Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 76 of 560 (465652)
05-08-2008 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Grizz
05-08-2008 8:32 PM


Hi Grizz
Thanks for making this a discussion and not a debate.
Grizz writes:
Wright's critics will contend, however, that he leaves too many stones unturned and has left a bit too much to the imagination. For Wright, everything seems to boil down to how such a messianic figure like Jesus would appear to the traditional temple Jew. At times, he appears to have an obsession with this issue. There is life outside the temple tradition, however, and we know from the Gospel canon itself that Christianity was a very hard sell within Judaism.
It would be hard for anyone to objectively state by reading the gospels that the Christian campaign to convert the Jews was a success; if anything, it was a failure. It appears there was rare success making the case with the orthodox and only limited success elsewhere within Judaism. The documents indicate early Christians were thrown out of the temple, hunted down, and to a great degree persecuted by the orthodox culture. Indeed, the majority saw the early Christian movement as heretical nonsense filled with absurd messianic claims.
I think that Wright might respond this way. It does appear to have been a hard sell but then Jesus was not what they had anticipated a messiah to be. He didn't defeat the Romans and he didn't rebuild the temple. He went even further in that he said that trying to defeat the Romans militarily was wrong. He preached that they were to love their enemy, turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. He claimed that if they carried on the way they were it would have terrible consequences which it did in 70AD.
He also preached that their whole temple centered religion was being changed. They didn't have to go to the temple anymore to receive forgiveness. He preached a forgiveness that could be received directly without going to the temple.
This whole idea would be very threatening to the Jewish nation. I don't find it surprising that it wasn't accepted all that well. Mind you we know much more about Paul's ministry to the Gentiles than we do James' ministry to the Jews so we aren't all that sure about just how successful he was.
Most scholars conclude that the very early Jewish converts to Christianity were likely coming from the same pool that Jesus gained popularity with before his death --- those well outside Jerusalem and far away from the establishment. These are the Jews on the outskirts and fringes of society and those who fall well outside the established orthodoxy. Among many Jewish communities outside Jerusalem, and Galilee in particular, there was distaste for the temple culture and the hypocrisy of the dominant temple sects like the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Many Jews were marginalised by the temple authorities and the poor were treated like outcasts and pariah. These were the folks out there in the dessert hanging out with the unorthodox sects and fringe groups like the Hemerobaptists. This crowd was just the type that would be more easily swayed and less likely to see the gospel message as something threatening to their particular Jewish sensibilities.
I certainly agree with that. It is also consistent with the message that Jesus taught.
Regarding Wright's claim that Christians would have a hard time convincing anyone had the resurrection not occurred and people did not have the opportunity to see for themselves:
I simply don't understand this one. According to the documents and claims, the resurrected Jesus appeared only to a very small handful of his close followers for an extremely brief period of time. If seeing is believing, how did they convince Jews or Gentiles that Jesus was resurrected once he disappeared? Also, if the goal was at first to 'save the lost sheep of the house of Israel', as Wright claims, why were the appearances so clandestine and secretive and limited to only a select number of his immediate followers?
I don't think his point was that Christians would not be able to convince people of the resurrection if it wasn't true. I think his point is that they wouldn't have even tried to convert anyone. As I said earlier they had all gone back to their fishing etc after the crucifixion, and that is where they would have stayed if they hadn't encountered the resurrected Jesus.
It was more than just a few followers.
1 Cor 15 writes:
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Grizz writes:
The real question to be answered is, what was it about Christianity that appealed to the gentiles and pagans? Christianity may have started as a small Jewish apocalyptic sect, but it became an entirely gentile movement within a generation following the death of Jesus. None of these converts would have witnessed the bodily resurrection of Jesus, nor would they have seen Jesus when he was alive.
If we are following this through from one stage to the next I believe that there is an answer to this. On the broad assumption that you have looked at Wright's polemic and been convinced by the case that he makes then it follows that you would then be prepared to give credibility to the things that he is reported to have said. Jesus said that we would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit to empower them in their mission. It seems to have worked.
Joseph Campbell would note here that the power of myth is awesome and it makes people accept and do any manner of things. In the twenty-first century, if Oral Robert can convince his followers that though prayer he had raised someone from the dead, I certainly see no reason why members of an apocalyptic Jewish sect could not be sucessful in convincing first-century inhabitants of the empire that Jesus had raised from the dead. Given people with the right dispositions and mind sets, anything is possible. One need only look at some of the beliefs floating around the world today to figure this out.
The point again is that without the resurrection the apostles wouldn't have even tried to convince anyone of anything. The only reason that the Christian church came into being is that the apostles absolutely believed in the resurrected Jesus.
For some odd reason we no longer witness visitations from beyond and we never see people become resurrected after their bodies have begun to decay. The more our knowledge of the world has grown, the more we realize that many of the stories of our childhood no longer make much sense when viewed in the context of what we see going on around us in the here-and-now. This is the reason why I am hard pressed to give the extraordinary stories of antiquity any credibility.
That is fair enough and a logical conclusion. I would add however that there are many very intelligent and thoughtful people, such as Wright, who have come to a very different conclusion as to what best makes sense of the world then and the world now.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Grizz, posted 05-08-2008 8:32 PM Grizz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by IamJoseph, posted 05-11-2008 2:42 AM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 77 of 560 (465654)
05-08-2008 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ramoss
05-08-2008 10:42 PM


Re: Different view points
ramoss writes:
Well, spoken like a true believer, but his basic premise is that the Gospels recorded things accurately.. and he is trying to rationalize that position.
This in many ways is a "chicken and egg" discussion. If the resurrection is historical then you view the scriptures the same way and vice versa. It is also true that if you reject one you reject the other.
Wright has put both the scripture and the resurrection in their historical context and come to the belief that they can be trusted. Obviously you and others come to a different conclusion. I don't accept that it is a rationalization just as I'm not accusing Borg and Crossan as rationalizing their position.
Somehow, the Gospels don't seem to back up the claim he was resurrected in a new body to me. It seems to be an addition from earlier beliefs.
I know that the cult in Qumram were waiting for their 'great teacher' to come back. Since they are now extinct, I guess that never happened either. The concept of a resurrection seems to be from the fringe groups of Judaism.
First century Jews anticipated their resurrection at the end of time. My understanding is that there was nothing in Judaism that suggested that anyone would be resurrected in the middle of human history.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ramoss, posted 05-08-2008 10:42 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ramoss, posted 05-11-2008 11:14 AM GDR has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 78 of 560 (465665)
05-09-2008 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by GDR
05-08-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Different view points
Well I'm glad that you have accepted that I was right about Crossan and Borg. In future try not to indulge yourself in "poisoning the well".
quote:
In the case of Paul's experience on the road to Damasus we do.
Perhaps you can cite my Paul's own account then. Although even if you do, it refers to events after the Resurrection and the Ascension and thus does not qualify as an eyewitness account of the Resurrection itself (which, of course, was not witnessed).
quote:
He also had direct contact with the first disciples
And says very little about the Resurrection as a historical event. Surprisingly little, in fact given its theological importance. There is no mention of the empty tomb, nor are there any details to the list of "appearances".
quote:
There is much speculation about how close the writers of the 4 gospel accounts were to the witnesses of the resurrection.
Yet if they were not witnesses their accounts were not "recorded by those who witnessed it".
quote:
There were certainly enough people around at the time Mark was written to be able to refute that particular gospel if it didn't represent what happened accurately.
That really depends on when Mark was written - and more importantly on its early circulation. It does not matter who might have been available to refute it, if they never saw it. It is generally accepted that Mark was written after Peter's death, not in Judea and even the earliest mainstream dates do not put it long before the Jewish war, which would have had a major effect on the availability of witnesses.
quote:
Not at all. That was my point. As Theists they must believe that something miraculous happened to cause there to be something instead of nothing. That is why I wonder why it is so difficult for them, or any other Theist, to not accept the possibility of occurrences that defy natural law occurring at other points in human history.
However your point was that they absolutely denied the possibility of miracles. Then you say that they believe in a miracle. That IS a clear-cut contradiction. As I have observed before logic is not your strong point,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 05-08-2008 7:48 PM GDR has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 79 of 560 (465843)
05-11-2008 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by GDR
05-08-2008 11:09 PM


THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE - OR CALL YOU TO ACCOUNT TOO.
quote:
I think that Wright might respond this way. It does appear to have been a hard sell but then Jesus was not what they had anticipated a messiah to be.
The Jews were right, they had no reason to anticipate a Messiah outside of their belief, but Europe did. The criteria for a Messiah, as stated in the NT, is different from that in the OT. Why would the ancesters of today's Europe not accept such a tailor made messiah - after they three times wanted to, but could not accept the OT requirements - centuries before christianity emerged? A close examination of the gospels fits more with what Europe would accept, rather than what was revealed.
quote:
He didn't defeat the Romans and he didn't rebuild the temple. He went even further in that he said that trying to defeat the Romans militarily was wrong. He preached that they were to love their enemy, turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. He claimed that if they carried on the way they were it would have terrible consequences which it did in 70AD.
This only applies if he could defeat the romans and then decided not to. He could NOT defeat the romans, and any differing perspectives is a wish list seen from rose colored lens. He did not preach to go the extra mile: there was no extra mile than the defense put up by the Jews against Rome, as opposed pointing to hapless, rowdy money changers. There is no equivalence in all recorded history of a belief than the challenge to Rome by the jews in 70 CE: 1.1 million Jews sacrificed their lives for it - and unpardonably omitted from the gospels, constituting a lie-by-omission.
He did NOT claim there would be terrible consequences against Rome - this appears a retrospective statement [no contemporary hebrew writings exist of the NT], and saying so would be superfluous - this was a given - that is the point here. The entire then world knew this was a foregone conclusion how it would end; the Jews already experienced this with Babylon and the Hellinists. Clearly, the Gospels turned the greatest show of belief into its antithesis, because of its own motivated agenda. Even the empreror Vespasian refused the crown of victory - which all but seemed a crown of mockery in the celebrations of Rome: the Jews claimed, freedom of belief - or death. Today, the world has its freedom of belief because of those Jews - not because of the Gospels, but despite it. Depraved Rome and its divine emperors were put to shame by any honest reading of this event and its subsequent history.
quote:
He also preached that their whole temple centered religion was being changed. They didn't have to go to the temple anymore to receive forgiveness. He preached a forgiveness that could be received directly without going to the temple.
The temple destruction was foreseen by Solomon, who hid the arc in anticipation of it; the laws were not changed - all OT laws exist today and are active. The temple destruction was a signal that sacrifice was ended, and to be replaced with deeds and prayer, as per the Psalms ['Except the sacrifice of my lips']. What is not considered here is, the OT was the first document which forbade human sacrifice; and animal sacrifice, entrenched in humanity, was eliminated gradually, first by making all sacrifice subject only to accidental sins and thanksgiving, and only at the temple - this eliminated 99% of animal sacrifices in a single stroke, while giving the people a means to wean off it: the only correct way. Thus the notion of sacrifice as a Jewish premise is a moot one, and clearly vested elsewhere: it has NOTHING to do with why the temple was destroyed - in fact, Rome insisted on sacrifice, but that this be in honor of its divine emperors! Other factors apply, which are clearly outside of the gospels, which ironically re-invented human sacrifice, in abject contradiction of the OT, which declares:
'THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER, NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER - ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY'.
The notion of turning the cheek is a failed one, and its best proof is the history of the medevial church, which never turned its cheek from being the world's greatest murderers of inncoent people in all recorded history - even when discarding its worst two last centuries. The turning of the cheek, when one has to assist, is also a crime:
'YOU SHALL NOT WITNESS THY FELLOW'S INNOCENT BLOOD AND REMAIN IDLE'.
That law is accepted in all bona fide judiciary institutions. In fact, the world turns by OT laws exclusively, and not a single NT law is accepted in any christian judiciary institutions. in fact there are no laws in the NT.
quote:
This whole idea would be very threatening to the Jewish nation. I don't find it surprising that it wasn't accepted all that well. Mind you we know much more about Paul's ministry to the Gentiles than we do James' ministry to the Jews so we aren't all that sure about just how successful he was.
This is an honest insight. Paul failed with the early followers of Jesus, and was expelled by the Nasserites and the Ebonites; thus he percieved his vision after this fact - significantly amd ridiculously. The term christian and christ did not occur till two centuries later; the divine factor was accrued gradually, and culminated by voting Jesus as such in Constantinople, along with the negation of circumsizion, the speaking of Hebrew, etc, and antisemitism was born, targeting a small nation already in exile, refusing to allow them to return, and refusing them any life in Europe. Absolutely, the church should have restored the jews back to their homeland - it did the reverse. It failed in this quest.
Back in the middle-east, islam emerged, and also rejected Pauline christianity: at least affirming the jews were right in the fulcrum factors, and that the Gospels was clearly a western, european construct, having nothing to do with a Jew in Judea anymore.
quote:
Among many Jewish communities outside Jerusalem, and Galilee in particular, there was distaste for the temple culture and the hypocrisy of the dominant temple sects like the Sadducees and the Pharisees.
This disregards the roman attrocities, which is not understood by many. Greeks and Romans were hastilly converted and appointed as Jewish rulers in Judea, decrees which were antithetical and divisive were implemented. The Temple was thus used as a means to terrorise the inhabitants, and formulated to negate any belief which contradicts Rome's decrees. The charge of heresy was decreed by Caligula, which was later continued by the church. Here we see, Jesus did NOT sacrifice himself, because the law of Heresy would have earned him the death penalty with no input from Jews. The only sacrifice which occured was here:
WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR.
The Jews lost their land following a holocaust [1.1 million ] in 70 CE - and they were returned following a holocaust in 1948. Both holocausts were perpertrated by the same forces - in contradiction and defense of Monotheism and freedom of belief. This same battle continues today, and remains in denial - because admitting it would cause great negative consequences for the Gospels, which alligned belief in God with villification and negation of another. This has also quagmired 2 billion otherwise sincere and genuine people otherwise Godly inclined. What a mess - do we need a Messiah or what!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by GDR, posted 05-08-2008 11:09 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-11-2008 5:23 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 80 of 560 (465867)
05-11-2008 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by IamJoseph
05-11-2008 2:42 AM


Re: LOWERCASE WILL SET YOU FREE
A weak point does not become stronger by setting a statement entirely in upper case. A strong point does not need it.
You will find that bold and italic print serve nicely for setting a text out from its surroundings. You also have options regarding font size, colour, indentation, and the like. Please use sparingly.
This has also quagmired 2 billion otherwise sincere and genuine people otherwise Godly inclined.
Quagmire is a noun.
What a mess - do we need a Messiah or what!
A proofreader, I'd say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by IamJoseph, posted 05-11-2008 2:42 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 81 of 560 (465882)
05-11-2008 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by GDR
05-08-2008 1:35 PM


Re: Different view points
Having read the links you provided earlier I think it is fair to say that Crossman and Borg approached the subject with what we can both agree to be a healthy, and indeed necessary, skepticism whilst Wright has approached the subject with a distinct philosophical bias in favour of the miraculous.
Do you dispute this?
Do you still think the two approaches are equally valid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 05-08-2008 1:35 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by GDR, posted 05-11-2008 10:37 AM Straggler has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 82 of 560 (465889)
05-11-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Straggler
05-11-2008 8:51 AM


Re: Different view points
Straggler writes:
Having read the links you provided earlier I think it is fair to say that Crossman and Borg approached the subject with what we can both agree to be a healthy, and indeed necessary, skepticism whilst Wright has approached the subject with a distinct philosophical bias in favour of the miraculous.
Do you dispute this?
Do you still think the two approaches are equally valid?
Actually, yes I do. They all had established beliefs from earlier on. Here is a quote from wiki.
quote:
The seminar treats the gospels as historical artifacts, representing not only Jesus' actual words and deeds but also the inventions and elaborations of the early Christian community and of the gospel authors. The fellows placed the burden of proof on those who advocate any passage's historicity. Unconcerned with canonical boundaries, they asserted that the Gospel of Thomas has more authentic material than the Gospel of John.[8]
While analyzing the gospels as fallible human creations is a standard historical-critical method,[9] the seminar's premise that Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic world view is controversial. Rather than revealing an apocalyptic eschatology, which instructs his disciples to prepare for the end of the world, the fellows argue that the authentic words of Jesus indicate that he preached a sapiential eschatology, which encourages all God's children to repair the world.
Jesus Semiar
Nobody, be it Crossan, Borg or Wright can b completely objective. They all have their philosophical basis which they established earlier in their life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Straggler, posted 05-11-2008 8:51 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 05-11-2008 12:01 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2008 1:19 PM GDR has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 83 of 560 (465891)
05-11-2008 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by GDR
05-08-2008 11:23 PM


Re: Different view points
Well, no, the first century Jews did not anticipate a resurrection for the most part. The Temple Jews, particularly the Sadducee did not believe in a resurrection or an afterlife. There were some sects that were distant from Jerusalem that believed and expected a resurrection (the cult at Qumram was expected their 'great teacher' to come back)
However, the Jews in Jerusalem did not expect a 'resurrection'. There is no evidence of a 'resurrection'. The stories in the Gospel about the Resurrection came from writers that apparently were never in Jerusalem.
The vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem rejected Christianity. All the Gospels were written in places remote from Jerusalem. Shouldn't that tell you sometime?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by GDR, posted 05-08-2008 11:23 PM GDR has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 84 of 560 (465895)
05-11-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by GDR
05-11-2008 10:37 AM


Re: Different view points
Precluding conclusions no matter what the evidence, as you originally suggested, is one thing (and unjustifiable as anything other than philosophical bias)
Stating that extraordinary claims require greater levels of evidence seems more than reasonable and cannot sensibly be claimed as philosophical bias.
Given this - The theistic assertion that we all interpret evidence with equal bias is a false claim but that is exactly what you are doing here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by GDR, posted 05-11-2008 10:37 AM GDR has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 85 of 560 (465900)
05-11-2008 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by GDR
05-11-2008 10:37 AM


Re: Different view points
So the only actual bias you can suggest is that they didn't believe that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet.
That's not really relevant to the question of the Resurrection, is it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by GDR, posted 05-11-2008 10:37 AM GDR has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 86 of 560 (465905)
05-11-2008 2:19 PM


Wright uses the phrase, "It is impossible that" quite a bit in his analysis of the resurrection stories and this is something that should never be stated when it comes to inferring the motives or intent of any figure of antiquity. Also, if it is valid to use incredulity to establish motive and intent and then use this as a basis on which to assign historical facts, then it is also valid to use incredulity to establish the truth of any claim related to any arbitrary belief system.
One could conclude that Mormonism must be true since it is impossible that so many conservative Christians would willingly face death, starvation, and suffering to travel halfway around the country had Joseph Smith not received a visit from the angel Moroni. In fact, this argument is one that many Mormons use today -- if Mormonism were not true, it is implausible to conclude that with little formal education, Joseph Smith would have the ability to make up such elaborate stories in such a short period of time without the help of divine revelation. Furthermore, without divine assistance he certainly would not be able to convince so many people who adhered to such a strict and orthodox conservative Christian theology.
Certainly, a Mormon would give this argument significant weight, but for anyone else this would be considered an argument built upon very shaky ground(the phrase in vogue today is 'straw man'). One would obviously object that this argument used by Mormons is not exhaustive and makes use of many assumptions about the texts and the actual circumstances that went into their construction. Of course, very few outside of Mormonism would ever consider such inference valid and nobody outside orthodox Christianity would make the clam that the resurrection stories as told in the documents of antiquity must have been factual simply because had it not occurred, the followers of Jesus would have went back to fishing.
On an unrelated note(see my PostScript at the end of my last post), sociologists have noted that it is quite plausible to conclude that Christianity had the same growth curve as present-day Mormonism. Their study of social trends within Mormonism has led to many plausible inferences regarding the growth of early Christianity.
One statement Wright made in his address that would give one pause is: "No Christian group or sect in the first two centuries following the death of Jesus denied the resurrection and his appearance to the disciples." This statement is true or false depending on how you define resurrection and appearance. I will attribute this statement to a poor choice of words; unfortunately, it might very well lead someone to a false conclusion about the uniformity of early Christian beliefs.
Early Gnostics denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Wright knows this and so does anyone who has ever read or studied the apocrypha literature of early Christianity. Many of the numerous Gnostic Christian communities that flourished alongside the synoptic tradition in the first few centuries had always denied the accounts of bodily resurrection. The Gnostic gospels tell a completely different story: following the death of Jesus, he appeared as an ethereal spirit in the form of "an angel of light" that visited the apostles and dwelt among them. In other gospels, Jesus sent the holy spirit to his followers upon his death. Another Gnostic account also tells the story that Jesus was never crucified and Simon was crucified in his place. I am sure many here have heard of these stories in the media. Regardless, the story of an empty tomb and physical appearances to the disciples is absent in most of the Gnostic literature.
It is false to believe that the synoptic eschatology on the resurrection was universally accepted in the first two centuries, because it was not. This simply is not true and again, Wright knows this. Regardless, all of the Gospels, whether canonical or apocryphal, make an implicit claim that the source for the information contained within them was the apostles themselves.
It is believed that the Gnostics started putting their stories into writing in response to the rise of the synoptic literary tradition. The reason historians possess so many complete apocryphal manuscripts is because they were kept out of the elements. Archeologists now find them buried in the sand inside pottery jars because they were being destroyed as heretical documents by the establishment in the second century. All of the various Christian sects of the second century were hiding their stash of documents from not only each other but also the mainstream Christian orthodoxy that was forming. Most of the non-canonical apocrypha are in very good condition.
Once again, here is a link that displays the timeline of early Christian manuscripts: Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
When interpreting the texts, the methodology employed in orthodox circles is not exhaustive and assumes only a supernatural explanation for events. Here again, they will use incredulity to establish an inference and pose the question, "Why would so many followers of Jesus make such a claims if it wasn't true? " For any objective historian, there is obviously a naivety in this approach.
What starts in Mark as a relatively simple story of an empty tomb later appears in Luke and John as elaborate accounts detailing how Jesus wined and dined with his disciples. All of the Gospels also disagree on when, where, and how these things took place. In Luke, these events occurred in and around Jerusalem. Earlier, Mark and Matthew imply that the post-resurrection encounter with the disciples took place far to the north in the district of Galilee.
Claims of Visions, apparitions, and visitations from beyond are not exactly something unique to Christianity, nor is the belief in resurrection. In fact, if we are to believe the story, the Gospels themselves tell us that "Herod believed Jesus to be John the Baptist raised from the dead." Inhabitants of antiquity(and even inhabitants here in the twenty-first century) often believed they were being visited by angels, spirits, or deities.
If anyone has ever read the Autobiography of Malcolm X, they will hear the claim that he received a personal visit from Elijah Mohammad while in prison. Malcolm X recalls how he saw a vision of Elijah Mohammad in his prison cell and how he appeared as a "shining light so bright that I could hardly gaze upon him." He then details how they engaged in an elaborate and lengthy conversation.
Was Malcolm X fabricating this story or did something personal and subjective happen to him? The answer really isn't that important because what matters is how other people react to such claims. History is full of these kinds of stories and claims. Even today, just about every year someone claims to have been the beneficiary of a personal visit from the blessed virgin or someone claims to see the face of Jesus in a slice of toast or a bowl of spaghettios.
How do you explain claims such as these and how do you explain claims like those made by thousands of people who tell us they saw the sun fall to the earth at Lourdes? Are these outright lies, fabrications, or subjective personal experiences intepreted as supernatural events? I haven't the slightest idea. I don't claim to be able to get inside someone's head now and I certainly don't claim to know what someone was thinking two-thousand years prior. This is a question that would likely be of interest to psychologists, anthropologists, and neuroscientists. It is an interesting question but I am not concerned with it here in this thread.
All you have to do is cry "Fire!" in a crowded theatre to get everyone to run away. Today, all one has to do is cry "Apparition!" to get people to run towards you. Why would yesterday be any different than today in this regards?
The very strange thing about modern Theologians is that they assume it is only a staple of the modern period whereby people would be inclined to see visions of Jesus in their morning breakfast. This stuff only happens to us here in the twenty-first century. It is as if they are implicitly telling us that people only believe crazy things in the modern era and it is only the stories of antiquity that should be considered factual regarding claims of personal visitiations from beyond.
The theologian views the past as an age of miracles when people walked on water, men were raised from the dead, and the blind had their sight restored. For some unknown reason, the structure of the Universe suddenly changed and these miraculous events no longer occurred. We no longer see people rise from the grave or see the blind regain their sight. The closest we get today to encountering the miraculous is hearing the story of someone who saw the outline of the blessed virgin on a banana peel. We then will be inclined to call these people superstitious kooks and charlatans. Of course, we only assign these labels to those individuals today who make such claims. It would never enter our mind that perhaps it is possible that such labels should also be applied to those from the past.
The moral here is that if you are looking for a supernatural explanation to events then you will certainly find them. This approach is sufficient for a theologian immersed in Christian orthodoxy but from the perspective of a historian whose goal is to be exhaustive, this won't fly.
I have stated this before and will state it again: method is more important than results. We will never know with certainty the details of antiquity. However, if your methods are sound and exhaustive, you can at least have confidence in your results.
For the Christian, the resurrection is the main event, but for the historian it is only one small aspect of the story. We really have got a bit ahead of ourselves here and we need to turn to the texts. If we want to understand history, we must first understand the documents.
...........
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 05-12-2008 10:23 PM Grizz has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 87 of 560 (466055)
05-12-2008 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Grizz
05-11-2008 2:19 PM


Hi Grizz
One of my problems is that I have not studied this subject aside from reading Wright, Crossan and Borg and skimming Josephus.
As for your point on Mormanism I think the point I'm trying to make is different than the point you argued. I'm simply suggesting that I can't see a reason for Christianity to come about at all without the resurrection. Without the resurrection Jesus is just another failed messiah. It is in my view the most reasonable answer for the complete turnaround of the disciples, as well as Paul, after the crucifixion. The fact that it spread as rapidly as it did is another question altogether.
Grizz writes:
One statement Wright made in his address that would give one pause is: "No Christian group or sect in the first two centuries following the death of Jesus denied the resurrection and his appearance to the disciples." This statement is true or false depending on how you define resurrection and appearance. I will attribute this statement to a poor choice of words; unfortunately, it might very well lead someone to a false conclusion about the uniformity of early Christian beliefs.
I'd be interested in seeing a link to that. I have read a lot of Wright and he has pointed out the beliefs of the gnostics, and their essentially deistic faith many times.
Claims of Visions, apparitions, and visitations from beyond are not exactly something unique to Christianity, nor is the belief in resurrection. In fact, if we are to believe the story, the Gospels themselves tell us that "Herod believed Jesus to be John the Baptist raised from the dead." Inhabitants of antiquity(and even inhabitants here in the twenty-first century) often believed they were being visited by angels, spirits, or deities.
To the best of my knowledge no other would be messiah ever had this claim made about them. Once they were put to death their movement ended.
The moral here is that if you are looking for a supernatural explanation to events then you will certainly find them. This approach is sufficient for a theologian immersed in Christian orthodoxy but from the perspective of a historian whose goal is to be exhaustive, this won't fly.
I realize I'm repeating myself but it does largely depend on whether the historian in question is able to accept the possibility of the miraculous. That won't predetermine is final conclusion but if you are like those from the "Jesus Seminar" and had already discounted that possibility then it does largely influence the outcome. By the way, I agree that Wright did early on accept that the miraculous was a possibility which certainly influences his findings. As I said, none of us are completely objective.
My Christian faith is just that, a faith. Yes I believe that the historical evidence supports my faith, but it certainly doesn't prove it. In my view my faith does make some sense of human history in general and it does make a lot of sense of what I have experienced in my life.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Grizz, posted 05-11-2008 2:19 PM Grizz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2008 1:37 AM GDR has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 88 of 560 (466083)
05-13-2008 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by GDR
05-12-2008 10:23 PM


quote:
Without the resurrection Jesus is just another failed messiah. It is in my view the most reasonable answer for the complete turnaround of the disciples, as well as Paul, after the crucifixion. The fact that it spread as rapidly as it did is another question altogether
Two problems here. Firstly, Paul's according to the Bible, Paul's alleged turnaround has nothing to do with the resurrection as such. Secondly all the alleged turnarounds come from the Bible, mostly from the Gospels and Acts. We can't know how accurate they are on that point.
All we can really say is that the early Christians made some sort of turnaround, focussing their messianic expectations on a resurrected Jesus after the living Jesus failed and died. Do we really have sufficient information to assert that that was impossible without a literal resurrection ? Maybe the odds were such that we could expect one group to survive - and Christianity was the lucky sect.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have been recently forced to reinterpret their prophecies again. The early Christians also saw their apocalyptic expectations fail. Failure and disappointment are not certain killers of any religious movement.
quote:
I realize I'm repeating myself but it does largely depend on whether the historian in question is able to accept the possibility of the miraculous. That won't predetermine is final conclusion but if you are like those from the "Jesus Seminar" and had already discounted that possibility then it does largely influence the outcome. By the way, I agree that Wright did early on accept that the miraculous was a possibility which certainly influences his findings. As I said, none of us are completely objective.
You've not shown that the Jesus Seminar had any such bias. You've not given any reason to believe it. The fact that you feel the need to resort to such tactics clearly illustrates the fact that you have no real case.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 05-12-2008 10:23 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by GDR, posted 05-13-2008 2:20 AM PaulK has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 89 of 560 (466088)
05-13-2008 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by PaulK
05-13-2008 1:37 AM


PaulK writes:
Two problems here. Firstly, Paul's according to the Bible, Paul's alleged turnaround has nothing to do with the resurrection as such. Secondly all the alleged turnarounds come from the Bible, mostly from the Gospels and Acts. We can't know how accurate they are on that point.
I can't prove how accurate they are. How can you prove how accurate Josephus or any other ancient text is? I realize that you don't accept this but I also believe that the writers were inspired by God. (I mean this in a general sense, not that God dictated it word for word.)
Actually if you think about it, if the resurrection is not historical then it is obvious that the writers weren't inspired. If however the resurrection is an actual historic event it isn't a stretch at all to believe that the writers were inspired by God.
All we can really say is that the early Christians made some sort of turnaround, focussing their messianic expectations on a resurrected Jesus after the living Jesus failed and died. Do we really have sufficient information to assert that that was impossible without a literal resurrection ?
It is clear from the texts that they had no messianic expectations after the crucifixion. They just went back to their fishing etc. Most of them didn't even hang around for the crucifixion.
No we don't have sufficient information to say that it was impossible without the resurrection but in my view I agree with Wright that it seems to be the most reasonable explanation. In the end though, it still remains an issue of faith.
The early Christians also saw their apocalyptic expectations fail.
Most of the apocalyptic expectations seem to have resolved around the destruction of the temple. I think that Paul believed that "New Creation" would happen in the relatively near future but Jesus made the point that no one would know the hour or the minute. Nobody as far as I know was suggesting any particular day or year.
Here is the web site of "The Jesus Seminar". You can make up your own mind whether or not it had a liberal bias from the outset.
The Jesus Seminar
I contend it does but feel free to disagree.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2008 1:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2008 7:44 AM GDR has replied

Ag
Junior Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 1
From: Australia
Joined: 05-13-2008


Message 90 of 560 (466093)
05-13-2008 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Grizz
04-06-2008 10:03 AM


An alternative view
Interesting question but the answer is obvious. The people who wrote the books, both new an old testament had an agenda, and they wrote / constructed the documents to match their world view.
I have no doubt that Jesus existed. There are independent references in Josephus and Pliny. If he existed, and was significant enough to be recorded by the diarists of the times, what was he doing.
While this question can't be accurately answered, and I have read much speculation, some more informed than others, the most credible examination I find is contained in the book, Jesus - The Man. By Dr. Barbara Theiring.
Theiring comes out of the Catholic church and become a respected scholar researching the dead sea scrolls. In studying the scrolls, Theiring came to the view the authors of the scrolls were the Essenes, who were expelled from Jerusalem because of their fundamentalist / zealot views (parallels with modern times here) who then set up shop at Qumran. Being fundamentalists, they set to work to give effect to the prophecies in the bible in the context of the Roman occupation and their desire to eject the infidels from the Holy Land.
While examining the Dead Sea Scrolls, Theiring wondered if the scrolls had anything to do with Jesus, who was himself an Essene. Theiring postulates that Jesus was in fact part of the Qumran community and her analysis of the scrolls, she believes, give weight to her theory.
Theiring believes Jesus was a claimant to the throne of David, and so was part of the Essene plans to reclaim Jerusalem. But like all active political organisations, there were factions. Jesus was born to Mary and Joseph, after they were betrothed but before a formal marriage ceremony had been completed. Mary was a virgin withing the meaning of that word at the time, that is, an un-married female. Nothing to do with sex. Because Jesus was born prior to the official marriage, one faction in the Essenes believed him to be illegitimate and thus not an heir to the throne of David. That faction favoured James, the brother of Jesus, who was born after a formal marriage of Joseph and Mary.
Theiring is of the view, that the Dead Sea Scrolls detail the early political years of the Essene exile and were written by the faction who favoured James. Theiring believes the references in the scrolls to the 'Man of a Lie' are references to Jesus. The gospels are written by the supporters of Jesus.
Theiring then turned here mind to the gospels, and when examined from the perspective of Jesus being at Qumran, as an illegitimate claimant to the David throne, the gospels made a lot of sense to her. Theiring is able to explain much of the material in the Gospels, that was written during dangerous times, in a text that contained a sub-meaning. It is this interpretation of the sub-meaning of the gospels that I find compelling and that on reading seems so obviously a real history of the Jesus movement, post Qumran.
Theiring's research and work, is extensive and well presented. Her book, Jesus the Man, details her research. I find this a compelling history of Jesus that can answer and cope with the miracles, the time lines, the crucifiction and the resurrection. While this post doesn't do justice to the subject proposed by Grizz, I my opinion, it is the best explanation I have read to explain the content of the gospels. I commend the book to all thinking people.
More details of Theiring's work can be found here.
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index1.html
Ag

There are no mysteries in the Universe, only un-answered questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Grizz, posted 04-06-2008 10:03 AM Grizz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024