Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-02-2013, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

aa,
Yes, gospel water-walking Jesus was fantasy or mythology, but myths often have roots in reality.
Onias

On the other hand, Myths are often rooted in mythology

I am arguing that Jesus is rooted in mythology.

What are you arguing?

I think the miracle-working Jesus of the gospels is fictional or mythical - take your pick of the terminology, BUT I think he may have been inspired by actual historical and thoroughly human messianic claimants such as Judas the Galilean or other messiah-aspirants.

You have already stated what you think.

What you think is not evidence of anything.

Now it is time to put forward the actual evidence from antiquity that supports what you think.

The Pope thinks Jesus existed as the Son of God.

I am afraid there is really no existing evidence from antiquity that supports the thought that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

If there was actual evidence from antiquity to support you then you would have showed me the evidence and not what you think.

I argue that Jesus was rooted in mythology because it is documented in the Canon of the Jesus cults and their writers. See Mark 6, 9, 16, Matthew 1, Luke 1, John, 1, Acts 1, Galatians 1, Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians, Aristides' Apology, Justin's Apology, Irenaeus "Against Heresies", Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ and Origen's De Principiis.

The actual evidence that Jesus was rooted in Mythology is BOLTED to the Canon of the Jesus cult so that we would all know how they fabricated their Jesus.

The books of the Prophets such as Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Micah, Zechariah, Jonah, the Psalms, and Genesis are all found bolted to the Canon of the Jesus cult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

...But since history (and literature) is written by the victors, his story may have been rewritten as a means of ridiculing Judean attempts to raise up a true Davidic warrior messiah who would free Judaea from the Romans (to make a long story short).
Onias

Why have you Presumed that there was an historical story of Jesus? You have no actual evidence that the original Jesus story was historical?

Tell me what did Jesus do in the original story?

When did your Jesus actually do those things that you have presumed?

We have the writings of Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus and the Jews expected a Messianic ruler c 70 CE--Not 33 CE.

What you think may have happened is without evidence.

In fact, it is claimed by Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus that Vespasian was believed to be the prophesied Messianic ruler.

The stories of Jesus of the Nazareth as a Messianic ruler was completely unknown in antiquity before the writings of Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus.

Now, to show you that the victors cannot re-write history please examine "Against the Galileans".

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

The very Emperor of Rome has declared that the Galileans are composed of fiction--a monstrous tale.

It is extremely difficult to re-write history.

mountainman · 05-02-2013, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Consider this:

Mat 10:38 currently reads:

"And he who does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me."

But this reading makes much more sense:

"And he who does not take up his sword and follow after me is not worthy of me."

especially since verse 34 also refers to a sword, "Do not think I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."

Onias

This is intriguing.

And makes some sense to boot.

Quote:

There is no textual variation here, but the passage has always trouble interpreters because the words are placed in Jesus' mouth before he was actually crucified. There are all sorts of explanations for this, of course.

I thought I had remembered a similar metaphor from a classical writer of the period, but it seems to have been a false memory. There is a quote from Epictetus that usually comes up, but it is different.

Which quote from Epictetus is that?

Epictetus refers to Galilaeans, whom the translator Wilber Wright mistakes for Christians.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Heterodoxus · 05-02-2013, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

"Fernando Bermejo-Rubio
.....
"I will argue that a reconstruction of Jesus in which the aspect of anti-Roman resistance is seriously and consistently contemplated is the most plausible – in fact the only plausible – view of the Galilaean preacher."

It will be interesting to see where the writer of the above article goes with his research.

I don't know where he's going, so I think I'll go with Prof. Ehrman as to a "most plausible ... view of the Galilaean preacher":

Quote:

Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalyptic prophet who anticipated the imminent end of the age and who warned his Jewish compatriots to repent in view of the cosmic crisis that was soon to come. God, Jesus proclaimed, would intervene in the course of history to overthrow the forces of evil, sending from heaven a divine-like figure called the Son of Man in a cataclysmic act of judgment.... And this was to occur within Jesus’ generation.

Jesus’ followers accepted his message and saw him as a prophet of God who understood God’s will; some of them anticipated that when the new kingdom arrived, he, Jesus himself, would be its anointed king. But any such hopes about Jesus as the messiah were convincingly dashed when he was arrested by the Roman authorities, interrogated, tortured, and crucified as a lowly criminal. (Bart D. Ehrman, "How Jesus Became God: The *Original* Idea" in Christianity in Antiquity: the Bart Ehrman Blog)

mountainman · 05-02-2013, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Was the original 'Jesus' a militant before he was
redacted into the Prince of Peace?

The stories of Superman and the Loch Ness Monster got redacted.

We can be sure that Harry Potter evolved over his series of story books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

but I would first look for a human root for the story rather than searching for a mythical explanation.

Sure. The search is a difficult one.

I don't see the problem in starting the search with the first official publisher and then working backwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

And even myths do not arise ex-nihilo but usually have some basis or inspiration from history.

Sure, but the Jesus story could well be a conflation of several characters form several stories; some less real than others

Not only that, but the stories could be drawn from several centuries.

The spotlight has been burning the ground of the 1st century for some time and nobody has found a skerrick that explains the entire picture.

This statement from Gibbon is worth repeating for the OP:

Under the appellation of Galilaeans, two distinctions of men were confounded, the most opposite to each other in their manners and principles; the disciples who had embraced the faith of Jesus of Nazareth, 41 and the zealots who had followed the standard of Judas the Gaulonite. 42

The former were the friends, the latter were the enemies, of human kind; and the only resemblance between them consisted in the same inflexible constancy, which, in the defence of their cause, rendered them insensible of death and tortures.

The followers of Judas, who impelled their countrymen into rebellion, were soon buried under the ruins of Jerusalem; whilst those of Jesus, known by the more celebrated name of Christians, diffused themselves over the Roman empire.

Chapter XVI: Conduct Towards The Christians, From Nero To Constantine. Part II
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 2, by Edward Gibbon, [1781],
at sacred-texts.com

Recently the spotlight has been expanded to include the second century, with writers such as Detering et al.

In the 3rd century we have the figure of Mani and the Manichaeans looming in direct competition with Jesus and the Christians. A great expansion of churches appear in the Roman Empire. Gospels, Epistles to Apostles, a crucifixion scene and the appearance of religious and political heretics who flee from the Persians and the Romans.

Even the Great Persecution under Diocletian is a reality for the Manichaeans.

Constantine may have witnessed this real historical persecution first hand.
He may have been in charge of legions appointed by Diocletian
to burn the Manichaeans along with their contemptible books.

Why are we bound to stay with the 1st or 2nd centuries?

I know! That's where Eusebius says we have to look!

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

MrMacSon · 05-02-2013, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

And even myths do not arise ex-nihilo but usually have some basis or inspiration from history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Sure, but the Jesus story could well be a conflation of several characters form several stories; some less real than others

Not only that, but [COLOR="rgb(46, 139, 87)"]the stories could be drawn from several centuries[/COLOR].

The spotlight has been burning the ground of the 1st century for some time and nobody has found a skerrick that explains the entire picture.
... [snip] ...
Recently the spotlight has been expanded to include the second century, with writers such as Detering et al.

In the 3rd century we have the figure of Mani and the Manichaeans looming in direct competition with Jesus and the Christians. A great expansion of churches appear in the Roman Empire. Gospels, Epistles to Apostles, a crucifixion scene and the appearance of religious and political heretics who flee from the Persians and the Romans. Even the Great Persecution is a reality for the Manichaeans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

but I would first look for a human root for the story rather than searching for a mythical explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Sure. The search is a difficult one.

I don't see the problem in starting the search with the first official publisher and then working backwards.

Sure, but there is little written about characters before the first official publication.

Also, the forerunners to the biblical stories could start before the 1st century.

aa5874 · 05-02-2013, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

I think the Paulines are totally bogus and were written AFTER the gospels. And if Paul existed I think he was a psycho. . , and/or the author of the Paulines was either a fraud or a psycho, IMO.

But I agree with most scholars that GMark contained the fewest miracles and the least hyperbole. And Jesus was not even shown to resurrect in GMark. Isn't resurrection considered to be a miracle?
Onias

You are completely mistaken. gJohn contains the fewest miracles--about 7 miracles--not including the resurrection.

Also, only two of the 7 are in the Synoptics.

gMark has the most miracles per chapter.

gMark has about 18 miracles in 16 chapters.

And further, in gMark it is claimed that Jesus was resurrected when his supposed tomb was found empty.

aa5874 · 05-02-2013, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heterodoxus

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

"Fernando Bermejo-Rubio
.....
"I will argue that a reconstruction of Jesus in which the aspect of anti-Roman resistance is seriously and consistently contemplated is the most plausible – in fact the only plausible – view of the Galilaean preacher."

It will be interesting to see where the writer of the above article goes with his research.

I don't know where he's going, so I think I'll go with Prof. Ehrman as to a "most plausible ... view of the Galilaean preacher":

Quote:

Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalyptic prophet who anticipated the imminent end of the age and who warned his Jewish compatriots to repent in view of the cosmic crisis that was soon to come. God, Jesus proclaimed, would intervene in the course of history to overthrow the forces of evil, sending from heaven a divine-like figure called the Son of Man in a cataclysmic act of judgment.... And this was to occur within Jesus’ generation.

Jesus’ followers accepted his message and saw him as a prophet of God who understood God’s will; some of them anticipated that when the new kingdom arrived, he, Jesus himself, would be its anointed king. But any such hopes about Jesus as the messiah were convincingly dashed when he was arrested by the Roman authorities, interrogated, tortured, and crucified as a lowly criminal. (Bart D. Ehrman, "How Jesus Became God: The *Original* Idea" in Christianity in Antiquity: the Bart Ehrman Blog)

Ehrman's story appears to be a pure fabrication. No source of antiquity, no witness of antiquity gave such evidence in any manuscript existing today.

History is not recovered from imagination but from sources, from witnesses of antiquity.

Ehrman must produce the source or the witness of antiquity who gave such a story or desists from inventing uncorroborated accounts based on guesswork and imagination.

We already have a source of antiquity who have declared that the story of the Galileans is a monstrous tale-- a fiction composed by wickedness.

See Against the Galileans.

What is the actual evidence that Ehrman can produce to show the the fabrication of the Galilileans was not fiction?

We all know that the Jesus story was simply and fundamentally derived from Hebrew Scripture. The authors of the Jesus story did tell us.

Matthew 26:56 KJV

Quote:

But all this was done , that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled .

Toto · 05-02-2013, 08:07 PM

From Cross-bearing in Luke (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Sverre Bøe p. 74-75 (available on google books

Quote:

Metaphorical uses of crucifixion language are very scarce in ancient sources, especially in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts. In Greek texts, there is a famous remark by Epictetus in his Diatribes 2.2.0: "For if you wish to be crucified, wait, and the cross will come" . . . . This text is commonly referred to by commentators discussing the cross-bearing lotion. But the differences between the Synoptic logia and this text by Epictetus are great. Epictetus is hardly referring to crucifixion as a metaphor; he plainly speaks of the risk of execution by means of crucifixion. . . . No similar saying is found in Greek or Semitic sources. F.G. Downing, however, finds a similarity to Luke 14.27 in the cost that may have to be paid for discipleship "by Cynics and Christians alike: both say death may be the price."

. . .

Hengel sums up the evidence on metaphorical uses:

The imagery of crucifixion left no room for a positive interpretation, apart from the admonition which was widespread in antiquity, that each man ad to bear his own fate; here too the metaphor was one of horror and abomination. It is striking that the metaphorical terminology is limited to the Latin sphere, whereas in the Greek world the cross is never, so far as I can see, used in a metaphorical sense. Presumably the word was too offensive for it to be used as a metaphor for the Greek.

. . . carrying one's cross was not a common proverbial expression, as is often proposed though not on the basis of any evidence.

PhilosopherJay · 05-02-2013, 09:40 PM

Hi Onias,

Great catch.

This goes right along with:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
—Luke 22:36, NIV

Perhaps Jesus had read the spartan poet Tartaeus, who wrote:

'How glorious fall the valiant, sword in hand, in front of battle for their native land!'

'Rise up, warriors, take your stand at one another's sides, our feet set wide and rooted like oaks in the ground. '

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Consider this:

Mat 10:38 currently reads:

"And he who does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me."

But this reading makes much more sense:

"And he who does not take up his sword and follow after me is not worthy of me."

especially since verse 34 also refers to a sword, "Do not think I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."

Onias

Onias · 05-02-2013, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

I think the miracle-working Jesus of the gospels is fictional or mythical - take your pick of the terminology, BUT I think he may have been inspired by actual historical and thoroughly human messianic claimants such as Judas the Galilean or other messiah-aspirants.

You have already stated what you think.

What you think is not evidence of anything.

Now it is time to put forward the actual evidence from antiquity that supports what you think.

The Pope thinks Jesus existed as the Son of God.

I am afraid there is really no existing evidence from antiquity that supports the thought that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

If there was actual evidence from antiquity to support you then you would have showed me the evidence and not what you think.

I argue that Jesus was rooted in mythology because it is documented in the Canon of the Jesus cults and their writers. See Mark 6, 9, 16, Matthew 1, Luke 1, John, 1, Acts 1, Galatians 1, Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians, Aristides' Apology, Justin's Apology, Irenaeus "Against Heresies", Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ and Origen's De Principiis.

The actual evidence that Jesus was rooted in Mythology is BOLTED to the Canon of the Jesus cult so that we would all know how they fabricated their Jesus.

The books of the Prophets such as Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Micah, Zechariah, Jonah, the Psalms, and Genesis are all found bolted to the Canon of the Jesus cult.

Why have you Presumed that there was an historical story of Jesus? You have no actual evidence that the original Jesus story was historical?

Tell me what did Jesus do in the original story?

When did your Jesus actually do those things that you have presumed?

We have the writings of Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus and the Jews expected a Messianic ruler c 70 CE--Not 33 CE.

What you think may have happened is without evidence.

In fact, it is claimed by Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus that Vespasian was believed to be the prophesied Messianic ruler.

The stories of Jesus of the Nazareth as a Messianic ruler was completely unknown in antiquity before the writings of Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus.

Now, to show you that the victors cannot re-write history please examine "Against the Galileans".

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

The very Emperor of Rome has declared that the Galileans are composed of fiction--a monstrous tale.

It is extremely difficult to re-write history.

Why do you keep thinking I believe in an historical Jesus. I emphatically do not!

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.