Freethought & Rationalism Archive

James The Least · 06-14-2013, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

Belief in the coming of a Messiah (Mashiakh) by the Jews of 1st c. Palestine was pretty widespread. Yes, there were the prophecies, not only of Malachi, which the Synoptics refer to re. John the Baptist, as well as Isaiah, (Chapter2) who claimed that the messiah would bring all Jews together polically and create world peace. Along with this, I think you also have to consider the recent events in Palestine-the fall of the very popular Maccabees, who founded the Hasmonean Dynasty that ruled over Judea for 100 years in the 1st and second c. BCE.

Pompey defeated the Hasmoneons in 64 BCE, and the Romans ended the Dynasty 27 years later when they installed the Edomite, Herod the Great. While Herod claimed to be a Jew, he was not accepted by the people as such and as a result there was a great deal of unrest. Under pressure from the Romans to keep his people in line Herod married into the Maccabees (a fascinating story in itself), and due to his jealousy over their popularity ended up having them killed. The reason I think all this is significant is because I think it's important to understand that along with the prophecies we have the extreme disappointment in the end of the Hasmoneans making the Jews of Palestine even more desperate for a savior, who turned out to be not Jesus, but instead Simon Bar Kokhba, in the 2nd c., and that didn't work out too well for them. In the interim we have Paul and the split between the Christian Jews from the mainstream Jews.

We have no idea how widespread the belief/hope of a savior was among the Jews of the Judean province. But that's beside the point anyway, since even if you could prove Christianity was ethnically Jewish, the fact that they solely relied upon Greek translations points to diaspora Judaism outside of Judea. 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.

James The Least · 06-14-2013, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

The question that really needs to be examined has a different nuance than what you present, Ted. We need to ask to what extent Christianity actually arose among Jews, and what was the form of it in its initial stage. There is a huge difference between the idea that Jews in Jerusalem responded to a preaching, miracle-working sage and came to take his disciples' word for it that he had walked out of his grave and was consequently the redeemer of the world (all of which enjoys no evidence in the entire epistolary record, in contrast to the 2nd century Acts) and the idea that some Jews in Hellenistic influenced milieus, with many gentiles taking part as well, were persuaded that God had a Son along Logos lines and that scripture revealed activities of that Son in the heavenly realm.

Your "among Jews" really needs to be defined and analyzed first. (My apologies if that has been done in subsequent postings in this thread.)

Earl Doherty

Yes, that problem became clearer as the postings unfolded. I am persuaded by the evidence that Christianity began with the Jews, and that it began in Jerusalem, and spread among Jews who lived far away. Gentile conversions came slightly later. I think Acts, Paul's epistles, and the secular references provide fairly strong evidence for this being accurate. Even if the sequence is wrong, we can still be confident that many Jews believed, and resided in Jerusalem itself, which was the location of its earliest leaders.

I wonder what those Jews were responding to, and why. What started Christianity among them? A few visions? A story? What NEED was being met that enabled them to adopt such a radically different belief system from their own native Judiasm?

You're asking good questions. You're just making unnecessary assumptions.

The need was for a Judaism-like religion among Gentiles. Greeks and Romans had outgrown their gods; Stoicism was an elitist religion, etc. But they did not want to mutilate their genitals in order to preach. They did not want to obey weird dietary laws. They did not want to be subservient to a hereditary Jewish priesthood. But Greeks and Romans did want to possess the Bible and the religion that was attached to it. Not a lot initially, but it slowly grew.

James The Least · 06-14-2013, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

I can't help but wonder why Greeks or Romans would invent a religion in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century that would be centered around a 1st century Jew.

I just explained why.

James The Least · 06-14-2013, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

I just skimmed the thread, so I apologize if this has already been posted.

In 70 AD, the Second Temple was destroyed (along with much of Jerusalem), and the vast majority of the Jews were driven from Israel. Suddenly there was a vacuum of sorts in Judaism - without the Temple, how could the Jews follow the Law, which requires regular Temple sacrifices? With no Temple, what did YHWH require of them now - and why would he allow the Temple to be destroyed?

It's believed that the majority of ethnic Jews actually lived outside of Judea at the time of the first Roman war. The diaspora living in Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Rome and so on only visited the Temple during passover, if then. So, if this estimate is correct, the majority of ethnic Jews were not terribly concerned with what was going on in Jerusalem in the first century. Nor do we know how many would have interpreted the Roman destruction as being "allowed" by YHWH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Jewish Christianity was seriously diverging from OT Judaism by saying that YHWH had put an end to Temple sacrifice via a single human sacrifice. This idea is anathema to any OT adherent. Add to this the fact that Jewish Christians decided to allow Gentiles into their cult, and it was inevitable that Christianity would cease to be a Jewish religion at all within a very short time.

"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.

It's easier to believe that there never was such a thing as "Jewish" Christianity. Quite the opposite -- only Gentiles, seeking to slander Jews, could have even thought of the concept of "the Jews killed Lord Jesus."

Ethnic Jews also allowed Gentiles into Judaism. It was a missionary religion trying to convert people to YHWH. So there was nothing radical about "Jewish Christians" doing the same much later in time, even if there was such a thing as a Jewish Christian.

outhouse · 06-14-2013, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Obviously, it started as a vision of a Savior figure, growing out of the context of earlier Jewish beliefs about two powers in heaven, god, and an intermediary figure. I suspect that it started in the Diaspora among the God-fearers and not among Jews proper, though perhaps that is only where it found a hearing, and of course, among the Gentiles. As Earl argues, the early prophets were those who had been vouchsafed a vision of Jesus, a bit of a problem if you wanted to sustain an orthodoxy. When the Church began developiing its current Leninist structure in the 2-3rd centuries, it eliminated the whole idea of direct contact with Jesus as a legitimizing experience.

Yes, I think you're right. But the God-fearers initially did consider themselves Judeans -- followers of the YHWH religion and the prophets.

And Gate Keepers

And many of the unnamed sects of Proselytes

TedM · 06-14-2013, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...

.. The widely held belief in 12 disciples, all martyred for their faith, and rapid spread of Christianity, to most people is a FACT beyond dispute. Those that hear otherwise may reject their faith. So they THINK they are well-informed and assume those living 2000 years ago were even more -- greatly more informed.

But we know, because Rodney Stark went through the numbers, that Christianity did not spread any more rapidly that modern new religions. And the stories about 12 disciples martyred for their faith cannot be verified, and have no particular value in any case (look at all the Islamic suicide bombers - do you ask why they would die for a lie?)

So you are saying that these Christians are delusional.

No, I'm saying that very few modern day Christians have even heard the SUGGESTION that Christianity spread slowly and that the disciples weren't martyred. It is widely believed to be beyond dispute.

TedM · 06-14-2013, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

I can't help but wonder why Greeks or Romans would invent a religion in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century that would be centered around a 1st century Jew.

I can't help but wonder why Greeks or Roman would invent a story about Jesus Christ and claimed he was born AFTER his mother became pregnant by a Ghost. See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.35.

If they wanted to make people believe Jesus was human why did they claim his father was a Holy Ghost?

It is clear that the Jesus story started without a human Jesus. Virtually every Jesus cult writer who mentioned the birth of Jesus admitted he was the Product of a Ghost.

I"ve never understood why you take this view. The early belief was that God became a human. How can that happen? One answer that makes sense to some is that God impregnated a human woman. The question is WHY did early Christianity want to believe that God had become a human being?

aa5874 · 06-14-2013, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Obviously, it started as a vision of a Savior figure, growing out of the context of earlier Jewish beliefs about two powers in heaven, god, and an intermediary figure. I suspect that it started in the Diaspora among the God-fearers and not among Jews proper, though perhaps that is only where it found a hearing, and of course, among the Gentiles. As Earl argues, the early prophets were those who had been vouchsafed a vision of Jesus, a bit of a problem if you wanted to sustain an orthodoxy. When the Church began developiing its current Leninist structure in the 2-3rd centuries, it eliminated the whole idea of direct contact with Jesus as a legitimizing experience.

Yes, I think you're right. But the God-fearers initially did consider themselves Judeans -- followers of the YHWH religion and the prophets.

Again, your post is nothing but imaginative fiction and has zero support by any source of antiquity.

The very Pauline writer who is supposed to have had visions of Christ claimed he had his vision LAST--AFTER OVER 500 people including--AFTER Cephas, the twelve, the Apostles and James.

1. Cephas had visions of the resurrected Jesus BEFORE Paul.

2. The Twelve had visions of resurrected Jesus BEFORE Paul.

3. Over 500 brethren had visions of the Resurrected Jesus BEFORE Paul.

4. James had visions of the resurrected Jesus BEFORE Paul.

5. The Apostles had visions of Jesus BEFORE Paul.

6. Paul was LAST to have visions of the resurrected Jesus.

7. Paul was a Persecutor of the Churches in Christ of Judea.

8. Peter was commissioned to preach to the circumcision BEFORE Paul.

9. The Apostles were commissioned by the resurrected Jesus to preach BEFORE Paul.

10. Apologetics who wrote about Paul and early Jesus cult place Paul AFTER the Apostles and AFTER the death of Stephen.

There is just no evidence anywhere in all antiquity that the Pauline writers started the Jesus cult.

In fact, when the Pauline letters were composed the Churches were known and well developed.

BEFORE the supposed Paul wrote to the Romans their FAITH was ALREADY known throughout the WHOLE WORLD.

Romans 1:8 KJV

Quote:

First , I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

The Pauline writers did NOT start the Jesus cult and they do NOT REPRESENT the Jesus cult in any century.

It was those who BELIEVED the story that the Jews killed OR delivered up Jesus, the Son of God, to be killed that started the Jesus cult.

The story that started the Jesus cult is in gMark--NOT the Pauline Corpus.

The Jesus story in gMark can be found in the long version of gMark, gMatthew and gLuke.

Mark 9:31 KJV

Quote:

For he taught his disciples, and said unto them , The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed , he shall rise the third day.

The Pauline writers attempted to CONFIRM that Jesus was raised from the dead by God.

The Pauline writers attempted to CONFIRM the resurrection of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV

Quote:

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

The Pauline Persecuotors were the LAST to be seen of the resurrected Christ and did NOT start the Jesus cult.

outhouse · 06-14-2013, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The early belief was that God became a human. How can that happen?

Not exactly.

Do some more reading, your wrong.

When Jesus became "divine" is different between the different authors.

Some at baptism
Some at birth
Some at resurrection.

Some Jews never looked at him ever as divine.
Some Jews viewed him as a ghost like Marcion

There were many different views on the mans relationship to god. early on

But your mistake is that early he on he definitely wasn't viewed as part of god. Gjohns community was placing this view in their text, but they were last in the gospels.

How? my opinion.

When Jesus was called "son of god" it was partially a parallel with the Emperors divinity, which is one of many parallels with the Emperor. Jesus divinity factually grew in time, but early Hellenist were well used to calling living people of power "son of god" and they also wanted Jesus divinity to be more then the Emperor. The term "son of god" was also perverted rather quickly.

But most did not call Jesus one with Yahweh for a very long time.

TedM · 06-14-2013, 10:11 PM

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.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.