avi

And you know this, how? Are you asserting that the two "authentic", original Greek manuscripts, i.e. Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus, contain these "appropriate pronouns", or all Greek manuscripts, or only certain, more recent Greek manuscripts, or only English translations of some Greek manuscripts?

I ask this, because of certain inconsistencies, previously noted, in other threads on this forum, between use of "the father" versus "my father", where there is a significant discrepancy, in terms of subsequent theological interpretation, between the English versions, and the original Greek manuscripts.

avi

rhutchin

The Term, "Son of Man," seems to be a reference to that use in Daniel and that coupled with the term, "I am," would have have great significance to the high priest and explain his distress and his charge of blasphemy.

Whether Christ Jesus uses the appropriate pronouns for "I" and "me" explains nothing.

rhutchin

That which we read in the Bible would argue against Christianity being a cult based on the above. For example

• It is God who saves people, not members of the group.
• It is God who provides financial resources.
• Christians are to give priority to Bible study and helping others.
• Christians are told to be a light to the world.

This does not prevent people seeking to take advantage of others and using Christianity in a cultist manner to do so.

Jane H

In the days before Youtube, mobile phones and printing, many people wouldn't have known what he looked like; Judas offered to identify him. Pilate wasn't actually going to let him go. He was indulging in one of his favourite pastimes- wind up the Jews.

The timing could, from a naturalistic viewpoint have been a coincidence. Or not. YMMV.

Not hearing someone talking doesn't mean they are silent. They could be talking, and we just don't hear them.

Seriously, the idea that the events of 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, a very central and very early part of Christianity, could have been invented by Paul is just not tenable. In any case, what was such a key innovation of religious praxis would have been screamed about by the 'James party' and stamped out by such as Peter on his visits (see Galatians 2) “I was there, y'know. The hors d'oeuvres were really good, as I recall.”.



OK then. We already have multiple attestation for 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (note the more ecclesiasticised versions in the Gospels, reflecting settled praxis). Let's do difference and plausibility*.

The chaburah setting is explicitly Jewish, but clearly takes a New Covenant turn out of Judaism.
The institution of the communion is obviously Christian, but as indicated previously, does not conform to the communion practice of the church.

All of which gives the strongest evidence of this passage as historical. I'm really unsure how a group of C1 religious Jews would react to a suggestion that quasi cannibalism should be introduced as a key element of their religious practice, but answers involving a blunt instrument suggest themselves. It would take someone with ultimate authority to get that one through.

Like Jesus introducing a revised chaburah meal just before a massive shock to the disciples understandings.



*Yes, it's done on the Gospels. This passage functions in the same way, though. A world first here on FRDB?

show_no_mercy

Well the more plausible explanation is that this passage isn't original to 1 Corinthians. Here's the timeline:

1 Corinthians written
Gospels written
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 inserted

ApostateAbe

Yes, I certainly didn't mean to imply that Christianity is a cult today. You are (probably) not a cult member. There are denominations within Christianity that certainly are cults (most denominations start out as cults), but the majority of conservative Christians are not members of a cult. I am saying that Christianity started as a cult. So, if you interpret the saying of Jesus, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple," metaphorically and with hyperbole, then that is a good thing. Christian cults would be the ones more likely to interpret that verse literally, as a reason for cutting off family ties (nosy family members are the biggest threat to one's cult allegiance).

ApostateAbe

I don't know which manuscripts are used, and I haven't looked that deeply into it. I made the judgment based on the concordance at biblos.com. The pronoun, "μοι," is a word that the translated Jesus used very often, it seems.

rhutchin

Even by the above criteria, Christianity would not have been called a cult in the first century. Nothing has changed over the years. The Bible is still the same now as then (except it is written down for us now).

Even the saying of Jesus, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children,... would not have led them to cut off family ties. It was a condition for becoming a disciple of Jesus and in being a disciple of Jesus, the person would have to reject that which his family wanted him to do in favor of obeying Jesus. His family, responding to this behavior, would say that he hated them which would have been true based on his behavior.

neilgodfrey

We're dealing with narratives that all have Jesus being the most public of all figures in Jerusalem for days before the Passover. Soldiers had been sent to arrest him earlier and had no problem recognizing him. Everyone knew who he was wherever he went. He wasn't a stranger each day with a brand new audience whenever he stepped outside and spoke in the temple. There were ample opportunities to arrest him any time, before or after Passover, without any need for a Judas. Judas was invented to fulfil another scripture and add another cipher to denigrate the Jews. His act of betrayal is so artificial even Sunday school children ask why it was necessary for the arrest of Jesus. And adults have been trying to find unrealistic rationales ever since.

Only if we impute our own historicizing imaginations into the text. Only in Mark does the text suggest Pilate had no intention to let him go, but was playing the game of "bread and circuses" (as have discussed previously). Later evangelists in varying degrees exonerate Pilate and increase the responsibility of the Jews. What evidence is there -- within the texts or outside the gospels -- that Pilate had a favourite game of winding up Jews?

N

Elijah

Why do you presume they are liars? What did Lyndon LaRouche say that makes you think he is a lying about what he believes. Believing in an inevitable disaster that changes the world is a fairly common and rational belief that I don’t see requiring a liar to justify the belief. In times of great disaster people evolve ideologically and those who need to step up do, that’s all the apocalyptic stuff is saying to me.

I typed in Jesus social reformer and this came up from google arguing against Ehrman’s model of Jesus which I guess you are basing your model off since I think I remember you mentioning him before but I could be wrong. Either way I thought it was a pretty good paper to check out. Jesus seems obviously a social reformer IMO, he speaks of the last being first and has a queen rising up to judge man and says he is there to cast out the rulers of that world. The apocalyptic preacher isn’t a fully developed character in my mind it’s a quality of an individual not a complete description of what someone who believes in that kind of thing if you don’t address why he believes the end is near.

I was going to go through and see which of these actually apply to Jesus and wouldn’t apply to most religious groups.

Quote:

[*]The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

Well no one at the time of his life seemed to understand Jesus and they all ran when it was time for him to die. Only a few disciples seemed committed to him at all in the end and he doesn’t get upset at their inability to stay faithful but uses prophecy of that inevitability to help give him credibility.

Quote:

[*]Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

I think him predicting his betrayer and doing nothing and predicting peter’s denial and not judging would go against this. There wasn’t any reported backlash for the disciples that stopped walking with him in John 6:66

Quote:

[*]Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

Every religious group is going to have something in the mind altering category. Religion itself is mind altering.

Quote:

[*]The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

Again this comes with all groups but Jesus didn’t dictate that anyone did this in his group. There are no scenes of Jesus having the authority to dictate to people about what they could do, he’s just giving advice about the best way to live in his opinion.

Quote:

[*]The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

This one is descriptive of the early Jesus group because it’s about a messiah claimant.

Quote:

[*]The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

The group isn’t elitist under Jesus’ command but he does seem to show ethnic elitism, not cultish though.

Quote:

[*]The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

This is the opposite of how Jesus got famous for submitting to the authority unto his death.

Quote:

[*]The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

He didn’t preach breaking the law or encourage anyone to do anything that I think would be considered unethical except maybe stealing a donkey. The people he associated with may have seem unethical to others but he wasn’t encouraging reprehensible behavior unless you consider sacrificing your life to be.

Quote:

[*]The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

Again the opposite. Jesus is known for the forgiveness he offered even to those who were killing him.

Quote:

[*]Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

This doesn’t happen in the story. Peter goes back to his wife and Jesus even helps to heal Peter’s mother in law. All you have is taking the passage about martyring yourself and hating your parents out of context.

Quote:

[*]The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

The group was preoccupied with spreading the message. I don’t know if there was a way to be a member in Jesus group. You just followed and hung out with him or went home.

Quote:

[*]The group is preoccupied with making money.

No doesn’t seem preoccupied with making money and doesn’t try to make money off the idea of getting the rich to give up their money and in the end of John has a scene with a women basically burning money onto of his head to anoint him.

Quote:

[*]Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

I can’t think of a passage that illustrates him requiring this but I can’t really think of a counter scene to it either, but there was a level of commitment to the cause that was expected… not the group though.

Quote:

[*]Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

He was a promoter of going outside the group to promote the message… not so much for outside the ethnicity though.

Quote:

[*]The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

This kind of thinking isn’t evident in the story presented of any of his disciples that I can think of.

So that’s one item in the list that Jesus’ group matches, (that wouldn’t be expected in most religious groups) and that is because it has to deal with him being the messiah. Most of the cult checklist seem to be describing things that Jesus’ group would have been the antithesis to.

Maybe you have a checklist for people with a messiah complex and can see if Jesus matches up a little more closely with that casting.

I’m not just seeing the cult leader deal in the Gospels. He’s not recruiting and controlling the members by taking psychological control over the people he is with. The people are following him in the story because they believe that someone is going to come save them and are wondering or already believe that Jesus may be that person. He died because the people’s growing belief threatened the security of the established religious authority.