Amaleq13

Tortie Cat (I laugh every time I read that),


Nice work on your historical scenario. Assuming an historical Jesus, I think you present a very credible description of the "truth" behind the theological rhetoric. However, there is one paragraph where I think more explanation needs to be provided:

I may be reading you incorrectly but it looks like you are suggesting the Disciples were not Jewish given the first line and the contrasting third. I think you are actually suggesting that some of the "followers of Jesus" considered Jesus divine while his original Disciples did not but both groups were Jewish, right?

I would be interested in your thoughts on Mark's Gospel which portrays the folks in Jerusalem (who presumably agreed with Paul's Risen Christ theology) as the original Disciples of the living Jesus. Your statement above would suggest that you consider this to have been a literary invention of Mark's author.

It seems to me that the "resurrection experiences"* were the inspiration for the attribution of divinity (not necessarily Christ=God, at first, but Christ+God). It makes sense to assume that the Disciples would be more likely to focus on the teachings/wisdom/behavior of the living Jesus but it also makes sense to assume they would be the ones to have "resurrection experiences" and, consequently, develop beliefs about the divinity of the Risen Christ. But that isn't how the evidence seems to read because the earliest (i.e. Paul and Q) show no such overlap. This pattern seems to require us to assume that at least three of the Disciples (Cephas, James, and John) were so overwhelmed by their resurrection experiences that they stayed in Jerusalem and completely focused on the Risen Christ while the others returned to Galilee and continued to emphasize the teachings/wisdom/behavior of the living Jesus. Our buddy Mark seems to favor this latter group as he criticizes Cephas, James, and John for failing to understand the living Jesus and ends his story with Jesus promising to appear in Galilee to the Disciples.

How do you like them apples?

Tortie Cat

Thanks for the compliment!

The question of capital sentences imposed by the Sanhedrin is still contentious. Literary and epigraphic evidence would appear to support the fact that such powers did exist,(but only regarding infringements of Jewish Religious Law) nonetheless such verdicts would, almost certainly, have had to be ratified by the Roman Governor. However, under Jewish Religious Law Jesus had not committed any offence. Even if he had claimed he was God Almighty he would have been punished but he would not have suffered the death sentence. .


Political offences were another matter and were retained strictly under Roman legal jurisdiction. Jesus of Nazareth had committed a serious political offence he had organised a Messianic entrance into Jerusalem and had attacked the Sadducean establishment of the Temple – which was pro-Roman and so his fate rested entirely with the Governor. Jesus’ activities appear to have coincided with what, in all probability, was a Zealot (Jewish Nationalist) led insurrection against the Romans and the leader of that uprising was almost certainly the man known as (Jesus) Barabbas! I am of the opinion that Jesus Barabbas and Jesus of Nazareth were one and the same man!


TC

Tortie Cat

Glad my handle amuses you!

No, the original disciples were Galilean Jewish peasants. There were those described as Godfearers who attended synagogue and kept the commandments for non-Jews but they hadn’t converted to Judaism

It seems that the Messianic followers of Jesus believed he really was the Messiah even though he had been killed by the Romans. Most Jews accepted that as he had not achieved his aim he was, like other Messiahs before him, not the true Messiah. However, his followers viewed his death as part of the divine plan and believed he had been brought back to life by God to fulfil his Messianic mission.

Jesus had claimed to be a prophet even thought the Pharisees believed that there had been no true prophet in Israel since Malachi almost 400 years earlier. However, there was still a belief that a new prophet would emerge and the renewal of prophecy would be an indication that the Messianic age was at hand. Thus Jesus’ claim to be a prophet was no small thing as such events were very rare and it must have aroused great expectations in the people. Therefore his followers could not believe his crucifixion was the end. They believed that like Elijah he was still alive and would return to lead them to victory.

In Judaism resurrection was not associated with divinity and some believed Jesus’ was the resurrected John the Baptist (see Mark 8:27). The Pharisees believed that all the great heroes of Jewish history would be resurrected together with all the righteous of every generation, even religious non- Jews. It was only through the influence of Paul on the Gentile Christian Church that the idea of Jesus’ resurrection became identified with divinity


TC

Amaleq13

Upon what basis do you reach this conclusion?

Is your second sentence above describing a subgroup of the first?

Tortie Cat

God-fearers are mentioned in the Book of Psalms and also appear quite frequently in the NT. These were Gentiles who were attracted to Judaism and believed its main tenets but had not converted to Judaism. They had a respected status within the Pharisaic tradition and were viewed as having attained full salvation even though they had not made the complete transition to Judaism.

They were deemed to have made a covenant with God that was just as valid in its own way as the Torah. This was the Covenant of Noah (see Genesis 9:3-6), which was called the Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah. Noah was regarded as the patriarchal ancestor of the Gentiles just as Abraham was for the Jews.

The list of commandments that James drew up for the basis of conduct for the Gentile adherents of the Jesus Movement has striking similarities with these Laws. In Acts 15:29 James lists the things that these God-fearers must do:

1. To abstain from things polluted by idols: Presumably this did not refer to ritual purity because this was never applied to non-Jews. It seems more likely that “Pollution” referred to idol worship – thus God-fearers were not to eat anything that was involved with the worship of idols. This would have included food offered to various gods at mealtimes as well as offerings made in non-Jewish temples and shrines. This injunction would have been quite far reaching as it forbade God-fearers from sharing in a meal with idol worshippers. In other words it basically ensured that under the heading “partaking in idolatry” the God-fearers, were forbidden everything that was forbidden to Jews.

2. To abstain from fornication: This would have included incest, adultery, sodomy and bestiality.

3. To abstain from anything that has been strangled: Basically God-fearers had to use the same butchery laws as Jews. Although unlike Jews these Gentiles were permitted to eat “unclean” meats. However, as a matter of courtesy they would not serve these at a meal in which Jews were partaking.

4. To abstain from blood or murder.

In drawing up this code of conduct for its Gentile members the Jesus Movement was continuing the Pharisaic preoccupation with drawing up moral codes for Gentiles. The drawing up of such a code did not affect the Jews obligations to the Torah because it was accepted within the Pharisaic movement that the Torah was only ever intended for a small minority of people, i.e. the Jews or for those Gentiles who decided to convert to Judaism. The rest of humankind (i.e. the Sons of Noah) were only obliged to keep those commandments that God had given Noah after the Flood and if Gentiles kept those laws they would be considered righteous.



TC

Asha'man

Mark 14:64 seems to imply that the priests found Jesus explicitly guilty of blasphemy and therefore condemned him to death. (And the specified punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning, followed by hanging the corpse from a tree.) Clearly, the record of the exact crime is distorted, but the charge and verdict seem to be recorded.

There are also a few references in the Jewish Talmud that might apply to Jesus, they state that he was stoned because he had "practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy"

Amaleq13

Tortie Cat originally wrote:
No, the original disciples were Galilean Jewish peasants. There were those described as Godfearers who attended synagogue and kept the commandments for non-Jews but they hadn’t converted to Judaism

And later replied to my request for clarification:
Very interesting! However, James is addressing Gentile converts to the Risen Christ movement, isn't he? I understood your original statement above as a reference to the original followers of the living Jesus. Why should we assume that these Gentiles James addresses in Jerusalem were original Disciples rather than more recent converts?

Koyaanisqatsi

As to the stoning issue, according to the NT, anyway, everybody, apparently, knew and accepted the notion that the Sanhedrin (and just about anybody living in the area) had the authority to stone people at will. Even the Sanhedrin feared being stoned:

Jesus knew of the authority to stone, apparently on a regular basis:

Then there are the two instances (I was right) where "the Jews" (plural, non-specific) take up stones to stone Jesus without any consideration whatsoever for the Romans (in their own Temple, no less, a very public place indeed):

Mighty stupid people those "Jews" to not be able to find Jesus, even though he was supposedly standing right there in front of him.

The second time they try to stone him, it's for speaking "evil" and for making himself to be god:

He's a master of disguise, apparently.

His disciples knew that "the Jews" could stone him at any time:

Even the Romans were afraid of being stoned, if you can believe that nonsense:

And of course the stoning of Stephen:

So, Stephen, at least, was stoned to death. And, of course, Paul, the liar, was supposedly stoned, but survived and then there's the most famous scene of all regarding stoning, when Jesus was asked about the law of Moses to stone a woman to death for adultery:

So, at least as far as the authors of the NT were concerned, stoning was not only done at will and without any consideration for Roman concurrence, even the Romans were, apparently, afraid of being stoned.

Now, perhaps there were degrees of stoning (as with Paul), but it's clear that in Jesus' case he was going to be stoned to death, which is why he inexplicably ran away (twice) and his disciples feared his return to Judea lest he be stoned (presumably) to death, again.

Regardless of what may have actually been the laws on the books, nobody who was writing the NT myths knew about such laws and clearly have the Sanhedrin (and just about anybody who wanted to) stoning people all the time, so any claims that the Sanhedrin had to take Jesus before the Roman magistrate in order to have him put to death or not supported by the same authors that created the myths to begin with.

Which, again, raises the question as to why Jesus didn't allow himself to be stoned to death by "the Jews" (or orchestrate that he be stoned to death by "the Jews") at either of those two times, since his death by "the Jews" is so emphasized by Paul (and his followers for centuries) and it is his death--his sacrifice--that was to be the culmination of his existence, not how he died (at the hands of the Romans).

Indeed, from a theological standpoint and in retrospect, it makes no sense at all to have Jesus run away from being stoned by "the Jews" (twice) only to be murdered by the Romans and then trying to blame it on "the Jews" through his father's allegedly "inspired word." Since the intent of Paul is clear--it is "the Jews" who killed their "Lord"--and Paul is allegedly inspired by god to write what he wrote, then both Paul and god are, apparently, liars.

Jesus was not killed by "the Jews" at all according to the synoptic accounts. He was killed by Pilate and only by Pilate.

So, once again, nothing about the NT mythology in this regard is either internally consistent or even externally coherent.

Answerer

Errrr, guys, do any of you realize that the theists have stopped replying to this thread already?

Mike(ATL)

Sorry I missed out on the discussion, you all go nuts on the weekend . I need to get back to studying for my finals so sorry for the brief reply, I did read everything written though.

I guess it's all how you interpret history, I won't try to convince you otherwise. You have to admit though that it's quite a stretch to find a motivation for creating such an elaborate story involving so many witnesses that requires such extensive knowledge of the scriptures (despite how you interpret Mark).

Also someone mentioned that all you have to do is look at if the Jews see Jesus as the Messiah. Well, there are quite a few that do. But Jesus came in a way that was unexpected. They were expecting a mighty prince to smite their enemies the way they wanted him too. But as God often does, he works in an unexpected way. Jesus established a spiritual kingdom and conquered evil just not with the sword. Jesus was completely backed by OT prophecy as demonstrated all over the NT. Just because some Jews didn't get it doesn't mean Jesus was not the Messiah.

Again, thanks for the great thread so far, I've found it quite interesting. Stay warm