TedM

I don't think we can say that with any confidence, especially when history records the opposite.


Yes, it is a very big deal. The Passover sacrifice was of an unblemished lamb or goat and was the only one ordained to occur, annually, and was at least in part for the redemption of sins. See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...over-sacrifice

That a godly (read: unblemished) man was killed during that same annual festival should not be taken lightly. The parallels would not have been lost on the Jewish people, especially his followers.



Sorry you felt undereducated. Now you know.


What matters is what the Jewish people thought.

TedM

aa, it's a simple question: IF people made up Jesus, why was he, the Savior of mankind made to be Jewish, if his crucifixion as a salvation tool was so repellent to the Jews?

Onias

What is your view of the Ebionites? Wasn't this group composed of a form of Jewish Xians?

Toto

Consider the probability of two different scenarios:

There was an unusual event - the crucifixion of a claimed messiah on the Passover that was 1) not recorded by any Roman or Jewish source AND 2) would have been regarded by most Jews as prove that this claimed messiah was not in fact the messiah AND 3) significant enough to a group of followers to get them to start a new religion which was invisible to Roman society at the time but somehow preserved a historically accurate account (more or less) of that significant event.

VERSUS

An underground group of marginal Roman citizens who knew something about Judaism started a new mystery religion using some Jewish themes, and invented a symbolic story about a savior figure being crucified at a numerically significant time and rising from the dead.

You think that scenario number 1 is more plausible. I would go for scenario number 2.

There's not much more to say, at least until Richard Carrier publishes his Baysian analysis of the relative probabilities.

TedM

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Not just a man, and an instrument of salvation...close enough along with the Suffering Servant passage to see why his Jewish followers might have considered him to be their Messiah before AND after the crucifixion.

TedM

Very good. I appreciate your response, and will comment:

Scenario 1:

1. Tertulian said that the Romans did record it. We don't know if he was right. Josephus may well have recorded it, but the TF has been tampered with. So, #1 simply can't be measured and must be thrown out of the equation.

2. 'most Jews' may be correct. Religions don't normally start with a majority consensus, so I don't see this as a useful point. The very 'unusual' and highly visible nature of the event would have provided the necessary catalyst for much discussion--reaching those in the minority who were creative and/or gullible enough to appreciate the parallels obvious to all.

3. we dont' know that the new religion was invisible to the Roman society, and the accounts we have clearly indicate that it was not. If there was a significant event it would not be unusual to have preserved it. I don't see how the accuracy is relevant to the probability of this scenario though.


Scenario 2:
You see this as more likely. Who was their target market and why would they be attracted to a Jewish Savior? What do you mean by 'numerically significant time'? Why would Romans create a religion that was anti-Emporer?

aa5874

You keep asking the same questions over and over.

You seem incapable of understanding that the Jesus stories were ALTERED. The short gMark Jesus was NOT a Savior for all mankind by the crucifixion and Resurrection.

We have the short gMark and we have the CHANGES documented in the Existing Codices.

The author of the long gMark ADDED the post-resurrection visit, the Great Commission, and the ascension.

The author of gMatthew added the birth narratives, the sermon on the mount, and added a vast amount of fictional details to events.

The author of gLuke attempted to add "historical" details to his fictional accounts of Jesus.

The author of gJohn changed Jesus into God the Creator, the Savior of all mankind who gave himself for the Sins of the World.

gJohn's Jesus was NOT really Jewish--He was God.

John 10:30 KJV John 3.16 The Pauline writer changed the Jesus story in the short gMark and claimed without the resurrection there would be NO remission of sins and that over 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus.

You seem incapable of understanding or unwilling to admit that the Jesus stories were ALTERED.

Toto

It is most probable (which is as good as you can do here) that there was no record. If there had been, Christians would have preserved it, and would not have had to have produced the obvious forgery of the TF. Tertullian is not a reliable source. It's still in the equation.

There is no evidence for this process. You have constructed it as a possible explanation of the connection between the crucifixion and the birth of Christianity. But it seems highly implausible. Look at modern cult leaders or religions. When the cult leader dies, the religion dies with him. Most of the followers are either killed by the authorities or lose faith.

The only accounts we have indicate that Romans were vaguely aware of Christianity in the second century. There's a big gap between 33 AD and the second century. How did this movement survive? Why weren't Jesus' followers killed along with him? Nothing makes sense here.


The target market, as Rodney Stark detailed, were the urban dwellers who had become separated from their families or other social support, who needed a network. The story that they told had some intricate connections to Jewish history and scripture, but that was not the basis for the appeal, any more than it is today. People become Christians because there is a building with people, and music and food. The stories that the preacher tells from the pulpit are an insignificant factor - at least this is what the sociologists of religion tell us.

TedM

aa, it is a simple question. Why can't you answer it directly? Why was Jesus ALWAYS Jewish. He's Jewish in all the gospels, He's Jewish in Hebrews and Paul's writings. I don't know of any writings that say he isn't Jewish. Why is a crucified founder of Christianity made to be Jewish if the idea of crucifixion was so repellent to Jews?

rlogan

Sort of in the same way that Nation of Islam came from Islam. It was whatever Wallace Fard told the blacks in Detroit it was. Hey - there was even someone convicted early on of human sacrifice, stabbing a white man. I forget what they called that group of "angels" formed early on for murdering whites, but in a thread on human sacrifice it is certainly relevant!

Rubbish. Are you listening to yourself? Christianity is called the "New Testament", abolishing the old Testament.


Let's see if you can listen and grasp this basic observation: Do you see how Wallace Fard got away with racial hatred as a central premise to Nation of Islam when Islam is not based upon it? You can't market a completely new religion so well. You smuggle it in under the claim it is an ancient one. And market it to people who do not understand the ancient one.

The early Christian apologists were emphatic about this - how it was not a new religion. It was viewed without pedigree by critics. The "midrash" Christian writers used is superficially lame.

Obviously you embrace the Christian propaganda. But can you grasp the example right before us with Wallace Fard and Nation of Islam?