A crucified messiah was clearly a “stumbling block" for most Jews (1 Cor 1:23), but at least some Jews, like Paul, believed Jesus’ atoning death, burial, and resurrection fulfilled Jewish scripture (1 Cor 15: 3-4). The scriptures Paul is referring to here probably include Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and following Matthew 12:40, the account of Jonas and the big fish. In any case, following accepted hermeneutic protocol, since the account of the passion, burial, and resurrection of Christ serves a theological function as scripture fulfillment for the original Christians, there is no reason to think there is any historical core to any of these three reported events, since the original Christians would have had reasons to invent them. So, the crucifixion does not meet the criterion of embarrassment. Just as the writers of the Hebrew scriptures may have invented a story about Moses receiving the ten commandments from God on top of the mountain so that their laws would appear to have impressive authority, so too might the original Christians have invented stories about Jesus’ divinity because they wanted to lend authority to Jesus’ ethical message. Clearly, in the ancient world, people were willing to lay down their lives in support of an ethical cause (e.g., Socrates). That’s not to say we have reason to think the passion/empty tomb/resurrection narratives were “noble lies," just that the criterion of embarrassment can’t be used here to rescue an historical core.
so too might the original Christians have invented stories about Jesus’ divinityI think you got something there.
The problem of course is: “why on earth didn’t the name and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth simply die with him in the ‘dust of death’?”
Such an ignominious end should have killed off any following of his teachings.
If he indeed lived, his teachings continued on in an oral tradition. That tradition was built on an earlier tradition that had plenty of room for integrating a story of a messiah that was sacrificed. Perhaps the most brilliant move was to change the requirements of inclusion from physical markings (circumcision) to a mere requirement of accepting this new messiah into your heart.
If he never existed, all of the above still works, but instead of one man, it was some accumulation of teachings that was then mythologized into the narratives that we are now so familiar with.
so too might the original Christians have invented stories about Jesus’ divinityI think you got something there. If you don't mind I'll expand on my thoughts a bit: (1). Robert M. Price is interesting about the crucifixion. He writes: The Crucifixion (Mark 15:21-41): The substructure for the crucifixion in chapter 15 is, as all recognize, Psalm 22, from which derive all the major details, including the implicit piercing of hands and feet (Mark 24//Psalm 22:16b), the dividing of his garments and casting lots for them (Mark 15:24//Psalm 22:18), the “wagging heads" of the mockers (Mark 15:20//Psalm 22:7), and of course the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34//Psalm 22:1). Matthew adds another quote, “He trusts in God. Let God deliver him now if he desires him" (Matthew 27:43//Psalm 22:8), as well as a strong allusion (“for he said, ‘I am the son of God’" 27:43b) to Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20, which underlies the whole story anyway (Miller), “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life: for if the righteous man is God’s son he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture that we may find out how gentle he is and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected." As for other details, Crossan points out that the darkness at noon comes from Amos 8:9, while the vinegar and gall come from Psalm 69:21. It is remarkable that Mark does anything but call attention to the scriptural basis for the crucifixion account. There is nothing said of scripture being fulfilled here. It is all simply presented as the events of Jesus’ execution. It is we who must ferret out the real sources of the story. This is quite different, e.g., in John, where explicit scripture citations are given, e.g., for Jesus’ legs not being broken to hasten his death (John 19:36), either Exodus 12:10, Numbers 9:12, or Psalm 34:19-20 (Crossan,). (2) Paul said “Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES (1 Corinthians 15:3)." So the question is what scriptures are Paul Referring to? As I said above in section (1) above, many details of the crucifixion seem to be derived from Psalm 22. In fact, the crucifixion itself may be derived from the implicit piercing of hands and feet in Psalm 22:16b (Mark 24). Psalm 22:16 says “Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet." The Septuagint , a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek made before the Common Era, and which the New Testament writers used, has "ωυξαν χειάς μου και πόδας (“they have dug my hands and feet")," which some commentators argue could be understood in the general sense as “pierced". The proper way to render the phrase remains disputed, but given the extensive parallels between Psalm 22 and the crucifixion, which I outlined, I have no problem with rendering it as “pierced." In any case, since the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus were understood to have fulfilled scripture by the original Christians (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), they have a theological rather than an historical significance, so there is no reason to think they ever happened (since the original Christians may have just invented them to suit their purposes). (3) So there really isn’t any reason to think Jesus was crucified. Maybe all the stuff about Pilate and the like was just good historical fiction, like the stuff about the Census of Quirinius relating to Jesus.
so too might the original Christians have invented stories about Jesus’ divinityI think you got something there. I agree. If you like that check this out: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18503/
Should anyone here come across an empty tomb, an empty coffin, or an empty hearse, I am sure you will assume someone was resurrected. What else could explain it?
Lois
Well, we have a single item of archaeological evidence (the “Pilate stone”) that Pontius Pilatus was once prefect in Judea, and during the reign of Tiberius which would have included the time Jesus is said to have lived and died. He is also mentioned, briefly, by Tacitus and Flavius Josephus (as is someone like Jesus, said to have “suffered the extreme penalty” or to have been “sent to the cross”). We know the Romans crucified people as a form of punishment. That’s about it, I think.
Well, we have a single item of archaeological evidence (the "Pilate stone") that Pontius Pilatus was once prefect in Judea, and during the reign of Tiberius which would have included the time Jesus is said to have lived and died. He is also mentioned, briefly, by Tacitus and Flavius Josephus (as is someone like Jesus, said to have "suffered the extreme penalty" or to have been "sent to the cross"). We know the Romans crucified people as a form of punishment. That's about it, I think.Not a lot to go on, though. Lois
In 'Did Jesus exist?], the American New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman] claims that there is wide agreement under historians that Jesus existed.
Following events he sees as historically true with high certainty:
- Jesus was born in Nazareth
- he was baptised by John the baptist
- he preached around 30 CE: he predicted the imminent coming of God’s kingdom for which one should be prepared
- he had a brother, named James
- he was crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem
Everything else is at least very insecure, due to errors because of oral tradition, theologically coloured, fantasised, or straight out falsified. He wrote several books about how Christian Orthodoxy has arisen: all very critical books.
In 'Did Jesus exist?], the American New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman] claims that there is wide agreement under historians that Jesus existed. Following events he sees as historically true with high certainty: - Jesus was born in Nazareth - he was baptised by John the baptist - he preached around 30 CE: he predicted the imminent coming of God's kingdom for which one should be prepared - he had a brother, named James - he was crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem Everything else is at least very insecure, due to errors because of oral tradition, theologically coloured, fantasised, or straight out falsified. He wrote several books about how Christian Orthodoxy has arisen: all very critical books.And based on that I think those of us who argue against this should just accept it and move one. Jesus actually being a real person has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't prove a thing. And when atheists and others attack that, they just make the believers believe even stronger. Admit he existed, admit from what we can tell he had some great things to say, and none of that means a thing as far as it goes. MLK and Gandhi said many wonderful things. Doesn't mean they're divine. They're just enlightened people.
So nice to see 4 posts in a row that are accurate. A few years ago, this thread would be flaming by now. A few hundred years ago, all of us would actually be on fire.
The problem of course is: "why on earth didn't the name and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth simply die with him in the 'dust of death'?" Such an ignominious end should have killed off any following of his teachings.So why didn’t Mr. Pantera (Jesus) teaching die out? The fact is they did. His teaching are there because they were used by John, but unless you read them in gnostic format you don’t get Jesus’s meanings. Christianly is John’s religion not Jesus’s. Read the gospels of Thomas, Mary. Better yet, read the books about the gnostic gospels by Elaine Pagels if you want Jesus’s religion.
The problem of course is: "why on earth didn't the name and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth simply die with him in the 'dust of death'?" Such an ignominious end should have killed off any following of his teachings.So why didn’t Mr. Pantera (Jesus) teaching die out? The fact is they did. His teaching are there because they were used by John, but unless you read them in gnostic format you don’t get Jesus’s meanings. Christianly is John’s religion not Jesus’s. Read the gospels of Thomas, Mary. Better yet, read the books about the gnostic gospels by Elaine Pagels if you want Jesus’s religion. And the streak is broken
The problem of course is: "why on earth didn't the name and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth simply die with him in the 'dust of death'?" Such an ignominious end should have killed off any following of his teachings.So why didn’t Mr. Pantera (Jesus) teaching die out? The fact is they did. His teaching are there because they were used by John, but unless you read them in gnostic format you don’t get Jesus’s meanings. Christianly is John’s religion not Jesus’s. Read the gospels of Thomas, Mary. Better yet, read the books about the gnostic gospels by Elaine Pagels if you want Jesus’s religion. And the streak is broken Hey, I bet myself you would respond in the manner you did. We are spending too much time on this site and becoming predictable. What, you can’t keep up with the new data? Get used to it. We have finally reached a point where we don’t have to wait decades for new theories to be proven. There are so many specialized scientific people now working in the fields that we will be able to really learn about our past history and have a steady flow of new findings. Example, John may not have written anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
Example, John may not have written anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_JohnMy NIV study Bible discusses this, I wouldn't call it a recent breakthrough.
Example, John may not have written anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_JohnMy NIV study Bible discusses this, I wouldn't call it a recent breakthrough. I would say that many of these items are new breakthroughs for a lot of people. And they might become new breakthroughs every couple of generations or so before they are put back to sleep. It was a new breakthrough for me. I had heard, that may be the case with other writings but not of John’s before with such certainty. And these breakthroughs seem to follow a pattern by the reactions from the religious sectors that proves religion is not really about the deities. It is about a belief. If god was real and showed up today, god would not have many followers. God would be fighting a losing battle against beliefs that have evolved over the last couple thousand years of the God he is supposed to be. And I put some of that to miss-translations in the bible that are yet to be cleaned up. Now if a breakthrough supports the beliefs, then it will get coverage. For example, a piece of toast with an image that is recognized as Jesus. Now you got something for the religious that they want to hear more about. But items like Jesus and Mary were married, or Mary was a considered a god. Doesn’t fit the belief no matter how true the fact may be. So the religious cult does not want to hear about it. I believe Mr. Pantera was a real person and he died on the cross. Remember, my hobby is religion as a whole, the bible is just a small part. And the bible was not that important in creating the foundation of deities. What Christianity did was set back the goals of what Jesus (Mr. Pantera) was trying to accomplish. More than a high priest, Jesus was a Politician and a Gnostic atheist. His political ambitions can best be told by reading the works of Barrie Wilson. His atheists is found in his Gnostic teachings. Mr. Pantera was obviously a highly educated man in religion. Mostly the old Rig Veda religion. There is a book out matching many of Jesus’s religious quotes to the Rig Veda. And the Rig Veda was an atheist religion. A lot of people can see the OT god as being mean and the NT god as being loving. The atheist Rig Veda religion was a very loving religion.
I looked up the Pantera guy, classic Yohe. Something that has absolutely no evidence, a coincidental use of the same name in the same time, but you believe it. It’s the kind of evidence that Popes and pastors use, something you seem to be against, except when it’s you doing it.
I agree that these things spring up, then get forgotten. But that’s not what “modern” means, or “historically accurate”, or “newly discovered”. What you are talking about is religious malpractice. It’s the kind of theological sleight of hand that people allow every Sunday. The questioning of the authorship of some of Paul’s epistles goes as far back as Eusebius, but a Preacher who wanted to sound liberal would mention it as if he just read it in the latest literature.
I wish I could claim to have coined, “theological malpractice”, but it was Thomas Sheehan. Click for the story, his book and an iTunes course.]
I looked up the Pantera guy, classic Yohe. Something that has absolutely no evidence, a coincidental use of the same name in the same time, but you believe it. It's the kind of evidence that Popes and pastors use, something you seem to be against, except when it's you doing it. I agree that these things spring up, then get forgotten. But that's not what "modern" means, or "historically accurate", or "newly discovered". What you are talking about is religious malpractice. It's the kind of theological sleight of hand that people allow every Sunday. The questioning of the authorship of some of Paul's epistles goes as far back as Eusebius, but a Preacher who wanted to sound liberal would mention it as if he just read it in the latest literature. I wish I could claim to have coined, "theological malpractice", but it was Thomas Sheehan. Click for the story, his book and an iTunes course.]The only theological malpractice here is taking place by you. I don’t care if the Pantera story is correct or not. Just like I don’t care if the Indians got to North America by land or sea. The point is they got here. The point being made is that Jesus was conceived from a man on earth, not some god from the sky. Please, try a follow the meaning of the statements. There is the story of Pantera, not rock solid at all. But can you give me another story about his father? Don’t you think that after most of the religious world, except the Catholics, are replacing the word “virgin" with the word “young woman" that it is time to deal with this issue? Are you trying to slow up progress? You probably without a doubt know more about the bible that anyone else posting on this site. I would put money on it. Therefore you must know that Jesus was teaching to two audiences. You must also know the Jesus just didn’t make up his religion. That religions evolved upon older religions. And you know that Mary’s and Thomas’s gospels are Gnostic. And yet, you still roll with the flow. That my friend is what I would call theological malpractice. You brought up the term “historically accurate". That is a major problem today. In the time of Jesus, it is my understanding that it was normal to be able to recite at least seventeen or more generations back. And for everyone in your village to know you and a lot of your past generations. On the 6 degrees thinking, it must have stopped a lot of wars. Most people had to be related to some degree. So where did Jesus stand in this subject? The OT bible stories were verbal for hundreds of years, and you accept them, so why not Pantera? If making it old gives it authority, then Pantera must have some authority.
The only theological malpractice here is taking place by you. I don’t care if the Pantera story is correct or not. Just like I don’t care if the Indians got to North America by land or sea.Then why bring up Pantera at all? And by my saying the Pantera story is wild speculation, that indicates I believe Jesus was God? How do you get that? I don't care what it is you don't care about, but make some effort to be coherent.