Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-29-2012, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

....To summarize very simplistically, Ehrman believes that Jesus believed in and preached the imminent coming of the "son of man." Jesus expected this entiy to descend from the sky as in Daniel, but that he did not believe that he himself was that figure. Ehrman believes that Jesus attempted to bring about this event with a symbolic assault on the Temple, was crucified, and that his followers then decided that Jesus himself was the son of man who would return from the sky.

If your summary is true then Ehrman has NO source of antiquity in or out the Bible to support his story.

Ehrman INVENTED a story fundamentally from thin air and now believes his story is true or likely to be.

Ehrman has presented his own version of an Hypothethical Jesus.

I find it completely amusing that Ehrman seems not to understand that he cannot invent his own history of Jesus and pass it off as credible.

It is what is written that is the HISTORY of the Jesus character NOT what we think Jesus should have said or done.

The short-Ending gMark, the earliest Jesus story, Contradicts your summary of Ehrman's Jesus.

Ehrman's Jesus is NOT an historical Jesus--it is an Hypothetical Jesus based on Belief of the Bible and Rejection of Bible Jesus.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-29-2012, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So nobody thought the person referred to as 'Messiah' in Daniel would be the Messiah, but thought that the 'Son of Man' referred to in Daniel was the Messiah?

Correct. There is more than one Messiah in Daniel. The "son of man" figure is not the same entity as the "anointed...cut off" in Daniel 9. Those are two different entities in Daniel. The "anointed" who gets murdered is simply murdered and that's it. He doesn't do anything Messianic. he's not a savior in the text, he's just a victim. He is not the "one like a son of man" who Daniel says will descend from the sky. They are two different characters.

Quote:

And before Jesus was crucified, he taught that the Messiah had already been killed, or was a figure he had found in scripture?

"Messiah" does not have a unique, singular meaning. all kings and high priests are Messiahs. There is no "THE Messiah," just past Messiahs and and expected future Messiah. Isaiah even calls Cyrus the Great - King of Persia, not even a Jew - the Messiah. That word is not as special in the Hebrew Bible as people seem to think it is.

Quote:

Basically Christians invented the concept of a crucified Messiah, although it was impossible, according to Ehrman, for a first-century Jew to think of the Messiah as being crucified?

Not exactly. Ehrman's thesis would be that the original followers thought he would RETURN as the Messiah, not that he had been the Messiah while he was alive. They thought he went straight to Heaven after the crucifixion (instead of having to wait in a grave like everybody else), and would return, himself, as Daniel's son of Man.

Quote:

But Ehrman is now claiming that Jesus taught that there would soon be a figure from scripture coming to Earth - a belief very close to Doherty's.....

Doherty believes that Jesus taught something?

aa5874 · 03-29-2012, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

"Messiah" does not have a unique, singular meaning. all kings and high priests are Messiahs. There is no "THE Messiah," just past Messiahs and and expected future Messiah. Isaiah even calls Cyrus the Great - King of Persia, not even a Jew - the Messiah. That word is not as special in the Hebrew Bible as people seem to think it is...

Again, you either show a severe limited knowledge of Apologetic sources and sources of antiquity or is attempting to present erroneous information.

You ought to know that the Greek word transliterated as Christ is derived from the word ANOINTED or Anointing.

1. The Hebrew word for the ANOINTED is transliterated to mean Christ.

2. The Hebrew word for Messiah is found ONLY in Daniel and is also transliterated to mean Christ.

It is just ERRONEOUS that Isaiah referred to Cyrus as the Messiah. Isaiah referred to Cyrus as ANOINTED.

Isaiah 45:1 KJV

Quote:

Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden.....

This is found in "Ad Nationes" 1

Quote:

The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing...

Isaiah 45.1 does NOT contain the Hebrew word for Messiah so it is completely wrong that Isaiah referred to Cyrus as a Messiah.

EarlDoherty · 03-29-2012, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

In the same posting Neil quotes this blatant non-sequitur on Ehrman’s part:

This view of things was especially true, Doherty avers, in the mystery cults, which Doherty claims provided “the predominant form of popular religion in this period.” (This latter claim, by the way, is simply not true. Most religious pagans were not devotees of mystery cults.)

Something that is a “predominant form” is not necessarily indulged in by the majority. Ehrman’s criticism here is based on this fallacy. I have not said that a majority of pagans were initiates into the cults.

Did Ehrman say that you said the majority indulged in it?

All I can see from what you posted here is that Ehrman quoted you saying....“the predominant form of popular religion in this period.”

And all I can see is that you cannot read what is written a few lines above your comment: "Most religious pagans were not devotees of mystery cults." It's the final line of the quote above. Ehrman is saying that by "the predominant form of popular religion in this period" I meant that a majority of pagans were initiates into the cults, an interpretation which is obviously false. I demonstrated that in an earlier posting.

Earl Doherty

Duvduv · 03-29-2012, 09:25 AM

How often is the Greek word SOTER used as opposed to XRISTOS in relation to the idea of messiah, whether relating to Jesus or anyone else, especially since some sources interpret the word IESOUS/YESHUA itself to mean SOTER?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

"Messiah" does not have a unique, singular meaning. all kings and high priests are Messiahs. There is no "THE Messiah," just past Messiahs and and expected future Messiah. Isaiah even calls Cyrus the Great - King of Persia, not even a Jew - the Messiah. That word is not as special in the Hebrew Bible as people seem to think it is...

Again, you either show a severe limited knowledge of Apologetic sources and sources of antiquity or is attempting to present erroneous information.

You ought to know that the Greek word transliterated as Christ is derived from the word ANOINTED or Anointing.

1. The Hebrew word for the ANOINTED is transliterated to mean Christ.

2. The Hebrew word for Messiah is found ONLY in Daniel and is also transliterated to mean Christ.

It is just ERRONEOUS that Isaiah referred to Cyrus as the Messiah. Isaiah referred to Cyrus as ANOINTED.

Isaiah 45:1 KJV

This is found in "Ad Nationes" 1

Quote:

The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing...

Isaiah 45.1 does NOT contain the Hebrew word for Messiah so it is completely wrong that Isaiah referred to Cyrus as a Messiah.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-29-2012, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

1. The Hebrew word for the ANOINTED is transliterated to mean Christ.

2. The Hebrew word for Messiah is found ONLY in Daniel and is also transliterated to mean Christ.

It is just ERRONEOUS that Isaiah referred to Cyrus as the Messiah. Isaiah referred to Cyrus as ANOINTED.

Isaiah 45:1 KJV

This is found in "Ad Nationes" 1

Quote:

The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing...

Isaiah 45.1 does NOT contain the Hebrew word for Messiah so it is completely wrong that Isaiah referred to Cyrus as a Messiah.

The Hebrew word for "anointed" is mashiach (Aramaic: Meshia) which translates to Greek as Christos, but which transliterates as Messias.

The same Hebrew word (Mashiach) is used in both Daniel 9 and Isaiah 45. They aren't different. Both say Masiach and furthermore, the LXX translates it both times as Christos.

The Septuagint literally says that Cyrus the Great is "Christ." It's easy to find Christs in the Septaugint. That word does not have a unique designation in the Hebrew Bible, anymore than "king" does. When it's used to reference an exepected, conquering heir to the throne of David, it's being used elliptically, just like "son of man" (which really just means "man") is being used elliptically when it refers to the future savior of the Jews.

In Bob Marley's "One Love," he says, "when the man comes there will be no doom" as a reference to the coming of the Messiah. That doesn't mean that every other time he says "man" in any lyric, he's talking about the Messiah.

stephan huller · 03-29-2012, 09:52 AM

When a man pees whatever comes into contact with his urine is theoretically "anointed". Its really not that complex. The dew 'anoints' the grass. Champagne 'anoints' the new ship with the cork is popped.

EarlDoherty · 03-29-2012, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Mr. Doherty, the relevant charge that Ehrman lobbed at your hypothesis is that we simply do not know what the ancient mystery cults believed (thus the label "mystery") despite your claim that they adhered to Platonism.

What evidence does Doherty cite to show that mystery religions were at heart Platonic? Precisely none.

Every informed critic of your work makes this point. You seem to be kinda making a mountain out of a mole hill, much like Acharya S and her acolyte roared that Ehrman falsely accused her of making up the bust of a rooster with the penis nose (Ehrman's accusation was actually as ambiguous as Acharya S's evidence).

As for your first two paragraphs, I made no claim that we knew exactly what the ancient mystery cults believed, or how they interpreted their myths. I was careful to say that we had no clear evidence, so once again Ehrman is misrepresenting me. What I did say is that we had certain evidence about the cults which could lead us to deduce that to at least some degree their interpretation of their myths was influenced by Platonism and that they transplanted them from a primordial past to a higher realm. I supplied that evidence and deductive argument in the book. Once again, Ehrman missed it or purposely ignored it, preferring a blanket statement that I made a definite claim without evidence. And of course, you have too in subscribing to Ehrman's accusation without question and without investigating my book for yourself.

Here is an extensive passage from Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (p.100-101) which shows that Ehrman (and yourself) have ignored or suppressed my actual position on the matter and falsely accused me of something I do not say. It is yet another example of Ehrman's "carelessness or malice" which Neil Godfrey has been demonstrating (perhaps he'll do another posting in his series and deal with this further misrepresentation):

Quote:

The Nature of the Mystery Cult Myths

The exact interpretations of the mystery cult myths during the period when Christianity was developing, the stories of gods like Osiris, Attis, Mithras, Dionysos whose acts provided personal salvation to their devotees (to be looked at in detail in the next chapter), are hard to pin down. We possess virtually no writings about the mysteries which explain the meaning of the myths themselves, since this was forbidden; certainly none from the average believer or apostle of the cults. What we have are a few writings by philosophers who seek to impose an allegorical interpretation on the myths. Plutarch is the most notable, virtually the only one from the turn of the era period, which is why we rely so much on his Isis and Osiris with its discussion of the myths of the Egyptian savior deities. Other hints and deductions which can be derived from archeological remains, such as the Mithraic monuments, can also be informative.

Plutarch, as we shall see, provides indications that Platonic-type renderings of the Osiris myth envisioned a heavenly location for it. But such myths, for the most part, had begun as primordial myths, stories set in a distant or primeval time on earth. In that form they had the weight of centuries behind them, and when Platonism became dominant they were not likely to undergo an immediate and universal recasting into a new heavenly context; nor would everyone, from philosopher to devotee-in-the-street, shift to understanding and talking about their myths in such a revised setting. The changeover in the mind of the average person may well have been imperfect, just as modern science has effected a rethinking of past literal and naïve views toward elements of the bible in the direction of the spiritual and symbolic, but in an incomplete and varied fashion across our religious culture as a whole.

What we do know is that the philosophers whose writings have come down to us did in fact transplant the myths and it was under the influence of Platonism. They transplanted them from a primordial time to a supernatural dimension, turning them into allegories of cosmic forces and spiritual processes. For them, the religious myths now symbolized things that happened beyond earth. And if that transplanting is the trend to be seen in the surviving writings on the subject, it is very likely that a similar process took place to some degree in the broader world of the devotee and officiant of the mysteries; it cannot be dismissed simply as an isolated elitist phenomenon. In fact, that very cosmological shift of setting can be seen in many of the Jewish intertestamental writings, presenting divine figures and salvific forces operating in the spiritual realm of the heavens, as in the Similitudes of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Ascension of Isaiah and other writings to be examined; in the New Testament itself, the Epistle to the Hebrews presents a spiritual sacrifice by Christ in a heavenly sanctuary.

This general shift to a vertical salvation process between heaven and earth from the older horizontal one between primordial past and present, a shift from a mythical time on earth to a mythical, spiritual world beyond the earth, needs to be applied as an interpretive tool to the early Christian record, especially given that this record has nothing to say about a life and death of Christ in an historical earthly setting. This is not to say that such an interpretation of Christian myth is dependent on establishing the same thing in regard to the mystery cults. Rather, the latter will provide corroboration and a wider context in which to understand and set the conclusions which can be drawn from the early Christian writings themselves. It is that early Christian record which reveals the nature of the original Christian belief in a heavenly Christ.

And note the way I spell out that the interpretation of the early Christ cult is not dependent on claiming a definite Platonic understanding of the savior god myths in the Hellenistic cults.

Here's another (p.114):

Quote:

The savior god myths began as stories set in a distant or primordial time on earth. But in postulating their conversion to a more Platonic interpretation in the initial Christian period, we find indicators of a new, vertical thinking emerging. Plutarch equates the savior god Osiris with the Logos, and sees him as a symbol of the Logos’ activity as ‘immanent’ in the world, in the sense of it being an intermediary between the highest sphere of the timeless changeless God and the sphere of temporal changing matter. This is akin to the idea of the descending redeemer and of the cultic savior who operates in some lower celestial sphere impinging on the material world. The 4th century philosopher Sallustius regards the myths of savior gods like Attis as allegories of “timeless processes.” He calls the story of Attis “an eternal cosmic process, not an isolated event of the past” (On Gods and the World, 9), which places his understanding in a timeless spiritual realm. Similarly, his mentor, the emperor Julian the Apostate, describes (Orations V, 165) Attis’ descent to the lowest spiritual level prior to matter, undergoing his death by castration to give the visible material world order and fruitfulness; he regards this as a symbol of the annual cycle of agricultural rebirth, the generative power which descends into the earth from the upper regions of the stars. Thus, we have suggestions in pagan literature of the concept of the descending god in the mystery cults’ interpretations of their myths.

Note the word "postulating" in the second line above.

Let's look at another one (p.145-6):

Quote:

In such an atmosphere, it is probably safe to assume that the mystery cult myths were carried along by the spirit of the times and were envisioned as taking place in a similarly ‘mythical’ dimension. But an important distinction must be made here. It is the religious context in which we would expect this transplanting to happen. Most of the savior god myths preceded the formation of the cults that came to surround them, even before they were styled ‘savior gods.’ What the Hellenistic salvation cults growing out of the old myths brought to them was a new or evolved interpretation of their meaning, a secret understanding which conveyed insight and consequent advantages both in this life and the next.

....

But this does not tell us how the myths were understood within the context of the cults that were founded on their raw material. The myth of Egyptian Isis and Osiris had long predated the Hellenistic salvation cult which evolved later. (The native Egyptian cult of Osiris going back into the Old Kingdom was not a “mystery cult” in the later sense of the term, and of course owed nothing to Hellenism or Platonism.) But not everyone knew the understanding of that myth as conceived by the Hellenistic cult of Osiris, and any writer not in the latter group, or not choosing to address it—as Plutarch did—would have had no reason to present the myth in any other than the traditional way. In fact, anyone was essentially forbidden to do so.

This is the main reason why we are groping in the dark to try to understand how the savior god myths were conceived within the cults. We have virtually no writings of the period on the subject to reflect those conceptions. Plutarch (end of the 1st century) is almost our only source from the turn of the era, and we must work through his personal disposition to render it all allegorical.

I guess Ehrman missed all this. (And I guess my critics who echo him are, contrary to your statement, anything but "informed." I admit that one critic, Don, legitimately complained of too 'definite' a tone on this point in my original The Jesus Puzzle--though there, too, I had supplied evidence--which led me to clarify and nuance the topic at much greater length in JNGNM. Ehrman read the latter, not the former.) I have done no more than suggest that we may deduce some degree of likelihood that the mystery cult myth interpretations within the cults themselves took a Platonic turn. And I state that my interpretation of Paul's heavenly Christ does not stand or fall on being certain about that possibility, since certainty is indeed not possible. But an argued possibility of corroboration from the cults is a legitimate exercise, and is definitely based on evidence I have put forward. Once again Ehrman has falsified my arguments and misrepresented my claims.

I ask again: Are you willing to revisit your review, Abe? The flaws which you failed to address are piling up.

Earl Doherty

Duvduv · 03-29-2012, 10:13 AM

In Greek versions of the Tanakh does the word SOTER ever get used, and how often in the NT does Jesus get referred to as the SOTER as opposed to the XRISTOS?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

1. The Hebrew word for the ANOINTED is transliterated to mean Christ.

2. The Hebrew word for Messiah is found ONLY in Daniel and is also transliterated to mean Christ.

It is just ERRONEOUS that Isaiah referred to Cyrus as the Messiah. Isaiah referred to Cyrus as ANOINTED.

Isaiah 45:1 KJV

This is found in "Ad Nationes" 1

Isaiah 45.1 does NOT contain the Hebrew word for Messiah so it is completely wrong that Isaiah referred to Cyrus as a Messiah.

The Hebrew word for "anointed" is mashiach (Aramaic: Meshia) which translates to Greek as Christos, but which transliterates as Messias.

The same Hebrew word (Mashiach) is used in both Daniel 9 and Isaiah 45. They aren't different. Both say Masiach and furthermore, the LXX translates it both times as Christos.

The Septuagint literally says that Cyrus the Great is "Christ." It's easy to find Christs in the Septaugint. That word does not have a unique designation in the Hebrew Bible, anymore than "king" does. When it's used to reference an exepected, conquering heir to the throne of David, it's being used elliptically, just like "son of man" (which really just means "man") is being used elliptically when it refers to the future savior of the Jews.

In Bob Marley's "One Love," he says, "when the man comes there will be no doom" as a reference to the coming of the Messiah. That doesn't mean that every other time he says "man" in any lyric, he's talking about the Messiah.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-29-2012, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In Greek versions of the Tanakh does the word SOTER ever get used

Yes, it's the routine LXX translation for Yasha ("saviour").

Quote:

and how often in the NT does Jesus get referred to as the SOTER as opposed to the XRISTOS?

Soter is used to reference Jesus maybe a dozen times or so (maybe more, I don't have an exact word count). I believe it's used by Luke most often (counting Acts along with his Gospel), but in some of the Epistles as well.

XRISTOS, of course, occurs hundreds of times, sometimes alongside SWTHR (e.g. τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).

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

03-29-2012, 09:52 AM	#127
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	When a man pees whatever comes into contact with his urine is theoretically "anointed". Its really not that complex. The dew 'anoints' the grass. Champagne 'anoints' the new ship with the cork is popped.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.