Agnos1

Sorry, Rhodahi, I'll go back and read more of your posts before intruding further. In general, though, you say that since most scholars "take it for granted" that Jesus was a physical reality, the onus is on those who would question this assumption to prove their claim. But it seems true historians around that time wrote a dearth of information about Jesus, and we're left to rely on writers whose intent was NOT to write history, but to sanctify their creed, borrowing fictional tales (you say to embellish) to make their characters more noble and stronger than previous heroes.

I'm curious to find out why the majority of scholars only "take for granted" something that should not need to be if it was the true core of Christianity itstelf.

Ted Hoffman

Rodahi,
Are you going to respond to my last posting? You seem more intent on game playing.
I am playing games when I ask you whether you are serious?
Look, first, you copped out claiming I have to read Mark first and reinvent the wheel. Mark is a very short gospel - 16 Chapters. I read it in 45 minutes and gave you a summary of what I believed was myth in Mark.
Then you said:
Initially, I will deal with a portion of the original posting. Hopefully, later, I will have time to address all of it.
You seem too busy because you have reneged on your promise to address the rest of it. When do you plan to do so - next month?

You have not even addressed half of it and you are accusing me of playing games?
Have you no shame at all?
I read the whole of Mark because you put me to task and when I ask you whether you are serious about your assertions you say I am playing games?
Dont you think I have a right to even ignore all your posts until you respond to everything I claimed was myth in Mark?
You have picked a quarter of it then you have the temerity to say I am playing games?!!!
You really have some nerve!

But I will indulge you anyway:

rodahi: I don't think the incident actually happened the way Mark suggested.
So its fiction like I have been saying?

1. We don't know for sure if the story uses elements from a historical event in the life of Jesus. I don't know and you don't know.
I know what 2000 swines means and I know swines dont just go to water and drown because Jesus has talked to some inexistent demon. Pigs are mammals and they dont just rush to the sea to get drowned.
I dont need to "know" whether this is historical or not - its obviously fiction.
Was there some huge pig farm near the sea (which sea is it by the way?)

2. The writer is anonymous. The name "Mark" is used only for convention. Further, he is NOT my Mark.
Used only for convention? What convention is that?
He may not be your Mark, but because you are attempting to historicize his myth, you are essentially defending his honour and thereby "his" apologist. But I will drop that "your Mark" part. Sorry.

rodahi: I do think there are historical elements present, however.
Please list them sir.

My comments are not intended to "bother" you. They merely reflect my views. You do NOT know you are "reading myth" and your dogmatic assertions prove nothing. I wonder why you continue to make them
By your own admission, healings never took place and Mark narrates events in a way they could never have a happened.

You left out a portion of my commentary and quotes. Why?
Because they were not relevant to the point I was making.

rodahi: Question: Why would a person write an account about a great fictional exorcist AND include the part about people begging him to leave their area?
This is easier than I thought. Mark 5:15 (KJV) says they were frightened. Yours says they were scared. What were they scared of? I think they were scared of the demons Jesus had sent out. They were scared that the "legion" would go into them since they had been removed from their "home" (the domoniac). In the myth, it seems demons had to "invade" another victim on leaving one for example in Mark 5:12 "The demons implored Him, saying, "Send us into the swine so that we may enter them."" And Jesus complied to their request-why?.

This means the exorcism involved "transfer" from one host to another. The people could have been afraid that Jesus could release the demons to posess others and thereby destroy "the peace".

So it makes sense the people were scared that Jesus would let the "legion" (many demons) loose on them.

This is a totally different incident. I hope you understand that.
Yes it was a different incident, but it also contradicts yours. We can conclude that exorcism scared the people because it meant change of victims (or transfer of demons) as opposed to cure
while healing was good because the disease disappeared without being transferred to another "host" and thus Jesus was popular where he healed the sick and unpopular where he exorcised.

Now, are you serious when you tell me Jesus times the storm then when it was about to stop, he told it to stop? And are you serious when you tell me that the wounds on the lepers bodies DID NOT disappear but the people nevertheless still believed the lepers were cured?

Agnos1
I'm curious to find out why the majority of scholars only "take for granted" something that should not need to be if it was the true core of Christianity itstelf.
Its pretentious and dishonest but it wins people acceptance when they are less controversial and liberal - they retain the respect from other scholars. Concensus on this issue among scholars is often for social as opposed to intellectual or academic reasons.
The way I see it, claiming there was a historical Jesus behind those myths is like claiming there was a "historical Yahweh" in the Exodus story.

rodahi

1. Yes, I think the writer of Mark was a very superstitious person. Many people of his time were demonstrably so.

2. Yes, I think it possible that many of the incidents in Mark were told to the writer. Like you, I do not KNOW for sure.

3. Yes, strange voices come out of the mouth of people who are believed to be possessed by a demon. I personally think the voice is that of the person who believes he is possessed. This is documented in countless cases (ancient and modern) of witnessed exorcisms and "possessions."

4. Yes, in some cases the "possessed" person calms down after a magician has exorcised the demon. This is documented in Mark and other cases.

5. Yes, I think Jesus' audience believed he could "cure" skin disease. A good magician could (and still can) convince a gullible, trusting audience to believe just about anything. That is not to say that Jesus used trickery. Perhaps he believed he could actually effect "cures" by driving out demons.

6. Yes, I think Jesus practiced magic. Not all magicians were/are deceivers. Some ancient Jewish magicians were considered miracle workers and healers. There is evidence suggesting that a few were looked upon with awe and respect.

7. I think that it is possible that Jesus may have on occasion commanded nature to obey him. I doubt very seriously if he always got the results he wanted, but his followers more than likely remembered his successful commands and forgot his unsuccessful ones.

8. Yes, Jesus was not always successful with his magical healing. It seems that the people who knew him best were the least impressed by his magic: "And he comes to his hometown, and his disciples follow him. When the sabbath day arrived, he started teaching in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astounded and said so: 'Where's he getting this?' and 'What's the source of all this wisdom?' and 'Who gave him the right to perform such miracles?' 'This is the carpenter, isn't it? Isn't he Mary's son? And who are his brothers, if not James and Judas and Simon? And who are his sisters, if not our neighbors?' And they were resentful of him.Jesus used to tell them: 'No prophet goes without respect, except on his home turf and among his relatives at home!'
He was unable to perform a single miracle there, except that he did cure a few by laying hands on them, though he was always shocked at their lack of trust." Mk. 6:1-6, The Complete Gospels. The magical technique of laying hands on the victim to drive away demons is very ancient. It is found in magical texts that predate Jesus by hundreds of years.
Another example of Jesus' ineffectiveness is recounted here: "They come to Bethsaida, and they bring him a blind person, and plead with him to touch him. He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village. And he spat into his eyes, and placed his hands on him, and started questioning him: 'Do you see anything?' When his sight began to come back, the first thing he said was: 'I see human figures, as though they were trees walking around.'
Then he put his hands over his eyes a second time. And he opened his eyes, and his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly." Mk. 8: 22-25, Ibid. Jesus was initially unsuccessful in his magical technique. (Spitting at or on a victim IS a magical act.) The editors of The Complete Gospels add this footnote: "The cure's initial failure and the magical aspects of the healing may explain why the other Gospel writers fail to record this story."

9. There are parallels in Jewish writings of magicians sending demons into animals. As I stated earlier, I think the story has been embellished in its retelling. (I personally DO NOT think Jesus ever sent demons into 2000 pigs.) It IS possible that Jesus did something similar to what other Jewish magicians did and the writer wrote about it.

10. I Am serious.

rodahi

I sincerely apologize if I sounded harsh. I sometimes do that inadvertantly.

I absolutely agree that there is little or no contemporary, corroborating, non-Christian historical evidence for Jesus' existence. I also agree that the extant evidence (the NT) is propaganda literature. Still, it does not necessarily follow that Jesus is mythical. Of course, he could be. I look at it this way: Is it possible that Jesus was a "nobody" during his lifetime? I think the answer is definitely YES! That being the case, it is natural that no historian alluded to him during the first century CE. (I personally think Josephus DID NOT mention Jesus of Nazareth in his historical writings. In my OPINION, all references to Jesus are Christian interpolations.) Further, just because the NT is Christian propaganda, it does not logically follow that Jesus is necessarily a fictional character. AGAIN, I recognize the fact that he could be.

In my OPINION, the writer(s) of Mark did not possess the literary skill or intellectual sophistication to CREATE out of thin air the character we know as Jesus of Nazareth. I DO think it very possible the Marcan narrative is a composite work. (Possibly, the autograph had less embellishment, but no less magic.)

One more thing: In his book A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, John P. Meier states that Jesus definitely existed. I think that he is being just as dogmatic as someone who states that Jesus is definitely a mythical character. Those who take a truly scientific approach in their study of historical documents rarely make dogmatic statements. John P. Meier has an obvious excuse--he is a Catholic priest. Those of us who are solely interested in finding out what actually happened and who actually existed in the ancient past have no excuse.

Agnos1

What, in your opinion, would it take? Compilation or otherwise, the evidence tends to suggest that myth-making is wrought out of "thin air," and then borrowed and altered over time.

Question: Are you an Agnostic? Your viewpoint seems parallel to the argument for the unknowability of God. We have the rationale to support that IF there were a god (infinite and perfect) THEN this or that would be the case of the universe and human existence, or that would be true, etc. and being of observed fact that these things are NOT the case, our rational inquiry supports the theory of "No God," yet due to the apparent "need" to leave all options open, the agnostic will dimly echo the religionist by saying "there still may exist a god, it's just not your god."

It cannot be overstated the inconsequence of whether Jesus actually lived or not. I'm not sure where your argument lies with Intensity, other than your dislike for his committed approach. It's not like he flipped a coin (nor, I presume, did you) in forming his opinion. Maybe, as an Atheist, he doesn't like straddling the fence when he deems the evidence sufficient not to do so. You admit that the NT is propaganda and that history bears mute witness to the human Jesus, yet you straddle this fence. I contend your reason must be psychological in nature, but I respect that. Opinions without emotion aren't as interesting, anyway.

Again, the inconsequence of Jesus: Even if the NT were entirely true, and all miracles performed by JC were 100% historically accurate, it would be overmagnifying our status to think that they were performed by or at the behest of the infinite deity. One should more conservatively conclude that these events were a reflection of natural (perhaps alien) intervention from no-one even remotely close to the supreme creator of the universe. In other words, local events created by local agents. The Bible is just too sick to claim otherwise.

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: Agnos1 ]

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: Agnos1 ]</p>

wordsmyth

Just to throw my $.02 in...

It seems quite common in todays society that some criminals plead insanity to escape the death penalty. Is it then reasonable to conclude the possibility that criminals during the time the gospels were written might claim "possession by demons" to escape the same fate?

It is generally accepted that some of those ancient people who allegedly suffered from "possession" were simply mentally ill, but is it possible a majority of them were simply faking it to escape being put to death for crimes they may have committed? Would this have even been an acceptable defense?

Ted Hoffman

Rodahi
2. Yes, I think it possible that many of the incidents in Mark were told to the writer. Like you, I do not KNOW for sure.
Mark does NOT say that he was told.

3. Yes, strange voices come out of the mouth of people who are believed to be possessed by a demon. I personally think the voice is that of the person who believes he is possessed. This is documented in countless cases (ancient and modern) of witnessed exorcisms and "possessions."
Links to the documented cases would be appreciated.
If its the voice of the person, why would observers think its NOT of the person? Have you been watching Scary Movie 2?

4. Yes, in some cases the "possessed" person calms down after a magician has exorcised the demon. This is documented in Mark and other cases.
You consider Mark a "documentation"?
Documented or NOT, do you believe exorcism works? In extension, do you believe people get posessed by demons?

5. Yes, I think Jesus' audience believed he could "cure" skin disease. A good magician could (and still can) convince a gullible, trusting audience to believe just about anything. That is not to say that Jesus used trickery. Perhaps he believed he could actually effect "cures" by driving out demons.
So Jesus was just a naive, man without any powers? What made the people so amazed at his deeds? Their own gullibility? What were his deeds if he was so powerless?

6. Yes, I think Jesus practiced magic. Not all magicians were/are deceivers. Some ancient Jewish magicians were considered miracle workers and healers. There is evidence suggesting that a few were looked upon with awe and respect.
So you believe some magicians do NOT deceive? Doesnt that mean you believe magic is real and NOT an act of illusion?
So if a magician actually put me in a box and sawed it into two, you would actually believe he cut me into two even after I show up alive and whole?

7. I think that it is possible that Jesus may have on occasion commanded nature to obey him. I doubt very seriously if he always got the results he wanted, but his followers more than likely remembered his successful commands and forgot his unsuccessful ones.
So, like the storm thingy, you believe its possible that he commanded it to stop and it did? How long does a storm take to stop even if his timing was good? Do the waves disappear suddenly and the winds stop?

8. Yes, Jesus was not always successful with his magical healing.
So we can say that the ones when he was successful and are recorded are of historical nature?

9. There are parallels in Jewish writings of magicians sending demons into animals.
And do you believe those "parallels" are narrating factual events?

10. I Am serious.
Glad to know this.

Is it possible that Jesus was a "nobody" during his lifetime? I think the answer is definitely YES!
What would make Mark pick this particular "nobody" out of thousands of nobodies?

Why would Mark pick a nobody and then ascribe to him things he never did?

Why would the Romans kill a nobody?

Why would the Jews want a nobody crucified?

In my OPINION, the writer(s) of Mark did not possess the literary skill or intellectual sophistication to CREATE out of thin air the character we know as Jesus of Nazareth.
By your own admission, Mark is narrating things in a way they never happened. What is your basis for underrating Marks abilities yet you admit you do not know who it was?
DO you believe the parallels found in the Homeric epics and Marks gospel are mere coincidences? If so, when do coincidences cease to be coincidences?

If there is anything historical about the Jesus story in Mark, what is it? Considering Mark doesnt even tell us whether Jesus was born etc.

Wordsmyth
It is generally accepted that some of those ancient people who allegedly suffered from "possession" were simply mentally ill, but is it possible a majority of them were simply faking it to escape being put to death for crimes they may have committed? Would this have even been an acceptable defense?
I dont think so at all. They did not have such an elaborate justice system. Those were simply insane people, unless you would like to assert that insanity is a "modern" codition.

rodahi

rodahi: In my OPINION, the writer(s) of Mark did not possess the literary skill or intellectual sophistication to CREATE out of thin air the character we know as Jesus of Nazareth.


Agnos1: What, in your opinion, would it take? Compilation or otherwise, the evidence tends to suggest that myth-making is wrought out of "thin air," and then borrowed and altered over time.

Unlike yourself, I have no need to make the narratives anything other than what they appear to be: embellished narratives about a Galilean peasant/prophet who could do magic. You and a few others here seem to be hellbent on proving they are about a mythical character. Good luck!

I don't know if they depict a fictional character or a historical personage. AND, I really do not care one way or the other. Let me put it this way: I have precisely the same interest in this issue as I would have in scrutinizing the historical evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great, Plato, Socrates, King Arthur, Confucius, Zoroaster, or Siddhartha Gautama. As I have no interest in proving the existence or non-existence of Jesus, I have no interest in proving the existence or non-existence of the persons listed above.

rodahi

Agnos1: Question: Are you an Agnostic?

I have no belief in any form of the supernatural. Specifically, I think Yahweh and all other gods are figments of the human imagination. You may put any label on me that you choose: atheist, agnostic, non-believer, secularist, etc. I personally detest labels.


Agnos1: Your viewpoint seems parallel to the argument for the unknowability of God. We have the rationale to support that IF there were a god (infinite and perfect) THEN this or that would be the case of the universe and human existence, or that would be true, etc. and being of observed fact that these things are NOT the case, our rational inquiry supports the theory of "No God," yet due to the apparent "need" to leave all options open, the agnostic will dimly echo the religionist by saying "there still may exist a god, it's just not your god."

You seem to want to find some reason why I approach the figure of Jesus in a scientific manner. Since I don't think gods exist, your psychoanalysis seems inapt. Your "parallel" is a false one. Yahweh, for example, is a god. Jesus, if he existed, was a human being. Some get caught up in thinking that Jesus was the same as "the Christ". They are not the same, nor were they ever. Jesus could have existed. Christ, as presented in the NT, could not have.

Agnos1: It cannot be overstated the inconsequence of whether Jesus actually lived or not. I'm not sure where your argument lies with Intensity, other than your dislike for his committed approach.

1. I agree. The existence of Jesus is totally "inconsequential."

2. I don't "dislike [IntenSity's]committed approach". You have missed my point. I don't like dogmatism.

Agnos1: It's not like he flipped a coin (nor, I presume, did you) in forming his opinion.

To be totally honest, I don't know what IntenSity has done to arrive at his opinion. Perhaps you know him very well. I don't. With respect to my opinion, it has come after about 25 years of hard thinking and a great deal or reading. But, as I keep saying, I prefer the scientific approach, not the dogmatic one.

Agnos1: Maybe, as an Atheist, he doesn't like straddling the fence when he deems the evidence sufficient not to do so.

I presume that atheists and non-atheists alike formulate their opinions based on what they perceive to be "evidence."

Agnos1: You admit that the NT is propaganda and that history bears mute witness to the human Jesus, yet you straddle this fence. I contend your reason must be psychological in nature, but I respect that. Opinions without emotion aren't as interesting, anyway.

1. You don't seem to understand what you are saying. Have you determined ABSOLUTELY that Jesus is mythical simply because there is little or no documentation of his existence outside of the NT? If that is the case, you are being illogical AND unscientific. You CANNOT absolutely demonstrate the non-existence of a figure using your criteria.

2. I would appreciate your refraining from being a psychoanalyst. I don't know what your training is, but I don't think you know me well enough at this point to offer a diagnosis.


Agnos1: Again, the inconsequence of Jesus: Even if the NT were entirely true, and all miracles performed by JC were 100% historically accurate, it would be overmagnifying our status to think that they were performed by or at the behest of the infinite deity.

This is irrelevant to our discussion. AGAIN, we are discussing the figure of a human Jesus, not Christ the god.

Agnos1: One should more conservatively conclude that these events were a reflection of natural (perhaps alien) intervention from no-one even remotely close to the supreme creator of the universe. In other words, local events created by local agents. The Bible is just too sick to claim otherwise.

How is this relevant to what I have been saying?

rodahi

rodahi: 2. Yes, I think it possible that many of the incidents in Mark were told to the writer. Like you, I do not KNOW for sure.

IntenSity: Mark does NOT say that he was told.

No he doesn't. OTOH, he doesn't say he made it up either.

rodahi: 3. Yes, strange voices come out of the mouth of people who are believed to be possessed by a demon. I personally think the voice is that of the person who believes he is possessed. This is documented in countless cases (ancient and modern) of witnessed exorcisms and "possessions."

IntenSity: Links to the documented cases would be appreciated.

Go to <a href="http://www.Google.com" target="_blank">www.Google.com</a> and type in "exorcisms." It is pretty simple. Or better yet, read a few books on the subject.

IntenSity: If its the voice of the person, why would observers think its NOT of the person? Have you been watching Scary Movie 2?

1. Superstitious people can be convinced of just about anything. I guess you have missed the last ten times I have stated this.
2. I am not interested in horror movies. However, you might watch The Exorcist to get an idea of what superstitious people think about the subject.

rodahi: 4. Yes, in some cases the "possessed" person calms down after a magician has exorcised the demon. This is documented in Mark and other cases.
IntenSity: You consider Mark a "documentation"?

I consider Mark to be an anonymous narrative that may or may not depict a historical personage. I thought I had stated that very clearly. FYI, the word "document" merely means "provide information."

IntenSity: Documented or NOT, do you believe exorcism works?

NO, I do not think demons exist. I have stated this numerous times. You have a knack for ignoring much of what I have written.

IntenSity: In extension, do you believe people get posessed by demons?

Great. I have yet another opportunity to state that I do not think demons exist. By extension, if demons do not exist, people damned well cannot be possessed, can they?

rodahi: 5. Yes, I think Jesus' audience believed he could "cure" skin disease. A good magician could (and still can) convince a gullible, trusting audience to believe just about anything. That is not to say that Jesus used trickery. Perhaps he believed he could actually effect "cures" by driving out demons.

IntenSity: So Jesus was just a naive, man without any powers? What made the people so amazed at his deeds? Their own gullibility? What were his deeds if he was so powerless?

AGAIN, there is historical evidence demonstrating that Jewish magicians practiced their art before, during, and after the time Jesus is said to have lived. YES, Jesus, if he existed, was probably an illiterate, superstitious Jewish man who believed he had magical powers. Apparently, he managed to convince his followers and others that he had the power to exorcise demons, etc.

rodahi: 6. Yes, I think Jesus practiced magic. Not all magicians were/are deceivers. Some ancient Jewish magicians were considered miracle workers and healers. There is evidence suggesting that a few were looked upon with awe and respect.

IntenSity: So you believe some magicians do NOT deceive? Doesnt that mean you believe magic is real and NOT an act of illusion?

Perhaps you don't see the naivete of your questions. I think it very possible that Jesus BELIEVED he had magical powers, even though he DID NOT. I think it very possible that his followers and people in Jesus' audience BELIEVED he had magical powers, even though he did not. A DECEIVER is one who knows he/she is merely practicing illusion.

IntenSity: So if a magician actually put me in a box and sawed it into two, you would actually believe he cut me into two even after I show up alive and whole?

No. I don't think magic actually works. I think that I have said that enough times now so that you don't have to ask any more.

rodahi: 7. I think that it is possible that Jesus may have on occasion commanded nature to obey him. I doubt very seriously if he always got the results he wanted, but his followers more than likely remembered his successful commands and forgot his unsuccessful ones.

IntenSity: So, like the storm thingy, you believe its possible that he commanded it to stop and it did? How long does a storm take to stop even if his timing was good? Do the waves disappear suddenly and the winds stop?

Perhaps you are a person who understands examples better than clear explanation. Here goes: Suppose a person walked out into a rainstorm and commanded the rain to stop immediately. If by CHANCE, the rain stopped suddenly, a gullible, superstitious observer MIGHT believe the person who commanded the rain to stop had magical (supernatural) powers. Obviously, the commander does not have extraordinary powers--the rain just happened to stop at precisely the appropriate moment--BUT the observer might believe he does.
Let me add that I don't believe in demons and I don't think magic actually works.

rodahi: 8. Yes, Jesus was not always successful with his magical healing.

IntenSity: So we can say that the ones when he was successful and are recorded are of historical nature?

It is possible.

rodahi: 9. There are parallels in Jewish writings of magicians sending demons into animals.

IntenSity: And do you believe those "parallels" are narrating factual events?

I think there is enough historical evidence to convince me that there were gullible, superstitious people who BELIEVED that Jewish magicians could exorcise demons. In other words, I DO NOT think that every account of a Jewish magician and his various acts is fictional. For example, if a news reporter goes to India and sees a magician performing an exorcism and the writer writes an account of the incident and he has someone tape it as well--Is he writing/taping fiction or a factual account of what he observed?

rodahi: Is it possible that Jesus was a "nobody" during his lifetime? I think the answer is definitely YES!

IntenSity: What would make Mark pick this particular "nobody" out of thousands of nobodies?

Perhaps he was a more skilled magician than most of the others AND he claimed to be a prophet.

IntenSity: Why would Mark pick a nobody and then ascribe to him things he never did?

I think a writer depicted a person he BELIEVED to have supernatural powers. Perhaps, a later writer embellished the original work.

IntenSity: Why would the Romans kill a nobody?

According to Mark, Jesus was executed next to two other NOBODYS. Obviously, all three broke some Roman law.

IntenSity: Why would the Jews want a nobody crucified?

According to Mark, Jesus was executed by the Romans, not the Jews; however, it is possible many of his Jewish brethren were put off by his antagonistic behavior.

rodahi: In my OPINION, the writer(s) of Mark did not possess the literary skill or intellectual sophistication to CREATE out of thin air the character we know as Jesus of Nazareth.

IntenSity: By your own admission, Mark is narrating things in a way they never happened.

I think it possible that the narrative contains both historical and non-historical material.

IntenSity: What is your basis for underrating Marks abilities yet you admit you do not know who it was?

How do you know that I am underating the writer's abilities? You DO NOT know who he was any more than I do. What I do is admit that I have an OPINION based on many years of thinking and reading about this very issue. I admit that I could be wrong.

IntenSity: DO you believe the parallels found in the Homeric epics and Marks gospel are mere coincidences? If so, when do coincidences cease to be coincidences?

Coincidences or not, they DO NOT prove that Jesus is a fictional character. You don't seem to understand that fact. Perhaps you can explain why only a tiny fraction of secular scholars find the "parallels" significant.