Jesus invented to 'pacify the poor'.

Discussion in 'Spirituality & Religion' started by Naughtius Maximus, Oct 10, 2013.

  1. song219

    song219 BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 5, 2004
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Vanuatu
    [​IMG]
     
    Justin Z and ratdog repped this.
  2. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #27 Justin Z, Oct 22, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2013
    This begs the question, with the assumption built in that the New Testament is in any way a historical account. Most anyone who cares to look can see that Mark is allegorical literature, never intended to be history, and even some of the so-called "prophecies" that are fulfilled within come from mistranslated portions of the LXX (Septuagint), the Greek version of the Torah and other Hebrew scriptures. Then, the rest of the gospels are based heavily on Mark, with the exception of John, which came far later. Meanwhile, a completely different theology is propagated by "Paul" in the letters, that in no way resembles that proposed by Matthew and Luke, to say nothing of John.

    The premise is self-defeating anyway, since countless zealots have died for beliefs no one holds anymore. See for example the Vikings' conviction that those who died in battle would go to Valhalla or Folkvangr.
     
  3. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    i think you're mistaken regarding the concept of "theology". the Jesus of the Gospels is not remarkably different from Paul's Jesus. there are doctrinal differences and some of them fairly significant, but that may have much to do with the fact that Paul's encounter with Jesus falls after his resurrection and his message is more nuanced; the focus of the Gospels is quite simple: Mark 1:15b says, "Repent and believe the good news." the good news is that Jesus is the promised Messiah, and all who follow him can have the life that he came to proclaim.

    except that the Vikings did not have a model to pattern after. they weren't visited by someone who died and came back to life, claiming to be God, at least to my understanding. pretty different phenomena.
     
  4. luftmensch

    luftmensch Member+

    .
    United States
    May 4, 2006
    Petaluma
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Different cultural temperament, they did have Balder who died and could have been resurrected but Loki spoiled that shit. Although like Jesus he'll be back eventually.

    Of course you'll probably answer that this is just mythology, but that question is the topic of this thread I suppose....
     
  5. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    not mythology...Balderdash!
     
    GiuseppeSignori and Dyvel repped this.
  6. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    By the way I just want to add that I in no way endorse Atwill's view, which by my reckoning has exceptionally thin evidence for it. There are plenty of mystery religions around, especially among Greeks, at this time, and there is a Hellenic element within many parts of the Jewish Diaspora that develops a fascination with Hebrew scripture. Especially considering the vast differences in theology (yes, theology, not just doctrine) in early Christianity, and the fact that there is no historical mention of Jesus or Christians that isn't secondhand or simply there for information as opposed to the recording of an event (and which doesn't at least have some appearance of fabrication/redaction) until well into the second century, there is little reason to think this religion was invented by the Powers-That-Be of the time.
     
  7. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    I am developing a new theory and gathering evidence that will show that the story of Jesus of Nazareth was fabricated by the malicious trickster Loki, in order to confuse us mortals.
     
    Justin Z and luftmensch repped this.
  8. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    like what?
     
  9. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Off the top of my head, Jesus as son of god (by birth/by adoption) / messenger of god (son of man/suffering servant/Elijah); trinitarianism / nontrinitarianism; bodily resurrection/spiritual resurrection; Niceaens/anti-Niceaens; whether Jesus ever actually existed on earth at all; docetism . . .
     
  10. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    the issue of whether Jesus ever existed isn't an early Christianity one. where in early Christianity does Jesus as an adopted son of God hold any traction? adoptionism is a heretical minority view. it didn't survive the Council of Nicaea. same with docetism. i will concede that there are specifically theological ideas that arose in the early days of The Way, but to think that they had any significant force in the development of the theology that has survived the centuries is a curious idea.

    the 4 gospels portray Jesus in different lights but that is largely because they are written to different audiences, if you accept the idea that they are divinely inspired. Matthew has a Jewish focus. Mark is more universal in appeal. Luke attempts to write a singularly historical document. John is designed to convince readers that Jesus is "The Way, the Truth and the Life."

    the question of bodily versus spiritual resurrection isn't a theological one. it's a question of doctrine, as i see it.
     
  11. luftmensch

    luftmensch Member+

    .
    United States
    May 4, 2006
    Petaluma
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    To base your argument on "the development of the theology that has survived the centuries" is missing the point, which is that, yes, multiple viewpoints were, over time, condensed into what has become Christianity, but perhaps in those early days it was not so clear, and what you're calling a "heretical minority view" just happens to be one that lost out. It's the same old "history is written by the victors," when the reality was actually far more complex.
     
  12. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    throughout the centuries there have been, in most every spiritual movement, divergent viewpoints. in the 19th century, within what is Protestant Christianity, we find Mormonism, which is a very small sect, in relationship to the entirety of Protestantism. whether history will vindicate this divergent viewpoint remains to be seen, but to take the view that "history is written by the victors" begs the question whether the course of Christianity has been dictated by "what is Truth(?)", to misapply the words of Pilate.

    sure, there were people whose view of what the truth of God's message was differed from the more popularly held view, but it is important to remember that it wasn't until well into the 2nd century that the written word was widely available, and even then, not everyone who had become a disciple of Christ could read it. it should come as no surprise that "odd" views sprung up, views that had their roots in Hellenistic thought in some cases and in others the ideas were wrought from a tradition-laden, ritualistic Hebraic orthodoxy that Jesus himself confronted and Paul worked to eradicate from the insurgent (?) Gentile version of Christian discipleship.
     
  13. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Mark. There's a reason there's no virgin birth story in Mark, and there's a reason "the Son of God" in 1:1 is not found in the earliest manuscripts; it's a later addition. Speaking of later additions, 16:9-20 also isn't in the earliest manuscripts.

    I didn't say anything about the development of the theology. I referred to the documented variety of theology in Christianity's early days that makes Atwinn's idea that it was invented whole cloth as a singular idea highly unlikely. Was it appropriated by the Romans for one reason or another? Sure. But that's entirely different.

    I don't, as I consider this a convenient method by which to reconcile both contradictions between the New Testament books and also an easy way to explain why the authors seem to be omniscient on many points (i.e. just as modern authors of fiction know more than they should if they were witnessing actual events--they're making it up). Plus, I contend that if something is divinely inspired by an all-powerful being, it should be written in such a way that appeals to any "mere human."

    This is highly simplified. Matthew indeed focuses on parallels with the Hebrew scriptures, but Mark does this constantly as well, and that gospel was written first. Matthew even screws up some of the stuff he copied over from Mark, such as the withering fig tree; for this and other reasons (such as his mastery of Greek figures of speech and his misunderstanding of some Hebrew/Aramaic ones) it is more likely that Matthew is Greek and is reading from the Septuagint, not any Hebrew-language scriptures. Mark nowhere claims to be divinely inspired or history; it is unsigned, allegorical, and draws heavily on parallels from the Hebrew scriptures. Claims that all of these references are "prophecies" are silly; many of them are not predictions at all.

    Matthew really goes nuts with these references, and also screws them up. For example, he has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on both a donkey and a colt, while the scriptural reference (Zechariah 9:9) in the original Hebrew is clarifying that the donkey being ridden is a colt--the foal of a donkey--not two animals. Modern translations gloss over this in spite of the fact that Matthew's original Greek clearly states Jesus is riding both at the same time. John realizes how stupid this is and clearly states that Jesus is riding only one, as in the original Hebrew. This and other errors demonstrate that rather than writing historical accounts or their observations of reality, the authors were using the scriptures they had available to them to craft a tale.

    Luke, whose virgin birth story has basically nothing in common with Matthew's, is clearly meant to be a historical account but makes mistakes that could have only been made by someone writing long after the events took place. Take for example the Roman Census. Luke claims Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time, which could not be if King Herod were ruling, because the Census we have in history occurred in 6 CE, which was about a decade after Herod died. Luke was most likely using the Jewish historian Josephus' writings as a source (as well as Mark and the hypothetical "Q").

    John was written well after the other gospels so there is no way it could have been a contemporary historical account. It is obvious that the author had access to at least one of the other gospels because of the elements it takes from them. It then adds to them to give them a distinct theological bent--for example, he is the only one who mentions that the soldiers drew lots to determine who would get Jesus' clothing, a reference to Psalm 22. That Jesus' legs were left unbroken is also a John addition and refers back to Numbers 9 and Psalm 34. John has Jesus crucified a day early, on the 14th day of Nisan, whereas he was crucified on the 15th of Nisan in the synoptics. Why? Because John dubs Jesus "The Lamb of God" and lambs are sacrificed on the 14th of the month in accordance with the Jewish Law's requirements for the Passover festival. The symbolism is pretty obvious.

    I contend it is theological because of the highly Hellenistic character of the gospels. Greek and Roman heroes had often been said to have been bodily raised into heaven--this was part of their religions' theologies. For early Christians who wished to find Jesus' body and venerate it, this was a necessary theological intervention--there was nothing to worship because the entire body had ascended. This also allows a modern line of questioning about the historical figure of Jesus--why would you need to argue something like this for a person who actually existed? This goes for the Assumption of Mary too, an article of faith that must be accepted by Catholics to this day. Mary's body went up there as well. Paul also never places Jesus on earth. His Jesus goes through the passion in a mythical, revealed way--not in a historical way. He never mentions Mary, who presumably he would have visited had she actually still been alive after Jesus' death. Actually, some of the non-Catholic groups even had different versions of the gospels and Paul's letters. Reading early Christian apologists' works (Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Eusebius, and so forth) really fortifies the idea that there were all sorts of distinct theological ideas floating around--ideas that were not merely doctrinal differences to these people. They represented severe threats and that is why these "heretical" ideas were snuffed out.


    tl;dr--there was a metric shit ton of theological viewpoints within early Christianity, the gospels are not history and draw upon the Hebrew scriptures, not real-life events, and there's no way Christianity was invented from thin air by the Romans.
     
    AfrcnHrbMan and luftmensch repped this.
  14. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    the supposition that Paul would have visited Mary and would have mentioned her in letters to particular churches is silly. he writes principally to address specific issues present in those churches, for the most part. if there were to be a mention of Paul's meeting with Mary, it well could have been in Acts, but, unless i'm mistaken, Mary isn't mentioned there by Luke, except in the first Chapter, which is years prior to Paul's entry.

    when you say that Paul "never places Jesus on Earth", that's an empty statement. his focus is not on the mundane life of Christ but on the spiritual work of Christ and his resurrection. that's similar to saying that a passing historical account of John Wilkes Booth's involvement in Lincoln's assassination doesn't mention his childhood, so it's flawed. it might be highly relevant, but it certainly isn't an essential element in the story. you don't need to know that Booth had an apparently happy childhood to understand how he might have shot the POTUS.

    the sources for the gospels are unclear. certainly there may be eye-witness testimony in some cases. John and Peter would be likely sources; John would depend on whether Mark has an early date, but Peter and Mark certainly had some correspondence.

    i view the notion of "contradictions" between the gospels as farcical. these contradiction are very easily explained. for example, the donkey/colt issue. the most simple explanation is that Jesus rode both animals one after the other. why might that have been? it may have to do with the distance of the trip and the heartiness of the first animal. there may be another equally satisfying explanation. who knows?

    you act like these kinds of things are damning to the Scripture.

    get over it.
     
  15. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Lulz. Damning? No. Just as clear a sign as any that it's all written by people, products of the culture they lived in, and in no way indicative of any kind of higher being. Mark is actually a very elegant piece of allegorical fiction, if you view it through that lens.
     
  16. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    i know of no one who thinks that the Scriptures were not written by people. of course people wrote the words down. but it's clearly the idea that there are contradictions that weighs against divine inspiration.

    what if there aren't ANY real contradictions? what does that do to the notion of purely human authorship, i.e. no spiritual input?
     
  17. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're right--my wording was imprecise.

    Your hypothetical amounts to a very meritorious reason to believe they were not wholly human-created writings.
     
  18. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    oh, boy. intellectual honesty.

    wait. maybe not.

    try to be honest. one of the chief objections to divine inspiration is that there are all these inconsistencies and contradictions in the NT. i said "what if" not because it's a hypothetical possibility but because people somehow believe something that isn't the case, that the NT is replete with "mistakes". there aren't mistakes. there are attempts to find inconsistencies and contradictions but those are, for the most part, very easily explained. the people who refuse to accept the explanations wouldn't accept them if there were an appendix to the Scriptures that said, "I know you think this is a contradiction, but here's what's going on..."

    thanks for the laudatory word. did you mean meritorious or meretritious?
     
  19. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Well, if we are willing to accept that Paul wrote the epistles generally ascribed to him by scholars, then I think Paul does clearly place Jesus on earth.

    For example, when Paul mentions the night when Jesus was betrayed, and quotes his words at the last supper asking his disciples to eat and drink in memory of him, I don't think it's possible to conclude that he was writing about Jesus having dinner with his disciples in heaven. And I think it's logical to conclude that the "betrayal" refers to the story of Judas Iscariot selling him out, which in the gospels coincides with the night in which Jesus and his disciples shared bread and wine at the last supper, and in which -at least in the synoptics- Jesus also is quoted as asking to continue doing this act in his memory.

    Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians:
    Paul also mentions the death of Jesus several times, (talks about him being crucified by the Romans, but blames the Jews for his death), and he mentions that Jesus was a descendant of David. He also writes about Jesus's brothers and some of Jesus's disciples -Peter, John and James- as acquaintances. He also in his writings passes on some commands from "The Lord" that seem to coincide with quotes ascribed to Jesus in the gospels. (For example, teachings about marriage and divorce).

    Of course, Paul admits he never met Jesus (other than in a vision after his resurrection), so he most likely got the stories and quotes from the oral history -and maybe also from his acquaintance with Jesus' brothers and disciples- and we can speculate that the oral history was probably still evolving at the time. Some might even argue that maybe the gospels got some stories and quotes from Paul. But that's how things were usually remembered and recorded in antiquity.
     
  20. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I did actually mean meritorious, in the hypothetical. But I do not consider issues within the New Testament that apologists went out of their way to explain centuries ago to be "attempts to find inconsistencies and contradictions." They are there. I know you don't think so, because you've said so, but you have absolutely no idea what I or anyone else would accept as justification for these contradictions, so please stay out of the mind reading business, okay?
     
  21. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's the thing. There's a lot of debate about Paul's writings, and 1 Corinthians is no exception. Though it's generally considered to have been written by the same person as some of the other epistles, it also shows signs of being subject to quite a bit of of interpolation over the years.

    In spite of that though, I am certainly willing to concede that "Paul" said what you have quoted. I was premature about saying what I did without a lot of legwork to get to an argument about what's genuine and what's obviously written by someone else. Thing is, much like Jesus, all we know of Paul is what's contained in "his" letters--letters with an agenda. Even the circumstances of Paul's conversion have been disputed. Anyway, I'm digressing, but yes--your point is well-taken.
     
  22. Ismitje

    Ismitje Super Moderator

    Dec 30, 2000
    The Palouse
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Plus, no Facebook page.
     
    Justin Z and Dr. Wankler repped this.
  23. roby

    roby Member+

    SIRLOIN SALOON FC, PITTSFIELD MA
    Feb 27, 2005
    So Cal
    usscouse repped this.
  24. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    we don't put a lot of effort/stock in(to) memorization, but in times when the written word was expensive and difficult to come by, oral traditions were far more important, as you correctly suggest.

    another bit about Paul: from Scripture, we know that he went into some sort of seclusion after his conversion ( in Arabia, the area east of Palestine ) and there he meditated. i think it's a reasonable notion that he was meditating on OT writings and how they referred to Yeshua Hamashiach, but i tend to think that his encounter with the living Christ (as represented in Luke's account in The Book of Acts) was sort of like having a 1 TB download of other stuff to meditate upon. i know that's wildly speculative, but if the guy who was Saul was transmogrified into Paul, there's a pretty big explicandum lying around.
     

Share This Page