Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-28-2012, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No, they don't. What are you talking about? The earliest sources of the Christian myth are Paul, whose Jesus has no significant human story, or possibly Mark, much later, where Jesus is a semi-divine spirit in a human body who performs miracles, walks on water, and rises from the dead.

The earliest sources that portray Jesus as merely human might include the

Ebionites in the second century, although little is known about them and at least some thought that Christ was an archangel who was incarnated in Jesus, or the critics of Christianity, such as Celsus or the Emperor Julian.

Part of the argument for mythicism is that the earliest versions of Jesus have the fewest details, while as time goes on, later stories accumulate narrative details of his early life, and Jesus becomes more concrete. These details came from the human imagination, not remembered history.

Paul never says nor implies that Jesus is God--an implausible thing for him to believe given that he was a Jew--but a handful of times he implies that Jesus was a human being. Paul placed pronounced importance on the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus. Before Christianity, gods generally did not die. They were generally immortal. I will repeat my old list of things Paul says about the apparently human Jesus. I know you love this list.

You have moved the goalposts. Paul does not say that Jesus was merely human, and only "implies" some human characteristics that could be attributed to a divine being or could easily be interpolations. Mere humans do not resurrect from the dead.

Quote:

Mark of course is far more clear on the point that Jesus was a human being. Jesus per Mark ate, drank, walked, taught, had parents, brother, friends, disciples, he rode donkeys, he was a Jew and was bound by Jewish laws. There can be absolutely no doubt--Mark believed Jesus to be 100% human.

How do you get from some human attributes to 100% human?

Quote:

Mark's Jesus all but says so explicitly himself, per Mark 10:18. The miracles of Jesus per Mark are irrelevant (many ancient human beings were reputedly miracle-workers).

But they didn't walk on water or calm the storms. When they were baptized, the holy spirit did not descend. They did not go into the wilderness for 40 days to be tempted by Satan, or see the entire world from a tall mountain.

Mark's Jesus had humbled himself, but was no mere human.

Toto · 11-28-2012, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

if a rebel doomsday cult leader avoidiong taxation and corruption in the temple lived and was martyred after his death fighting against the roman corruption in the temple and was later deified. what kinds of writings would we get??? exactly what we have

No, you would get something like the story of Spartacus.

ApostateAbe · 11-28-2012, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul never says nor implies that Jesus is God--an implausible thing for him to believe given that he was a Jew--but a handful of times he implies that Jesus was a human being. Paul placed pronounced importance on the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus. Before Christianity, gods generally did not die. They were generally immortal. I will repeat my old list of things Paul says about the apparently human Jesus. I know you love this list.

You have moved the goalposts. Paul does not say that Jesus was merely human, and only "implies" some human characteristics that could be attributed to a divine being or could easily be interpolations. Mere humans do not resurrect from the dead.

How do you get from some human attributes to 100% human?

Quote:

Mark's Jesus all but says so explicitly himself, per Mark 10:18. The miracles of Jesus per Mark are irrelevant (many ancient human beings were reputedly miracle-workers).

But they didn't walk on water or calm the storms. When they were baptized, the holy spirit did not descend. They did not go into the wilderness for 40 days to be tempted by Satan, or see the entire world from a tall mountain.

Mark's Jesus had humbled himself, but was no mere human.

"Mere humans do not resurrect from the dead."

As you well realize, the dispute is over ancient beliefs, not external reality. In Jewish myth, human beings and only human beings were raised from the dead. See 1 Kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:35 and 2 Kings 13:21. Human beings also performed miracles, according to beliefs.

Toto · 11-28-2012, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

As you well realize, the dispute is over ancient beliefs, not external reality. In Jewish myth, human beings and only human beings were raised from the dead. See 1 Kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:35 and 2 Kings 13:21. Human beings also performed miracles, according to beliefs.

You made the bald assertion that Mark portrayed Jesus as 100% merely human. But it seems that you have made that assertion unfalsifiable, because you can find some alleged human from some literary source who did whatever Jesus did.

But this makes your original claim useless. You claimed that "the earliest myths about Jesus clearly portray him as a mere human being, not as God nor as a god of any sort" - but all of the godlike characteristics seem to be shared with some human somewhere.

ApostateAbe · 11-28-2012, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

As you well realize, the dispute is over ancient beliefs, not external reality. In Jewish myth, human beings and only human beings were raised from the dead. See 1 Kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:35 and 2 Kings 13:21. Human beings also performed miracles, according to beliefs.

You made the bald assertion that Mark portrayed Jesus as 100% merely human. But it seems that you have made that assertion unfalsifiable, because you can find some alleged human from some literary source who did whatever Jesus did.

But this makes your original claim useless. You claimed that "the earliest myths about Jesus clearly portray him as a mere human being, not as God nor as a god of any sort" - but all of the godlike characteristics seem to be shared with some human somewhere.

Wrong again. In the ancient world, gods were born from gods, they were immortal, they were non-physical, they transcended human political laws, they identified themselves as gods, and they were identified by others as gods. Humans, including Mark's and Paul's Jesus, shared none of these things.

outhouse · 11-28-2012, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

if a rebel doomsday cult leader avoidiong taxation and corruption in the temple lived

and was martyred after his death fighting against the roman corruption in the temple and was later deified.

what kinds of writings would we get??? exactly what we have

We probably would not have, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," in response to a question about whether to pay taxes to Rome.

render unto Caesar is often misunderstood. he was supposedly set up with no right answer, so he played it down the middle to avoid persecution.

jesus does not pay taxes after his questioning on why he doesnt pay taxes, he sends peter fishing instead.

also roman authors did soften this anti tax rebel up quite a bit

outhouse · 11-28-2012, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

if a rebel doomsday cult leader avoidiong taxation and corruption in the temple lived and was martyred after his death fighting against the roman corruption in the temple and was later deified. what kinds of writings would we get??? exactly what we have

No, you would get something like the story of Spartacus.

except for one problem, we are dealing with god-fearers version of jesus, not romans and not jews.

we have a jewish influenced hellenistic roman version and we have a man helping the common hard working man, and him helping the common peasant, is why he was popularized

ApostateAbe · 11-28-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

We probably would not have, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," in response to a question about whether to pay taxes to Rome.

render unto Caesar is often misunderstood. he was supposedly set up with no right answer, so he played it down the middle to avoid persecution.

jesus does not pay taxes after his questioning on why he doesnt pay taxes, he sends peter fishing instead.

also roman authors did soften this anti tax rebel up quite a bit

Well, your hypothesis does not seem to be implied in the text itself. Christians used the life and teachings of Jesus as a model for how they themselves should behave, and the message of this passage is very clear: followers of Jesus should pay taxes to Rome. Like anyone else with a favored model of the historical Jesus, you have the opportunity to read between the lines and find things that are invisible to everyone else, but the most probable explanation tends to be the explanation that best helps us to expect the evidence as it actually exists.

Toto · 11-28-2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You made the bald assertion that Mark portrayed Jesus as 100% merely human. But it seems that you have made that assertion unfalsifiable, because you can find some alleged human from some literary source who did whatever Jesus did.

But this makes your original claim useless. You claimed that "the earliest myths about Jesus clearly portray him as a mere human being, not as God nor as a god of any sort" - but all of the godlike characteristics seem to be shared with some human somewhere.

Wrong again. In the ancient world, gods were born from gods, they were immortal, they were non-physical, they transcended human political laws, they identified themselves as gods, and they were identified by others as gods. Humans, including Mark's and Paul's Jesus, shared none of these things.

Oh? How about Hercules? Attis?

Ancient gods were born, died, traipsed around earth or some semblance thereof, disguised themselves as human, impregnated human women, etc.

Compare the biography of Alexander. It was only slightly enhanced with legend - implying that he was born of a god. But he lived on earth, had a recognizable childhood, studied with historical people, led an army over known geographical territory, had human foibles, and died and stayed dead. Mark has Jesus appear without discussing his childhood or training, and immediately encounter spiritual forces. He then wanders around an imaginary landscape that slightly resembles ancient Palestine, cleanses the Temple in an improbable manner, is tried in a trial that does not look at all historical, is crucified, and rises from the dead. This is not a merely human character.

outhouse · 11-28-2012, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

render unto Caesar is often misunderstood. he was supposedly set up with no right answer, so he played it down the middle to avoid persecution.

jesus does not pay taxes after his questioning on why he doesnt pay taxes, he sends peter fishing instead.

also roman authors did soften this anti tax rebel up quite a bit

Well, your hypothesis does not seem to be implied in the text itself. Christians used the life and teachings of Jesus as a model for how they themselves should behave, and the message of this passage is very clear: followers of Jesus should pay taxes to Rome. Like anyone else with a favored model of the historical Jesus, you have the opportunity to read between the lines and find things that are invisible to everyone else, but the most probable explanation tends to be the explanation that best helps us to expect the evidence as it actually exists.

and the dogma supprises you? coming from roman authors deifing a peasant jew who always painted themsleves as inoccent?

and the text clearly shows jesus not paying taxes and being questioned about it, and sending peter fishing for magic money he doesnt possess

and later text in Gluke states he was put on a cross for tax evasion

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.