Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 03-27-2009, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Exactly. Why is it that so few people who delve into this subject ever engage directly with Judaism?

IMHO, it's because 80% of the population is Christian, including scholars.

spamandham · 03-27-2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Only someone with a strong understanding of the culture and some insight into the writers' motives could hope to make such a judgement.

The Jesus story is fundamentally fiction.

You do not have the qualifications I stated.

show_no_mercy · 03-27-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The NT is a rejection of Judaism

Not according to well-informed Jews.

How many times in this thread are you going to equivocate between Jesus and Christianity??

Christianity, by its very nature, is a rejection of Judaism. If it weren't a rejection of Judaism then it would be called Judaism, and all of those "well informed Jews" wouldn't be Jews at all - they would be Christians. How hard was it for you to find a link with some quotes by Jews who say good things about Jesus (and NOT Christianity)? I can walk down to the local synagoge and find hundreds of Jews who have less than pleasing remarks about Christianity. The fact that there were Ebionites means that Jesus himself (if existed) wasn't the problem, it was his non-Jewish followers who came up with pejoratives like "Judaizers" and wrote polemics against Ebionites and other Jewish-Christians.

The gospels are obviously written from the point of view of trying to have the Romans actually support Jesus while villifying the Jews. Paul's epistles are obviously written by someone who's fed up with Judaism.

No Robots · 03-27-2009, 01:52 PM

[T]he Gospel, which was originally something Jewish, becomes a book—and certainly not a minor work—within Jewish literature. This is not because, or not only because, it contains sentences which also appear in the same or a similar form in the Jewish works of that time. Nor is it such—in fact, it is even less so—because the Hebrew or Aramaic breaks again and again through the word forms and sentence formations of the Greek translation. Rather it is a Jewish book because—by all means and entirely because—the pure air of which it is full and which it breathes is that of the Holy Scriptures; because a Jewish spirit, and none other, lives in it; because Jewish faith and Jewish hope, Jewish suffering and Jewish distress, Jewish knowledge and Jewish expectations, and these alone, resound through it—a Jewish book in the midst of Jewish books. Judaism may not pass it by, nor mistake it, nor wish to give up all claims here. Here, too, Judaism should comprehend and take note of what is its own.--"The Gospel as a document of history". In Judaism and Christianity / Leo Baeck. Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society of America, 1958. p. 101-102.

show_no_mercy · 03-27-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

[T]he Gospel, which was originally something Jewish, becomes a book—and certainly not a minor work—within Jewish literature. This is not because, or not only because, it contains sentences which also appear in the same or a similar form in the Jewish works of that time. Nor is it such—in fact, it is even less so—because the Hebrew or Aramaic breaks again and again through the word forms and sentence formations of the Greek translation. Rather it is a Jewish book because—by all means and entirely because—the pure air of which it is full and which it breathes is that of the Holy Scriptures; because a Jewish spirit, and none other, lives in it; because Jewish faith and Jewish hope, Jewish suffering and Jewish distress, Jewish knowledge and Jewish expectations, and these alone, resound through it—a Jewish book in the midst of Jewish books. Judaism may not pass it by, nor mistake it, nor wish to give up all claims here. Here, too, Judaism should comprehend and take note of what is its own.--"The Gospel as a document of history". In Judaism and Christianity / Leo Baeck. Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society of America, 1958. p. 101-102.

Do you have any opinion of your own, or are you going to just quote some books?

aa5874 · 03-27-2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus story is fundamentally fiction.

You do not have the qualifications I stated.

You don't have to be a scholar to identify fiction.

I am qualified to say that Achilles, Apollo, Zeus, Dionysius, are all fictional or mythical. The fiction Jesus is no different.

gentleexit · 03-27-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Not according to well-informed Jews.

How many times in this thread are you going to equivocate between Jesus and Christianity??

Christianity, by its very nature, is a rejection of Judaism. If it weren't a rejection of Judaism then it would be called Judaism ...
The gospels are obviously written from the point of view of trying to have the Romans actually support Jesus while villifying the Jews. Paul's epistles are obviously written by someone who's fed up with Judaism.

What we call Judaism is the Rabbi-sect of Judaism. There were others. Christianit(ies) was one of them.

Written for Romans? I don't think so. What would a Roman care about Isaiah etc. The books were written by one sect who wanted to own their culture's holy books. On the way they denigrated a couple of other branches - temple-men and proto-rabbi's. Is it novel to reserve your greatest bile for those most like you?

The whole "Christian or Jew" as a stark dichotomy between TWO (not many many) separate institutions only took inexorable hold in the fourth century. The Christians took Greek-Judaism. The Rabbi's, the Hebrew. Any books in Greek, they left behind (bad mistake).

gentleexit · 03-27-2009, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

You do not have the qualifications I stated.

You don't have to be a scholar to identify fiction.

I am qualified to say that Achilles, Apollo, Zeus, Dionysius, are all fictional or mythical. The fiction Jesus is no different.

all heroes or gods deemed from far off times in ancient times. In between you have Pythagoras - lot's of stories - was there such a man? - and down to Jesus, Apollonius etc in the time after historians, after cross-cultural mixing. Jesus to Apollonius (a favorite of Pete Mountainman's) is a better comparison. They do bear comparison and the ancients compared them. And though who excelled depended on your side, neither side doubted the existence of a man behind the respective fantastic tales.

aa5874 · 03-27-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You don't have to be a scholar to identify fiction.

I am qualified to say that Achilles, Apollo, Zeus, Dionysius, are all fictional or mythical. The fiction Jesus is no different.

all heroes or gods deemed from far off times in ancient times. In between you have Pythagoras - lot's of stories - was there such a man? - and down to Jesus, Apollonius etc in the time after historians, after cross-cultural mixing. Jesus to Apollonius (a favorite of Pete Mountainman's) is a better comparison. They do bear comparison and the ancients compared them. And though who excelled depended on your side, neither side doubted the existence of a man behind the respective fantastic tales.

Can I compare Apollonius to Matthew 1.18?

Can I compare Apollonius to the Jesus when he resurrected?

And what about the transfiguration when Jesus brought dead prophets to life?

And the ascension?

I cannot compare Jesus to Apollonius. Jesus was the offspring of a ghost of God.

steve_bnk · 03-27-2009, 06:53 PM

According to the NT uitself the aerly 'christians' were Jews who gathered rading the OT, speaking in tounges, and the rest. There was no NT.

It would seem logical that the NT created by 'christians' is not what the folks like Peter, Paul, and James had in mind. Alls's they used was the OT.

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

03-27-2009, 01:52 PM	#124
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	[T]he Gospel, which was originally something Jewish, becomes a book—and certainly not a minor work—within Jewish literature. This is not because, or not only because, it contains sentences which also appear in the same or a similar form in the Jewish works of that time. Nor is it such—in fact, it is even less so—because the Hebrew or Aramaic breaks again and again through the word forms and sentence formations of the Greek translation. Rather it is a Jewish book because—by all means and entirely because—the pure air of which it is full and which it breathes is that of the Holy Scriptures; because a Jewish spirit, and none other, lives in it; because Jewish faith and Jewish hope, Jewish suffering and Jewish distress, Jewish knowledge and Jewish expectations, and these alone, resound through it—a Jewish book in the midst of Jewish books. Judaism may not pass it by, nor mistake it, nor wish to give up all claims here. Here, too, Judaism should comprehend and take note of what is its own.--"The Gospel as a document of history". In Judaism and Christianity / Leo Baeck. Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society of America, 1958. p. 101-102.

03-27-2009, 06:53 PM	#130
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	According to the NT uitself the aerly 'christians' were Jews who gathered rading the OT, speaking in tounges, and the rest. There was no NT. It would seem logical that the NT created by 'christians' is not what the folks like Peter, Paul, and James had in mind. Alls's they used was the OT.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.