Sensei Meela

Stop groaning!!

Yes, I know you guys have been over this...repeatedly...that is why I am appealing to you, now. I'm still making my way through a number of the threads which seem to go back and forth more than two undefeatable Chinese ping-pong champs (read: 'Earl Doherty', 'The reliability of the Gospels..', 'Why SHOULD we believe...' and a few others; if you can add some to my already daunting reading list, feel free)...so bear with me.

Now then, I've been drawn into this argument off-site [it's very brief and basic], and I've sort of hit a stumbling block. Specifically, I'd like to see your reactions to some points, that I've yet to see addressed in the aforementioned threads, by this post:

He seems to know his McDowell.

I've prepared a response (in particular highlighting the errors and inconsistencies which detract from the 'trustworthiness of the Gospels' that he attests to, here) but I could use some assistance regarding some of the parts quoted above. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance (and sorry for the gratuitous redundancy of the topic)!!

Vinnie

He is correct in that the crucifixion provides good evidence for the historicty of Jesus.

We are hashing this out in this thread here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...0&pagenumber=1

I posed it as an "inherited tradition" and we've been going on from there.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Oh yeah, some of these events do go back to the HJ and some show that the Gospels did not engage in unlimited creation but by no means do they show the Gospels to be historically relaible.

At best only the core material is historical. For example, Jesus was crucified but the Gospel accounts of the passion are all largely and demonstrably embellished. They are not "reliable" historical documents. They are faith documents with some history woven into them.

The retention of some embarrassing material only shows that there were limits on creativity. Using it to assert that the Gospels are historically reliable is a non sequitur.

Vinnie

Sensei Meela

I've used the 'embarassment' issue from the criteria on your site, Vinnie (thanks for the recommendation in one of those other threads!!), in my impending response; however, to paraphrase a portion of said response that I am questionable on:

"The Gospels were not intended to focus on the 'embarassing' death of a proposed 'actual' leader, but to emphasize the immateriality of this world for them and their leader and his 'victory' over it."

I meant only that the Gospel authors meant to disseminate transcendance of 'worldly concerns' with their teachings. How does this sit with you?

My position thus far has essentially been that of an HJ "agnostic," and I will not hesitate to stress, even granting an HJ, the illusory nature of anything attributed thereto.

Llyricist

Well the trouble, as I pointed out on the other thread, is that Doherty's hypothesis remains untouched by that argument..

The argument is against the Gospel writers making up the story on which to base the religion. Doherty's hypothesis is that Paul....or James et al, created the movement as a purely mystical, heavenly being Christ that got crucified as a salvific act for mankind...on edit : or possibly just the Jews if it is taken that James et al originated it.
Then LATER the gospels were written to place Jesus into history as a human/god, who would also need to be crucified to remain in line with the existing theology.

That's the basics of Doherty's hypothesis as it relates to this argument.

The argument quoted in the OP assumes the gospels came first in the way it is presented, and it leaves untouched Doherty's thesis.

As for other other aspects of Jesus tracing back to a historical figure or figures.....well DUH... ALL fictional characters are based in some way on real people. This argument is a non-starter if you think more than an inch deep.

Roland

Anybody familiar with "The Odyssey" knows that Odysseus' men are often portrayed as foolish, mistrustful, confused etc. This scenario is common in stories about heroes because it provides the contrast necessary to both create drama and further enhance the heroic nature of the protagonist. Therefore, I don't see any problem with the negative portrayal of the apostles being merely a literary convention. There is plenty of precedence for it.

The problem for HJers is that they not only can't get their minds around the idea of Jesus not being "historical," they can't grasp that the apostles as portrayed in the gospels and Acts might be unhistorical as well. But if Jesus is an invention, then Peter, John, James etc. are very likely literary "inventions" as well (albeit ones based on real people who, in some way, called themselves "Christians").

Amaleq13

Sensei Meela,


From the aforementioned thread:




Is it 4:20 yet?

Brother Daniel

This hurts the HJ far more than it hurts the MJ. The fact that the crucifixion of the Messiah was an effrontery to both Jews and Gentiles serves to highlight the fact that there is no sign anywhere in the epistles of the Jews being offended on the grounds that a man was being treated as divine. Everyone knows* that this would have been blasphemous to the Jews. But Paul and the other epistle-writers never feel the need to defend the idea. If a known (or postulated) man (especially a crucified one) had been presented as divine, this would have to have created a stink among the Jews. But the "stumbling block to the Jews" of 1 Cor 1:23 is that a known (or postulated) Messiah was presented as crucified. The distinction is important.

* itchy footnote: I'm no expert, but from what I've seen, the MJ-ers are the only people willing to consider the possibility that the Jews (of the first centuries CE) may have been more flexible in this matter than they are usually portrayed. And no wonder: because the HJ-ers need to declare impossible the creation of the Jesus myth through the creative mingling of Jewish and Pagan ideas. Similarities between Jesus and Dionysus (for example) have to be played down by the HJ camp. Upholding the traditional view of the Jews as an insular people, uninterested in Hellenistic ideas, is important for the HJ.

NOGO

If this were true Christianity would never have survived.

After seeing "The Passion" one preacher commented that it was great for the promotion of the faith.

You can see even today why this story is popular.

When people see a movie like The Passion they do not see this idea that Jesus was executed like a common criminal. What they see is what the story emphasizes - Jesus died for your sins!

It is also not difficult to see how this story was contructed, based on the MJ who was supposed to have died for our sins and resurrected.

Every sect has known persecution.
In this particular case one can imagine that a sect leader was executed by crucifixion. His story became the basis for the cricified Jesus of Mark.

Some would say "but that makes Jesus historical does it not?"

No, it does not.
Romans did nail people to poles or crosses.
That much is historical.
It was not Paul's Jesus who was crucified by the Romans.

Juda's betrayal has to do with the fact that Judah (Israel of the time) did not believe in this new faith. It is all symbolic.
Twelve diciples - twelve tribes.
Judah rejected Jesus.

Once the state of Israel had been destroyed by the Romans the authors of the Gosples could have chosen any place for where Jesus was brought up.

About the disciples abandoning Jesus.
This part of the story is clearly told in this way as a warning to the faithful. You can find this warning clearly stated in the Gospels.

"when persecution comes you too will be tempted to deny Jesus"

It is basically an invitation to martyrdom. It is a way of telling the faithful what they should not do, that is, be cowardly.

Peter saying, no not me.
Then he denies.
Then he regrets.

Faithful take note.

This argument assumes that someone created a story and then went out and sold it.
That is not the way it happened.
The story in the Gospels was written later, much later.

Clearly the details were not detrimental to the advancement of Christianity. On the contrary it is fully in keeping with sectarian thinking and is quite an effective way of recruiting new members and hanging on to old ones.

If that were not the case we would not have a Christianity to speak about.

[quotes]
In addition, the art of teaching employed by Jesus was characterized by a unique style. Jewish literature of the first century contains nothing comparable to his illustrations. Which anonymous person could ever have “invented� such a masterpiece as the Sermon on the Mount? These arguments all tend to corroborate the trustworthiness of the Gospels as reports of Jesus’ life....
[/quote]

This is definitely a fundamentalist speaking, probably a Jehovah Witness.

The Gospels tell us that Jesus used parables because it was foretold in scriptures. It is therefore not unique nor new.
Much of what Jesus is suppose to have said comes from the OT.

Vorkosigan

What, then, do you make of the various traditions around Melchizadek, Balaam, Enoch, and other semi-divine figures of Jewish lore and tradition?

Vorkosigan