Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 07-12-2010, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

Yeah, you are right in the sense that story telling can explain anything. So can miracles. So can elaborate conspiracies. So can powerful outerspace aliens.

Rubbish. There is lots of evidence of storytelling all around you. The evidence for miracles and outerspace aliens is lacking, and the evidence for powerful conspiracies is never there (because the conspiracy removed it and also covered its tracks too well.)

Wonderful. My point is: when you say that story telling can explain anything, that is really a very limited reflection of the quality of the explanation. If it is about the evidence and the best explanations for the evidence, then great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Yes, especially when you trace all of the elements of the gospel to reworking the Hebrew Scriptures.

All of the elements? Really? If that is the model you favor, then I would love it if you could tell me more about it. Previously, I thought you had no model. Like, OK, how do you trace the baptism of Jesus back to the Hebrew Scriptures? Specifically, what about John baptizing Jesus? How about baptism for the remission of sins? How about Nazareth? How about crucifixion? How about casting out demons? How about turning water into wine? How about walking on water? How about the betrayal of Christ by Judas? How about the denial of Christ three times before the cock crows?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

The baptism stories show signs of the baptism being an embarrassment . . . My explanation has explanatory power for the extreme humility of JtB in Mark and the reluctance of JtB in Matthew. That answers your initial question, by the way.

But that's just it - Mark is not embarrassed. Extreme humility is a plot device, much more likely to have been made up than observed. Matthew reflects a different theological stance in which the baptism for removal of sin might be embarrassing, but this doesn't show a historical antecedent, just that he was working from Mark's story (as we know from the large amount of copying that he did.)

Extreme humility is a plot device just like anything can be a plot device, just like anything can be made up. An explanation for the account really needs to consider the reality that the followers of JtB really were a rival religious sect. If Matthew thought that the baptism was embarrassing, and Matthew sourced from Mark, does that not lend further support to the explanation that Mark saw the baptism as embarrassing and in need of religious spin? We can find even more corroboration for my explanation in the gospels of Luke and John. Luke claims that Jesus was baptized after JtB was jailed, and John doesn't mention the baptism at all. My explanation seems to have explanatory scope for all of those accounts.

Dave31 · 07-12-2010, 04:02 PM

Quote:

mountainman "It occurs to me that it would be interesting to discuss the relationship between the position of the mythicists and the position of the gnostics to see what common ground exists. In what sense might it be correct to see the earliest mythicists as the gnostics?

Secondly, what is the relationship between the history of the gnostics who authored the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" and the history of the Mythicism, as much as it may be related to the Greek New Testament."

Acharya's work discusses the Gnostics in all of her books. I wouldn't claim that the Gnostics were the earliest mythicists though. I would bet that award would probably go to the oldest religions.

From the mythicist article:

Quote:

"...The study of mythicism, astrotheology and archaeoastronomy reveals a very ancient body of knowledge that is both highly fascinating and far too overlooked in today’s society. The astrotheological aspect of mythicism may be seen in remarks such as those by the ancient Greek writer Diodorus Siculus (c. 90-21 BCE):

"Now when the ancient Egyptians, awestruck and wondering, turned their eyes to the heavens, they concluded that two gods, the sun and the moon, were primeval and eternal; and they called the former Osiris, the latter Isis..." (Murphy, 14)"

Latin writer Macrobious (c. 400 AD/CE) also wrote about the astrotheology of the ancients, asserting that "all the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power—the sun."

In the modern era, archaeologists and archaeoastromers have confirmed this ancient astrotheology in numerous sites throughout the world, as summarized by astronomer Dr. Edwin C. Krupp in In Search of Ancient Astronomies:

"At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significance. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories... Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later."

The mythicist position brings forward the ancient astrotheology as expressed in these numerous cultures and ties it into the more modern religious traditions, which in many aspects are simply rehashes of the earlier religion and mythology of antiquity: To reiterate, Jesus Christ is a mythological character along the same lines as the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian or other mythical gods, goddesses, godmen and heroes..."

"...who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

mountainman · 07-12-2010, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

mountainman "It occurs to me that it would be interesting to discuss the relationship between the position of the mythicists and the position of the gnostics to see what common ground exists. In what sense might it be correct to see the earliest mythicists as the gnostics?

Secondly, what is the relationship between the history of the gnostics who authored the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" and the history of the Mythicism, as much as it may be related to the Greek New Testament."

Acharya's work discusses the Gnostics in all of her books. I wouldn't claim that the Gnostics were the earliest mythicists though. I would bet that award would probably go to the oldest religions.

From the mythicist article:

Quote:

"...The study of mythicism, astrotheology and archaeoastronomy reveals a very ancient body of knowledge that is both highly fascinating and far too overlooked in today’s society. The astrotheological aspect of mythicism may be seen in remarks such as those by the ancient Greek writer Diodorus Siculus (c. 90-21 BCE):

"Now when the ancient Egyptians, awestruck and wondering, turned their eyes to the heavens, they concluded that two gods, the sun and the moon, were primeval and eternal; and they called the former Osiris, the latter Isis..." (Murphy, 14)"

Latin writer Macrobious (c. 400 AD/CE) also wrote about the astrotheology of the ancients, asserting that "all the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power—the sun."

In the modern era, archaeologists and archaeoastromers have confirmed this ancient astrotheology in numerous sites throughout the world, as summarized by astronomer Dr. Edwin C. Krupp in In Search of Ancient Astronomies:

"At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significance. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories... Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later."

The mythicist position brings forward the ancient astrotheology as expressed in these numerous cultures and ties it into the more modern religious traditions, which in many aspects are simply rehashes of the earlier religion and mythology of antiquity: To reiterate, Jesus Christ is a mythological character along the same lines as the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian or other mythical gods, goddesses, godmen and heroes..."

"...who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

That's an interesting read.

However I can cite Gnostics in the first century BCE as well.

"There were Gnostics in Graeco-Roman academies, the (middle) Platonists,
in the era BCE (ie: Fugulus, Eudorus of Alexandria, Thrasyllus).
These are the Pythagorising Platonists who, before Plotinus,
held that knowledge can be perfected when it communes wit the divine,
the mysterious Divine. Cicero speaks of Figulus (45 BCE), "the spiritual one",
who was a contemporary of Apollonius of Tyana, the miracle worker and
spiritualist mystic, and also a Pythagorean."

--- Paul Trejo, German scholar/author
The Essence of the Gnostics --- Bernard Simon (2004)

There are at least two questions here.

(1) who were these early Gnostics and how are they related to the Gnostic authors of the NT Apocryphal books, and

(2) the discussion of the astronomical symbolisms of the ancient people of that epoch. I will repeat what I have just written in another thread ...

The history of the non sidereal, or tropical zodiac, appears to have commenced in the 4th century ---- as a result of decisions made at the Council of Nicaea. My notes on this matter of the divergence of the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs

aa5874 · 07-12-2010, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

....Luke claims that Jesus was baptized after JtB was jailed, and John doesn't mention the baptism at all. My explanation seems to have explanatory scope for all of those accounts.

It is false that the author of Luke claimed Jesus was baptized after John the Baptist was jailed.

See Luke 3.21-22

Quote:

21Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

22and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

A similar chronology was used in "Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2 where events that happened AFTER the execution of John the Baptist were mentioned BEFORE John the Baptist was introduced.

Toto · 07-12-2010, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
All of the elements? Really?

I'm getting tired of this. Read for yourself:

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html

Quote:

If that is the model you favor, then I would love it if you could tell me more about it. Previously, I thought you had no model. Like, OK, how do you trace the baptism of Jesus back to the Hebrew Scriptures?

Washing for purity was a Jewish custom (the mikvah) as well as a custom in other religions, and possibly the mysteries. I don't know the exact origin of this baptism, but I see no reason that it must be historical.

Quote:

Specifically, what about John baptizing Jesus?

John in this story is clearly modeled on Elijah. (He might have been a historical person, as described by Josephus.)

From the link above:

Mark has presented John as an Elijah figure with a leather belt (zonen dematinen) around his waist (peri ten osphyn autou), using the same language the Septaugint uses to describe Elijah, a hairy man, girt with a leather belt (zonen dematinen) around his waist (ten osphyn autou) (Helms 1988, p35). Zech 13:4 states that a hairy mantle is the sign of a prophet.

...

Arthur Drews (1998) and Joseph Campbell (1962, 107) both link John to Oannes, a name for the Babylonian god Enki who was responsible for purification through water rituals (compare Greek Ionnaes, Latin Johannes, Hebrew Yohanan, English John). While this does not sunder John the Baptist from history, it does show how deep the roots of this character may go.

Quote:

How about baptism for the remission of sins?

Josephus states that John did not baptize for the remission of sins. The baptism was only an outward sign of the inner repentance.

Again, from the link above

Jesus simply appears, without parents or antecedents. Many exegetes interpret the Christology of Mark as Adoptionist (Jesus is a human adopted as God's son) as opposed to Matthew and Luke, who posit Jesus as the Son of God from the beginning.

The baptism and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of the dove initiate Jesus as the Messiah.

Quote:

How about Nazareth?

Mark doesn't actually mention Nazareth. He says that Jesus' home was Capernum, although he refers to Jesus as the Nazarene.

I know you have convinced yourself that Nazareth existed, but there is actually no evidence for it outside the Bible, even if there are some archaeological remains where Christians later decided that Nazareth must have been.

Quote:

How about crucifixion?

A common punishment for insurrection, and also a metaphor. The entire trial of Jesus does not appear at all historical.

Quote:

How about casting out demons?

Are you suggesting that the miraculous healings were historical? Or is it the suicidal pig stampede?

Quote:

How about turning water into wine?

That is not in Mark. The gospel of John incorporated a Dionysian miracle, but had Jesus do twice as much in less time.

Quote:

How about walking on water?

Water walking has also been attributed to Isa 43:16 and to Job 9:8

Quote:

How about the betrayal of Christ by Judas?

Not historical

In addition to the lack of evidence from early Christian literature, the literary background of Mark is also a strike against Judas. The Gethsemane scene, as Weeden and many other scholars have noted, is built out of 2 Sam 15-17 and 2 Sam 20:4-10. In that sequence David is betrayed by his right-hand man, Ahithophel. Weeden argues that Mark modeled Judas after Ahithophel. In addition to the connections to the David epic, Weeden summarizes Shelby Spong's arguments for OT creation:

"....Among the interesting parallels between the two biblical stories Spong notes are the following (267): (1) Joseph was handed over "by a group of twelve who later became known as the leaders of the twelve tribes of Israel," (2) in "both stories [the story of Joseph and the story of Jesus] the handing over or betrayal was into the hands of gentiles,' (3) in "both stories money was given to the traitors- twenty pieces of silver for Joseph, thirty pieces of silver for Jesus," and (4) "one of the twelve brothers of Joseph who urged the others to seek money for their act of betrayal was named Judah or Judas (Gen. 3726-27)."

Quote:

How about the denial of Christ three times before the cock crows?

The denial

Quote:

...An explanation for the account really needs to consider the reality that the followers of JtB really were a rival religious sect.

But this doesn't make Jesus historical. It just means that the author of the gospels incorporated digs at the followers of John.

Quote:

If Matthew thought that the baptism was embarrassing, and Matthew sourced from Mark, does that not lend further support to the explanation that Mark saw the baptism as embarrassing and in need of religious spin?

No it doesn't. Matthew altered Mark in a number of places, indicating that he did not share Mark's theology.

Quote:

We can find even more corroboration for my explanation in the gospels of Luke and John. Luke claims that Jesus was baptized after JtB was jailed, and John doesn't mention the baptism at all. My explanation seems to have explanatory scope for all of those accounts.

I don't think you are correct about Luke. John incorporates much of the baptismal story, but slides over any actual baptism. This is only an indication that these later writers saw a need to rewrite Mark. You have still not shown that Mark shows any iota of shame or embarrassment over Jesus' baptism.

Steven Carr · 07-12-2010, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The baptism stories show signs of the baptism being an embarrassment, yet the baptism is still included as though it is a known undeniable fact.

This is self-contradictory.

Mark wrote 30 years after the alleged events.

Where are the results of 30 years of spin in Mark's account?

In the real world, if a religious group found something embarrassing, it takes them between 5 and 20 minutes to deny it ever happened, not 30 years.

Do you think it will take BP 30 years to try to find a way of claiming other people were also responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, or that in 30 years time, TV commercials made to boost BP's image will feature the oil spill?

ApostateAbe · 07-13-2010, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
All of the elements? Really?

I'm getting tired of this. Read for yourself:

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html

Washing for purity was a Jewish custom (the mikvah) as well as a custom in other religions, and possibly the mysteries. I don't know the exact origin of this baptism, but I see no reason that it must be historical.

John in this story is clearly modeled on Elijah. (He might have been a historical person, as described by Josephus.)

From the link above:

Mark has presented John as an Elijah figure with a leather belt (zonen dematinen) around his waist (peri ten osphyn autou), using the same language the Septaugint uses to describe Elijah, a hairy man, girt with a leather belt (zonen dematinen) around his waist (ten osphyn autou) (Helms 1988, p35). Zech 13:4 states that a hairy mantle is the sign of a prophet.

...

Arthur Drews (1998) and Joseph Campbell (1962, 107) both link John to Oannes, a name for the Babylonian god Enki who was responsible for purification through water rituals (compare Greek Ionnaes, Latin Johannes, Hebrew Yohanan, English John). While this does not sunder John the Baptist from history, it does show how deep the roots of this character may go.

Josephus states that John did not baptize for the remission of sins. The baptism was only an outward sign of the inner repentance.

Again, from the link above

Jesus simply appears, without parents or antecedents. Many exegetes interpret the Christology of Mark as Adoptionist (Jesus is a human adopted as God's son) as opposed to Matthew and Luke, who posit Jesus as the Son of God from the beginning.

The baptism and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of the dove initiate Jesus as the Messiah.

Mark doesn't actually mention Nazareth. He says that Jesus' home was Capernum, although he refers to Jesus as the Nazarene.

I know you have convinced yourself that Nazareth existed, but there is actually no evidence for it outside the Bible, even if there are some archaeological remains where Christians later decided that Nazareth must have been.

A common punishment for insurrection, and also a metaphor. The entire trial of Jesus does not appear at all historical.

Are you suggesting that the miraculous healings were historical? Or is it the suicidal pig stampede?

That is not in Mark. The gospel of John incorporated a Dionysian miracle, but had Jesus do twice as much in less time.

Water walking has also been attributed to Isa 43:16 and to Job 9:8

Not historical

In addition to the lack of evidence from early Christian literature, the literary background of Mark is also a strike against Judas. The Gethsemane scene, as Weeden and many other scholars have noted, is built out of 2 Sam 15-17 and 2 Sam 20:4-10. In that sequence David is betrayed by his right-hand man, Ahithophel. Weeden argues that Mark modeled Judas after Ahithophel. In addition to the connections to the David epic, Weeden summarizes Shelby Spong's arguments for OT creation:

"....Among the interesting parallels between the two biblical stories Spong notes are the following (267): (1) Joseph was handed over "by a group of twelve who later became known as the leaders of the twelve tribes of Israel," (2) in "both stories [the story of Joseph and the story of Jesus] the handing over or betrayal was into the hands of gentiles,' (3) in "both stories money was given to the traitors- twenty pieces of silver for Joseph, thirty pieces of silver for Jesus," and (4) "one of the twelve brothers of Joseph who urged the others to seek money for their act of betrayal was named Judah or Judas (Gen. 3726-27)."

The denial

But this doesn't make Jesus historical. It just means that the author of the gospels incorporated digs at the followers of John.

No it doesn't. Matthew altered Mark in a number of places, indicating that he did not share Mark's theology.

Quote:

We can find even more corroboration for my explanation in the gospels of Luke and John. Luke claims that Jesus was baptized after JtB was jailed, and John doesn't mention the baptism at all. My explanation seems to have explanatory scope for all of those accounts.

I don't think you are correct about Luke. John incorporates much of the baptismal story, but slides over any actual baptism. This is only an indication that these later writers saw a need to rewrite Mark. You have still not shown that Mark shows any iota of shame or embarrassment over Jesus' baptism.

Thanks, Toto, you have been a big help. I had no idea that you favored the arguments on michaelturton.com. They are not arguments that I would accept, but it still helps, because I have wondered for a long time about the sources for what inspires your thinking about the gospels. I am still an amateur at this, but I hope you analyze that stuff with as much skepticism as you know you ought to. I glanced down the "Introduction to the Gospel of Mark" page, and he says, "The majority of scholars argue that a source for the Gospel of Mark was a collection of sayings generally referred to as 'Q' from the German Quelle, or source." That is not a historical position that I have heard anywhere else ever, so I wondered what would lead him to think that the "majority of scholars" would argue such a thing, and then I found out that he is an English teacher in Taiwan, so he is basically an amateur like me and you, and he made an amateur mistake about what "Q" is supposed to be, confusing the source of the gospels of Matthew and Luke with the source of Mark (he doesn't accept the existence of "Q").

You said that we can trace all of the elements of the gospel of Mark to the reworking of Hebrew scripture, but maybe that is hyperbole, because we know that at least some elements of the gospel are historical (i.e. John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate). Do you mean most elements? Again, thanks.

ApostateAbe · 07-13-2010, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The baptism stories show signs of the baptism being an embarrassment, yet the baptism is still included as though it is a known undeniable fact.

This is self-contradictory.

Mark wrote 30 years after the alleged events.

Where are the results of 30 years of spin in Mark's account?

I showed you such spin, but you either skipped over my post or you ignored it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

In the real world, if a religious group found something embarrassing, it takes them between 5 and 20 minutes to deny it ever happened, not 30 years.

That may be a good point. Do you happen to have an example of such a thing? Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Do you think it will take BP 30 years to try to find a way of claiming other people were also responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, or that in 30 years time, TV commercials made to boost BP's image will feature the oil spill?

I honestly do not think that will ever happen, but I make that determination from what I know about the Exxon Valdez oil spill, not that I know for certain.

spamandham · 07-13-2010, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

But, I think at this point it is wrong to say, "we know nothing about Jesus." What you mean to say is, "I know nothing about Jesus."

No, I mean exactly what I say in the ordinary sense of the word "know". If you want to pretend there is knowledge in this regard, you are welcome to, but you might do well to actually demonstrate as much.

Perhaps an attempt to demonstrate that belief in the baptism is rooted in observation and proper induction would elucidate to you the overall lack of rigor traditionally applied by Biblical historians. History is not science, and Biblical history is the red headed bastard stepchild of history. It's a field teeming with Christian apologists whose primary interest is to bolster the faithful.

ApostateAbe · 07-13-2010, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

But, I think at this point it is wrong to say, "we know nothing about Jesus." What you mean to say is, "I know nothing about Jesus."

No, I mean exactly what I say in the ordinary sense of the word "know". If you want to pretend there is knowledge in this regard, you are welcome to, but you might do well to actually demonstrate as much.

Perhaps an attempt to demonstrate that belief in the baptism is rooted in observation and proper induction would elucidate to you the overall lack of rigor traditionally applied by Biblical historians. History is not science, and Biblical history is the red headed bastard stepchild of history. It's a field teeming with Christian apologists whose primary interest is to bolster the faithful.

Wow, Jesus, OK. :Cheeky: If you are talking like the word, "know," is definite scientific undeniable truth, then we are in agreement--we "know" little if anything about Jesus, not even (following from that) his existence. I use the word, "know," a little more loosely. It is the probable reality, or maybe even just the conclusions that follow from the best explanations of the evidence. That seems to be the way of thinking that you and GakuseiDon had here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I think there are two things there that too often get confused:
1. Is there enough evidence to suggest that there probably was a historical Jesus?
2. Does the evidence that we do have allow us to discuss who that historical Jesus was with any confidence?

I would answer "yes" to the first, and "no" to the second. The problem is that it seems that if we can't say for certain what Underoos Jesus wore, then it gets put under the first question rather than the second.

If you can't say anything definitive about Jesus, then what is the basis for claiming there is enough evidence to suggest he probably existed? Doesn't that same evidence necessarily tell us something about him?

So, the solution to your dilemma is that there really are some explanations of the Christian texts that many of us take to be indications of the probable details of Jesus's life, which leads me to conclude that it is probable that Jesus existed. If the best explanations are not "definitive," then that reduces the certainty of the conclusions, but that doesn't make them less than the best explanations. I hope that my position is clearer, at least.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.