luvluv

Well, it would have to be before the gospels, right? Point being, if Q and (more damingly) layers of Q are allowed, then there was quite a bit of biographical information circulating about Jesus before Paul wrote the epistles. Or do you think that Q might post-date the epistles? I guess you'd have to think that (if you believe in Q and you're a mythicist).

Is this the typical response of the Christ Mythers? Do they have no response to why such distinctive ethical emphases and teaching M.O. evolved around Jesus while none evolved around others (did they)? What's their explanation for these teachings, if they have one?

This is one of the many places I fall off the mythicist wagon (not that I was ever in danger of taking a ride). They short-change Jesus's distinct ethical genius, and seem to just say "This stuff is old, anybody could have done it". Well, then why didn't anybody else do it? That's my totally uneducated two cents.

braces_for_impact

That certainly hasn't been my experience. I've noticed that evangelicals often speak about how horribly Jesus supposedly suffered. As far as walking into a catholic church, oh please. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a statue or picture of Jesus being tortured on the cross. After all, the very crux of Christianity is a blood sacrifice is it not?

That's not what I took from it. I have it, I watched it once and I was somewhat distracted, so I'll have to watch it again. The point I thought the film was trying to make was it was contrasting a very graphic and violent movie with the way many Christians usually rally against violence in film. In essence, it was showing a type of hypocrisy. Graphic violence should not be allowed on film - unless it's your lord and savior, and then it's ok.

Several Christians where I used to work saw it several times. :huh:

Apparently a lot of evangelical Christians disagreed with you. I recall churches both here where I live as well as elsewhere buying out entire viewings or hosting the movie at their church in order to use the film as a witnessing tool. I was invited to one of these myself.

Well if Asprini's wife doesn't want to watch it, she won't. I suspect that most Christians wouldn't watch it or sit through the entire showing. That doesn't mean the movie was bad though. The case could be argued that it strikes too close to home. Personally, I thought the movie came off as a bit low budget in scope, and I wish it would have provided more scholarly details. But as a jumping point to provoke thought, I think if one doesn't automatically knee jerk to being offended it may well do a fine job of prodding one to explore the topic on their own. If the movie was designed to provoke thought on the subject matter, I think it did a pretty good job. No, it's not going to deconvert a fundamentalist. It might peak the interest of the average joe that never hears the other side of the story though.

luvluv

.

You really need to watch the movie again. They showed Jesus Christ superstar on one side of the screen, with a trickle of dollar signs underneath it. Then they showed The Last Temptation of Christ on the other side of the screen, with trickle of dollar signs underneath it. Then it showed The passion in the center of the screen, where a trickle of dollars signs morphed into a deluge of blood, and then he straightforwardly makes the inference that since the passion made so much money, Christians are obsessed with blood.

I don't think you were hearing me on the whole issue of Jesus suffering. Evangelicals will tell you that Jesus suffered, but few will get into the tearing of flesh in gory details. That just doesn't happen in evangelical churches on a regular basis. Generally, they just point out that Jesus suffered for our sins and leave it at that. There isn't an attempt in your typical Sunday sermon to detail it out as graphically in words as Gibson did in images.

Also, what I'm saying about Aspirin's wife is that her instincts on this one are correct. I'd reccomend she just read some into the Christ myth controversy if she's open-minded enough, and just skip the movie. This is one guy's angry letter to the folks who raised him, and it only gets to 60 minutes by some excrutiatingly long clips from a Jesus movie from the silent era. That movie just angrily preaches to the choir; nobody else will get anything out of it at all except a very poorly presented case for the Christ mythicist theory.

luvluv

I haven't been here in a while. Let me just say, if you don't want me to come back again, please keep the awful new quick reply and edit features which don't work at all.

freigeister

That Christ was a Jewish mystic is the mainstream scholarly position (link).

Ted Hoffman

Not necessarily. See Mark-Q Overlaps. "Beelzebub" was most likely derived from Mark.Not true. What Biographical information about Jesus are available in Q?
Mythicism has got nothing to do with the question you are asking.

Which Teachings? Mark developed his gospel from the OT and other sources.
This is an emotional appeal.
Please cite where "they" say this.
Because they were doing other things. Like tilling the land. Or making babies, or fighting the Romans, or observing the sabbath. Or they didn't give a shit. Or they lacked the brains and literary skills.

EarlDoherty

Just time for a quick response. I think—and have argued extensively in my book The Jesus Puzzle—that the development of Q through various ‘layers’ demonstrates that no Jesus existed at the beginning of the Kingdom preaching movement which Q represents. He is a figure who was added in the later stages of that document’s evolution, a perceived founder of the movement (this was a development fairly common in sectarian behavior). Nor can we be sure what name this invented founder was originally given in Q, since the evangelists, when incorporating Q or Q traditions into their Gospels—and that includes Mark—would have changed it to conform to the divine-Christ side of their composite creation. Thus, the statement that “there was quite a bit of biographical information circulating about Jesus…� is simply an assumption which is being read into the teaching compendium we find in Q.

Again, these are assumptions which don’t stand up to close examination. Just what are the “distinctive ethical emphases and teachings� which you want to attribute to Jesus? To love one another? That had been around for centuries, as witnessed by ‘Jesus’ quoting Leviticus, and it’s a precept found all over the place in various cultures. That God doesn’t desire sacrifice, etc.? That sort of thing goes back into the prophets. Love your enemies? Even that has the odd precedent. And your assumption that no such teachings evolved around others is simply erroneous. The Roman Epictetus was famed for his ethical teachings which have a lot in common with those attributed to Jesus, so much so that naïve Christian commentators of the late Victorian era wondered if he was secretly a Christian! Seneca was also a noted ethicist. (Neither of them, by the way, took any notice of a Jewish preacher who had allegedly preached revolutionary ethics.) And there were no doubt others, but they all tended to be buried under the Jesus/Christian juggernaut.

Modern NT scholars readily admit that there is much in common between the teachings of Jesus in Q and those of the Greek Cynics. In fact, they can virtually all be attributed to the Cynics (not the apocalyptic ones, of course). My own book, but especially Price’s Deconstructing Jesus, offers a fairly comprehensive comparative list of such teachings.

The very fact that the earliest layer of Q (which scholars like those of the Jesus Seminar regard as “authentic�) contains nothing that is specifically Jewish—indeed, the latter is conspicuous by its absence—and the fact that Paul and the other epistle writers seem oblivious of any of Jesus’ “distinctive ethical teachings� (as witness 1 Thess. 4:9), would suggest that no such figure lay at the base of the Q community’s formation. It was simply a preaching movement focusing on the conviction of God’s imminent Kingdom, preaching an ethic and a lifestyle dependent on Cynic precedents but also rooted in Jewish apocalyptic expectation, focusing on the arrival of the Son of Man, not the Messiah (who never appears in Q). This group, influenced by the Cynics and by Jewish Wisdom philosophy, formulated an ethic which it made its own, and eventually got attached to an invented founder figure, and from there entered Christianity as we know it.

The human mind seems to have this propensity for attributing innovative or progressive ideas to isolated, idealized figures (which is why founders tend to get invented by sects and developing religions), rather than see them as the product of evolving groups or societies. It’s a very simplistic way of looking at things.

Alf

I am no expert but I can try to give my 2 cents in this.

I believe there was a Q. The origin and content of it is not known. Specifically we don't know if it is a collection of things that Jesus said - if it were it would blow a hole to the Myth theory - or just a collection of proverbs and sayings that was "accumulated accepted wisdom" of the time among the people who followed this cult/religion.

Again, I don't think christianity was the only religion of the time to preach this. It could very well be "common wisdom" among people who followed this cult.

Same as above. The portrayal of God as a loving intimate father is a departure from the OT god. However, it is not a departure from many other religions of the region. The OT god is somewhat special. As far as I know he has his origins as the war god of some people of the middle east. The israeli simply adopted him as "their" god when they turned to monotheism. Monotheism is also not originally a jewish invention. Egypt had monotheim earlier where Ra was the "one true god". True, this never caught on in Egypt in the way that the majority bought into it at first but I guess the idea did spread and reached middle east where jews picked their god of war as the "one true god" and the OT books of genesis etc was written to "document" this and used as a testament to the veracity of their claims. Not unlike how a politician today might "prove" that their policy work by referring to their election brochures.

However, since then Jews has gotten under Greek influence and recently at that period came under Roman law and influence. True, they never allowed the romans to influence them much culturally but the greek influence was there. You had both hellenized jews - jews that no longer wrote or spoke arameic but instead wrote and spoke greek. So much so, that a couple of 100 years before they had the old testament translated to greek - the septuagint. These hellenized jews were well acquainted with greek thinking and in particular Platonic thinking which correspondd well with their own jewish thinking. However, in these influences there were also the ideas of a nicer god. Not so warlike and tyrranic as old Yahweh. Of course, jews by this time were as today adamant monotheists and so they insisted that this new friendly god is one and the same as old Yahweh. Which is partly why christians today have problems defending the atrocities commited in Yahweh's name in the OT.

Long story short, the idea of a friendlier and nicer god who will forgive was not uncommon in the region at that time.

Not sure where it comes from. I believe someone more knowledgable than me can indicate sources here. However, again, keep in mind that middle east at this time had influence both from Greek and also even from as far away as Indian thinking. Alexander the Great came in contact with both Hindu and Buddhist thinkers and monks etc from both these religions came to the east roman empire and presented their thinking to people. True, their thinking was a tad too outlandish to set root in the region. Still today you find no buddhist cult in the region but that fragments of their thinking was known and accepted such as the golden rule should be obvious.

I have no problems accepting that the tradition of explaining things in parabels can also have such an non-jewish source. However, if some scholar come and say that it is of jewish origin and can show jewish tradition for it, I won't argue against that either.

It is well known that there was a theological dispute within the jewish community at the time over this very issue. Jesus if he existed and the christians or only the christians if he did not exist simply put themselves in the camp that said you should follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law. I.e. a more lax attitude towards the law. The "law" here is of course the Torah.

Again, the idea of the golden rule etc was known in the east some 500 years before Jesus allegedly said it on the sermon on the mount. People of the region had already heard it and it was at least in some circles accepted as "good wisdom" and Jesus basically stated - if the story in the bible is true - that he too belonged to that camp that meant it was a good idea. This ethical solidarity was in other words nothing new, nothing unheard of before Jesus uttered it. It was perhaps not in accordance with the traditional jewish tradition of "an eye for an eye" but it was accepted by many as wisdom.

As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye will make the whole nation blind" is perhaps a wisdom that speaks exactly opposite the old jewish wisdom and it is perhaps something like that those who followed the "new" thoughts understood. These "new" thoughts were of course not new but was known in hinduism and buddhism already 500 years earlier but thanks to Alexander they became known also to the middle east region around this time.

People often think of the political changes Alexander the Great caused. Partly because he lived a very short life (he died at the age of 33) and the legacy he left behind. However, the cultural impact in both bringing greek influence over much of the middle east and also to get in contact with indian culture is largely overlooked. True, it wasn't a lot and that is probably why people overlook it - as I said, those eastern philosophies were too outlandish for middle eastern people to swallow them whole. They didn't turn to buddhism or hinduism. However, they did absorb many of the ideas and thinking such as the golden rule and similar ideas. Also, other religions from persia and afghanistan region DID enter the scene and became popular within the roman empire at the time. Mithaism for example was a popular religion in the 1st and 2nd century of the roman empire. It too, had as far as I know a 'friendly' god or father figure as opposed to the war like unforgiving Yahweh god of old jewish tradition.

I would guess you can say that they to a large degree survive through christianity. Christianity managed to spread partly because they took in many pagan rituals and thinking and made them christian.

The mystery religions are actually also partly exactly what christianity is. Early christians sat together and sang hymns to Christ and used various methods to obtain "revelations" from Christ/God. It was very much a "mysticism" religion itself and as such typical for this time period where you had western platonic mysticism combined with eastern hindu/buddhist mysticism with mithras cults and others in the same soup.

Also, when many people changed religion and converted to christianity, they typically just replaced their old pictures of Horus/Isis with Mary and the baby Jesus. In fact they often didn't even bother to change picture, they just said "there is Mary and the baby Jesus" instead of saying what they said before they converted.

This was an age of gullibility. People believed that there were healers walking around healing other people all the time - including waking them up from the dead. People, the masses, were uneducated and superstitious. There is a very well documented episode where someone convinced that vespasian had healing power and during a dinner he was disturbed by some of these people who wnated him to touch them so they could get healed. Lo and behold, many of these people claimed afterwards that he had healed them!

Vespasian, just touched them when they asked for it because he wanted them to go away and stop pestering him so he could eat in peace. He didn't even pray for their cure. Yet, they still claimed that his touch had healed them.

People in those days, like today, believed because they wanted to believe.

Don't have any link to give you, especially since I have to run right now. However, I am sure other people can give you documenttation and links and names to your heart's content.

Bottom line is that christanity like to portray that they were bringing a fundamentally new message that was contrary to everything else you have heard before. If so, it is strange that most people didn't buy the message in the beginning. It was a fringe cult more or less until Constantin became christian and made the roman empire a christian empire. The way this happened is also not very glorious to the christians. A village got status as city with the privileges that followed if they changed the temple for Jupiter into a church or better yet tore down the old temple and built a church instead.

When Norway was christened (many years later) it was also a very brutal way where people got the choice of accepting christ or losing their head or die in the most gruesome ways. There is this story about a guy who refused to accept christ and the king took a snake and wanted to force it into his mouth. The snake didn't want to go into the guys mouth so they made a thing that they stuck in his mouth with a tube and then put the snake in through the tube. The snake bit its way out through the side of the guy to get out and the guy died a painful death from the internal wounds. Upon seeing this the rest of the village became christian. The king who did this was turned a saint upon his death and is the only norwegian saint that I know of.

Bottom line is that it really wasn't that new. It was mostly a matter of power. The difference between christanity and mithraism on the philosophical level at the time wasn't that great. However, the church had power and influence when people were christian so they wanted to turn everyone christian. Also, christians later often burned any literature that was "ungodly" or "unchristian" with the result that today we get the impression that christanity was something completely different. True, the official religions of the day was differnet but there wasn't that many - among the educated - people who believed literally in Jupiter and Zeus any more. The uneducated masses, yes, but Platon for example did not believe in the ancient greek gods as such - his god was more abstract and in fact many people argue a good case that christian religion is very much a result of greek philosophical ideas of abstract god mixed with some eastern influence mixed with traditional judaism.

Alf

Alf

The problem is that we don't have Q available to us today. Thus, we do not know that it contains any biography of Jesus. It could possibly just be a collection of "accumulated wisdom" of the time, things that these cults believed was important enough to gather into one document or possibly spread over several documents.

Doherty's argument is basically that you had a very popular belief in that region of a savior who was sacrificed and then rose up from the dead some days later and in doing this saved mankind. Similar myths were found in both greek and egyptian and other cults around the region. Then someone came up with the idea of having this Christ figure be named Jesus and have add "Jesus says," in front of those Q sayings and then make a story to combine it all into one narrative and voila, the Gospel of Mark is born.

This is somewhat simplified but in essence this is the line of thinking Doherty and others believe happened.

Specifically, the existence of Q does not prove that Jesus was a historical figure. It might be if we could get a copy of Q today which did provide such a biography of Jesus as you propose, but we don't have Q available to us today so you cannot jump to that conclusion.

They did. The morality of Jesus represent "common wisdom" of the region. It was displayed in several myths and legends from the region. Greek philosophy for example had increasingly moved to a more abstract God and the values of goodness etc that you find in christian thinking.

Doherty also have a very good argument in favor for his theories. If the christians where right and this Jesus figure was the source and origin of these ideas, then it is hard to explain how Paul only a few years later could write letters to communities that had spread all around the eastern roman empire and even appeared to have been existing for a while. Paul didn't found these communities, they were already present when he wrote to them. People had been worshipping a Christ figure for a while already. Keep in mind that "Christ" is a greek term and simply means "anointed one" and is thus equivalent to the jewish term "Messiah". There is nothing particularly jewish with the term "Christ" per se and people did worship some form of Christ figure even before this period. That some of these then found that they shared their believes with Paul and thus combined to make a bigger cults all around is essentially why the christian religion spread as much as it did. True, the christian cult was in the early phase a small fringe cult but it was spread around just about all over the eastern part of the roman empire. If it really were sprung out from one historiacl person it would make more sense that it was concentrated around where that person had lived.

They did. You just don't hear about them that often today. For example Apollonius of Tyrana. He walked around and appearantly even performed miracles and preached an ethics that is very similar to christian ethics. Contrary to Jesus we actually do have eye-witness testimony of him so we know he was a historical person.

Another effect and reason why you don't hear about so many other than Jesus was that if someone did something miraculous or said something very wise then the christians would often say "Yeah, that is wise, this is so wise that Jesus could have said it, if Jesus COULD have said it, then we can say he DID say it" and so they put it in the gospel. To them it wasn't so important that the gospels was historically accurate, to them it was important that the gospels conveyed what they felt was the christian spirit and if the saying was in accordance with this spirit then they put it in the mouth of Jesus. In this manner much of the wisdom of that time is passed down to us through the mouth of Jesus even if it was actually some other person who said it.

Alf

Alf

This thing goes on today also. Pick just about ANY Hollywood movie. They always feature a "hero" a single person who makes the difference and changes everything.

It is deeply rooted in human nature. The hero worshipping I mean. Jesus fit right in there with this "one man to change the world" hero image.

Alf