Elijah

Still don’t know the point you are trying to make or what you are arguing against.

Jesus didn’t have any intention of himself or his immediate followers using force against the authority but if he intended for his later followers I don’t know.

People over here swore Elvis was alive after he died. Visions of dead loved ones is nothing out of the ordinary even now so no reason to be surprised seeing it back then. The “big difference” between Jesus and which Messiah’s story in particular? What other Messiah’s are you comparing Jesus to?
I’m not saying Jesus is arguing for a new religion. He’s trying to fulfill a prophecy within his own, but he obviously has a different take on his religion than that of the religious authority at the time. I don’t know what you think Jesus’ opinion on the law was or its intent was since you don’t understand it politically.

You have unrealistic expectations for the criteria of someone being for social reform or for equal rights. If he doesn’t try to completely overhaul the system then he’s not a social reformer, if he doesn’t directly tell the reader his views on women as equal then obviously he doesn’t because you need to be told directly what to think.
What they tried to establish is something similar to what America would later try with freeing itself from England’s monarchy/empire. It was more republic (rule by law) and less democratic (rule by people) than America but Moses was trying to build a monarchy as much as Jefferson was.
So Jesus being a Jew who followed the law means that he automatically should be assumed to have an authoritative view of how society should run and superior view of men over women until proven by him saying directly otherwise?
Again and again you are dodging and dancing around presenting your position so you don’t have to actually defend it. You are presuming he wasn’t for equality of man or women based on his following of Jewish law it seems but you haven’t bothered supporting that assumption with reason.
Depends on what you think he was predicting. What’s important for you is to understand that making prophecy about changes after disasters is no reason to bring the supernatural into it or to exclude a political understanding of the changes.
We aren’t talking about the majority of literate people we are talking about a particular individual that you should be able to make some opinion in regards to the discussion with actual evidence in the story not “well most people were….” “so Jesus was…. “unless you can prove me wrong by him saying directly otherwise.” Your position is based on a convenient assumption; not any evidence the story provides.

So that it was a common view that social reform was needed, Jesus sharing that view means he wasn’t a social reformer???
I’m not asking for your rebuttal to the evidence I provided. I said don’t bother and that it is easy to find another take on all the actions and statements of Jesus. What I asked for was the evidence that helped form your opinion on Jesus that you refuse to tell me what actually is (not what he’s not).
This isn’t a position. This is an argument against someone else’s position. You complaining there isn’t enough proof or he didn’t say it straight out that he’s for equality doesn’t tell me what you think his position was if he wasn’t for equality. This is again you avoiding presenting your case on what Jesus was. You saying that he wasn’t a feminist doesn’t tell me anything because I don’t even know the modern understanding of feminism you are judging him by. Being skeptical of someone else’s position is super easy, but it’s presenting a rational position that you can support is what you need to work on.
It is just a convenient assumption that doesn’t prove your position and I don’t even think you could support the idea of him being conservative (if that’s what you are claiming he was). I don’t care about any scholar’s interpretation I care about the evidence they used to come to that conclusion. Yes your lack of evidence matches your lack of a position.
I have said that his treatment of women was all we had. He’s not there to make demands, he’s there to sacrifice his life which he believes will bring about social change that I don’t feel excludes women. Your expectations of him are unrealistic and are just pitiful excuses so you don’t have to provide evidence to support your position or actually state what your position in regards to Jesus is (not that he was a theist Jew or was not a feminist in the modern sense).
Ideological messiah attempt. Got it yet???

fatpie42

Blooming eck. Serious deja vu here. Remember my reference to Josephus? I believe I gave the example of "The Egyptian"? Perhaps that was another thread and I'm getting mixed up...

I don't know what you think was different about Jesus' view of the law and the view of others at the time. I am simply voicing E.P. Sanders' view on this issue.

Look, your original claim as far as social reform was concerned was that Jesus was a 'socialist'. As I am now a little unsure what your current claim is meant to be, it should be unsurprising that I'm a little confused.

The Jesus in the New Testament disagrees with earthly rulers. Fine, agreed. In that sense he is pretty much sharing the view of the entire Jewish population of the time, but I guess that doesn't stop it counting as "social reform", even if it isn't socialism. So I guess we both win this round, eh? We both agree that it isn't strictly socialism and we both agree that it's a kind of social reform.

Ok, put it this way:
1) It was not common for people of the time to view women as equal.
2) If another figure of the time did not claim women were equal we would not presume that they thought such a thing.
3) We should not treat Jesus any differently from other figures of the time.
4) Jesus does not claim that women were equal in any of the gospels.
5) Therefore we should not presume that Jesus thought that women were equal.

Lol! I can not take this seriously I'm afraid. You are proposing Moses as an Enlightenment thinker. That's amazing.

Well you claimed he was predicting this:
How did people change their ways?

Another deja vu moment. I am sure that I pointed out earlier that the supposed 'historical' Jesus never appears to have sacrificed his life. The human figure is betrayed, handed over the authorities, given a dodgy trial, tortured, then finally brutally forced to walk up a hill before forcibly nailed to a cross and executed. Where's the self-sacrifice come in?

The only way it can count as a sacrifice is if Jesus witheld from using the power of God to prevent his death i.e. if we accept the mythological understanding of the story.

Toto

1. Jewish law did not require equality among men, or between men and women.
2. Jesus advocated following the Jewish Law.
3. Therefore, Jesus did not advocate equality among men and women.

I could flesh this out with biblical verses, but what about this is unreasonable?

Petergdi

That's not the "naive Christian take" but a product of old "liberal theology." You can't get the idea from the NT. The "naive Christian take" is that a crucified Messiah was unacceptable to most Jews. Jesus is depicted in the Gospels as rather popular with the population in general until he was arrested. His inability to get out of the situation disqualifies him in the mind of the populace.

The central claim about Jesus is precisely that he did really die, and was really raised from death, and was really seen by many people. Your claim is mistaken in every particular.

Peter.

Elijah

I think it’s another thread. You’ve just given me a list of messiah references from a Christian website. What are you trying to explain about Jesus with “the Egyptian”? I’m still lost on the point you are trying to make or if there is any reason to continue with this bit.
That’s great that you are a fan of the guy, but you need to provide the evidence they used, not the opinion they formed from it.
The laws’ use and intent is where Jesus would differ in understanding the law. Is the law meant to help create a free society or to be used by the authority to oppress the people.
I used the word socialist and feminist because that was the wording used by the poster I was responding to. If you ever decide to establish your position I will more than likely accommodate you the same way by using the wording of your choice. You are just trying to create a strawman with the wanting to return to the word socialist.
Cool we both win! So now we got him in the camp of social reform, what label would you use for the kind of social reform he was looking for?
1. I don’t know what the percentage of men who saw women as equal at the time was. Regardless of the percentage you guess, it would be difficult to say that the guy treating women with the regard he was portrayed didn’t fall into the minority who thought of them as equal.

2. We aren’t presuming anything we are using his interactions and statements regarding women to determine how he viewed them. The reason you assume that everyone back then was a sexist (not a feminist) is the number of sexist comments found in their texts, comments or behavior that isn’t found coming from Jesus.

3. If you are assuming everyone back then didn’t believe in equality unless they said so directly would call into question any figures you had in that regard.

4. But he treated and spoke to them as such and to expect an outright statement like that to be accepted or survive the editing back then is unrealistic.

5. Sexist until proven otherwise still doesn’t seem rational but at least you’re being more honest instead of thinking there is evidence for your position.

The peoples’ struggle for their freedom over their rulers goes back a lot further than 1776.

On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed a committee that included Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams to design the Great Seal of the United States.[56] Each member of the committee proposed a unique design: Franklin's proposal featured a design with the motto: "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." This design was to portray a scene from the Book of Exodus, complete with Moses, the Israelites, the pillar of fire, and George III depicted as Pharaoh.

You can understand the bible from the superstitious angle or from the political angle. Whatever you think will yield the results you want.
The people are still people but plenty has changed since then. In regards to Jesus, this empire’s leaders now praise his name to win support of the people and are expected to serve the people instead of us serving them. All the while disaster and war are fueling the change towards hopefully a more free people and a more serving authority.

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

John 10:18 I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.

From the mythicist perspective it should be obvious that him sacrificing his life is part of the story. He withheld running or trying to get off with Pilate. It’s death by authority, all that’s needed is to provoke them and not back down.

Elijah

American law didn’t initially require equality but you can’t assume that everyone was for slavery and against the right for women to vote just because they didn’t try to outright overthrow the government but instead try to make small changes. But at least we are getting closer to the truth that the opposing opinion is just based on an assumption that he was a sexist because of an assumption that everyone was back then and not based on any actual evidence from the narrative.

There is no reason that they couldn’t follow the law as Jesus illustrated it and have equality.

He may not have directly advocate it (said it aloud) but he was involved in a plan that was intended to help bring equality about in society.

Toto

According to this, the movement for equality for women in Jewish law started around 1970, well after Jesus. Up to that time, women might have been treated more or less fairly, but were universally considered to occupy a separate sphere. They were exempt from certain commandments, and they were excluded from leadership positions. Their testimony was not allowed in court on the same basis as men's. There was no equality in marriage (there still is not, for the orthodox.)

This is the law that Jesus announced he would not change, not one jot or tittle (Matthew 5:18).

Do you have any clue about these issues? You don't seem to know what the law is, or what feminism is, or what form of government the ancient Hebrews followed.

Petergdi

When someone says they are not doing X, it practically invariably means that they have been accused of X or are doing something that might be mistaken for X.

Compare the anecdote of Gamaliel II and the Matthew-type Jewish gospel (Shabbat 116 a-b) where an apparent saying of Jesus "Son and daughter inherit together" is made out to be a specific instance of the gospel being contrary to the law of Moses.

Peter.

fatpie42

But that's precisely the point. The use and intent of the Pharisees was often no different from that of Jesus. Naturally the Pharisees were also arguing amongst themselves, but Jesus does not say anything which contradicts the views of the Pharisees of the time. Also, the Pharisees were not authority figures until after the end of the reigh of Herods (at which point there was a power vacuum which they filled). At the time Jesus was writing, the Pharisees were not an authority with any power to oppress. They had the same complaints about authority as Jesus did.

It has been pointed out to you already on this forum that a highly patriarchal stance was taken for granted. Making out Jesus to be a feminist is like the Elizabeth films which make out that Elizabeth was interested in democracy and religious freedom. It's completely anachronistic. Nevertheless, I'm sure the term you were looking for was "proto-feminist" (i.e. forerunner to feminism), but I don't think Jesus qualifies for that either. Accepting the status quo, but not saying anything for or against it would normally be taken as indifference to the inequalities of society, not as active intent to make society equal.

Yes and within those texts I find absolutely no evidence that he viewed them any differently from anyone else.

If I ignored the social conventions of the time, I wouldn't be able to call Socrates a sexist. In another context, choosing to bathe so people don't have to wash your body later would actually seem charitable. On those grounds I could say "Socrates treated women well" and by your grounds I would have to call him a feminist. However, recognising that women were expected to deal with dead bodies and that Socrates was most likely avoiding his body being touched by them because he thought it might impurify him, I can assert a low opinion of women in Socrates' view. Even so, does that make Socrates 'sexist'? He isn't actively slandering women after all...

If we look at the gospels, there is no special treatment for women by Jesus. None of the disciples are women. Women are not spoken of favourably in stories he tells. None of his teachings encourage equality for women. Women are found at his tomb (because they are connected with death and deal with dead bodies) and women are preached to (because Jesus would tell his message to anyone who would listen - and let's not forget that this puts them on the level of theives and tax collectors). What reason do we have to claim that Jesus was bucking the trend?

You are still pushing that same old false dichotomy. Just because someone never says anything sexist, does not make them a feminist.

You really believe that don't you?

Rulers always appeal to the gods of their people. It does not make the society any better. Constantine was served by his people, not the other way around.

What you are talking about is democracy and the history of Christendom has very little of that....

Thank you for making my point. He is only sacrificing from a mythicist perspective. He only makes a sacrifice if he is God (or working with the magical divine power of God). If he is a historical human being, he was simply executed against his will.

Why would Pilate have spoken to the historical Jesus? He didn't formally attend crucifixions. Pilate's involvement in the story is an attempt to appeal to potential Roman converts.

fatpie42

Okay, you seem to be making some concessions now. Previously you were claiming we must presume he was promoting women's rights until we see evidence otherwise. Now you are saying that we cannot make any presumptions without evidence.

Calling someone a feminist requires some sign that they were actively involved with promoting women's rights. We see no such evidence from Jesus, so we must simply presume he was an average Joe. He might have been interested in treating women well, but we have no reason to think he was pushing for women's rights.

How can you possibly know that he was involved in such a 'plan' when he never said so? Why should we presume that anyone at the time had such a plan when it so clearly failed to come to fruition?