Weltall

Actually, it only requires enough knowledge to make it sound like you understand the scriptures.
And lots more who don't.
If you have a prophecy in front of you and you're trying to write a story it's not that hard to make the story fit the prophecy. I might add that the story doesn't fit the prophecies, killing your argument. I'd also have to say that MOST of the Jews 'didn't get' the fact that Jesus was the Messiah because as far as they were concerned he wasn't. If you read what the Messiah is supposed to be like, you'll find that they are right.

spin

No. Thomas may have been the name attached to the sayings gospel, which is quite deliberately "mystical" and cryptic, the few other texts which wear is name have no relation and were written much later than the sayings gospel of Thomas. Gnosticism may have started earlier than most people understand; in fact there may have been a Jewish source for some Gnostic thought, and that coming before the start of the era. But then, it was probably only in the diaspora.

The connection of the Essenes with Qumran is total rubbish. It's not based on any evidence, only conjecture.

The literature from Qumran was written before the temple fell -- from a pro-temple point of view (consider that the most important people were the sons of Zadok, sons of Aaron and sons of Levi, why believe that they are not what they say?). Most of the gnostic texts were written well after the fall of the temple in the developing context of early xian thought.

There is no relationship between Thomas and the Essenes (who were a devout group from the lower classes of Jewish society).


spin

Koyaanisqatsi

Weltall covered this nicely, but you were speaking to some of my points, so I'll add on...

Not in the slightest. We do it all the time. Now it's called "propaganda."

What "witnesses?" Remember that there was only one story that detailed what allegedly happened--Mark's--which was then rewritten by other authors decades after he wrote his, which in turn had been written--allegedly--fifty years after any "facts." Mark states that only a handful of women went to the tomb and found it open with a "young man" sitting inside. Mark ends his story (as most scholars agree) with the young man telling them to go into town and they will see Jesus. That's it. No witnesses at all to a resurrection in Mark, just a few grief torn women who are told by a young man who isn't identified or questioned that they will see Jesus down in the city. Whether or not they did isn't mentioned and, again, this story was written some fifty years after the alleged facts.

And we have Paul in 1 Corinthians claiming that:

A strange claim to say the least, considering that Paul says he appeared to "the twelve" and then he appeared to James (who should have been part of the twelve) and then he appeared to all the apostles (who are, again, supposed to be, "the twelve") but I could have my facts wrong on all that. Wasn't Cephas (Peter) also supposed to be either part of the "twelve" and/or the apostles?

As for the anonymous "five hundred," one wonders right off the bat who those "brethren" were (a term implying, at least, followers) and where those five hundred "brethren" were when that crowd so easily swayed Pilate, but more to the point, we already know that Paul is a liar (if the synoptics are true, that is) in regard to who supposedly killed Jesus and we know that Paul, by his own admission, would say or do anything to get converts. He even claims that Jesus appeared to him, which is equally suspect, considering the tone of 1 Corinthians 15. He is not only preaching to the converted, he goes to great and convoluted lengths to convince his "audience"--people who should, presumably, already be convinced but apparently are not--that they must believe that Jesus was resurrected or else there is nothing to their beliefs.

Here's the whole mess. Notice how Paul not only makes the most confusing case imaginable, but also how he keeps repeating--threatening, really--the idea that if no one believes that Jesus rose from the dead then they're all screwed and their sins will condemn them. Well, gee, Davey. If you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead as all these witnesses attest and I attest and god attests then you're all going to burn in hell!

Sound like someone telling the truth or someone desperate to convince people that should already be convinced?

Note also the tortured way he tries to explain that we aren't raised bodily at the same time that he says we are raised bodily in a different kind of body and how none of them (including he) need worry about being raised bodily, since none of them are going to die; that their "change" is going to take place while they're still alive.

I've bolded the parts that betray the fact that not even the believers he already preached to believe what he claimed, as well as the confusing and contradictory parts and the threats to believe or else be screwed.

See what I mean so far? You better believe that we believe what I told you to believe or else you're all screwed and lied to god, even though there are those among you who don't believe this crap. He continues repeating this same thing so many times it reminds me of that line from MacBeth (if memory serves): "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks."

He's clealry responding to accusations that the Corrinthians don't buy the resurrection, so his response is, "How can you say that when hundreds of people saw it? You've lied to God and condemned your brothers to God's wrath for doubting me."

Get it, you peons? Or do you all want to die, for you will if you don't believe what I told you?

See his thinking? I deserve to live forever for what I've done. Don't all of you think that way, too? So what "advantage to me if the dead do not rise?"

Reiterates it again. His response?

"Unwise?" The hypothetical person asked how can this happen and his response is an admonition, followed by the most convoluted nonsense about how the body is like a seed that will result in a changed new "body" that isn't like a body at the same time that it is just like a body, only different.

Got that? There are all kinds of different bodies, including "heavenly" bodies, which, presumably, aren't material at the same time that they are material, just a different kind of material.....

Ok, but what the hell is it?

And that would be? What? A material body? An ethereal body? What?

Ok... So our resurrected bodies aren't actually our bodies, because those would be "natural" bodies--corruptible (i.e., they decay into dust; material) and our resurrected "bodies" aren't "natural" they're spiritual and incorruptible (i.e., they aren't made of dust)?

Ok, so we get it already. Our bodies are made of earth (dirt, presumably, like Adam) and our resurrected bodies won't be made out of earth (dirt). Right?

So what rose from Jesus' grave? If he leaves it at a "spiritual" body, then death still has its sting.

So Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave and neither will any of us? Can't, in fact, because we are made out of flesh and blood, just as Jesus allegedly was.

So, again, what, exactly, rose out of Jesus' grave? Not the flesh and blood Jesus, contradicting, however, the account of Thomas in John, who will only believe that Jesus resurrected when he sees the holes in his hands and put his hand inside Jesus wounds.

And here's where it gets really confusing...

So, none of them will die; their bodies won't die, but they will be magically changed into spiritual "bodies?"

So, none of their bodies will be stung by death at the same time that their bodies will be changed from the earthly, material (dirt) bodies into non-dirt bodies (spiritual)?

Thus endeth the insanity. For that passage, anyway.

Clearly the Corinthians didn't buy the idea of the dead rising from their graves, so Paul attempts damage control by making wild claims designed to convince them of what they should have already been convinced and then goes on to bolster this through threats that if they don't believe what he told them to believe then everything they have done up to that point will have been in vain.

He then goes to great lengths to thoroughly confuse the issue, so that none of them know what the hell it really means to rise from the dead. Why? Because they don't, apparently, believe that anybody can rise from the dead. Ahh, but it wasn't the body that rose at the same time that it was the body that rises and none of them will die so believe it anyway or else you're all idiots for believing any of it and none of you are idiots, are you? Worse, if you don't believe what I'm telling you, then all of your sins are right back on your shoulders and you'll pay for them as well as the bigger sin for lying to God by believing without believing.

It's doublespeak that probably inspired Orwell .

Again, as Weltall quite rightly put it, no it doesn't as even the most cursory read of Mark demonstrates and the majority of Jewish scholars attest. Mark gets so many basic things wrong that it's remarkable any serious Jewish student could read it without laughing, particularly the reliance on Isaih for alleged fulfillment of prophecy.

Comparatively speaking, there are not "quite a few," rather a grossly insignificant few.

Possibly, but then that negates the entirety of the very prophecy he allegedly relied upon to contradict that claim.

No, the way it was prophesied through the inspired word of their God. The authors of the NT myths can't claim that Jesus came precisely as was prophesied and then claim later that he didn't come precisely as was prophesied. That's contradictory nonsense.

Either his life and times were prophesied and he therefore is the Messiah or not and he was nothing more than yet another false prophet. The whole point of prophecy is that it is accurate. If it isn't accurate, then it can't be called "prophecy" and the authors of the NT myths can't claim that Jesus was prophesied.

Not just "unexpected," then, completely contrary to the promises he previously made. That's quite a serious allegation, don't you think? It would be tantamount to God lying about what was promised by him to occur.

Funny, I recall him saying he came with a sword. Regardless, if that's the case, then, again, the authors of the NT mythology can't claim that he was prophesied.

And, no, he didn't "conquer" evil as we still have evil all around us, if you buy that kind of nonsense. At best, he conquered "death," but as Paul demonstrates, he didn't even do that, since Paul and his followers did die just as all of us die. Our bodies are corruptible.

No, he wasn't. In fact, I defy you to find just one example where he was "completely" backed by OT prophecy. Kindly reallize that to be "completely backed" by OT prophecy, it must mean that represents what those prophets said about him completely. You can't just take a line here and a line there and say, "See? They prophesied Jesus." It's not about bits and pieces forced to fit in hindsight, it's about God inspiring a prophet to reveal the totality of the life and time of the one prophesied, otherwise anytime anybody rode into Jerusalem on an ass they would have been "fulfilling prophecy" and been the one prophesied.

Yes, actually, it does, since they are god's chosen people and it is for their primary benefit that God was to send the Mosiach.

Thanks, and I am. Though there's supposed to be another storm a coming. God's wrath?

Answerer

I had mentioned 'Simply put' , of course, if you wished to go into detail, Thomas was only one of many authors of Nag Hammadi library. And the origin of Gnosticism(which is blanket term for various religions and sects most prominent in the first few centuries A.D) was still under dispute, even though it contains some elements of Platonic (Greek) pagan ideas like the Archons and Demiurge and was heavily influenced by Christianity and Jewish beliefs.



Ha, what a funny way of thinking you have, if everything that is not based on evidence is total rubbish, then I supposed the superstring theory, the Grand unified theory and inflation theory are all totally rubbish to you, aren't they? Oh yeah, maybe relativity as well before it was proved by evidences in the past.


I already said that I might be wrong in the last post and you didn't seem to catch my words.

Anyway, there are truely noticeable similarities between the traditions of the Essene authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic authors of the Apostolic Age.

And so far, you had argued the opposite only by using their dates of first authorship while ignoring those signs of similarites. Furthermore, this argument is flawed, for you have no exact knowledge of when and where are the gnostic texts compiled or originated. They might be copies of older works, then again they might be not(as the scholars are still debating).

I did my best to find the information online and the below is some links:

http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss.htm

http://jewish-books.net/0835606465.html

spin

Thomas is a name, almost certainly not an author.


Agreed.

Beyond your rhetoric I've already shown that we are not dealing with the celibate Essene community: we are dealing with a group which clearly makes heredity central. The leaders are sons of Zadok, sons of Aaron and sons of Levi, in that order. Such leaders are impossible for what we know of the Essenes. The Essene connection always asks people noy yo accept what the texts tell us. Trust the text before the interpreter.


There are noticeable similarities between disparate religions: some of our freethinkers often point out parallels between Christ and Krishna. Doesn't mean much. Besides we tend to see the similarities because the two we are examining share some background, touches of Judaism and airs of Platonism.

Dates are important starting conditions. They will allow you to make only certain conclusions from the data.

Besides, I find none of the gnostic mythology in the Dead Sea Scrolls.


spin

Answerer

Well, people don't call the gnostic text, 'Gospel of Thomas' if Thomas is not the author. Besides, it states in the Gospel, itself, that he was the recorder. Of course, you have the right to say everything is fake.


So? This doesn't equate to total rubbish. The debate evolving around Essene-Qumran Hypothesis is not new but so far, to my knowledge, none of the scholar had claimed it to be total crap.



Nevertheless, your argument doesn't rule out totally the possibility of a relationship, just like the similarities and relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism. The same may go for Gnosticism and Essene.


I already stated why your Date argument is flawed.

Oh really, have you read the entire Dead Scroll Sea then? Anyway, even if you do, I recommend you to read the book: Jung and the Lost Gospels: Insights into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library, before being so certain.


spin [/B][/QUOTE]

spin

I see no content to deal with, Answerer.

When you show you know somethng about the scrolls, come back.


spin

Answerer

Fine then, I see no reason to entertain your ego further.......................

Asha'man

Glad to see you are still with us.
I thought we’d demonstrated that finding motivations is actually easy. The trick is not looking for a single universal motivation, but recognizing that the story was crafted by many people over many decades (if not centuries), each with his own set of motivations.

Remember, the story wasn’t that elaborate to begin with, it just grabbed elements from surrounding mythology. Then it had decades to mature, with dozens of authors adding in their own elaborations. Take a look at any popular mythology from today, like Star Trek. The original series was in 1966, but if you walk into the scifi section of any bookstore, you can find hundreds of books set in that setting. A hundred years from now, if no record of the original series existed, all you would have would be the massive compilation of stories, and that would look equally impressive, and extremely elaborate. But would that prove we had some sort of communication from the future?

As for witnesses, don’t be fooled, they are all part of the story. Again, look at current mythology. I can claim that thousands of elves witnessed Isildur cut the One Ring from the hand of Sauron, but that doesn’t add to the truth of Sauron, or even elves!

One of the biggest issues in the historic Jesus debates is exactly how few witnesses exist. As I wrote to you before, there are no Roman witnesses of Jesus. With the exception of an apparent forgery, there are no Jewish historical witnesses either. Even the earliest Christian writings are suspiciously silent on many aspects of the story. Nobody seems to know anything substantial about Jesus until after Mark was written, and Mark is generally known to have been written in the later part of the first century! How can someone as influential as Jesus escape all notice for 50 years?

Christianity was a spectacular failure at converting Jews, I’d suspect the rate was far less than 1% for the first century the message was being spread. The only reason Christianity survived was the rapid re-targeting of the sales pitch towards non-Jews.

(Actually, I think this was a brilliant strategic maneuver, using the Jewish religion to provide false credibility. Most of the Romans knew the Jews had an old religion, and they were steadfast in sticking to it. To Romans, religions had to be old, or they had no credibility whatsoever. By selling Jesus as if he was just a new part of an old religion, they managed to defeat a major objection to the whole sales pitch.)

Jesus wasn’t actually backed by a single OT prophecy, Mark lied. We’ve had many threads on that issue here as well, perhaps you’d like to look at a few, or start a new one?

Again, glad to see you are still here, and still paying attention.


Oh, and Koyaanisqatsi, thanks for the verses on stoning, you know it’s a pet theory of mine. :notworthy:

Tortie Cat

But remember the Gospels are not historical sources in the sense we understand the term today. They are aretalogies. They were also written for a Hellenistic audience with little knowledge of Jewish law and customs.

According to the Gospels the main reason that Jesus was condemned was his blasphemy in claiming to be the Messiah, yet this term was not regarded as blasphemous by Jews at this period. The title was one of royalty not divinity. Even the term son of God was a human title applied at various times to individuals including King David. The term could simply mean human being. Hence there was no blasphemy in Jesus using this term. Nor could Jesus ever have been examined by the Sanhedrin during a festival as it did not meet during those periods.

I found this here http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/ne...hp3?artid=8530


Rabbi David Rosen, the groups director of interreligious affairs, said Baymes views were not the official AJC position concerning the trial of Jesus.
He called the Talmudic text historically dubious and questioned Baymes connecting the text with the Gospel stories, noting the actual charge against Jesus and the nature of the court is in conflict.

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, whose Talmud edition has been translated into English, Russian and Spanish, said he believed the Talmudic Jesus is probably not the Christian Jesus.

It could very well be somebody else who lived 100 or 200 years earlier because the stories don?t match the Gospel account, he said.
Rabbi Steinsaltz noted that the Hebrew name Yeshu was popular back then and that stories about the resurrection of dead leaders are a dime a dozen, before Jesus and after him. This is not a historical issue.

So it looks like the Jewish rabbis are, as ever, arguing!


TC