Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 07-01-2010, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

An appearance/vision does not require a missing tomb, so I would not have that requirement. I would not require an 'extremely charismatic' personality either. What about the timing of the death being during passover and Jesus' suggestion that he could forgive sins, or that he would sacrifice his life for others' sins, combined with belief that maybe he was the Messiah of Isaiah 53? What about Jesus himself saying he would be raised? What about people being attracted to his loving character or believing he had performed a few miracles? None of these require a charismatic personality.

The entire group of women at the tomb forgot that Jesus said that he would rise from the dead until the angel reminded them of it. Even the empty tomb did not convince Peter and Mary Magdalene that Jesus had risen from the dead. The texts imply that virtually no one except for Jesus believed that he would rise from the dead. Group visions or hallucinations of a risen Jesus are out of the question. You know that that did not happen. The Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 are fairy tales. We just do not currently know all of the details, and probably never will. Sometimes, we have to be content not knowing what happened thousands of years ago.

It doesn't take group visions. And, my answer doesn't require the restrictions of gospel stories. I was addressing what I think is sufficient to explain how a belief in resurrection occurred. It really is pretty easy once you introduce the idea that some believed he may have been the Messiah. Many things could explain their belief or near-belief in that.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-01-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It doesn't take group visions. And, my answer doesn't require the restrictions of gospel stories. I was addressing what I think is sufficient to explain how a belief in resurrection occurred. It really is pretty easy once you introduce the idea that some believed he may have been the Messiah. Many things could explain their belief or near-belief in that.

I am not aware of any historical records that tell exactly how and when Christianity started. You can study the Bible for the rest of your life and never find that out, and if you have grandchildren, the same might be true for them too.

It is very important "who" believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and "when" they believed that Jesus rose from the dead. If Christianity was a very small group of uninfluential people during the first century, which is claimed by Rodney Stark and noted Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright, only a relative handful of people believed that Jesus rose from the dead. It is frequently not difficult to convince a very small group of people to believe in improbable things. Even today, some people believe that the earth is flat, and that men have not landed on the moon.

spin · 07-01-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Although his teachings did not have a big impact, he resembled a 'sage Messiah' which some at the time expected.

WTF is a "'sage Messiah'"? Who in ancient Jewish society was a sage? Perhaps you're thinking of post-temple idealization of Hillel, but the two notions, "sage" and "messiah", do not seem to have formed a combined idea for anybody to "resemble". This is another example of you retrojecting onto the period some theoretical complex that doesn't seem to be derived from the period.

spin

TedM · 07-01-2010, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Although his teachings did not have a big impact, he resembled a 'sage Messiah' which some at the time expected.

WTF is a "'sage Messiah'"? Who in ancient Jewish society was a sage? Perhaps you're thinking of post-temple idealization of Hillel, but the two notions, "sage" and "messiah", do not seem to have formed a combined idea for anybody to "resemble". This is another example of you retrojecting onto the period some theoretical complex that doesn't seem to be derived from the period.

spin

Quote:

Summing up, we may assume that there was a messianology in which the Messiah was the sage that would one day give the right interpretation of the Law of Moses, would heal ill people, and could predict the future. For a long time, Jesus of Nazareth was considered to be the first example of this category, but the seventeenth Psalm of Solomon (quoted above) proves that the ideas were older

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_08.html

Johnny Skeptic · 07-01-2010, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

"Summing up, we may assume that there was a messianology in which the Messiah was the sage that would one day give the right interpretation of the Law of Moses, would heal ill people, and could predict the future. For a long time, Jesus of Nazareth was considered to be the first example of this category, but the seventeenth Psalm of Solomon (quoted above) proves that the ideas were older."

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_08.html

Many Jews were expecting a Messiah to eventually come, but that does not tell us how and when Christianity started.

Micah 5:2 says that someone would come from Bethlehem who would become ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. Surely most Jews expected a ruler to come in this life, not in the next life.

What Old Testament prophecies did Jesus fulfill that who have convinced some people to believe that he was the Messiah?

Since there is not sufficient evidence that Jesus said anywhere near everything that the Gospels say that he said, it is difficult to guess what people believed.

spin · 07-01-2010, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

WTF is a "'sage Messiah'"? Who in ancient Jewish society was a sage? Perhaps you're thinking of post-temple idealization of Hillel, but the two notions, "sage" and "messiah", do not seem to have formed a combined idea for anybody to "resemble". This is another example of you retrojecting onto the period some theoretical complex that doesn't seem to be derived from the period.

Quote:

Summing up, we may assume that there was a messianology in which the Messiah was the sage that would one day give the right interpretation of the Law of Moses, would heal ill people, and could predict the future. For a long time, Jesus of Nazareth was considered to be the first example of this category, but the seventeenth Psalm of Solomon (quoted above) proves that the ideas were older

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_08.html

Almost no content to justify the theory. How for instance does the quote from Psalms of Solomon illustrate the notion? And 4Q521?? Please respond to my initial questions rather than provide facile crud from the internet.

What is a "sage messiah"?

Who in ancient Jewish society was a sage?

spin

Johnny Skeptic · 07-01-2010, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

In all, it seems to me one would have to conclude that Mark was quite clever in some ways and very deficient in other ways and with some strange references if he knowingly made up a story about a fictional Jesus. Might not a reasonable explanation be that Mark was passing along traditions which included mythological development regarding an actual historical Jesus about whom not much was really known?

Why do you assume that the book of Mark had only one author?

Have you read Early Doherty's latest book? I haven't but since you are interested in the historical/mythical Jesus issue, I suggest that you read it. Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Robert Price believe that Earl is brilliant.

TedM · 07-01-2010, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_08.html

Almost no content to justify the theory. How for instance does the quote from Psalms of Solomon illustrate the notion? And 4Q521?? Please respond to my initial questions rather than provide facile crud from the internet.

What is a "sage messiah"?

Who in ancient Jewish society was a sage?

spin

I feel like I responded to your initial questions just fine. It described a 'sage messiah'. If you have a problem with the theory, why don't you interact with it instead of calling it 'facile crud from the internet' with no explanation for such a view other than 'almost no content'? I am not going to try to justify the theory because I simply stated it as a possibility for Doug. If you guys want to try and tear it apart feel free to do so but don't come tearing me apart for simply putting forth a theory. I really don't know why you seem to think the concept is so far-fetched. Why do you? Are you not aware of the extreme desire for the Jews to find their Messiah at the time of Christ?

I gotta go and will check back later..but really I have no desire to get into a long debate on this..it was just a suggestion in reply to Doug, geez..

TedM · 07-01-2010, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

In all, it seems to me one would have to conclude that Mark was quite clever in some ways and very deficient in other ways and with some strange references if he knowingly made up a story about a fictional Jesus. Might not a reasonable explanation be that Mark was passing along traditions which included mythological development regarding an actual historical Jesus about whom not much was really known?

Why do you assume that the book of Mark had only one author?

Have you read Early Doherty's latest book? I haven't but since you are interested in the historical/mythical Jesus issue, I suggest that you read it. Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Robert Price believe that Earl is brilliant.

I can allow for more than one author. I haven't read it and someday when time permits I would like to. Thanks for the suggestion.

aa5874 · 07-01-2010, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Are you not aware of the extreme desire for the Jews to find their Messiah at the time of Christ?

What source of antiquity show the extreme desire for the Jews to find their Messiah at the time of Christ?

Based on Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius it was around 70 CE that the Jews expected a Messianic ruler or rulers based on Hebrew Scripture NOT during the time of Tiberius and the governorship of Pilate.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.