Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 05-21-2012, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

..

How exactly is this related to the criterion of dissimilarity?

This is a description of the criterion of dissimilarity - whatever appears to be dissimilar to Judaism is assumed to be more likely to be historical.

Also whatever is dissimilar to early Christianity is assumed to be more likely to be historical.

The real problem with this is not that it makes Jesus non-Jewish, but that it makes him entirely marginal, holding views that nobody else before or since agreed with.

(Does Bart Ehrman put much emphasis on dissimilarity as a criteria ? I had a vague idea he didn't.)

Andrew Criddle

steve_bnk · 05-21-2012, 01:51 PM

I do not have a link. From what I read thne Romans initially viewed them as heretic Jews and as such had a degree of protection.

As time passed the Christians claimed the OT as their own, disavowed the Jews, and developed a separate identity from Jews.

outhouse · 05-21-2012, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

I do not have a link. From what I read thne Romans initially viewed them as heretic Jews and as such had a degree of protection.

As time passed the Christians claimed the OT as their own, disavowed the Jews, and developed a separate identity from Jews.

because they were jews. But this was very very short lived

it started out strickly a sect of judaism, but with a huge number of god-fearer's who wouldnt jump all the way into judaism but woprshipped in synagogues, this new religion made sense to them and gentiles as paul took the movement to them, and they converted. They were able to keep Yahweh as one all powerful god and have the benefit of free health care and cleansing of their sin's from yeshua.

In the future, all those that would be god-fearers ended up following this new movement.

outhouse · 05-21-2012, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

The HJ would probablyy have been short, wiry, and looking like the people of his race. Duie to calorie availability people were smaller. Look to North Korea.

He would not have been blonde, white clear skinned, blue eyed, and tall with flowing hair. He'd have been weather beaten from all that wandering.

Based on the NT, the JC of the gospels kept kosher so to speak. He invoked Moses and the Jewish prophets.

It was Paul who urbanized and watered down Judiasm for the masses.

correct, no fat either, dark hair and skin, as any other Galilian.

he was a typical Galilian jew, heavily oppressed, hated the over taxation> Galilee seem's to have been populated with a alot of zealots from what im reading. More so then most places. I dont think jesus was a violent zealot though. he knew that was a no win situation.

GakuseiDon · 05-21-2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is a description of the criterion of dissimilarity - whatever appears to be dissimilar to Judaism is assumed to be more likely to be historical.

Also whatever is dissimilar to early Christianity is assumed to be more likely to be historical.

The real problem with this is not that it makes Jesus non-Jewish, but that it makes him entirely marginal, holding views that nobody else before or since agreed with.

(Does Bart Ehrman put much emphasis on dissimilarity as a criteria ? I had a vague idea he didn't.)

Ehrman writes in DJE? (pages 186-7 of Kindle for PC):

The principle is called the "criterion of dissimilarity." If there is a tradition that does not coincide with what we know about the concerns, interests, and agenda of the early Christian communities--or in fact stands at odds with these concerns--then that tradition is more likely to be authentic than a saying that does coincide with the community's interests...

This criterion--and others we will consider in a later chapter--is designed to consider probabilities, not certainties... this is all the historian can do: establish what probably happened in the past. To demand a criterion that yields certainty is to step outside historical research. All we can establish are probabilities.

aa5874 · 05-21-2012, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is a description of the criterion of dissimilarity - whatever appears to be dissimilar to Judaism is assumed to be more likely to be historical.

Also whatever is dissimilar to early Christianity is assumed to be more likely to be historical.

The real problem with this is not that it makes Jesus non-Jewish, but that it makes him entirely marginal, holding views that nobody else before or since agreed with.

(Does Bart Ehrman put much emphasis on dissimilarity as a criteria ? I had a vague idea he didn't.)

Ehrman writes in DJE? (pages 186-7 of Kindle for PC):

The principle is called the "criterion of dissimilarity." If there is a tradition that does not coincide with what we know about the concerns, interests, and agenda of the early Christian communities--or in fact stands at odds with these concerns--then that tradition is more likely to be authentic than a saying that does coincide with the community's interests...

This criterion--and others we will consider in a later chapter--is designed to consider probabilities, not certainties... this is all the historian can do: establish what probably happened in the past. To demand a criterion that yields certainty is to step outside historical research. All we can establish are probabilities.

You continuously EXPOSE the Logical Fallacies of Ehrman.

Where is the credible supporting DATA from antiquity that show there was a Christian community in the 1st century under the name of Jesus Christ???

Ehrman does NOT seem to know anything about the " concerns, interests and agenda of the early Christian communities" so the "criterion of dissimilarity" cannot be applied.

Imaginary evidence won't work anymore.

Ehrman is hopeless when it comes to the application of logical analysis.

James The Least · 05-21-2012, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jesus the Jew (or not)

“What Price the Uniqueness of Jesus” by Anthony J. Saldarini originally appeared in Bible Review, Jun 1999, 17.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony J. Saldarini

When I was growing up in St. Kevin’s Parish in the Dorchester section of Boston in the 1940s and ’50s, Jesus was unquestionably a Christian. Even more strangely, in Germany during the Nazi era Jesus was an Aryan Christian. How did a first-century Galilean Jew become a Christian and, for some, an Aryan Christian at that?

Before we laugh at this foolishness from the supposed superior viewpoint of the late 20th century, we should remember that we have not one word written by Jesus and not one contemporary account of his activities. Instead, we have four late-first-century interpretations of Jesus: the Gospels. Each demands and has received constant reinterpretation. Though the risk of misinterpreting Jesus is great, every generation has no choice but to try to make sense of the Gospels.

...

All religious traditions seek to present themselves as somehow special, better or primary, as irreplaceable or unique. For Christians this means that either Jesus as a person or his teachings and actions must stand out from his historical setting. For centuries the theological claim that Jesus is divine sufficed. In our empirical world of science and history, many Christian scholars take another tack; they seek to make Jesus dissimilar from the Judaism of his day and from the Greco-Roman world in which it was set.

The reference is, of course, to the "criterion of dissimilarity," part of Bart Ehrman's toolkit of methods to find the historical Jesus.

The supposed Jewishness of Jesus is a post-1945 phenomenon, borne out of extremely late-blooming Christian guilt over 19 centuries of free flowing anti-semitism. It suddenly became controversial after the Holocaust. I challenge anyone to find a pre-20th century theologian who emphasized at length the Jewishness of Jesus.

They were, of course, correctly interpreting the New Testament, which made a very deliberate effort to dehumanize the Jews as an excuse to steal their religion, but did so in a subtle way, by inventing "Jewish" characters like Jesus and Paul to demonstrate why the Gentiles were the true inheritors of the Kingdom of God and the Jews were no longer God the Father's chosen ones. It was a brilliant tactic, still fooling people even in the hyper-critical 21st century into thinking there really was church of "Jews and Gentiles" in first century Judea.

steve_bnk · 05-21-2012, 06:53 PM

At least up thru the 50s/60s the 'Jews killed Jesus' mantra was not uncommon.

No Robots · 05-22-2012, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

I challenge anyone to find a pre-20th century theologian who emphasized at length the Jewishness of Jesus.

Heh.

Christ was a Jew, his religion was and remained the Jewish; and if now we Jews protest – more thoroughly protestant than under you – against the entire Christianity, against the Augustinian-Thomist and against the Augustinian-Lutheran Christianity and against all and each type of Christianity, old and new? How, if we protest in the name of Christ, in the name of the real Christianity of Christ because this is the real Judaism? More powerful today is our protest than ever formerly. Today Judaism protests no longer without Christ, but rather Judaism with Christ; today Christianity protests against Christianity: our true Christianity, i.e. the real Judaism of us real Jews against your false Christianity. We come to the point of saying that we alone are Christians, as soon as we want – and come to it also through what we did not want and do not want: through our renunciation, through our passion story and via dolorosa! – We are Christians as soon as we give this doctrine of Jesus and the apostles its true Jewish interpretation and acknowledge its place.--Constantin Brunner / "Rede der Juden: Wir wollen ihn zurück!" ["Speech of the Jews: We want him back!"], 1893.

This is just one example.

sotto voce · 05-22-2012, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

I challenge anyone to find a pre-20th century theologian who emphasized at length the Jewishness of Jesus.

Heh.
[INDENT]Christ was a Jew, his religion was and remained the Jewish

More than that. Jesus laid claim to be in the tradition of more than Judah; he claimed to be fulfilment of the promises to Judah's father Israel, and his grandfather, Abraham.

Quote:

and if now we Jews protest

To protest effectively is to prove that Jesus did not fulfil the promises to Jacob and Abraham. Not easy.

Quote:

today Christianity protests against Christianity

How will the future Christ fulfil the promises made of him?

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

05-21-2012, 01:51 PM	#12
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	I do not have a link. From what I read thne Romans initially viewed them as heretic Jews and as such had a degree of protection. As time passed the Christians claimed the OT as their own, disavowed the Jews, and developed a separate identity from Jews.

05-21-2012, 06:53 PM	#18
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	At least up thru the 50s/60s the 'Jews killed Jesus' mantra was not uncommon.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.