Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-20-2013, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Onias,

I agree with you.

Unfortunately, in BC&H, most members think Jesus either never existed (Mythical Jesus) or was a misunderstood sage (Crossan et al.). Those, of course, are conveniently "boxed" interpretations of the evidence...

It is already known that lots of people agree with Onias but it is not the agreement that is the issue but the evidence from antiquity.

There is no corrobative evidence for a character called Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God during the time of Pilate around the 15th year of Tiberius.

We have corroborative evidence for Pilate, Tiberius, Caiaphas, and Agrippa but nothing of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, all the characters directly associated with Jesus are completely uncorroborated even the Pauline writer.

So, it is not only Jesus of Nazareth that has no history even the authors of the Jesus story are unknown.

We cannot ever forget that it was publicly declared that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin for hundreds of years.

It is clear that the Jesus was character was only believed to have existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC Hindley

....IMHO, any initial Jesus movement was oriented towards a coming kingdom of God on earth, and probably headed by members of his family. Evidently, the leaders of the movement were open to the idea of righteous gentiles participating in it (maybe this was part of the historical Jesus's actual preaching), and a significant number of gentiles in the Greek cities in Samaria, Galilee, and southern Syria seem to have actively associated themselves with it.

The coming of the kingdom of God did NOT require an historical Jesus. It did NOT require a Jesus movement.

The Jesus story required the Word of the Lord in the books of the Prophets.

The coming of the Kingdom of God was ALREADY found in Hebrew Scripture and specifically in the book of Daniel.

Examine the book of Daniel.

Daniel 7

Quote:

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And [b]there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away , and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed .

15I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me.

16 I came near unto one of them that stood by , and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.

Any person in antiquity who was familiar with the book of Daniel could have claimed that the "kingdom of Heaven was at hand.

The author of gMark was well aware of the book of Daniel.

Mark 13:26 KJV

Quote:

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

See Daniel 7

Mark 14:62 KJV

Quote:

And Jesus said , I am : and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 13:14 KJV

Quote:

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand ,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains...

It was the author who believed the supposed predictions of Daniel was imminent and fabricated a story about One Like the Son of Man who preached that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

The prediction of the coming of the kingdom of heaven PREDATED the Jesus story by Hundreds of years.

outhouse · 04-20-2013, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

At this time the book is out of print and copies of individual volumes are getting rarer and rarer.

Thanks for your reply, I do enjoy Vermes work, allthough I havnt read in depth as much as you.

Thank you for the information.

Quote:

Are you talking about the "Context Group"?

Nope.

Im on my own journey here compiling as much information from different scholars tomake my own determination.

Quote:

In light of the early Christian's close familiarity with Jewish sacred books in Greek translation, it is easier to assume that God-fearing gentiles intensively studied these books under guidance offered by synagogues.

I agree

The different groups of Hellenistic Proselytes had been worshipping in Synagogues probably for centuries.

I would also have to think many of these would be Hellenistic Synagogues, as apposed to Hebrew Synagogues.

Quote:

I think some of these God-fearers followed Jesus' ideas about that age to come.

I wish we knew what those ideas really were. Im not happy about only having the Hellenistic versions were left with to determine which contradictory statements hold more credibility.

Quote:

I find it hard to believe that a gentile group formerly unassociated with a historical Jesus movement would adopt him as their idol and then clean up his image

I find the living Jesus not popular at all, and typical of many teachers and healers of this time.

I can only find him being famous after his death due to the oral tradition it generated.

The people who wrote the gospels, really only deal with any plausible historicity in the last week of his life and death surrounding Passover. Its my belief that is all they knew to begin with. Only after 30-40 years of oral tradition did the story grow large enough to finally make papyrus in Gmark in a compilation of varied sources.

Do you think if Jesus had vanished A day before Passover, there would be anything to write about?

Quote:

But I can find gentile Jesus movement followers finding it necessary to "explain (away" their association with his movement after the Jewish rebellion.

I agree.

Quote:

There were quite a lot of gentiles who lived in Judaea, Samaria and Galilee, and not just the ones in Greek cities or Roman colonies established over several centuries. There was a lot of "Royal" land gifted to gentiles by Herod, Archelaeus, and various Roman Governors. These would not restrict their land tenancy to Jews only. In fact, some of those archeological studies you refer to have excavated Galilean village cluster dwellings (usually 4) surrounding a central courtyard, with physical remains indicating these clusters were occupied by both Jews and gentiles.

And yet in Sepphoris there was almost no Gentiles pre 70 BCE, exactly where this statement above states there should be gentiles in droves. there were not.

This is a area highly understudied.

What they are not stating is that these people in Sepphoris were actually Hellensitic Jews as appossed to using Jews as a general usage.

I believe there is a large difference in Hellensitic Judaism and born and raised Isrealite Judaism. One oppressed, and the other working hand in hand with Romans.

This was a socioeconomic division as well as a cultural division. This also led to a religious division as well.

And what these divisions were is highly understudied, and where im trying to focus my learning at the moment. Ive read everything there is, and its a lot to take in, in itself. Theres only so much study going on by a few recent credible scholarships. And even then it doesnt fill in the blanks.

One example is how poor Capernaum is sadi to have been, which I will guess mirrors Nazareth.

mountainman · 04-21-2013, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Was Jesus a liberal democrat?

Was Jesus a poker player?

How long is this list of descriptions of Jesus by the scholars of the historical Jesus?

Was the Historical Jesus a Big Lie?

When are the scholars of the Historical Jesus going to tackle this question?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 04-21-2013, 02:47 PM

I have received a number of PM's about the above post.

The reference to the "Big Lie" above does not point at WIKI.

It refers to The Real History of World War II: A New Look at the Past (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Alan Axelrod

The WIKI page is misinformed.

The historical precedent for the political "Big Lie" is Mussolini.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Onias · 04-21-2013, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have received a number of PM's about the above post.

The reference to the "Big Lie" above does not point at WIKI.

It refers to The Real History of World War II: A New Look at the Past (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Alan Axelrod

The WIKI page is misinformed.

The historical precedent for the political "Big Lie" is Mussolini.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Most TV 'documentaries' and print media say The Big Lie originated with Hitler, but in Mein Kampf, Hitler writes that it was the technique of his (Jewish) enemies. Not that I am defending Hitler as I am Jewish, but there are enough factual things to discredit Hitler without having to make things up.
Shalom,
Onias

mountainman · 04-21-2013, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have received a number of PM's about the above post.

The reference to the "Big Lie" above does not point at WIKI.

It refers to The Real History of World War II: A New Look at the Past (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Alan Axelrod

The WIKI page is misinformed.

The historical precedent for the political "Big Lie" is Mussolini.

Most TV 'documentaries' and print media say The Big Lie originated with Hitler, but in Mein Kampf, Hitler writes that it was the technique of his (Jewish) enemies. Not that I am defending Hitler as I am Jewish, but there are enough factual things to discredit Hitler without having to make things up.

I think that many people have an erroneous belief in this issue.

I have been falsely accused here in this forum of being guilty of invoking Godwin's Law because of this misconception.

See for example Was the historical Jesus a "Big Lie"? which was locked for review due to this misconception.

The "Big Lie" has its precedent with Mussolini, not Hitler.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto · 04-21-2013, 04:59 PM

The mention of Hitler or Moussolini other modern bad guys is strongly discouraged in this forum.

mountainman · 04-21-2013, 05:14 PM

The link between Mussolini (not Hitler) and ancient history is provided by the ancient historian Arnaldo Momigliano in his (1987) book ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS ( via: Amazon UK ), in Chapter 6 .... "How Roman Emperors became Gods" as follows ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

p.92

CH 6: How Roman Emperors became Gods

"Gertud Bing, the director the Warburg Institute ... happened
to be in Rome with with Warburg, the founder and patron saint
of the Warburg institute, on that day, February 11, 1929, on
which Mussolini and the Pope proclaimed the reconciliation
between Italy and the Catholic Church ... There were in Rome
tremendous popular demonstrations, whether orchestrated from
above or below. Mussolini became overnight the "man of providence",
and in such an inconvenient position he remained for many years.

.... some of the most original work on the Roman imperial cult
was done around the years 1929-1934 in the ambiguous atmosphere
of the revival of emperor worship in which it was difficult to
separate the adulation from political emotion, and political
emotion from religious or superstitious exitement.

I see this as directly relevant to Christian history, and specifically the atmosphere at Nicaea.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Onias · 04-21-2013, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The mention of Hitler or Moussolini other modern bad guys is strongly discouraged in this forum.

Fair enough.

In any case, I think despots have been espousing Big Lies well before the 20th century. I guess Mountainman is saying Constantine was committing a big lie when he allegedly created Xianity.
Onias

mountainman · 04-23-2013, 03:03 PM

That's precisely what I am saying Onias.

We may paraphrase Momigliano on Mussolini as follows:

.... some of the most original work on the Christian Church History
was done around the years 312-325 CE in the ambiguous atmosphere
of the revival of emperor worship in which it was difficult to
separate the adulation from political emotion, and political
emotion from religious or superstitious excitement.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

04-23-2013, 03:03 PM	#20
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	That's precisely what I am saying Onias. We may paraphrase Momigliano on Mussolini as follows: .... some of the most original work on the Christian Church History was done around the years 312-325 CE in the ambiguous atmosphere of the revival of emperor worship in which it was difficult to separate the adulation from political emotion, and political emotion from religious or superstitious excitement. εὐδαιμονία \| eudaimonia

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

04-21-2013, 02:47 PM	#14
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	I have received a number of PM's about the above post. The reference to the "Big Lie" above does not point at WIKI. It refers to The Real History of World War II: A New Look at the Past (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Alan Axelrod The WIKI page is misinformed. The historical precedent for the political "Big Lie" is Mussolini. εὐδαιμονία \| eudaimonia

04-21-2013, 04:59 PM	#17
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The mention of Hitler or Moussolini other modern bad guys is strongly discouraged in this forum.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.