Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 05-03-2013, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

I do really agree with you here.

We do see the eariest versions in Mark of these elements covered up by Luke and Matthew. And Mark reads like a fictional account, no doubt from someone who wasnt there writing decades after the fact.

I think what turned me from a mythicist, was why Hellenist would write in a peasant as their deity, then try and hide the negative aspects in the more popular gospels like Matthew. We see the later gospels trying to cover up the poor peasant from Galilee.

It's a story........:wave:

It's a 'salvation' story.........etc.....

Agreed on both.

But it doesnt mean there was not a historical man behind the core.

outhouse · 05-03-2013, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is not directly in the sources. It requires some of your mental hoops.

Wrong.

its in scripture almost word for word.

He was in Galilee
He traveled to small Jewish villages
Baptized in the Jordan
Is not reported going into large Hellenistic Cities.
Tells his apostles not to charge for any healing
Is invited to dinner and teaches around the dinner table.

Quote:

You continue to post this fantasy derived from some reconstruction that tries to fit the gospel stories into what is know from other sources.

No your wrong again. Have you really read the books before? or just attacking them?

Quote:

Small town boy goys to the big city where he loses his temper and was put to death by Romans and ended being martyred due to the hundreds of thousands of people in attendance at Passover.

He is stated to be from Nazareth, that is a very small town.
He goes to Jerusalem where he is stated to lose his temper in the temple.
He was put to death by Pilate a Roman
Passovers in this time were factually crowded with hundreds of thousands of people

A man was placed in the scriptures as being remebered after his death, and deified. Fits the definition of a martyr to me.

Not one thing I stated takes any imaginitive hoops to jump through

Onias · 05-03-2013, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

The earliest story of Jesus would not have a figure by the name of Jesus, as 'Jesus' is just a generic name for the one who would attempt to deliver salvation to Israel.

How can you presume such a thing? May I remind you that presumptions are not evidence.

The earliest stories in the Canon about Jesus do not show he was a Savior to the Jews.

It is the complete REVERSE.

Jesus did NOT want the Jews, the Populace, to be saved.

Jesus wanted them to REMAIN in Sin.

1. Jesus was NOT a Savior.

Mark 4

2. Jesus was NOT known as Christ to the Jewish Populace

Mark 8

3. The earliest story of Jesus is that the Jews delivered up the Son of God to be Killed but that he resurrected.

Mark 9:31 KJV

4. The earliest Jesus story was to expose the Jews as Evil.

Mark 8:38 KJV

Quote:

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed , when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

The earliest Jesus story was essentially Anti-Jewish propaganda to explain the Fall of the Temple and had Nothing whatsoever to do with Universal Salvation or any new religion or cult.

As I have previously alluded, there are 2 Jesus characters in the fictional gospel play. Perhaps that is why you misunderstand me, aa.

The militant or zealot Jesus rightfully criticizes the Pharisees and the Herodians for being less than zealous for the Law and for collaborating with the Romans in a Vichy style puppet government. He did not want the collaborators to be saved but punished for their treason. This Jesus is not critical of the entire Jewish people, just the collaborators and the lukewarm. (Btw, the militant Jesus would also be very critical of the pacifist hippie Jesus and would also want him severely punished.)

Some people in this fictional play accepted Jesus as the Christ or Messiah, others did not. Some wanted to make him king, others wanted him killed.

The pro-Roman authors of the gospels wanted to blame the Jews alone for the crucifixion, but both the Temple Jews AND the Romans wanted him dead. By him, I am referring to the militant Jesus character.

But after he was crucified and was resurrected, he left Dodge and beamed up, never to return. Alas, he was supposed to resurrect and fulfill the role of a Davidic Warrior Messiah. But he just left!!! (Be seein' ya!) How pathetically funny! The gospels have some rather dark comedy. I'd think the Romans would have been amused as to how the story ends. (I hope Philosopher Jay notices this point.)
Onias

andrewcriddle · 05-03-2013, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

All of our earliest sources, are of a living man who dies on a cross, martyred at passover.

What sources? Paul says nothing about Passover.

1 Corinthians 5:7

Quote:

Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

may indicate that Paul believed that Jesus died at the time of Passover.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 05-03-2013, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is not directly in the sources. It requires some of your mental hoops.

Wrong.

its in scripture almost word for word.

He was in Galilee
He traveled to small Jewish villages
Baptized in the Jordan
Is not reported going into large Hellenistic Cities.
Tells his apostles not to charge for any healing
Is invited to dinner and teaches around the dinner table.

You are ignoring the parts where he preaches to large crowds, feeds the multitudes, and spars with Hellenistic intellectuals, and the part where he enters Jerusalem and is greeted as a king.

Quote:

...

Small town boy goys to the big city where he loses his temper and was put to death by Romans and ended being martyred due to the hundreds of thousands of people in attendance at Passover.
...

He is stated to be from Nazareth, that is a very small town.
He goes to Jerusalem where he is stated to lose his temper in the temple.
He was put to death by Pilate a Roman
Passovers in this time were factually crowded with hundreds of thousands of people

A man was placed in the scriptures as being remebered after his death, and deified. Fits the definition of a martyr to me.

Not one thing I stated takes any imaginitive hoops to jump through

You just have to ignore the most important parts of the gospel story, and then invent reasons for the movement to continue after his death.

PhilosopherJay · 05-03-2013, 01:09 PM

Hi andrewcriddle,

The reference to Jesus being sacrificed on Passover here is one of those passages that interrupt the Pauline text and may be taken as a commercial break inserted by a later Christian writer.

Quote:

1It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.2You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

3For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.4In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus,5I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?7Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.8Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

It is pretty clear to me that these four emboldened phrases: In the name of our Lord Jesus, with the power of our Lord Jesus, in the day of the Lord Jesus, For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed, are extraneous to the text and do not have anything to do with the argument.

Once we eliminate the phrases, we get a coherent argument:

Quote:

1It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.2You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

3For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, ,5I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved.

6Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?7Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened..8Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

It is clear that the Jesus references simply break up the text and render them incoherent. The purpose of the insertions are simply to make the reader believe that the writer was a follower of Jesus. However, in dealing with the subject of condemning and expelling a congregation member for incest, these commercials for Jesus just get in the way of the text.

It is totally strange to believe that a follower of Jesus is actually comparing a man being sacrificed and cut off from the community for incest to Jesus being sacrificed on Passover.

Whoever interpolated the Jesus text was not interested in the argument the original writer was making. Therefore, he doesn't realize that by adding this phrase he is comparing Jesus to a man committing incest.

Rather, he just looked at the phrase "Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch--as you really are" and thought that this was a reference to the Passover Holiday and he just added the idea that the useless, pointless and extraneous idea that Jesus was sacrificed on Passover.

If we see an interrupted textured pattern, for example 2 + 2 = 4, 4 + 4 = 8, 8 + 8 = 16, Jesus was 32 when he was crucified, 16 + 16 =32, 32 + 32 = 64; clearly, we cannot take it that the original writer was a Christian mathematician, but rather that some Christian has interpolated into a mathematician's work.

Accepting this hypothesis that the phrase is interpolated also explains why there is never another reference to Jesus being the Passover sacrifice, even in places where Paul talks directly of sacrifice, for example, Romans 12:

Quote:

1Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.2And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

If the writer actually knew about a Jesus who was sacrificed at Passover, this would certainly be a good time to mention it. It seems most probable that the original writer did not know about any Jesus who was sacrificed at Passover and a later interpolator simply carelessly filled it in at an inappropriate spot.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What sources? Paul says nothing about Passover.

1 Corinthians 5:7

Quote:

Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

may indicate that Paul believed that Jesus died at the time of Passover.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 05-03-2013, 01:21 PM

Hi Jay

I'm interested that you agree that the text as it stands does imply that Jesus died at Pasover.

Andrew Criddle

outhouse · 05-03-2013, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Wrong.

its in scripture almost word for word.

He was in Galilee
He traveled to small Jewish villages
Baptized in the Jordan
Is not reported going into large Hellenistic Cities.
Tells his apostles not to charge for any healing
Is invited to dinner and teaches around the dinner table.

You are ignoring the parts where he preaches to large crowds, feeds the multitudes, and spars with Hellenistic intellectuals, and the part where he enters Jerusalem and is greeted as a king.

Quote:

...

Small town boy goys to the big city where he loses his temper and was put to death by Romans and ended being martyred due to the hundreds of thousands of people in attendance at Passover.
...

He is stated to be from Nazareth, that is a very small town.
He goes to Jerusalem where he is stated to lose his temper in the temple.
He was put to death by Pilate a Roman
Passovers in this time were factually crowded with hundreds of thousands of people

A man was placed in the scriptures as being remebered after his death, and deified. Fits the definition of a martyr to me.

Not one thing I stated takes any imaginitive hoops to jump through

You just have to ignore the most important parts of the gospel story, and then invent reasons for the movement to continue after his death.

Its not ignoring anything.

Its discounting added mythology we know they would add in creating a deity within theology.

Even the mortal Emperor, "son of god" had resurrection and divinity legends attached to them.

outhouse · 05-03-2013, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

and then invent reasons for the movement to continue after his death.

I had not invented any reason as of yet in my statements here.

I calimed he was martyred which is correct as written. Is that one reason for his movement to continue after death? To be honest, I dont think Jesus movement went anywhere after his death. His movement died with him.

I think [my opinion] The Hellenist Proselytes adopted what they thought were his teachings that grew after his death.

Heres something to ask yourself. had Jesus not been marytred at passover, what would we ever know about him, if he existed???

MrMacSon · 05-03-2013, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

The early aspects of the story might be be the gnostics which talk of a non-earthy spiritual character

All of our earliest sources, are of a living man who dies on a cross, martyred at passover.

One who paid the unltimate price for people.

No matter how you try and spin it, Pauls Jesus was human as they get.

sources? sources??

All the narratives (i.e. stories) are of a man-character who allegedly dies on a cross.

Paul's Jesus from Galatians 1 NIV

Quote:

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

Also, appealing to Paul is fraught with difficulty - Paul's "writings" are disputed as to authorship - Paul may be a fictitious character.

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

05-03-2013, 01:21 PM	#57
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Hi Jay I'm interested that you agree that the text as it stands does imply that Jesus died at Pasover. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.