Jesus
- Thread starter ilgwamh
- Start date
What do you think of this quote: Christology, Gerald O' Collins, p. 76
"His words and actions brough divine pardon to those who felt they were beyond redemption. He never drove away the lepers, children, sinful women, taxation agents, and all those anonymous crowds of 'little people' who clamoured for his love and attention . . .
. . . Part of the reason why Jesus' ministry led to his crucifixion stemmed from the fact that he faithfully and scandalously served the lost, the godless, and the alienated of his society. The physician who came to call and cure the unrighteous eventually died as their representative. His serving ministry to the reprobate ended when he obediently accepted a shameful death between two reprobates. His association with society's outcasts and failures led to his solidarity with them in death. In these terms the passion of Jesus became integrated into his mission as a final act of service. In death, as in life, he served and sacrificed himself for others."
Vinnie
"His words and actions brough divine pardon to those who felt they were beyond redemption. He never drove away the lepers, children, sinful women, taxation agents, and all those anonymous crowds of 'little people' who clamoured for his love and attention . . .
. . . Part of the reason why Jesus' ministry led to his crucifixion stemmed from the fact that he faithfully and scandalously served the lost, the godless, and the alienated of his society. The physician who came to call and cure the unrighteous eventually died as their representative. His serving ministry to the reprobate ended when he obediently accepted a shameful death between two reprobates. His association with society's outcasts and failures led to his solidarity with them in death. In these terms the passion of Jesus became integrated into his mission as a final act of service. In death, as in life, he served and sacrificed himself for others."
Vinnie
Vinnie,
It's a nice fairy story, but in modern times it seems the ACLU has taken up the role of defending the oppressed.
What is really needed is an equitable socio-economic system where the wisdom and wealth of the human race is more evenly distributed.
Several thousand years of widespread religious indoctrination has resulted in the idiocies we see in the form of 9/11. Fortunately science is dominated by secular reasoning and as more atheists come OUT, we are now more likely to see real progress in the world especially with regards to fairness, wisdom and real social change.
Cris
It's a nice fairy story, but in modern times it seems the ACLU has taken up the role of defending the oppressed.
What is really needed is an equitable socio-economic system where the wisdom and wealth of the human race is more evenly distributed.
Several thousand years of widespread religious indoctrination has resulted in the idiocies we see in the form of 9/11. Fortunately science is dominated by secular reasoning and as more atheists come OUT, we are now more likely to see real progress in the world especially with regards to fairness, wisdom and real social change.
Cris
Fish in space?
I had thought there was a respectable connection 'twixt atheism and the noble results that come from compassionate objectivism, but there is no apparent relationship 'twixt atheism and objectivism, either. Compassion is symptomatic of many people, and there is no reason to exclude atheists from this.
For the record, I base these comments on the declarations of atheists.
To the other, that says little about the topic itself. I'm intrigued by this part:
Nor will anyone argue that Jesus had a significant impact, even if his actual status as a human being in history cannot be clearly established. The power of ideas is amazing.
We might take a look at Jesus' own words. Give a man a fish ... teach a man to fish. Christianity gives away the fish. There's nothing wrong with that, but give a man a fish these days and he thinks he can fly the space shuttle. A fish does not a pilot make.
thanx,
Tiassa
Any other day. Cris, I would agree with you wholeheartedly on this, but that agreement has proven foolhardy. This is because there is no demonstrable connection 'twixt atheism and "real progress", nor atheism and fairness, atheism and wisdom, nor atheism and real social change.
I had thought there was a respectable connection 'twixt atheism and the noble results that come from compassionate objectivism, but there is no apparent relationship 'twixt atheism and objectivism, either. Compassion is symptomatic of many people, and there is no reason to exclude atheists from this.
For the record, I base these comments on the declarations of atheists.
To the other, that says little about the topic itself. I'm intrigued by this part:
Those who felt they were beyond redemption ... nobody will deny the psychological power of religion to make people feel better.
Nor will anyone argue that Jesus had a significant impact, even if his actual status as a human being in history cannot be clearly established. The power of ideas is amazing.
To this very day, society at large finds it scandalous to serve the lost and alienated. I see little, in that sense, then, that sets Jesus apart.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that it is a common tactic of religions in growth to target the downtrodden, unfortunate, disenfranchised, sick, poor, and morally bereft. On the one hand, this is an excellent marketing technique. To the other, the method does find a way to include the otherwise excluded. And to yet another, do we really wonder why religions grow into massive cacophonies of undereducated cheerleaders.
We might take a look at Jesus' own words. Give a man a fish ... teach a man to fish. Christianity gives away the fish. There's nothing wrong with that, but give a man a fish these days and he thinks he can fly the space shuttle. A fish does not a pilot make.
thanx,
Tiassa
"""It's a nice fairy story""""
Fairy tale from M-w.com
: a story (as for children) involving fantastic forces and beings (as fairies, wizards, and goblins) -- called also fairy story
What gives you the impression that it is a fairy story? I can understand labeling it a myth but a fairy story is a stretch. On what grounds do you label it a fairy story?
"""""but in modern times it seems the ACLU has taken up the role of defending the oppressed.""""""
In the eyes of the ACLU who us the "oppressed" and how does the organization go about defending them?
""""""What is really needed is an equitable socio-economic system where the wisdom and wealth of the human race is more evenly distributed. """"""
Two thoughts come to mind, the latter of which is a question:
1. Now that is a fairy story!
2. That would solve the worlds problems?
""""Several thousand years of widespread religious indoctrination has resulted in the idiocies we see in the form of 9/11. """"""
I thought those responsible are considered "extremists'? Are you also sure that was solely an act of religion? I hear tbat some of the things the US has done are not taken well in some places cross the ocean.
"""""Fortunately science is dominated by secular reasoning and as more atheists come OUT, we are now more likely to see real progress in the world especially with regards to fairness, wisdom and real social change. """"""""
That is a weighty assertion. The evidence that substantiates that would be? Is there actually any evidence extending beyond the idea that you think secular scientists are more open, and nice and fair?
I am fine with "secular" science. Science and religion are non-overlapping tools that help us view the world. Science and religion are two separate entites. Once scientists start crossing lines into things like "fairness" and "wisdom" science is no longer science. "Secular" science becomes "religious science" which is an oxymoron of sorts. The great arena then becomes a venue for pawning off theology and feelings as science.
Vinnie
Fairy tale from M-w.com
: a story (as for children) involving fantastic forces and beings (as fairies, wizards, and goblins) -- called also fairy story
What gives you the impression that it is a fairy story? I can understand labeling it a myth but a fairy story is a stretch. On what grounds do you label it a fairy story?
"""""but in modern times it seems the ACLU has taken up the role of defending the oppressed.""""""
In the eyes of the ACLU who us the "oppressed" and how does the organization go about defending them?
""""""What is really needed is an equitable socio-economic system where the wisdom and wealth of the human race is more evenly distributed. """"""
Two thoughts come to mind, the latter of which is a question:
1. Now that is a fairy story!
2. That would solve the worlds problems?
""""Several thousand years of widespread religious indoctrination has resulted in the idiocies we see in the form of 9/11. """"""
I thought those responsible are considered "extremists'? Are you also sure that was solely an act of religion? I hear tbat some of the things the US has done are not taken well in some places cross the ocean.
"""""Fortunately science is dominated by secular reasoning and as more atheists come OUT, we are now more likely to see real progress in the world especially with regards to fairness, wisdom and real social change. """"""""
That is a weighty assertion. The evidence that substantiates that would be? Is there actually any evidence extending beyond the idea that you think secular scientists are more open, and nice and fair?
I am fine with "secular" science. Science and religion are non-overlapping tools that help us view the world. Science and religion are two separate entites. Once scientists start crossing lines into things like "fairness" and "wisdom" science is no longer science. "Secular" science becomes "religious science" which is an oxymoron of sorts. The great arena then becomes a venue for pawning off theology and feelings as science.
Vinnie
""""""Those who felt they were beyond redemption ... nobody will deny the psychological power of religion to make people feel better. """"""
I wouldn't put to much thought into "felt" even thoogh it can have a double meaning.
"""""""Nor will anyone argue that Jesus had a significant impact,"""""""""
Did you forget a word in there?
"""even if his actual status as a human being in history cannot be clearly established. The power of ideas is amazing.'"""""
Do you mean his existence itself cannot be established or that we can't know much about his actual status during his life?
"""""""To this very day, society at large finds it scandalous to serve the lost and alienated. I see little, in that sense, then, that sets Jesus apart."""""""
If socieity at large finds it that way would that not set Jesus apart?
""""""Lastly, I'd like to point out that it is a common tactic of religions in growth to target the downtrodden, unfortunate, disenfranchised, sick, poor, and morally bereft."""""
It is not the well who need a doctor?
""""On the one hand, this is an excellent marketing technique."""
That it is but I do not think it should be done for marketing purposes. Thats should just be a by-product.
""""""There's nothing wrong with that, but give a man a fish these days and he thinks he can fly the space shuttle. A fish does not a pilot make. """"""
No argument here.
Vinnie
I wouldn't put to much thought into "felt" even thoogh it can have a double meaning.
"""""""Nor will anyone argue that Jesus had a significant impact,"""""""""
Did you forget a word in there?
"""even if his actual status as a human being in history cannot be clearly established. The power of ideas is amazing.'"""""
Do you mean his existence itself cannot be established or that we can't know much about his actual status during his life?
"""""""To this very day, society at large finds it scandalous to serve the lost and alienated. I see little, in that sense, then, that sets Jesus apart."""""""
If socieity at large finds it that way would that not set Jesus apart?
""""""Lastly, I'd like to point out that it is a common tactic of religions in growth to target the downtrodden, unfortunate, disenfranchised, sick, poor, and morally bereft."""""
It is not the well who need a doctor?
""""On the one hand, this is an excellent marketing technique."""
That it is but I do not think it should be done for marketing purposes. Thats should just be a by-product.
""""""There's nothing wrong with that, but give a man a fish these days and he thinks he can fly the space shuttle. A fish does not a pilot make. """"""
No argument here.
Vinnie
*Cough* Pregnent virgins *Cough cough* People rising from the dead *Cough*
I think it's utter bull.
You mean, like making the Canaanite woman beg to have her daughter healed? (Mat 15:21-28).
Or doing the same (unless this is a repetition of Matt) to a Greek woman? (Mark 7:25-30)
Or like cursing entire cities to hell? (Lk 10:15)
Or like encouraging fathers to leave their families? (Matt 19:29, Lk 18:29-30, Mk 10:29-30)
Remember that back then, women could not work and support their kids.
Nice guy.
What about the fact that Jesus may have saved the life of the adulteress, but only barely. Did he actually get up and put himself at risk to save her?
Nope. He gives a few words of advice.
Or the fact that he chides the Pharisees for not stoning their disobedient children? (Matt 15:4-7)
Or cursing fig trees for not bearing fruit out of season?
Now, moving right along as to whether Jesus existed....
A: Fuck all if I know what he was about.
B: There is no record of his existance, outside the Bible. It seems odd that the Romans would not keep records of his trial, as the Romans were very meticulous. Herod's "slaughter of the innocents" is not recorded anywhere.
Josephius' alleged mention of Jesus is rather, sketchy.
None of this is recorded in the NT.
I myself am skeptical as to the existance of Jesus as a historical figure, but feel it best to be agnostic about the whole affair. Suffice to say that there is no evidence he existed as a historical figure, but Ockham's razor leads me to suspect that somone vaugly like the Jesus of the NT existed.
As for truth in the Gospels, obviously there is some. But much is fiction.
"""""*Cough* Pregnent virgins *Cough cough* People rising from the dead *Cough*"""""
If you do not accept some Christian teaching on the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus its best to classify them under myth. Fairy story does not fit all all.
"""""""You mean, like making the Canaanite woman beg to have her daughter healed? (Mat 15:21-28).
Or doing the same (unless this is a repetition of Matt) to a Greek woman? (Mark 7:25-30) """"""
1. So you accept that account as accurate? Jesus healed her daughter from a distance?
2. Where does it say he made her beg?
3. Why was she not upset as his words?
4. Notice that she was not driven away.
"""""Or like cursing entire cities to hell? (Lk 10:15) """"
What does that have to do with Jesus not driving away the crowds of "little people" who clamoured for his love and atttention. Please establish the connection.
""""""Or like encouraging fathers to leave their families? (Matt 19:29, Lk 18:29-30, Mk 10:29-30) """""""""
Are you sure those verses teach that Jesus enouraged fathers to abandon their children? So Jesus says to love ones enemies but to abandon ones children---to love ones neighbor as they love themself but to abandon their children--to do unto others as you would have done to you but to abandon your children?
"""""What about the fact that Jesus may have saved the life of the adulteress, but only barely. Did he actually get up and put himself at risk to save her?
Nope. He gives a few words of advice. """""""
Its amazing how you are able to infer so much context from the story that isn't actually present in the text. The pericope de adultera is not found in the best manuscripts but though it was a later addition textual scholars (some at least) are under the impression that the account commends itself as original--going back to Jesus.
If Jesus saved this woman's life it was a deed surely worthy of praise. And you asked if Jesus "got up." During the course of the story the text says he was standing up. He was bent over drawing something in the sand. When they persisted, he straightened up and said "Let him who is without sin...."
""""""""Or the fact that he chides the Pharisees for not stoning their disobedient children? (Matt 15:4-7) """"""""
Um, ou might want to reread that. They were chided because their tradition did not "honor thy father and mother." It deals with Corban.
"""""Or cursing fig trees for not bearing fruit out of season? """"
That assumes that account is actually historical.I tiis also symbolic and I have heard one can know whether a fig tree will bear figs before its fig season. There are said to be precursors to figs. The aramaic word is taqsh. Doesn't the account say Jesus found nothing but leaves? Would that mean no taqsh, thus in all probability, it was a barren tree and Jesus said as much.
"""""""B: There is no record of his existance, outside the Bible. It seems odd that the Romans would not keep records of his trial, as the Romans were very meticulous. Herod's "slaughter of the innocents" is not recorded anywhere. """"""
What about Q? Q is not a Biblical book. It mentions Jesus and is earlier than Matthew and Luke----and possibly Mark. Tacitus mentions Jesus but his thoughts don't reflect independent researrch into the idea. Josephus mentions Jesus at least once (twice in my mind).
Did the Romans keep records of every trial? Even of insignificant rabble rousers in Jerusalem? Do we have copies of all ancient Roman records? Maybe there were records in the temple which were destroyd when war borke out?
Herod's slaughter of the incidencts is more likely than not fiction.
"""""Suffice to say that there is no evidence he existed as a historical figure, """""""
Multiple attestation? Q, Mark, possibly John, Josephus, Paul? That is 5 sources. Personally, I think the evidence for the mere existence of Jesus of Nazereth is quite good.
Vinnie
If you do not accept some Christian teaching on the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus its best to classify them under myth. Fairy story does not fit all all.
"""""""You mean, like making the Canaanite woman beg to have her daughter healed? (Mat 15:21-28).
Or doing the same (unless this is a repetition of Matt) to a Greek woman? (Mark 7:25-30) """"""
1. So you accept that account as accurate? Jesus healed her daughter from a distance?
2. Where does it say he made her beg?
3. Why was she not upset as his words?
4. Notice that she was not driven away.
"""""Or like cursing entire cities to hell? (Lk 10:15) """"
What does that have to do with Jesus not driving away the crowds of "little people" who clamoured for his love and atttention. Please establish the connection.
""""""Or like encouraging fathers to leave their families? (Matt 19:29, Lk 18:29-30, Mk 10:29-30) """""""""
Are you sure those verses teach that Jesus enouraged fathers to abandon their children? So Jesus says to love ones enemies but to abandon ones children---to love ones neighbor as they love themself but to abandon their children--to do unto others as you would have done to you but to abandon your children?
"""""What about the fact that Jesus may have saved the life of the adulteress, but only barely. Did he actually get up and put himself at risk to save her?
Nope. He gives a few words of advice. """""""
Its amazing how you are able to infer so much context from the story that isn't actually present in the text. The pericope de adultera is not found in the best manuscripts but though it was a later addition textual scholars (some at least) are under the impression that the account commends itself as original--going back to Jesus.
If Jesus saved this woman's life it was a deed surely worthy of praise. And you asked if Jesus "got up." During the course of the story the text says he was standing up. He was bent over drawing something in the sand. When they persisted, he straightened up and said "Let him who is without sin...."
""""""""Or the fact that he chides the Pharisees for not stoning their disobedient children? (Matt 15:4-7) """"""""
Um, ou might want to reread that. They were chided because their tradition did not "honor thy father and mother." It deals with Corban.
"""""Or cursing fig trees for not bearing fruit out of season? """"
That assumes that account is actually historical.I tiis also symbolic and I have heard one can know whether a fig tree will bear figs before its fig season. There are said to be precursors to figs. The aramaic word is taqsh. Doesn't the account say Jesus found nothing but leaves? Would that mean no taqsh, thus in all probability, it was a barren tree and Jesus said as much.
"""""""B: There is no record of his existance, outside the Bible. It seems odd that the Romans would not keep records of his trial, as the Romans were very meticulous. Herod's "slaughter of the innocents" is not recorded anywhere. """"""
What about Q? Q is not a Biblical book. It mentions Jesus and is earlier than Matthew and Luke----and possibly Mark. Tacitus mentions Jesus but his thoughts don't reflect independent researrch into the idea. Josephus mentions Jesus at least once (twice in my mind).
Did the Romans keep records of every trial? Even of insignificant rabble rousers in Jerusalem? Do we have copies of all ancient Roman records? Maybe there were records in the temple which were destroyd when war borke out?
Herod's slaughter of the incidencts is more likely than not fiction.
"""""Suffice to say that there is no evidence he existed as a historical figure, """""""
Multiple attestation? Q, Mark, possibly John, Josephus, Paul? That is 5 sources. Personally, I think the evidence for the mere existence of Jesus of Nazereth is quite good.
Vinnie
Ilg:
*Grins*
You sound like me - debating tiny issues of semantics.
From WordNet:
Both fit, really. Even if it was not about faries per se.
However, I'll stipulate that "myth" works better.
Fuck no! But you can either accept that the account is accurate, in which case he's an arsehole, or you can accept it as myth, in which case he is not He.
Shall I cut and paste?
Happy now?
Gee, I dunno, mayhaps we should ask her?
I'm touched.
Seems that if said "little people" weren't interested, he tried to damn them to hell.
NO I WON'T AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!
Yep. Weirdo.
Was it? This is one of the stories most often used to prove Jesus' compassion. Yet he is essentially passive during the story. He goes on to draw in the freaking sand!
It's a figure of speech.....I see that I'll have to be very literal when I talk to you.
Umm, no.
Da-dah!
What is Q?
I never saw a mention of Jesus in my readings of Tacitus - where does he do this?
Josephius mentions Jesus in the passage I mentioned and once more - the "once more" is believed to be a Xtian forgery.
I do not think that records were stored in the Temple, however:
The Romans were very meticulous. Now, at the time, they were dealing with the rather rebellious Jews. I suppose that such lack of evidence is explainable by either historical damage (although, given the rise of Xtianity, I find this implausible) or sloppiness.
I do not find such arguments convincing, however. A capitol trial, if as described in the Gospels, ought to have been recorded somhow.
Historical damage is possible, especially in light of the Jewish revolts, but I would have thought that later Christians would look for and find such records.
It's fiction. There is not ONE scrap of evidence for it beyond the Gospels, and when we consider how often "baby butchering" is used as agit-prop.....
It's fiction, Xtian propaganda.
Again, Q?
Mark and John and Paul are one source, not three.
Josephius is vauge here - look at my passage. Does that look like "our" Jesus?
Again, I am not denying Jesus' existance. I find the evidence, as I know it to be rather insufficiant. Hence my agnostic position.
Although I would like to know more about this Q.
*Grins*
You sound like me - debating tiny issues of semantics.
From WordNet:
Both fit, really. Even if it was not about faries per se.
However, I'll stipulate that "myth" works better.
Fuck no! But you can either accept that the account is accurate, in which case he's an arsehole, or you can accept it as myth, in which case he is not He.
Shall I cut and paste?
Happy now?
Gee, I dunno, mayhaps we should ask her?
I'm touched.
Seems that if said "little people" weren't interested, he tried to damn them to hell.
NO I WON'T AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!
Yep. Weirdo.
Was it? This is one of the stories most often used to prove Jesus' compassion. Yet he is essentially passive during the story. He goes on to draw in the freaking sand!
It's a figure of speech.....I see that I'll have to be very literal when I talk to you.
Umm, no.
Da-dah!
What is Q?
I never saw a mention of Jesus in my readings of Tacitus - where does he do this?
Josephius mentions Jesus in the passage I mentioned and once more - the "once more" is believed to be a Xtian forgery.
I do not think that records were stored in the Temple, however:
The Romans were very meticulous. Now, at the time, they were dealing with the rather rebellious Jews. I suppose that such lack of evidence is explainable by either historical damage (although, given the rise of Xtianity, I find this implausible) or sloppiness.
I do not find such arguments convincing, however. A capitol trial, if as described in the Gospels, ought to have been recorded somhow.
Historical damage is possible, especially in light of the Jewish revolts, but I would have thought that later Christians would look for and find such records.
It's fiction. There is not ONE scrap of evidence for it beyond the Gospels, and when we consider how often "baby butchering" is used as agit-prop.....
It's fiction, Xtian propaganda.
Again, Q?
Mark and John and Paul are one source, not three.
Josephius is vauge here - look at my passage. Does that look like "our" Jesus?
Again, I am not denying Jesus' existance. I find the evidence, as I know it to be rather insufficiant. Hence my agnostic position.
Although I would like to know more about this Q.
It's still a matter of faith and what you do with it
thanx,
Tiassa
Tomato, tomato. I suppose you'd rather I presuppose his exclusive link to God and duty as Heaven's gatekeeper?
I don't know, Vinnie. What would you like me to write in order to make it easier for you?
I still have seen no historical evidence that a single man named Yeshua ben Joseph lived and worked throughout the region in question at the time in question. I can take the Bible literally, I suppose, but I'm not about to do so. Nor the Bhagavad Gita. Nor the Koran. Nor any religious book. Unswerving devotion to the presumption of correctness in any given religion only serves to degrade what intellectual possibilities the religion promises.
How about you tell me why it does. Please explain to me what makes Jesus so special for being despised like anyone else trying to do what's right for people.
Presumptuous, but expected.
Vinnie, if it wasn't done for marketing purposes, they wouldn't have to sell the religion out as something it's not. Compassion, love, and truth make a great advertising pitch. Unfortunately these things are no more a guarantee in Christianity than anywhere else, and, to my experience, they are less common among Christian faith than society at large.
Then I'll leave it at that.
thanx,
Tiassa
""""""Tomato, tomato. I suppose you'd rather I presuppose his exclusive link to God and duty as Heaven's gatekeeper?""""""
How about, I read the book. Did you?
I didn't understand this:
"'Nor will anyone argue that Jesus had a significant impact, even if his actual status as a human being in history cannot be clearly established. The power of ideas is amazing."
I thought maybe there was a didn't missing in between Jesus and had. Had then = have. I'm not sure, you say "nor will anyone argue" but I think the majority will largue that Jesus did have an impact. I still am not sure what you meant.
"""""I don't know, Vinnie. What would you like me to write in order to make it easier for you? """""""
If I could answer that we would't discussing this would we?
""""""I still have seen no historical evidence that a single man named Yeshua ben Joseph lived and worked throughout the region in question at the time in question.""""""""
Josephus, Mark, Q, Paul, possibly John etc. We can throw in Tacitus and others as more secondary sources even though the ones I listed are not primary sources either.
"""""""I can take the Bible literally, I suppose, but I'm not about to do so. Nor the Bhagavad Gita. Nor the Koran. Nor any religious book. Unswerving devotion to the presumption of correctness in any given religion only serves to degrade what intellectual possibilities the religion promises."""""""
No argument here.
"""""Please explain to me what makes Jesus so special for being despised like anyone else trying to do what's right for people."""""""
Maybe we are miscommunicating here . I don't think Jesus is set aparrt as the only person ever to serve little people with his life. I think he an others are set apart from humanity as a whole in this light. I don't mean set apart in the sense of he is set apart from every person ever in this respect. Are we on the same page now?
How about, I read the book. Did you?
I didn't understand this:
"'Nor will anyone argue that Jesus had a significant impact, even if his actual status as a human being in history cannot be clearly established. The power of ideas is amazing."
I thought maybe there was a didn't missing in between Jesus and had. Had then = have. I'm not sure, you say "nor will anyone argue" but I think the majority will largue that Jesus did have an impact. I still am not sure what you meant.
"""""I don't know, Vinnie. What would you like me to write in order to make it easier for you? """""""
If I could answer that we would't discussing this would we?
""""""I still have seen no historical evidence that a single man named Yeshua ben Joseph lived and worked throughout the region in question at the time in question.""""""""
Josephus, Mark, Q, Paul, possibly John etc. We can throw in Tacitus and others as more secondary sources even though the ones I listed are not primary sources either.
"""""""I can take the Bible literally, I suppose, but I'm not about to do so. Nor the Bhagavad Gita. Nor the Koran. Nor any religious book. Unswerving devotion to the presumption of correctness in any given religion only serves to degrade what intellectual possibilities the religion promises."""""""
No argument here.
"""""Please explain to me what makes Jesus so special for being despised like anyone else trying to do what's right for people."""""""
Maybe we are miscommunicating here . I don't think Jesus is set aparrt as the only person ever to serve little people with his life. I think he an others are set apart from humanity as a whole in this light. I don't mean set apart in the sense of he is set apart from every person ever in this respect. Are we on the same page now?
"""""You sound like me - debating tiny issues of semantics. """"""
Yeah, I'll go to great lengths on a tuny semantics issue sometimes. I'm not sure why. Maybe I have a disorder
""""""Both fit, really. Even if it was not about faries per se. """"
Okay, so the Bible is a story about fairies written for children (def 1)? That fits? Making a case for the second is a little more plausible but the first is ridiculous. Though the second fails in the "excuse" part as far as I can see. Your stipulation is correct. Myth works better. Legend could work as well along with fable.
""""""But you can either accept that the account is accurate, in which case he's an arsehole, or you can accept it as myth, in which case he is not He. """""
Rejecting what is possibly a movable pericope in the Gospels means Jesus is not the Son of God (or whatever you meant by HE)? How do you get from "not accepting one little substory" to "denying the whole story"?
"""""Shall I cut and paste?"""""""
Are you asking my permission? Next time don't bother if you are going to do it anyways
""""Happy now? """"""
No, I don't see where the text says Jesus made her beg. I don't think you've ever dug into this passage:
Why was Jesus so mean and insulting to the woman?
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html
Of course, the word "dog" was probably meant in a different sense than we would take it today. The article is good. It concludes that Jesus is not portrayed as an "areshole" by this accocunt.
"""""""Seems that if said "little people" weren't interested, he tried to damn them to hell. """"""""
I assume you can substantiate the priority of your exegesis over other views?
"""""""10:29
And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
10:30
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and
children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life."""""""""
An atheist by the name of James Still over at the Internet Infidels forum in a recent discussion has this to say on that issue:
We are discussing something similar to this:
http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000330
Again, are your sure your view is correct here?
""""""Yep. Weirdo. """"""""
Not on those grounds as your interpretation of the family passage is skewed.
"""""""Yet he is essentially passive during the story. He goes on to draw in the freaking sand! """"""""
Again, you seem to know more context than the text itself can actually give. We don't know what Jesus was drawing in the sand. There is no indication that Jesus was passive here. The question itself was presented as a trap. Something most people miss here as well concerning Jesus and the writing in the sand: Was Jesus actually literate and able to write? Though that is a minor point for it is not conclusive in itself.
""""""Umm, no. """"""
Ymm, yes. Lets try Matthew 15:5-6 in the NIV which you quoted from the KJV: 5 but you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6 he is not to 'honor his father ' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Now the amplified Bible:
5But you say, If anyone tells his father or mother, What you would have gained from me [that is, the money and whatever I have that might be used for helping you] is already dedicated as a gift to God, then he is exempt and no longer under obligation to honor and help his father or his mother.
6So for the sake of your tradition (the rules handed down by your forefathers), you have set aside the Word of God [depriving it of force and authority and making it of no effect].
The NASB
5 "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,"
6 he is not to honor his father or his mother[1 by supporting them with it] .' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Is it all cleared up now? Jesus is chiding them for homoring their tradition and not honoring their father and mother as the account says.
"""""""""""""""""What is Q?""""""""""""""
Hypothetical source document which Luke and Matthew drew off of in addition to Mark. The majority of scholars accept Q and Marcan priority.
""""I never saw a mention of Jesus in my readings of Tacitus - where does he do this? """""""""
Annals 15:44
""""""""""Josephus mentions Jesus in the passage I mentioned and once more - the "once more" is believed to be a Xtian forgery."""""
Yes, some scholars are under the impression that the whole TF has been forged. But some scholars are under the impression that it was partially forged and Josephus does provide a reference of Jesus in there once you strip the obvious Christian interpolations away.
"""""""""I do not find such arguments convincing, however. A capitol trial, if as described in the Gospels, ought to have been recorded somhow. """"""""
Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. Can you positively affirm one way or the other or are you speculating?
""""""Historical damage is possible, especially in light of the Jewish revolts, but I would have thought that later Christians would look for and find such records. """""""""""
Why? Look at the Talmud and stuff. Historical polemic against Christianity didn't come in the form of "jesus never existed".
We see more of this, "Jesus was a sorcerer and a bastard", not "Jesus never existed."
Also, the search for the historical Jesus that we see today is relatively new.
"""""""Again, Q? """""""
See my response above.
""""""Mark and John and Paul are one source, not three. """"""""""""""
No, Mark and John are not one source unless you are going to posit John copied off of Mark. Notice how I left out Luke and Matthew as they copied off of Mark. We can overall, call that a stream of tradition rather than 2 separate works. But we can find sources like Q in there though.
Paul also wrote independent of the Gospels. His letters were collected and published after Mark. There we have two sources and that opens up Multiple attestation---not to mention our other sources.
The Bible is not one book. Its a collection of books.
""""""""Josephius is vauge here - look at my passage. Does that look like "our" Jesus? """""""""
The larger passage is not as vague. The smaller would only tell us, James, the brother of the so called Christ or something.
"""""Again, I am not denying Jesus' existance. I find the evidence, as I know it to be rather insufficiant. Hence my agnostic position.""""""
I think Price has a similar position.
""" Although I would like to know more about this Q.""""""""
Vinnie
Yeah, I'll go to great lengths on a tuny semantics issue sometimes. I'm not sure why. Maybe I have a disorder
""""""Both fit, really. Even if it was not about faries per se. """"
Okay, so the Bible is a story about fairies written for children (def 1)? That fits? Making a case for the second is a little more plausible but the first is ridiculous. Though the second fails in the "excuse" part as far as I can see. Your stipulation is correct. Myth works better. Legend could work as well along with fable.
""""""But you can either accept that the account is accurate, in which case he's an arsehole, or you can accept it as myth, in which case he is not He. """""
Rejecting what is possibly a movable pericope in the Gospels means Jesus is not the Son of God (or whatever you meant by HE)? How do you get from "not accepting one little substory" to "denying the whole story"?
"""""Shall I cut and paste?"""""""
Are you asking my permission? Next time don't bother if you are going to do it anyways
""""Happy now? """"""
No, I don't see where the text says Jesus made her beg. I don't think you've ever dug into this passage:
Why was Jesus so mean and insulting to the woman?
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html
Of course, the word "dog" was probably meant in a different sense than we would take it today. The article is good. It concludes that Jesus is not portrayed as an "areshole" by this accocunt.
"""""""Seems that if said "little people" weren't interested, he tried to damn them to hell. """"""""
I assume you can substantiate the priority of your exegesis over other views?
"""""""10:29
And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
10:30
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and
children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life."""""""""
An atheist by the name of James Still over at the Internet Infidels forum in a recent discussion has this to say on that issue:
We are discussing something similar to this:
http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000330
Again, are your sure your view is correct here?
""""""Yep. Weirdo. """"""""
Not on those grounds as your interpretation of the family passage is skewed.
"""""""Yet he is essentially passive during the story. He goes on to draw in the freaking sand! """"""""
Again, you seem to know more context than the text itself can actually give. We don't know what Jesus was drawing in the sand. There is no indication that Jesus was passive here. The question itself was presented as a trap. Something most people miss here as well concerning Jesus and the writing in the sand: Was Jesus actually literate and able to write? Though that is a minor point for it is not conclusive in itself.
""""""Umm, no. """"""
Ymm, yes. Lets try Matthew 15:5-6 in the NIV which you quoted from the KJV: 5 but you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6 he is not to 'honor his father ' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Now the amplified Bible:
5But you say, If anyone tells his father or mother, What you would have gained from me [that is, the money and whatever I have that might be used for helping you] is already dedicated as a gift to God, then he is exempt and no longer under obligation to honor and help his father or his mother.
6So for the sake of your tradition (the rules handed down by your forefathers), you have set aside the Word of God [depriving it of force and authority and making it of no effect].
The NASB
5 "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,"
6 he is not to honor his father or his mother[1 by supporting them with it] .' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Is it all cleared up now? Jesus is chiding them for homoring their tradition and not honoring their father and mother as the account says.
"""""""""""""""""What is Q?""""""""""""""
Hypothetical source document which Luke and Matthew drew off of in addition to Mark. The majority of scholars accept Q and Marcan priority.
""""I never saw a mention of Jesus in my readings of Tacitus - where does he do this? """""""""
Annals 15:44
""""""""""Josephus mentions Jesus in the passage I mentioned and once more - the "once more" is believed to be a Xtian forgery."""""
Yes, some scholars are under the impression that the whole TF has been forged. But some scholars are under the impression that it was partially forged and Josephus does provide a reference of Jesus in there once you strip the obvious Christian interpolations away.
"""""""""I do not find such arguments convincing, however. A capitol trial, if as described in the Gospels, ought to have been recorded somhow. """"""""
Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. Can you positively affirm one way or the other or are you speculating?
""""""Historical damage is possible, especially in light of the Jewish revolts, but I would have thought that later Christians would look for and find such records. """""""""""
Why? Look at the Talmud and stuff. Historical polemic against Christianity didn't come in the form of "jesus never existed".
We see more of this, "Jesus was a sorcerer and a bastard", not "Jesus never existed."
Also, the search for the historical Jesus that we see today is relatively new.
"""""""Again, Q? """""""
See my response above.
""""""Mark and John and Paul are one source, not three. """"""""""""""
No, Mark and John are not one source unless you are going to posit John copied off of Mark. Notice how I left out Luke and Matthew as they copied off of Mark. We can overall, call that a stream of tradition rather than 2 separate works. But we can find sources like Q in there though.
Paul also wrote independent of the Gospels. His letters were collected and published after Mark. There we have two sources and that opens up Multiple attestation---not to mention our other sources.
The Bible is not one book. Its a collection of books.
""""""""Josephius is vauge here - look at my passage. Does that look like "our" Jesus? """""""""
The larger passage is not as vague. The smaller would only tell us, James, the brother of the so called Christ or something.
"""""Again, I am not denying Jesus' existance. I find the evidence, as I know it to be rather insufficiant. Hence my agnostic position.""""""
I think Price has a similar position.
""" Although I would like to know more about this Q.""""""""
Vinnie
ilgwarmh:
If you ever find the name of whatever it is, drop me an e-mail. I'll do the same thing.
Pardon. What I meant was that:
Believing that Jesus was the Son of God and preformed miracles as desribed in the Gospels YET denying the accounts of those miracles is logically inconsistant.
I took it literally. Ain't that what you thiests tell me to do?
What, I am supposed to add up the begats to find the age of the earth, and take the firnament literally, but not this?
Seriously, he does not make her beg, per se. Damn semantics!
What he does is turn away a woman who is in desperate need. He refuses to heal a child who is in desperate need. He calls her a "dog". When she admits this - admits her inferiority to "God's chosen people", he admires her faith - her submissiveness - and heals her daughter.
This is not the conduct of an ethical man, let alone the Son of any God I would worship.
I can defend my interpretation, although I may be wrong.
I am going on what the Gospel says. I am taking this literally.
Mat 19:29 seems quite clear:
"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
As does the parallel passage, Mark 10:29:
And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
10:30
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and
children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
"Leaving house...or children.....for my sake......eternal life"
My interpretation seems simpler, IMAO.
Oh, and also supported by Luke 14:26
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Drawing, or writing, he's not exactly "involved".
And if he was a rabbi, as some claim, he should have been able to write....right?
Again, I go by my personal moral standards. When faced with the murder of an innocent human being, I would not make damn sure she was safe.
I note that I think the parable of the adultress rather contradicts what I know of human nature, but that's another thread.
You mean, they respected their traditions over their parents? Hmmm......
Jesus didn't think much of the Pharisees, did he?
In that case, my origional interpretation was wrong. I agree with yours.
As for the existance of Jesus:
We have a parallel thread here which links to this article.
After reading the article, I've come to the conclusion that there is at least a fair bit of historical evidence for the existance of Jesus. Nor does the idea of the early Xtians making up their religion without a leader strike me as plausible.
Ockham's razor states that I ought to pick the simpler of the two hypothesis':
Jesus did not exist, all "evidence" for His existance is a Xtian forgery, and Christianity began in a vaccum, without leadership.
Jesus existed, physically if not metaphysically.
I pick the latter.
Thanks much.
If you ever find the name of whatever it is, drop me an e-mail. I'll do the same thing.
Pardon. What I meant was that:
Believing that Jesus was the Son of God and preformed miracles as desribed in the Gospels YET denying the accounts of those miracles is logically inconsistant.
I took it literally. Ain't that what you thiests tell me to do?
What, I am supposed to add up the begats to find the age of the earth, and take the firnament literally, but not this?
Seriously, he does not make her beg, per se. Damn semantics!
What he does is turn away a woman who is in desperate need. He refuses to heal a child who is in desperate need. He calls her a "dog". When she admits this - admits her inferiority to "God's chosen people", he admires her faith - her submissiveness - and heals her daughter.
This is not the conduct of an ethical man, let alone the Son of any God I would worship.
I can defend my interpretation, although I may be wrong.
I am going on what the Gospel says. I am taking this literally.
Mat 19:29 seems quite clear:
"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
As does the parallel passage, Mark 10:29:
And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
10:30
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and
children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
"Leaving house...or children.....for my sake......eternal life"
My interpretation seems simpler, IMAO.
Oh, and also supported by Luke 14:26
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Drawing, or writing, he's not exactly "involved".
And if he was a rabbi, as some claim, he should have been able to write....right?
Again, I go by my personal moral standards. When faced with the murder of an innocent human being, I would not make damn sure she was safe.
I note that I think the parable of the adultress rather contradicts what I know of human nature, but that's another thread.
You mean, they respected their traditions over their parents? Hmmm......
Jesus didn't think much of the Pharisees, did he?
In that case, my origional interpretation was wrong. I agree with yours.
As for the existance of Jesus:
We have a parallel thread here which links to this article.
After reading the article, I've come to the conclusion that there is at least a fair bit of historical evidence for the existance of Jesus. Nor does the idea of the early Xtians making up their religion without a leader strike me as plausible.
Ockham's razor states that I ought to pick the simpler of the two hypothesis':
Jesus did not exist, all "evidence" for His existance is a Xtian forgery, and Christianity began in a vaccum, without leadership.
Jesus existed, physically if not metaphysically.
I pick the latter.
Thanks much.
Last edited:
One time this year before English class started I was comparing Spider-Man and Jesus. I said Spider-Man was cooler and closer to God.
Son of God/Raised by Aunt May and Uncle Ben: Jesus takes it
Miracles/Climbs walls, slings web, spidey sense: Spider-Man!
Sandals, Robe/Spidey Suit: Spider-Man
Satin/Dr. Ock, Green Gobblin, Venom, Carnage, etc: Tough choice but I'd have to say Jesus, it's Satin c'mon.
Saves leppers, brings people back from the dead, saves them from their sins/stops criminals and super-villians: Spider-Man
Makes Speeches, Prayers/Jokes all the time: Spider Man
THE WINNER IS.........SPIDER MAN!!!!
Son of God/Raised by Aunt May and Uncle Ben: Jesus takes it
Miracles/Climbs walls, slings web, spidey sense: Spider-Man!
Sandals, Robe/Spidey Suit: Spider-Man
Satin/Dr. Ock, Green Gobblin, Venom, Carnage, etc: Tough choice but I'd have to say Jesus, it's Satin c'mon.
Saves leppers, brings people back from the dead, saves them from their sins/stops criminals and super-villians: Spider-Man
Makes Speeches, Prayers/Jokes all the time: Spider Man
THE WINNER IS.........SPIDER MAN!!!!
"""""If you ever find the name of whatever it is, drop me an e-mail. I'll do the same thing. """""
Will do.
"""""""""Pardon. What I meant was that:
Believing that Jesus was the Son of God and preformed miracles as desribed in the Gospels YET denying the accounts of those miracles is logically inconsistant. """"""""""""""
Of course it is illogical to accept and deny x happened at the same time. That is a truism. Thanks for the clarification.
""""""I took it literally. Ain't that what you thiests tell me to do? """"""
How many blind-handless Christians do you know?
Matthew 5: 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away . . . Matthew 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.
Literal in the sense you seem to suggest is sloppy exegesis anyways. Lets take "literal" in terms of intended meaning? The account doesn't literally teach that Jesus made her beg.
"""""""What, I am supposed to add up the begats to find the age of the earth, and take the firnament literally, but not this?""""""""
Yeah, 4004 BC. The earth's birthday. Just think, in a year and a half we can celebrate the earth's 6,000 birthday!
I suggest taking Genesis as a reworked creation myth which incorporated Jewish theology. The exegesis of Hovind, Gish, Morris, Bebber, Taylor, et al, is just as bad as their science.
Even if one were to accept Genesis 1 as literal (which I do not) we don't get a young earth. I've written a 10 page paper on the subject dealing with all the commonly cited biblical evidence for a young earth. I actually critiqued an article written by two yecs who were discussing why the "days" of Genesis must be 24 hours. As the ancient commentator Philo said "It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days in a space of time at all." Or Clement who said, "And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist." Or as Origen said, "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?" Or as Augustine said: "As for these 'days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think--let alone explain in words--what they mean". Or as Augustine said here: "But at least we know that it [Genesis Creation Day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." So much for the traditional view...
Adding up the begats begets stupidity
"""""Seriously, he does not make her beg, per se. Damn semantics! """"""""
Etch it in stone
""""""What he does is turn away a woman who is in desperate need. He refuses to heal a child who is in desperate need. He calls her a "dog". When she admits this - admits her inferiority to "God's chosen people", he admires her faith - her submissiveness - and heals her daughter.
This is not the conduct of an ethical man, let alone the Son of any God I would worship. """""""
Okay, so Jesus didn't make her beg. We went from making a woman beg like a dog to saying Jesus supported Jewish nationalism? So now we have Jesus the racist? I just want to make sure we are on the same page before I address it. Jesus also insulted her by calling her a dog correct?
""""""""""""""I am going on what the Gospel says. I am taking this literally.
Mat 19:29 seems quite clear:
"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
As does the parallel passage, Mark 10:29:
And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
10:30
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and
children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
"Leaving house...or children.....for my sake......eternal life"
My interpretation seems simpler, IMAO. """""""""""""""""""
Simpler to you maybe but that does not mean it is correct. Exegesis vs eisegesis.
Given that we are probably discussing a movable pericope here we have to dig in. I see Still's interpretation as being plausible and its more consistent with other thoughts from Jesus (not that Jesus HAS to be consistent but it seems more likely). As I said before: "So Jesus says to love ones enemies but to abandon ones children---to love ones neighbor as they love themself but to abandon their children--to do unto others as you would have done to you but to abandon your children?"
"""""""Oh, and also supported by Luke 14:26
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." """"""""
Well, I think you've misinterpreted the first passage under discussion and now you are defending it with another passage that you've misunderstood.
The same charge applies. Jesus teaches us to love our enemies but to literally hate those closest to us? He teaches us to love thy neighbor as thyself but to literally hate ones own parents? 'Honor thy father and mother' is probably a theme found in his statements concerning Corban yet he advocates the hating of one's own parents? The guy must have been REALLY REALLY stupid here. Oh yeah, the Corban thing is the passage above where Jesus is chiding for the people not "honoring their father and mother" yet he is telling people to literally hate and despise them and in other places chiding Pharisees for not honoring their parents? Dude is loco!
Also, in Biblical idiom, to hate can mean to love less. See Deut 21:15 or Mal 1:3 for example. Also compare Luke 14:46 which says to hate ones family with the parallel saying in Matthew 10:37 which says (paraphrased) He who loves his family more than me is not worthy of me." Thats the same idea but worded differently. I think the hating here can be seen as an idiom for "love less" or similarly as a vivid hyperbole. Its emphasis seem to be on the priority of the kingdom of God in a persons life. It makes better sense with Jesus' other statements as well (if we are accepting them).
""""Drawing, or writing, he's not exactly "involved". """"
How do you know the writing in the sand was not relevant to what was happening?
""""""And if he was a rabbi, as some claim, he should have been able to write....right? """"""
I'm not sure. It was an oral culture wasn't it? Very few, statistically (*according to my readings), were actually literate. I'm not convinced a teacher needs to be able to write in that culture. Maybe it was the general rule for official rabbis to be literate but I am not sure. Can you document any evidence?
""""""Again, I go by my personal moral standards. When faced with the murder of an innocent human being, I would not make damn sure she was safe. """""""
I think you accidentally included a "not". Otherwise you are saying you don't care and would not have made any effort to help an innocent person in the face of imminent exocution
"""""""I note that I think the parable of the adultress rather contradicts what I know of human nature, but that's another thread. """""""
Which aspects? Does the Holocaust as well? Crusades? Witch hunts? Inquisitions? Numbers 31?
""""Jesus didn't think much of the Pharisees, did he?"""""
Not sure. Some peeps like E.P. Sanders argue that many of the run ins with pharisees were projected onto Jesus. They reflect the situation of later Christians with the Pharisees and teachers of the law rather than the Palestinian (sp?) 30s. The Gospels, as your post evidenced, also potray the Pharisees negatively. In reality we cannot assume all of them were bad as the Gospel's tend to portray. There, in all likelihood, were very noble, sincere and pious Jews in the Pharisee camp.
"""""""We have a parallel thread here which links to this article. """"""
I saw the thread. And I've also read the secweb article--a while ago.
""""After reading the article, I've come to the conclusion that there is at least a fair bit of historical evidence for the existance of Jesus. Nor does the idea of the early Xtians making up their religion without a leader strike me as plausible. """""""
The historicity is almost axiomatic to all historians. Though, once we start sifting through whats true and not true with the Gospels, then immense diversity creeps in. I share Luke Timothy Johnson's view: We don't have good enough sources to reconstruct much about Christian origins. As Johnson argues:
Once you remove the narrative framework the pieces can be put together in multiple ways. Maybe that is why we see so many different pictures of Jesus to the point where, as J. D. Crossan says, historical Jesus research is becoming a bit of a scholarly bad joke (IIRC).
""""""Ockham's razor states that I ought to pick the simpler of the two hypothesis':""""""""
You know, I've never really liked the way OR is used. In principle it might work but it seems like its passed off as a scientific law sometimes. I have no reason to believe that the simplest of two hypothesis will always be the correct choice. As a general principle I think OR works but I think it is abused. I think its best to side with the simpler but I wouldn't use OR as definitive proof.
"""""""Jesus existed, physically if not metaphysically.""""""
Can we know anything about the historical Jesus aside from that he existed. Who is the he that existed anyways? To say he existed is to assume prior knowledge of him or something about him isn't it?
"""""Thanks much. """"
Thank you as well.
Vinnie
Will do.
"""""""""Pardon. What I meant was that:
Believing that Jesus was the Son of God and preformed miracles as desribed in the Gospels YET denying the accounts of those miracles is logically inconsistant. """"""""""""""
Of course it is illogical to accept and deny x happened at the same time. That is a truism. Thanks for the clarification.
""""""I took it literally. Ain't that what you thiests tell me to do? """"""
How many blind-handless Christians do you know?
Matthew 5: 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away . . . Matthew 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.
Literal in the sense you seem to suggest is sloppy exegesis anyways. Lets take "literal" in terms of intended meaning? The account doesn't literally teach that Jesus made her beg.
"""""""What, I am supposed to add up the begats to find the age of the earth, and take the firnament literally, but not this?""""""""
Yeah, 4004 BC. The earth's birthday. Just think, in a year and a half we can celebrate the earth's 6,000 birthday!
I suggest taking Genesis as a reworked creation myth which incorporated Jewish theology. The exegesis of Hovind, Gish, Morris, Bebber, Taylor, et al, is just as bad as their science.
Even if one were to accept Genesis 1 as literal (which I do not) we don't get a young earth. I've written a 10 page paper on the subject dealing with all the commonly cited biblical evidence for a young earth. I actually critiqued an article written by two yecs who were discussing why the "days" of Genesis must be 24 hours. As the ancient commentator Philo said "It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days in a space of time at all." Or Clement who said, "And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist." Or as Origen said, "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?" Or as Augustine said: "As for these 'days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think--let alone explain in words--what they mean". Or as Augustine said here: "But at least we know that it [Genesis Creation Day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." So much for the traditional view...
Adding up the begats begets stupidity
"""""Seriously, he does not make her beg, per se. Damn semantics! """"""""
Etch it in stone
""""""What he does is turn away a woman who is in desperate need. He refuses to heal a child who is in desperate need. He calls her a "dog". When she admits this - admits her inferiority to "God's chosen people", he admires her faith - her submissiveness - and heals her daughter.
This is not the conduct of an ethical man, let alone the Son of any God I would worship. """""""
Okay, so Jesus didn't make her beg. We went from making a woman beg like a dog to saying Jesus supported Jewish nationalism? So now we have Jesus the racist? I just want to make sure we are on the same page before I address it. Jesus also insulted her by calling her a dog correct?
""""""""""""""I am going on what the Gospel says. I am taking this literally.
Mat 19:29 seems quite clear:
"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
As does the parallel passage, Mark 10:29:
And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
10:30
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and
children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
"Leaving house...or children.....for my sake......eternal life"
My interpretation seems simpler, IMAO. """""""""""""""""""
Simpler to you maybe but that does not mean it is correct. Exegesis vs eisegesis.
Given that we are probably discussing a movable pericope here we have to dig in. I see Still's interpretation as being plausible and its more consistent with other thoughts from Jesus (not that Jesus HAS to be consistent but it seems more likely). As I said before: "So Jesus says to love ones enemies but to abandon ones children---to love ones neighbor as they love themself but to abandon their children--to do unto others as you would have done to you but to abandon your children?"
"""""""Oh, and also supported by Luke 14:26
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." """"""""
Well, I think you've misinterpreted the first passage under discussion and now you are defending it with another passage that you've misunderstood.
The same charge applies. Jesus teaches us to love our enemies but to literally hate those closest to us? He teaches us to love thy neighbor as thyself but to literally hate ones own parents? 'Honor thy father and mother' is probably a theme found in his statements concerning Corban yet he advocates the hating of one's own parents? The guy must have been REALLY REALLY stupid here. Oh yeah, the Corban thing is the passage above where Jesus is chiding for the people not "honoring their father and mother" yet he is telling people to literally hate and despise them and in other places chiding Pharisees for not honoring their parents? Dude is loco!
Also, in Biblical idiom, to hate can mean to love less. See Deut 21:15 or Mal 1:3 for example. Also compare Luke 14:46 which says to hate ones family with the parallel saying in Matthew 10:37 which says (paraphrased) He who loves his family more than me is not worthy of me." Thats the same idea but worded differently. I think the hating here can be seen as an idiom for "love less" or similarly as a vivid hyperbole. Its emphasis seem to be on the priority of the kingdom of God in a persons life. It makes better sense with Jesus' other statements as well (if we are accepting them).
""""Drawing, or writing, he's not exactly "involved". """"
How do you know the writing in the sand was not relevant to what was happening?
""""""And if he was a rabbi, as some claim, he should have been able to write....right? """"""
I'm not sure. It was an oral culture wasn't it? Very few, statistically (*according to my readings), were actually literate. I'm not convinced a teacher needs to be able to write in that culture. Maybe it was the general rule for official rabbis to be literate but I am not sure. Can you document any evidence?
""""""Again, I go by my personal moral standards. When faced with the murder of an innocent human being, I would not make damn sure she was safe. """""""
I think you accidentally included a "not". Otherwise you are saying you don't care and would not have made any effort to help an innocent person in the face of imminent exocution
"""""""I note that I think the parable of the adultress rather contradicts what I know of human nature, but that's another thread. """""""
Which aspects? Does the Holocaust as well? Crusades? Witch hunts? Inquisitions? Numbers 31?
""""Jesus didn't think much of the Pharisees, did he?"""""
Not sure. Some peeps like E.P. Sanders argue that many of the run ins with pharisees were projected onto Jesus. They reflect the situation of later Christians with the Pharisees and teachers of the law rather than the Palestinian (sp?) 30s. The Gospels, as your post evidenced, also potray the Pharisees negatively. In reality we cannot assume all of them were bad as the Gospel's tend to portray. There, in all likelihood, were very noble, sincere and pious Jews in the Pharisee camp.
"""""""We have a parallel thread here which links to this article. """"""
I saw the thread. And I've also read the secweb article--a while ago.
""""After reading the article, I've come to the conclusion that there is at least a fair bit of historical evidence for the existance of Jesus. Nor does the idea of the early Xtians making up their religion without a leader strike me as plausible. """""""
The historicity is almost axiomatic to all historians. Though, once we start sifting through whats true and not true with the Gospels, then immense diversity creeps in. I share Luke Timothy Johnson's view: We don't have good enough sources to reconstruct much about Christian origins. As Johnson argues:
Once you remove the narrative framework the pieces can be put together in multiple ways. Maybe that is why we see so many different pictures of Jesus to the point where, as J. D. Crossan says, historical Jesus research is becoming a bit of a scholarly bad joke (IIRC).
""""""Ockham's razor states that I ought to pick the simpler of the two hypothesis':""""""""
You know, I've never really liked the way OR is used. In principle it might work but it seems like its passed off as a scientific law sometimes. I have no reason to believe that the simplest of two hypothesis will always be the correct choice. As a general principle I think OR works but I think it is abused. I think its best to side with the simpler but I wouldn't use OR as definitive proof.
"""""""Jesus existed, physically if not metaphysically.""""""
Can we know anything about the historical Jesus aside from that he existed. Who is the he that existed anyways? To say he existed is to assume prior knowledge of him or something about him isn't it?
"""""Thanks much. """"
Thank you as well.
Vinnie
Last edited:
No problem, sorry I was not clear enough.
Ha ha! Touche.
So even the literalists are not literalists. The problem arises when one attempts to pick and choose, and is logically inconsistant in the picking and choosing.
It amuses me to no end to see those who believe in such modern concepts as the "Rapture" (not truely described in the Gospels) attempt to take the self-contradictory book of Genesis literally.
Correct.
The Biblical evidence? I should be interested in seeing your paper...if it was published, or is available online...
Adding up the begats begets stupidity
Aye.
Jewish nationalism? I don't think he did. If my knowledge of the period is correct, one of the reasons the Jews turned on Jesus was his pacifism and refusal to act as the warrior Messiah described in Micah.
As for racism, to my knowledge, that was a racist insult. But I may be mistaken here.
Yes, insulting.
No, simpler does not mean correct, but it implies it.
I do not think it is much more contradictory than Neitzshe's exhortation to abandon fellow-sympathy and sympathize only with the Superman.
Philosophical contradiction is one possiblity. Textural alteration is another.
It all depends on how much one wishes to take at face value. If we are to take the Gospels as a historical document (as I do) and not necessarily a moral guide (as I do), such interpretation works.
We've effectively demolished Biblical literalism, but that's not saying much.
The question is where to go from here, rather than batting around the strawman.
UNLESS we have a contradiction between the actual words of Jesus and a later Christian addition to the text.
Your interpretation works as well, of course, but I am interested in what you think of my above hypothesis?
Good point.
Of course, I have been judging Jesus' actions by my 21st century standards. This is quite unfair of me, so I concede the point.
Probably not. Carpentry (and no, I cannot back this up, it's simply the result of my own work) involves a bit of basic math. Nowadays we use trig, but I would wager good money that they used some simple math back in Jesus' era.
Umm, digression. I would not expect a rabbi from the relatively "po-dunk" town of Nazareth to have to know how to read.
Well, whatever. Makes for interesting speculation, though.
Correct, "not" shouldn't have been there.
But again, I err in my interpretation. From my standpoint, after feminism and the relative dissolution of the strength of the marriage bond, adultery is very "scummy", but not somthing one should be killed for.
In Jesus' day, a woman was the mere property of her father, then her husband. Adultery was more than "scummy" for a woman, it was a severe property crime.
That Jesus even bothered to help her is to be commended.
I'm not exactly a moral relatavist, but I do think the standards ought to be applied differently. For Joseph Liberman to denounce Clinton's cheating with Lewinsky takes no act of courage.
Yet I think Thomas More's denunciation of Henry VIII's divorce was couragous.
If you don't mind the digression:
From personal experience, the sort of people who would be at a stoning are exactly the sort of people who would feel themselves to be sinless. I'm also thinking of the McCarthy trials.
Again, this is more a personal reflection on my veiw of human nature. The parable accuratly reflects this "fact", but I doubt that they would have walked away.
Oh, that I have no doubt of. Few stereotypes are correct when applied to actual individuals.
Good point. Of course, this weakens the logical base of athiesm.
Well, when we know he existed, we know somthing. That's a good start.
So where to go from there? How accurate a record are the Gospels? What secondary sources might shed light on his life?
Fun.
tiassa,
Technically, being atheistic does not indicate anything other than a disbelief in theism, so why would I intimate that more could come from this perspective? My perception from talking with many people is that those who have no religious tendencies rarely think of themselves as atheistic, mainly because they see no need for labels, and secondly because the term has unfortunate connotations based on past usage. I feel it is only a few who are prepared to come out and openly declare their disbeliefs. In terms of having an influence for social change then the analogy is much like a drop of water in the ocean, it simply isn’t measurable. But I am hopeful that such a situation will change if and when the numbers of openly atheistic reach a critical mass. But I doubt it will be done under the name of atheism, since that will carry the perception of being socially questionable for some time. But secular humanism, transhumanism, and similar may well take on the role and force social change. But atheism will remain a common thread and is common to these philosophies.
Those who outwardly profess their atheism usually do so after having considered the issues and are well aware of the arguments for rational thought. I remain optimistic that with an increase in people prepared to think then the overall impact on society will be an improvement in terms of wisdom, fairness, and justice.
But while we remain overwhelmed by the weak-minded, overtly religious, and shortsighted, we will be unable to see the undercurrents of enlightened thinkers, who I firmly believe are becoming increasingly restless for change. The current farce of the Catholic Church and their sex scandal must be making many view institutional religion in a less favorable light. Add to that the vastly increased awareness of Islam by the west, and the largely unspoken perspective of how that religion seems so barbaric; then I fully expect to see a steady drop in acceptance of religion in general. Of course issue sof cloning and stem cell research also heightens the general awareness of the creation of life and how it simply isn’t particularly divine.
Tiassa, I think there are many factors leading to an increase in atheism, although it will largely materialize under different names. The inevitable result will be change, and I am optimistic that it will be an improvement.
Cris
I suspect I am expressing hope rather than any result of observations. And I may be expressing my own outlook rather than the philosophy of atheism. While I accept the label, I am much more than just atheistic. I suspect I am giving to too much credence to atheism.
Technically, being atheistic does not indicate anything other than a disbelief in theism, so why would I intimate that more could come from this perspective? My perception from talking with many people is that those who have no religious tendencies rarely think of themselves as atheistic, mainly because they see no need for labels, and secondly because the term has unfortunate connotations based on past usage. I feel it is only a few who are prepared to come out and openly declare their disbeliefs. In terms of having an influence for social change then the analogy is much like a drop of water in the ocean, it simply isn’t measurable. But I am hopeful that such a situation will change if and when the numbers of openly atheistic reach a critical mass. But I doubt it will be done under the name of atheism, since that will carry the perception of being socially questionable for some time. But secular humanism, transhumanism, and similar may well take on the role and force social change. But atheism will remain a common thread and is common to these philosophies.
Those who outwardly profess their atheism usually do so after having considered the issues and are well aware of the arguments for rational thought. I remain optimistic that with an increase in people prepared to think then the overall impact on society will be an improvement in terms of wisdom, fairness, and justice.
But while we remain overwhelmed by the weak-minded, overtly religious, and shortsighted, we will be unable to see the undercurrents of enlightened thinkers, who I firmly believe are becoming increasingly restless for change. The current farce of the Catholic Church and their sex scandal must be making many view institutional religion in a less favorable light. Add to that the vastly increased awareness of Islam by the west, and the largely unspoken perspective of how that religion seems so barbaric; then I fully expect to see a steady drop in acceptance of religion in general. Of course issue sof cloning and stem cell research also heightens the general awareness of the creation of life and how it simply isn’t particularly divine.
Tiassa, I think there are many factors leading to an increase in atheism, although it will largely materialize under different names. The inevitable result will be change, and I am optimistic that it will be an improvement.
Cris
Miscommunication, mayhaps
Vinnie:
Whoops.
As a side note, and one which may not concern you directly, diverse Christians are often critical of Josephus' credibility, such as when it is pointed out that the hand-wringing, namby-pamby Pontius Pilate in the Bible is characterized in the historical record as cruel, ruthless, and politically limited.
At this point, though, with Q on the table, I strongly recommend an examination of Pagels' Origin of Satan, which deals largely with Q, apocalyptic Essene texts, apocryphal texts (e.g. Nag Hammadi), and an examination of Christian ideological progress in relation to its times. Irenaeus of Lyons, for instance, seems no less ridiculous, but we can sympathize a little better when we put his words into the context of his era.
thanx,
Tiassa
Vinnie:
It used to be that I would say no, but I've come to the realization lately that I have, in fact, covered the entirety of the Bible at one point or another. However, that you read the book ... woo-hoo. What else? I don't want to be presumptive here.
Actually, I believe you are correct. My apologies for not being more clear. The proper way to read that would be with the didn't in there, or, more accurately, if restated, that nobody will contest (argue against) the assertion that Jesus had a significant impact.
Whoops.
Interesting. As Xev has pointed out, Josephus' references to Jesus are not particularly reliable.
As a side note, and one which may not concern you directly, diverse Christians are often critical of Josephus' credibility, such as when it is pointed out that the hand-wringing, namby-pamby Pontius Pilate in the Bible is characterized in the historical record as cruel, ruthless, and politically limited.
At this point, though, with Q on the table, I strongly recommend an examination of Pagels' Origin of Satan, which deals largely with Q, apocalyptic Essene texts, apocryphal texts (e.g. Nag Hammadi), and an examination of Christian ideological progress in relation to its times. Irenaeus of Lyons, for instance, seems no less ridiculous, but we can sympathize a little better when we put his words into the context of his era.
Combining that fact, then, with doubts about Q, scant and dubious reference in Josephus, and a lack of other evidence, I cannot conclude that the person of Jesus has been demonstrated to have existed at all, much less in the form that we know him through the Bible. The idea of Jesus cannot be denied, and it is likely that a person or some persons do constitute "Jesus", but it's a far stretch from there to accepting the Bible as factual.
We probably are miscommunicating. I'm trying to follow it from the original point to the present and probably need another couple of whacks at it. It's not that I don't see the argument, but that I don't understand it in relation to any significance it might bear. In that sense, perhaps I'm overlooking something.
thanx,
Tiassa