Jesus

[ilgwamh]

"""""""""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.""""""""

I wasn't talking about the bible, I was referring to Gerald O' Collin's Christology A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford 95). I am aware that his statement can have a double meaning but I said I wouldn't put too much emphasis on that given that I've read his book.

""""""Interesting. As Xev has pointed out, Josephus' references to Jesus are not particularly reliable."""""""""

That depends on who you ask. I often here skeptics say "oh thats been proven to be a forgery." I find that amusing because the majority can't actually discuss the subject intelligently. Rarely do you find someone who has read any scholarly literature on the subject or seen or discussed the majority of the pro/con arguments at great length. Peter Kirby is one such person who has discussed the Testimonium Flavianum intelligently online. Our conclusions differ but I admire his well argued page.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

The page is informative because Kirby attempts to document all of the relevant arguments in favor for partial authenticity and those in favor of total forgery. It will give beginners in the subject an excellent survey and overview off the relevant arguments whether one agrees with Kirby or not. PK finds the longer reference to be a total forgery and the shorter reference to be authentic. Regarding the shorter reference he concludes:

But assuming that at least the shorter reference is authentic, what can we conclude from this? It shows that Josephus accepted the historicity of Jesus. Simply by the standard practice of conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence for that fact. It ought to be accepted as history unless there is good reason for disputing the fact. Moreover, it is reasonable to think that Josephus heard about the deposition of Ananus as soon as it happened. Ed Tyler points out in correspondence, "The passage is not really about James, but about Ananus. It's the tale of how Ananus lost his job as High Priest. So why would Christians in Rome be the source for the tale of how a High Priest lost his job? Josephus was close at hand when it happened, and was a man of some standing in the Jewish community. I can't imagine that he missed it when it was news, and didn't find out about it until he talked to some Christians about 30 years later." Thus, Josephus' information about the identity of James brings us back to the period prior to the First Jewish Revolt. If Josephus referred to James as the brother of Jesus in the Antiquities, in all likelihood the historical James identified himself as the brother of Jesus, and this identification would secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history.

In Kirby's mind the smaller reference itself secures Jesus' place in history. If the longer reference is authentic (with the obvious Christian interpolations removied) it tells us almost a very short basic outline of Jesus. Crucified by Pilate. A wonder worker. Drew over Jews and Greeks etc. He doesn't say he was the Messiah or that he rose from the dead but he would be calling Jesus a wise man and wonder worker given the authenticity of the passage. The larger reference is tedious subject--particularly one in which I am not interested in discussing at this time. I easily tire of Testimonium Flavianum discussions.

Personally I think Josephus pretty much secures the historicity of Jesus, more so if the larger passage is accepted with the interpolations removed.

"""""""""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."""""""""

That doesn't concern me directly, but yes, that is true.

"""""""""" 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.""""""""""

I was going to buy that the other day. I browsed through a few books on the origins of Satan but didn't get any of them. I bought 3 or 4 other books. What are Pagel's qualifications? Not that it undermines the work automatically, but I really don't want to read a book that discuesses Q written by an amatuer. Is Pagels qualified to write on this subject? I think there is a great deal of literature out there on Q and it gets complex. To cite J Meier as quoted in Brown's Intro to the NT, p 122:

Extravagant hypothesis based upon this hypothetical document have left their mark on modern "Historical Jesus" research (see Apendix I). The portrait of Jesus the wisdom teacher or Cynic philosopher with no apocalyptic message and no messianic proclamation emerges from speculations about stage one of Q theology--a portrait that some would substitute for the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus of church faith. A bit abrupt but worthy of reflection is the proposal of J. P. meier, marginal 2.178, that every morning exegetes should repeat, "Q is a hypotheticaldocument whose exact extension, wording, originating community, strata, and stages of composition cannot be known." Linnemann, "Is There," is even more acerbic. That having been said, in the judgement of most, the existence of Q (without many of the added hypothesis) remains the best way of explaining the agreements between Matt and Luke in material they did not borrow from Mark.

""""""""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.""""""""

I think Josephus offers positive evidence. I am not sure what your doubts about Q are. As for the lack of other material, we have Mark, Paul and possibly John (depending on how one views john). Some might throw in GThom and the like as well. Basically I am asserting multiple attestation from independent historical sources. That is why I do not include Matthew and Luke as they drew from Mark and that could be called a stream of tradition. I do however include the material not found in Mark both common to Luke and Matthew (Q material) as an independent source. We can know some very basic facts about Jesus with historical certainty. But weaving truth from fiction in the Gospels is not an easy task. Reconstructions are based upon very meticulous work. I think going past just basic facts proves problematic as well given that the narrative framework of the Gospels is dropped. Once you drop the narrative framework the pericopes become facts, facts without context, without meaning.

Aside from multiple attestation there are are other crriteria one can use to attempt to determine whether a saying or action attributed to Jesus is accurate. The Gospel authors went to great pains concerning the situation of JBap and Jesus. The situation of Jesus being baptized by JBap was obviously embarrassing for evangelists as is evidenced by the different treatments of it in the Gospels, the Lukan infancy narrative etc. Given all the apologetical pains the authors went through seems to tell us Jesus was baptized by JBap and the authors found it embarrassing in light of their views about Jesus. Jesus' baptism by JBap, in the words of Crosssan, is as historically certian as any event in Jesus' life can be ( maybe with the sole exception of his death ).

"""""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. """""""

I think you miss the historical significane of Jesus' Open Commensiality as Crossan puts it in Jesus A revolutionary Biography. Jesus dining with whores, tax collectors and sinners was considered scandalous in the first century. It still is today but it may have been more so back then.

I suggest a short reading of the Crrossan work. Do you have access to a decent library? Check out Crossan' s Jesus A revolutionary Biography pg 66 - 74. The pages are relatively short. Its hard to sum up Crossan's work here because he incorporates various fields but if you can't get access to these pages then I will cite more stuff from the pages.

One parable Crossan covers is found in the Q, and seen in GMatt 22:1-13 and GLk 14:15-24 (hence Q). Its also found in GThom 64. I think Jesus clearly had a radical vision here, and it is one I wholeheartedy accept (assuming my interpertation is correct). "The social challenge of such equal or egaltarian commensiality is the parable's most fundamental danger and most radical threat". (Crossan).

An unamed Peasant woman speaking to an Itialian Journalist during a peasant uprising in 1893:

We want everybody to work, as we work. There should no longer be either rich or poor. All should have bread for themselves and for their children. We should all be equal. I have five small children and only one little room, where we have to eat and sleep and do everything, while so many lords have ten or twelve rooms, entire palaces . . . It will be enough to put all in common and to share with justice what is produced.

Those of us in modern society may not understand this all too well but Crossan calls this an ancient and universal peasant dream of a just and equal world.

Jesus was accused of eating with tax collectors, whores and sinners. These are derogatory terms for people whom with, in the opinion of the name callers, "open and free association should be avoided." Jesus Kingdom of God as a process of open commensiaility clashed fundamentally with honor and shame--the basic values of ancient Mediterranean culture.

On an anthropological level, many people (if not the majority) tend to see themselves through the eyes of others. If one loses their "honor" in the eyes of others they "cease" to exist. I thought Crossan's discussion here was excellent and worth checking out. Pages 66-74, Jesus A Revolutionary Biography (the headings of Open Commensiality and Radical Egaltarianism).

Vinnie

 

[ilgwamh]

"""""""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. """""""""

That is a problem but it is even more fundamentally flawed. Given that there are clear errors and contradictory teachings in the Bible "picking and choosing" ia an axiomatic given. Christians may claim to accept the whole Bible but in reality this is impossible.

A few quotes from Raymond Brow's Introcuction to the NT:

Consistently in the course of history, Christians who were arguing to prove they were right and others were wrong have appealed to select NT passages and books, unconsciously ignoring other passages and assuming they were following the whole NT. Is that remedied by consciously ignoring other passages? Might not those who profess to follow the NT profit more by paying serious attention to the passages they find problematic and by asking whether those passages highlight something defective in their own perception of chistianity? Might they not profit more by maintaining the whole canon even if that means that they are challenged by its diversities? Readers could then allow Scripture to serve as both conscience and corrective.

The whole canonical dimension is often neglected in two ways. First, some earnest believers are under the false impression that the biblical message is always (and indeed, necessarily) uniform, whereas it is not. One may explain that there is no contradiction between Rom 3:28 ("justified by faith, apart from works of the law") and Jas 2:24 ("justified by works and not by faith alone"); but one can scarcely imagine that Paul's attitude was the same as that of James. When people quote Paul, "Christ is the end of the Law" (Rom 10:4), they may need to add that in Matt 5:17-18 Jesus says, "Do not htink that i have come to abolish the Law . . . not the smallest letter nor the smallest part of a letter of the Law will pass away till all these things have come to pass." Then one has a fuller picture of what the NT says about a Christians relation to the Law. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the church has placed side by side in the same canon works that do not share the same outlook. The response to the canon is not to supress or undervalue the sharp view of an individual biblical author, but to make up one's mind in face of diverse views existing side by side.

No matter how earnestly modern Christians may affirm that they hold nothing except what is found in scripture, they are so far from the worldview of the OT and NT authors they cannot look at spiritual realities the way those authors did.

And as I think I already quoted:

The NT books were written some 1,900 years ago in Greek. From the viewpoint of language, even the most competent English translation cannot render all the nuances of the original Greek. From the viewpoint of culture and context, the authors and their audiences had a worldview very different from of ours: different backgrounds, different knowledge, different suppositions about reality. We cannot hope to open an NT book and read it responsibly with the samre ease as we read a book written in our own culture and worldview.

Also, factor in that Greek was not even the language in which Jesus spoke!

Those who accept a form of Biblical inspiration should realize that God, in his providential care, has given them a fourfold gospel. If he wanted a completely harmonized work he would have given us something like Tatian's Diatesseron. "Harmonizing" the Gospels, while valid attempts can probably be made in a minority of instances, does not enrich the text, it impoverishes it.

""""""""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. """"""""

I am anti raputre and anti-Left behind series.

"""Persecution of God's people by the great world empires challenged the extent to which history is under God's control. Apocalyptic literature responds to this by visions that encompass what is happening in heaven and on earth at the same time--visions that can be expressed only in luxuriant symbols. The parallelism of heaven and earth gives assurance that what happens below is under the control of God above, and that earthly persecution reflects struggles between God and the major evil spirits. A special aspect of Rev is that the apocalyptic message has been attached to letters to specific churches, so that by expressing the attributes of God in a symbolism that goes beyond rational description, the author is reminding those Christians of the late 1st century that the kingdom of God is larger than the history they were experiencing. it gives them hope, nay assurance, that despite (or even because of) the setbacks they have suffered, God would make them victorious. Unfortunately, many modern readers have forgotten 1st-century addresses; and not knowing this type of literature and the plasticity of its images and time symbols (so prevalent in the Jewish apocalypses cited above), they think of Rev as an exact prediction of the future revealing arcane secrets to them. Rather, the grandeur of "the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" (Rev 22:13) lies beyond chronology and human calculation."""
p 8-9 Brown, Intro NT

I agree, the grandeur of the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last lies beyond chronology and human calculation. JRev does not reveal arcane and hidden secrets about the future.

You might be surprised about the "alleged factual" contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 if one takes the account literally

I no longer take them literally so this view is unimportant to me though I'm not convinced if Gen 1 and 2 are taken literally that they contradict. A more fundamental problem concerning Genesis and literalness concerns the findings of science. Even the OECs like Ross have not managed an exact concordance. But the differences between Gen 1 and 2 arre not only their factual differences.


"""""""The Biblical evidence? I should be interested in seeing your paper...if it was published, or is available online... """""""""

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JesusFreak/day.html

I critiqued Bebber and Taylor's views. I think those guys actually authored a book. I been getting around to sending them my article for a while now. I wonder what their thoughts on it would be

As for racism, to my knowledge, that was a racist insult. But I may be mistaken here.

Yes, insulting.

Okay, I'll get back to this. I have to dig up a quote from Bruce's Hard Sayings of Jesus. I'll probably mix his views with the Glenn Miller article I already linked a few posts ago. I think I can also get another charge of this interprretation being inconsistent with other stuff making Jesus a weirdo again

""""""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. """"""

Just be careful with your terminology. The Gospels are ancient documents and so they are "historical documents" but they aren't history or biography in the modern sense. As long as you call them historical documents in the sense that they are ancient works by authors you are okay. But if you call the Gospels history you will run into problems. The Gospels are "good news" written for a specific purpose.

"""""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. """""""

No it doesn't say much but the majority of Christians seem to be in the literalist camp. I will accept an accusation of a biased sample fallacy here but I think my statement is relatively accurate.

I'd say to read the scholarly literature on the subject and the views of liberal Christians if one is into discussing the veracity of the christian faith. Of course, fundies and libs might have slightly different versions of 'the Christian faith.' Not to mention over 33,000 denominations and counting....

""""Your interpretation works as well, of course, but I am interested in what you think of my above hypothesis?"""""

You mean the Neitzshe one? I concede that philospohical contradiction is one possiblity. Above I granted that it isn't axiomatic that Jesus couldn't have had absurd beliefs. In light of Jesus' radical egaltarianism and open commensiality (discussed a bit above with Tiassa) I have to argue against Jesus hating his parents or saying to abandon children. Jesus was accused of being a drunkard and of eating with whores, tax collectors and sinners. He seemed to throw down social restraints. Your view works if we take Jesus as teaching two absurdly contradictory ideas (possibly he changed views in his life and the evangelists harmonized them or unconsciously included diverse views in their own respective works). I think my view fits better with all the facts though. Mine explains Jesus' sayings while the alternative is that Jesus was crazy. One might wonder why a man who taught people to hate ones own parents and to abandon their children gained such a large following. Though its not conclusive though. Though even my understanding of Jesus' charge was hard to accept back then despite the fact that he was not telling men to leave their wife and children to chance and run off into ministy. Another factor in favor of my view is Jesus' acceptance of children "let the little ones come to me." If you look in the accounts the disciples tried to restrict the children's access to him. Read Mark 10:13-6. The disciples spoke sterny to people who were bringing children to Jesus so that he might touch them. Jesus was indignant (angered by their iunjustice) at this fact and told them to let the little children come to him.

Also, Drawing from Crossan's Jesus A Revolutionary Biography, what distinctions are there between the american mind and the Mediterranean mind concerning children?. We have a letter from a man who wrote his wife in the year 1 BC. (the Oxyrhynchus Papryi 4.744). A man went off to work while his wife was pregnant. She hadn't heard from him in a while and sends him a message. He writes back with concern for her well being but not for the infant. He tells her if it is a boy to keep it but if it is a girl to toss it out. Quite disgusting IMO! In Crossan's words, "it shows us with stark clarity what an infant meant in the Mediterranean. It was quite literally a nobody unless its father accepted it as a member of the family rather than exposing it in the gutter or rubbish dump to die of anandonment or to be taken up by another and reared as a slave."

If this was the actual view of children or infants at the time that differed from our own we see that the disciples did not want people bringing children to Jesus but out of anger he tells them to let them come to him. Even if Crossan is wrong and this wasn't the exact situation, Jesus' acceptance of children, I think, would still argue in favor of my interpration here. If Crossan's understanding is correct then all the more is the priority of my interpretation over yours demonstrated given these are the words of Jesus.

"""""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"""""

Carpentry then and now might not be the same. Now, carpenters are middle class workers. Back then carpenters were peasants. I'm not sure what exact type of work carpenters did back then. And making measurements does not require trig. The better carpentry methods might use trig but that does not mean 1st century peasant carpenters did. I do not find it hard for an illiterate peasant to be able to measure or use a "ruler." Knowing the pythagorean theorem is a different matter.

"""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. """"

I agree. I have trouble deciding on whther serial killers should be capitally punished or not. I don't think adultuery compares to this even though it is "scummy" so that is a non-issue for me.

""""""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. """"""""

I agree. It reminds me of an old C.S. Lewis quote:

C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity' page 86-87

Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God's eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C. When a man who has been perverted from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God's eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a friend.

It is as well to put this the other way round. Some of us who seem quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and a good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as friends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw material. But god does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological make-up is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or worst of this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought our own, but which were really due to good digestion, will fall off some of us: all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health will fall off others. We shall then, for the first time, see every one as he really was. There will be surprises.

""""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. """"""

I'm not sure they all did walk away. Read John 8. Jesus is in the temple courts teaching, surrounded by a crowd of people listening to him. In come some pharisees and teachers of the law. They made the woman stand bwefore the group. The teachers and pharisees may not have been in the group. If the people gathered around Jesus he could be like in the middle with the woman and the pharisees. The account says only Jesus was left but this might be in the context of all the pharisees left. Jesus' disciples may have been with him. Is there any reason to doubt that Jesus ended up all alone in the temple courts. I don't think we know for sure unless all of the people who gathered around him were pharisees and teachers of the law. If they were then they all would have left according to the account.

But another idea is that this account was inteneded as a trap for Jesus. The Romans did not allow the Jews to perform death sentences in such a manner. Hence, the walking away. They figured if Jesus said to stone her they could get him in trouble with the Romans but if he said not to they could accuse him of not supporting the Mosaic law. A nifty little trap. Of course they fumbled the law which required stoning only if the woman were a betrothed virgin and both the man and woman were to be stoned (IIRC). The fact that they walked away is consistent with the idea of what Jesus uttered and the fact that Jews could not carry out the death sentance. Look at John 18:31 in the acocunt before Pilate where the Jews say "but we have no right to execute anyone." Despite the Pontius Pilate questions that will arise (alluded to by Tiassa) we see this view expressed. But note that Biblically, christians will tell us that the Jews didn't always obey (e.g. stoning of Steven).

"""""So where to go from there? How accurate a record are the Gospels? What secondary sources might shed light on his life?"""""

Depends on who you ask. Some will say a substantial portion of what the Gospels contain may be factual while others will maintain that very little if anything can be taken as history. There are also various views of Jesus out there. So many that Crossan says HJ research is becomming a bit of a scholarly bad joke. The real issue in my mind is methodology. That is what needs to be discussed. How do we go about determing things about Jesus given our sources. We also have to know what our sources are to proceed to answer this question.

Peter Kirby has an introductory site which outlines a very substantial portion of HJ theories. This should give an idea of how diverse the views are.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Vinnie

 

[Xev]

Vinnie:

That is a problem but it is even more fundamentally flawed. Given that there are clear errors and contradictory teachings in the Bible "picking and choosing" ia an axiomatic given. Christians may claim to accept the whole Bible but in reality this is impossible.

I agree. I am interested, if it's not too personal, in what your strategy as a Christian is.

I am anti raputre and anti-Left behind series.

I had figured as much.

You might be surprised about the "alleged factual" contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 if one takes the account literally

Aye. I've analyzed them for what was going to be a paper on "scientific creationism". Never wrote it though.

Okay, I'll get back to this. I have to dig up a quote from Bruce's Hard Sayings of Jesus. I'll probably mix his views with the Glenn Miller article I already linked a few posts ago. I think I can also get another charge of this interprretation being inconsistent with other stuff making Jesus a weirdo again

Take your time. I have my own idea for a project on the "weirdo".

Just be careful with your terminology. The Gospels are ancient documents and so they are "historical documents" but they aren't history or biography in the modern sense. As long as you call them historical documents in the sense that they are ancient works by authors you are okay. But if you call the Gospels history you will run into problems. The Gospels are "good news" written for a specific purpose.

Good good. They are too much of propeganda to be real history.

I'd say to read the scholarly literature on the subject and the views of liberal Christians if one is into discussing the veracity of the christian faith. Of course, fundies and libs might have slightly different versions of 'the Christian faith.' Not to mention over 33,000 denominations and counting....

Ha ha! Yeah, slightly different.....

Read Mark 10:13-6. The disciples spoke sterny to people who were bringing children to Jesus so that he might touch them. Jesus was indignant (angered by their iunjustice) at this fact and told them to let the little children come to him.

Good point! That does pretty much make my "intentional contradiction" argument moot.

Okay. So what do you think about the idea of a later textural interpolation?

And, well, consider it this way:

The early Christians lived communally and decided to forsake "things of this world", often cutting off social ties with "unbelievers".

Jesus advises his followers to "let the dead bury their dead", and asks "who is my father? who are my brothers?"

There seems to be a definite undercurrent of dis-respect for what the Religious Right calls "family values".

In the light of this, how would you interpret Jesus' command to "forsake" the family?

But another idea is that this account was inteneded as a trap for Jesus. The Romans did not allow the Jews to perform death sentences in such a manner. Hence, the walking away. They figured if Jesus said to stone her they could get him in trouble with the Romans but if he said not to they could accuse him of not supporting the Mosaic law. A nifty little trap. Of course they fumbled the law which required stoning only if the woman were a betrothed virgin and both the man and woman were to be stoned (IIRC). The fact that they walked away is consistent with the idea of what Jesus uttered and the fact that Jews could not carry out the death sentance. Look at John 18:31 in the acocunt before Pilate where the Jews say "but we have no right to execute anyone." Despite the Pontius Pilate questions that will arise (alluded to by Tiassa) we see this view expressed. But note that Biblically, christians will tell us that the Jews didn't always obey (e.g. stoning of Steven).

Good point. After all, the passage does explicitly state that the Pharisees intended to "trap" Jesus.

However, regarding John 18:31, I am a twee bit skeptical. Christians have "demonized" the Jews as "Christ killers".

I wonder if such a passage might be a later addition to the text, in order to place blame more squarely on the Jews? Do we have any evidence that Jews were prohibited from using capital punishment, besides John 18:31?

Peter Kirby has an introductory site which outlines a very substantial portion of HJ theories. This should give an idea of how diverse the views are.

Danka shoen!

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by ilgwamh
This man has had a tremendous impact upon Western civilization. What was he all about. Did he even exist? Is there any truth in the Gospels? Who was/is Yeshua ben Yoseph?*

Sounds like one of those springboards to where Vinnie attempts to show the world how incredibly intelligent he is, while completely ignoring what Jesus said.

*Originally posted by Cris
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.*

Ahh, Cris, Cris, Cris.
9/11 couldn't even have happened without science as applied in the form of architecture and aircraft design, etc.
Kudos to secular reasoning.
Btw, what is the proposed secular solution to dealing with O bin L?

*Originally posted by Xev
I am interested, if it's not too personal, in what your strategy as a Christian is.*

Who says he is a Christian?

*They are too much of propeganda to be real history.*

An interesting point.
Based on that, one would conclude that nothing written would be considered historical, since nothing is unbiased.

After all, US history of the Soviet Union will read much differently than Soviet history of the Soviet Union.
However, who is more likely to have the facts at hand?

 

[ilgwamh]

""""""Sounds like one of those springboards to where Vinnie attempts to show the world how incredibly intelligent he is, while completely ignoring what Jesus said. """""""

I see you haven't lost the charm that got you banned from ilj, tony. Where have I ignored what Jesus said? I might disagree with you as to whether something can be traced back to Jesus or not. We view the Gospels differently to say the least.

""""Who says he is a Christian?""""

According to you I'm not .

""""An interesting point.
Based on that, one would conclude that nothing written would be considered historical, since nothing is unbiased. """"

It was actually said that there was "too much"" propaganda, not "the slightest hint of propaganda". Of course, propaganda in itself is not an adequate reason for dismissal. It surely invites skipticism, however. I understand what is meant by 'propaganda' in this sense. It certainly argues against a blanket acception of the Gospels as accurate biographies of Jesus' life--or rather, his ministry.

I'll be back tomorrow Xev, with that post.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by ilgwamh
I see you haven't lost the charm that got you banned from ilj, tony.*

What "got" me banned from ilj is your total hatred of the scriptures.
It didn't help that I reject your "form of godliness but denying the power" approach to scripture, plus your endless footnotes.

Kudos on your ability to read.
You should consider trying to understand some of it.

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
(2 Timothy 3:5, KJV).

*According to you I'm not .*

Again, who says you are a Christian?

*It certainly argues against a blanket acception of the Gospels as accurate biographies of Jesus' life--or rather, his ministry.*

Again, who says you are a Christian?
After all, I should have realized that when the ilovejesus.com went down to iljboards.com, a sea change of rejecting Jesus had taken place.
Coincidentally, or not, you became the "aDmIniStRatOr" at that time.
I should have seen the connection.
Of course, having the other moderators call themselves tyrants of one kind or another should have been a clue, too.

 

[ilgwamh]

""""""What "got" me banned from ilj is your total hatred of the scriptures. """"""

That was a group decision, tony. I'm not sure if I can remember anyone who really objected to you being banned. And I don't hate scripture. I dislike some passages but its inaccurate to say I hate it on that basis as well. Of course, you equate "view scripture differently from me" as "hate scripture". It was your attitude that got your priviledge to post their taken away.

"""It didn't help that I reject your "form of godliness but denying the power" approach to scripture, plus your endless footnotes."""""

Endless footnotes?

"""""Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
(2 Timothy 3:5, KJV). """"""

Still engaging in proof-text hunting I see. Maybe I just can't accept Christian fundamentalism as my lens for viewing the world.

"""Again, who says you are a Christian? """"

Not you.

""""Again, who says you are a Christian? """"""

Again, not you.

""""""""After all, I should have realized that when the ilovejesus.com went down to iljboards.com, a sea change of rejecting Jesus had taken place. """"""""

Actually, the ilovejesus homepage is still there. The address of the message board was changed. And the old boards are still up at the old address if I remember correctly. I don't see how going from Ilovejesus to ilj is a big difference or represents "a sea change of rejection."

""""Coincidentally, or not, you became the "aDmIniStRatOr" at that time. """"""

Actually, I had admin privledges long before that back at the old ilovejesus boards.

""""I should have seen the connection. """""

What connection? The connection that in an "open discussion " forum we did not allow scripture to be used abusively?

""""Of course, having the other moderators call themselves tyrants of one kind or another should have been a clue, too. """""

That was really one other moderator (now an admin). It was a joke as well.

""""Kudos on your ability to read. """""

Why thank you. If I couldn't read I wouldn't be able to start springboard threads like this with the purpose of showing off how many books I've read and how my critical thinking skills have advanced beyond the abilities of the average person.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by ilgwamh
I don't hate scripture. I dislike some passages...*

That says it all.

*Of course, you equate "view scripture differently from me" as "hate scripture".*

Actually, no.
I equate "hate scripture" with "dislike some passages."

*It was your attitude that got your priviledge to post their taken away.*

Hot air.
I just happened to quote all of your most-disliked scriptures.

*Endless footnotes?*

You got me there.
They aren't all footnotes; most of them are quotes from everywhere except scripture.

*Still engaging in proof-text hunting I see. Maybe I just can't accept Christian fundamentalism as my lens for viewing the world.*

That wouldn't be a problem at all.
You just can't accept scripture.
Note your dislike of "some" passages, I'm guessing the number would be 20 to 30,000.

*I don't see how going from Ilovejesus to ilj is a big difference or represents "a sea change of rejection."*

You wouldn't.

*What connection? The connection that in an "open discussion " forum we did not allow scripture to be used abusively?*

No, that an open discussion wouldn't want scriptures used at all.
Besides, given that the word of God is the bread of life, how does one use bread abusively?

*That was really one other moderator (now an admin). It was a joke as well.*

Sure it was.
*wink, wink*

*If I couldn't read I wouldn't be able to start springboard threads like this with the purpose of showing off how many books I've read and how my critical thinking skills have advanced beyond the abilities of the average person.*

Beyond the abilities of the average person?
You should concentrate on getting past the average cat, first.

 

[ilgwamh]

"""That says it all. """""

All being?

"""""Actually, no.
I equate "hate scripture" with "dislike some passages." """""

I'll take that as "point conceded" as you pretty much expressed what I said in other words.

""""""Hot air.
I just happened to quote all of your most-disliked scriptures. """""

It was a GROUP decision. As far as I can tell Pelvidar and myself were the only ones who did not share the fundamentalist outlook.

""""""You got me there.
They aren't all footnotes; most of them are quotes from everywhere except scripture.""""""

The point being?

""""""""That wouldn't be a problem at all.
You just can't accept scripture.
Note your dislike of "some" passages, I'm guessing the number would be 20 to 30,000. """""""

Actually, I don't accept biblical inerrancy as you do. I find no reason to accept certain things in the Bible. In fact, as far as I can tell the evidence argues against certain things.

""""""""No, that an open discussion wouldn't want scriptures used at all.
Besides, given that the word of God is the bread of life, how does one use bread abusively?""""""""

Could this be a loigical fallacy? There are a ton of ways one can use bread abusively anyways.

"""""You should concentrate on getting past the average cat, first.""""""

Thank you for the insult. I would say I don't see the light of Jesus being displayed in your life but you feel insulting, harshness and meanness is usually okay when you do it on the internet based upon the patented response, "Jesus was mean in the Bible."

 

[ilgwamh]

Life was an overstatement. Scratch that to "internet career".

 

[Xev]

Tony:

Who says he is a Christian?

I was under the impression that he was an apologist. The logical step seems to be that he is a Christian.

An interesting point.
Based on that, one would conclude that nothing written would be considered historical, since nothing is unbiased.

My apologies for not being clear enough. I consider the Gospels to be a historical source, yet I doubt that they accuratly reflect history.

I have my doubts for all historical sources, actually, but they are a bit amplified in the case of the Gospels.

Vinnie:

First, my apologies if I have mistaken your religion.

Secondly, I am willing to concede the morality of Jesus' life.

Thirdly, I believe that this Scripture provides an interesting clue re: Jesus' injunction to "abandon lands and family".

1 Timothy 5:8
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

This has more or less confirmed my interpretation that Jesus is advising His disciples to care for him more than anyone else, yet not to entirely abandon one's family.

If you and Tony can keep away from each other's throats, I think you might enjoy this thread. Basically, I am curious as to the identity of the snake that tempts Eve in Genesis. I am leaning towards a stance in which it can be regarded as a personification of the Christian devil.

 

[Amp]

Jesus, another source of info.

G'day,
Jesus, has an entire section devoted to his life and teachings in the Ubook. Many of the miracles ascribed to Jesus according to the Ubook merely happened to look as though they were supernatural.

The Ubook starts with Jesus from his infancy on up to his crucifixtion, it includes early childhood, adolescence, young adult and adult.

Heres where it starts:

http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper122.html