aa5874

This is not the 4th century. Even way people think about the shape of the physical earth and the way it moves have changed dramatically since. And it cannot be shown that people will always believe in the same gods forever.

Apollo is gone.

Solo

I'll have to take a look at what Stark considers typical, and what he considers a 'religion'. Off hand, I can tell you that the social structures of Christianity look quite different from say, Islam, Sikhism or Baha'i faith. In the later religions, social patterns of authority and believer interaction seem clearly established by their founders, are based an a defined religious content revealed to the founders, and values based on a single moral code directly relating to the revelations. Christianity, on the other hand, consolidated over a longer period of time out of factions which at the outset had substantial disagreements in matters of belief and behavioural norm.

Well, thank you for reminding us, s&h. My second query relates to your denial of what certainly is a possibility. You said and I quote:

In short, the sociological theory you quote cannot support your belief and consequently, your 'most likely' scenario of Jesus as not a wandering preacher and not a son of a carpenter, is blowing in the wind.

Jiri

fatpie42

Okay, I am not actually as well-read on this subject as some others here. So I could delve into my copy of E.P. Sanders "The Historical Figure of Jesus" (which ironically showed me how poor the argument for the historical Jesus is) or I could try to find the information in the various books I've been meaning to read on the subject and will probably make my way through over the summer. For the moment however, it greatly shames me to link you to the webpage of a Christian apologetic because the information on this page (at least the bits I've read and there's an awful lot of it) seems fairly reliable and they give a variety of sources:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/messiah.html

Those last two were (i)an eschatological messiah who will not come til the end of times and (ii)no messiah at all. Not all Jews expected a military messiah and some did not expect any messiah at all. Today there are some Jews who consider 'messiah' to refer to the messianic age itself, but I'm not so sure that view would have been true for Jews in the 1st century.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to dissapoint you. Where exactly in the portrayal of a messiah that isn't leading the people to a victory did they promote socialism or feminism?

It looks like it because it's true. I am avoiding answering the question. I am refusing to answer the question "what evidence is there that Jesus was a fascist or sexist?" because I never claimed either of those things in the first place.

I am "complaining about dichotomies" because you seem to think that if Jesus was not a feminist he must be sexist and if Jesus was not a socialist he must be a fascist. That is a false dichotomy because Jesus might just not have been fighting for women's rights or struggling for a socialist ideal and neither of those options entail that he ever said anything sexist or actively promoted facist ideals.

I've answered the question which seems reasonable to me. That question is "why don't you think Jesus was a socialist or a feminist" and my answer is because there is no depiction of Jesus as a socialist or a feminist within the gospels. What more do you want? To show you the pages of the New Testament where Jesus isn't depicted in these ways?

I absolutely agree. Unfortunately there is nowhere in the New Testament where feminism or socialism is demonstrated by Jesus.

Yes, but we know what the goal was, don't we? The goal was to propose salvation through belief in Jesus as the messiah and adherence to the Jewish law in preparation for the coming of God's judgement at Jesus' second coming. What part of that message struck you as socialist or feminist?

Um, my interpretation is that the gospel writers were early Christians and therefore probably had a Christian meaning in mind such as, say, that the queen of Sheba represented the Church as the bride of Christ. Have you got a problem with this interpretation?

Which ones? Your only argument so far is that Jesus 'served' people. I have responded to that already. Miracles don't strike me as 'serving' anyone (and you only think those were symbolic anyway) and Jesus is never depicted as feeding the hungry. The only example you seem to have is Jesus washing someone's feet. If you have better evidence waiting in the wings, please do not hold back. My own view is that Jesus shared the same patriarchal view of his contemporaries.

I have accepted that women would only be following Jesus if he had said something which appealed to them. However, all he need have said is that he will provide salvation to the Jews and that would be pretty damn appealing. What you have failed to provide is any evidence that Jesus had a 'feminist' message.

If I am to suppose that a man must be a feminist if he is surrounded by women, would you consider this man to have been a feminist?:


Rasputin

I'm not playing games. I think there are arguments which you could make, but I don't think any of them work. Nevertheless, if you refuse to even put forward any evidence in the first place I can hardly concede the argument to you, can I?

But I have picked a side. The side I have picked is the one within which I make the positive claim that Jesus was not a feminist or a socialist.

If tried to claim that "Margaret Sanger was not a feminist" or that "Vladimir Lenin was not a socialist" those would also be positive claims and some appropriate evidence would very quickly refute them.

I am not blaming Christianity for what the Roman Empire did. I am simply asking what positive contribution Christianity had that was not twisted by its appropriation by the empire? It seems to me that you can't claim that early Christianity was twisted by the authorities and then claim that Christianity had a positive beneficial effect on society which led to modern feminism and socialism. Feminism and socialism were both reactions against strongly Christian societies. Even if I was to believe that feminist and socialist messages are hidden within the New Testament, modern feminism and socialism owe nothing to these hidden messages.

I don't think I agree with the view you are dismissing here. I think that people would still do bad things even if they all stopped believing in religion. However, the same would be true if everyone stopped being racist or if everyone stopped being sexist. There is always something left to make people do bad things. However, it seems to me that religion is one of the things which makes people do bad things. It discourages change and freethinking. Like the feminist slogan says: "no gods, no masters".

Let's get this straight. It goes something like this:

Elijah: I think Jesus was a feminist and a socialist.
Fatpie42: What's the evidence?
Elijah: It's in the New Testament. It's got a feminist and socialist message.
Fatpie42: Which bit?
Elijah: Oooh what a sneaky trick!

Is that right? Do you think that asking for evidence is a trick?

I also presume that Chrisopher Reeve never discovered a cure for cancer and didn't perform Satan worship. I generally presume that things aren't true until I have reason to suppose them to be true. I'm just crazy like that...

Yes, but within the gospel narrative it seems rather strange to think that Mary asked Jesus to get crucified and, in any case, Jesus doesn't have any choice in the matter. (Unless he has powers to prevent his crucifixion which he refuses to use - either by asking God to prevent it or by using his own God-like power. I'll accept that possibility seeing as we are dealing with a text written by early Christians.)

The quotation under discussion was about women pretending to be men. The sentiment is that if only women can be more like men they deserve men's rights. The gospel of Thomas is very anti-sex and therefore men and women alike gain greater respect by abstaining from any kind of sexuality. You might argue that within the text women and men become equal by becoming asexual, but that doesn't strike me as a feminist ideal.

So it's women's fault really? If they weren't so docile they'd be treated better? They should all be like Cleopatra? Well the problem is, most women didn't get the opportunity that Cleopatra had to be treated as an authority figure. You are absolutely right to say that the quotation from the Gospel of Thomas was not about equal treatment for women, but I'm even less covinced that it promotes "overcoming millenia of social manipulation". I'm sure you can see why I'm coming to this conclusion.

Face it. This is a very odd interpretation. I'm glad you find it inspiring, but it is unlikely to be the intended meaning of the text.

By using a story Jesus avoids simply giving people answers and instead allows them to work out the answers for themselves. It is a better means by which to challenge their preconceptions. For example, in the parable of the good Samaritan the listeners can recognise that the ritual purity laws get in the way of following the more important message of the Torah, to love one's neighbour. This means that ritual purity laws should be ignored if someone's life is at stake. (A view that was put also put forward by some Pharisees at the time.) The story of the good Samaritan is not terribly cryptic. We can tell what it means and it doesn't encourage rebellion against Rome.

The Book of Revelation on the other hand really does criticise Rome and that is seen as a likely reason why it is written in such a cryptic way.

You seem to be finding this remarkably hard to grasp:
- It would be unfair to call Darwin a sexist without any examples of sexist comments.
- It would be daft to call him a feminist if he showed no interest in encouraging equality for women.
- People can be neither sexist nor feminists.
- Thus we can posit Darwin as neither a feminist nor a sexist until such time as evidence arises which contradicts this view.

What is wrong with that?

spamandham

Probably not. If that were the case, there would be no need to lash out against promiscuity - which the Gospels and Paul's letters do (plus lots of others later on).

Ascetic cults are not uncommon in the earliest phase, where there are less than a couple of dozen members... but that tends to fall apart as the cult grows. In early phases of a cult, it is *very* common for the cult leader to make up all kinds of bullshit so that he gets to have sex with whoever he wants, and everyone else must abstain. It's a form of dominance against all members, male and female.

Elijah

The fact that they were trying to figure out non military options for the messiah would just support my position that the Jesus story was one of those attempts.
The very concept is meant to create social change (not socialism) in getting the people to serve a spiritual authority instead of the earthly authority. His treatment, concern and attention to women, with the goal of saving the world makes him look like he supported their rights not just the men. Compounded by the fact that there is no counter evidence to suggest otherwise.
Still just looks like dodging to me. Regardless of the labeling you want to use if you don’t think he supported women’s/people’s rights then you need to support it. It doesn’t matter what you want to call people who don’t, you need to support that position.

It seems obvious that Jesus or the writer of the Jesus story is trying to shape the readers opinion and it seems it’s obvious it’s towards more equality for both men and women. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?
I would like for you to support what you think Jesus was for if you don’t think he was for improving equality for both men and women. Label of your choosing.
The evidence for Jesus and his concern for women.

1. The prophecy of a female authority rising up in Luke 11:31 Matt 12:42

2. Protection of the Hoe in John 8:7

3. Supporting Mary learning the teachings instead of serving like Martha in Luke 10:41

4. The focus on his mother conceiving him with the holy spirit/wisdom and absence of a father.
5. The showing of women as the first to learn of his resurrection and stayed during the resurrection to show they had more faith then the men who ran.

6. The anointer for the Anointed one is a women signifying where his authority is coming from. Mark 14:3 John 12:7

7. Jesus’ concerns for women in regards to resurrecting people. Either for women or a girl.

8. Jesus’ opinion in regards to divorcing women moving towards equality. Matt 19 Mark 10:2

9. Jesus’ concern for the suffering of women while on the way to the cross. Luke 23:28

10. The conversion of the Samaritan women by a Jew simply treating her more as an equal. John 4

Evidence against Jesus being against equality for women.

1. Jesus does not directly say he is for equality for women.

2. ?????

Evidence that Jesus was for social change.

1. He specifically speaks about casting out the rulers of man. John 12:31 16:11

2. He gets beaten and killed for basically not recognizing the authority and doing what they wanted, While asking his followers to follow his lead.

3. He gives an example of serving the people/washing feet and asks his followers to do the same.

4. Says the greatest amongst you will be servants. Matt 20:25 Matt 23:11 Mark 9:35 Mark 10:42 Luke 22:26

5. Gathered his witnesses/apostles from the lower classes. Built his church on the faith of a fisherman.

6. He warns of being persecuted by the religious and kingly authority Matt 10:17 Luke 21:12

7. Offering a new type of lordship to submit to. Matt 12:30

8. Preaches renouncing of wealth which is where the real inequality lies. Matt 19:20 Luke 12:32

9. Says what you do to the least of people you do to god Matt 25:40

10. Claims equality/brothers with all that do his father’s will. Matt 12:46

Evidence that Jesus was for preserving the status quo.

1. Jesus does not specifically state the social change he is trying to
accomplish point blank.

2. ????

Now instead of trying to find a way to pick on all the points, try instead to find some points/evidence that proves otherwise. No point in itself is proof but from the evidence it looks like the most likely scenario.
What did he believe, belief in Jesus/himself as the Christ would accomplish? Social change or something supernatural?
That interpretation looks like it is coming from the perspective that the purpose of Christ was to establish an earthly church… I think that but I don’t know for sure since I don’t know the actual source of the interpretation. Beyond that, because of the Solomon comment the connection to the queen of the Sheba is there but why she represents the church I have no idea. The whole idea of representing symbolic marriage of Christ to church is for a particular belief system in regards to Christianity and Christ’s purpose.
Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

And Matt 20:25 Matt 23:11 Mark 9:35 Luke 22:26. From the mythicist’s point of view it should be even more obvious that is what they are trying to portray in the story.

How are you supporting that he wasn’t? Where is your evidence?
I’m not claiming any Christian contribution to anything. I’m discussing how Jesus is portrayed in the NT.
Is antitheist the proper word for people who try to make the world a better place by trying to get rid of religion or do you have a personal preference?
No the trick is getting around providing evidence by not providing a position.

Elijah: I think by how Jesus is treating the women and his attitude towards them, that he was considering them in his plan for salvation.

Fatpie42: I don’t think so. You need to prove it.

Elijah: I don’t think I can prove it; there is just evidence that he was compassionate and considerate towards them. Why don’t you think he considered them?

Fatpie42: Because you can’t prove it.

Elijah: So you have no reason to believe Jesus wasn’t for equality?

Fatpie42: Sure I do, you can’t prove it.

Elijah: Shouldn’t you have to prove your position?

Fatpie42: What position?

Elijah: That he wasn’t for equality; that he was for “something else”.

Fatpie42: False dichotomy! I never said he was for “something else” I said he wasn’t for equality and you can’t prove it.

Which I think is very similar to the historical/ahistorical debate we had before IIRC.
You presume things aren’t true until you have a reason to suppose otherwise? But you are presuming he wasn’t for equality and have no reason to suppose that to be true. You are going to presume one way or the other, just depends on if you’re going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t retarded in regards to women needing their equality in order for there to be peace.
I’m not suggesting that Mary asked him to get crucified at all; just that her upbringing of him influenced him to get there.
I don’t know if making her male has do with sexuality. I don’t know why you are having so many difficulties seeing it as a feminist expression or that feminism can be seen as women becoming more assertive/male like.

Yes it’s women’s fault they get treated the way they do and the world is the way it is. It’s not that men haven’t figured out how to get it right, it’s that women haven’t figured out that we won’t and they need to take over. To think that women can’t rise up and take charge is failing to see them as equals.
I think its straight forward. Feel free to argue against it but just pointing at some other guy’s interpretation isn’t going to do much for you because then you just have to prove he’s right after you prove you understand his interpretation of the passage.
So he was cryptic to teach people to think for themselves and not because his message was controversial?
But if you had data on his interactions with women in writings you should be able to give a guess if he thought of them as equals or as less than. There may not be absolute proof but you should be able to give a most likely scenario and if you don’t think he is a feminist then you should give reason based on his comments or interactions with women.

spamandham

Of course it does.

In virtually every case we can examine conclusively, new cults are started by the reasonably well off. Unless human nature was fundamentally different around the time of the first century, it's very unlikely that Christianity was founded by a poor wandering preacher.

...not to mention, there isn't any good reason to suspect that in the first place.

No Robots

[Smith] had been born twenty-one years earlier in Sharon, Vermont. His father, also named Joseph, and his mother, Lucy, had started their marriage auspiciously with Lucy's ample dowry of one thousand dollars. But the dowry was quickly spent and the farm was overgrown with weeds. In a last desperate attempt to recoup his losses, Joseph's father had invested everything he had left in a shipment of ginseng to China. He had heard that the Chinese would pay high prices for the root of the ginseng plant, which grew wild in Vermont. When he failed to get a penny for his ginseng, Joseph's father moved his family to a farm near Palmyra, New York, in the western part of the state. There he fared little better than in Vermont. The Smith family often went hungry during the winter months. As soon as they were able to work, the Smith children had to help support their family. Consequently, Joseph obtained little schooling.--from here.

spamandham

Is this somehow relevant to the discussion?

No Robots

Erm, Joseph Smith was poor and started a cult. Sorry, I thought it was obvious.

spamandham

It isn't obvious, because Smith was not in poverty when he formed the church.

Smith received financial backing from Martin Harris before that, and the early members were mostly well off. The Mormon church is one of the examples Stark leans heavily on.