FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-19-2009, 10:04 AM   #511
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Jesus eats for symbolic reasons, but often it is others who are hungry, as in the feeding the multitudes, or the Lord of the Sabbath pericope:

Matthew 12:1
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them.

Jesus is described as hungry in the fig tree incident, where it seems a set up for condemning the poor tree, and after fasting for 40 days in the desert (Matt 4, Luke 4), where it is part of the temptation (if he were not hungry, there would be no temptation.)
I know even less now about how you think the synoptics portray Jesus than I did beforehand.

Are you seriously suggesting that the synoptics portray Jesus as a spirit, not as a man?

Ben.
The more I read, the less I know. The gospel Jesus is a construct. He operates on something resembling the earth, but he's not fully fleshed out. He walks on water, disappears in crowds. He eats, he sleeps, but then so did the Greek gods.

I think there's something in the gospels for every faction of early Christianity.
Toto is offline  
Old 02-19-2009, 10:06 AM   #512
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
You should have kept waiting because there is no apparent conflict or contradiction between the comments.
Oh, other and better opportunities will arise to map the ever-shifting constellation of offhand commentary around here.

Quote:
It seems reasonable to claim that the Gospels, as compared to Paul, depict a non-mythical individual on earth and to claim that those same accounts depict him eating for symbolic reasons. :huh:
I guess my concern was the suggestion that the Gospels do not depict Christ eating as a normal human being, just as some ancient commentators maintained that he had perfect digestion, and thus never took a dump. The ultra-orthodox and the mythicists seem to share an aversion to normal bodily activity being associated with Christ.
No Robots is offline  
Old 02-19-2009, 10:17 AM   #513
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
The more I read, the less I know.
I hear you, and sympathize.

Quote:
The gospel Jesus is a construct. He operates on something resembling the earth, but he's not fully fleshed out. He walks on water, disappears in crowds.
In the gospels he operates on earth, not something resembling the earth. I do not think the evangelists knew about holodecks.

The walking on water I take to be a miracle, not a reflection of the bodily nature of Jesus; after all, Matthew has Peter walk on water (for a bit), too. Jesus has the power to work such miracles in the gospels; but we already knew that.

The disappearing into crowds I admit I am undecided on. Are these instances of slipping by his enemies supposed to be just clever maneuvering? Are they miracles? Are they docetism at work?

But what do you make of Apollonius of Tyana, who, when a disciple objected to his being clapped in irons like a common criminal, simply pulled his leg from its bonds to show him he was not really being held captive? (Robert Price somewhere calls this docetism, too.) You would have to say that Apollonius is a construct (in his biography by Philostratus, at least), too, would you not?

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 02-19-2009, 10:24 AM   #514
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Britain
Posts: 5,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
But the church and Constantine have a big problem with posing Jesus as this bright comet blasting into history and yet no mention of him.

It is untenable to propose the Testimonium Flavianum is independently forged at some random time and is just picked up accidentally by the hapless historian Bishop Eusebius. Coincidentally at the same time they are agreeing in political conferences what the official history of Jesus was?

No, the most tenable proposition is that Eusebius would be involved in that forgery and that it was a political imperitive to establish Jesus as history to prevail over competing doctrines. All of which were religious gibberish to begin with.

But as forgers they weren't so expert. These are people with the official power of the state behind them as opposed to on their tails to arrest them as you would be forging coins or bills of credit. So they left us the telltale evidence.
I'd also like to note at this point that during this period Constantine's mother was busy doing some forgery of her own. Helena manages to discover the site of Jesus' crucifixion (which is conveniently the site of a temple to Zeus, which she promptly demolishes) and the true cross (the nails of which she melts down into the metal of the armour for her son and his horse).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_...ic_discoveries
fatpie42 is offline  
Old 02-19-2009, 10:29 AM   #515
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatpie42 View Post
I'd also like to note at this point that during this period Constantine's mother was busy doing some forgery of her own. Helena manages to discover the site of Jesus' crucifixion (which is conveniently the site of a temple to Zeus, which she promptly demolishes) and the true cross (the nails of which she melts down into the metal of the armour for her son and his horse).
Well, you know you want your armor to be hard as nails.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 02-19-2009, 10:57 AM   #516
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
The more I read, the less I know.
I hear you, and sympathize.

Quote:
The gospel Jesus is a construct. He operates on something resembling the earth, but he's not fully fleshed out. He walks on water, disappears in crowds.
In the gospels he operates on earth, not something resembling the earth. I do not think the evangelists knew about holodecks.

The walking on water I take to be a miracle, not a reflection of the bodily nature of Jesus; after all, Matthew has Peter walk on water (for a bit), too. Jesus has the power to work such miracles in the gospels; but we already knew that.
Do you take his reported conversation with the devil to be a miracle? What about the voice from heaven proclaiming "you are my son, the beloved, with whom I am well pleased"? Is it a miracle that we have an account of Jesus's prayers in the garden of Gethsemane? Perhaps Jesus walked around with a stenographer. That'd be a miracle as well. Do you think that someone was around to record the interview between Judas and the priests for the sell-out? Do you think it was a miraculous coincidence that his name was Judas? Which makes me wonder do you find the straight-out anti-semitism of the gospels reflective of an era when early christianity was still in some sort of league with Jews? Do you think it's kosher that Jesus is supposed to have had the magic twelve disciples? It couldn't have been eight or eleven could it? What about Jesus's misuse of the term "the son of man" in the face of the common Jewish usage of the era?

I do find it hard that you are arguing that the gospel of Mark was of a biographical genre, when the thought is laughable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
The disappearing into crowds I admit I am undecided on. Are these instances of slipping by his enemies supposed to be just clever maneuvering? Are they miracles? Are they docetism at work?

But what do you make of Apollonius of Tyana, who, when a disciple objected to his being clapped in irons like a common criminal, simply pulled his leg from its bonds to show him he was not really being held captive? (Robert Price somewhere calls this docetism, too.) You would have to say that Apollonius is a construct (in his biography by Philostratus, at least), too, would you not?
Yep, traditions are bitches for their obfuscation of the boundaries of reality, aren't they? Apollonius needed a Lucian (someone with a little historiographical backbone), didn't he?


spin
spin is offline  
Old 02-19-2009, 11:30 AM   #517
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Which makes me wonder do you find the straight-out anti-semitism of the gospels reflective of an era when early christianity was still in some sort of league with Jews?
Some of the earliest Christians, notably John, "had become", in Constantin Brunner's words, "such fervent Christians in their enthusiasm for the new knowledge that they had to demonstrate a commensurate hatred for the other Jews and their Judaism." (Brunner, Our Christ, p. 441).
No Robots is offline  
Old 02-19-2009, 12:16 PM   #518
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatpie42 View Post
I'd also like to note at this point that during this period Constantine's mother was busy doing some forgery of her own. Helena manages to discover the site of Jesus' crucifixion (which is conveniently the site of a temple to Zeus, which she promptly demolishes) and the true cross (the nails of which she melts down into the metal of the armour for her son and his horse).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_...ic_discoveries
There is doubt as to how far this refers to the Helena of history as distinct from the Helena of later legend. See helena

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 02-19-2009, 12:17 PM   #519
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Yep, traditions are bitches for their obfuscation of the boundaries of reality, aren't they?
Yes, they certainly are.

Quote:
Apollonius needed a Lucian (someone with a little historiographical backbone), didn't he?
Maybe he did, but instead he got Philostratus, his biographer. Do you buy the miracles that Philostratus ascribes to Apollonius?

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 02-19-2009, 12:20 PM   #520
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Do you take his reported conversation with the devil to be a miracle? What about the voice from heaven proclaiming "you are my son, the beloved, with whom I am well pleased"? Is it a miracle that we have an account of Jesus's prayers in the garden of Gethsemane? Perhaps Jesus walked around with a stenographer. That'd be a miracle as well. Do you think that someone was around to record the interview between Judas and the priests for the sell-out? Do you think it was a miraculous coincidence that his name was Judas? Which makes me wonder do you find the straight-out anti-semitism of the gospels reflective of an era when early christianity was still in some sort of league with Jews? Do you think it's kosher that Jesus is supposed to have had the magic twelve disciples? It couldn't have been eight or eleven could it? What about Jesus's misuse of the term "the son of man" in the face of the common Jewish usage of the era?

I do find it hard that you are arguing that the gospel of Mark was of a biographical genre, when the thought is laughable.
I find it hard to follow you here, because your first paragraph about miracles and implausibilities in Mark does not seem to have anything to do with your second paragraph about the biographical genre of Mark.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:37 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.