Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 12-31-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

IMO, that is why people stretch their imaginations to keep jesus mythical, because historical jesus is too hard to box up. if he is reduced then there is nothing behind the authors of the gospels at all (and no reason for the gospels to even exist), if he is increased then he tells the future, fulfills prophecy, and heals the sick. The former being improbable, the latter being impossible and the reason the Jesus Seminar re-interprets apocalyptic passages from jesus self-references.

I don't think this is quite right. If Mark was the first gospel writer (as is usually assumed) he may have had his own reasons for this composition. Historical reporting is one possibility but not the only one. But since his subject is a unique person (Jesus) then why couldn't his book be a unique type or style of writing?

Before Mark there were apparently no historical descriptions of Christian origins, just faith documents and mutual support among believers who expected the end of the world. Maybe Mark came at a time when the original Christians were gone, and their message was being developed in new directions (eg. pushing the apocalypse into the indefinite future)

before Mark? aren't we talking about 30-60 years?

my point is this: The Jesus 'un-covered' (created) by Jesus Seminar or by Abe is improbable because there is not enough to justify the existence of the gospels in the first place. i.e. it is too boring and mundane to have been written about at all. if Jesus said a few things and followed John the baptist and died then what is there to write about? It is improbable that the gospels would have existed. If you strip it down to what your sense of reality can stomache then you take away the probability of the gospels even existing.

~steve

ApostateAbe · 12-31-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I don't think this is quite right. If Mark was the first gospel writer (as is usually assumed) he may have had his own reasons for this composition. Historical reporting is one possibility but not the only one. But since his subject is a unique person (Jesus) then why couldn't his book be a unique type or style of writing?

Before Mark there were apparently no historical descriptions of Christian origins, just faith documents and mutual support among believers who expected the end of the world. Maybe Mark came at a time when the original Christians were gone, and their message was being developed in new directions (eg. pushing the apocalypse into the indefinite future)

before Mark? aren't we talking about 30-60 years?

my point is this: The Jesus 'un-covered' (created) by Jesus Seminar or by Abe is improbable because there is not enough to justify the existence of the gospels in the first place. i.e. it is too boring and mundane to have been written about at all. if Jesus said a few things and followed John the baptist and died then what is there to write about? It is improbable that the gospels would have existed. If you strip it down to what your sense of reality can stomache then you take away the probability of the gospels even existing.

~steve

Christianity had the things that most other cults had, but it had some things that other cults didn't, and I think the things that made the Christian cult especially powerful and long-lived. Those things were 1) scripturalism, 2) monotheistic authoritarianism, and 3) heaven and hell. I put emphasis on heaven and hell, because the followers of Jesus (perhaps Jesus himself) uniquely applied ultimate reward for adherents and ultimate punishment for everyone else, whereas previous religions would apply afterlife reward and punishment based on sin, not necessarily based on adherence to the ideology. Those three things and more may not be compelling to people like you and me, but they are very powerful motivational forces for ordinary people.

Elijah · 12-31-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

my point is this: The Jesus 'un-covered' (created) by Jesus Seminar or by Abe is improbable because there is not enough to justify the existence of the gospels in the first place. i.e. it is too boring and mundane to have been written about at all. if Jesus said a few things and followed John the baptist and died then what is there to write about? It is improbable that the gospels would have existed. If you strip it down to what your sense of reality can stomache then you take away the probability of the gospels even existing.

~steve

The gospels were necessary to show that their pick for the messiah didn't die but instead sacrificed himself as part of a plan. If it was originally followers of JTB and he was trying to fullfill the role of Elijah by choosing the king like the original did with Jehu, then they certainly had reason to try and explain that his pick wasn't defeated on the cross but was instead trying something.

Abe, are you coming around on the messiah angle?

sschlichter · 12-31-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

IMO, that is why people stretch their imaginations to keep jesus mythical, because historical jesus is too hard to box up. if he is reduced then there is nothing behind the authors of the gospels at all (and no reason for the gospels to even exist), if he is increased then he tells the future, fulfills prophecy, and heals the sick. The former being improbable, the latter being impossible and the reason the Jesus Seminar re-interprets apocalyptic passages from jesus self-references.

I find it interesting that you see John 14:6 as claims to deity but not matt 4:6, 16:16, 14:33, 26:63, Mark 1:1, 3;11, and 12:35-37.

John 14:6 is a claim, perhaps implicitly, to deity, but more explicitly it is a claim to being an exclusive agent of God, the only path to God and to salvation, in addition to being the Messiah and the Son of God. That pattern is repeated throughout the gospel of John. In the synoptic gospels, Jesus certainly has a high status, being the Messiah and the Son of God, but he is not necessarily an exclusive agent. The Messiah and the Son of God are still significantly below God himself. But maybe that is only splitting hairs.

I am not sure you are allowing for the full meaning of the terms 'son of man' or 'son of god'. It is not a a claim to be the little boy of God. it is a claim to be sent by god or derive from God. specifically, the son of man was a term associated with a prophetic fulfillment of one looking like a man who was given eternal authority by God to rule all nations and people.

(Dan 7:13) I was watching in the night visions,
"And with the clouds of the sky
one like a son of man was approaching.
He went up to the Ancient of Days
and was escorted before him.
(Dan 7:14) To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty.
All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him.
His authority is eternal and will not pass away.
His kingdom will not be destroyed.

Jesus' self identity as the son of man in the synoptics cannot be separated from his claims to be sent from God. This was the understanding of the claim to everyone that heard him say it.

the Talmud points out the intentions of anyone using the term to refer to themselves.

"Rabbi Abahu said, If a man says 'I am God,' he lies; if he says, 'I am the Son of man' he shall rue it; 'I will go up to heaven,' he saith, but shall not perform it." (Jerusalem Talmud Taanith-65b)

Talmud quote taken from here

It would make more sense to remove any references to Jesus as the son of man if you are suggesting that Jesus wanted to avoid being crucified. it is not logical to have him mutter the phrase at all without a way to back it up.

~steve

ApostateAbe · 12-31-2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

my point is this: The Jesus 'un-covered' (created) by Jesus Seminar or by Abe is improbable because there is not enough to justify the existence of the gospels in the first place. i.e. it is too boring and mundane to have been written about at all. if Jesus said a few things and followed John the baptist and died then what is there to write about? It is improbable that the gospels would have existed. If you strip it down to what your sense of reality can stomache then you take away the probability of the gospels even existing.

~steve

The gospels were necessary to show that their pick for the messiah didn't die but instead sacrificed himself as part of a plan. If it was originally followers of JTB and he was trying to fullfill the role of Elijah by choosing the king like the original did with Jehu, then they certainly had reason to try and explain that his pick wasn't defeated on the cross but was instead trying something.

Abe, are you coming around on the messiah angle?

Sorry, what is the messiah angle? I am going to get to work on the "cult leader Jesus" hypothesis, because I blew that off.

sschlichter · 12-31-2009, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

my point is this: The Jesus 'un-covered' (created) by Jesus Seminar or by Abe is improbable because there is not enough to justify the existence of the gospels in the first place. i.e. it is too boring and mundane to have been written about at all. if Jesus said a few things and followed John the baptist and died then what is there to write about? It is improbable that the gospels would have existed. If you strip it down to what your sense of reality can stomache then you take away the probability of the gospels even existing.

~steve

The gospels were necessary to show that their pick for the messiah didn't die but instead sacrificed himself as part of a plan. If it was originally followers of JTB and he was trying to fullfill the role of Elijah by choosing the king like the original did with Jehu, then they certainly had reason to try and explain that his pick wasn't defeated on the cross but was instead trying something.

Abe, are you coming around on the messiah angle?

What reason? so they could be crucified as well?

Elijah · 12-31-2009, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Sorry, what is the messiah angle? I am going to get to work on the "cult leader Jesus" hypothesis, because I blew that off.

That he was a messiah claimant in a time when they were expecting a leader to come save them. That's one of the necessary components to understanding the origins of Christianity IMO.

sschlichter · 12-31-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Sorry, what is the messiah angle? I am going to get to work on the "cult leader Jesus" hypothesis, because I blew that off.

That he was a messiah claimant in a time when they were expecting a leader to come save them. That's one of the necessary components to understanding the origins of Christianity IMO.

I agree, If he said he was the son of man then his claim was exactly as you say. I do not understand trying to separate those.

~steve

Elijah · 12-31-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

What reason? so they could be crucified as well?

Huh? It's a narrative illustrating a messiah claimant sacrificing himself, so they were able to maintain he was still the messiah and wasn't defeated. Seems to be a pretty obvious reason there.

Yea maybe about the crucifixion. What Jesus asks of you, is to be willing to sacrifice yourself but I don't think that was the intent of writing it down.

sschlichter · 12-31-2009, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

What reason? so they could be crucified as well?

Huh? It's a narrative illustrating a messiah claimant sacrificing himself, so they were able to maintain he was still the messiah and wasn't defeated. Seems to be a pretty obvious reason there.

Yea maybe about the crucifixion. What Jesus asks of you, is to be willing to sacrifice yourself but I don't think that was the intent of writing it down.

yes, and the outcome of maintaining such claims that resulted in crucifixion was further crucifixion. Wouldn't it make more sense to maintain that the claimant told us to keep it to ourselves so we do not get killed and then write that down?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.