Radorth

I see. So everybody knew it, but they just put it in anyway, just to what? Fit in? How about the when Jesus says something, and his disciples get upset and leave? How about "Let the dead bury their dead."? Did that make him more popular and fit in better?

How about when he says "it is easier for a Camel to go through the eye...than for a rich man to be saved." His disciples get upset. How about when he tells you to cut off your hand rather than let it cause you to sin? Or when Peter bails out or says something stupid?

All these details are just catering to popular belief as well. How about when he calls his listeners "evil"? What myth is that from and why is it inserted? How about where John reports "his own brothers did not believe in him." What's that doing there? Why does he eat with a tax collecter whom even the common people hated?

Stick to the virgin birth and the resurrection if you want to make some kind of "pagan myth" case. The rest is manifestly real to anybody but a blind unbeliever. Either that or Shakepeare is highly overrated.

Radorth

Sojourner553

I have seen secular analyses that explain the verses you describe. To summarize this: Basically there were many different communities that interpreted Jesus differently. Some of the quotes you mention I have seen analyzed as coming from the "original" Jewish sources of Jesus (where messiah meant a special human annointed by God for special powers, similar as were given to King David.)

It was the Greeks who had a tradition of virgin births, divine saviors, a Trinity, a heaven in the sky, and the like. Jesus (believed to be a historical figure) was "interpreted" against the backdrop of this rich Greek pagan heritage. There was a major rift between Jewish and Greek Christians (with the latter winning out after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans around 66AD). {Paul's letters give important clues on this}

Later Christian apologists (primarily of Greek origin "corrected" the texts as they saw ideologically proper.

BTW: What's all this got to do with Shakespeare? Many people love Shakespeare, but last I checked no one said he was "divine" (except in the figurative sense -- like a piece of good chocolate or wine. Smile. Not the connotation I think you were after.)

More details can be found in Section I and II in
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

if you are interested, that is, in checking out how others have analyzed your verses.

Sojourner

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bede

Sojourner,

I am sorry you are finding me hard to understand. I am not going to answer test questions on demons or anything else and neither do I thing that the Enlightenment means science and rationality (I am in favour of both in their place). Your problem with me seems to be that you cannot understand why I see the world so differently to you because you think you are seeing things in the correct rational way. Somehow you think reason and argument are enough to make any reasonable person see things your way. This belief in human perfectability is a central part of the enlightenment myth and the problems have started when people wonder what to do about those who just will not let themselves be improved.

Yours

Bede

NOGO

Like so many believers you just can't think out of the box that you are in.

Take the arguement about the crucifixion that since the description is realistic then Jesus must have been crucified. Wrong!

You assume that all these sayings come from one man, Jesus. I prefer to believe that these sayings come from a group, a community, a sect. The reactions that you describe are real. They are the reactions which have been experienced by the community.

Jesus may have been the "anointed one" that the sect expected whether he was real or a myth.

Having disciples doubt is a very effect tool to reinforce faith and group fidelity because in the end they look silly.

NOGO

An interesting admission considering the following title from your site.

Welcome to Bede's Library - the alliance of faith and reason

Amen-Moses

So the author of GLuke is sat there copying GMark whilst adding in bits he made up himself and sayings from GThomas or Q and at the same time trying to make it look like he has investigated everything himself when he suddenly realises that the one place that is mentioned where people might remember JC and which is at that time also populated by Jewish scholars who can check out the story could come and shoot him in the foot. So what does he do? Easy, just claim that JC didn't do anything miraculous there, that way if anyone comes up and say's "hey I remember him, he was just an ordinary bloke" he has a get out of jail free card.

Amen-Moses

Vorkosigan

Somehow you think reason and argument are enough to make any reasonable person see things your way. This belief in human perfectability.....

There is absolutely no connection between the first and second sentence here.

wordsmyth

davidH,

I will wait until you have had a chance to respond in full before I post my reply. I know how difficult it can be to find time.

Radorth

So what are they? Just giving somebody a 50 page link to read is not an answer. And of course I can find a Phd on the web who will torture the scripture to make it say anything. (BTW, you might find your own cite interesting since it wastes Doherty's assertion that James was not the Lord's brother)

The fact is, your interpretaions are so complex and tortured, the average person will never get this esoteric, ever-selfcontradictory scholarship so you are stuck with this "myth" forever and all the "morons" who believe it. People are a lot wiser than you folks think. I believe many can smell a rat even when they cannot verbalize their objections. They know Occam's razor a priori and apply it instinctively. That's how hundreds of millions of them know Homer is a myth and the Gospels aren't. And it is not like there are no (normally skeptical) historians to back them up.

So if the Gospels fool Durant, then they are a greater story than Shakespeare ever told.

Radorth

Radorth

Don't tell me. We've moved beyond "you think in a box" and "go read this 50 page link written by my favorite scholar" and "I prefer to believe..."

OK good. So what can we reasonably conclude?

1. Jesus did not work miracles, so Luke (or whoever inserted it) knowingly lied and tried to manipulate the reader just in case.

2. Jesus did work miracles but Luke remembered someone saying he could not do many in a certain place so he said so, just in case somebody objected.

What else?

Radorth