Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 08-31-2011, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

The problem here is that you need to show that this is something that should have been mentioned by them. I know you refer to "human nature", but in a high context culture where marriage is assumed as a normality, is this something we would expect them to point out?

It's not a question of just assuming his marital status. Paul discusses marriage and advises people on whether to be married - without using Jesus as an example.

... Gay and straight are modern concepts that would not be meaningful to early Christians.

That's exactly my point. We need to understand ancient people's attitudes towards marriage, in the same way that we need to understand their attitudes about homosexuality before determining the meaning of references in early texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There's no room in the gospel story for any sort of domestic life for Jesus. It just doesn't fit into the plot. Jesus rejects his family, doesn't have a wife or kids or even any close friends he can talk to - just 12 clueless disciples, one of whom betrays him. He communes with his father in heaven.

Okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

What about the example I gave earlier?

Doherty writes (from my link above):

The descent of the dove into Jesus would have provided the perfect parallel to Paul's belief that at baptism the Holy Ghost descended into the believer. The voice of God welcoming Jesus as his Beloved Son could have served to symbolize Paul's contention (as in Romans 8:14-17) that believers have been adopted as sons of God. (Page 65)

I doubt very much that critical scholarship would expect to find the Gospel story of the dove descending on Jesus in Paul, given that Paul states that Jesus was appointed Son of God by his resurrection from the dead rather than by his baptism (as seen in Mark).

What do you think, Toto? Should we expect Paul to have referred to the descent of the dove into Jesus, given that Paul believed that Jesus was appointed Son of God by the resurrection?

Since I don't think that the baptism happened, I don't see why Paul should have mentioned it. But most historicists believe that the baptism of Jesus is an indisputable fact. I would expect Paul to have mentioned Jesus' baptism in the context of his discussion of baptism, if it had in fact happened.

So if it had happened like in the Gospels, we would expect Paul to have mentioned Jesus' baptism in the context of his discussion of baptism? Okay.

Solo · 08-31-2011, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But these 2nd century apologists did not have any historical data about Jesus. They accepted that he came in the flesh for theological reasons. The pattern is consistent: people without any historical data about Jesus will either not include any details, like these 2nd c. theologians, or will make things up, like the 2nd century gospel writers.

My expectation is still that if there were a historical Jesus in the first century, the likelihood is that someone would have mentioned some detail of his life.

There are all sorts of possibilities which can account for the lack of actual historical information about the Galilean Jesus. Here is one scenario:

The synoptics broadly assert that Jesus presented himself as a prophetic drifter to some illiterate country blokes who followed him for something like a year through a whirlwind tour ending up in a fatal run-in with authorities down in the south. The appeal of Jesus would have been his charismatic character and his conviction that he had some commission to influence the world which was on the brink of collapse. At any point in history you will find delusional individuals capable of socializing their megalomaniacal fantasies and create small or complex religious, political or military organizations out of them. Often, charismatic leaders deliberately obscure their personal histories because they are embarrassed about them or as a part of the mystique of the leader's cult. And please do remember, we are not talking about information age. (Most of what we know about Charles Manson - born to a sixteen-year old single virgin - comes from law-enforcement investigations, not from his "family".)

So, to begin, Jesus bio would have been lodged in a small group that followed him (forget the big crowds around Jesus - they were created by Mark for teaching purposes). It is quite possible, and to me, most probable, that Jesus himself would have been deliberately vague and evasive about his past, and kept suggesting his commission from God as Father instead. The ethereal history of Jesus would provide the startup kit for his mythical post-mortem upsizing following likely a prophetic outburst in the precinct of the temple.

In this scenario then there was no personal history because a) Jesus was virtually unknown in his life time, and b) after his death, he quickly became a symbol of martyrdom for the coming messianic kingdom, and little later the object of intense mythologization when Paul started to proclaim his resurrection as the Messiah.

So, in short - even though the Nazarene Jesus was a historical figure, there is no reliable, sober, historical detail about him. What we received instead is a mythicized account of him, based on his delusional view of himself corrected by Paul's theology. That's my reading of Mark's gospel.

Best,
Jiri

TedM · 08-31-2011, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by toto

Since I don't think that the baptism happened, I don't see why Paul should have mentioned it. But most historicists believe that the baptism of Jesus is an indisputable fact. I would expect Paul to have mentioned Jesus' baptism in the context of his discussion of baptism, if it had in fact happened.

So if it had happened like in the Gospels, we would expect Paul to have mentioned Jesus' baptism in the context of his discussion of baptism? Okay.

Should we have expected him to mention John the baptist too? Or Apollos, who ONLY knew the baptism? Where do our expectations begin and end? (rhetorical)..

aa5874 · 08-31-2011, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

...There are all sorts of possibilities which can account for the lack of actual historical information about the Galilean Jesus. Here is one scenario:

The synoptics broadly assert that Jesus presented himself as a prophetic drifter to some illiterate country blokes who followed him for something like a year through a whirlwind tour ending up in a fatal run-in with authorities down in the south....

What you claim is NOT really the whole presentation in the Synoptics.

In the Synoptic Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost and ACTED like a Ghost when he WALKED on the sea, TRANSFIGURED and RESURRECTED.

The Synoptic Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he would be RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

Inventing unsubstantiated scenarios are completely useless if all you are doing is ignoring the SCENARIO in the Synoptics.

Once you have no credible historical source of antiquity for your scenario then you are promoting FAITH based inventions.

We have the written statements in the Synoptics about the character called Jesus Christ and the character was NON-historical.

There is simply ZERO credible evidence or sources for your scenario.

The SCENARIO for the Synoptic Jesus, the Child of the Ghost, is found in the Synoptics NOT what you imagine.

See Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.35, Mark 6.49, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6 and Luke 24.

I am NOT interested in your 21 st century INVENTED scenarios.

The Synoptics presented a NON-historical Scenario of Jesus.

jgoodguy · 08-31-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But these 2nd century apologists did not have any historical data about Jesus. They accepted that he came in the flesh for theological reasons. The pattern is consistent: people without any historical data about Jesus will either not include any details, like these 2nd c. theologians, or will make things up, like the 2nd century gospel writers.

My expectation is still that if there were a historical Jesus in the first century, the likelihood is that someone would have mentioned some detail of his life.

There are all sorts of possibilities which can account for the lack of actual historical information about the Galilean Jesus. Here is one scenario:

The synoptics broadly assert that Jesus presented himself as a prophetic drifter to some illiterate country blokes who followed him for something like a year through a whirlwind tour ending up in a fatal run-in with authorities down in the south. The appeal of Jesus would have been his charismatic character and his conviction that he had some commission to influence the world which was on the brink of collapse. At any point in history you will find delusional individuals capable of socializing their megalomaniacal fantasies and create small or complex religious, political or military organizations out of them. Often, charismatic leaders deliberately obscure their personal histories because they are embarrassed about them or as a part of the mystique of the leader's cult. And please do remember, we are not talking about information age. (Most of what we know about Charles Manson - born to a sixteen-year old single virgin - comes from law-enforcement investigations, not from his "family".)

So, to begin, Jesus bio would have been lodged in a small group that followed him (forget the big crowds around Jesus - they were created by Mark for teaching purposes). It is quite possible, and to me, most probable, that Jesus himself would have been deliberately vague and evasive about his past, and kept suggesting his commission from God as Father instead. The ethereal history of Jesus would provide the startup kit for his mythical post-mortem upsizing following likely a prophetic outburst in the precinct of the temple.

In this scenario then there was no personal history because a) Jesus was virtually unknown in his life time, and b) after his death, he quickly became a symbol of martyrdom for the coming messianic kingdom, and little later the object of intense mythologization when Paul started to proclaim his resurrection as the Messiah.

So, in short - even though the Nazarene Jesus was a historical figure, there is no reliable, sober, historical detail about him. What we received instead is a mythicized account of him, based on his delusional view of himself corrected by Paul's theology. That's my reading of Mark's gospel.

Best,
Jiri

In short we get a Historical Jesus that has no relationship other than his existence to the Jesus of the Gospels, Paul or the mythical Jesus of the Mythists.

aa5874 · 08-31-2011, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

...In short we get a Historical Jesus that has no relationship other than his existence to the Jesus of the Gospels, Paul or the mythical Jesus of the Mythists.

You cannot get an historical Jesus without a credible source of antiquity.

Vorkosigan · 08-31-2011, 05:17 PM

Sorry, busy til Saturday. Not much point in responding to DonG or Judge, but I'll get back soon to the others.

Steven Carr · 08-31-2011, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Often, charismatic leaders deliberately obscure their personal histories because they are embarrassed about them or as a part of the mystique of the leader's cult. And please do remember, we are not talking about information age. (Most of what we know about Charles Manson - born to a sixteen-year old single virgin - comes from law-enforcement investigations, not from his "family".)

Are you sure?

Mainstream Biblical scholarship works on the assumption that if something was embarrassing, the Gospel writers would have been compelled to mention it, because it would have been general knowledge.

Solo · 09-01-2011, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

We don't know whether the Gospel Jesus was married or not. The Gospels don't tell us.

In fairness, the Gospels mightily suggest that Jesus was
at best separated, and his mind, after the bird dropped the holy s**t on him, was preoccupied with other things than conjugal bed-wetting.

Best,
Jiri

GakuseiDon · 09-01-2011, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

We don't know whether the Gospel Jesus was married or not. The Gospels don't tell us.

In fairness, the Gospels mightily suggest that Jesus was at best separated

That's interesting -- which passages did you have in mind?

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

08-31-2011, 05:17 PM	#77
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Sorry, busy til Saturday. Not much point in responding to DonG or Judge, but I'll get back soon to the others.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.