Sheshbazzar

[empathises mine.]

It is my belief that the original NT Jewish "Jesus" <sic> "character" was an idealized mythical construct based upon fervent Jewish messianic expectations, mingled with then currently popular ideas and sayings culled from a diverse variety of sources, along with the actual exploits of several actual persons, all loosely pasted together in an "urban legend" fashion to create a quasi-personality.

One of the original Jewish concepts upon which this fictional messianic figure was constructed is to be found in 2 Maccabees 13

[empathises mine.]

First I would like to direct your attention to the strong desire to protect Jewish nationalism that is an integral element of this narrative, and is being expressed in the phrases used in the 10th, 11th, and 14th verses above;
"being at the point to be put from their law, from their country, and from the holy temple:"
and;
"to be in subjection to the blasphemous nations."

Although the texts that we have are from the Greek, a very strong pro-Jewish/Hebrew cultural sentiment is evidenced throughout, and basically consists of a record of the attempts of the Jewish people to preserve their own culture, religion, traditions, (and speech) from being wholly overwhelmed by "the blasphemous nations." or as both text and history indicates, principally the Greeks and their sprawling Hellenic civilization with its attendant "Hellenization" of everything within its domain.

Now on to this "WATCHWORD" matter, it could well have been the genesis of an ongoing expectation of divine "HELP", "SAFETY" and of "VICTORY". And of a "watchword" that would ultimately be transitioned into a "NAME" that "HELPS", "SAVES" or promises "VICTORY" and "TRIUMPH" over all of Israel's adversaries.
Such a "watchword" as "VICTORY is of YAH"; pronounced in the Hebrew, would likely correspond very closely with some form of the Hebrew name "YAHshua" or "YAH'oshua".

Now none of this is at all intended to imply that any such individual ever existed, (although the name itself was very common) but serves only as an explanation of how a natural transition from an ICONIC Jewish/Hebrew "watchword" into an ideal "Name" for the expected Messiah could well have occurred, one that would have been eagerly accepted and employed by those among the vehemenently nationalistic Hebrew speaking Jews with strong Messianic expectations.

There are many "undercurrents" within the NT texts that suggest the name of the messiah is a watchword, and that that name contained a theophonic element;
"For whosoever shall call upon the name....." (Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13) and more.
"Whosoever" is all inclusive, thus a particular "name" being used as a "watchword" would correspond to the ancient "shibboleth" password; Thus, a single "name" or "watchword" serving to identify, and to admit or exclude, pass or fail, bring life or death, and "salvation" or destruction.

This is only a small snippet of an overall much larger tapestry interwoven with shadowy idealised pre-Christian messianic figures.

This essentially Jewish "urban legend" became a popular religious theme that was quickly adopted, adapted, and was continually expanded upon right up into the third Century, with "new" stories and "new" books being penned and added on continuously.
When good 'ol Constantine saw within its broad popular appeal, an unprecedented and unparalleled political opportunity, and began his campaign of "reforms", re-writes, and his bloody "history revising" propaganda campaign.

Like Pete here, I see the widely "accepted history" of "Christianity" as being "created" and developed principally to serve Constantine's political ambitions, only allowing that there existed actual popular Jewish antecedent legends that he and his minions were easily able to draw from, capitalize upon, and refashion into their own "version" of "history" and of Constantine's "Bible", one which conveniently omitted whatever of actual
"history" that was found inconvenient, while also adding to, and "supplementing" that new ersatz "history" with whatever was convenient in the manipulating of the ignorant and superstitious.

schilling.klaus

paleography is a fraud, as it relies on the availability of datable documents in order to compare handwritings i the first place.
but this availability is a naive assumptions.
for if every 'ancient' document is really a copy, one only compares the handwriting of possibly late copyists, and there's no way to make to identify an original. Dates of colophons may be forged or piously copied, thus hold no significance. This makes the whole paleographic business circular reasoning.

Klaus Schilling

Jeffrey Gibson

Your apodosis is both question begging and unsubstantiated.

Jeffrey

Doug Shaver

I would ask for a specific figure to compare Jesus with. Generalizations won't get this debate anywhere. I would challenge the apologist in this manner:

You say that according to my criteria, if I doubt the existence of Jesus, then I should also doubt the existence of _______. Very well. Show me all the evidence we have for _____'s existence, and then let's compare that evidence with the evidence for Jesus' existence, and then we'll see how similar the two sets of evidence really are.

I've tried that a couple of times in other forums. So far, the apologists have ended the discussions without further ado.

Clivedurdle

Have you not responded with an assertion? Why is it question begging and unsubstantiated to note we do not know if we are looking at originals and results of copying?

Clivedurdle

In the name of Jesus is a very common theme in the extreme versions of xianity I was brought up in, and is daily repeated by various televangelists in impressive tones!

Makes complete sense as a watchword, a totemic word! :devil1:

http://www.teachingpages.co.uk/study...p?class14part0

Sheshbazzar

Didn't want to alter your words, so will just provide the quotation marks that delineate and empathises that oft repeated Fundie exclamatory ejaculation that you are referring to, There has been much written as to how the Jewish name transitioned to the Greek form, and finally to the present English spelling and pronunciation, no need go over those details again.
But what is hilarious to me (now), that just like those old Gileadites and Ephraimites who had "forgotten" how to properly pronounce the watchword "Shibboleth" most of modern Christianity has also now forgotten how their original "watchword" was pronounced.
Simply, being placed in the position of having to provide the exact same "password" as was used by the original Jewish messianic converts, they would not do so, and would likewise fail the test.
Ironically, being betrayed that very "Word" that comes from their own lips.
HoooHaaa! no wonder it was predicted that many shall say in that day; "Have we not done great things in your name......"

But they are doomed to never "get it", because to do so now would interfere with their constant ejaculation of their distorted "password" that they have elected to make an cultic icon and totem out of........."Say now......"
and die the death "Christians"! :wave::devil3::devil1:

mountainman

Paleography is essentially handwriting analysis.
Although it is used to estimate the chronology
of written texts, there are a host of caveats,
such as the script of the text in question is not
a forgery. (Paleographers will not detect this).

Secure dating, as I am sure anyone with a little
bit of common sense knows, relies on the text
to be dated (or perhaps C14 dated, etc).

None of the NT corpus is dated
by such a secure means.

It could be first century.
It could be second century.
It could be third century.
It could be fourth century.

We dont really know.

Eusebius tells us in the fourth century
of the true and accurate history of the
"nation of the christians". But do we
really have to believe him? This is the
question that needs to be asked.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

lpetrich

It's really skepticism about what some founder figure had done, and even skepticism about the existence of that founder figure. And I think that it is justified skepticism, because many well-documented religious and political and intellectual movements have had no well-defined founder figures. Instead, they gradually emerged, with seeming founder figures being one of several people involved in their emergence, even if some of the more notable ones.

For instance, the Ebionites' founder figure, Ebion, is nowadays often considered mythical, someone who was invented as an explanation for the origin of the Ebionite sect.

I've seen Aesop called mythical also, and the skepticism about Pythagoras and Hippocrates that No Robots had mentioned is provoked by their being founder figures.

Crimson Glory

This was exactly my point with this thread: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...light=achilles

So, if you look for historic characters you also have to consider mythical characters with supernatural powers or stories as parameters. Achilles, Orpheus or even Mithra would do the trick.