Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 02-16-2013, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I don't have to. It stands on its own Mary. The story was accepted because of its theological value: Salvation. For the sake of history, it simply doesn't matter that you or anyone else finds it offensive. It's what it is.

And, Ted, what it is is a story! That that story has been interpreted in theological salvation terms says nothing about what was the motive, the intent, the inspiration, of the writers of that story. To assume the NT writers were writing a theological salvation story based upon a flesh and blood human sacrifice, is to assume too much. There is no evidence that that was their motive.

Really? What is more important that salvation and eternal life Mary? I would agree with you if they didn't point out the REASON for the way the story ends. But they do! That is a dead giveway as to the REASON for the story to exist. Otherwise it WOULD just be a cute little story about a wonder doer who was killed by some bad people.

Quote:

Your refusal to accept the possibility that the Christianity could have begun with a crucified Messiah wanna-be because you think you know how every Jewish person (or Gentile, for that matter) would have reacted to it is baffling to me. How do you know?

Logic, morality and humanitarian concerns. Especially Jewish concerns.

You are not applying logic and you are being naive when it comes to 'humanitarian' concerns. I've given you the logic. Rationalization of one's own salvation will trump humanitarian concerns -- even for the Jewish.

Quote:

Ted - theology clouds the eyes and closes the mind. Yes, people believed all sorts of stuff re the NT story - and they still do...So what? Fine - let such people dream on...but they are not going to stop my search for early christian origins - they are not going to stop my attempt to read that NT story with the tools of logic, morality and humanitarian concerns.

But what do you think you could possibly find that has any real value? Say you find that Jesus was just a short term preacher who wasn't crucified. Say you find that the real person who was crucified had lived 100 years prior. So what? How would that be any more satisfying for you on a logical, moral, or humanitarian basis? I don't see what you gain from that even if it is true. You still have people believing in a crucified human sacrifice for salvation from sins. How does an evolved story make that fact any more palatable for you? Isn't it still immoral and irrational to you?

Is the real issue for you this: If a man really did get crucified during Passover and was instantly proclaimed resurrected with fast spreading of the message you would feel like it must be true, and you simply can't bear that thought because is it so repulsive? IF not, then why do you care so much whether it happened like that or was a story that evolved over time? Is it really just curiosity or is something else going on here..?

Ted, I'm not going to go over this repeatedly: THERE IS NO SALVATION VALUE IN A HUMAN FLESH AND BLOOD SACRIFICE. It does not matter how many people believe the opposite. Numbers do not equate to morality, logic or humanitarian concerns.

It's that simple, Ted. Really.

The real issue for me? That's also very simple - I want to know. I want to know; I want to understand the origin story of early christianity. I want to know what the NT story is about. I want to know all that from a position of logic, morality and humanitarian concerns. That the answers turn out to be no big shacks is not an issue - knowing the answers is the issue. Finding the answers, searching for the answers. That is the issue for me. Knowing for the sake of knowing....

If those are not your concerns - then, Ted, we don't have anything to talk about.

TedM · 02-16-2013, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Ted, I'm not going to go over this repeatedly: THERE IS NO SALVATION VALUE IN A HUMAN FLESH AND BLOOD SACRIFICE. It does not matter how many people believe the opposite. Numbers do not equate to morality, logic or humanitarian concerns.

It's that simple, Ted. Really.

I don't see how anyone's personal values are relevant to the reality of how the story unfolded. I just don't know why you keep mentioning the morality or humanitarian issue. It seems to irrelevant to determining what really happened. What matters is how people behave. If they are immoral for buying into human sacrifice as a means for salvation, so what? How does that change the story? It doesn't.

Quote:

The real issue for me? That's also very simple - I want to know....
If those are not your concerns - then, Ted, we don't have anything to talk about.

I do too. But I see nothing illogical in the explanations I've given for as to why some Jews and Gentiles believed the sacrifice for sins story. Today's ongoing conversions by Jews and Gentiles provide further evidence.

I just don't see how you can say that no one would have bought into the story if it were real. Your objections seem empty since they bought into it over time, under your theory. Why was more time necessary?

I really must drop this..but I wish I could understand why you are so insistent that it just be a story over time and could not have been based on ONE person to whom was applied beliefs that had developed over centuries prior.

aa5874 · 02-16-2013, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus of the short gMark did NOT want the populace to be converted, did NOT want them to know he was Christ

Yes, he was secretive, but that doesn't explain the ultimate purpose of salvation. I gave you the verse and it is in plain English, but you can't seem to understand its simple message: Jesus died for salvation from sins. Faith is meaningless for salvation from sins without his death and resurrection. It's the most important theological statement of gMark and you aren't able to understand what it means!

You are blatantly making a fallacious statement. You never showed me any verse in gMark where it is stated in English that Jesus died for salvation from sins.

You showed me Mark 10.45.

You very well know that there is NO mention whatsoever of the words of "Salvation from Sins" in Mark 10.45.

I detest what you are doing.

In fact, when we examine the CONTEXT of Mark 10.45 it is EASILY seen that the Markan Jesus was NOT even discussing the Remission of Sins.

Mark 10[/u]

Quote:

[u] 42But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

43But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

44And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

45For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto , but to minister , and to give his life a ransom for many.

46And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging...

Mark 10.45 when taken into context has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Universal Remission of Sins of the Whole world but was specifically discussing the role of Jesus as a MINISTER of the Jews.

In Mark 10.45 Jesus claimed he would be a Ransom for the Jews as THEIR Minister.

TedM · 02-16-2013, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You very well know that there is NO mention whatsoever of the words of "Salvation from Sins" in Mark 10.45.

True.

Quote:

I detest what you are doing.

Don't lose any sleep over it.

Quote:

In fact, when we examine the CONTEXT of Mark 10.45 it is EASILY seen that the Markan Jesus was NOT even discussing the Remission of Sins.

Quote:

In Mark 10.45 Jesus claimed he would be a Ransom for the Jews as THEIR Minister.

2 questions:

1. What did he ransom the Jews from aa?
2. How did he do it?

I contend that the answers are:

1. their sins
2. by dying for them
and by raising from the dead. Otherwise how would dying ransom them? How would it be 'for them'? And why did he tell them (3 times!) that he would be raised from the dead--what purpose would that serve?

Please try to answer this honestly. If you have different answers maybe I'll learn something new. If you don't, maybe you'll learn something new.

aa5874 · 02-16-2013, 11:07 AM

Again, Jesus RANSOMED his LIFE. Jesus was crucified and he died in gMark. His LIFE was the RANSOM.

Jesus died FOR the JEWS as THEIR Minister--NOT for the Remission of Sins for all mankind.

Please read the ENTIRE short gMark.

The Jews would deliver up Jesus to be Killed and he would Resurrect.

After Jesus Resurrected the story Ended.

You are wasting my time with your ONE VERSE.

TedM · 02-16-2013, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, Jesus RANSOMED his LIFE. Jesus was crucified and he died in gMark. His LIFE was the RANSOM.

Jesus died FOR the JEWS as THEIR Minister--NOT for the Remission of Sins for all mankind.

The Jews would deliver up Jesus to be Killed and he would Resurrect.

But for what purpose? Why did he give up his life? Why would he resurrect?

To me the answer was clear. 10:45 is from Isaiah 53. It's the Suffering Servant passage, which is arguably the foundation of early Christian theology. The passage was seen as Messianic by early Christians, and it seems evident to me that gMark was referencing the same concept of giving up his life as a ransom for sins.

Notice that -- as in Mark 10:45 -- the passage is talking about being a Servant of the Jews. And notice too that the context of Isaiah 53 is Israel in captivity -- thus the need to be ransomed from slavery (see Isaiah 51:11 and Micah 6:4 for 'ransom' references). Lastly, notice that this passage is referring to his saving them from the slavery of their SINS and not just the Babylonians.

Quote:

1Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.

3 He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.

6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.

7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

9 His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

10 But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.

11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.

maryhelena · 02-16-2013, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Ted, I'm not going to go over this repeatedly: THERE IS NO SALVATION VALUE IN A HUMAN FLESH AND BLOOD SACRIFICE. It does not matter how many people believe the opposite. Numbers do not equate to morality, logic or humanitarian concerns.

It's that simple, Ted. Really.

I don't see how anyone's personal values are relevant to the reality of how the story unfolded. I just don't know why you keep mentioning the morality or humanitarian issue. It seems to irrelevant to determining what really happened. What matters is how people behave. If they are immoral for buying into human sacrifice as a means for salvation, so what? How does that change the story? It doesn't.

Quote:

The real issue for me? That's also very simple - I want to know....
If those are not your concerns - then, Ted, we don't have anything to talk about.

I do too. But I see nothing illogical in the explanations I've given for as to why some Jews and Gentiles believed the sacrifice for sins story. Today's ongoing conversions by Jews and Gentiles provide further evidence.

I just don't see how you can say that no one would have bought into the story if it were real. Your objections seem empty since they bought into it over time, under your theory. Why was more time necessary?

I really must drop this..but I wish I could understand why you are so insistent that it just be a story over time and could not have been based on ONE person to whom was applied beliefs that had developed over centuries prior.

The NT story can be interpreted as a story about a human man who got crucified and his followers developed all the salvation theology on his crucifixion/sacrifice. That is the NT interpretation that has been doing the rounds for close on 2000 years. It is one interpretation of the NT story. The ahistoricist/mythicists position rejects that interpretation of the NT story.

Ted, if the gospel JC figure is not historical (in whatever variant) then, automatically, the theology of a salvation value in a flesh and blood human crucifixion falls by the wayside. And that means that other interpretations of the gospel story have to be considered. No historical gospel JC means that the NT story is not a story about a salvation value in a human flesh and blood crucifixion.

To uphold your salvation value in a flesh and blood human sacrifice, you have not only to presume that all this theology was placed upon a human man - you have to establish historicity for that human man. And that, Ted, establishing historicity for the gospel JC, cannot be done.

So, all you are left with is an interpretation of the gospel story, an interpretation that flies in the face of logic, morality, and humanitarian concerns.

No thanks.

jakejonesiv · 02-16-2013, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You very well know that there is NO mention whatsoever of the words of "Salvation from Sins" in Mark 10.45.

True.

Don't lose any sleep over it.

Quote:

In Mark 10.45 Jesus claimed he would be a Ransom for the Jews as THEIR Minister.

2 questions:

1. What did he ransom the Jews from aa?
2. How did he do it?

I contend that the answers are:

1. their sins
2. by dying for them
and by raising from the dead. Otherwise how would dying ransom them? How would it be 'for them'? And why did he tell them (3 times!) that he would be raised from the dead--what purpose would that serve?

Please try to answer this honestly. If you have different answers maybe I'll learn something new. If you don't, maybe you'll learn something new.

Ted,

You are acting like an apologist now, instead of a critical scholar.

Please read Mark 10:17-22 When Jesus was asked in specie what was required to gain eternal life, he answered keep the comandments, and if one wants to be perfect, give your possesions away to the poor.

Not a word about Jesus killing himself for blood sacrifice. Not a word about giving a ransom to the Angel of Death.

And lest you say that keeping the commandments was deemed impossible, may I remind you of Luke 1:5-6,
"In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord."

Jake

TedM · 02-16-2013, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Ted,

You are acting like an apologist now, instead of a critical scholar.

Please read Mark 10:17-22 When Jesus was asked in specie what was required to gain eternal life, he answered keep the comandments, and if one wants to be perfect, give your possesions away to the poor.

Not a word about Jesus killing himself for blood sacrifice. Not a word about giving a ransom to the Angel of Death.

And lest you say that keeping the commandments was deemed impossible, may I remind you of Luke 1:5-6,
"In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord."

Jake

I would say that you are the one acting like an apologist, coming up with 'oh yeah, well what about this? scenarios'. I'm not going to bother with addressing your examples which is easily done.

I've given you and aa the passage in question. If your views are right there would have been no purpose to the crucifixion or resurrection, either one. Makes no sense. See my post about Isaiah 53. IMO this was one of the strongest supports for a crucified Savior in early Christianity--whether that was applied to an actual person or the basis for creation of a mythical savior--is another question.

TedM · 02-16-2013, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Ted, if the gospel JC figure is not historical (in whatever variant) then, automatically, the theology of a salvation value in a flesh and blood human crucifixion falls by the wayside. And that means that other interpretations of the gospel story have to be considered. No historical gospel JC means that the NT story is not a story about a salvation value in a human flesh and blood crucifixion.

To uphold your salvation value in a flesh and blood human sacrifice, you have not only to presume that all this theology was placed upon a human man - you have to establish historicity for that human man. And that, Ted, establishing historicity for the gospel JC, cannot be done.

Agree with all that.

Quote:

So, all you are left with is an interpretation of the gospel story,

Quote:

an interpretation that flies in the face of logic

Many interpretations don't.

Quote:

morality

I don't see the relevancy of this. History isn't required to reflect moral behavior.

Quote:

, and humanitarian concerns.

Nor is history required to reflect humanitarian concerns.

Quote:

No thanks.

You are turning your back on interpretations that might reflect real history, but I have yet to see how your reconstruction avoids the same problems of of morality and humanitarianism. The believers STILL accepted the concept of a crucified savior who was human at some point...doesn't your approach just kick the can a little further down the road?

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

02-16-2013, 11:07 AM	#435
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Again, Jesus RANSOMED his LIFE. Jesus was crucified and he died in gMark. His LIFE was the RANSOM. Jesus died FOR the JEWS as THEIR Minister--NOT for the Remission of Sins for all mankind. Please read the ENTIRE short gMark. The Jews would deliver up Jesus to be Killed and he would Resurrect. After Jesus Resurrected the story Ended. You are wasting my time with your ONE VERSE.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.