Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayrok · 03-19-2009, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Instead of an index, we have a search function, or Google.

From the home page of this Forum, try a few key words, such as "prediction generation" and find Jesus' Second Coming Prophecy in the Gospels with contributions from Earl Doherty and Neil Godfrey.

Thanks Toto. I looked for key words and came across several threads and spent a good amount of time searching through multiple pages but couldn't find anything related to what I was looking for. I found embarrassment such as Baptising of Jesus as if he had sins to atone for, and the like.

I'll check out those threads.

Jayrok · 03-19-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Maybe Mark was making a comment about the messianic expectations raised during the bar Kochba revolt in the 130s, or messianism in general. The Jesus of the gospels is more of an anti-messiah re traditional Judaism.

That's interesting, but if Jesus was based on Simon Bar Kochba, why is the setting in the pre-destruction of the Temple era or mid first century?

Jayrok · 03-19-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Finally, Lunch break.

My personal take is that the Gospels were written to serve as the Christian communities' first "apologies" intended to explain to the Roman authorities, as best they could, who their founder was and why he should NOT be treated as a subversive, and by extension they (the Christians) should not be subject to prosecution.

The author of Mark presents Jesus as a kind of prophetic reformer whose moralistic teachings posed no real threat to the authorities, but who got caught up in inter-Jewish political rivalries that led to his unjust arrest and execution.

Just after the Jewish rebellion this might have seemed plausible, as in his Jewish War Josephus had presented the Jewish authorities as caught up in intrigues and internal rivalries that had led to the tragic rebellion and the consequent destruction of their temple, and Jesus could be seen as a casualty of these rivalries.

The gospels of Matthew and Luke incorporated a body of more-or-less Jewish wisdom sayings (Q) into their apologies, reinforcing the idea that Jesus was a harmless sage.

By presenting themselves (Christians) as a level removed (the anti-Jewish put-downs) from all that feuding, the gospel writers could say "We (Christians) are all well beyond that kind of petty bickering thing which led to sedition!"

Of course, this does not mean that things REALLY happened that way, only that the Christians spun it that way. Any facts to be found in them must then be inferred by context and by asking what kinds of specific charges (official and/or those contained in non-Christian public opinion) they seemed to be trying to deflect.

DCH

Could be. But again I'd ask from a perspective of later Christian Churches as we came to know a couple centuries later. They had what they wanted to include in the canon and had the ability to modify or add whatever they wanted. Why leave those sayings in there that might portray Jesus to be mistaken or a liar, unless he really said them?

But on second thought, if someone in the Church had the power to forge texts why would he stop at that? If he didn't like what Jesus said, he certainly had the pen to alter his words and phrases.

That's why it's puzzling.

Jayrok · 03-19-2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, if Matthew, Mark and Luke were written early then why would these authors include the resurrection and ascension when these events are obviously false or implausible?

Why would these authors claim that there was darkness for 3 hours when Jesus was crucified as this event is obviously false?

Obviously false to you. Who says they didn't believe it? This is apples and oranges. Those events were reported to have taken place. We can have no proof either way, no matter how implausible they are.

With regard to Jesus claiming his kingdom will come while some of them were still alive is observable even today, since the kingdom has never come. Therefore it was demonstratably false.

bacht · 03-19-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Maybe Mark was making a comment about the messianic expectations raised during the bar Kochba revolt in the 130s, or messianism in general. The Jesus of the gospels is more of an anti-messiah re traditional Judaism.

That's interesting, but if Jesus was based on Simon Bar Kochba, why is the setting in the pre-destruction of the Temple era or mid first century?

It's a fair question, and there have been various proposals here for why Jesus' career was dated ca 30 CE. If Mark was writing sometime between 70 and 135 he might have wanted to date everything to a generation already deceased ie. no living witnesses to refute his version.

Maybe Mark was presenting an alternative to what actually happened pre-70, the triumph of the radicals and apocalypticists. If only they had accepted a messiah like Jesus, so Mark might say, the Palestinian Jews might not have incurred the full wrath of Rome :huh:

Jayrok · 03-19-2009, 10:47 AM

This was posted by Earl Doherty in the thread Toto linked here:

Quote:

If the Gospels were written as allegorical representations of the community and its beliefs and practices, with Jesus a (non-existent) symbolic figure, then statements they make are meant to apply to the time of the writer and his initial audience. An evangelist could declare that such-and-such would happen because he meant before his own present generation would pass away. This was especially true of Mark and Matthew, who clearly believed that the Parousia (the arrival of Christ/Son of Man, not the return of some historical figure) would happen in their near future. Thus they were not repeating some past, now-failed prophecy.

So if Mark meant his gospel as allegory, Jesus stating "this generation will not pass away..." is really meant for the readers of the author of Mark's generation, not the generation of the characters in the story (mid first century).

Is there precedent for this kind of literature somewhere that could support this claim of Mr. Doherty?

I wonder where he got this idea from.

Jayrok · 03-19-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Maybe Mark was presenting an alternative to what actually happened pre-70, the triumph of the radicals and apocalypticists. If only they had accepted a messiah like Jesus, so Mark might say, the Palestinian Jews might not have incurred the full wrath of Rome :huh:

This I can believe. I think he may have written to explain why the Jews were crushed during the Jewish/Roman war.

Toto · 03-19-2009, 10:51 AM

As I noted in the other thread, a failure of prophecy somehow never registers as a failure. It just calls for more creative interpretations of the prophecy.

On correcting past errors, someone noted (I think it was Robert Price) that it is easier to add something (such as the ending of Mark) than it is to subtract what has previously been written, so the text tends to accumulate additions.

Sheshbazzar · 03-19-2009, 11:17 AM

There is the likelihood of a quite large group of believers who were already aware of these sayings or writings, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible, to erase, or to collectively "go backward" from the sayings and ideas already well known.
It is far easier to convince people that this or that detail just got "left out" of this or that account, than to remove major points from a tale that is already accepted. So the story easily grows in the telling and retelling, but not the reverse.
Even if the claims made in the core story fail to materialise, there is no way to remove them from public knowledge.
Thus the need to resort to increasingly contrived apologetics to "explain", yet maintain the evident failures.

Jayrok · 03-19-2009, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

As I noted in the other thread, a failure of prophecy somehow never registers as a failure. It just calls for more creative interpretations of the prophecy.

On correcting past errors, someone noted (I think it was Robert Price) that it is easier to add something (such as the ending of Mark) than it is to subtract what has previously been written, so the text tends to accumulate additions.

In your view, what does this say about the possibility that Jesus really said it?

That was the idea of the thread question. If Jesus really said it in a historical sense and it was common knowledge that he said it whether from oral tradition or whatever, they might be inclined to leave it in the gospel and then explain it later as time went on (a la Robert Price's comment).

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

03-19-2009, 10:51 AM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	As I noted in the other thread, a failure of prophecy somehow never registers as a failure. It just calls for more creative interpretations of the prophecy. On correcting past errors, someone noted (I think it was Robert Price) that it is easier to add something (such as the ending of Mark) than it is to subtract what has previously been written, so the text tends to accumulate additions.

03-19-2009, 11:17 AM	#19
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	There is the likelihood of a quite large group of believers who were already aware of these sayings or writings, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible, to erase, or to collectively "go backward" from the sayings and ideas already well known. It is far easier to convince people that this or that detail just got "left out" of this or that account, than to remove major points from a tale that is already accepted. So the story easily grows in the telling and retelling, but not the reverse. Even if the claims made in the core story fail to materialise, there is no way to remove them from public knowledge. Thus the need to resort to increasingly contrived apologetics to "explain", yet maintain the evident failures.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.