Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Elijah · 12-18-2009, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

There are important differences between the two cases. Socrates was an old man, and disinclined to relocate to another city (if banished, thus he chose execution). Also he had some experience in the Athenian military which I've seen argued to be one source of hostility towards him, another being his association with the deposed and disgraced democratic faction under Pericles and after.

As you know I don't believe the gospel bio. Jesus' death at the hands of spiritual beings (archons, demons, whatever) is sufficient for me. Your concept of Reason personified doesn't bring me any closer to accepting an HJ.

Yea there is a difference between Socrates and Jesus. Jesus was a messiah claimant. Socrates and Plato philosophized more about what the ideal society was; on the other hand Jesus’ deal was about what the ideal king would be like.

I have absolutely no interest in trying to persuade you of a HJ position. By all means, go with it just being someone doing a Jewish platonic dialogue that gets confused for history. I’m just hoping to see the conversation/interpretation around Christianity move out of the superstitious gutter and consider more often the philosophical influence going on there.

aa5874 · 12-18-2009, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

....Counterfeit letters tend to show a point of view that doesn't match the author. For example, a known counterfeit letter is the second epistle of Peter. In 2 Peter 3:3-8, the author makes a defense against future mockers who will make fun of Christians because the apocalyptic prophecy remains unfulfilled despite all of their fathers dying. To Peter himself, this would have been preposterous--Jesus will return soon enough, because he very clearly said so. For a counterfeit letter to be taken as authentic by critical observers, it takes saying things that are embarrassing or irrelevant to the counterfeit author and his intended audience, which isn't easy.

But, your reasoning is very odd. If you have two letters and the authorship of both are not certain then it is extremely difficult to tell which is authentic or if any is authentic by simply reading the letters

Secondly when the Church writers appear to be wrong about the dating, chronology and authorship of many books in the NT, if not all, then they may be wrong about 1 Peter.

Now, why do you think that 1 Peter was written by a 1st century disciple of Jesus? And why do you think that you know what a counterfeiter is likely to do or not do?

It is very likely that not one of the authors of the books of the NT wrote when the Church writers claimed they did.

ApostateAbe · 12-18-2009, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The model of the gospels being intended as prophecy fulfillment does have its limits, I know. If something is likely and normal to happen, or if Christians plainly have another reason to believe a certain element that happens to match prophecy, then we don't need to attribute the elements to a motivation of prophecy fulfillment. There are just a bunch of weird things within the Jesus story (the silence before accusations, casting lots, burial with the rich, resurrection) that would be unlikely to be explained if it were not for perceived Old Testament prophecy. Isaiah 53 is explicitly quoted in the gospel of John (no such thing for Socrates until the second century, as you said), so Jesus is identified as the so-called "suffering servant," and so we know that early Christians wanted to match the story of Jesus to it. If Jesus was NOT told to be silent before accusations, then careful readers and listeners would think, "Wait a minute, there is a mismatch." Given that there was an explicit agenda to match Jesus with the "suffering servant," I take is unlikely that a silence before accusations would NOT be included.

I think you have an unrealistic expectation of evidence in regards to influence here. Here’s a hypothetical. Suppose we had document that showed Mithra behaving in the same way during a trial and we knew that Mithracism was culturally impacting the Jews at the time. You would refuse to believe there was an influence in the behavior of Jesus in the story unless someone, in basically the NT itself, says that Jesus is just doing a Mithra impersonation. That’s unrealistic to expect because it belittles the event and the man they are discussing. It’s not like when Justin wrote Plato down the first time that was the beginning of the Greek philosophy’s influence on the Jews.

The reason Isaiah was being pushed was because it was necessary to help validate Jesus. “Hey he just wants to be a Jewish Socrates” doesn’t help the cause of establishing him as the Messiah. "Hey we found a prophecy" taken out of context that kind of fits what he did, does help with certain people who believe in prophecies and that’s why it’s included early.

I think if the writer was just including what he wanted to fulfill prophecy then he would have just made him absolutely quiet instead of not exactly fulfilling the prophecy. Same with his burial and his children. Lost me on the “If Jesus was NOT told to be silent” part.

Again I think prophecy is fit in afterwards and yea some of that was added into the narrative; I just don’t think fulfilling Isaiah is an example of a prophecy that needed to be fulfilled by the people and instead just something they found that was similar enough to try to establish some credibility for the man they were trying to push as the Messiah.

OK, I wasn't clear with the point that you don't get, but it is an essential point, so I'll express myself better: If the gospel accounts did NOT describe Jesus as silent against accusations, then careful readers and listeners would notice a big difference between Jesus and the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53. So it is actually essential that the gospel authors included the silence of Jesus. They had already established a connection between Jesus and the "suffering servant" with the resurrection, the rich man's tomb, and the substitutional atonement. The affliction and the innocence would also be a fortunate addition. If there was no silence against critics, then it would needlessly sever the connection, a terrible waste of propaganda advantage.

So a connection to Isaiah 53 is firmly established in the gospel of John. Many things could have influenced the Jesus myth, but out of all of those things, the items with explicit mention, or at least strongly implicit mention, have precedence. If the connection to Socrates can be agreeably carried further, then the connection needs to be seen in the gospel stories, and martyrdom is an example, but it seems to be a week one. A very strong example might be a quote from Plato about Socrates, or from Socrates himself, thrown in to describe the Jews who accused Jesus at his trial.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil."

Elijah · 12-18-2009, 09:34 PM

The gospel accounts don’t describe him as silent they show him not defending himself as he could have. The most basic point of the prophecy doesn’t line up and requires the listener to start interpreting it. The same thing with the resurrection and rich man’s tomb, it requires interpretation before I can even imagine it was something predicting someone like Jesus and even then how surprising would that be to find a passage like that in the text after the fact? If I don’t consider it as actually prophetic then it’s hard for to me to see it as influencing the event. Again this comes down to how I believe prophecy is generally employed around events like this… they are fitted in the post game when they are trying to interpret/explain what happened and justify his actions.

In the Mithra hypothetical you would need them to argue about this being a Mithra knock off or quote from him directly in order to admit there could be an influence? The influence of Plato on the Jews is known and Socrates position on not defending yourself is also known; if you need direct quotation in the first century to believe there was an influence there then I can’t help you. It seems fairly obvious to me but I don’t have your expectations of indisputable proof of influence.

spamandham · 12-18-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

The gospel accounts don’t describe him as silent they show him not defending himself as he could have. The most basic point of the prophecy doesn’t line up and requires the listener to start interpreting it. .

The dialog is completely unrealistic, which means that this is nonetheless the author's interpretation. Do we really think people in the first/second century were looking for a pedantic exact fulfilling of prophecy, or was this close enough? I think it's close enough.

ApostateAbe · 12-19-2009, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

The gospel accounts don’t describe him as silent they show him not defending himself as he could have. The most basic point of the prophecy doesn’t line up and requires the listener to start interpreting it. The same thing with the resurrection and rich man’s tomb, it requires interpretation before I can even imagine it was something predicting someone like Jesus and even then how surprising would that be to find a passage like that in the text after the fact? If I don’t consider it as actually prophetic then it’s hard for to me to see it as influencing the event. Again this comes down to how I believe prophecy is generally employed around events like this… they are fitted in the post game when they are trying to interpret/explain what happened and justify his actions.

In the Mithra hypothetical you would need them to argue about this being a Mithra knock off or quote from him directly in order to admit there could be an influence? The influence of Plato on the Jews is known and Socrates position on not defending yourself is also known; if you need direct quotation in the first century to believe there was an influence there then I can’t help you. It seems fairly obvious to me but I don’t have your expectations of indisputable proof of influence.

Isaiah 53:7 says:

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

Mark 14 says:

55 Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. 56 For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree. 57 Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, 58 "We heard him say, "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.' " 59 But even on this point their testimony did not agree. 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?" 61 But he was silent and did not answer.

He opens his mouth for the next question, which I take to be possibly historically accurate:

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 Jesus said, "I am; and "you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,' and "coming with the clouds of heaven.' " 63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?" All of them condemned him as deserving death. 65 Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" The guards also took him over and beat him.

So the account depicts Jesus as silent some of the time, but specifically as a response to the accusations against him. He is not silent against an inquiry that he his proud to affirm, but silence against the accusations is significant, because it matches the model of Isaiah 53, which we know for sure that Christians wanted.

Maybe if you could come up with a list of matching elements between Socrates and Jesus, then that would be progress. With enough matching elements, then the Socrates connection can be granted more significance, just like the Platonic influence on the Jews. A quote from or about Socrates would be a smoking gun, but a smoking gun is not necessary. I can come up with only these things:

Killed by ruling authorities
Killed for his ideas
Death was willed by victim
Death was celebrated by followers of victim
Wisdom of victim

These things do have substance, but they are few and much too generic and vague, and the stories of Jesus and Socrates each have a helluva lot more detail, so maybe you can come up with more matching elements than I can.

Elijah · 12-19-2009, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The dialog is completely unrealistic, which means that this is nonetheless the author's interpretation. Do we really think people in the first/second century were looking for a pedantic exact fulfilling of prophecy, or was this close enough? I think it's close enough.

I have no idea if the dialogue is realistic or not for the time or the individuals. I think it’s close enough as well. Close enough for Christian propaganda for sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

These things do have substance, but they are few and much too generic and vague, and the stories of Jesus and Socrates each have a helluva lot more detail, so maybe you can come up with more matching elements than I can.

I’m not trying to say Jesus is a direct copy of Socrates. I’m only pointing out that the behavior he displayed during the trial wouldn’t be seen as a negative but an expected reaction from a philosophically knowledgeable person of the time. I think the behavior is expected because of what Socrates preached, not because of the silence predicted in a possible prophecy they used later to try to validate his claim as the messiah. I think you are making way too much of them using that prophecy or are way more impressed with its accuracy then I am. It’s like the people who believe their horoscope predicted stuff during the day, it’s easy to see that kind of stuff in hindsight if you’re willing to be interpretive with the text and the event to the point of not being silent is still seen as silence.

Clivedurdle · 12-19-2009, 01:10 AM

We are looking at second hand hearsay accounts aren't we?

Is this not therefore a question that might be reworded "who killed roger rabbit?"

http://hollywood-animated-films.suit...d_roger_rabbit

Solo · 12-22-2009, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

We are looking at second hand hearsay accounts aren't we?

Is this not therefore a question that might be reworded "who killed roger rabbit?"

http://hollywood-animated-films.suit...d_roger_rabbit

No, it does not like we are looking at second-hand accounts. Paraphrasing C.S.Lewis: we are looking at compositions which either

1)rehash actual events as fulfilled prophecies, hymns and poems, or
2)freely weave a mythical allegory as fulfilled prophecies, hymns and poems .

Jiri

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

12-18-2009, 09:34 PM	#64
Elijah Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: MidWest Posts: 1,894	The gospel accounts don’t describe him as silent they show him not defending himself as he could have. The most basic point of the prophecy doesn’t line up and requires the listener to start interpreting it. The same thing with the resurrection and rich man’s tomb, it requires interpretation before I can even imagine it was something predicting someone like Jesus and even then how surprising would that be to find a passage like that in the text after the fact? If I don’t consider it as actually prophetic then it’s hard for to me to see it as influencing the event. Again this comes down to how I believe prophecy is generally employed around events like this… they are fitted in the post game when they are trying to interpret/explain what happened and justify his actions. In the Mithra hypothetical you would need them to argue about this being a Mithra knock off or quote from him directly in order to admit there could be an influence? The influence of Plato on the Jews is known and Socrates position on not defending yourself is also known; if you need direct quotation in the first century to believe there was an influence there then I can’t help you. It seems fairly obvious to me but I don’t have your expectations of indisputable proof of influence.

12-19-2009, 01:10 AM	#68
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	We are looking at second hand hearsay accounts aren't we? Is this not therefore a question that might be reworded "who killed roger rabbit?" http://hollywood-animated-films.suit...d_roger_rabbit

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.