Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 05-25-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

I do not think it can be said that there were no "pagan" borrowing in the Jesus story, the very conception of Jesus is not Jewish at all, Trypho the Jew, based on Justin Martyr's Dialogue , did indeed consider the conception of Jesus as similar or borrowed from Greek or "pagan" myth.

If we are trying to deal with the origin of the Jesus story then the passages regarding Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke don't have anything to do with it anyway. There is no discussion of the birth of Jesus in the earlies works, that's a later addition.

aa5874 · 05-25-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

aa5874,
On the pre-2nd Century messiah idea perhaps you can clear something up for me.

E.P. Sanders reckons that the idea of what a messiah involved was not so clear cut. He notes that in the dead sea scrolls it envisages two messiahs, one of whom is a descendent of David who does very little and one a descendant of Aaron who leads an army. While there were clearly others claiming to be messiahs and who clearly wanted a military victory against Roman control of the area, there is still reason to suppose that there was not a singular definition of 'messiah' which everyone would agree with at this stage.

As for whether the messiah could be expected to be supernatural, the Egyptian certainly expected to perform a great feat through God's power. Also, there were plenty of people who performed 'miracles' all over the place. Nevertheless, I think you are right to say that the Jews were not expecting a man-god who has the power to save through his death and resurrection. That notion is clearly far more Hellenic than Jewish.

Any thoughts?

In "War of the Jews" by Josephus, he gave an indication of the kind of Messiah that the Jews expected at least up to 70CE.

"Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4

Quote:

......But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings , how, "about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth".

The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.....

The "Holy Ghost Risen" Messiah of the NT appears to be a concept which was foreign to the Jews.

Cesc · 05-25-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Didnt the sidelock of Harpocrates (Horus) develop into the Rho of the Chi-Rho, which became an early symbol for Jesus also btw?

I am not familiar with any particular claim of a cryptic meaning behind the symbol. AFAIK as I know the chi-rho christogram are simply the first two Greek letters of Christos.

Well allegedly (p.148, 149), in time as the mystery cults spread Haropcrates became symbolised simply by the sidelock (an Egyptian sign of youth) attached to a staff as a mystical symbol for youth or for Harpocrates or something else, and looking similar to both the Greek letter P (rho) aswell as the later Roman version R.
As the ones held here by Hecate with her middle arms. Perhaps as a healing remedy? Youth, life, health? I've no idea. The 'sidelock-staff' seems to form a rho such as in the versions used by Herod the Great (a chi-rho? 1, 2, 3, 4) and in later Christian context (1, 2).
Or the Ptolemies who used the familiar chi rho as early as Ptolemy III in the 3rd c. (1, 2, 3 and Ptolemy V) I'd love to know if it meant Chrestos to them, as in "annointed ruler" of Egypt, or Chres, KRST, or something else.

The chi rho seems to have some healing connotation: 1, 2
Healing is no small element in Christianity, but is that why?

Good stuff with the infancy gospels. Jesus, the healing babe! Horus also had healing powers as Horus the Child. But then again, who wasn't also a healing god back then.
I think one of the more ancient and widespread mystical themes on the birth of light is the female moon as the womb that generates and gives birth to the light of the world, a very dominent theme indeed in the whole near-east. And since caves and grottos were likewise regarded almost universally as wombs or "creator matrix" and consequently attributed (even still today) all sorts of supernatural fertility, healing or divine communication powers, in my view its not surprising to see the theme of the light in the cave in connection with Jesus' birth. The Roman-Catholic Church often have Mary idols inside caves btw.

Quote:

In the Thomas' Infancy Gospel, little Jesus announces himself as a saviour of the world as early as the cradle (lest mother Mary had any doubts on that score). So little chance little Jesus could keep anything secret.

LOL I see the point, Jesus was never the poker player Harpocrates was.

aa5874 · 05-25-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

I do not think it can be said that there were no "pagan" borrowing in the Jesus story, the very conception of Jesus is not Jewish at all, Trypho the Jew, based on Justin Martyr's Dialogue , did indeed consider the conception of Jesus as similar or borrowed from Greek or "pagan" myth.

If we are trying to deal with the origin of the Jesus story then the passages regarding Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke don't have anything to do with it anyway. There is no discussion of the birth of Jesus in the earlies works, that's a later addition.

The stories of the birth of Jesus are also missing from gJohn assumed to be written after the Synoptics.

The absence of any story of the birth of Jesus from gJohn does not indicate that his birth was not discussed, nor does the absence of a birth story in gMark indicate the origin or birth of Jesus was not discussed at all.

GMark's Messiah must have an origin.
GJohn's Messiah must have an origin.

The NT contains only four Gospels, no-one really knows all what was there before and all what was discussed about the origin or birth of Jesus. I don't think we can use the NT as a historical source to determine any reasonable chronological accuracy with respect to the origin or birth of Jesus, but the risen Holy Ghost Messiah was foreign to the Jews.

Even the unknown author of gMark implied that the risen Messiah was not understood by the assumed Jewish disciples.

Mark 9.31-32,

Quote:

...The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and after that he is killed, he shall rise on the third day.

But they [the disciples] understood NOT that saying, and were afraid to ask him.[/b]

Mark 16.6-8

Quote:

And he [an angel ?] saith unto them, Be not affrighted, Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucufied, He is risen, He is not here...............And they went out quickly and fled the sepulchre........

Solitary Man · 05-25-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Matthew's story is almost like a reverse of the Exodus story, depicting Jesus escaping INTO Egypt to escape a murderous tyrant.

On the contrary, the Hebrews went into Egypt to escape famine (Jesus' flight into Egypt).

Quote:

I guess you could say that Matthew and Luke are both primary sources about Jesus' birth in the sense that both of them have probably made up their stories almost from scratch.

That sounds too weird. If I make up a story about your birth, is my authority thus considered primary, i.e. first hand?

Quote:

On the other hand, you could say that none of the gospels are primary because they generally work on pre-existing pericopes.

Yep.

dog-on · 05-26-2008, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Does Mark refer to JC's birth? No.

Primary source for JC's birth is either Mat or Luke...

You got another one?

Yeah, like any of them are primary sources on Jesus' birth. Luke is more reliable in the sense that it describes some typical Jewish birth rituals, but that is more likely to be because he found out what the typical Jewish birth rituals were than because he found people who knew Jesus' parents and asked what happened. Matthew's story is almost like a reverse of the Exodus story, depicting Jesus escaping INTO Egypt to escape a murderous tyrant.

I guess you could say that Matthew and Luke are both primary sources about Jesus' birth in the sense that both of them have probably made up their stories almost from scratch.

On the other hand, you could say that none of the gospels are primary because they generally work on pre-existing pericopes.

Do you have any "source" evidence for these "pre-existing pericopes"?

I would be grateful to see them...

dog-on · 05-26-2008, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Does Mark refer to JC's birth? No.

Primary source for JC's birth is either Mat or Luke...

You got another one?

Red Herring.

Ummm, why?

Malachi151 · 05-26-2008, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Do you have any "source" evidence for these "pre-existing pericopes"?

I would be grateful to see them...

Exactly, there is no evidence of such pre-existing pericopes, and the conjecture that they exist is really a Christian apologetic. There is no evidence for them, and I think there are very god reasons to conclude that there was no "Jesus birth" narrative until either they were created by the two Gospel authors, or shortly before such time, but the key is that the story of Jesus did not begin with a birth narrative, ti was added on at some later point.

aa5874 · 05-26-2008, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Do you have any "source" evidence for these "pre-existing pericopes"?

I would be grateful to see them...

Exactly, there is no evidence of such pre-existing pericopes, and the conjecture that they exist is really a Christian apologetic. There is no evidence for them, and I think there are very god reasons to conclude that there was no "Jesus birth" narrative until either they were created by the two Gospel authors, or shortly before such time, but the key is that the story of Jesus did not begin with a birth narrative, ti was added on at some later point.

To use the NT to determine the origin of Jesus is just futile. The NT represents propaganda.

And further Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was born of a virgin and he appeared to get that information from a document called "memoirs of the apostles".

When was the "memoirs of the apostles" written?

I have no good reason to think the Synoptics represents an accurate account of the Jesus story.

dog-on · 05-26-2008, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Exactly, there is no evidence of such pre-existing pericopes, and the conjecture that they exist is really a Christian apologetic. There is no evidence for them, and I think there are very god reasons to conclude that there was no "Jesus birth" narrative until either they were created by the two Gospel authors, or shortly before such time, but the key is that the story of Jesus did not begin with a birth narrative, ti was added on at some later point.

To use the NT to determine the origin of Jesus is just futile. The NT represents propaganda.

And further Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was born of a virgin and he appeared to get that information from a document called "memoirs of the apostles".

When was the "memoirs of the apostles" written?

I have no good reason to think the Synoptics represents an accurate account of the Jesus story.

Maybe the "memoirs" was an early version of Matthew.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.