Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-13-2011, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Before __________, Messianic Jews believed the Messiah was to be a king who raised an army, expelled the foreign rulers from Israel, and established Jewish reign in the region. (Some variations exist.)

After __________, a small group of Messianic Jews believed the Messiah was not a king; he did not raise an army; he did not expel the foreign rulers from Israel; he did not establish Jewish reign in the region. Instead, he was a peasant; he had a rather small following (even if many people 'supposedly' knew about him); he was executed by the foreign rulers (Romans); he was resurrected; he ascended into heaven with a promise to return and fulfill all of the traditional Messianic expectations.

This is too simple, JonA. Obviously a group of individuals, perhaps some of them Jews but obviously some of them not, found their messiah in an idiosyncratic reading of the OT. But we don't know enough of how it evolved because we only see it long after it evolved.

Clearly a historical Jesus simply raises the issues you have. For example, why would anyone believe a historical person was the messiah when he obviously failed to fulfill any of the conditions? An HJ also raises the problems that Carr alludes to above, the problem of the widespread silence on any historical person and the strange, constant failure to discuss his life when talking about important issues where it would probably be normative. For example, in 1 Cor 7, Paul discusses marriage but utterly fails to either use Jesus to support his position or deal with the fact that the HJ doesn't support his position. Similarly on circumcision, food laws, etc. Nor does he ever say "Our problem is that Jesus didn't say anything about _________."

JonA also thinks this is off topic, although the bolded part directly addresses the OP.

It appears that JonA does not want any mention of the historical or non-historical Jesus. So - please ignore such comments.

discordant · 06-13-2011, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Before the death of Jesus, Messianic Jews believed the Messiah was to be a king who raised an army, expelled the foreign rulers from Israel, and established Jewish reign in the region. (Some variations exist.)

I've been suspicious of this premise ever since reading Neil Godfrey's post on messianic expectation (link). You hear it so many times in the context of people saying the crucifixion couldn't have been made up, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything.

mountainman · 06-13-2011, 06:28 PM

Explaining Christianity as a Fan Club without Jesus

Think of Harry Potter or Bilbo Baggins.
Do any of these figures have a fan club?
Are either of these figures historical?
Examine the publishers' claims carefully.

ApostateAbe · 06-13-2011, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discordant

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Before the death of Jesus, Messianic Jews believed the Messiah was to be a king who raised an army, expelled the foreign rulers from Israel, and established Jewish reign in the region. (Some variations exist.)

I've been suspicious of this premise ever since reading Neil Godfrey's post on messianic expectation (link). You hear it so many times in the context of people saying the crucifixion couldn't have been made up, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything.

It is based on the messianic prophecies themselves and the patterns of people who gain a following from messianic-thinking Jews. Wikipedia contains a long list of

Jewish Messiah claimants, most of them following that pattern of being warrior leaders. I think Neil Godfrey is especially exclusive when it comes to what counts as evidence for historical claims, so I suggest that you be suspicious whenever he says, "...little, if any, evidence..." A little evidence counts for a lot in the field of ancient history, and there will almost never be enough evidence to convince people like Neil Godfrey.

Toto · 06-13-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

What has always been a hindrance for me in accepting the non-historical Jesus position—because I really do not care one way or the other whether there was a Jesus or not—is the lack of explanation I see given by ahistoricists for certain phenomena that an historical Jesus well explains.

I've done some research on the matter and haven't been able to find any straight-forward and coherent explanation offered in place of the historical Jesus proposition to explain these phenomena. I'm currently going through the book The Jesus Mysteries (or via: amazon.co.uk). I started reading it in hopes of getting a better understanding of some of the ahistoricist arguments, but being now half way in I find the book full of so many even simple errors as to be useless to anyone wishing to understand anything.

This book was one of my last hopes, however, for understanding the ahistorical explanations. I am unable to find other resources that might lay out an argument that actually argues something in any clear fashion. ...

To try to keep this on topic, the Jesus Mysteries is an interesting book, but it is hardly the last word on the ahistoricist position. (In fact, listing it as your last best hope is a bit curious. :constern01: ) I think that Richard Carrier's upcoming books will give you the best answers from the point of view of a professional historian, but you will have to wait until they are published.

In the meantime, Earl Doherty's books and website might be a better source, or Neil Godfrey's blog Vridar.

But I don't know where you are going with this. You have 7 specific questions, but it's not so clear that a historicist model does a better job that the mythicist position of providing answers.

Perhaps if you reply to some of what you think are on topic answers, the discussion can take some shape.

discordant · 06-13-2011, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Wikipedia contains a long list of

Jewish Messiah claimants, most of them following that pattern of being warrior leaders.

Did you happen to notice that most of the people on that list are post 4th century? Can you make an argument for their relevance?

Quote:

I think Neil Godfrey is especially exclusive when it comes to what counts as evidence for historical claims

Yes, I agree that Neil has high evidentiary standards.

Quote:

A little evidence counts for a lot in the field of ancient history

The issue here is not the amount of the evidence, but the way the evidence is handled. I gather you haven't read the article.

Quote:

there will almost never be enough evidence to convince people like Neil Godfrey.

Convince him of what? He is often persuaded. You only offer this piece of rhetoric because he's not persuaded by the same things as you are.

JonA · 06-13-2011, 07:03 PM

I'm not so sure why this topic is causing so much confusion, but I fear it might come down to folk trying to read more into my intentions than what is actually there.

I only want to understand the MJ position better. I've heard all the 'there is no evidence for Jesus' stuff many times, and am familiar with those arguments.

But, if we remove Jesus from the equation, there is much left unexplained. As an alternative to the HJ position, any MJ position must offer explanations for these things; it is not enough to simply create a void without attempting to fill it.

So are there any MJers other than Toto who would like to take a crack at filling that void?

Jon

ApostateAbe · 06-13-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discordant

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Wikipedia contains a long list of

Jewish Messiah claimants, most of them following that pattern of being warrior leaders.

Did you happen to notice that most of the people on that list are post 4th century? Can you make an argument for their relevance?

If you don't think that the post-4th-century messianic claimants are so relevant, then that is agreeable. The messianic prophecies themselves and the handful of messianic claimants directly around the time of Jesus are more than enough to make a strong case for what the common messianic expectations were at the time of Jesus. What kind of evidence would you or Neil Godfrey think is enough?

I also think that you should take a crack at filling in the blanks of the OP, at least the ones you don't have any objection to.

mountainman · 06-13-2011, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

But, if we remove Jesus from the equation, there is much left unexplained. As an alternative to the HJ position, any MJ position must offer explanations for these things; it is not enough to simply create a void without attempting to fill it.

Have you read Plato's ideas about divinity and theology etc? You know, the ones which were repressed and forced underground by Christianity for a thousand years? Start with the Platonic Trinity of the "One Spirit Soul".

discordant · 06-13-2011, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The messianic prophecies themselves and the handful of messianic claimants directly around the time of Jesus are more than enough to make a strong case for what the common messianic expectations were at the time of Jesus.

To remind you, here's what I said I'm suspicious of: Messianic Jews believed the Messiah was to be a king who raised an army, expelled the foreign rulers from Israel, and established Jewish reign in the region. (Some variations exist.)

This isn't a question of what was "common". The text doesn't say "a large number of messianic Jews believed . . .", or "most messianic Jews". It says something rather less substantiated.

As worded, it shows a bias against anything but the standard explanations. A mythical Jesus explanation won't slot neatly into a blank in the standard narrative. A mythicist wouldn't describe the context this way at all.

06-13-2011, 07:03 PM	#17
JonA Regular Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Minnesota! Posts: 386	A Review of the Topic I'm not so sure why this topic is causing so much confusion, but I fear it might come down to folk trying to read more into my intentions than what is actually there. I only want to understand the MJ position better. I've heard all the 'there is no evidence for Jesus' stuff many times, and am familiar with those arguments. But, if we remove Jesus from the equation, there is much left unexplained. As an alternative to the HJ position, any MJ position must offer explanations for these things; it is not enough to simply create a void without attempting to fill it. So are there any MJers other than Toto who would like to take a crack at filling that void? Jon

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

06-13-2011, 06:28 PM	#13
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Explaining Christianity as a Fan Club without Jesus Think of Harry Potter or Bilbo Baggins. Do any of these figures have a fan club? Are either of these figures historical? Examine the publishers' claims carefully.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.