Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sojourner553 · 03-28-2002, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:

How do you distinguish contextualisers and content bearing phrases, assuming for a moment that they both have been interpolated at the same time. You can't have a sudden "And he was the messiah" thrown in without context, so when we remove the "And he was the messiah" from the text what we have may easily be contextualisation and you have no way of determining whether it is or not. This should be clear and anyone thinking that they can assign percentages to such things are simply kidding themselves, ie I don't think you should believe such specious crap![/QB]

When was does imply this technique, what one finds is I think an objective description originally written by Josephus that really describes what happened.

This is from the Slavic text -- and I am removing the obvious interpolations. It sounds right on the mark to me as to who was the REAL Jesus: Jesus was arrested for revolutionary activity. His teachings were causing unrest among the people and the Jewish authorities took the matter to Pilate to save themselves in case there was a Jewish revolt. Pilate actually let him go the first time. But Jesus did not stop, and the next time he was crucified. His followers were commoners. The rumor spread that he had come back to life and was about to lead them out of slavery from Roman rule. [the mystery religions gave people a lot of ideas--this still reminds me of the hysteria in the sightings of Elvis following his death.]

Here is the text, with the obvious interpolations removed. I still disagree with you there is no value here. What remains below could not have been written by a Christian!
__________________________________________

Many of the common people flocked after him and followed his teaching. There was a wave of excited expectation that he would enable the Jewish tribes to throw off the Roman yoke. As a rule he was to be found opposite the City on the Mount of Olives, where also he healed the sick. He gathered round him 150 assistants and masses of followers. They told him that they wanted him to enter the City, destroy the Roman troops, and make himself king; but he took no notice. [ok some fuzziness here]

When the suggestion came to the ears of the Jewish authorities, they met under the chairmanship of the high priest and exclaimed: "We are utterly incapable of resisting the Romans; but as the blow is about to fall we'd
better go and tell Pilate what we've heard, and steer clear of trouble, in case he gets to know from someone else and confiscates our property, puts us to death, and turns our children adrift." So they went and told Pilate, who sent troops and butchered many of the common people. He then had the Miracle-worker brought before him, held an inquiry. Then he let him go.

Returning to his usual haunts he resumed his normal work. When the crowds grew bigger than ever, he earned by his actions an incomparable
reputation. [ok a little fuzziness here too] So they seized him and crucified him in defiance of all Jewish tradition.

In the time of Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander many of the Miracle-worker's followers came forward and declared to the adherents of their master that, although he had died, he was now alive and would free them from their slavery. Many of the common people listened to their preaching and accepted their call--not because they were men of mark, for they were working men, some only shoemakers, others cobblers, others labourers.

Seeing the unsettlement of the people, these excellent procurators decided after consulting the scribes to arrest the men and put them to death, for fear that the movement, though of no consequences at the moment, might end in a major upheaval. So they gave the men complete freedom of action. Later, however, they were persuaded by the scribes to send them to Rome or Antioch to be tried, banishing others to distant countries. (R.T. HERFORD, CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD AND MIDRASH (NEW YORK: KTAV, 1903), p 37, quoted by JESUS OUTSIDE THE GOSPELS, R. Joseph Hoffman, (Prometheus Books) 1984, pp55-9

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Sojourner553 · 03-28-2002, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:


According to me it is impossible for protestants to get to heaven which does not mean that they are bad people, but just that they are wrong about their religion. So I am one of those Catholics who doesn't go to Church much but likes to defend his religion.

Oh. I guess you see no conflict that good people (Protestants) don't make it to heaven ONLY because they were born into the wrong religion.

What I am referring to is that something like 98% of people stay in the religion they were born in (except during periods of major war upheavals.) This means who goes to heaven (per your logic) is very largely dependant on what family they were born into.

I flip flip sometimes between deism and atheism. People like you (your logic, not you personally) make me think the latter has the higher virtue.

As Mark Twain once irreverently put it,
"Heaven for climate, hell for society."

Sojourner

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

spin · 03-28-2002, 07:37 PM

Sojourner:
--------------
I am removing the obvious interpolations (from Josephus)
--------------

You may, but that doesn't change my complaint. If you want to interpolate Jesus, you have to have a context to do so. If there is none you have to supply one.

Sojourner:
--------------
What remains below could not have been written by a Christian! (bowdlerizing the naughty interpolation in Josephus)
--------------

That's like me saying the Jews wouldn't have written such unflattering things about themselves in the old testament, but they did. Modernist value judgement arguments are worthless. You have to deal with the text, not the baggage you bring to it.

NOGO · 03-28-2002, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Jamie_L
Is there a prevailing theory among those who think this way as to what motivated those who created Christianity? Did they actually believe what they were inventing? Was it done with ulterior motives by people who knew they were creating a fabrication? Some combination of both (exaggeration by believers, etc.)

I tend to believe that what we have in the NT is a mix. Jesus was supposed to be everything to everyone. Anointed one of God (ie Christ), saviour of the world, lamb of God, son of God, King of Israel, son of David.

Perhaps a man did exist who claimed the throne of David. He was anointed by John the Baptist and his purpose was to save Israel from Roman occupation. He was killed. End of story.

This story was picked up or perhaps confused with a Jewish eschatological sect's beliefs. After the fall of Israel at the hands of the Romans things got very confused and Christianity emerged as a combination of a mythical story and a real-life story.

These early Christians believed that the end of the world was at hand and therefore analysis of what actually happened did not seem important.

This is vague but it does show that you don't need a major conspiracy theory as to why someone would create Christianity.

03-29-2002, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:


What I am referring to is that something like 98% of people stay in the religion they were born in (except during periods of major war upheavals.) This means who goes to heaven (per your logic) is very largely dependant on what family they were born into.

That's about it. Predestination and the mystery of salvation unfolding despite our efforts to the contrary, as in Jn.21:18.

"I tell you solemly:
as a young man
you fastened your belt
and went about as you pleased;
but when you are older
you will stretch out your hands,
and another will tie you fast
and carry you off against your will."

Sojourner553 · 03-29-2002, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:

That's about it. Predestination and the mystery of salvation unfolding despite our efforts to the contrary, as in Jn.21:18.

Then who are you serving God or a Devil?

Here is an item I wrote yesterday under Moral Foundations and Principles under "Why is Atheism Bad and Theism Good?"

Please answer this thought experiment for me...

*******************************************

If say a "bad" Devil took power over a "good" God and was now the most powerful being in the universe, would it be a Christian's moral duty to obey him--

ie the "Devil"-- as master of the universe.

I would choose to help out the good guy (or the good God in this example) even if it not only did NOT gain me anything, but harmed me as well. I do not see many of my Christian friends following me into this -- they are always promised any sacrifice they make now will ALWAYS be rewarded with a long life in heaven?

This to me smacks of greed, a less pure or noble motive -- than the desire to do what is best, even if it gets you nothing (or worse).

Your thoughts?

*****************************************
There probably needs to be some biblical discussion here to stay on this board. I will interject some here to give you some background to the subject:

The British author J. R,
Ackerley once wrote to a friend,

"I am halfway through GENESIS, and quite appalled by the disgraceful
behavior of all the characters involved, including God."

Mark Twain wrote on his reading of the Bible,

"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me,
it is the parts that I do understand."

There are a number of verses where God is NOT always portrayed as acting in a kind, or
humanitarian way. Indeed there are some Old Testament verses which define God in BOTH terms of good AND evil. Take the following verses from the Old Testament,

* "I form the light, and create the darkness: I make peace, and create
evil: I the Lord do all these things". (Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)--The RSV
Bible softens this last sentence somewhat, translating it as "I make
weal and create woe, I am the Lord, who do all these things".)

* "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his
people". (Exodus 32:14 KJV)

Sojourner

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Sojourner553 · 03-29-2002, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:

That's like me saying the Jews wouldn't have written such unflattering things about themselves in the old testament, but they did. Modernist value judgement arguments are worthless. You have to deal with the text, not the baggage you bring to it.[/QB]

But these �unflattering� statements in the Old Testament are of a totally different nature:

* Hebrew writers did trace their ancestry from slaves not kings. These same hebrew writers also stressed humility in relation of man to God. Prophets in Judges could be anyone � including the poor and ignorant; later priests did have to belong to an elite group (Levites) so this evolved. My point is that there was an older tradition of egalitarianism, even praise for the poor. One can also see this strand in the tradition that David was originally a commoner who became king.

* A minority of hebrews did show righteous indignation at their fellow countrymen � declaring them wicked by comparison. This is no different that the condemnations hurled by the far right today at the general populace.

This does not compare with what one finds in the Josephus� account:

�Seeing the unsettlement of the people, these EXCELLENT procurators decided after consulting the scribes to arrest the men and put them to death, for fear that the movement, THOUGH OF NO CONSEQUENCES AT THE MOMENT, MIGHT END IN A MAJOR UPHEAVEL (ie revolt).

No Christian would call their persecutors �excellent procurators�, that their movement had "no consequences of the moment" and explain that the reason they were attacked was purely because the officials were afraid the common people might start a revolt.

-- First this terminology ("excellent procurators") is very similar to what Josephus� employed in his other writings.

-- Could you explain how a christian could claim their movement had "no consequences of the moment". Believing in Jesus in just the last second of your life is supposed to get you a ticket for eternal life and bliss in heaven. If there was only one common thread throughout all the Christian sects -- this is it!

-- I have seen analyses how the earliest Christians/gospel writers employed a number of gimmicks to �prove� Jesus was not a revolutionary, and therefore NOT responsible for the Jewish revolt of AD 69. Everyone was slavishly proclaiming their �loyalty� to the victorious Roman Empire. The Christians were desperate not to be considered revolutionaries as their leader had the embarrassing background of being a Jew in Palestine, home of the revolt.

A discussion of this can be found in <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MARKBG.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MARKBG.TXT</a>
Also: Section I chapters 8, 9 at <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

I agree with you that taking out the OBVIOUS INTERPOLATIONS does not give one 100% accuracy, but I think it can get one in the range of 70-95%.

Sojourner

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Sojourner553 · 03-29-2002, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:


I tend to believe that what we have in the NT is a mix. Jesus was supposed to be everything to everyone. Anointed one of God (ie Christ), saviour of the world, lamb of God, son of God, King of Israel, son of David.

Perhaps a man did exist who claimed the throne of David. He was anointed by John the Baptist and his purpose was to save Israel from Roman occupation. He was killed. End of story.

This story was picked up or perhaps confused with a Jewish eschatological sect's beliefs. After the fall of Israel at the hands of the Romans things got very confused and Christianity emerged as a combination of a mythical story and a real-life story.

These early Christians believed that the end of the world was at hand and therefore analysis of what actually happened did not seem important.

This is vague but it does show that you don't need a major conspiracy theory as to why someone would create Christianity.

I think you are right on.

"During the times of Jesus Christ, the majority of people in the ancient
world believed in the presence of divine powers within nature! The ancient
Greeks, believed that some gods sent diseases and catastrophes on mankind,
while other gods would help men by teaching them cures. Almost everyone
believed that astrologers, augurers, sorcerers, and readers of animal entrails
could also tap into the "divine" forces operating in the realm of this world,
to prophecise the future."

...

"Since it was a common belief in the ancient world that divine forces were
at work in man's daily life, the CHALLENGE for early Christians was to
convince pagans and Jews that the SOURCE of good powers came from the "true"
God--in the form of a Trinity whose other two members were Jesus the Son,
and the Holy Ghost. All other powers not from God, were from demons or the
devil."

For a discussion that shows how the miracles of Jesus were borrowed from older sources, I would recommend this site:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT</a>

also, Section II, Chaper 5 at

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

Sojourner

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

03-29-2002, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:

Then who are you serving God or a Devil?

Neither, but the pursuit of happiness. If you seek pleasure you do it not to please the devil but to please your senses. If you seek to please God and sacrifice yourself you do it not to please God but your egocentric idea of God. Such is all vanity. In protestant theology may be argued that the pursuit of pleasure is to serve the devil but not so in Catholic theology.

Notice that in the passage I cited a freedom to seek pleasue was first ("you fastened your belt" to secure your share of happiness in the form of power wealth and beauty). This period is called the involutionary period.

After this, an involuntary surrender allows the inner man to take charge and do with you, the outer man, as it wills. This period is called the evolutionary period. 

If say a "bad" Devil took power over a "good" God and was now the most powerful being in the universe, would it be a Christian's moral duty to obey him-- ie the "Devil"-- as master of the universe.

I would choose to help out the good guy (or the good God in this example) even if it not only did NOT gain me anything, but harmed me as well. I do not see many of my Christian friends following me into this -- they are always promised any sacrifice they make now will ALWAYS be rewarded with a long life in heaven?

This to me smacks of greed, a less pure or noble motive -- than the desire to do what is best, even if it gets you nothing (or worse).

Your thoughts? 

I see your point and agree that "to do good" for rewards in eternity removes the goodness of the act and transforms it into selfserving idealism. This is shown in the bible with Mt.10:40 and many more places. But don't call all 'Christians' bad because many will do good for the sake of goodness itself. You are nitpicking because there is far greater evil they serve which is calling themselves "Christians" first and then 'haul ass' to live up to it. This removes the very chance of salvation for them and turns a life of love into a life of slavery towards that image they made of themself.

*****************************************
There probably needs to be some biblical discussion here to stay on this board. I will interject some here to give you some background to the subject:

The British author J. R,
Ackerley once wrote to a friend,

"I am halfway through GENESIS, and quite appalled by the disgraceful
behavior of all the characters involved, including God."

Mark Twain wrote on his reading of the Bible,

"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me,
it is the parts that I do understand."

That just shows that Ackerley and Mark Twain did not know what they were talking about. It is stupid to call something wrong if you don't understand what it means.

There are a number of verses where God is NOT always portrayed as acting in a kind, or
humanitarian way. Indeed there are some Old Testament verses which define God in BOTH terms of good AND evil. Take the following verses from the Old Testament,

* "I form the light, and create the darkness: I make peace, and create
evil: I the Lord do all these things". (Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)--The RSV
Bible softens this last sentence somewhat, translating it as "I make
weal and create woe, I am the Lord, who do all these things".)

* "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his
people". (Exodus 32:14 KJV)

Here you go wrong in failing to distinguish between God and Lord God. Find me a passage where God repented or created evil and we'll talk again.
God is first cause, Lord God is second cause and like god is third cause. Lord God repents to coexist with like-god and rightfull so.

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-29-2002, 04:09 PM

Amos, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're a whack-job, but I love ya'!

Just when I think you couldn't possibly come up with another "amosism," BAM! There it is.

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

03-28-2002, 07:37 PM	#33
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Sojourner: -------------- I am removing the obvious interpolations (from Josephus) -------------- You may, but that doesn't change my complaint. If you want to interpolate Jesus, you have to have a context to do so. If there is none you have to supply one. Sojourner: -------------- What remains below could not have been written by a Christian! (bowdlerizing the naughty interpolation in Josephus) -------------- That's like me saying the Jews wouldn't have written such unflattering things about themselves in the old testament, but they did. Modernist value judgement arguments are worthless. You have to deal with the text, not the baggage you bring to it.

03-29-2002, 04:09 PM	#40
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Amos, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're a whack-job, but I love ya'! Just when I think you couldn't possibly come up with another "amosism," BAM! There it is.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.