Trying to ascribe motives to the gospel writers is hopeless. Who among us is even conscious of our own motives half the time? How can we possibly read the minds of writers of a different culture and a different language separated from us by two millennia? But I think kdgecko is right. It’s not a lie to pass on a story told to you that you think is true. Of course you can be mistaken. And the use of the term “lie” in this context invariably conjures up images of a bunch of guys sitting in a room making stuff up. Not even the mythicists tend to think it was that simplistic.
If you want to see a clear example of a lie in the New Testament check out the Pastoral Letters. Somebody is pretending to be Paul. No ambiguity there.
To get back to the main theme of the thread, no, I can’t say without doubt that Jesus actually existed. But I think it’s the simplest explanation for what we do know. Most mythicism is utter drivel. But even someone like Richard Carrier interprets the traditions we already have. It’s not like he’s found anything new.
gavriel said
john76 said
It is likely that the passion and resurrection of Jesus are just made up historical fictions. In “On The Historicity of Jesus,” Carrier demonstrates the passion narrative may be constructed by a haggadic midrash rewrite of Isaiah 52-3, the Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 22, Daniel 9 and 12, and Zechariah 3 and 6.But more than this, Jesus’ resurrection seems to be a haggadic midrash of Psalm 16. Peter stressed the significance of the resurrection and cited the prophecy predicting it in Psalm 16: “God raised him up, losing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it … Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:24, 29-32). Of course, Psalm 16 was not making a prophesy about Jesus, but rather Psalm 16 was used in a haggadic midrash to invent the story of Christ’s resurrection.
I think you will have to say that certain Jesus narratives were fashioned in a style like the later haggadic midrash, a rabbinic tradition which flourished between 100 and 550 CE. The early Jesus movement did not include rabbis. This type of midrash is characterized by considerable freedom of interpretation. As an exercise, one may take any ancient historical narrative known to be truly historical, and claim that it is haggadic midrash, by scanning the Scripture for passages with similar-looking elements. Given the liberal freedom of interpretation in this art, one may connect a large number of scriptural units with a large number of true historical ancient Palestinian narratives. The reason we do not do so is that the historicity of these narratives has been demonstrated, using criteria for historicity, so we rule out midrashic explanations in these cases.
We have to do this with the Jesus narratives as well, to determine how much has been taken from Scripture, how much has been used to colour the narratives and how much is truly historical in its core. Just to demonstrate that a plot might be haggadic midrash won’t do for the reason explained. “Might be” is not a proof, because it is too easy to construct an artificial parallel. One can see this at work, e.g. in Gospel of Matthew, in which the author tweaks scriptural passages awkwardly to make them fit the narrative.
So we are back to basics, that is, application of criteria.
You can call it haggadic midrash, or pesher, or whatever you like, but the writers of the New Testament were clearly trying to portray Jesus as someone who was fulfilling Old Testament Scripture. This is just as true if Jesus existed, or if he never existed. The writers were comitting this fraud in order to sell their new religion.
Religious skepticism was well established in ancient times. For instance, Lucius Annaeus Seneca taught that:“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. ”
And Protagoras famously commented in his lost work, On the Gods, that: “Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not, nor of what sort they may be.”
The idea was present in antiquity that pretending someone was a God when they really weren’t could be a good deception for the masses to believe.
For instance, in Euripides’ “Bacchae” Cadmus says: “Even though this man (Dionysus) be no God, as you say, still say that he is. Be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, for this would make it seem that she was the mother of a god, and it would confer honour on all our race.”
It would be a short move from this to the invention of the resurrected Jesus.
Jesus may have lived, but the New Testament writers clearly faked stories about him fulfilling Old Testament scriptures in order to sell the new religion.
The writers of the New Testament also invented the story about the end of the world coming soon in order to scare people into joining the new religion.
But john76 your analogy with Euripides doesn’t work. Jesus was rejected by his people, remember? No honor there.
“clearly faked”? Clear to whom? Assuming a story was faked simply because you don’t believe it doesn’t follow.
Apocalyptic thought predates Christianity by centuries.
The word choices you make, “pretending”, “deception”, invention”, faked”, “sell”, etc, assume motives on the part of Jesus and his followers about which you can have no awareness.
Stephen said
But john76 your analogy with Euripides doesn’t work. Jesus was rejected by his people, remember? No honor there.“clearly faked”? Clear to whom? Assuming a story was faked simply because you don’t believe it doesn’t follow.
Apocalyptic thought predates Christianity by centuries.
The word choices you make, “pretending”, “deception”, invention”, faked”, “sell”, etc, assume motives on the part of Jesus and his followers about which you can have no awareness.
Jesus was portrayed as being rejected as a fulfillment of Old Testament scriptures.
The Euripides example I posted is fine. It merely shows the idea floating around in antiquity that it could be a good idea to lie about someone being a God for the benefit of the masses. Your criticism is being too specific with it.
The use of haggadic midrash or pesher to create all these stories about Jesus shows the New Testament authors were deliberately lying about Jesus to make it seem that he was fulfilling Old Testament scripture.
The fact that the new testament is the only place Jesus is mentioned is enough proof for me he was fictional and probably based on Apollonius of Tyana I know that may be a bold uneducated statement in the view of many here but I believe the history we think we know is very often a continual series of political conflicts and cover ups. Tell me, why did the christians burn the Library of Alexandria? I believe they were trying to erase the record of Apollonius after his life story was used as the template for “Jesus.” I know I’ll get some bad feedback here but it makes perfect sense to me.
MickD153 said
The fact that the new testament is the only place Jesus is mentioned is enough proof for me he was fictional and probably based on Apollonius of Tyana I know that may be a bold uneducated statement in the view of many here but I believe the history we think we know is very often a continual series of political conflicts and cover ups. Tell me, why did the christians burn the Library of Alexandria? I believe they were trying to erase the record of Apollonius after his life story was used as the template for “Jesus.” I know I’ll get some bad feedback here but it makes perfect sense to me.
G.K. Chesterton argues that the unique trial, suffering and death of Christ stand in stark opposition to the stories about Apollonius which he feels were very likely spurious.
MickD153 said
The fact that the new testament is the only place Jesus is mentioned is enough proof for me he was fictional and probably based on Apollonius of Tyana I know that may be a bold uneducated statement in the view of many here but I believe the history we think we know is very often a continual series of political conflicts and cover ups. Tell me, why did the christians burn the Library of Alexandria? I believe they were trying to erase the record of Apollonius after his life story was used as the template for “Jesus.” I know I’ll get some bad feedback here but it makes perfect sense to me.
Well i won’t give you any “bad feedback” but i am curious about what evidence exists that the Christians burned the Library of Alexandria? And please pardon my woeful ignorance if this is a well-known and easily demonstrable historical attestation. thanks!
john76 said
The idea was present in antiquity that pretending someone was a God when they really weren’t could be a good deception for the masses to believe.
For instance, in Euripides’ “Bacchae” Cadmus says: “Even though this man (Dionysus) be no God, as you say, still say that he is. Be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, for this would make it seem that she was the mother of a god, and it would confer honour on all our race.”
It would be a short move from this to the invention of the resurrected Jesus.
Jesus may have lived, but the New Testament writers clearly faked stories about him fulfilling Old Testament scriptures in order to sell the new religion.
The writers of the New Testament also invented the story about the end of the world coming soon in order to scare people into joining the new religion.
Interesting- again, pardon the interruption, John76, as I made it another thread as well- but where did you come down on was there or wasn’t there? You appear a bit better read than myself, although i’m not a total slacker- thanks and peace!
SWerdal said
john76 said
The idea was present in antiquity that pretending someone was a God when they really weren’t could be a good deception for the masses to believe.
For instance, in Euripides’ “Bacchae” Cadmus says: “Even though this man (Dionysus) be no God, as you say, still say that he is. Be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, for this would make it seem that she was the mother of a god, and it would confer honour on all our race.”
It would be a short move from this to the invention of the resurrected Jesus.
Jesus may have lived, but the New Testament writers clearly faked stories about him fulfilling Old Testament scriptures in order to sell the new religion.
The writers of the New Testament also invented the story about the end of the world coming soon in order to scare people into joining the new religion.
Interesting- again, pardon the interruption, John76, as I made it another thread as well- but where did you come down on was there or wasn’t there? You appear a bit better read than myself, although i’m not a total slacker- thanks and peace!
Hi SWerdal.
I think Jesus probably existed because Paul and Mark both talk about his brother James.
That said, I think we can say the central stories of the Christian religion, namely the passion and the resurrection of Jesus, were constructed out of Old Testament scriptures as pesher or midrash. I think it’s impossible to say if there is any historical core to the passion and resurrection stories, or if they are completely fictional.
It is likely that the passion and resurrection of Jesus are just made up historical fictions. In “On The Historicity of Jesus,” Carrier demonstrates the passion narrative may be constructed by a haggadic midrash rewrite of Isaiah 52-3, the Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 22, Daniel 9 and 12, and Zechariah 3 and 6.
Beyond this, Jesus’ empty tomb is the result of peshers on Isaiah 53: 9-12, Joshua 10:16-27, Ezekiel 8:14, Zechariah 12:11, and Canticles 3: 1-4.
The resurrection seems to be a haggadic midrash of Psalm 16 and the book of Daniel.
In “How Jesus Became God,” Bart Ehrman makes the point that (on page 117) no one earlier than the first Christians saw Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53 as referring to the messiah. But Ehrman doesn’t really have a point here because the first Christian writers were known for taking Old Testament Scriptures out of context to create The Jesus Story (such as Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt I have called my son,” which was originally about the Jewish people, not about God’s son).
I think the writers of the Jesus story thought it would be easier to sell the new religion about Jesus by making it seem like Jesus had fulfilled all kinds of Old Testament Scriptures, even though he never really did. I think the writers were interested in creating a better, more moral world (a cause they would die for), and probably never believed that any of the miracles that they wrote about Jesus doing were true.
MilkyWay said
Why or why not?I have to side with the scholars who unanimously agree that he existed. So, I think some of the basic things were actually true (itinerant Jewish preacher who was from Nazareth, baptized by John, had some brothers, was executed). However, the evidence is pretty thin!
#1 – Paul’s writings (at least 10 or 15 years after Jesus died?)
#2 – Earliest gospel writings (Mark – 35 to 40 years after Jesus died?)
#3 – A blurb by a historian (Josephus – 65 or 70 years after Jesus died?)
…Seems to be about it. Paul never met Jesus. But he did meet some of Jesus’ followers including Jesus’ brothers/family.
And it seems the gospel authors didn’t meet Jesus either (written several decades after his life and written in a different langauge – Greek).
I haven’t had the pleasure to read Bart’s book, Did Jesus Even Exist? I am looking forward to hearing his arguments on the subject. I believe there was probably a jewish rabbi named Jesus. Haven’t really researched it enough yet. Thanks for the question…peace… I still hate the Patriots.
I also Think it is reasonable to Believe that Jesus from Nazareth was an historic person. When you sit on a beach and study the calm ocean and it there is a sudden series of waves coming in, then it is reasonable to guess that a big boat has passed – beyond sight. Having this metaphore in mind, it is easy to compare it with the “Waves” of literature about Jesus that occured in the first two centuries after his Death. In Lost Christianities Bart makes a good description of this industry.
These Waves are fairly consistent in time, all pointing to roughly the same period, year 30-33. They could not have done otherwise because there was still a common knowledge about the timing. Among the followers, it must have been quite easy to convey a distinct Place in time for the events, even if the stories themselves were more differentiated.
PS. After having left a fundamentalist religion some 40 years ago, I never bothered to read the Bible until Irealised that I had been a fanatic believing in a holy book. One event in Sep 2001 made me Think about this and then I re-read the NT. And found it very interesting to read, for example, that Mary and Joseph in Mark found it strange that their son was a preacher, they even considered him out of his mind. That is for me a quite good piece of evidence that there had been a person from Nazareth with carismatic effect. Especially as it contradicts the other narratives of Jesus birth.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** posted
Jesus was portrayed as being rejected as a fulfillment of Old Testament scriptures.
Yes after he was rejected his disciples went back to their scriptures to explain to themselves why he was rejected. They found references that weren’t intended for their purpose but could be adapted to their purpose. This “adaptation” is one of the major problems with the mythicist approach. If someone had started out with the Hebrew scriptures and was going to create a figure based on their conceptions they would have come out with a very different figure than the Jesus of the New Testament. The fact that the writers of the NT had to frequently misinterpret the Hebrew scriptures in order to make them line up with the character of Jesus is s sure sign they started out with the existential situation of a real person whose ministry failed and then worked their way backward to interpretation rather than working forward from the HB as the mythicists would have it.
The Euripides example I posted is fine. It merely shows the idea floating around in antiquity that it could be a good idea to lie about someone being a God for the benefit of the masses. Your criticism is being too specific with it.
Yes specificity is sometimes annoying I’ll grant you.
The use of haggadic midrash or pesher to create all these stories about Jesus shows the New Testament authors were deliberately lying about Jesus to make it seem that he was fulfilling Old Testament scripture.
This statement commits the informal logical fallacy known as “begging the question”. It assumes what has yet to be demonstrated. Did the NT authors use haggadic midrash or pesher to “create all those stories”? Make a case and then we can argue over whether or not you have psychic powers.
Stephen said
** you do not have permission to see this link ** postedJesus was portrayed as being rejected as a fulfillment of Old Testament scriptures.
Yes after he was rejected his disciples went back to their scriptures to explain to themselves why he was rejected. They found references that weren’t intended for their purpose but could be adapted to their purpose. This “adaptation” is one of the major problems with the mythicist approach. If someone had started out with the Hebrew scriptures and was going to create a figure based on their conceptions they would have come out with a very different figure than the Jesus of the New Testament. The fact that the writers of the NT had to frequently misinterpret the Hebrew scriptures in order to make them line up with the character of Jesus is s sure sign they started out with the existential situation of a real person whose ministry failed and then worked their way backward to interpretation rather than working forward from the HB as the mythicists would have it.
The Euripides example I posted is fine. It merely shows the idea floating around in antiquity that it could be a good idea to lie about someone being a God for the benefit of the masses. Your criticism is being too specific with it.
Yes specificity is sometimes annoying I’ll grant you.
The use of haggadic midrash or pesher to create all these stories about Jesus shows the New Testament authors were deliberately lying about Jesus to make it seem that he was fulfilling Old Testament scripture.
This statement commits the informal logical fallacy known as “begging the question”. It assumes what has yet to be demonstrated. Did the NT authors use haggadic midrash or pesher to “create all those stories”? Make a case and then we can argue over whether or not you have psychic powers.
Stephen said
** you do not have permission to see this link ** postedJesus was portrayed as being rejected as a fulfillment of Old Testament scriptures.
Yes after he was rejected his disciples went back to their scriptures to explain to themselves why he was rejected. They found references that weren’t intended for their purpose but could be adapted to their purpose. This “adaptation” is one of the major problems with the mythicist approach. If someone had started out with the Hebrew scriptures and was going to create a figure based on their conceptions they would have come out with a very different figure than the Jesus of the New Testament. The fact that the writers of the NT had to frequently misinterpret the Hebrew scriptures in order to make them line up with the character of Jesus is s sure sign they started out with the existential situation of a real person whose ministry failed and then worked their way backward to interpretation rather than working forward from the HB as the mythicists would have it.
The Euripides example I posted is fine. It merely shows the idea floating around in antiquity that it could be a good idea to lie about someone being a God for the benefit of the masses. Your criticism is being too specific with it.
Yes specificity is sometimes annoying I’ll grant you.
The use of haggadic midrash or pesher to create all these stories about Jesus shows the New Testament authors were deliberately lying about Jesus to make it seem that he was fulfilling Old Testament scripture.
This statement commits the informal logical fallacy known as “begging the question”. It assumes what has yet to be demonstrated. Did the NT authors use haggadic midrash or pesher to “create all those stories”? Make a case and then we can argue over whether or not you have psychic powers.
Hi Stephen. Thanks for responding.
I think midrash was used to help sell the Jesus salvation story to the world. The ancient world respected the Jewish religion for its great antiquity, so the disciples wanted to show Jesus as fulfilling Jewish scripture. This would also be important in selling “The Jesus Story” to the Jews.
Selling “The Jesus Story” seemed to be one of the main interests of Jesus’ disciples. For instance, we read in Matthew that:
The Great Commission
Matthew 28:16-20 New International Version (NIV)
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Price also comments about Luke 10:1-3, 17-20 that “Just as Moses had chosen twelve spies to reconnoiter the land which stretched “before your face,” sending them through the cities of the land of Canaan, so does Jesus send a second group, after the twelve, a group of seventy, whose number symbolizes the nations of the earth who are to be conquered, so to speak, with the gospel in the Acts of the Apostles (The Christ Myth Theory and its Problem, 181).”
I’m not a mythicist. Paul and Mark mentioned Jesus’ brother, so I think that’s enough to show that Jesus existed.
I think the disciples of Jesus wanted to create a better world, so they lied about him doing all those miracles and fulfilling all those scriptures to sell His story to the people. If the ancient people accepted that Jesus was a miracle worker who was favored by God, they would be more likely to follow His moral teaching. I think the disciples were willing to die for the cause of creating a better world.
Stephen said
Trying to ascribe motives to the gospel writers is hopeless. Who among us is even conscious of our own motives half the time? How can we possibly read the minds of writers of a different culture and a different language separated from us by two millennia? But I think kdgecko is right. It’s not a lie to pass on a story told to you that you think is true. Of course you can be mistaken. And the use of the term “lie” in this context invariably conjures up images of a bunch of guys sitting in a room making stuff up. Not even the mythicists tend to think it was that simplistic.If you want to see a clear example of a lie in the New Testament check out the Pastoral Letters. Somebody is pretending to be Paul. No ambiguity there.
To get back to the main theme of the thread, no, I can’t say without doubt that Jesus actually existed. But I think it’s the simplest explanation for what we do know. Most mythicism is utter drivel. But even someone like Richard Carrier interprets the traditions we already have. It’s not like he’s found anything new.
Lying was permitted in the Jewish religion if it was done in the service of God. For example, we read that:
“And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men-children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives.” (Exodus 1:18-20)
“And the woman [Rahab] took the two men and hid them and said thus: There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were; and it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark that the men went out; whither the men went I wot not; pursue after them quickly, for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to the roof of the house and hid them with the stalks of flax.” (Joshua 2:4-6)
“David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business….” (1 Samuel 21:2) [But David was an enemy of King Saul, and was not on the king’s business. We know that God approved of this lie, since 1 Kings 15:5 says that God approved of everything David did, with the single exception of the matter of Uriah.]
“And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him … I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him and prevail also; go forth and do so.” (1 Kings 22:21-22)
“And Elisha said unto him, go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.” (2 Kings 8:10)
“[Jesus said] Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast. … But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.” (John 7:8-10)
“Was not Rahab, the harlot, justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” (James 2:25)
“Raphael the angel answered … I am Azarias.” (Tobit 5:17-18)
God himself lies by proxy: (see 1 Kings 22:23; Jeremiah 4:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:11)
I think that the original Christians believed that if they lied about Jesus doing miracles and being resurrected, they could create a better world by getting people to buy into Jesus’ moral teachings. In doing this, they would be doing the will of God by creating a better world. In reality, Jesus never did any miracles, and he certainly wasn’t resurrected, because as we know now miracles don’t happen. I think they were inspired to do this by the idea of the “noble lie,” present in Plato and Euripides (and well known throughout the ancient world), and certainly known to the Greek speaking writers of the New Testament
john76 said
Stephen said
Trying to ascribe motives to the gospel writers is hopeless. Who among us is even conscious of our own motives half the time? How can we possibly read the minds of writers of a different culture and a different language separated from us by two millennia? But I think kdgecko is right. It’s not a lie to pass on a story told to you that you think is true. Of course you can be mistaken. And the use of the term “lie” in this context invariably conjures up images of a bunch of guys sitting in a room making stuff up. Not even the mythicists tend to think it was that simplistic.If you want to see a clear example of a lie in the New Testament check out the Pastoral Letters. Somebody is pretending to be Paul. No ambiguity there.
To get back to the main theme of the thread, no, I can’t say without doubt that Jesus actually existed. But I think it’s the simplest explanation for what we do know. Most mythicism is utter drivel. But even someone like Richard Carrier interprets the traditions we already have. It’s not like he’s found anything new.
Lying was permitted in the Jewish religion if it was done in the service of God. For example, we read that:
“And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men-children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives.” (Exodus 1:18-20)
“And the woman [Rahab] took the two men and hid them and said thus: There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were; and it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark that the men went out; whither the men went I wot not; pursue after them quickly, for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to the roof of the house and hid them with the stalks of flax.” (Joshua 2:4-6)
“David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business….” (1 Samuel 21:2) [But David was an enemy of King Saul, and was not on the king’s business. We know that God approved of this lie, since 1 Kings 15:5 says that God approved of everything David did, with the single exception of the matter of Uriah.]
“And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him … I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him and prevail also; go forth and do so.” (1 Kings 22:21-22)
“And Elisha said unto him, go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.” (2 Kings 8:10)
“[Jesus said] Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast. … But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.” (John 7:8-10)
“Was not Rahab, the harlot, justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” (James 2:25)
“Raphael the angel answered … I am Azarias.” (Tobit 5:17-18)
God himself lies by proxy: (see 1 Kings 22:23; Jeremiah 4:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:11)
I think that the original Christians believed that if they lied about Jesus doing miracles and being resurrected, they could create a better world by getting people to buy into Jesus’ moral teachings. In doing this, they would be doing the will of God by creating a better world. In reality, Jesus never did any miracles, and he certainly wasn’t resurrected, because as we know now miracles don’t happen. I think they were inspired to do this by the idea of the “noble lie,” present in Plato and Euripides (and well known throughout the ancient world), and certainly known to the Greek speaking writers of the New Testament
I think this is the cause that the original Christians were willing to die for: a better world.
And sorry. The line above should have read:
Lying was permitted in the Bible if it was done in the service of God
not
Lying was permitted in the Jewish religion if it was done in the service of God
lol
magpie said
With regard to prestonp @comment 11, I think that the Mormons have demonstrated their ability to build a religion from scratch, complete with scriptures and traditions. This can be researched going back to court records, newspapers and letters from, to, and about Joseph Smith. These records are available online. If an entire, and successful, religion can be based on a conman’ divination of God’s word from looking at a stone in his hat, I do not find it odd that Christianity could have sprung from an itinerant Jewish preacher’s teachings.
I think you are giving Joseph Smith a little more credit than he deserves when you say “started a religion from scratch”
The Native American lost tribe theory way first introduced in the mid 17th century by a Dutch Rabbi called Manasseh ben Israel in his book ” The Hope Of Israel” This idea was again published in the early 19th century (I forget the name of the book) and is probably were Smith got his idea. As for the rituals, ceremonies, underwear, handshakes, passwords and most importantly the symbolism were “borrowed” straight out of Freemasonry. Although things like the baptism of the dead were later additions. Smith been a good opportunist conman meshed them together. Although he must have had input from a higher level Freemason because aspects he used are from a level he never achieved himself (Is worth noting that both his father and brother were higher level Freemasons). I am no doubt sure he would be very proud of the multi billion dollar per year corrupt organization it has become.
On Topic: I have posted else were that early Judaism was a Astrological based religion and with the findings of around 6 early Synagogues all with Zodiac wheels and Hebrew inscriptions it stayed so until at least the 6th century CE. This to my mind means that the early follows of Judaism would have been aware and tracking the change from the age of Aries to the age of Pisces that occurred in the 1st century ce. It is my opinion that the Jesus movement started as a “End Of Days” cult within Judaism (and possibly not the only one that did).
This cult could have started with a Apocalyptic preacher named Jesus who later became the “mythical” biblical Jesus or it could have started with a “mythical” figurehead who later became the “mythical” biblical Jesus.
I personally lean towards the Apocalyptic preacher named Jesus who later became the “mythical” biblical Jesus (or Jesus’s in this case). @manx
What really does suprise, was how the Christian movement carried on when Jesus failed to re-appear in that generation. Paul must have got fed up with telling the new converts the time was short.
But then by then, the whole ‘church’ heirarchy was being built and pretty obvious that the leaders were aquiring power and influence over others, never mind money, and thus were not about to surrender that very easily. Then as now!
I wonder what would have happened had the Roman Empire and Constantine not taken it up?
gavriel said
I’m not quite sure Paul never met Jesus alive. This is debated, isn’t it? In order to experience a vision of J. Paul must have had some knowledge in order to recognize the “vision” as an appearance of J. I think it is likely that he saw him in public in Jerusalem at least once, preaching to a multitude or something. 2. Corinth 5.16 may be hinting at this.Although Paul’s writings dates to 15-20 year after the death of J., the relevant passages are based on his experiences that took place less than 5 years afterwards.
While some doubt may be raised against Paul’s “Brother of the Lord ” testimony, the mythicist case for a figurative reading of 1. Cor 5.9 is completely hopeless.
There has been great scholars on all sides of the Josephus testimonies. Josephus is not needed to establish the historicity beyond doubt, I think. But I find it hard to believe that the “James , the brother of Christ” passage is interpolated. Can anyone summarize the arguments for interpolation?
Another denialist approach to this is to discard the traditional criteria of authenticity, like those laid out in e.g. Meier’s “A marginal Jew vol I”. These criteria has come under attack, and it could be fun to discuss this topic in detail. I’m not sure if Bart has had any posts relating to this?
” Paul must have had some knowledge in order to recognize the “vision”
Why? that’s a bit thin. Did Paul “recognize” J? Didn’t J identify himself in the vision?
My suspicion is that Paul’s experience has more to do with his sense of guilt about what he was doing to thoswe people than anything else. However, Paul must have known of him, at least by reputation for him to find the claims of J as Messiah offensive. Besides, if we give Acts any credibility, Isn’t Paul asked why are you persecuting me?
How many different groups do you think he persecuted?
Historicity beyond doubt? No such thing
Doubt raised about the james reference seems to consist entirely of insinuation, question begging
and making stuff up.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)