razlyubleno

It helps that people here are so overwhelmed with information that it steals most of their focus. And it helps that they've invariably heard far crazier things already... Being severely skeptical of the gospel accounts, is actually not that radical in BC&H.

There was something of a holy war between Doherty and a few people on IIDB that caused him to leave. Remember, of course, that he was really the first one to popularize the whole Jesus Myth thing (at least that's what I gather), and he copped a lot of flack from just about everyone.

And that thread is a funny one. It got 10 replies, was then inactive for a year, then someone bumped it and it got another handful of replies, then it died for another 7 months, then someone bumped it again... and look what happened.

Anyway, there are some pretty ancient threads that are still on archive. I tend to end up reading anything posted by Vorkosigan, who sadly appears to have better things to do these days than hang out here.

You made some very good points... and Doherty just seemed a bit cagey and defensive, really. I guess it's easy to get sentimentally attached to your basic assumptions.

razly

maryhelena

I'm reading that other thread right now - and came across this from Vorkosigan.

Exactly!!

Another great perspective from that thread.

Amaleq13

He has since returned a couple times including a few minutes ago.

Solo

I don't disagree with what you say, except they (Paul and the gospel writers) themselves did not see what they put down as 'information'. To them it was axiomatic that Jesus, as they perceived him, was a state of mind, his deeds the paradoxical works of the mind in that state, and his teachings, the wisdom that comes from God.

Paul, Mark and after them other NT writers are saying: you are looking at us through your noses at us but we have been touched with the divine fire and you were not. You are dumbed by the devil and for your blindness would not recognize God if he were to walk among you.

Mk 3:19-21...then he went home. And the crowd came together again, so they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying:" he has gone out of his mind".

Questions: Why can't people who want to be with Jesus even eat ? Why is Jesus responsible for this ? Why is he out of his mind and why should he be restrained ?

Jiri

aa5874

Your analysis may be completely flawed. Your are using the very questioned information as fact when it is being challenged.

Your chronology of Paul, Mark and then other writers cannot be assumed to be true.

Now, you have proposed that Jesus cults may have arose by people who were mentally ill.

And it appears that the writer Paul may have been.


It may be that these people were so mentally ill that they even got their dates all screwed up. Perhaps they did not realise they were writing in some other century and not the 1st.

fatpie42

But in this regard Jesus is no different from many other prophets in Judaism. Also, not all Jews were expecting the arrival of a military messiah. It wasn't a widespread expectation, but was simply expected by some. As is the case today, interpretations about what is meant by the 'messiah' would have differed.

When are you going to stop putting forward this ridiculous false dichotomy? Not everyone who isn't a socialist is a fascist and not everyone who isn't a feminist is sexist.

Oh really? What evidence and what social change was intended? That Jesus performed miracles is not evidence that he intended social change. Within the texts it appears that Jesus wanted nothing more than for the Jewish law to be practiced correctly and for certain people to join him in declaring the coming of God's judgement.

No, you haven't shown that at all. I looked into the Queen of the South reference and most interpret it as being linked with the idea of the Church as Jesus' bride. The "Queen of the South" is a reference to the Queen of Sheba, not to a female authority who would be coming after Jesus.

Nietzsche claimed that women should be educated but that is not enough to make him a feminist. One can hold views which are sympathetic towards the cause of women without actually being a feminist.

For a start, he says that women were never taught. However, despite being on separate sides to men, women went to synagogue. As such, it would seem that he would view nearly every Rabbi in Palestine to be a feminist.

Like I said already, that means I should consider Hitler to be a pro-woman supporter. Hitler had female followers. There were many women who despised Hitler, but then again for all we know there may have been many women who felt similarly about Jesus as they would be unlikely to be included in the gospels. This is all presuming that Jesus was even a real person. Having women as the witnesses of Jesus' empty tomb was handy in Mark because it handily explained why the disciples did not intially believe them. Women's testimony was not considered to be reliable.

Why should I see that exactly? What's the evidence?

My position is that the gospels portray a mythical Jesus. That is the easiest position to defend because it is pretty much accepted by everybody. Those who wish to propose a historical Jesus still have to accept that the historical Jesus does not match up with the mythical Jesus portrayed in the gospels. I do not give credence to an historical Jesus because in the end there's no evidence for it and it's entirely superfluous to the material we have available to us. In short: the historical Jesus is a matter of wild speculation. The mythical Jesus, meanwhile, can clearly be found in the New Testament.

The mythical Jesus does not appear to be a feminist or a socialist.

Um.. a ruler of it certainly. Why?

You originally wrote this:
But Helena isn't "way long before they took on Christianity". She does all this precisely when her son Constantine had decided to take on Christianity as the state religion, not 'way long before' at all.

I'm sure you do, but my point was that this wasn't a case of rulers "using what the people believed". A great many people were not Christians. This was the ruler savagely promoting the religion they believed in, regardless of how the many pagan citizens might feel about it. As I said before, this was just a minor correction.

I feel that there is insufficient evidence within the New Testament for us to call Jesus a feminist or a socialist. The absence of such evidence within the New Testament supports me. How would you propose that I give you evidence of this absence?

What, just like I should presume there is a purple dragon on the moon until someone does an extensive check to make sure that there isn't?

We don't presume things like "Jesus was a feminist" because of a lack of evidence.

Why might you dismiss the following claims?:
"Socrates discovered the cure for smallpox, but never told anyone about it."
"Pythagoras' favourite colour was blue."
"Princess Diana was a fan of black metal"
"Queen Victoria was an opium addict"

Without evidence we simply cannot make claims like this and we certainly cannot presume them to be true.

Abraham didn't sacrifice his life. He also didn't sacrifice his son. I'm also confused as to why I should think that sacrificing Abraham's son was necessary, especially when God doesn't think so at the end of the story anyway.

Jesus didn't walk up to be crucified because his mother told him to. He walked up to be crucified because, having been arrested, he was being forced by armed guards to walk in that direction. He then has his hands forcibly nailed to a cross. The only way you can claim that this death was voluntary is either if you think he intentionally led the authorities to kill him (though what he was supposed to have done is a bit of a mystery) or because he was God and therefore could have used his divine power to escape. Either way, it hardly seems likely that this would be what a mother at the time would encourage.

Well, the interest in virginity certainly precedes Christianity, hence the vestal virgins. However, the way that virginity was praised within Christianity was very different from what had come before. Vestal virgins were politically important and could become rich and powerful. Nuns seemingly only became nuns for the sake of religious observance. As such, becoming a nun was a great deal less risky than becoming a vestal virgin and shared the benefit that nuns would not be expected to marry. I don't think anything quite like that existed beforehand. But, like I said, this benefit is not actually put forwards by Jesus in the New Testament and, even if it were, we would still need to show that he had the interests of women in mind when proposing it.

I can't remember why I posed this either, but I suppose I thought you were saying that Christianity had contributed to women's rights and was trying to think of an example. I hadn't realised that you were simply saying that now that feminism is established we can look back in the New Testament and see elements of it within the thought of Jesus (even if it didn't actually make any real difference to women's rights at the time).

You don't seem to understand. That quotation doesn't say that Jesus supports women's rights. It says that Jesus supports men's rights and he is happy to give those rights to women too if they pretend to be men. As such, women are not being respected as women, but must earn their respect by trying to be more like men. - You see the problem?


Strangely enough, you seem to be the only one who does.

fatpie42

If Jesus didn't specifically mention women, most people would presume he was not talking about women. "Straight up equality" to most listeners would mean equality amongst men. That's how things worked back then.

Are you suggesting that there is a secret message within the parables which only you understand? If not, why do you expect us to believe that Jesus intended a message of social change within those parables?

There's either something within the parables which makes you think they encourage social change or you consider the parables too cryptic to decipher and are simply guessing that they encourage social change. In the case of the latter, we have very little reason to agree.

No one said that. Stop using that silly false dichotomy.

Was Charles Darwin a feminist? It seems to me that he said nothing that would suggest that he was a feminist, but that he nevertheless doesn't say anything particularly sexist. As such, I would say that he was neither sexist nor a feminist.

fatpie42

Now hang on just a minute. One reference to Jesus makes explicit claims and shows clear signs of being a forgery. Another reference simply refers to a Yeshua as someone's brother. The name Yeshua was widespread and there is little reason to claim any link with the New Testament unless we presume that the James being referred to was 'James the Just'. There were a great many James's during that time too, so we have little reason to suppose that Josephus was referring to that particular James either.

Josephus' account of history can be as unreliable as you like, but reliable or not, he makes no clear reference to the Jesus of Christianity.

aa5874

And, the Fall of the Temple is not prophetic history. These are real events that Josephus wrote about and people who participated in the very war itself could have read the writings of Josephus.

It is not unusual, I would believe ,for Josephus to get his chronology out of sync if he was relying on Hebrew scriptures for some of his dating.

Now, if Josephus was so unreliable or inaccurate one would expect many well-known writers of antiquity to have pointed out the many gross errors of Josephus which might have made the interpolator place the TF, or similar words, perhaps in a more reliable source, in the writings of Philo.

Elijah

What other types of Messiahs were expected at the time of Jesus and citation please?

The point I’m trying to make is that regardless of the diversity of belief they are presenting a Messiah in the gospels that isn’t leading the people to a victory but serving them to his defeat. Don’t get wrapped up in the details and miss the main point of the story.
Give the correct information and quit complaining about dichotomies. It just looks like you are trying to avoid answering the questions. If you don’t like the options that are given or how they are presented then respond with the answer you like, presented as you wish. You should realize what I’m asking or suggesting of you, if you need to clarify then clarify but the complaining just looks like dodging to me.
Again you are missing the point of the story. Seldom in stories do the characters say “I’m a feminist and I’m here for social change.” You have to read the story and try to determine if that is what is being presented by the characters words and actions. Some critical thinking is required here. It’s not like there is one line that tells you what the story is about, you have to be able to read it and apply some critical thought to what the goal was there.
That’s why I asked for your interpretation. Do we really need to go into that interpretation you got off the queen of Sheba wiki? Are you going to give me your interpretation of that interpretation now? How about the understanding of Christ that interpretation is based off of? Is whatever that may be now the accepted understanding of Jesus for this conversation?

Instead of being unconvinced by his interactions and comments about women maybe you should provide counter evidence that suggests what you believe he actually thought about their place.
This doesn’t help present your case. Yes there are other reasons for the women to be following him other than him being a feminist or he could be supportive of women but not for equality but it’s still part of the evidence and unless you have anything to suggest otherwise I see it as the only rational position.
The paper was only meant to illustrate his involvement and treatment of women.
This stuff just looks like side games. You haven’t found a comparable example of Jesus’ female followers in Nietzsche or Hitler and if you did as I said in the previous Nietzsche response above it’s still part of the evidence and you need counter evidence not pointing out that there are obviously other reasons for women to be following a man other than he is for equal rights.
His treatment and comments towards women in the narrative. But you know that and are just playing games.
This is the very definition of fence sitting. Looking for an excuse to not pick a side so you don’t have to defend a position. The position of champions… on the fence.
The point I’m trying to make is that the authority is the one to blame not Christianity. The empire meme has a certain way of doing business that has nothing to do with Christianity and to blame Christianity for what the Empire/Rome meme does in his name is just as foolish as believing them when they use Christ’s name to convince the people. The authority would like nothing more than the people who have a problem with what they are doing to blame it on the guy in the book they are holding and not the men with the actual power causing the actual problems.

That’s why I don’t buy into the whole antitheist deconversion concept; that if we got rid of the religions that the people would somehow get freer and the world more peaceful. It’s the idea of men having authority over other men that has to go, not the silly ideas we have about god and morality.

John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

I would say his support of women and their concerns would support me and lack of evidence of him suggesting less then equality for women would also be on my side. Your position rests solely on not having a position. Unfortunately I haven’t figured out a solid argument against that trick… but it seems I really need to get on it.
I think if you need to be proven that he was for equality then you are assuming he wasn’t. I know that you are trying the fence sitting deal but I’m hoping you will reconsider it.
The point was only that in relating the story of Abraham to the story of Jesus the part of Abraham is played by his mother in establishing the new covenant. The amount of influence his mother had on him is debatable but to think she was of no influence would be impossible. We are, who we were raised to be.
Him laying his own life down is a central theme of the story.

Mark 8:35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

John 10:18 I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends.

No I don’t see the problem at all. It’s not about pretending to be men, it’s about being more assertive. Equality comes to women when they demand it with actual earthly authority. It’s not about us treating them equally but about them overcoming millennia of social manipulation meant to make them more docile.
It’s one of those inevitable prophecies. Eventually a woman will rise up and kick this planet’s ass for what it has done to women. No need to over think it.
To most male listeners maybe but I find it incredibly difficult to imagine that oppressed women thought their savior was only interested in their husband’s place in the world.
What other reason is there to conceal his message if it isn’t to conceal it from the authority?
Like I said if you need proof he was for equality then it is because you are assuming he wasn’t.

I don’t know about Darwin but just because you can’t determine if someone was a sexist or a feminist doesn’t mean they fit into a third category.