.
There is some reason to doubt biblical tales that Jesus Christ, identified as a godman, died and came back to life (as discussed in many threads). Some theologians regard the resurrection to be less than literal.
Questions for debate:
1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?
2. Was Jesus supernatural?
3. What is the meaning of “son of god”?
If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?
Post #1.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
-
Catharsis
Post #31
To Duke,
For starters, you're the one that veered off topic. To the question:
1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?;
you replied with a statement that to understand who Jesus was "we have to understand what was going on in Judea". You didn't even address the question properly, but arrogantly stated that there is no "if" about it. How can you be so certain? Were you there? Can those experts and historians that you quote be trustworthy? Do they have an agenda?
History is significant, but so is proper understanding of religion, theology, etc.
Some background: part of Jewish folklore is that the Jews always have heroes who show up to save the day when things are going bad. We see this time and again in Jewish writings.
So, let's look at what was going on in Judea.
After the fire in Rome, the the Romans were taxing the Jews, specifically, for the money to rebuild. This is about 64 ce. So, if you're a Jew, you can expect to be losing another huge percentage of your wealth/income on top of what the Romans already tax you.
About six years after that, the Romans destroy the Jewish temple (except the wailing wall).
If you're a Jew, things are not looking good for you. The Romans are taxing you. They've destroyed your holy place. They occupy your nation. Depressing stuff.
Whenever you find depression of that nature, you'll find people and stories that look to feed off it. The Jews were eager for a hero to come and save them.
Well, what's the next best thing to a hero?
Convincing people that the hero was "just here" and that he'll be back any day now to lay waste to the enemies of Judea.
Into this mix of tears and frustration are stories of radical rabbis from the early first century exagerated into tales of a godman.
I have no intention to dispute this. I agree more or less, with an additional note.
The Great Revelation of the Son of God (the highest Revelation in the history of religion from the Christian viewpoint) is that God is Love. This was simply undreamed of in the Old Testament, where God is largely understood as the defender of the Jews. This says nothing about the nature of God, but a lot about the nature of Jewish culture. This is why the vast majority of the Jews rejected Christ, because he turned out not to be an anti-Roman ethnic freedom-fighter, but a spiritual leader. The Jews were obviously disappointed.
Except no one could agree on who or what he was. You had the gnostics and other sects that saw the son of god as a fully spiritual being to be pondered and thought about and who would offer rewards in the afterlife. You have volumes of gospels written by early Christians which later Christians would discard not on any empirical basis, but because they threaten orthodoxy.
I agree. There were many groups and heresies which claimed to possess the "Truth" about Jesus. This is a historical fact. Only one 'group' prevailed, and this is also a historical fact.
You're blatantly wrong in your assertion that gospels were discarded "not on any empirical basis", and because of a "threat".
Many "gospels" besides those of the New Testament canon were circulating in the first and second centuries. These included the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and the Gospel according to Peter, to name just a few. The New Testament itself speaks of the existence of such accounts. Saint Luke's Gospel begins by saying, "Inasmuch as many [italics added] have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us ... it seemed good to me also ... to write to you an orderly account" (Luke 1:1, 3). At the time Luke wrote, Matthew and Mark were the only two canonical Gospels that had been written. In time, all but four Gospels were excluded from the New Testament canon. Yet in the early years of Christianity there was even a controversy over which of these four Gospels to use. Most of the Christians of Asia Minor used the Gospel of John rather than the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Based upon the Passion account contained in John, most Christians in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a different day from those in Rome. Roman Christians resisted the Gospel of John and instead used the other Gospels. The Western Church for a time hesitated to use the Gospel of John because the Gnostic heretics made use of it along with their own "secret gospels." Another debate arose over the issue of whether there should be separate gospels or one single composite gospel account. In the second century, Tatian, who was Justin Martyr's student, published a single composite "harmonized" gospel called the Diatessaron. The Syrian Church used this composite gospel in the second, third, and fourth centuries; they did not accept all four Gospels until the fifth century. They also ignored for a time the Epistles of John, 2 Peter, and the Book of Revelation. To further complicate matters, the Church of Egypt, as reflected in the second-century New Testament canon of Clement of Alexandria, included the "gospels" of the Hebrews, the Egyptians, and Mattathias. In addition they held to be of apostolic origin the First Epistle of Clement (Bishop of Rome), the Epistle of Barnabas, the Preaching of Peter, the Revelation of Peter, the Didache, the Protevangelium of James, the Acts of John, the Acts of Paul, and The Shepherd of Hermas (which they held to be especially inspired). Irenaeus (second century), martyred Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, included the Revelation of Peter in his canon.
Through time the Church discerned which writings were truly apostolic and which were not. It was a prolonged struggle, taking place over several centuries. As part of the process of discernment, the Church met together several times in council. These various Church councils confronted a variety of issues, among which was the canon of Scripture. The purpose of these councils was to discern and confirm what was already generally accepted within the Church at large. The councils did not legislate the canon so much as set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the churches of God. The councils sought to proclaim the common mind of the Church and to reflect the unanimity of faith, practice, and tradition as it already existed in the local churches represented. The councils provide us with specific records in which the Church spoke clearly and in unison as to what constitutes Scripture. Among the many councils that met during the first four centuries, two are particularly important in this context:
(1) The Council of Laodicea met in Asia Minor about A.D. 363. This is the first council which clearly listed the canonical books of the present Old and New Testaments, with the exception of the Apocalypse of Saint John. The Laodicean council stated that only the canonical books it listed should be read in church. Its decisions were widely accepted in the Eastern Church.
(2) The third Council of Carthage met in North Africa about A.D. 397. This council, attended by Augustine, provided a full list of the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. The twenty-seven books of the present-day New Testament were accepted as canonical. The council also held that these books should be read in the church as Divine Scripture to the exclusion of all others. This Council was widely accepted as authoritative in the West.
Does this sound like some crazed cult trying keep things mysterious and hidden?
Add into the mix Constantine's conversion to Christianity to gain gurilla fighters against his political enemies and voiala: you have the makings of the religion that (when mixed with worship of Caesar) became the dominant religion of Rome and thus Western civilization.
I don't even know how to respond to this one, other than it's utter historical rubbish and nonsense. I didn't know early Christians worshiped Caesars and fought as guerrilla fighters.
You might wanna try the following:
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets ... orovky.htm
Rest to follow...
For starters, you're the one that veered off topic. To the question:
1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?;
you replied with a statement that to understand who Jesus was "we have to understand what was going on in Judea". You didn't even address the question properly, but arrogantly stated that there is no "if" about it. How can you be so certain? Were you there? Can those experts and historians that you quote be trustworthy? Do they have an agenda?
History is significant, but so is proper understanding of religion, theology, etc.
Some background: part of Jewish folklore is that the Jews always have heroes who show up to save the day when things are going bad. We see this time and again in Jewish writings.
So, let's look at what was going on in Judea.
After the fire in Rome, the the Romans were taxing the Jews, specifically, for the money to rebuild. This is about 64 ce. So, if you're a Jew, you can expect to be losing another huge percentage of your wealth/income on top of what the Romans already tax you.
About six years after that, the Romans destroy the Jewish temple (except the wailing wall).
If you're a Jew, things are not looking good for you. The Romans are taxing you. They've destroyed your holy place. They occupy your nation. Depressing stuff.
Whenever you find depression of that nature, you'll find people and stories that look to feed off it. The Jews were eager for a hero to come and save them.
Well, what's the next best thing to a hero?
Convincing people that the hero was "just here" and that he'll be back any day now to lay waste to the enemies of Judea.
Into this mix of tears and frustration are stories of radical rabbis from the early first century exagerated into tales of a godman.
I have no intention to dispute this. I agree more or less, with an additional note.
The Great Revelation of the Son of God (the highest Revelation in the history of religion from the Christian viewpoint) is that God is Love. This was simply undreamed of in the Old Testament, where God is largely understood as the defender of the Jews. This says nothing about the nature of God, but a lot about the nature of Jewish culture. This is why the vast majority of the Jews rejected Christ, because he turned out not to be an anti-Roman ethnic freedom-fighter, but a spiritual leader. The Jews were obviously disappointed.
Except no one could agree on who or what he was. You had the gnostics and other sects that saw the son of god as a fully spiritual being to be pondered and thought about and who would offer rewards in the afterlife. You have volumes of gospels written by early Christians which later Christians would discard not on any empirical basis, but because they threaten orthodoxy.
I agree. There were many groups and heresies which claimed to possess the "Truth" about Jesus. This is a historical fact. Only one 'group' prevailed, and this is also a historical fact.
You're blatantly wrong in your assertion that gospels were discarded "not on any empirical basis", and because of a "threat".
Many "gospels" besides those of the New Testament canon were circulating in the first and second centuries. These included the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and the Gospel according to Peter, to name just a few. The New Testament itself speaks of the existence of such accounts. Saint Luke's Gospel begins by saying, "Inasmuch as many [italics added] have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us ... it seemed good to me also ... to write to you an orderly account" (Luke 1:1, 3). At the time Luke wrote, Matthew and Mark were the only two canonical Gospels that had been written. In time, all but four Gospels were excluded from the New Testament canon. Yet in the early years of Christianity there was even a controversy over which of these four Gospels to use. Most of the Christians of Asia Minor used the Gospel of John rather than the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Based upon the Passion account contained in John, most Christians in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a different day from those in Rome. Roman Christians resisted the Gospel of John and instead used the other Gospels. The Western Church for a time hesitated to use the Gospel of John because the Gnostic heretics made use of it along with their own "secret gospels." Another debate arose over the issue of whether there should be separate gospels or one single composite gospel account. In the second century, Tatian, who was Justin Martyr's student, published a single composite "harmonized" gospel called the Diatessaron. The Syrian Church used this composite gospel in the second, third, and fourth centuries; they did not accept all four Gospels until the fifth century. They also ignored for a time the Epistles of John, 2 Peter, and the Book of Revelation. To further complicate matters, the Church of Egypt, as reflected in the second-century New Testament canon of Clement of Alexandria, included the "gospels" of the Hebrews, the Egyptians, and Mattathias. In addition they held to be of apostolic origin the First Epistle of Clement (Bishop of Rome), the Epistle of Barnabas, the Preaching of Peter, the Revelation of Peter, the Didache, the Protevangelium of James, the Acts of John, the Acts of Paul, and The Shepherd of Hermas (which they held to be especially inspired). Irenaeus (second century), martyred Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, included the Revelation of Peter in his canon.
Through time the Church discerned which writings were truly apostolic and which were not. It was a prolonged struggle, taking place over several centuries. As part of the process of discernment, the Church met together several times in council. These various Church councils confronted a variety of issues, among which was the canon of Scripture. The purpose of these councils was to discern and confirm what was already generally accepted within the Church at large. The councils did not legislate the canon so much as set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the churches of God. The councils sought to proclaim the common mind of the Church and to reflect the unanimity of faith, practice, and tradition as it already existed in the local churches represented. The councils provide us with specific records in which the Church spoke clearly and in unison as to what constitutes Scripture. Among the many councils that met during the first four centuries, two are particularly important in this context:
(1) The Council of Laodicea met in Asia Minor about A.D. 363. This is the first council which clearly listed the canonical books of the present Old and New Testaments, with the exception of the Apocalypse of Saint John. The Laodicean council stated that only the canonical books it listed should be read in church. Its decisions were widely accepted in the Eastern Church.
(2) The third Council of Carthage met in North Africa about A.D. 397. This council, attended by Augustine, provided a full list of the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. The twenty-seven books of the present-day New Testament were accepted as canonical. The council also held that these books should be read in the church as Divine Scripture to the exclusion of all others. This Council was widely accepted as authoritative in the West.
Does this sound like some crazed cult trying keep things mysterious and hidden?
Add into the mix Constantine's conversion to Christianity to gain gurilla fighters against his political enemies and voiala: you have the makings of the religion that (when mixed with worship of Caesar) became the dominant religion of Rome and thus Western civilization.
I don't even know how to respond to this one, other than it's utter historical rubbish and nonsense. I didn't know early Christians worshiped Caesars and fought as guerrilla fighters.
You might wanna try the following:
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets ... orovky.htm
Rest to follow...
Post #32
Jesus is a mythological character that many believe was historical. Many believers are willing to accept the gospels as accounts of actual events while others can't find a reason to. They are viewed by some as mainly allegory, writings of a Pauline tradition.
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #33
There are questions about who Jesus was by some that assume he did rise and further questions about the nature of the resurrection. Is the OP some kind of inquiry concerning the “Historical Jesus”?
-
The Nice Centurion
- Sage
- Posts: 963
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 99 times
Re: If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?
Post #34The reason for no contemporary writer mentioning The Resurrection might well be the following:The Duke of Vandals wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:08 amFirst, there's no "if" about it.Zzyzx wrote:.1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?
To understand what Jesus was, we have to understand what was going on in Judea in the first century.
Some background: part of Jewish folklore is that the Jews always have heroes who show up to save the day when things are going bad. We see this time and again in Jewish writings.
So, let's look at what was going on in Judea.
After the fire in Rome, the the Romans were taxing the Jews, specifically, for the money to rebuild. This is about 64 ce. So, if you're a Jew, you can expect to be losing another huge percentage of your wealth/income on top of what the Romans already tax you.
About six years after that, the Romans destroy the Jewish temple (except the wailing wall).
If you're a Jew, things are not looking good for you. The Romans are taxing you. They've destroyed your holy place. They occupy your nation. Depressing stuff.
Whenever you find depression of that nature, you'll find people and stories that look to feed off it. The Jews were eager for a hero to come and save them.
Well, what's the next best thing to a hero?
Convincing people that the hero was "just here" and that he'll be back any day now to lay waste to the enemies of Judea.
Into this mix of tears and frustration are stories of radical rabbis from the early first century exagerated into tales of a godman.
Except no one could agree on who or what he was. You had the gnostics and other sects that saw the son of god as a fully spiritual being to be pondered and thought about and who would offer rewards in the afterlife. You have volumes of gospels written by early Christians which later Christians would discard not on any empirical basis, but because they threaten orthodoxy.
From the many conflicting sects of Christians, orthodoxy... with it's easy to remember and emotionally guilt ridden tale of persecution... is the sect of Christianity that wins out over all the others. Like any good victor in history, the early orthodox church establishes that it's assertions about Christianity (the Jesus tale we know today) are "right" and everything else is heresy.
Add into the mix Constantine's conversion to Christianity to gain gurilla fighters against his political enemies and voiala: you have the makings of the religion that (when mixed with worship of Caesar) became the dominant religion of Rome and thus Western civilization.
We know the resurrection didn't occur because it's A) OBVIOUSLY FU**ING IMPOSSIBLE (Christians tend to ignore this) and B) isn't mentioned anywhere by anyone living at the time. We know that second century Christian writers like Athenagoras of Athens were blithely unconcerned with the personhood of Jesus. We know that early Christian writers acknowledged that Jesus' story sounded a lot like pagan mythology that came earlier. Justin martyr's answer? To paraphrase: "Satan invented all those other earlier gods to trick people about Christ". (that's still the church's official standing on the issue, by the way)
So, you have first century writers and scholars living in Judea who are completely unaware of Jesus, second century writers who are convinced Jesus wasn't a person, and 21st century Christians who somehow know Jesus was a person.
No.2. Was Jesus supernatural?
Jesus was a myth based on pre-existing and readily available Jewish prophecies (it's REALLY easy to fulfill prophecies when you have ancient text in hand and you're re-writing recent history) and earlier pagan gods. He's a tall tale start to finish.
I'll let Athenagoras explain it to you the same way he explained it to the emperor of Rome in the second century:3. What is the meaning of “son of god”?
Incidentally, that's the closest Athenagoras comes to mentioning Jesus in all 37 parts of his essay "A Plea for the Christians" which was meant to be an explanation of Christianity fit for the emperor of Rome.
- That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things,
---------------------------
Sources:
www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... -plea.html
http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html
1) That there were No Actual Witnesses for The Resurrection. Alone in this very forum there exist two threads debating this.
2) The resurrected Jesus for some reason was hard to identify as being him, even by his closest comrades.
So even if he did walk the streets of Jerusalem for days or even visited the Hill of Golgatha, saying "Hello" to Longinus, why should anyone else have recogniced him?
3) It is said that he only "appeared" to his closest comrades. That was unwise if he rather wanted publicity for his Resurrection.
Joseph Smith made the same error when he showeth the Golden Plates only to the three and the eight witnesses, who were also his closest kinds and comrades.
4) Jesus appearance to the 500 brethren from Pauls letter has been sucesfully refuted by Richard Carrier. I will give the link when I find it.
5) Therefore the evidence for The Resurrection from the first century on was just hearsay.
Not enough for Philo to write a book about.
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again
”
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon
"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates"
”"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon
""Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates
"-
TRANSPONDER
- Savant
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 962 times
- Been thanked: 3567 times
Re:
Post #35d.thomas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:27 pm Jesus is a mythological character that many believe was historical. Many believers are willing to accept the gospels as accounts of actual events while others can't find a reason to. They are viewed by some as mainly allegory, writings of a Pauline tradition.
Yes indeed. And the discussion and debate goes on. My money is on 'Jesus was a real person' because
(a) Invention would have had him as a Judean. not a Galilean and he would have been stoned by the Jews, not crucified by the Romans (with various excuses made up in order to correct this error by factuality,
(b) Paul says he knew the disciples (Peter, James and John, at least) and if they were real followers of Jesus, he was real, too.
But, Jesus was not the man depicted in the gospels, which I hypothesise was a failed messianic figure, and this was heavily repainted to turn him into a gentile -loving proto -Christian, but the old Zealot underpainting can still be seen.
