Yes there is worship of Asherah and also of Baal but they were punished for sumitting to the idols by YHWH. Also I am aware of the two Gods, one was of the north and another of the south that being Israel and Judeah if I am not mistaken. But the Jews worshiped theirs and so did the people of Israel.

As to how this got mixed in the OT is beyond me, I still have to do a bit more of research. So far what I have found is that the concept of God changed after the exile during the time of Cyrus, probably because of the influence of Zoroastrianism.

Not really, the more manuscrips the easier it is to crosscheck them for accuracy. As for the text being in disagreetment with one another I would like it if you are more specific with your claims. When you speak of the birth you mean Jesus time line? or simply his birth? There are many apparent contradictions between the Gospels but they can be harmonized with little effort.

That is true, my mistake on saying it was Paul. Hebrews was written by an unknow writter but this does not makes the text any less relevant in my opinion it is one of the best written books in The Bible. Hebrews was written for Jews who still held to the old covenant and its goal was to show how the new covenant replaced the old.

Thanks, I will check that out.

capnkirk

IAsimisI:

After reading through your most recent post, I would like to suggest that this forum is too space limited for either side to present the macroview of the era of Jesus with enough detail to put the specific points being discussed into context. As a result, both sides are obviously talking past each other...which is yielding nothing but mutual frustration. Sooo....

Let me (and my colleagues) suggest some books by well-respected Christian scholars that we recommend you read to provide the necessary foundation to discuss the mezzo- and micro- level issues that we presently seem to be chasing in circles:

With regard to the process of selection of which documents would become the Christian Bible: Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman (head of the Dept of Religious Studies @ Univ of North Carolina)

With regard to who wrote the Old Testament and when: Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Friedman (professor @ Univ of California, San Diego. has PhD in Hebrew Bible fm Harvard Univ. visiting scholar @ Oxford and Cambridge, England)

With regard to an understanding of Judea during Jesus' life: The Historical Jesus by John Crossan (professor of Biblical Studies @ DePaul Univ, winner of the American Academy of Religion Award for Excellence).

Two of these are highly respected Christian scholars, the third (writing about his religion's Holy book, is Jewish.

I also invite my colleagues to add to this list. We are not just blowing hot air; we do not have an axe to grind. What we are trying to tell you is that we were once where you are now, and this is where our own individual quests for truth have brought us.

Sarpedon

Because agriculture was so important to primitive culture, many religious rites grew up around the principle agricultural products (grain, and vine) Judaism, being a pastoral religion, emphasizes livestock more than agriculture. The Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians, however were agricultural civililizations, and christianity can be seen as arising from the introduction of these civilizations' mythologies into judaism. The concept of sin being removed through bread is older than christianity. A sinful person (sometimes even a dead person) would lie down, and a loaf of bread would be placed on them. After various prayers and incantations, a special person, called a "sin-eater" would come and eat the bread, and the other person would be freed from sin. Thus the bread performed the same function as the jewish "scapegoat." Isn't there a member of the fora who is called "sin-eater?"

The agricultural god Adonis was considered to be a personification of the grain itself. He would die (be sacrificed, actually) at harvest time, and be reborn at sowing time. Eating the bread during religious rites was considered to be in fact eating the god. Adonis is considered to be identical to Mithra, who's followers also practiced baptism (using ox-blood) instead of water (or perhaps, lambs blood...)

For more information on these things, I suggest you read "the Golden Bough" by Frazer, or the "New Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary of Mythology, Folklore, and Legend."

Evoken

I agree capnkirk..thanks for the book recomendations.

rlogan

psalms 2
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed

(Hitler is the savior).

Psalms 10: 1: Why standest thou afar off, O LORD? why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble?

(Clinton is the Savior for dodging the draft.)

Psalms 22 30: A seed shall serve him;

(The savior is a farmer)

Psalms 23 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

(The savior is a rancher)

When my father and my mother forsake me, then the LORD will take me up

(Foster child)

Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing

(John Travolta)


IAsimisI - You can turn anyone into the prophesy fulfilling savior. Especially when you write his story decades after he supposedly lived.

Mageth

Originally posted by IAsimisI
I do not think I am assuming a lot since all I have used for my claims is in The Bible.

Well, first, you spend a lot of time discussing other sources you use. Second, there is a huge assumption in what you just said - think about it.

Below is a list of some prophecies Jesus fulfilled:

-Jesus was God with us: Isaiah: 9:6 / John 1:14
-He was born of a virgin: Isaiah 7:14 / Matt. 1:18,25
-Born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:2 / Matt. 2:1
-He would be preceded by a Messenger: Isaiah 40:3 / Matt. 3:1-2, John 1:6-8
-Rejected by His own people: Isaiah 53:3/ John 7:5; 7:48
-His side pierced: Zech. 12:10 / John 19:34
-Crucifixion: Psalms 22 / Luke 23:33
-Resurrection: Psalms 16:10 / Acts 13:34-37

(credit: www.carm.org)

And all of those are good examples of the Jewish practice of midrash. In other words, Jesus didn't fulfill them; they were written into the Jesus myth to tie him into Jewish tradition - and, ironically perhaps, to make Jesus "fulfill" messianic requirements for the Jews. In other words, there was motive, there was opportunity, and there was a weapon available - midrash - to "commit the crime".

Weather or not they are later additions made in order to harmonize both testaments is debatable but it is an accusation that lacks evidence as far as I am concerned.

First, the Gospel accounts were written decades after the events they supposedly depict by authors who were familiar with the Jewish texts and traditions and (more or less) familiar with the Jewish practice of midrash (I say "more or less" because, for example, Matthew was better at it than Luke). And it is the claim that they are "fulfilled prophecies" lacks evidence.

If you know of any source that could shed more light into this I would gladly read it.

One good source is John Shelby Spong's Resurrection: Myth or Reality?. Another source are the books of Elaine Pagels.

And what would be those?

Oh, the Divinity of Christ (the man-god), for one, which is not present in Judaism before the Gospels, but can be found in many other mythologies. Read Spong and Pagels for more.

BTW, I'm not a big follower of the "paganizing" of Chrisitianity argument, though I do think there are plenty of examples of outside elements that crept into the Jewish tradition, the combination of which is what we today call Christianity. I don't think that Christianity adopting various other motifs from other mythologies invalidates Christianity, per se.

Remember that followers of Jesus were called Christians later on and the OT contains the prophecies of Christianity that are fulfilled in the NT and not Christianity (which is the new covenant) itself.

Rather, the OT includes Hebrew motifs that were midrashed into the Gospels.

Also because Christianity was transmitted orally at first, not all of the doctrine was preached but only the life of Jesus and his resurrection and how it forgives sins which was considered the most important to reach non-believers.

BTW, I'm pretty sure the bodily resurrection (as opposed to spiritual resurrection) was another "pagan" aspect, not present in Judaism or the OT, adapted by Christianity, and quite late apparently. Paul, for example, arguably only describes a spiritual resurrection, with the Gospels adding the embellishment of the physical resurrection (see Spong's book).

Also the parallels I have seen that are made between Christianity and other religions are based on wild claims and speculation, they also distort the story in order to fit their goal.

I agree that is sometimes the case. However, I think there is pretty good evidence that some pagan influence affected the formation of "orthodox" Christianity.

That is why Jesus is God with us, the word was made flesh so that it could dwell among us. The Jews always rejected the living prophets but recognized the dead ones as it is clearly stated in the NT by Jesus when they rejected him too as it was also prophesized of him in Isaiah 53:3.

The belief in the divinity of Christ was something that evolved in early Christianity, with the last written canonical gospel (John) making by far the strongest claim for it. BTW, we are really not sure what of Jesus' recorded sayings he actually said and what of it were added or enhanced through the "poetic licence" of the authors. And more midrashing there.

I agree with you on that, the fact that they died for it doesn’t makes it true..

Glad to hear it.

..but then again what made them want to emulate Christ?

I think that's a question we may never have the real answer to, as so much of early Christian history is lost to us, or shrouded in myth. I do know that, as I said, the belief had arisen that martyrdom was a guarantee of salvation, maybe the only sure guarantee - sounds similar to what some radical Muslims believe, doesn't it? I'm still reading Spong's book Resurrection, BTW, and he promises to disclose what he believes really happened that sparked the strong belief in Christ. I haven't gotten to that part yet.

Specially in a time were alleged messiahs popped out of nowhere proclaiming new doctrines and in a time when it was fashionable to start new cults? How did Christianity stand out? How could it rise above everything that was established already and become the state religion?

Ironically, one of the reasons is perhaps the willingness of many of its believers to gladly go to their deaths, which may have had strong influence on those watching the executions, gaining many converts. In any case, read Pagels for a good coverage of the rise of the early Church.


And how it generated so much controversy with it’s teachings? It didn’t comfort to pagan customs and traditions, it rejected and opposed them.

Actually, it adapted to many pagan customs and traditions - starting with Luke, a gospel that Hellenizes the Jesus myth. Further, it was a religion open and acceptable to the common man, whether merchant or slave, unlike some competing religions which tended to be more exlusive, so became popular among the commoners. Again, read Pagels.

Christians held a doctrine that paid no reverence to pagan gods or to the Roman Emperor (both of which walked hand in hand at that time) and only to Jesus.

Indeed. But the "pagans", since they were adept at adapting different gods, were not adverse to accepting a new God, if it offered them something they liked. As I said, the willingness of the martyrs to die with pride and defiance, and the openness of Christianity to all as equals in Christ, were perhaps the biggest reasons for Christianity's spread in the populace.

Further, there is the mundane advantage of having just one God to worship, and for which one didn't have to have elaborate ceremonies or make expensive offerings at a temple or shrine to. Worshipping a passel of gods was time-consuming and expensive. Christianity, after all, is an easy religion to join, and gives the advantage of having only one God to serve.

The Gnostic considered martyrdom silly because to them when Jesus was crucified his divine nature was ‘”rejoicing on the top of the three” while his carnal nature was suffering. To them Christians worship the dead Jesus and not the living one.

True for some Gnostics, but there was a wide range of beliefs at the time, Gnostic or otherwise.

I fully agree that there are books that were left out of The Bible that were written by Christians like the Gnostics or the Essenes who are the ones who wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls and there are many more.

I'm pretty sure the Essenes weren't Christians.

I also agree that they were left out because they held views contradictory to the view of the early church.

To be correct, contradictory to the "orthodox" part of the early Church, which won out in the end. The "heretical" beliefs that were left out were also views of the early Church.

But, for my part I recognize the Gnostic writings as valid accounts that in my opinion complement with what is written in The Bible when not interpreted literally, which is what I do and as Gnostic Christian I find both sources true and valid.

I didn't realize you were Gnostic. Good for you, as I find many of the Gnostic views generally more palatable than the "orthodox" view. And your willingness to apparently "not interpret literally" and to be open to other texts is also impressive.

Now, if you can just look beyond the orthodox view of the "fulfilled prophecies"...

They didn’t ‘survived’,

Well, obviously they did, or we would not be discussing them.

they were written with the intention to preserve the teachings of Jesus.

Yes, one intent was to preserve the "teachings" of Jesus. The problem is, there's way too much "mist" in the way for us to determine what the real teachings of Jesus were. And another intent was to interpret, and even enhance, the teachings (and meaning) of Jesus to support particular views. Many of the sayings of Jesus found in the Gnostic texts are contradictory to the "orthodox" Gospel accounts

They were transmitted orally at first, like the other religions, but since the first hand witnesses were dying they decided to write them down in order to preserve them and to be able to spread the message and distribute the writings.

Well, at least some of the Canonical Gospels were probably written long after any eyewitnesses were dead. Mark was probably written sometimes around 70 CE, no earlier than 65, some 32-37 years after Jesus died. Luke and Matthew were based on Mark, with Matthew written perhaps ten years after Mark and Luke a few years later. John was probably written sometimes no earlier than 90 CE or perhaps as late as the first decade of the Second Century. Don't hold me to those dates, BTW; I'm working from memory. We don't even know for sure who wrote the canonical Gospels, and we sure don't know if there were any first-hand eyewitness that contributed to them, or wrote them.

Most of the Gnostic writings we know of were probably written long after any first-hand eyewitnesses were dead; IIRC, the Gospel of Thomas is generally considered the earliest known Gnostic text, and it cannot be dated back any farther than the tenth decade of the First Century or the first decade of the Second. John, Pagels proposes, was possibly at least partially a response to the Gospel of Thomas.

Also the church was concerned with the fact that a lot of people were starting to interpret the teachings of Jesus in their own way and new cults were starting to arise (like the Gnostics for example). To prevent that, they collected their writings and also organized themselves.

Yes, and that process took over 300 years. It didn't happen overnight. Read Pagels.

Yes the Dead Sea scrolls are mostly OT documents and I am not too familiar with them either, as for the Gnostic texts yes I have read them, they are a different interpretation of Jesus message but still deal with Jesus, crucifixion, resurrection of the dead, original sin and the like, just in a different fashion. Between Christians and Gnostics happened the same that we see today, they both claimed to be right. What interpretation of Jesus message took the upper hand is irrelevant what is relevant is the evidence they provide for the authenticity of Christianity.

Well, none of the documents provide "evidence for the authenticity of Christianity", as in evidence that the supernatural events they portray are factual/historical.

Further, "Christianity" today typically means "orthodox" Christianity, so I don't agree that "what interpretation of Jesus message took the upper hand is irrelevant". Gnostic views of "what actually happened" and what it means are radically different than orthodox views. One only has to look at the Gnostic views on the crucifixion and resurrection (central to the Christian faith) to see that the evidence needed to support the two opposing views would be quite different.

I am not trying to imply that Christianity was the first religion and that others copied it or that it is the only way, I know that religions existed prior to Christianity but to invalidate a religion based on the fact that another one existed before it is not right, if we are to do that then we would be left only with what the caveman believed.

I agree - and indeed I'm not trying to invalidate a religion based on the fact that other religions existed before it.

Also I don’t think that it was made by some mad men that copied previous myths and burned the evidence like many claim, the parallels I have seen between Christianity and other religions are merely done based on wild claims and lots of speculation, they also distort the message of the other religions to make them fit their goal.

It's quite possibly true that that happens, and I do not support that approach.

Zoroastrianism is said to have been an great influence on Christianity especially during the time of the exile of the jews during the time of Cyrus, but I still need to read it’s sacred texts to confirm and read more both points of view and clash the evidence in order to draw my conclusion.

Sumero-Babylonian mythologies, along with others, clearly had influence on Judaism. One needs go no farther than the Creation myths and the Flood myth to see that.

I am always open to research, that is why I come to this board and debate..well not debate because that sounds like fighting..to discuss would be more appropriate. What I am looking for is to better understand Christianity, not to convert anyone or anything of the sort.

I'd recommend you read every book by Elaine Pagels you can lay your hands on, as well as Spong's book. And look into Joseph Campbell for a lot more information on myth, its development, common motifs found in many mythologies and how that came to be, and the purposes and utility of myth for humans and societies.

I will do some reading of Hellenism to learn about it and also to see what similarities it has with Christianity.

"Hellenism" roughly means "Greek Culture", including Greek myths, or perhaps more properly "the principles and ideals of the Greek civilization". There were early Hellenistic influences on Christianity, esp. after the destruction of the Temple, when Israel became even more Hellenized and the "traditional" Jews retreated into legalism and "drove out" the upstart Christian sect, which turned to the Gentiles (and in so doing, Hellenized).

A lot of the above is my current understanding of the history of the Early Church. I'm sure one more well-versed could correct me on several points, but I think overall it's basically a good, fairly accurate, overview of current understanding of the times.

Evoken

Nice post Mageth, I really enjoyed reading it. Also thanks for the recomendations.

I have two books by Elaine Pagels, they are The Gnostic Gospels and Adam, Eve and The Serpent she is a wonderful writter.