Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 06-15-2013, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If that were the case, then why are the earliest converts to the Jesus religion, as indicated by Paul, people from Galatia, Philippi and Corinth?

They weren't. The first converts, according to the book in which we are first introduced to Paul (Acts), were Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem, there for the Feast of Weeks.

Quote:

We have no evidence for belief in Jesus prior to Paul

This is a nonsensical statement. We don't know who wrote the so-called Pauline Epistles; we don't know who wrote the four canonical Gospels; we don't know when any of the writings included in the NT were penned; we know very little about the doctrinal struggles in early Christianity. We only know who won, and which writings were decreed to be 'genuine' some time in the 4th century.

Evidence for a Jewish religious man who preached repentance to bring forward the intervention of the messiah exists.

Quote:

10. As for Yéshu the Notz'ri ["man from Notzrat"], who claimed to be the King-Messiah and was sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin [Hebrew Supreme Court] and executed—Daniyyél had already prophesied about him: "...sons of rebels among your own people will raise themselves and try to establish a 'vision'—but they will stumble" (Daniyyél 11:14). Could there be any greater deception than christianity? All the Prophets foretold that the King-Messiah will redeem and rehabilitate Yisraél, will gather together again the scattered ones and strengthen their observance of the commandments—but that one brought about only the slaughter of Yisraél by the sword and the dispersal and persecution of the remnant, tried to alter the Torah, and caused most of the World to be lured into the service of an idol instead of Adonai.

http://mordochai.tripod.com/mashiyah.html#top

Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 116a

Quote:

The blank spaces15 and the Books of the Minim16 may not be saved from a fire, but they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names occurring in them.... This is its meaning: And the Books of Minim are like blank spaces. It was stated in the text: The blank spaces and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them,17 and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand. For even if one pursued me18 to slay me, or a snake pursued me to bite me, I would enter a heathen Temple [for refuge], but not the houses of these [people], for the latter know (of God] yet deny [Him], whereas the former are ignorant and deny [Him],... Let my Name, written in sanctity, be blotted out in water,20 these, who stir up jealousy, enmity, and wrath between Israel and their Father in Heaven, how much more so;21 and of them David said, Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate then with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.22 And just as we may not rescue them from a fire, so may we not rescue them from a collapse [of debris] or from water or from anything that may destroy them.

(16) Sectarians. The term denotes various kinds of Jewish sectarians, such as the Sadducces, Samaritans, Judeo-Christians, etc., according to the date of the passage in which the term is used. The reference here is probably to the last-named. V. J.E., art. Min; Bacher in REJ. XXXVIII, 38. Rashi translates: Hebrew Bibles written by men in the service of idolatry

(23) The meeting place of early Christians where religious controversies were held (Jast.). Rashi: the books written for the purpose of these controversies; v. also Weiss, Dor, III, p. 166 and n. 13. [The meaning of Be Abedan is still obscure in spite of the many and varied explanations suggested; e.g., (a) House of the Ebionites; (b) Abadan (Pers.) ‘forum’; (c) Beth Mebedhan (Pers.) ‘House of the chief Magi’; v. Krauss's Synagogale Altertumer, p. 31].

aa5874 · 06-15-2013, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Even if it were provable that pre-70 Roman Christians were "Gnostics, worshipers of the cosmic Chrestus," it's still a Christ cult in Rome prior to 70.
It would be an amazing coincidence if a cosmic Christ cult arose in Rome independent of a later "terrestrial" Christ cult in Judea.

I wouldn't say that Christianity was purely Hellenistic, but by that time everybody was "Hellenized" anyway. I think they were a later generation of people whose parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents had converted to the Judean religion in the previous century. Their forebears worshipped YHWH in temples in the diaspora, but they weren't ethnic Jews. Over time, rifts developed between the ethnically Jewish Kohenim and Hasidim and their Gentile converts, resulting in some Gentiles leaving and starting their own form of Judaism. This all happened long before the fall of the temple.

Your story is completely based on imaginative fiction. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jews were members of the Jesus cult at any time between the 1st and 4th century.

In fact, Apologetics claimed the Jews did NOT acknowledge the Advent of any character called Jesus Christ up to the 4th century and claim that Christians did not understand Jewish Scripture and openly Break the Laws of the Jews.

Eusebius "Preparation of the Gospel

Quote:

.....But sons of the Hebrews also would find fault with us, that being strangers and aliens we misuse their books, which do not belong to us at all, and because in an impudent and shameless way, as they would say, we thrust ourselves in, and try violently to thrust out the true family and kindred from their own ancestral rights.

For if there was a Christ divinely foretold, they were Jewish prophets who proclaimed His advent, and also announced that He would come as Redeemer and King of the Jews, and not of alien nations: or, if the Scriptures contain any more joyful tidings, it is to Jews, they say, that these also are announced, and we do not well to misunderstand them.

Moreover they say that we very absurdly welcome with the greatest eagerness the charges against their nation for the sins they committed, but on the other hand pass over in silence the promises of good things foretold to them; or rather, that we violently pervert and transfer them to ourselves, and so plainly defraud them while we are simply deceiving ourselves.

But the most unreasonable thing of all is, that though we do not observe the customs of their Law as they do, but openly break the Law, we assume to ourselves the better rewards which have been promised to those who keep the Law...

The Jews were not ever involved in the Jesus cult up to at least the 4th century.

Toto · 06-15-2013, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...

Evidence for a Jewish religious man who preached repentance to bring forward the intervention of the messiah exists.

http://mordochai.tripod.com/mashiyah.html#top

Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 116a

..

The Talmud appears to be based on a reaction to Christianity, not to a particular Jewish man. (See Frank Zindler's book on The Jesus the Jews Never Knew (or via: amazon.co.uk).)

Iskander · 06-15-2013, 10:57 AM

In the 18 benedictions of the Amidah a curse was inserted which was directed against the Jewish Christians.

Quote:

12. MINIM (SHOVER OYVIM U-MAKHNIA ZEDIM): "And once judgment has been performed on the wicked, then there will be an end to the heresy [minut], including the malicious [zedim], as it is said (Yeshayahu 1) 'And the sinners and the transgressors are together shattered.'"

The inclusion of number 12, the blessing (really it is a kind of curse) regarding the heretics, is an anachronism in this passage since it was not arranged by the 120 elders but was added only much later with the unfortunate schism of Jews who attended synagogue but were really believers in Christianity

http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/mb/63mb.htm

It is easier for me to believe in the existence of a Jewish religious man who lived his life in an alien society 2000 years ago than in the alternative explanations I have read.

Clivedurdle · 06-15-2013, 02:09 PM

Quote:

outrageous myths.

The xian myths are actually quite boring and middle of the road compared with their Greek ancestors! Marrying sisters, fights for supremacy of the heavens, trying to rescue loves from hades...

spin · 06-15-2013, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Jews were not among the early Christians.

There is a series called Jewish Believers in Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) which is the result of a long-term academic inquiry into this very subject. Christianity was demonstrably a Jewish cult at its inception.

If that were the case, then why are the earliest converts to the Jesus religion, as indicated by Paul, people from Galatia, Philippi and Corinth?

They weren't the earliest. You know what Paul says in Galatians about the Jewish believers preceding his conversion.

Well, I do.

But tell me TedM, Jewish believers in what? I was quite explicit about what I was talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Why did Apollos, who was preaching the religion of John and thus speaking, as christians believed, about Jesus truly, need to be taken aside and corrected?

We don't know what Apollos preached. You are making assumptions that may not be true. The passage, as we talked about the other day, may have been referring to his emphasis on water (John's) baptism, not knowing of the 'baptism of the Holy Spirt'. Anyway, an early Jewish cult of Christianity, with a hub in Judea, doesn't require that every Jew in the Roman empire, esp one from Alexandria, knows everything that the cult knew.

He was preaching John's baptism, not that of Jesus, just as those in Jerusalem were selling torah practice, unaware that Jesus had fulfilled the torah. For christians the coming messiah is Jesus, so, given the indications of Apollos's connection to John, ie knowing John's baptism, he would have taught as we see in the mouth of John in the gospels, and thus was talking accurately about Jesus from a christian perspective. He just needed an upgrade from Priscilla and Aquila.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

We can see a Johannine religion, which was a species of messianism. Paul admits, when he was still adherent to conservative Judaism, to having hassled messianists. But when he had his revelation concerning Jesus, he went to Jerusalem to speak with the Jewish messianists, who showed no apparent interest in his new theology. They parted amicably, but Paul later took the opportunity to repudiate Cephas for his lack of adherence to Jewish practices unless browbeaten by agents of James. These guys certainly didn't follow the teachings of Jesus, when he was made say he fulfilled the law and it wasn't necessary any more. Nobody apparently told the Jerusalem messianists. So Paul turned his back and proselytized in Anatolia and Greece.

We have no evidence for belief in Jesus prior to Paul, so what really makes anyone think that the earliest Jesus believers were Jewish??

Paul says the 'messianists' had the same faith that Paul had. Surely that included the resurrection of Jesus, as Paul would never made such a statement. IF not, what do you think Paul was talking about in Gal 1:?

Note how Paul only talks about "christ" in 1:4-10? Paul had become a messianist, so here he is selling messianism, though he never indicates what their theology is, only his.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.

Surely these were the earliest Jewish Christians, no?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.

Where are the Jesus believers talked about? Yup, that's right: nowhere. You only get Jesus when Paul is talking to the Galatians.

James The Least · 06-15-2013, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

This is open to all views with regard to history and the Bible and Jesus, with the one assumption that it Jews were among the early believers:

I'm curious what the main 1 or 2 reasons is that Christianity took hold among early JEWS.

What did the Jews respond to, and why?

Jews were not among the early Christians.

There is a series called Jewish Believers in Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) which is the result of a long-term academic inquiry into this very subject. Christianity was demonstrably a Jewish cult at its inception.

Really? Can you briefly summarize what the authors' main arguments are for that conclusion? And do they acknowledge the ambiguity that the term "Judean" had in antiquity?

James The Least · 06-15-2013, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

"Jewish" Christianity proposed that God could have a baby. That alone was a radical departure from all precedents in Judaism. Second, "Jewish" Christianity proposed that God's baby could be killed. More radical. Third, "Jewish" Christianity proposed that God's baby could be killed by Jews. That is so radical, that's impossible to believe Jews could have conceived of it.

Nonsense. First-century Diaspora Judaism was already heavily Hellenized, with all sorts of 'pagan' elements creeping into Judaism (as evidenced by Rabbinic writings of the time, generally referred to by the term Talmud, but including the Mishnah and Shulhan Arokh, among others). Gematria, Kabbalah, and any number of oral traditions had already gone way off the rails. The idea that Messiah would be born of YHWH was undeniably weird as hell, but no weirder than any number of other fringe ideas being embraced by various Jewish cults of the time.

Well, I agree it was Hellenized -- everything in Near East was by the first century BCE. Sure, there were a lot of weird ideas, but the idea that God could have a baby that would be murdered by the Judaioi was not one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

That Messiah could be killed was an idea which pre-dates Christianity by at least a century, if not more. There are references to the "suffering servant" Messiah Ben Joseph concept in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as in the Talmud. One line of thought was that there would be two Messiahs, because the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh are so varied and contradictory that it seems impossible for one person to fulfill them all.

Where exactly does it say that the Messiah was (a) a baby produced by the pneuma of YHWH impregnating a peasant girl, and (b) said baby would be killed by the Judaioi? Not the suffering servant of Isaiah -- the dead baby of YHWH and a human mother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

As for the idea that the Jews killed their Messiah, this is a perfect explanation for why YHWH would allow the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. Clearly, the Jews must have done something to annoy YHWH - and the OT makes it pretty clear that annoying YHWH always leads to ugly consequences for the Jews. It makes perfect sense that one group among the Diaspora Jews would have latched onto such an explanation.

Except that the book you just cited presumably thinks that the Jesus cult started in Judea before the fall of the Temple. Which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

It makes even more sense when you recognize that there was a widely-held belief that Messiah would come and overturn the Roman rule. In fact, the events which precipitated the destruction of the Temple were motivated at least in part by the belief that Messiah would arise to lead the Jews to victory. And since many OT prophecies place Messiah in the Temple, its destruction would mean that either A) Messiah could not come until the Temple was rebuilt, or B) Messiah had already come, but had not been recognized.

There is no way of knowing if there was "a widely-held belief that Messiah would come and overturn the Roman rule." There were no Gallup Polls done in those days. Life under Roman rule seemed to be pretty good, according to Josephus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Since there was a proliferation of Messainic wannabes during the Roman occupation, there were any number of candidates available for those who thought Messiah might have already come. The Jesus stories might well be based on a compilation of many such wannabes.

It's not that random. The Jesus mythology is highly organized in Mark. Mark is not so stupid as to rely on oral history. He is self-consciously composing sacred literature, or trying to.

James The Least · 06-15-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

.. The argument for an ethnically Jewish origin of the Jesus cult in Palestine would be supportable by early Aramaic/Hebrew gospels, but of course nothing like that exists. The mere fact that early Christian apologists had to invent lies about Matthew et al. "translating from Hebrew" shows how insecure they were about somebody exposing their outrageous myths.

What little I know of the subject indicates that this is a debated area, and there were texts (Gospel of the Nazerenes, for ex) for which support of Aramaic or Hebrew origin exists.

Yes, Eusebius and Jerome cite a text they call "The Gospel According to the Hebrews," which modern scholars refer to as "The Gospel of the Nazareans."
They both state that it was written "in Hebrew letters," but then Jerome also says it was written in Syriac with Hebrew letters (whatever that means). Origen refers to it as well but makes no note that it was written in Hebrew.

So, yes, this could be a Jewish gospel. Or, it could be a Syriac gospel. Or it could be a Judean God-Fearer gospel. It's striking that none of the church fathers placed any importance on the priority of this Hebrew gospel; quite the contrary. They considered it a derivative, later text written by heretics.

I am under the impression that it is more than just the claims of numerous Church Fathers, including Papias, that support an early text of aramaic origin. The few quotations Jerome gave, I thought, are considered to support the claim to having Aramaic origins.

You sure about the claim of a later text? Heretical, yes, but later? I thought they rejected it because of its adherence to Mosiac law--something consistent with an early Jewish-Christian Nazarene sect.

The first person to refer to it is Origen in the early 200s.

Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome don't give a reason why they reject this gospel.
It's not part of the four that they recognize as canonical, so it seems that was enough.

Davka · 06-15-2013, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If that were the case, then why are the earliest converts to the Jesus religion, as indicated by Paul, people from Galatia, Philippi and Corinth?

They weren't. The first converts, according to the book in which we are first introduced to Paul (Acts), were Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem, there for the Feast of Weeks.

Quote:

We have no evidence for belief in Jesus prior to Paul

This is a nonsensical statement. We don't know who wrote the so-called Pauline Epistles; we don't know who wrote the four canonical Gospels; we don't know when any of the writings included in the NT were penned; we know very little about the doctrinal struggles in early Christianity. We only know who won, and which writings were decreed to be 'genuine' some time in the 4th century.

Evidence for a Jewish religious man who preached repentance to bring forward the intervention of the messiah exists.

Not really. The Talmudic references you cite were written at least a century (more likely three centuries) after the Diaspora, and refer to the claims made by Christianity, not to any firsthand knowledge of a Jewish messianic figure.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.