Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 12-29-2008, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is just not tenable that Paul could have preached a gospel within a few years of the death an historical or figurative Jesus. He would have been fodder for the skeptics, fodder for the Jews.

During the 1st century, Judaea was under the rule of the Roman Empire, Paul's, or even Peter's gospel is of no use to a Jew while the Jewish Temple is still in active use.

The Jews already had a process established for hundred of years for atonement of sins. The historical or figurative Jesus is of no benefit for a Jew, he knows already how to get his sins forgiven. The Laws are already written and circulated presumed to have been laid down by the God of the Jews.

The Jews needed to be delivered from Roman rule, from paying taxes to the Roman Empire, from deciding their high priests, and from being forced to worship or honor the Caesars. Jesus, with whatever "flesh", did not deliver.

And with the outrageous features that Jesus was a God, who was resurrected and ascended to heaven, and must be worshipped by Jews to be saved from their sins with the Temple was still standing, both Paul and Peter would have probably been found dead, the very first day they made their claim public, whether or not Jesus had "flesh".

Actually that is an interesting angle I haven't seen before.
Until the temple was destroyed, supposedly confirming the prophecy of "Jesus", why would anyone bother listening to "christians", unless knowledge of his miracles and resurrection was widespread and accepted?
Certainly his prophecy would not have been of any value until after 70ad.

I wonder what evidence there is that any Jews were converted to "christianity" before 70ad.

Trouble is it is hard to believe anything that anyone writes about history, it is always skewed to the likes of the victors or those in power, especially back then when it was expensive to preserve writings and most people probably hardly ever read anything, but had it read to them maybe in a synagogue.

aa does bring up a good point... but what would make it better is pointing out that the majority of the converts were Greek gentiles... and it's my own inference that very few were lifetime Jews. The Greeks ate up "mystery religions" like I eat Marshmallow Froot Loops for breakfast, especially considering that Paul's Christ seems sorta Gnostic. Paul could be preaching his "good news" to the gentiles and have been successful while the Temple was still standing, since the Temple's status doesn't have the significance to Greek gentiles that it does to Jews.

spamandham · 12-29-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

I wonder what evidence there is that any Jews were converted to "christianity" before 70ad.

There is none that can be considered credible. IMHO, Christianity as we know it, is a post 70 CE phenomenon based on earlier ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

especially back then when it was expensive to preserve writings and most people probably hardly ever read anything, but had it read to them maybe in a synagogue.

The writings that remain today were, rather obviously, written by the literate minority, not the illiterate majority.

aa5874 · 12-29-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

Trouble is it is hard to believe anything that anyone writes about history, it is always skewed to the likes of the victors or those in power, especially back then when it was expensive to preserve writings and most people probably hardly ever read anything, but had it read to them maybe in a synagogue.

But, the more the historical Jesus is examined, the more absurd and stupid the gospel story becomes.

Imagine that Jesus did exist, what is the good news, what is the gospel, in telling Jews that the Temple would be destroyed and that he ,Jesus, would be killed?

What foolishness!

Can you imagine the disciples telling other Jews, "I have wonderful news for you, Jesus the Saviour, the Messiah will be killed and the Temple will be destroyed and if you believe in Jesus your sins will be forgiven.

And then after Jesus is dead, Peter and Paul tells the Jews that Jesus is coming back a second time for those that are dead when God blows a trumpet.

What stupidity!

1Thessalonians 4.16

Quote:

For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout. with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first.

Paul supposedly made this statement after Jesus is dead and his body had disappeared while the Jewish Temple is still standing.

Is this good news?

Total nonsense!

An historical Jesus is just foolishness, stupid news, while the Jewish Temple was still standing.

The historical Jesus was good news to the dead.

Transient · 12-29-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

Trouble is it is hard to believe anything that anyone writes about history, it is always skewed to the likes of the victors or those in power, especially back then when it was expensive to preserve writings and most people probably hardly ever read anything, but had it read to them maybe in a synagogue.

But, the more the historical Jesus is examined, the more absurd and stupid the gospel story becomes.

Imagine that Jesus did exist, what is the good news, what is the gospel, in telling Jews that the Temple would be destroyed and that he ,Jesus, would be killed?

What foolishness!

Can you imagine the disciples telling other Jews, "I have wonderful news for you, Jesus the Saviour, the Messiah will be killed and the Temple will be destroyed and if you believe in Jesus your sins will be forgiven.

And then after Jesus is dead, Peter and Paul tells the Jews that Jesus is coming back a second time for those that are dead when God blows a trumpet.

What stupidity!

1Thessalonians 4.16

Quote:

For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout. with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first.

Paul supposedly made this statement after Jesus is dead and his body had disappeared while the Jewish Temple is still standing.

Is this good news?

Total nonsense!

An historical Jesus is just foolishness, stupid news, while the Jewish Temple was still standing.

The historical Jesus was good news to the dead.

Actually I always thought that the "good news" was that from that time on a gentile would no longer have to have his willy trimmed in order to become one of god's chosen people - all they had to do was to go along with the story that god had come down to earth and died for them so that they could live forever with him, and all that willy trimming stuff would be a thing of the past , to be forgotten forever.

Sure sounds like good news to me.

One strange thought came to me tho - what did a woman have trimmed before Jesus to become one of the chosen few?

DCHindley · 12-29-2008, 10:14 PM

No, a modern-day "cult" needs a living charismatic figure or figures to whip up frenzy.

A "cultus" does not, but represented a body of worship, and can focus on anyone or anything. Zeus, Juno, Cargo, Virgin Mary, Karl Marx, Blue Oysters, so yes ... Abraham. As unfocused as Eisenman was, at least he picked up on the significance of the figure of Abraham for a large number of folks of Northern Mesopotamian, Edomite, Iturean and Arabian ancestry. Paul brought this into relation with Judaism by linking them into Abram's (that was his name before he circumcised himself and became Abraham) faith in God's promises to Abram's offspring, which by various popular traditions included all of these peoples.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Carman

My own theory about cults is rather simple. A dynamic leader; or one who is perceived as such... gathers followers who convince others.

Do you consider a group that is centered around an obviously non-historical character, say for example Abraham, to also be a cult?

Ken Carman · 12-31-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Carman

My own theory about cults is rather simple. A dynamic leader; or one who is perceived as such... gathers followers who convince others.

Do you consider a group that is centered around an obviously non-historical character, say for example Abraham, to also be a cult?

Sure. A "cult" has more to do with the followers in the end than the leader when it comes to labeling it as such. In one of the Planet of the Ape movies, a rather bad one unfortunately, a "cult" worships a bomb. Some believe Jesus was fictional, that wouldn't subtract from cult status. If virgins sacrificed themselves to Alf it would still be a cult.

BTW, "cult" is neither negative or positive IMO, although because it often requires sheeple ways it usually is negative.

Ken Carman · 12-31-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hi Ken - welcome to the boards.

I think you are referring to Q, a hypothetical early source for Matt and Luke. J is a hypothetical source for the Torah.

And please note - Secret Mark is now generally accepted to have been forged by Morton Smith. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Yes, I think it may have been "Q." Thanks. I'll check out the link.

Ken Carman · 12-31-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

A lot of these scholars, however, harbor few doubts that somebody named Mark wrote the gospel. Is that all you meant?

I guess I needed to emphasize "most likely" more. My source for that was a Catholic Bible given to my wife and I when we got married in the 70s, but I have also read it elsewhere in later years. Nothing solid meant. The passage was discussing all the gospels and said if any had been written by the actual, Mark was the most likely possibility.

Ken Carman · 12-31-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Carman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hi Ken - welcome to the boards.

I think you are referring to Q, a hypothetical early source for Matt and Luke. J is a hypothetical source for the Torah.

And please note - Secret Mark is now generally accepted to have been forged by Morton Smith. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Yes, I think it may have been "Q." Thanks. I'll check out the link.

I'd be curious to learn more about Stephen C. Carlson. Wiki has nothing but a page he has apparently written. I plugged it into Google... limited. I'd be curious...

A. Credentials and history
B. Any theological ax he might have, if any, to grind. (Note: we all have one.)

I have heard and read the name, but know little else. I know there have been a series of forgeries going back to the very beginning, and some of them in the Bible itself.

The link provided simply gave me a book to buy. (I did include a comment regarding a review written below that by??????????)

Note: that isn't "Steven Carlson" as in Steven Carr is it? No need to respond, but considering the nature of the posters on this board I'd probably find some comfort if it were. But I do understand the concept of screen names being just that and kept private.

Ken Carman · 12-31-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

...as it alludes to a homosexual relationship between Jesus and Mark...

(From Amazon)

If I remember right, it's the exact opposite. In Mark it has Jesus meeting a man, assumed not to be Mark, and spending the night. Nothing else said. In Secret he spends the whole night with the man who isn't Mark, though it isn't clarified who he is... but he is from outside the group of disciples... discussing and teaching him, not in bed in any sense. Much like two people of any gender might stay up all night throwing the male cow around.

Maybe I'm referring to the wrong writings here but one thing I know is that Mark seems to have been severely edited and the ending just kind of leaves you hanging. That was a style of story telling in those days. But Secret, if I have it right, is simply Mark, but fills in the gap; fleshes out the Gospel... no sexual reference intended.:blush:

I willingly admit my memory of what I have researched and read isn't always perfect in any sense.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.