lpetrich

A curious book, On Jesus (written by Douglas Groothuis; reviewed there by Mark McFall), arguing that Jesus Christ had qualified as a philosopher. His argument was that Jesus Christ had been interested in some of the questions that philosophers had been interested in, like metaphysics and ethics. In particular, questions like the nature of God and his relationship to that entity, the Golden Rule, etc.

DG also claimed that the Bible was more female-friendly than surrounding societies, which he claims were shamelessly sexist -- without offering any real evidence.

And he got into more typical apologetic concerns, like the question of the historicity of the Gospels.

Richard Carrier has rebutted this, arguing that JC had mainly asserted his views or had had short arguments in which he had some one-liner last word. Which is not quite what a "real" philosopher might do. And JC had a lack of concern for such questions as what logical argument is supposed to be -- something discussed by his pagan-philosopher contemporaries.

RC also pointed out that while Jesus Christ was more female-friendly than many of his Jewish contemporaries, he was no better than several of his pagan contemporaries, some of whom were very willing to educate women and defend good treatment of women.

RC rebutted the question of the historicity of JC with an argument that Socrates is more reliably documented than him; he also noted that most believers in Xtianity have a tendency to reject the miracles of other religions.

Mark McFall has responded with a rebuttal; he argued that JC was using plain language instead of very technical philosophical language.

And about women, his main "evidence" that JC wanted women treated respectfully was Matthew 5:28, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." He compared the attitude of a certain Demosthenes, "mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our person, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households" (Against Neaera).

And Richard Carrier has responded with another rebuttal, pointing out that the Buddha, at least as described by his followers, was much more systematic than Jesus Christ. He also notes that some Xtian theologians, like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther, often make the philosophy reference books, while JC seldom does.

And that celebrating JC's use of simple language is not much more than accusing RC of intellectual snobbery.

RC notes that there's a lot more to treatment of women than whether or not one has sexual fantasies about them; JC made no criticism of women being second-class citizens, of not having the legal and political rights that men had.

He also notes that women started doing well in the Hellenistic and Roman-Empire periods, and that Demosthenes was from before that. And that McFall belittles the evidence that women were thought by many philosophers to be nearly the intellectual equals of men by many at the time, including being very worthy of education.

Of course, that was not universal, and there was no shortage of misogynists back then, like Livy and Juvenal, who would sometimes say things that present-day misogynists would seldom get away with. But their viewpoints were not universal, and what they objected to was very real.

And as a final comparison, consider:
* The Epicureans being the first philosophers to admit women into their school.
* Jesus Christ having no female apostles.

Chaupoline

What about Mary Magdalene?

Vorkosigan

Mark states very clearly in 15:40-1 that Jesus fem disciples had followed him all the way from Galilee.

lpetrich

Somehow, it seems to me that they were not quite comparable to the apostles.

And as to arguing, the Pharisees are presented in the Gospels as easily defeated by JC in arguments. That's rather out of character, as Frank Zindler has noted in The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, given that their successors sometimes distinguished themselves as master quibblers in the Talmud.

Chili

There was a "Jesus that the Jews never knew" or they would have never crucified him: "then he strictly ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah."

It is may help to point out that the one-liners of Jesus were often provocative statements that roused the pharisees to further action so they would crucify the Jesus that they 'did' know. The "Jesus that they did not know" was the inspiration of these thought provoking one-liners that led to the full liberation of this philosophic mind (the mind of Christ), and that mind is equal to the philosophic mind of Plato and the Buddha.

The Gospels are not a display of rhetoric but they are the final 'argument' that leads to the destruction of the need for argument = to find truth itself. In this argument the pharisees must maintain the status qou (the city of God) and Jesus must destroy that city 'of' God to become fully God himself.

WILLOWTREE

Women were not allowed to testify as witnesses in any court proceeding in First Century Palestine because they were deemed unreliable.

However, who are the FIRST reporters of the Resurrection claim ?

Answer: women.

If the gospel writers are frauds and liars making up a story then surely they wouldn't have women as the first persons reporting the Resurrection.

Women had the honor and the gospel writers simply reported the truth.

Who was at the crucifixion when the cowardly apostles fled ?

Women.

Matthew 26:13

Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her

Jesus ORDERED that the greatest thing ever - the gospel NEVER to be preached UNLESS it is also told what the woman did (gave something costly).

He instituted an eternal memorial over something a woman did.

Eve was superior to Adam, that is WHY God punished her with having to serve the inferior (man).

Don't assert the Bible to be hard on women - the facts say otherwise.

WT

Yellum Notnef

WT, Wasn't it just yesterday you "trounced" everyone here and said goodbye to this place for good?

Just curious.

lpetrich

According to who?

They weren't testifying in court.

But these women don't seem to do anything else -- they aren't apostles alongside of JC's male apostles.

Dan Barker's Easter Challenge shows us what sort of history the resurrection accounts are.

(the cowardly apostles...)
Who help make Jesus Christ fit Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile remarkably well.

Yes, pour a jarful of expensive perfume onto him.

Bull doo-doo.

Eve was described as being created from Adam in order to help Adam. They were not created side by side as partners. At least the Genesis-1 creation story gets it right; in it, the two sexes are created simultaneously.

Simply check out the numerous insults to women in the Bible. Are women usually shown as socially comparable to men, as we experience here in this messageboard?

Amaleq13

Accusations of fraud and lying aside, the author of Mark really has no choice but to depict the empty tomb being discovered by the women since he has already described the Disciples as fleeing into hiding with only the women left to know the location.

It was clearly more important for the author to depict the fulfillment of an alleged prophecy than to depict men as the first witnesses. The latter follows necessarily from the former so your argument is meaningless.

Does a single contrary example outweigh the rest?

WILLOWTREE

I resigned posting in a Forum designated by an inferior rationale for its existence.

If you or anyone do not like opposition then just say so. I won't linger where I am not wanted.

WT