Didymus

To put it another way, some upstart Gentiles were going around trying to appropriate - and utterly misconstrue! - my religion and my culture.

Ddms

maryhelena

Mythology, theology, spirituality - are bound up together to create a never ending source of conflict, controversy - and fascination....

maryhelena

A 'whole hog' mythicist? Simply a mythicist that thinks the NT is a mythological re-telling of Christian beginnings....hence contains no actual history of that beginning whatsoever....

Yes, the date stamp has been backdated i.e. no Christians around at the time the date stamp relates to.

fatpie42

Actually even within Paul's writings it seems that early Christians were sharing their posessions rather than giving them away. (A much more sensible system to be honest.)

Jesus certainly suggests that people give up all their posessions and follow him, but then relies on people who haven't done so for his survival. He is criticised for staying at house of a tax collector and when he feeds the five thousand he uses a bystander's lunch to do so....

Elijah

I don’t know what you are arguing for or against here. All I’m trying to say is that he should be understood from the perspective of a Jewish messiah claimant but not in the normal sense of trying to unite or lead the Jewish people over their enemies. How much military action was expected or how peace was actually going to be achieved is a guessing game and varies.
Social change is a common goal in most major religions; it’s hard for it not to become part of any major social movement that is expected to spread. In the west Moses was trying to establish a republic where pharaoh didn’t rule, while Jesus was trying to establish a better example of a king who serves the people and Muhammad tried to establish an alternate society to compete against the current empire. In the east it’s usually more of an example of “be the change you want to see” type of social change they are looking to create.

Even when they are just trying to push a moral code or specific teaching it’s usually with the idea in mind that if people followed that certain moral code or understood that teaching then the world’s problems would subside some. Even your antitheist (?) agenda is about trying to create a social change in the people that you hope to spread your message of skepticism to, because you believe will lead to a better tomorrow.

(Socialist was too specific to a particular social change that has a lot of different versions that may not include equality. I tried to clarify in post #61)
Labeling him a “theist” is kind of missing the point of the conversation we are having.. If he wasn’t for female equality/feminism then what was he for and how do you support that assertion?
I’m not going to respond to all your comments on the evidence I provided. As I said nothing is proof in itself but the fact that you can’t provide any evidence that suggests otherwise calls into question why you are still clinging onto this position. Obviously you can find other interpretations of every aspect of what Jesus said and did but then you have to prove that their/your interpretation is right and it still doesn’t get you off the hook for actually having to present your position and supporting it with evidence.

The evidence the scholar uses to make his case for Jesus being (whatever you think he is exactly) is what you need to present. He may be using the same faulty reasoning as you are of requiring Jesus specifically saying what social change he is trying to create.

First thing you need to do is establish what you claim his position on equality was. Trying to say he wasn’t a feminist in the modern sense is just side stepping the question. If he wasn’t for equality; then what was he for and how did you come to this conclusion or is it just a convenient assumption?
Why is it “clearly” Jesus had a supernatural end times scenario when Revelations, (where the modern “Left Behind” concept is derived from) should be interpreted as an attack on Rome? You’re not going to get to far in understanding the Jesus story if you’re trying to understand it from the perspective of a tent preacher screaming the end is near while ignoring the Jewish messiah aspect.
Basic militant feminism 101. Women have the power to take control of this planet anytime they choose to work together and do so.

fatpie42

Earlier you expected me to convince you that anyone was not expecting a military messiah. Now that I've shown this you are conveniently asserting that it was a moot point all along.

It depends on the issue. Once a religion is established it will normally be pretty conservative and you must remember that Jesus is clearly writing from a Jewish perspective (i.e. from the perspective of one belonging to a long-standing religion).

Within the story of Moses, he frees the Israelites from saviour and then becomes their singular unchallenged leader. Where does a 'republic' come into this?

Empire? I think that might be the wrong term. In any case, yes Muhammed wanted to change the existing order and followers have been conservatively sticking to this new order (as they interpret it) unflinchingly ever since.

Jesus similarly was sticking closely to the Jewish law, the central beliefs of his religion. He gives textual justification for his decisions and sometimes even makes the laws stricter.

Whatever? I'm not really campaigning for anything that liberal religious believers aren't campaigning for already: women's rights, gay rights, black rights, ending of child abuse (no, not Dawkins rather widened definition), separation of Church and state, etc. I just have a different perspective on it. Dawkins considers liberal religion to be inconsistent, but I would not say that.

I don't understand. You asked what he was for. You are going to have to be more specific.

I just answered that question!
I believe I already have shown evidence that suggests otherwise simply in my consideration of Jesus' connection with Jewish law. There is evidence that he was a conservative thinker who supported the Jewish law. What you asked for, however, was evidence that Jesus is sexist. Since I don't believe Jesus is sexist, it is unsurprising that I cannot find such evidence.

Excuse me? Why don't you do so first?

Why? In what sense were you saying he was a feminist?

It's "Revelation", not "Revelations". It doesn't describe Jesus' life or teachings. Yes, people at the time wanted to overthrow Rome.

The "Left Behind" concept is that Revelation is a prophecy of the second coming happening sometime during our lifetimes and naturally that's a dodgy interpretation. Nevertheless, interpreting it as an attempt to overthrow Rome during Jesus' lifetime would be just as dodgy, wouldn't it? Jesus was dead when it was written.

Jesus claims that they would see the son of Man come with power before they taste death. At the end of John it is claimed that Jesus had not said that John would survive until his second coming after all. Within 2 Peter the further excuse is made that 'for God a thousand years is only day' (meaning that Jesus is still expected to arrive 'soon'). If they weren't expecting a supernatural occurrence, they would not have had to make these excuses.

Solo

I am afraid there is no evidence outside NT there were 'well-to-do Jesus seekers' before 70 CE to give their money away in the first place. The people that Paul mentions as supporters of the relief effort in 2 Cor 8 were themselves extremely poor.

Personally, I believe that among the social groups who first embraced the first Jesus cults two figured prominently: 1) lefty urban bohemians and 2) the declassés, i.e. the largely self-educated dropouts of the middle class. Definitely not people who were well adjusted, well-to-do, or well received in the community at large.

I am grateful you at least bother to find an excuse for butting in

Jiri

linwood

I just read it.

I think she makes some interesting assumptions.

However quoting Josephus `s TF as documentation of a historical Jesus leads me to disregard her reported credentials as a "biblical Scholar" along with anything else she says.

Elijah

I wasn’t trying to get you to convince me of anything. I was trying to get your understanding of what the messiah was and where you were getting it from. You then provided a Christian take on the messiah which is what I am arguing for.
Failing to see your point here. Once a group gets large enough all demographics have a tendency to get represented, including your conservatives, which I don’t know how you are defining.
Him establishing the commandments and god’s law that would rule over the people instead of royalty/pharaoh. Obedience to God alone.
I’m not sure the point you are trying to make with saying Jesus stuck to Jewish laws. Maybe you should clarify what you think this means.
Never mind it’s too off topic.
What was he for in regards to equality of the people and of women? That is the conversation we are having.
So you’re saying he was for getting rid of the world’s rulers you just believed he had a magical scenario in mind for doing so? And the women in this age, were they meant to be equals or less than equal? Prophesying a change or a new day after a major disaster is just showing a basic understanding of human nature. There is going to be a disaster and the people will change their ways is one of those inevitable kind of predictions.
So your position is that everyone who was connected to the Jewish law believed in preserving the authoritative status quo and women as second class citizens? (Insert specific word choice of your choosing and clarify as much as possible.)

Your disagreements with the word choices I am making in regards to your position could be solved by simply stating your position clearly on what you think he believed in regards to women’s equality, but then you would need to support it and that’s where your problem is.
You know that I believe he saw them as equal and know the evidence I used to come to that conclusion. The same cannot be said for your position or the evidence you used to come to whatever your conclusion is.
This seems like nothing more than song and dance on your part to try to hide the fact that your position is nothing more than a convenient assumption.
I’m just using the word to describe a basic equal treatment in regards towards women. You are trying to argue about modern understandings of the word instead of presenting what you think he actually believed in regards to the discussion.
I’m asking why you see Revelation as an attack on Rome written cryptically but Jesus as a supernatural end time’s preacher with no underlying political agenda?
You are still missing the political angle to what is going on to instead take a literal/superstitious understanding of spiritual concepts. No matter how flamboyant the prophet’s language is, god’s wrath is usually meant to be understood as some type of natural disasters or war/conflict.

Yes some Jews believed in a literal resurrection and eternal life but a supernatural event wasn’t needed for that to come about. Eternal life and the resurrection of the dead is just the inevitable progress of man as soon as we stop serving the will of other men.

I Corinthians 15:24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

fatpie42

I didn't just provide a Christian take. I provided many others too. There was no fixed view as to what the messiah was like. People were essentially making it up as they went along. Some highly creative interpretations of the Tanakh along with some new prophecies such as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls were forming their idea of the messiah and many would not have been convinced by any of those ideas.

The naive 'Christian take' is that the Jews all expected a military messiah and then Jesus came along and surprised them by dying instead. That's not what happened. By your own admission, we have no way of knowing that Jesus didn't actually intend to challenge the authority with force (though its not said within the gospels) and messiahs who used force against the current authorities were executed (so no difference there either). The big difference with Jesus was the claim that he did not really die and was still appearing to people in a supernatural way.

Once a religion is established. The established religious authorities are not going to say "we need to radically change the existing order" because that would threaten their own position of authority. When religious laws dominate, claiming that there is something very wrong with the religious laws is absurd asides from arguments that the laws are not being interpreted correctly. Jesus is not arguing for a new religion, but simply arguing that the laws need to be interpreted properly (as many Pharisees and other Jewish religious leaders were also doing at the time).

He is conservative in the sense that he is sticking to the existing rules, not arguing for a complete overhaul of the system. My point was that once a religion is established, the leaders will not ask for a complete overhaul of the system because that would suggest that their religion's requirements are unrealistic.

That is not a 'republic' (God is clearly acting as a kind of monarch in this instance):

a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic

Besides, it wasn't obedience to God alone. It was obedience to Moses.

The Jewish laws were the existing patriarchal social order and you are claiming that Jesus was interested in social change and feminism. The two seem to conflict quite strongly.

He's for Jews being the chosen people, but giving gentiles a bit of a look-in (as had been the case beforehand). He never says anything about equality for women, so I cannot presume any particular position on it. I can only presume that his view was similar to others of the time, just like his view on the Jewish law.

So he's a failed prophet? Yeah, I could agree with that.

Well not quite because Samaritans would have connection with the Jewish law and clearly weren't entirely keen on the authoritative status quo. Also, I've no doubt there may have been women who were upset with their status, though we never hear about them. Nevertheless, the majority of literate people of the time do not seem to be challenging the Jewish law (just arguing about the best interpretation as is still done today).

Ah, I think perhaps I see what you mean. The Jewish authorities were not really in charge at the time. Before the fall of the Temple the Herods are still ruling as King while themselves under Roman control. There is no doubt that many were upset with that, but then again it was the common view of the time that there was something wrong with this system. Simply saying "I don't like this" was not really advocating social change, since this was already a common view within the society. Are you promoting a social change if you just go along with what everyone else is saying?

I have already explained why your evidence does not support your position. You've decided to ignore my responses.

My position is that we don't know what Jesus thought and that there is no reliable evidence that he was interested in feminism or socialism. He might have been interested in social change in the sense that everyone wanted the Roman occupation to end (and therefore everyone was interested in social change), but he does not do anything unique in that regard.

Yes, that's right. It's a convenient assumption to presume that he had similar beliefs to those of the times since that is what the New Testament accounts suggests, that is what the Biblical scholar I cited says and there is no good evidence to the contrary. How very convenient that my position matches the evidence.....

But you haven't even shown that Jesus demands "basic equal treatment". All you've shown is that he occasionally treats women well. Treating women well is not the same as promoting women's rights.

Yes and that is why St. Paul had a huge military campaign to bring this to fruition *sarcasm*