Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-07-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

The Passion Narrative is the only real case for an historically derived Jesus. Everything else is myth and fluff. ...

[trimmed]

All three of these seem possible to me. What I lack is a means for testing the three hypotheses. Suggestions?

What does the evidence suggest concerning how the Passion Narrative was historically received by Arius of Alexandria according to Athanasius? The evidence strongly suggests that it was simply and soundly satired. This suggests that Arius did not believe the passion account was an historical account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATHANASIUS

“Who is there that hears all this, nay, the tune of the Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on a stage who but must regard him, when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as the serpent counseling the woman? who, on reading what follows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into which by his sophistries the serpent in the sequel seduced the woman? who at such blasphemies is not transported?

‘The heaven,’ as the Prophet says, ‘was astonished, and the earth shuddered’ at the transgression of the Law. But the sun, with greater horror, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that day sunless.

And shall not all human kind at Arius’ blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or seeing their author?

[Athanasius' Four Discourses ... Chapter II.—Extracts from the Thalia of Arius]

show_no_mercy · 03-07-2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharrock

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

How do you account for "Jesus Son of the Father" (BarAbbas), an insurrectionist (i.e. messiah claimant) being exchanged for Jesus the Nazarene?

A theory: Jesus is raised in Nazareth in order to be described as the Nazarine, ο ναζωραιος. Lk 18:37.

Ναζωραιος seems to be derived from the Nazirite of Judges 13:5 (ναζιραιος).

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharrock

ναζ is possibly indicative of the Hebrew nachash (i.e. serpent). The Gnostic Naaseni were followers of a serpent, who they believed to be Jesus.

http://theforbiddenreligion.com/the-...-salvation.htm

It's Gnostic in origin.

What does this have to do with my question? I didn't ask why Jesus was called a Nazarene. I asked why Jesus Son of the Father is released while the Jesus of Christianity was crucified. The Jesus of Christianity is supposed to be the real son of the father.

Clivedurdle · 03-07-2010, 02:20 PM

Umm, except a guy called Socrates might have been killed by crucifiction, and what was that about drinking poison on the cross?

And the Sermon on the Mount is socratic teaching.

What was that about historical kernels?

Might the Jesus stories be an attempt by Greeks to put their stories in a Jewish context?

PhilosopherJay · 03-07-2010, 03:40 PM

Hi Show_no_mercy,

I think this has to be considered a fantastic or dramatic element. It seems designed to make the point that Jesus was considered worse than a criminal insurrectionist murderer by the Jewish masses.

The name Barabbas (the son of the father) would logically be another name for Jesus. From Paul "Romans, 8" we get this:

Quote:

14For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

So anyone who follows the spirit of God is a son of God, or a Barabbas, a son of the the Father.

The point of the story seems to be to separate the Jesus character from the violent revolutionaries who existed prior to the Roman Jewish War or Wars. The Jewish masses preferred the revolutionary sons of God when given a chance to vote.

We can suppose that the Jesus character was originally derived from a Barabbas type character. The revisionists rewriting the Jesus story are anxious now to separate him from this revolutionary character.

This suggests that the gospels writers are anxious to distinguish Jesus from pre-war revolutionary Jews.This could indicate that the Jesus character was based on a pre-war revolutionary Jewish leader or a pre-war revolutionary Jewish literary figure. It strongly suggests that the gospels passion narratives are a drastic rewrite of an earlier story for political reasons.

However, it doesn't tell us the nature of the earlier story and character.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

How do you account for "Jesus Son of the Father" (BarAbbas), an insurrectionist (i.e. messiah claimant) being exchanged for Jesus the Nazarene?

mountainman · 03-07-2010, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

And the Sermon on the Mount is socratic teaching.

It could just as easily be Buddhist.

Quote:

What was that about historical kernels?

Many cultures { "re-use" / "re-badge" / "recycle" } historical kernels.
The accounts of the life of Buddha and Buddhas disciples preceed the Roman empire
and all the earliest possible accounts of "Early christianity".

Quote:

Might the Jesus stories be an attempt by Greeks to put their stories in a Jewish context?

Or attempts by influential and progressive Greek speaking Romans.

show_no_mercy · 03-08-2010, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Show_no_mercy,

I think this has to be considered a fantastic or dramatic element. It seems designed to make the point that Jesus was considered worse than a criminal insurrectionist murderer by the Jewish masses.

The name Barabbas (the son of the father) would logically be another name for Jesus. From Paul "Romans, 8" we get this:

Quote:

14For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

So anyone who follows the spirit of God is a son of God, or a Barabbas, a son of the the Father.

The point of the story seems to be to separate the Jesus character from the violent revolutionaries who existed prior to the Roman Jewish War or Wars. The Jewish masses preferred the revolutionary sons of God when given a chance to vote.

Could it be that Jesus BarAbbas is/was a cipher for the historical Jesus, who really was an insurrectionist? Much like how Paul and Simon Magus are viewed by some as the same person, but were "split in two" for polemical reasons?

Doug Shaver · 03-08-2010, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

the arrest, trial and execution of the Jesus Character . . . appears as a rather vivid account and lacks the supernatural and obviously satirical elements that mark the other nine tenths of the gospels.

Lemme see here. Nine tenths of it couldn't have happened, but the remaining one tenth is plausible and so it probably did happen?

I don't think so.

PhilosopherJay · 03-08-2010, 07:12 AM

Hi Doug,

No, I do not think it probably happened, especially not as described in the gospels, I just think it is harder to explain than the other 9/10ths.

The heavens opening up and a dove flying into the body of a man and a voice from heaven saying, "This is my son..." is obviously fictional and didn't happen. On the other hand, a Roman military governor crucifying a Jewish rebel leader around 35 C.E. does not require any kind of leap into supernatural belief. As presented in the gospels, much of it is false, but determining if it is referring to any actual event (and which one), a series of events or no event at all is difficult.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

the arrest, trial and execution of the Jesus Character . . . appears as a rather vivid account and lacks the supernatural and obviously satirical elements that mark the other nine tenths of the gospels.

Lemme see here. Nine tenths of it couldn't have happened, but the remaining one tenth is plausible and so it probably did happen?

I don't think so.

PhilosopherJay · 03-08-2010, 07:44 AM

Hi aa5874,

These are all good points.

The Judas character seems to be there just to betray Jesus. It can be taken as an add on allegorical point that you shouldn't trust all your followers. We should recall that Leonidas and the 300 Spartans were betrayed by Ephialtes ("Nightmare" in Greek) from Malis. One may believe that Leonidas and the Spartans died at Thermopolae without believing that Ephialtes betrayed them. Malis was part of a colony of Lacedamonians who were forced by Athens to fight against the Spartans during the Peloponesian War. Ephialtes may symbolically represent the nightmare of a city's colony siding with a city's enemies against it.

The cutting off of the high priest's son's ear is a fascinating detail. It does seem absurd that there are no repercussions for this action and nobody brings it up at the trial/s. It could symbolically represent the fact that the high priest's son would not listen to others. It is possibly related to the common saying by Jesus about those who have ears should listen - the high priest lost his ear and therefore couldn't listen. The whole incident seems to be there to show, a la the Barabbas story, that Jesus was not a violent revolutionary, but also that his followers were willing to defend him.

The other points are excellent and does point to the story or at least most of the details being contrived from Hebrew scriptures and text to relate it to classical Jewish sources.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher J

All three of these seem possible to me. What I lack is a means for testing the three hypotheses. Suggestions?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

But, of course there are means to test your hypotheses. There is information that have survived about 1st century events in Judea.

The crucifixion of Jesus matches a fictional account based on information found in the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture.

1. Jesus told the disciples that Judas would betray him and Judas, as if an idiot, still shows up in person to betray Jesus. It would appear Judas must behave as an idiot for Psalms 41.9 to be fulfilled.

2. Jesus is arrested and again another idiot, a supposed follower of Jesus, takes out some sword and attempts to kill a member of the Sanhedrin cutting of his ear in the process. See Mark 14.47

This is exactly what the Sanhedrin or the arrest team would have needed to exterminate Jesus and his eleven disciples on the spot.

It was dark and the disciples attacked them so they would have most likely killed all of them and claimed that the Jesus and the disciples were just a pack of bandits and murderers by showing that they were armed and dangerous.

3. The rest of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus can be found in the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture.

The words of Jesus before the Sanhedrin---Daniel 7.13.

The action of Pilate---Psalms 26.6

The false witnesses at the trial---Psalms 27.12

The flogging of Jesus--Isaiah 50.6

The casting of lots for his clothing---Psalms 22.18

The wagging of heads and reviling of Jesus--Psalms 109.25

The last words of Jesus---Psalms 22.1

The drink of vinegar---Psalms 69.21

The place of burial of Jesus---Isaiah 53.9

The entire betrayal, trial, crucifixion and burial of Jesus was lifted straight out the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture.

The hypothesis where the trial and crucifixion is non-historical has been confirmed as a very good hypothesis just from the internal sources alone.

Externally we can't find anything about a crazy-man or a man who made crazy-like statements that he was coming back in the clouds and if killed would be raised from the dead withing three days, who also was supposedly crucified for blasphemy.

The writings of Josephus and Philo cannot account for that man or his crazy-like doctrine.

PhilosopherJay · 03-08-2010, 01:00 PM

Hi Roland,

I agree, fantastic odds at every turn -- that it should have happened on the day before Passover or Passover, that Pilate should be awake and ready to hold a trial when the High Council brings him in, that Pilate judges him in two hours without any clear charges. It all sounds fantastic and contrived.

Yet we still have to figure out a way to determine if there is anything underneath the fantastic and contrived details that the plot of the narrative could be referring to.

It is a bit like distinguishing between a tootsie roll, a lollipop and a tootsie pop. A tootsie roll is a fairly hard chocolate candy. the lollipop is flavored sucrose with corn syrup on a stick and the tootiepop has a tootsie roll center but a lollipop outside. We may consider the tootsie roll as all history and the lollipop as all fiction. The fantastic coincidences in the narative eliminate the idea that we are dealing with a tootsie roll (history). They tell us that on the outside the tale is a lollipop (fiction). The quesion is, is it a lollipop (fiction) all the way through, or is there a chocolate (history) center somewhere?

If there is a chocolate (historical center) center, what could it be?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

On the contrary, the Passion narrative practically screams fiction. Here's a guy who walks into a city, manages to get himself arrested and put on trial, then crucified on the Feast of Passover so he can be seen as a symbolic sacrifice for his fellow man. What are the chances that any person could get all those events to align themselves so perfectly as to actually pull them off - heavyhanded symbolism and all? There are simply too many elements in the story over which he could not have the kind of control he would need to bring the desired result about. After all, it's not like he wandered into Jerusalem and simply lit himself on fire which any fool could do.

As I see it, this story has all the qualities of carefully crafted and contrived fiction and virtually none of historial reality.

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

03-07-2010, 02:20 PM	#13
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Umm, except a guy called Socrates might have been killed by crucifiction, and what was that about drinking poison on the cross? And the Sermon on the Mount is socratic teaching. What was that about historical kernels? Might the Jesus stories be an attempt by Greeks to put their stories in a Jewish context?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.