Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 10-24-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I am not sure I agree Mary.

Tell me. What in the crop of Christian writings could not have been produced by people other than Jews?

Sure, perhaps someone, some people, decided to do a Jewish storyboard and used the OT and Jewish history as a source. It's possible I suppose. Such a possibility would raise the question of why on earth go to the bother of using Jewish sources - unless there was something within those sources that would 'sell' the storyline? And if that is/was the case, then having the real deal - the authentic Jewish perspective, from a Jewish source, would be a bigger 'sell'. It's the genuine article people pay big bucks for - not the cheap spin-offs. If there is money to be made - and one has got the goods - one is not going to sit back and let strangers steal the jackpot....

I would think that the fact that the Jewish scriptures were viewed as ancient by the Romans, probably didn't hurt the sales pitch, considering the Romans general view towards antiquity. The fact that they co-opted, with modification, the Greek pantheon, at least shows an example of something similar having happened.

The kicker being that the Jewish scriptures were twisted to kick the Jews to the curb, while promoting the salvation of the gentiles (read Romans), probably didn't hurt either.

In fact, considering the actual theology that emerged, regarding Christianity, I have always been a bit amazed at the assumption that this cult was started by disgruntled Jews.

maryhelena · 10-24-2011, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I am not sure I agree Mary.

Tell me. What in the crop of Christian writings could not have been produced by people other than Jews?

Sure, perhaps someone, some people, decided to do a Jewish storyboard and used the OT and Jewish history as a source. It's possible I suppose. Such a possibility would raise the question of why on earth go to the bother of using Jewish sources - unless there was something within those sources that would 'sell' the storyline? And if that is/was the case, then having the real deal - the authentic Jewish perspective, from a Jewish source, would be a bigger 'sell'. It's the genuine article people pay big bucks for - not the cheap spin-offs. If there is money to be made - and one has got the goods - one is not going to sit back and let strangers steal the jackpot....

I would think that the fact that the Jewish scriptures were viewed as ancient by the Romans, probably didn't hurt the sales pitch, considering the Romans general view towards antiquity. The fact that they co-opted, with modification, the Greek pantheon, at least shows an example of something similar having happened.

The kicker being that the Jewish scriptures were twisted to kick the Jews to the curb, while promoting the salvation of the gentiles (read Romans), probably didn't hurt either.

In fact, considering the actual theology that emerged, regarding Christianity, I have always been a bit amazed at the assumption that this cult was started by disgruntled Jews.

I don't see disgruntled Jews as part of the scenario - I prefer to think that the 'gift' that was being offered was far ahead of it's time - 'meat' to those who were still on 'milk' - babes who were unable to handle the complexity. Resulting in misunderstand and hostility towards the bearer of gifts....

Today, with all the scholarly research into Biblical studies etc - the door is open to rethinking that ancient relationship between Jew and Christian. The negativity of years gone by can be replaced by a more positive understanding. And the downfall of the assumed historical gospel crucified JC could be a big step in that direction - what was once a deal breaker needs to become a deal maker. (ie. change the context and a new relationship can develop....)

dog-on · 10-24-2011, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I would think that the fact that the Jewish scriptures were viewed as ancient by the Romans, probably didn't hurt the sales pitch, considering the Romans general view towards antiquity. The fact that they co-opted, with modification, the Greek pantheon, at least shows an example of something similar having happened.

The kicker being that the Jewish scriptures were twisted to kick the Jews to the curb, while promoting the salvation of the gentiles (read Romans), probably didn't hurt either.

In fact, considering the actual theology that emerged, regarding Christianity, I have always been a bit amazed at the assumption that this cult was started by disgruntled Jews.

I don't see disgruntled Jews as part of the scenario - I prefer to think that the 'gift' that was being offered was far ahead of it's time - 'meat' to those who were still on 'milk' - babes who were unable to handle the complexity. Resulting in misunderstand and hostility towards the bearer of gifts....

Today, with all the scholarly research into Biblical studies etc - the door is open to rethinking that ancient relationship between Jew and Christian. The negativity of years gone by can be replaced by a more positive understanding. And the downfall of the assumed historical gospel crucified JC could be a big step in that direction - what was once a deal breaker needs to become a deal maker. (ie. change the context and a new relationship can develop....)

Perhaps, or perhaps another historical re-write.

And neither do I see disgruntled Jews as part of the scenario.

maryhelena · 10-24-2011, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I would think that the fact that the Jewish scriptures were viewed as ancient by the Romans, probably didn't hurt the sales pitch, considering the Romans general view towards antiquity. The fact that they co-opted, with modification, the Greek pantheon, at least shows an example of something similar having happened.

The kicker being that the Jewish scriptures were twisted to kick the Jews to the curb, while promoting the salvation of the gentiles (read Romans), probably didn't hurt either.

In fact, considering the actual theology that emerged, regarding Christianity, I have always been a bit amazed at the assumption that this cult was started by disgruntled Jews.

I don't see disgruntled Jews as part of the scenario - I prefer to think that the 'gift' that was being offered was far ahead of it's time - 'meat' to those who were still on 'milk' - babes who were unable to handle the complexity. Resulting in misunderstand and hostility towards the bearer of gifts....

Today, with all the scholarly research into Biblical studies etc - the door is open to rethinking that ancient relationship between Jew and Christian. The negativity of years gone by can be replaced by a more positive understanding. And the downfall of the assumed historical gospel crucified JC could be a big step in that direction - what was once a deal breaker needs to become a deal maker. (ie. change the context and a new relationship can develop....)

Perhaps, or perhaps another historical re-write.

And neither do I see disgruntled Jews as part of the scenario.

:thumbs:

jakejonesiv · 10-24-2011, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi maryhelena,

You have introduced a subtlety different argument. I didn't write that setting of the gospel fictions had no significance. The setting was derived from the Septuagint which was a major source for concocting the details of the alleged life of Jesus. So the story is placed before the destruction which made this venue impossible.

OK - exactly where is the time period of the 15th year of Tiberius mentioned in the Septuagint?

Hi Mary,

:strawman:

You have read enough of my posts to know I do no advocate that the Septuagint was the only source. And even if you had not, I wrote that "the Septuagint ... was a major source for concocting the details of the alleged life of Jesus."

What other sources, one might ask? Homeric Epics, Josephus for historical flavoring, pagan mythologies, mystery cults, popular romances of the era, etc.

Jake

maryhelena · 10-24-2011, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi maryhelena,

You have introduced a subtlety different argument. I didn't write that setting of the gospel fictions had no significance. The setting was derived from the Septuagint which was a major source for concocting the details of the alleged life of Jesus. So the story is placed before the destruction which made this venue impossible.

OK - exactly where is the time period of the 15th year of Tiberius mentioned in the Septuagint?

Hi Mary,

:strawman:

You have read enough of my posts to know I do no advocate that the Septuagint was the only source. And even if you had not, I wrote that "the Septuagint ... was a major source for concocting the details of the alleged life of Jesus."

What other sources, one might ask? Homeric Epics, Josephus for historical flavoring, pagan mythologies, mystery cults, popular romances of the era, etc.

Jake

And which of these various sources gives one the 15th year of Tiberius for the setting of the gospel JC story?

jakejonesiv · 10-24-2011, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

And which of these various sources gives one the 15th year of Tiberius for the setting of the gospel JC story?

The names are plucked from Josephus 18.1-3 for historical flavoring.

Quote:

Josephus Antiquities, chapter 18
1. while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy,
2. …when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.
3. And now Herod the tetrarch, who was in great favor with Tiberius,…”

I suppose we are now in for a math lesson on the 15 years? :facepalm:

Jake

maryhelena · 10-24-2011, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

And which of these various sources gives one the 15th year of Tiberius for the setting of the gospel JC story?

The names are plucked from Josephus 18.1-3 for historical flavoring.

Quote:

Josephus Antiquities, chapter 18
1. while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy,
2. …when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.
3. And now Herod the tetrarch, who was in great favor with Tiberius,…”

I suppose we are now in for a math lesson on the 15 years? :facepalm:

Jake

No, Jake, no maths lesson....

I asked no questions regarding the names of historical figures mentioned in the gospel JC account. I asked re a specific gospel date - the 15th year of Tiberius. You have not given me any indication of why this date was of significance to the gospel writer. Earlier you mentioned that you "didn't write that setting of the gospel fictions had no significance." So, I asked about the specific date....

Actually, Jake, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. The dating issue re the gospel JC story is an issue that mythicists have no answer for. The historicists will just say that's the date that JC started his ministry - being about 30 years old. All the mythicists can do is close their eyes and pin that tail on the donkey - ie the date is blind chance; it could have been otherwise. Unless of course you happen to have come across a rational argument for the 15th year of Tiberius in which to set down that story that gLuke was 'concocting'........

jakejonesiv · 10-24-2011, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The names are plucked from Josephus 18.1-3 for historical flavoring.

I suppose we are now in for a math lesson on the 15 years? :facepalm:

Jake

.... I asked re a specific gospel date - the 15th year of Tiberius. You have not given me any indication of why this date was of significance to the gospel writer.

The dating issue re the gospel JC story is an issue that mythicists have no answer for. ...D

If the 15th year of whatever is the end all and be all of Christian chronology, why is it mentioned nowhere but in the third gospel? Why do "mythicists" have to explain something that entirely eluded Paul and Mark?

Jake

maryhelena · 10-24-2011, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The names are plucked from Josephus 18.1-3 for historical flavoring.

I suppose we are now in for a math lesson on the 15 years? :facepalm:

Jake

.... I asked re a specific gospel date - the 15th year of Tiberius. You have not given me any indication of why this date was of significance to the gospel writer.

The dating issue re the gospel JC story is an issue that mythicists have no answer for. ...D

If the 15th year of whatever is the end all and be all of Christian chronology, why is it mentioned nowhere but in the third gospel? Why do "mythicists" have to explain something that entirely eluded Paul and Mark?

Jake

Jake, the 'problem' is that it is there....

We can discard it as of no significance - but once we go down that route - it's cherry-picking time....

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.