Why HJ research is Stupid Stupid Stupid!

[Vinnie]

[1] Jesus left behind him people, not parrots. Memory is not infallible and we do not even have any eyewitnesses material. We are stuck a few with second generation sources that tell us very little about Jesus (e.g. the silence of the Pauline corpus) and third generation sources (e.g. synoptic Gospels) that are filled with copious amounts of fiction and creativity. Against this we may note the only possible exception is the source material used by Q1 and Thomas (granting the existence of Q, the possibility of reconstructing its wording and extent, ability to identify layers, the early dating of Q1, and the independence and primitiveness of the Gospel of Thomas). Otherwise we use "criteria" to hope to get to an old genuine "core". Unfortunately, scholars can hardly agree on much here.

[2] Form critical analysis has shown the large amounts of material has been altered and changed in the early church. People created (even if there are limits) and transformed existing material to situate the current needs of their churches. Many examples of this could be easily highlighted.

[3] The context and exact wording of most of what is attributed to Jesus cannot be known. How is interpretation possible when the context and wording are two necessary requirements for interpretation?

[4] The written sources are textually unstable. We cannot put too much emphasis on the wording as found in extant reconstructed texts. Thomas may have had two layers, Q may have had three. 2 Corinthians may be two letters combined, John was heavily redacted, canonical Mark is not original Mark and so on and so on!

[5] The gospels and other works are filled with so much polemic and outright fiction that they must be "flitered" and "combed" by scholars for genuine datums. Outside of a few datums (e.g. synoptic paucity of gentile related material) there is little certianty or agreement here. Many view Mark as the first canonical Gospel but within this group there are those who think Mark wrote largely fiction and there are those who think that much of what Mark narrates is factual.

[6] The diversity of Christian origins requires stratification. Unfortunately many scholars do not recognize this necessity and on this point we may point out lacking methodologies (Crossan's has the best potential!). How could such diverse sources form so fast? Of course this point assumes a certian stratification and may itself fall victim to point 10!

[7] The dating of virtually every source is disputed to some degree. Dependence of virtually every source is disputed to some degree as well. Some think Mark came first. Others think Matthew did. Some think there was a written Q. Some do not think there was. Some think the stages of Q can be reconstructed and some don't. Some accept Markan priority without Q. Others offer much more complicated forms of synoptic dependence (e.g. Boismard).

[8] Given scholarly diversity in this area and the subjectivity of the quest, appealing to a "consensus" in this field is little more than a bad joke. Pretty soon there might be more Jesuses out there than Mcdonalds!

[9] Who really cares about the historical Jesus? Do we reconstruct him because we think Jesus has something to offer us today? If so, isn't this belief based upon reconstruction itself? Its a vicious circle. The study of the historical Jesus has no practical importance. He was not God-become man or none of that apologetical nonsense. There is no reason to invest so much time and money into a Jewish man (who may have been a great person ahead of his time!) who's been dead (AND REMAINED DEAD!) for the last 2,000 years. Or do we study Jesus simply because he is there? The good old insatiable desire for knowledge and truth inherant to human beings? This may be true for a few people but most of us are smart enough to catch on to the real reasons bored scholars reconstruct Jesus. *Cough*Jesus books sell*cough*--amongst other reasons of course.

[10] The Butterfly Effect. One has to list numerous presuoppositions about dating, dependence and so on and build a reconstruction based upon extremely detailed considerations of source material. This encompasses all the problems (all Nine!) outlined before this one. When one reconstructs earliest Christianity they do so based upon their conception of the sources, their development and relationship to one another, their tectual veracity, their interpretation and so on. It is commonly noted that if you are wrong in part it may and can hurt every aspect of your reconstruction! Presuppositions are key and we may cite the well known saying that "a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil may spawn a tornado in texas!" Building so much on so little is an exercise in stupidity.

End Thoughts: We may be able to know a few VERY broad things about the life of Jesus with a high degree of confidence (e.g. he had followers, was crucified (contra Mack), spoke using parables, etc) but this tells us next to nothing about the "real Jesus" whom cannot be reconstructed.

In the end we may conclude that searching for historical Jesus and Christian origins is a useless enterprise. Those who offer detailed reconstructions of Jesus (e.g. most modern Jesus scholars) are to be pitied and should be dismissed with a stern spanking on their behinds. They are misguided scholars wasting the most prescious thing we have: time. The uncertainty principle comes to mind here when watching what looks like children with college degrees playing hide-an-go-seek.

The work of historical Jesus scholars out there is absolutely useless for the advancing and embetterment of humanity. It offers us nothing and teaches us nothing. Don't shoot the messenger though. Consider me an alarm clock. The logic is there. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or historical Jesus scholar to recognize that building so much useless information on so little is an exercise in stupidity. What are we to call a person who makes a career out of such an activity? I'm sure you can figue that one out....

Vinnie

[Toto]

Welcome to Jesus agnosticism, I started to say until the last three paragraphs.

In spite of everything you wrote, you still cling to the idea that we can know something about the historical Jesus - which does not follow. (I don't know if know or something should be emphasized in that last sentence.)

You say:

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or historical Jesus scholar to recognize that building so much useless information on so little is an exercise in stupidity. What are we to call a person who makes a career out of such an activity?

Answer: a theologian.

Nevertheless, trying to study Christian origins is at least as useful as reading mystery stories, watching TV, or a host of other recreational activities. And it has to be at least as useful as any other study of ancient history. Perhaps if we knew how we got into this mess, we would stand a better chance of getting out of it.

Besides, Jesus is a major brand name in our society. Are you going to cede all that to the fundies who have taken over the Republican Party and want to use Jesus to promote free market fundamentalism and the next crusade?

[Vinnie]

Welcome to Jesus agnosticism, I started to say until the last three paragraphs.

In spite of everything you wrote, you still cling to the idea that we can know something about the historical Jesus - which does not follow. (I don't know if know or something should be emphasized in that last sentence.)

My understanding of the sources doesn't allow Jesus agnosticism (against the historicity of the person behind the Q1 // THomas sayings material). But I am open to different stratifications and interpretations of this material that do. My comment assumes my own which I did leave open the possibility of the butterfly effect undercutting it. That is whay I said "we MAY be able to know".

I am not an agnostic in regards to the HJ. There probably was one behind all these early sources and traditions IMO but you might as well call me an agnostic in regards to reconstructing the HJ. To say that Jesus had followers says nothing. Its a tautology.

Answer: a theologian.

That would be one answer ;)

Nevertheless, trying to study Christian origins is at least as useful as reading mystery stories, watching TV, or a host of other recreational activities. And it has to be at least as useful as any other study of ancient history. Perhaps if we knew how we got into this mess, we would stand a better chance of getting out of it.

Agreed. Some people find it "entertaining" to study the field. Knock yourselves out if you do. But most have theological ties in with the field so those who do it solely because they find it "an interesting hobby" are few and far in between.

Besides, Jesus is a major brand name in our society. Are you going to cede all that to the fundies who have taken over the Republican Party and want to use Jesus to promote free market fundamentalism and the next crusade?

Political fundamentalists aget me mad just thinking about them. I could care less what they do though. Infringe upon my freedoms with some theological biblical-Jesus-Christian based bullshit and I'll make sure I exercise my right to bare arms. Fortunately, society seems to be gettin more "liberal" where I live. One day hopefully this mythology will be put behind us.

Vinnie

[MortalWombat]

Originally posted by Vinnie
My understanding of the sources doesn't allow Jesus agnosticism (against the historicity of the person behind the Q1 // THomas sayings material).In Deconstructing Jesus, Robert Price devotes a whole 10 pages comparing the Q1 sayings with those of Cynic sages from the BCE/CE era.

Here's part of a review of Price's book by Doherty discussing the Q1/Cynic connection, from here (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/BkrvPric.htm)
But let me not get too far off the road of the journey being undertaken. I've alluded to the Q scene, and here Price fleshes out our understanding of the nature and background of the Kingdom of God movement centered in Galilee. Mack, Crossan and others have revealed a Galilee that is only marginally Jewish, one heavily hellenized. Several Cynic wandering philosophers/apostles can be located here in the BCE period. Q's parallels (those layers of teaching attributed by modern critical scholars to the historical Jesus) with Cynic lifestyle and outlook on the world are striking. The Cynics, too, preached a kingdom of God/Zeus, they aimed cynical barbs at established social convention, they used chreia forms to get across the essence of their teachings. Were the Q preachers imitating such a Jesus, who himself owed his inspiration to the Cynic movement? Or did they simply reimagine a past Jesus in a newer Cynic image? Or, one could add, did they invent a Jesus to give themselves a more acceptable and identifiable founder and precursor?

Price gives us ten pages [151-160] of parallels between the sayings of Q1 (the apparent bedrock layer of the Q document) and Cynic-style pronouncements of famous sages like Epictetus, Seneca, or of those reporting on Cynic philosophers, such as Diogenes Laertius. There seems little doubt of the ultimate provenance of the core teachings of the Gospel Jesus—and it isn't a Jewish one. This makes exceedingly ironic the modern appeal on the part of religious conservatives to a Christianity that preserves a so-called Judaeo-Christian tradition: something which in actuality constitutes an ethic that is Greek and a philosophy and ritual of salvation derived from the thoroughly Hellenistic ethos of the mystery cults.

Price suggests that Q1, "far from allowing us access for the first time to the historical Jesus, is instead inconsistent with an historical Jesus" [p.150]. While people like Burton Mack detect (quite rightly) a pronounced character to the Q1 sayings, one of sly humor and wise common sense, supposedly implying a definite personality, the same features can equally be found in the body of Cynic sayings to which they have been compared, sayings which identifiably "stem from many different Cynic philosophers over several centuries." If the latter sayings do not need to have come from a single person, Price reasons, neither do those attributed to Jesus.

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Vinnie

End Thoughts:....

In the end we may conclude that searching for historical Jesus and Christian origins is a useless enterprise. Those who offer detailed reconstructions of Jesus (e.g. most modern Jesus scholars) are to be pitied should be dismissed with a stern spanking on their behind. They are misguided scholars wasting the most prescious thing we have: time. The uncertainty principle comes to mind here when watching what looks likechildren with college degrees playing hide-an-go-seek.

The work of historical Jesus scholars out there is absolutely useless for the advancing and embetterment of humanity. It offers us nothing and teaches us nothing. Don't shoot the messenger though. Consider me an alarm clock. The logic is there. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or historical Jesus scholar to recognize that building so much useless information on so little is an exercise in stupidity. What are we to call a person who makes a career out of such an activity? I'm sure you can figue that one out....

Vinnie

I respectfully disagree. Were there not a large political and social movement based around this historical/mythical character, it wouldn't be important. However, there is a large movement of people whose religion based on this character is a major influence on what they do. This movement is filled with men in positions of great power. They have the ability to influence the raising of our children, the laws which govern our nations, and the general life and world in which we live.

To me, that adds a tremendous layer of importance to everything these scholars are doing. Not because knowing the actual Jesus is important, but because knowing that the actual Jesus wasn't a god-man is. If the evidence these men have gathered and presented is shown to someone with a rational and reasonable mind, there is hope that they will not make decisions of great value based on the theology surrounding this character.

Not only that, but the issue of faith is greatly important to many people who are, each in their own way, searching for answers. When I realized the religions of the world do not hold the answers to how to live life and what to expect from it, it was liberating. Not because I wanted to do things these religions found abhorent, but because they placed an expectation of some afterlife that would be vastly improved over the one I'm living now. With this expectation removed, I was compelled to make the most of the life I have, not of the one I'm going to have.

There is something amazing about looking at the world around you and realizing this, this life, is the only time you will get to experience it. Once it's over, there is no you any longer. Biology, history, all facets of science and queries for knowledge became more meaningful to me.

I can see this being similar to the emotions and thoughts of others who would find this information about the historical Jesus and have it be the catalyst that leads them away from such a limiting and destructive world view. Christianity is a religion that thrives on the self-abasement of it's followers. It makes them sacrifice what little life they have for the hope of some magical afterlife. Anything that would help open their minds and allow them to see the beauty of the world as it really is remains important to me. The work of these men is meaningful, whether or not their intentions are to make money or not.

Just my 2 cents.

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Vinnie

Political fundamentalists aget me mad just thinking about them. I could care less what they do though. Infringe upon my freedoms with some theological biblical-Jesus-Christian based bullshit and I'll make sure I exercise my right to bare arms. Fortunately, society seems to be gettin more "liberal" where I live. One day hopefully this mythology will be put behind us.

Vinnie

I think it would be better to confront their actions before it requires the use of arms. The best way to do this is with reasoned arguments based around facts and evidence. To leave this course of study to those with theological biases towards finding a real god-man would be a horrible step back.

I care a great deal what they do, as I would like to be able to think of a long and enjoyable future living in this nation. However, if it gets to a point where the moronic masses of fundamentalists start stripping my freedoms away for the sake of enforcing their antiquated religion on others, I will leave. I'd rather not have that be a decision I'm faced with.

With the rest, I agree for the most part.

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by MortalWombat
In Deconstructing Jesus, Robert Price devotes a whole 10 pages comparing the Q1 sayings with those of Cynic sages from the BCE/CE era.

Here's part of a review of Price's book by Doherty discussing the Q1/Cynic connection, from here (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/BkrvPric.htm)

I am aware of the Q1 cynic discussion here but I simply do not follow the last paragraph at all.

Price suggests that Q1, "far from allowing us access for the first time to the historical Jesus, is instead inconsistent with an historical Jesus" [p.150].

Why is it inconsistent?


While people like Burton Mack detect (quite rightly) a pronounced character to the Q1 sayings, one of sly humor and wise common sense, supposedly implying a definite personality, the same features can equally be found in the body of Cynic sayings to which they have been compared, sayings which identifiably "stem from many different Cynic philosophers over several centuries." If the latter sayings do not need to have come from a single person, Price reasons, neither do those attributed to Jesus.

This has nothing to with with some "inherant needs" of the material The fact is that this material is attributed to Jesus by various sources at a very early date (e.g. GThomas and Q1 INDEPENDENTLY and pieces by Paul and others). Further, information in blocks like the inaugural sermon are widespead and knwon early.

To me this widespread and early attestation favors a view which posits a historical figure behind this material. It by no means necessitates it but I consider it more likely. I'm not going to get into outlining all the overlapping material at this point though. Someone else may want to do that. I would be curious in knowing Doherty and Price's take on GThomas, its dating, relationship to the canonical gospels and its relationship to Q1. This would be important for the discussion (but think butterfly effect = point 10 above thought1).

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Xixax
I think it would be better to confront their actions before it requires the use of arms. The best way to do this is with reasoned arguments based around facts and evidence. To leave this course of study to those with theological biases towards finding a real god-man would be a horrible step back.

I care a great deal what they do, as I would like to be able to think of a long and enjoyable future living in this nation. However, if it gets to a point where the moronic masses of fundamentalists start stripping my freedoms away for the sake of enforcing their antiquated religion on others, I will leave. I'd rather not have that be a decision I'm faced with.

With the rest, I agree for the most part.

FI care too since I have a lot of fundy friends but the political ones piss me off to no end. But it has been my experience that fundies like to deny the most obvious of things:

Biblial errors:
age of the earth:
Immorality of certain actions allegedly perfomred by God
idiocy and immorality of various biblical gibberish

They are blind to so many things and it has been my experience that there is no reasoning with fundamentalists. Otherwise I would agree entirely with your approach. I bother with them only when it would seem necessary in public arenas (e.g if they were trying to get genesis mythology taught in schools). It would be not so much bothering with them but trying to make the rest of the general public aware of their idiocy through "reasoned arguments based around facts and evidence".

But we should note that many many historians have long since dismissed the popular conception of Jesus in their studies. Why has this not filtered down yet to the masses? What good does the study do if they don't listen to it or aren't aware of it? Big waste of time!

Vinnie

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Vinnie

They are blind to so many things and it has been my experience that there is no reasoning with fundamentalists. Otherwise I would agree entirely with your approach. I bother with them only when it would seem necessary in public arenas (e.g if they were trying to get genesis mythology taught in schools). It would be not so much bothering with them but trying to make the rest of the general public aware of their idiocy through "reasoned arguments based around facts and evidence".

But we should note that many many historians have long since dismissed the popular conception of Jesus in their studies. Why has this not filtered down yet to the masses? What good does the study do if they don't listen to it or aren't aware of it? Big waste of time!

Vinnie

Because at one time I was one of these fundamentalists with whom there was no ability to reason. I held to an inerrant, literal Bible with eternal rewards and punishments handed out based on faith and works.

Even though someone handing me this information personally would have never worked, having the information available when I was searching on my own was enough to shift the balance towards reason for me. I know I can't be the only one that would find it necessary to accept that it's mythology in spite of my dearest wishes that it were true for various reasons. Once the possibility was opened in my mind that it was all rubbish, so many things became clear and evident that I am shocked I could have ever taken it seriously.

Being raised and trained from birth in Christianity can leave powerful constraints on a mind that can only be broken by solid, convincing arguments. I wouldn't expect to find people breaking away from Christianity as a common occurrence, but hopefully the momentum towards reason and away from mythology will continue to gain until we are all able to break ourselves away from its lobotomizing grasp.

I think the research into the basis for Christianity, and other religions with negative and widespread influences, will be helpful in keeping this momentum going in the right direction. I'm not trying to sound dramatic, but pulling the rug from underneath Christianity, Judaism and Islam could avoid a massive war and countless deaths. The schism between these religions is dangerous, and only because they take so much of the crap in their books literally that they feel destined to be in conflict with each other. I find it frightening that we have a president who believes in an inevitable Armageddon because of middle east tensions. The probability that such a belief could lead to a self fulfilling prophecy is more likely than I wish to acknowledge.

All research that could reduce such a possibility is worth it's weight in gold.

[MortalWombat]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Why is it inconsistent?Because he shows that the wisdom found in Q isn't original, but a product of many people over centuries of time, and this material is not like anything one would expect from an itinerant Jewish rabbi.The fact is that this material is attributed to Jesus by various sources at a very early date (e.g. GThomas and Q1 INDEPENDENTLY and Paul).I don't know why you are bringing Paul into the discussion about the source of Q material. Where exactly do you see Paul quoting or showing knowledge of sayings of Jesus found in Q?

[Peter Kirby]

Greetings, Bultmann! "We can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary."

Here's the value of HJ research: people who grew up with Christianity have a deep need to believe something about who Jesus was. So give them a "plausible Jesus" to which they can find relevance and that offers an alternative to the fire-and-brimstone fundy version.

Yes, it also keeps a surfeit of academics employed.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Xixax
[B]Because at one time I was one of these fundamentalists with whom there was no ability to reason. I held to an inerrant, literal Bible with eternal rewards and punishments handed out based on faith and works.

Me too.

Even though someone handing me this information personally would have never worked, having the information available when I was searching on my own was enough to shift the balance towards reason for me. I know I can't be the only one that would find it necessary to accept that it's mythology in spite of my dearest wishes that it were true for various reasons. Once the possibility was opened in my mind that it was all rubbish, so many things became clear and evident that I am shocked I could have ever taken it seriously.

I realize the need to refute apologetics. I really do but i am not advocating a cease-fire in this area. I separate Historical Jesus research and Christian origins researh from apologetics because when I study both I did so on a historial basis. Even Christians should prescind from faith when doing history!

Being raised and trained from birth in Christianity can leave powerful constraints on a mind that can only be broken by solid, convincing arguments. I wouldn't expect to find people breaking away from Christianity as a common occurrence, but hopefully the momentum towards reason and away from mythology will continue to gain until we are all able to break ourselves away from its lobotomizing grasp.

But do you realize my reasons on why HJ research should be stopped assume "powerful arguments" against the conservative version of Jesus? Show me that early Christian writings are textually stable and I will have to dismiss point four of my paper. My arguments assume what critical scholars have long known, the gosp4els are late anonymous documents with numerous contradictions and so on. I never advocated not pointing this out but feel that withibn the confines of cruitical scholarship, scholars should quit attemtping to reconstruct Jesus.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by MortalWombat
Because he shows that the wisdom found in Q isn't original, but a product of many people over centuries of time, and this material is not like anything one would expect from an itinerant Jewish rabbi.I don't know why you are bringing Paul into the discussion about the source of Q material. Where exactly do you see Paul quoting or showing knowledge of sayings of Jesus found in Q?

Who ever said Jesus was the originator of much or any of what he said!? He certianly could have spun existing material. And saying this material is not like anyhing we would expect fropm an itinerant Jewish rabbi is a conclusion rather than an actual argument. Crossan comments on dissimilarity in the birth of Christianity are certainly relevant to the discussion here.

I bring paul up because to the best of my understanding Paul shows knowledge of several Q sayings. I cannot say that Paul knows Q but he does know some of the material as "Jesus material". I don't have my sources at this point nore the desire to enter a full blown arguments. I could simply refer you to Koester in ACG. He discusses several instances throughout the work.

I would say this early core of material is attributed to Jesus by various groups (THomas, Q and Paul) at such an early date that without detailed argumentation to the contrary, it is special pleading to not call these core datums "Jesus material". They are Jesus sayings, not "vynic sayings ripped and attributed to Jesus." Did numerous Christians early on in the first stratum independently rip from the same cynic core of mateial and ascribe it to the historical Jesus or does it actually go back to the HJ and this fact was widely known? My view favors the latter as them ore probable of them. There wa an HJ behind it. But if you think Paul shows no knowledge of Q1 material and Thomas is late and dependent upon the canonical Gospels we will naturally disagree.

Vinnie

[Family Man]

To take a contrary view, HJ studies has done us a great service by demonstrating that, on historical grounds, the evidence for the truth of Christian ideology is practically non-existent.

Consider this thought experiment. Consider what we know of any other historical figure (Caesar, Abraham Lincoln, Henry VIII, Madame Curie, etc) and make a mental list. Then consider the importance of those figures. You'll find that much of what we know of these figures points towards their significance in history.

Now consider what HJ proponents say we can "know" about the HJ. If you compare that list to the real significance of Jesus, you'll find practically no correlation at all. What is historical about Jesus is mundane; that which is important is legendary.

It sort of reminds me of what I was told about experimentation. Even if your experiment fails to produce the expected results, you've still learned something. HJ research has provided us with the same benefit: the demonstration that historical analysis can't penetrate the legend that is Jesus, and can't really answer the really interesting questions that abound about the figure that Christians believe is Christ.

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
[B]Greetings, Bultmann! "We can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary."

:notworthy

Here's the value of HJ research: people who grew up with Christianity have a deep need to believe something about who Jesus was. So give them a "plausible Jesus" to which they can find relevance and that offers an alternative to the fire-and-brimstone fundy version.

:notworthy

Yes, it also keeps a surfeit of academics employed.

:notworthy

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

To take a contrary view, HJ studies has done us a great service by demonstrating that, on historical grounds, the evidence for the truth of Christian ideology is practically non-existent.

That view is not contrary to my own. I simply state that the academic discipline of reconstructing the HJ is an exercise in stupidity. My own view assumes that the truth of "Christian idealogy" cannot be found on "historically grounds". There is no need for this bifurcation when my view assumes that these texts cannot be used to reconstruct much of anything. If historical arguments cannot be found Xians need to make theological one. So meet Xians on their own grounds. But if they want to use historical arguments they need to get around the reasons enumerated in the OP of this thread against Jesus research.

Vinnie

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Vinnie
I simply state that the academic discipline of reconstructing the HJ is an exercise in stupidity. Perhaps any attention to Christian origins is an exercise in stupidity?

best,
Peter Kirby

[CX]

Well said.

FYI the plural of "datum" is "data"

[Ted Hoffman]

Vinnie,
You give up too soon. Be a sport ;) . At least, write a book as a culmination of all the time and money you have put in HJ studies etc. Can't just drop it and say bah! its a waste of time.

It indeed could be a waste of time. It cant be a waste of time simply because its difficult.

Like Morpheus would say: Show us.

[joedad]

Xixax:
To me, that adds a tremendous layer of importance to everything these scholars are doing. Not because knowing the actual Jesus is important, but because knowing that the actual Jesus wasn't a god-man is. If the evidence these men have gathered and presented is shown to someone with a rational and reasonable mind, there is hope that they will not make decisions of great value based on the theology surrounding this character.Was HJ a godman or not? If HJ is not a godman than there is no HJ. HJ scholars should define their alleged HJ first, and then present their evidence for composition. We're going to have to call a unicorn a horse if we're ever going to find the one horse that is the alleged HU.

Presently, people aren't "reconstructing" an HJ, their "constructing" one in the same fashion that one was originally constructed and institutionalized centuries ago. That's my take.

So, Vinnie, I agree with you in large measure, though based on hard evidence, I am convinced there is neither an HJ nor an HU.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by joedad
If HJ is not a godman than there is no HJ. Words are words and we can use them with whatever definitions we agree on. The problem is that "the supernatural is essential to the definition of a HJ" has been agreed upon by a few fundamentalists and a few "it's obviously" mythers. Most supernaturalists are able to separate the ideas of a man and a godman, and certainly most writers secular and religious have done so. But again, you can get away with it among a group of people who agree on your definition.

best,
Peter Kirby

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Who really cares about the historical Jesus? Do we reconstruct him because we think Jesus has something to offer us today?

Well, some people do...isn't that enough?

If so, isn't this belief based upon reconstruction itself? Its a vicious circle.

For some people, sure. It's fun to see whether we can piece the past together. Maybe it holds, maybe it doesn't--no way to learn unless we try.

The study of the historical Jesus has no practical importance.

Sometimes knowledge has no practical importance.

There is no reason to invest so much time and money into a Jewish man (who may have been a great person ahead of his time!) who's been dead (AND REMAINED DEAD!) for the last 2,000 years.

Think about all the "time and money" spent researching Plato, or the Caesars, or any number of historical figures. Is there anything wrong with that? If not, then why should Jesus be any different?

And even if a lot about him were made up, even that is worth investigating, I argue, the way you might research a novel, or poetry. Or any social phenomenon.

Even you yourself admit he "may have been a great person ahead of his time". Sounds like a great candidate for historical investigation to me!

I mean, our evolutionary ancestors have been dead for millions of years--it seems you'd have us give up on them, too.

Or do we study Jesus simply because he is there? The good old insatiable desire for knowledge and truth inherant to human beings?

You bet!

This may be true for a few people but most of us are smart enough to catch on to the real reasons bored scholars reconstruct Jesus. *Cough*Jesus books sell*cough*--amongst other reasons of course.

For all I know you're right, but personally I just can't share your cynicism.

In the end we may conclude that searching for historical Jesus and Christian origins is a useless enterprise.

Sure, you could conclude that. Nothing wrong with taking a stand.

They are misguided scholars wasting the most prescious thing we have: time.

Dude, if you don't like it, don't read their books!

I mean, look, I would agree that a lot of "reconstructions" of both the HJ and NT texts aren't noticeably more plausible than one another, and so there's no way to decide. Alright, maybe they're in some way deceiving their readership into thinking that their reconstruction is better than someone else's. But there's no way of knowing whether our efforts will be successful or not without trying--the idea that significant reconstruction is impossible is fairly new, and will take some time to be fairly considered by everyone.

[Bernard Muller]

I would say this early core of material is attributed to Jesus by various groups (THomas, Q and Paul) at such an early date that without detailed argumentation to the contrary, it is special pleading to not call these core datums "Jesus material". Vinnie
There are no evidence whatsoever Thomas and Q is early. I provided detailed argumentation to the contrary. You, yourself, dated Thomas 70-110, that is the intra gospel period. That's not early and necessarily independant of the gospels.
Just because assuming Thomas & Q are early has been the trendy thing to postulate lately by scholars does not prove a thing. The research about HJ as a great sayer have become a confused jungle, a maze with no exit, except generating many doubts.
Best regards, Bernard

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby : Perhaps any attention to Christian origins is an exercise in stupidity?

While I aknowledge (and laughed at) the intent of what you said, I respectfully disagree with the content of what you said ("typed," actually, but why be pedantic on such a gloriously electrified--finally--night? :D).

As you no doubt know, I find the origins of christianity particularly fascinating, albeit from a socio-political bent. ;)

Somebody created the myth. Considering the overhwhelmingly negative impact that myth has had on the last two thousand or so years of Western practice and the lingering negative effects it has on millions of otherwise (hopefully) freethinking peoples, finding the historical bastard and posthumously keel-hauling him would be, personally, of the highest priority.

Think of it this way. Arguably, at that time and in that region, monotheism resulted in the most fanatically loyal fundamentalists in general the Western world had encountered, primarily because the followers were worshipping only one god and not the many different gods of the Pharoahs and pantheist cults. True, most other religions had one central "god of gods," but there was still a hierarchy; mirroring, of course, the hierarchy of totalitarian/monarchical rule.

Pantheist dogma reflects elements of mankind's socio-political existence in general, thus it is more fragmented as a tool for humanity to view itself; monotheistic dogma, however, reflects the "One True Man" in the ideal; a projected image given the name of "God." All people could (by extension) measure themselves individually against the ultimate expression of humanity; the idealized self.

That's quite a blow to hierarchical belief structures, enacted and/or maintained primarily to condition the proletariate to service the ruling elite, IMO.

Judaism was a slave's theology, however, borne out of centuries of oppression; Pantheism was a master's theology, borne out of centuries of conquest and egocentrism and bounty. Thus, a god of war, a god of lust, a god of love, a god of power, etc., etc. These are the victorious gods that all, in one way or another, reflect the varried aspects of human existence, not the god of the oppressed and downtrodden, reflecting the singular aspect of their human existence.

Yes, I know I'm simplifying, but I think you (in the general sense) see my point.

The reason the Jews have been an historically impossible tribe to obliterate (and many have tried) is precisely because of their monotheism, IMO; a monotheism borne out of having nothing of any material sense, because they were slaves. They had no rights, no priviledges, no land (hence the term "nomads"); none of the ego-gratifying accoutrements of being a conquering nation of some kind.

They suffered. For thousands of years. And out of that suffering was borne a god that transcended all earthly matters; a god that was mightier than all other gods and had chosen the slaves to be his most favorite of all of his creation, because they were so mistreated. A slave can't call upon a god of war or lust or love or strength or even hopeless causes. A slave is a hopeless cause.

Thus, if you struck a Jew, it was expected by the Jew. Not loved (as the NT perverts), but accepted as part of the necessity of their belief. God had made them in his image and chosen them to be his special chosen, so when you struck one of them, you were (in their minds) striking God. It was thus a defensive theology.

The self as God (though never fully taken to that logical extreme in any of the teachings, of course, hence the cryptic nature of the dogma, ever teatering on that logical extension). Strike me and you're striking God. Kill me and you're killing God. And boy won't you have to answer for that, you slave owning bastard!

But what would a pantheist say if you struck him? Probably nothing (at least nothing theological). He would have probably just struck you back and the two of you would have gotten into a fight that might result in both your deaths. Perhaps he would have called upon the god of war or the god of strength or the god of whatever, but what he wouldn't do is accept the blow; fanatically believing that you would get yours one day for striking him. After all, by extension of his beliefs, all you've done is struck him.

We even see this exact thing being co-opted by the author(s) of the Jesus mythology. "What you do to me..." and the like.

It's a remarkably powerful mindset, as history has demonstrated. But the key to it is that there is no intermediary between their god and themselves. It's a slave's theology; the self and god are one. Yes, there were Rabbis and elders who were more learned in the law (i.e., the dietary laws and hygiene laws, etc.) of Leviticus long after the theology was initially formed, but the core of Judaism is that nobody needs an idol or an altar or a synagogue or even belief to be a Jew. All one needs is to be borne of a Jewish woman and from that point on, you are Jewish.

Why is it that people still confuse Judaism with a race of people? Judaism is a religion, not a race, yet you almost always hear people say derogatory things toward Jews in the same context of "Blacks, hispanics and...." (not that those are elements of race, either, since there is only one race; the human race, but "you" see my point). "Jews" were actually just nomadic Middle Eastern inhabitants who were enslaved and out of that enslavement the Judaic cult was borne and understandably so.

But I digress...

The point is, that this was a powerful dogma that needed to be corrupted in order for the people who followed it to be conquered, IMO; hence, christianity, a failed attempt to corrupt Judaism that nonetheless showed the same kind of potential for fanatical devotion from otherwise less than fanatical individuals who still were theistically inclined. A means to marry the best of pantheism with monotheism by narrowing down the gods to three that are one.

So, it was put to a different use from what it was intended and in almost immediately detrimental ways. An empire that everyone thinks historically died with Nero's fiddling, actually grew exponentially stronger and thrives to this very day; without borders, without standing armies and without moral compunction for its actions or decrees. Hell, it doesn't even have to pay taxes :D.

So, the questions remain (that I want answered): who thought of it and at what point was it conceived?

It couldn't have been from Jews or even "reformed" or "radical" Jews, since even they weren't interested in changing the fundamentals of godhood/monotheism; they were just interested in the reform of dietary laws and the like. To strike a blow at the very foundation of Judaism (monotheism) meant it must have come from a non-Jewish source, IMO. Someone who had a motive to corrupt Judaism and enough understanding of the tenets and teachings of Judaism to see the "chink in the armor" (so to type) that would afford such an assault.

The only achilles heal of Judaism is that it prophesies a "Messiah;" a "savior" of the Jewish people that marks an end to oppression at the point when they are being most oppressed.

It wouldn't be too hard to imagine a Roman intelligence operative who recognized such a thing and recommended it be used against them in precisely the way it seems to have been done, given the available evidence and in my layman's opinion.

In other much shorter words, either it was a deliberate fraud created for a specific purpose, or it was borne naturally out of a logical extension of reformist Judaic thought in the region. Considering how poorly that thought is reflected in the surviving dogma, however, and trying to account for the axiom "the victor's write the history," I seriously doubt the latter and seek evidence of the former.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Vinnie

The work of historical Jesus scholars out there is absolutely useless for the advancing and embetterment of humanity. It offers us nothing and teaches us nothing. Don't shoot the messenger though. Consider me an alarm clock. The logic is there. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or historical Jesus scholar to recognize that building so much useless information on so little is an exercise in stupidity. What are we to call a person who makes a career out of such an activity? I'm sure you can figue that one out....


I agree with much of what you say, Vinnie, although I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you in regard to the possibility of learning _something_ meaningful about the Historical Jesus, eventually... Nevertheless, I certainly do agree with you that today's generation of HJ scholars have failed to contribute anything of substance, and that their whole project should be considered a dismal failure.

In general, I see the NT as primarily a record about the early Christianity, rather than a record about the Historical Jesus.

And if we still don't understand the history of early Christianity, then this means that we cannot really understand _anything_ about the Historical Jesus as yet.

But OTOH once the true story about the early Christianity is understood -- especially the idea that the movement was still predominantly Jewish-oriented even as late as 100 CE -- then this might open a possibility to understand something about who Jesus really was IMHO.

As I see it, the key to understanding who the HJ really was is that he was a disciple of John the Baptist.

Regards,

Yuri.

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
[B]There are no evidence whatsoever Thomas and Q is early. I provided detailed argumentation to the contrary.

Actually, I would date Q1 early but you disagree with breakign Q into layers like this. YOu also seem to think Q was dependent upon canonoical Mark. THese would have been addressed in the second major section of my paper.

You, yourself, dated Thomas 70-110, that is the intra gospel period. That's not early and necessarily independant of the gospels.

I date the torso of Thomas to this period assuming an earlier layer which has a core of earlier material. I said that without the two layers I would push the date of Thomas back further.

Since Matthew and Luke date to around ca 90 A.D. if THomas dates to the first half of my figure then it is impossible for it tp be dependent. If it is dated to the second half (90-110C.E.) you must must allow some time (a generation?) for popularity of Matthew and Luke's material and versions of existing material to bee known and used by the Thomas author. This is cutting it EXTREMELY close. If you date matthew to the 80s you might be able to sneak this one in but I see no compelling reason to date Matthew more precisely than sometime before 105 C.E.

Its not impossible. You are correct but you would have to fix Matthew early (closer to 80 C.E.) and maybe just slip in the proper required time for dependence. But I also argued Thomas probably dates closer to the lower half of the figure. I picked these dates for a reason in the section establishing the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem of Thomas.

Just because assuming Thomas & Q are early has been the trendy thing to postulate lately by scholars does not prove a thing.

I've seen this opinion aired several times in my research on Thomas. Those who view Thomas as late and dependent constantly reiterate the notion that those who argue Thomas is early and independent never argue for their case but assume it. Building off of other works and earlier studies is a common practice in the field. The literature on Thomas is enormous and is certainly there. And I've hardly assumed Thomas is early and dependent in my study. You just never got to see section three which was going to buyild off of sections 1 and 2 and use Thomas and Q.

Thomas's overlapps with Q1 show that they used the same core material independently and that THomas preserves an earlier wordign than Q sometimes is what I base this early core of material on.

The research about HJ as a great sayer have become a confused jungle, a maze with no exit, except generating many doubts.

Its no more a mess than the Canonical Jesus of the third questers.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

It couldn't have been from Jews or even "reformed" or "radical" Jews, since even they weren't interested in changing the fundamentals of godhood/monotheism; they were just interested in the reform of dietary laws and the like.

A few problems:

This is circular in that your understanding of first century "radical Jews" must be based upon present understandings of first century sources. Maybe some "radical Jews" were interested in changing the fundamentals. How could your study ever know if you exclude this possibility from the outset?! Your kind of like sawing off the branch that you are sitting on. To state it in its simplest form, that is a conclusion rather than an argument.

Further, were early Jesus peoples interested in changing monotheism? Did not Paul incorporate Jesus into his monotheism?THat is what N.T. Wright argues.

Dietary laws present a problem. The Torah expressly forbids the eating of things like shellfish and pork. This is not an issue of disagreeing with a competing interpretation but to say that the food laws no longer applied to to state that a clear mandate of God no longer applied.

This goes both ways though. If you think Paul never told Jews it was okay to eat violate this then it fits in with the notion that the Jesus movement started off mainly, Jewish. If not then you have a first century Jew (I could quote Paul boasting of his credentials) who decided he could alter a clear mandate of the Torah.

To strike a blow at the very foundation of Judaism (monotheism) meant it must have come from a non-Jewish source, IMO. Someone who had a motive to corrupt Judaism and enough understanding of the tenets and teachings of Judaism to see the "chink in the armor" (so to type) that would afford such an assault.

Christianity did exceptionally well in spreading in Gentile circles. There were already established communities by the 50s as is evidenced by the Pauline corpus.

In other much shorter words, either it was a deliberate fraud created for a specific purpose, or it was borne naturally out of a logical extension of reformist Judaic thought in the region. Considering how poorly that thought is reflected in the surviving dogma, however, and trying to account for the axiom "the victor's write the history," I seriously doubt the latter and seek evidence of the former.

Your understanding of earliest Xianity seems to be flawed and you also limit the options premaurely two what I would consider, two of the least likely options out there. I'd recommend Mack's 'Who Wrote the New Testament' for starters.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

As I see it, the key to understanding who the HJ really was is that he was a disciple of John the Baptist.

Virtually all scholars accept some form of continuity between Jesus and John since virtually all of them think Jesus was baptized by John the baptsist. But if this is granted we may note that some think Jesus had the same basic outlook as John and others (e.g. Crossan) think Jesus broke away from the viw of John (presumably) after John's death which itself may have triggered the change.

You seem to want to go the E.P. Sanders route and use the "indisoutable facts" of Jesus life to reconstruct him rather than sayings and so on.

Personally, I would favor Crossan's methodology. Start with stratification and multiple attestation in the first stratum. Then if later on you find the Jesus and John connection to be there incorporate it into your study. But to start with John and move from him to Jesus to Paul has been critiqued by many as being flawed. Jesus could have broken away from John's message and as Crossan noted, if you start with Paul you will not make it back to Jesus and if you start with Jesus, you will not make it to Paul. There is a 20 year period in between the death of Jesus and the extant Pauline corpus of the fifties.

But yes, any reconstruction of Jesus that hopes ot be thorough and address all the evidence needs to discuss his relationship to John the baptist. It also needs to reconstruct JBap himself though and we need to ask, do we have better source material on JBap than Jesus?

We have Josephus but don't most scholars think he watered down his baptist material given his audience? So his portrayal can't be taken at face value and needs top be filtered like all other sources.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

At least, write a book as a culmination of all the time and money you have put in HJ studies etc. Can't just drop it and say bah! its a waste of time.

You know, that isn't a bad idea! Just need to find a publisher! Do you think the title of this thread would be appropriate for the title of the book? ;)

Vinnie

[Doctor X]

So long as you have Dudley Manlove on the cover with his Plan Nine from Outer Space costume . . . come to think of it . . . the film suggests another title regarding the Historical Junior:

The chief is dead! Murdered! And someone's responsible!

J the Water-Boy: I have often wondered about that. Mk and the rest of the Synoptics subordinate J the B to Junior but not to the extent that Jn does. In Jn, he not only specifies he is inferior he demands that his followers recognize this. Why? Jn is a later gospel, of course. What tradition did he confront? Were their surviving "J the B" factions that he competed with . . . if they did they completely disappeared unless someone accidentally digs up a "Sayings Source" for him. Or did he have a tradition he had to deal with: "Wasn't he just a follower of another nutcase who felt the need to wash young men?" Or . . . is it in character of the rest of his work where Junior is in utter and complete control. I sure as hell do not know.

Anyways, Vinnie, no sense in throwing away the fruits of so much labor.

--J.D.

[Ted Hoffman]

Originally posted by Vinnie
You know, that isn't a bad idea! Just need to find a publisher! Do you think the title of this thread would be appropriate for the title of the book? ;)
Vinnie
Naah, its to antagonistic. But I am serious - if you really feel strongly about it, heck let the world know - write a book. You could even self-publish :).
And what is that in your profile about "sort of a christian"?

[Bernard Muller]

Those who view Thomas as late and dependent constantly reiterate the notion that those who argue Thomas is early and independent never argue for their case but assume it.
Vinnie

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions, or so-called arguments, such as:
a) Because GTh parallels of the gospels look simplified, that means they are the earliest.
b) Because GTh parallels of the gospels are in no order (as compared with the one showing in the Synoptics), the GTh sayings are coming from an independant "pile", not from the gospels.
c) Because collection of sayings come first (before narrations), then GThomas (and Q) is early. Main evidence: GTh & Q are early. THAT IS A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT!!! And Q, in is complete form, is hotly contested as being pre-GMark.

Building off of other works and earlier studies is a common practice in the field.
Vinnie

If the primary evidence does not back up your case, then you look a scholarly works. And you build your case on the ones in your favor, ignoring the others, even if the "good" ones arrived to their conclusions (the ones you like) with "maybe", "perhaps", "it is possible", etc.
I saw that many times from apologists.
That does not prove a thing. Actually a long & convoluted work, resting on unproven stack of hypothese, on the musing of selected scholars, is sure to be unconclusive and likely wrong.

The literature on Thomas is enormous and is certainly there.
Vinnie

Ya, but there are other "enormous" Christian literature dated 2nd & third century, some of which also have rewritten gospels' parallels. So the existence of GTh does not prove a thing. And then Gth is not so enormous. And then other Thomas literatures are later part of 2nd century and beyond.

And I've hardly assumed Thomas is early and dependent in my study. You just never got to see section three which was going to buyild off of sections 1 and 2 and use Thomas and Q.
Vinnie

Ya, but you have aborted your work, so it is pretty hard to judge it (and see it is not assumed).
Are you implying your interrupted study would have been the only one to "prove" parts of GTh are early?

Best regards, Bernard

[Vinnie]

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions, or so-called arguments, such as:
a) Because GTh parallels of the gospels look simplified, that means they are the earliest.


Well lets look at the flipside:

Thomas is gnostic so its late!

Building off that nonsense "scholars" like to drool on and say Thomas looks earlier (a CONCESSION) because the editor//author was undoing what the synoptic authors did (assumption of lateness and dependence!!!) Score three for the late and dependent camp :rolleyes:

See my critique of John Meier for an example of a mainine scholar who makes these idiotic amatuer blunders.

I got another one, assume IMPLICITLY Thomas was written in one sitting then find any instance of later canonical material or canonical redactional material in THomas and thus it is all late.

Yet another: Anytime THomas shortens a parable he must have shortened the synoptic version. No, THomas couldn't have possibly found the parable in any other source :rolleyes:

Or another: implicitly assume canonical Christianity represents all Christianity of the 1st century and thus if THomas has material which does not cohere with synoptic data it must be late. Isn't that a conclusion rather than an argument?

Assume straight-line development of material, ignore provenance and so on! We could go on and on pointing out the flaws with numerous scholar's work on the subject. What do you expect though? They're mainly just a bunch of theologians pretending to do history.

b) Because GTh parallels of the gospels are in no order (as compared with the one showing in the Synoptics), the GTh sayings are coming from an independant "pile", not from the gospels.

Actually, Tuckett offered the best thoughts on this. His discussion was good but I still find the order important for my case.

But do you realize what you are saying? Thomas looks nothing like the synoptics (point a THomas is simplified) and Thomas (at least almost) completely lacks the synoptic order (point b). Whats left for you to base an argument for Thomas's dependence on? Its latent gnosticism?! At the least I can say the order and content are very different which you can attempt to explain away.

c) Because collection of sayings come first (before narrations), then GThomas (and Q) is early. Main evidence: GTh & Q are early. THAT IS A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT!!! And Q, in is complete form, is hotly contested as being pre-GMark

Well, we do have good evidence of earlier collections of sayings, Miracle lists, Q, parable lists and so on. We also know that these lists were assimilated into the canonical Gospels and are no longer extant save through their reconstruction from the Gospels. Thus, since you yourself are so interested in finding trends maybe the data leans against lists being composed from the synoptics when it was the canonicals who engulfed so many various types of lists and documents? I personally wouldn't place too much evidence on this view though.

If the primary evidence does not back up your case, then you look a scholarly works. And you build your case on the ones in your favor, ignoring the others, even if the "good" ones arrived to their conclusions (the ones you like) with "maybe", "perhaps", "it is possible", etc.

You fault them for assessing the evidence honestly!? Of course they use things like "maybe","perhaps" and so on. The GOOD scholars realize the limitations the material imposes upon their inferences. This is history not physics. A physics professor does not say maybe the ball with fall with a velocity of x meters per second/per second. A Christian origins professor has to say maybe x happened and maybe we can infer y from it or this seems to have a different tradition history. Don't fault a scholar for correctly realizing the limiations of his source material!

Ya, but you have aborted your work, so it is pretty hard to judge it (and see it is not assumed).

Only two more sections were needed to demonstrate this. 1N most importantly and then 1O would have builf off of that partly.

But there is a lot of material out there which shows that the Torso of THomas has a different tradition-history.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
Naah, its to antagonistic. But I am serious - if you really feel strongly about it, heck let the world know - write a book. You could even self-publish :).
And what is that in your profile about "sort of a christian"?

I'm sort of a Christian. I'm not an orthodox Christian but in this culture I live in Christian imagery and mythology is an important part of my religious identity.

My first stop here page on my website gives good background into my panentheist theology:

http://www.acfaith.com/firststop.html

Further, in my critique of the veracity of prayer studies like Byrd's give more incite in the specifics of my Gopd-theology:

http://www.acfaith.com/pray.html

Especially sections three and four.

I don't believe God intervenes in the supernatural sense and violates nature like almost every other theist. I think God works on a personal level through things like prayer and personal experiences. This fits in well with my panentheist outlook which has everything existing withing God rather than outside as in the supernatural theist frame work.

This is why on the fifth page of my study I argued that prayer does in fact work even though in sections three and four I argued that it doesn't work.

Vinnie

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
The reason the Jews have been an historically impossible tribe to obliterate (and many have tried) is precisely because of their monotheism, IMO; a monotheism borne out of having nothing of any material sense, because they were slaves. They had no rights, no priviledges, no land (hence the term "nomads"); none of the ego-gratifying accoutrements of being a conquering nation of some kind.

I disagree. It's because of their monotheism that they survived, that I agree with, but it's the continuation of that monotheism, not the development of it, that led to their survival.

Most nations, when defeated, decided that it was because the other nation had stronger gods. The gods of the defeated nation, therefore, were no longer worth worshipping.

Judaism was different. Their god was in control of everything. Conquest and defeat. When they lost, they decided that their god was even more powerful than they imagined, and the invading nation nothing more than his pawn.

God, the Jews concluded, was using this other nation to teach Judaism a lesson. And when they all turned from their evil ways--quit worshipping at Asherah poles and praying to Ba'al--their god would redeem them.

A mentality that, impressively, continues to this day. Some 2700 years after the punishment began.

Thus, if you struck a Jew, it was expected by the Jew. Not loved (as the NT perverts), but accepted as part of the necessity of their belief. God had made them in his image and chosen them to be his special chosen, so when you struck one of them, you were (in their minds) striking God. It was thus a defensive theology.

But the Law says "eye for an eye." I'm not aware of anywhere in the Law that says "If you get slapped, you should expect that."

The distinction between man and god is clear throughout the Tanakh. Man is a worm, God is almighty.

I'd venture that most Jews would have found the sentiment that by striking them you were striking God to be offensive. God was more of a big brother who was going to kick your ass.

But what would a pantheist say if you struck him? Probably nothing (at least nothing theological). He would have probably just struck you back and the two of you would have gotten into a fight that might result in both your deaths. Perhaps he would have called upon the god of war or the god of strength or the god of whatever, but what he wouldn't do is accept the blow; fanatically believing that you would get yours one day for striking him. After all, by extension of his beliefs, all you've done is struck him.

If a Roman soldier slapped you, I'd venture that it didn't matter much if you were Jewish or not. You took it dry. Not doing so made you dead. Being dead sucks. In any time. As Woody Allen observed, it's awfully hard to find your slippers, and I'm sure the floor is cold.

In other much shorter words, either it was a deliberate fraud created for a specific purpose, or it was borne naturally out of a logical extension of reformist Judaic thought in the region. Considering how poorly that thought is reflected in the surviving dogma, however, and trying to account for the axiom "the victor's write the history," I seriously doubt the latter and seek evidence of the former.

Do you have any evidence of this former yet? And if not, aren't you reaching your conclusions before you get there?

I'm curious as to what leads you to conclude that Judaic thought is borne out poorly in Christianity. I'd venture quite the contrary. If the Tanach is the beginning, the OTP and DSS the intermediary step, and Christianity the finale, it flows rather well.

Regards,
Rick

[Ted Hoffman]

Vinnie,
The logic is shaky in the links but thanks for explaining.

[Bernard Muller]

VINNIE wrote:
Thomas is gnostic so its late!
Building off that nonsense "scholars" like to drool on and say Thomas looks earlier (a CONCESSION) because the editor//author was undoing what the synoptic authors did (assumption of lateness and dependence!!!) Score three for the late and dependent camp.
See my critique of John Meier for an example of a mainine scholar who makes these idiotic amateur blunders.
I got another one, assume IMPLICITLY Thomas was written in one sitting then find any instance of later canonical material or canonical redactional material in THomas and thus it is all late.
Yet another: Anytime THomas shortens a parable he must have shortened the synoptic version. No, THomas couldn't have possibly found the parable in any other source.
Or another: implicitly assume canonical Christianity represents all Christianity of the 1st century and thus if THomas has material which does not cohere with synoptic data it must be late. Isn't that a conclusion rather than an argument?
We could go on and on pointing out the flaws with numerous scholar's work on the subject. What do you expect though? They're mainly just a bunch of theologians pretending to do history.

Good VINNIE. I approve heartily of the last two sentences.
And about the arguments you specified above, I do not share anyone of those.
And I think that about Meier:
A Christian apologist working from within the Catholic establishment

VINNIE wrote:
quote from Bernard:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b) Because GTh parallels of the gospels are in no order (as compared with the one showing in the Synoptics), the GTh sayings are coming from an independant "pile", not from the gospels.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Tuckett offered the best thoughts on this. His discussion was good but I still find the order important for my case.
But do you realize what you are saying? Thomas looks nothing like the synoptics (point a THomas is simplified) and Thomas (at least almost) completely lacks the synoptic order (point b). Whats left for you to base an argument for Thomas's dependence on? Its latent gnosticism?! At the least I can say the order and content are very different which you can attempt to explain away
.

"But do you realize what you are saying?"
My quote is from the viewpoint opposite to mine. I am the devil advocate here. Do not blame me for that!
"Thomas looks nothing like the Synoptics"
Ya, but also many late 1st cent, or 2nd cent. Christian texts. So either way, that does not prove anything.
I do not make much from any alleged gnosticism in my page. Here is my sentence about it:
"And that's not even considering any (early) Gnosticism! See here for details about GThomas & Gnosticism, logion by logion, with scholars' comments & evidence."
The page I refer to http://www.gospelthomas.com/ includes comments of a few scholars, some pro-gnostic, some anti-gnostic, some pro-early, some pro-late. So it is just a soup, with no clear answer.
As far as my arguments for pro-dependence, **which BTW you snipped away in your critique and/or did not comment anything**, are based mainly on two logions:

a) The one (57) about the weeds parable, which I demonstrated was initially an extrapolation of Matthew from the sower parable of Mark, very obvious in a few ways, such as location and more so the additions in it correspond 100% to a major theme dear to Matthew (and only him among the gospelers) which is further evidenced in other Matthean material (including parables).

b) Part of another one (47) initially from Luke, where again in order to satisfy a particular Lukan agenda, well evidenced in Luke's works, a parable is twisted and added on from a Markan parable.

I also made several comments pointing to the fact Thomas got the tenants parable from GLuke.
Then, about the gospels order, the full logions have two cases of a duo of consecutive pericopes as appearing in all of the Synoptics for one, in GMatthew for the other (and that's the only occurrences of those (contiguous ones), I mean among the gospels parallels).
It just happens, in the two cases, the consecutive gospel pericopes are paralleled in two consecutive Thomas logions, and in the same order!
The chance of that, which I calculated, is one out of 12,000.
That's very revealing for a writer who had all motives to place his logions at random, more so the ones with parallels.

So I do not make my points on Gnosticism, but on the primary evidence. And you do not have anything to match that.

VINNIE wrote:
Well, we do have good evidence of earlier collections of sayings, Miracle lists, Q, parable lists and so on. We also know that these lists were assimilated into the canonical Gospels and are no longer extant save through their reconstruction from the Gospels. Thus, since you yourself are so interested in finding trends maybe the data leans against lists being composed from the synoptics when it was the canonicals who engulfed so many various types of lists and documents? I personally wouldn't place too much evidence on this view though.

"Well, we do have good evidence of earlier collections of sayings, Miracle lists, Q, parable lists. We also know that these lists were assimilated into the canonical Gospels"

Except for Q, which was likely compiled after GMark, with a lot of its material fabricated then (see here (http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/q.shtml)), (some would say it came from GMatthew), we do not have any evidence either some texts you mentioned ever existed (such as the miracles list and the Passion narrative) or, if existing (like some gospel-like fragments) we do not have any evidence they are "early". Maybe scholars like Crossan or Robinson are big fans of that, but that's pure speculations and leap of faith. Those scholars are so eager to have a lot of pre-gospel material, that they assume: if it cannot be proven late, then it is early!
So your claim again is founded on the musing of some scholars (which you said are not historians), not on primary evidence. Actually, you consider the former as the later. Better learn about the difference!
"the data leans against lists being composed from the synoptics when it was the canonicals who engulfed so many various types of lists and documents?"
What data **leans** against ...? Spell it out

Best regards, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Vinnie wrote:
Bernard's quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the primary evidence does not back up your case, then you look a scholarly works. And you build your case on the ones in your favor, ignoring the others, even if the "good" ones arrived to their conclusions (the ones you like) with "maybe", "perhaps", "it is possible", etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You fault them for assessing the evidence honestly!? Of course they use things like "maybe","perhaps" and so on. The GOOD scholars realize the limitations the material imposes upon their inferences. This is history not physics. A physics professor does not say maybe the ball with fall with a velocity of x meters per second/per second. A Christian origins professor has to say maybe x happened and maybe we can infer y from it or this seems to have a different tradition history. Don't fault a scholar for correctly realizing the limitations of his source material!


No, I do not fault them for assessing the evidence honestly. Actually they are honest by using "maybe", "perhaps" in introducing their hypothese. They acknowledge there is no (or so little) evidence to back them up, but the possibility can be thought.

I can say, maybe Atlantis existed (more Blablabla) therefore (more Blablabla) perhaps the Atlantans built the Pyramids (more blablabla). That's honest. I do not say for sure Atlantis existed because I cannot prove it, etc.
The problem is that people like you comes, and because you think (for argument sake, no offence) the conclusion is true, quote me & my conclusion as if it was primary evidence or at least a solid fact.

Let me give you another example, given by yourself, starting from a quote of Patterson:
"Indeed, the apparent gaps in Thomas' narrative **may** indicate that it is an abbeviation of some longer version--but not necessarily Matthew's longer version.
Closer examination of the language used in those Matthean verses without parallel in Thomas **suggests** that Matthew himself is responsible for composing them in just this way. Consider the key words occuring in these verses which later become the subject of Matthean allegorical interpretation of the parable (Matt 13:36-43) . . . the author/editor of Thomas did not know precisely these details because they first arose in the way Matthew conceptualized the parable as an allegory. **Perhaps** Thomas did know a longer version of this parable, and abbreviated it in the telling; but this longer version was not that of Matthew. (Patterson, GThom. & Jesus, p. 46)"

Despite the "may" and "perhaps", and combined with that:
"That all four parables which Thomas shares with Matthew's special material were introduced with a reference to the kingdom **could** indicate that both used a common source. (Koester, ACG, p. 105)", plus another Koester's special:
"This introduction to the parables, not often used elsewhere in Thomas, **might** indicate that at least some of the special parables of the Gospel of Thomas were drawn from the same source from which also the parables shared with Matthew were derived."

My argumentation is ignored, also the ones of "Gartner, Montefiore and Schrage" who "all argue that Thomas' shorter version of this parable is dependent upon that of Matthew".
That does not prevent you to conclude:
"In regards to the parable of the weeds it must be said that it is not certain that "Matthew" created this parable whole cloth or from a Markan parable. In fact, **it is unlikely**."

Certainly, you do not realize "the limitation of his sources material" of your scholars, but my golly, your are going to accept their musing with enthousiasm.

Who are you trying to fool! All what you quoted only leave a very small possibility for your belief to be true. That does not support it at all. However my argumentation (you snipped) is solidly based on primary evidence but that's not even worth even reading it!

Vinnie wrote:
Bernard's quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya, but you have aborted your work, so it is pretty hard to judge it (and see if it is not assumed).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only two more sections were needed to demonstrate this. 1N most importantly and then 1O would have built off of that partly.
But there is a lot of material out there which shows that the Torso of THomas has a different tradition-history.

Sure Vinnie, all based on assumptions, unproven hypothesis stacked above other unproven hypothesis, with musing of your "good" scholars about possibilities, your dreamed up stratifications, your own selection of Q1 & T1?
Here is about stratification of Q (not even about GThomas!):
>> One of those, John Kloppenborg, probably the best known in this field, considerably changed his "model" and acknowledged candidly "I might say at this point that I regard my stratigraphic proposals in 'Formation of Q' and 'Excavating Q' as interesting bits of guesswork ..." (Synoptic-S, On-line Seminar, Oct. 2000) <<

Sure, Vinnie

Best regards, Bernard

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Vinnie :

ME: It couldn't have been from Jews or even "reformed" or "radical" Jews, since even they weren't interested in changing the fundamentals of godhood/monotheism; they were just interested in the reform of dietary laws and the like.

YOU: A few problems:

This is circular in that your understanding of first century "radical Jews" must be based upon present understandings of first century sources.

In other words, my understanding is based on my understanding? Is that your argument?

MORE: Maybe some "radical Jews" were interested in changing the fundamentals.

To what end, other than in line with my theory (the calculated and deliberate subversion of Monotheist dogma)? Monotheism defines Judaism. It's even in their commandments from their god. Without it, you no longer have Judaism. For even a "radical Jew" to propose that there is more than one god is to propose that the very foundation of their religious beliefs is false and their prophets and elders were liars or frauds.

The Jewish messiah (if there is only one) was never a savior of men's souls, much less a god. Just read the same prophets the NT authors use as supporting Jesus' messiah-hood (for lack of a better term). The "messiah" of Daniel, for example, is a destroyer of humanity and come to end the redemptive power of sacrifice prior to flooding the Holy land to kill all who were not annointed. "He" is the polar opposite of what the NT claims of its messiah. Even the most radical Jews of the area would know this intimately, so it makes even less sense that they would attempt to subvert the orthodoxy by positing their Messiah had come in order to hide from authority (which Jesus does repeatedly) and preach a doctrine of love of oppression (the Sermon on the Mount).

Both Isaiah and Daniel (the two primary prophets the NT authors have Jesus quoting in support of his messiah-hoodness) state quite clearly that when their god sends this messenger, "he" is a physical destroyer of all enemies of god's chosen, as well as the destroyer of all those within god's chosen (i.e., the Jews) who were not redeemable. In other words, his presence on earth means that god's judgment has been rendered and the sentence will be carried out and actual, physical bodies will be mass murdered (in Daniel it's a flood).

The Jewish messiah is by no means a savior; he is their executioner who arrives on the scene after the judgement of god has been made. His presence marks the end of oppression and the enemies of the chosen people; not the love of it or them.

MORE: How could your study ever know if you exclude this possibility from the outset?!

:confused: What "possibility?" That radical Jewish factions were intent on subverting the absolute foundation of their religious beliefs? That they were intent on contradicting their own God's commandment as given to Moses?

Regardless, since we're talking about the Jesus cult, a review of the alleged "Q" material and the subsequent use of this material in the formation of the NT dogma (as well as the Essene's "Righteous One") clearly shows that the majority of the teachings were against the substrata of their dogma (i.e., the dietary, hygiene and marriage laws). Even Mark (the alleged originator of the passion myth) devotes the first three chapters (and more, throughout) to having Jesus assail these laws before anything else.

MORE: Your kind of like sawing off the branch that you are sitting on. To state it in its simplest form, that is a conclusion rather than an argument.

To put it more correctly, it was a conclusion derived from the argument. That's how these things work.

MORE: Further, were early Jesus peoples interested in changing monotheism?

No.

MORE: Did not Paul incorporate Jesus into his monotheism?

Is not my theory that Paul was a part of the fraud?

MORE: THat is what N.T. Wright argues.

Dietary laws present a problem. The Torah expressly forbids the eating of things like shellfish and pork. This is not an issue of disagreeing with a competing interpretation but to say that the food laws no longer applied to to state that a clear mandate of God no longer applied.

This goes both ways though. If you think Paul never told Jews it was okay to eat violate this then it fits in with the notion that the Jesus movement started off mainly, Jewish.

What has Paul got to do with what Jesus allegedly said and preached? Paul isn't the one in Mark rewriting almost every Jewish law (at the same time it is claimed that not one line will be changed).

MORE: If not then you have a first century Jew (I could quote Paul boasting of his credentials) who decided he could alter a clear mandate of the Torah.

Or, in keeping with my theory, you have a Roman attempt to subvert Judaism as part and parcel to their attempts at sublimating the region.

ME: To strike a blow at the very foundation of Judaism (monotheism) meant it must have come from a non-Jewish source, IMO. Someone who had a motive to corrupt Judaism and enough understanding of the tenets and teachings of Judaism to see the "chink in the armor" (so to type) that would afford such an assault.

[quote]MORE: Christianity did exceptionally well in spreading in Gentile circles. There were already established communities by the 50s as is evidenced by the Pauline corpus.

That's right, because it didn't work on the Jews. The Jews (by and large) saw through it as being so obviously wrong about Messiah prophecy and their tenets of monotheism. The gentiles, however, were conditioned to believe in pantheism and had many myths of a sacrificial savior.

This merely supports the idea that christianity was a non-Jewish concoction designed to subvert its fundamental belief structure in order to destabilize the region in order to convert the area to more Romanesque beliefs.

ME: In other much shorter words, either it was a deliberate fraud created for a specific purpose, or it was borne naturally out of a logical extension of reformist Judaic thought in the region. Considering how poorly that thought is reflected in the surviving dogma, however, and trying to account for the axiom "the victor's write the history," I seriously doubt the latter and seek evidence of the former.

YOU: Your understanding of earliest Xianity seems to be flawed

I respectively disagree, but then, I must ask, are you basing this on your present understandings of first century sources?

MORE: and you also limit the options premaurely two what I would consider, two of the least likely options out there.

Actually, my theory is not just "likely," it is par for the course for just about any occupying force to destroy the local belief structure as a predicate to indoctrination into the ruling belief structure.

Just open any history book and you'll see this pattern applied over and over and over again whenever an occupying force infiltrates and annexes global regions.

MORE: I'd recommend Mack's 'Who Wrote the New Testament' for starters.

I have. In fact, it's one of the books I base my theory upon, because his analysis is, IMO, flawed. Or shall we say, "narrow?"

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Pardon my dyslexia. It's late and I've been filming interesting altercations with the police outside my window while sipping vodka....

Originally posted by rickmsumner

ME: The reason the Jews have been an historically impossible tribe to obliterate (and many have tried) is precisely because of their monotheism, IMO; a monotheism borne out of having nothing of any material sense, because they were slaves. They had no rights, no priviledges, no land (hence the term "nomads"); none of the ego-gratifying accoutrements of being a conquering nation of some kind.

YOU: I disagree. It's because of their monotheism that they survived, that I agree with, but it's the continuation of that monotheism, not the development of it, that led to their survival.

:confused: How can one continue it if it wasn't first developed and wouldn't the "continuation of that monotheism" mean reaffirmation of it from generation to generation?

Are you trying to argue that "continuation" equates with "augmentation," and if so, how does one augment what is already considered absolute? You can't get more absolute than one God. Introducing pantheism to monotheism would therefore be a step backward, not a step forward.

MORE: Most nations, when defeated, decided that it was because the other nation had stronger gods. The gods of the defeated nation, therefore, were no longer worth worshipping.

Judaism was different. Their god was in control of everything. Conquest and defeat. When they lost, they decided that their god was even more powerful than they imagined, and the invading nation nothing more than his pawn.

God, the Jews concluded, was using this other nation to teach Judaism a lesson. And when they all turned from their evil ways--quit worshipping at Asherah poles and praying to Ba'al--their god would redeem them.

A mentality that, impressively, continues to this day. Some 2700 years after the punishment began.

Right...so, it was the continuation of their monotheism and not their destruction of monotheism that defines what it means to be Jewish. Thus, it makes no sense (from a Jewish perspective) to reject monotheism in favor of christianity, a pantheistic dogma (however convoluted).

ME: Thus, if you struck a Jew, it was expected by the Jew. Not loved (as the NT perverts), but accepted as part of the necessity of their belief. God had made them in his image and chosen them to be his special chosen, so when you struck one of them, you were (in their minds) striking God. It was thus a defensive theology.

YOU: But the Law says "eye for an eye."

Within the dogma as it applied only to the governing laws of the Jewish people, not to any non-Jewish oppressors. Jewish laws did not apply to anyone who was not Jewish. Those who were not god's chosen people would be destroyed by their god. Those who followed the Jewish cult had their own laws that applied only to them. Anyone who was not of the Jewish cult would be dealt with directly and swiftly by their god.

An "eye for an eye" only applied to how Jewish people were to adjudicate other Jewish people.

MORE: I'm not aware of anywhere in the Law that says "If you get slapped, you should expect that."

It's not a matter of expecting it. It's a matter of religious indoctrination. Their god had chosen the Jewish people to be the most oppressed (in keeping with the notion that this was borne out of a slave's mentality). But anyone who oppressed god's chosen people would receive god's wrath and be destroyed by god.

Read Daniel.

MORE: The distinction between man and god is clear throughout the Tanakh. Man is a worm, God is almighty.

Exactly. Thus, god would not ever come in the form of a man. God, to them, was/is absolute and unquestionable and has nothing to do with being a man or masquerading as a man. He is the judge of man and the executioner of man (in the form of his messengers). He is inviolate as are his laws, so for anyone to come along and claim that they are either god or god's messenger and not fulfill any of the prophecies that Daniel or Isaih (in particular) allegedly foresaw or to change any of god's laws would be a fraud.

MORE: I'd venture that most Jews would have found the sentiment that by striking them you were striking God to be offensive.

They would and did. They knew that by striking them one was strking god and therefore, god will destroy them for their transgression.

Remember that to Jewish cult members, there are Jews and then there are the enemies of god. Period. There is no middle ground. You were either chosen by god (i.e., "Jewish"), or you were an enemy of god (i.e., "non-Jewish" and those within the Jewish cult who were bad). Jewish people were concerned only with obeying the laws of their god as they applied to each other, not to the enemies of god (i.e., non-Jews). Non-Jewish people (the "non" chosen) did not follow the laws of their god and were therefore destined to be destroyed by their god. In other words, none of their concern.

This is what a dogma resulting from being a slave generates; "we" are chosen and all the rest are god's enemies. If you weren't Jewish, you were destined to be destroyed by the Jewish god.

MORE: God was more of a big brother who was going to kick your ass.

In a sense, yes. Which is why the Sermon on the Mount, for example, would have been (and clearly was) rejected by the Jews in the region as a "message" from a false prophet. If their "messiah" had come to Earth at that time, then it would have meant that the Romans, in particular, would have all been murdered by this messiah. According to Jewish dogma, all non-Jews were to be completely erradicated by their messiah as a preparation for god's kingdom on earth.

No Jew at that time would have accepted the idea that their messiah had come in order to tell them to love their enemies because it meant that they were "blessed" by god! They were already "blessed by god" for the simple reason that they were Jewish. That's what it meant to be god's chosen.

From a Jewish perspective, the Sermon on the Mount would have been (at best) a tautology.

Thus, Mark or Matthew (or rather the authors of Mark and Mattew, or any of the NT authors who ascribed words to Jesus) and, especially, Paul saying what he allegedly said is evidence (IMO) of a Roman propaganda initiative that failed, or, at the very least, yet another fraud attempting to exploit the ignorant for his own power issues.

Considering what was going on in that region during this whole time, however, the likelihood that Paul, in particular, was nothing more than a "converted Jew" seeking to subvert Jewish Monotheism is tenuous at best. He states categorically (if one accepts authorship) that "Jews" (note the plural and not the specific) have earned god's wrath for murdering god's son (who is also god). Paul indicts all Jews by claiming that they conspired to kill their own Messiah; something that would be impossible to do according to OT Jewish dogma.

No man could possibly stop or kill a messenger of the Jewish god and god would never have sent a messenger in order to be killed by men. Such a concept simply does not and can not exist within Jewish dogma.

God was/is absolute. Whatever messengers god sends are doing god's work. That man could kill one of god's messengers would have been anathema (as it historically was) to any Jew; be he "radical" or "reformed." There simply is no questioning of the Jewish god's absolute supremacy in Jewish scripture.

Remember, the Romans were not just there to "keep the peace" as no occupying army is ever just there to "keep the peace." That's simplistic propaganda 101. The sole purpose of conquering a region is to consume that region and envelop them into the fold. Pilate's mandate would have been, "Make these people Roman citizens." Period. The fact that he couldn't is evidenced both in the manner in which he slaughtered the Sammaritans and in how the "higher ups" had to send in troops in 80 C.E. to quell what obviously must have been escalating Jewish resistance.

Put yourself into the Middle East right now and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. The very first thing we did in regard to Iraq was to convince our people and their people that Saddam Husein was "worse than Hitler." That's an actual quote, by the way, from Bush, Sr. Whatever is worshipped by the people you have conquered must be destroyed first and foremost.

Why do you think the American government set an official price on every buffalo killed within America at the time just prior to expansion into the western provinces? Because there was such a demand for buffalo meat in D.C.? No, because they represented not only the primary food source for the native American indians, but also a religious icon. Destroy their beliefs and their minds will follow.

Or so goes the first tenet of any occupying force. We hired people (and by "we" I of course mean the governing force at that time) to slaughter without regard every single buffalo that was seen roaming the plains. Why? Certainly not to provide sustenance to hungry settlers. The corpses rotted where they lay. The purpose of the slaughter was to show the Indians that their beliefs were false and that our beliefs were "true."

The American governing body at that time officially sanctioned the systematic slaughter of all indigenous buffalo in order to demoralize and destroy the native Indian belief structure as a precursor to further enslavement into our ideals.

See, this is where the "victors write the history" comes into play. It must be assumed that any written document of any period of history (let alone the period we're talking about) has been tainted by those who conquered the region. Not assumed as true, but assumed to be a factor and a much more critical (and far less romanticised) account should be discerned.

The area we're discussing was conquered by the Romans, which meant that anything that was once under somebody else's control was now to become Roman. They were the occupying force in the region and anything that was once non-Roman must now become Roman. But changing Jewish cult members into Roman citizens proved too difficult (again as evidenced by the slaugher of the Sammaritans that ultimately marked Pilate's demise, if you can trust Roman history, as well as the attempted quelling of Jewish uprisings in 80 C.E.).

The Jews in that region never became Roman citizens. Their religious beliefs would never allow such a thing. So, the Romans did what every occupying force has always done; attempted to destroy the belief structure that allowed them to be so resolute.

The only problem being, of course, that it didn't work and the majority of Jewish people saw right through it. That's why it worked on gentiles more than it worked on Jews.

The Jews (if they acknowledged it at all) saw it for what it was; a fraud. Just as they have done for the subsequent two thousand years.

ME: But what would a pantheist say if you struck him? Probably nothing (at least nothing theological). He would have probably just struck you back and the two of you would have gotten into a fight that might result in both your deaths. Perhaps he would have called upon the god of war or the god of strength or the god of whatever, but what he wouldn't do is accept the blow; fanatically believing that you would get yours one day for striking him. After all, by extension of his beliefs, all you've done is struck him.

YOU: If a Roman soldier slapped you, I'd venture that it didn't matter much if you were Jewish or not. You took it dry. Not doing so made you dead. Being dead sucks. In any time. As Woody Allen observed, it's awfully hard to find your slippers, and I'm sure the floor is cold.

Exactly. Which is why a doctrine of loving your enemies because their oppression meant you were blessed and you would inhereit the earth makes no sense coming from their alleged messiah. When the messiah comes, the enemies of god's chosen are to be annihilated by that messiah; brutally and physically destroyed. The messiah of the OT is by no means a savior to all mankind; "he" is the phsyical embodiment of the wrath of god and "his" presence means that all of those Roman slaps will now be paid for in blood.

All Romans would have been systematically murdered by the Jewish Messiah because they weren't annointed Jews. According to Daniel, this absolute destruction would have happened within a matter of weeks of the arrival of the Jewish messiah.

The Jewish messiah was a mass murderer of all those who were either not Jewish or were Jewish and not annointed.

Read Daniel. I recommend Young's Literal Translation (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Daniel&x=8&y=5&YLT_version=yes&language=english) so you can avoid (as much as possible) christian apologetics; the very existence of which, by the way, proves fraud, IMO.

MORE: In other much shorter words, either it was a deliberate fraud created for a specific purpose, or it was borne naturally out of a logical extension of reformist Judaic thought in the region. Considering how poorly that thought is reflected in the surviving dogma, however, and trying to account for the axiom "the victor's write the history," I seriously doubt the latter and seek evidence of the former.

YOU: Do you have any evidence of this former yet?

To a certain degree, yes, as I've just presented. The same "evidence" that the NT authors pervert into an attempt to legitimize their own myth (Daniel and Isaih, primarily) as well as an assessment of human political history.

I defy anyone to point to a conquering force that did not in some way attempt to subvert the belief structure of the indingenous peoples of their occupied conquests. Germany, Russia, China, Korea, Tibet, North America, South America, etc., etc. Hell, throw a rock into just about any nation and you'll find that any conquering, occupying force of that region attempted first and foremost to subvert and supplant the indigenous belief structures (as you indirectly concede earlier).

The only thing is that Judaism can not be subverted precisely because (IMO) it is the only monotheist cult in the world of its kind.

Do I have a "smoking gun?" A Roman document that states, "I am the Roman author of Mark" or, "My name is Paul and I am a Roman operative?" No.

It's a theory that I think fits human interactions far more intelligently than any alternative.

Since religion is the opiate of the masses, there must also be a drug dealer who cultivates those opiates and sells them to the masses, yes? An unbiased analysis of the tenets of Christianity and the overtly incorrect basis it has in a demonstrably incorrect assessment of Judaic dogma yields both possible and probable alternatives.

Once mythology is granted, one needs to look at who is most likely to have created that mythology and to what end? Who would be served by such a mythology? Not the Jews, certainly. So if it isn't the Jews, then who?

Well, all one needs to do is to then look to the victors and see how the Roman Empire grew by becoming the Holy Roman Empire (which exists to this day; we just call it Catholocism). Who controls the minds of the majority of, at least, Western humanity beyond local, state and national borders? And, more importantly, how is this control maintained?

Through cult indoctrination. Remember that America is the only country to pretend that we have religious tolerance (all evidence to the contrary) and even that is a thinly veiled lie. Ours is a predominantly christian nation that came about as a direct result of christian progroms; both in Europe and here in North America.

MORE: And if not, aren't you reaching your conclusions before you get there?

No, quite the reverse. My "conclusions" (as all valid conclusions are) are derived from a non-biased assessment of what is available.

MORE: I'm curious as to what leads you to conclude that Judaic thought is borne out poorly in Christianity.

Primarily, the gross misinterpretations of Judaic messianic prophecy and, secondarily, the assault on Judaic law; both coinciding perfectly with the Roman occupation and mounting Jewish resistance that culminated (to some degree) in the war of 80 C.E.

MORE: I'd venture quite the contrary. If the Tanach is the beginning, the OTP and DSS the intermediary step, and Christianity the finale, it flows rather well.

From what perspective? Certainly not from a Jewish perspective. The fulfillment of OT prophecy would have been a messenger of god coming to earth and annihilating all non-Jews (and all non-annointed Jews). That is the only purpose of the Jewish messiah (as prophesied by Daniel and Isaiah). That would have meant that if Jesus were the Jewish messiah (as the authors of the NT claim he was based on Daniel and Isaiah, primarily) then the Romans, in particular, would have been mass murdered; their lifeless bodies primarily washed away (at least from Daniel's "prophecy") in a flood.

The NT is the antithesis of the Jewish covenant; not the "finale."

And the Tanach was not the "beginning," it was the absolute. Everything that followed it was merely governing laws; not divine substantiation. There is only one god who is supreme to Judaism and everything else is utterly subordinate to that god. The triune god of christianity does not and can not exist in Judaism and the "messiah" of god prophesied by Daniel and Isaiah is by no means a savior of all mankind; "he" is the (physical) destroyer of all non-Jews (and those non-annointed Jews within god's chosen).

No Jew (radical, reformed or otherwise) in the region would have accepted any claim to the contrary, much less a claim of divine/messiah-hood. Their "messiah" was nothing more than the physical weapon of god to be used against all non-Jews. The Romans would not have suffered a "spiritual" death of any kind since they were not the chosen people. Had Daniel's or Isaiah's "messiah" arrived on Earth at that time, it would have meant the systematic mass slaughter of their physical beings with (according to Daniel) a flood in the final week of that messiah's mission on Earth.

According to the OT, the fulfillment (or "finale") of god's plan was to destroy every non-Jew on Earth (or, at least, in that region). Period. The enemies of god therefore still exist. And, again according to the OT (indirectly), that would include christians.

[Rick Sumner]

<big snip because it was largely semantic on both parts>

Exactly. Thus, god would not ever come in the form of a man. God, to them, was/is absolute and unquestionable and has nothing to do with being a man or masquerading as a man. He is the judge of man and the executioner of man (in the form of his messengers). He is inviolate as are his laws, so for anyone to come along and claim that they are either god or god's messenger and not fulfill any of the prophecies that Daniel or Isaih (in particular) allegedly foresaw or to change any of god's laws would be a fraud.

More than one man was deified in Judaism. The Teacher of Righteousness in 4Q431 and 4Q427 fr.7, Melchizedek was, and so on.

Ascribing a specific set of Messianic prophecies is a problem. I'll outline below.

They would and did. They knew that by striking them one was strking god and therefore, god will destroy them for their transgression.

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

In a sense, yes. Which is why the Sermon on the Mount, for example, would have been (and clearly was) rejected by the Jews in the region as a "message" from a false prophet. If their "messiah" had come to Earth at that time, then it would have meant that the Romans, in particular, would have all been murdered by this messiah. According to Jewish dogma, all non-Jews were to be completely erradicated by their messiah as a preparation for god's kingdom on earth.

On the contrary, it clearly wasn't rejected, at least not by everyone.

Exactly. Which is why a doctrine of loving your enemies because their oppression meant you were blessed and you would inhereit the earth makes no sense coming from their alleged messiah. When the messiah comes, the enemies of god's chosen are to be annihilated by that messiah; brutally and physically destroyed. The messiah of the OT is by no means a savior to all mankind; "he" is the phsyical embodiment of the wrath of god and "his" presence means that all of those Roman slaps will now be paid for in blood.

The doctrine of hating your enemies appears nowhere in all of Jewish literature, outside of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nowhere. Why would I view the contrary in Matt.5.43 as an attempt to deceive rather than a polemic against Qumranic doctrine?

All Romans would have been systematically murdered by the Jewish Messiah because they weren't annointed Jews. According to Daniel, this absolute destruction would have happened within a matter of weeks of the arrival of the Jewish messiah.

The Jewish messiah was a mass murderer of all those who were either not Jewish or were Jewish and not annointed.

And here we run into problems, because you'd like to paint all of Judaism with one brush. Messianic expectation was diverse--would he be a high priest? A Davidic warrior? Cosmic redeemer a la Melchizedek? Grand miracle worker?

For he shall not put his trust in horse and rider and bow, Nor shall he multiply for himself gold and silver for war, Nor shall he gather confidence from a multitude for the day of battle. The Lord Himself is his king, the hope of him that is mighty through (his) hope in God. All nations (shall be) in fear before him, For he will smite the earth with the word of his mouth for ever. He will bless the people of the Lord with wisdom and gladness, And he himself (will be) pure from sin, so that he may rule a great people. He will rebuke rulers, and remove sinners by the might of his word(Psalms of Solomon 17:33-36)

The heavens and earth shall listen to his Messiah. . .for he shall heal the sick, revive the dead, and bring glad tidings to the poor.(4Q521)

There are, of course, many other examples. Jesus is quite clearly a *Jewish* Messiah.

Read Daniel. I recommend Young's Literal Translation (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Daniel&x=8&y=5&YLT_version=yes&language=english) so you can avoid (as much as possible) christian apologetics; the very existence of which, by the way, proves fraud, IMO.

I've read Daniel. I hadly view it as the be-all-end-all of first century Messianic expectation, which is where you're running into problems.

Primarily, the gross misinterpretations of Judaic messianic prophecy and, secondarily, the assault on Judaic law; both coinciding perfectly with the Roman occupation and mounting Jewish resistance that culminated (to some degree) in the war of 80 C.E.

So an incorrect assessment of first century Messianism, a little bit of circumstance fortuitous to your case, and you're good to go? Looks questionable to me.

From what perspective? Certainly not from a Jewish perspective. The fulfillment of OT prophecy would have been a messenger of god coming to earth and annihilating all non-Jews (and all non-annointed Jews). That is the only purpose of the Jewish messiah (as prophesied by Daniel and Isaiah). That would have meant that if Jesus were the Jewish messiah (as the authors of the NT claim he was based on Daniel and Isaiah, primarily) then the Romans, in particular, would have been mass murdered; their lifeless bodies primarily washed away (at least from Daniel's "prophecy") in a flood.

Again, you understate the complexity of first century Messianism.

No Jew (radical, reformed or otherwise) in the region would have accepted any claim to the contrary, much less a claim of divine/messiah-hood. Their "messiah" was nothing more than the physical weapon of god to be used against all non-Jews. The Romans would not have suffered a "spiritual" death of any kind since they were not the chosen people. Had Daniel's or Isaiah's "messiah" arrived on Earth at that time, it would have meant the systematic mass slaughter of their physical beings with (according to Daniel) a flood in the final week of that messiah's mission on Earth.

And, once again, you decree by fiat that Isaiah or Daniel's Messiah are the *only* Messiah. This is incorrect.

Regards,
Rick

[Ed. for spelling]

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by rickmsumner : More than one man was deified in Judaism. The Teacher of Righteousness in 4Q431 and 4Q427 fr.7, Melchizedek was, and so on.

False. Not a single human being was ever equated with God in Judaism, which is the point. The Jewish god is, of course, metaphorically the ideal man, but never "a" man. His messengers were, perhaps, likened unto gods, but they were never God incarnate in the manner of the triune God of christianity.

God was (and is) inviolate and supreme. A man or messenger may be likened unto a god but at no point is a man or messenger God. Or so the contradictory mythology goes. No man hast seen his face and all that shite, eventhough this is contradicted in various ways.

The point is that the Jewish god is ultimate; anything else is penultimate (at best).

MORE: Ascribing a specific set of Messianic prophecies is a problem. I'll outline below.

No need to. One need only trace back the quotes the authors of the NT have Jesus invoke. Remember what this is all about.

ME: They would and did. They knew that by striking them one was strking god and therefore, god will destroy them for their transgression.

YOU: I'd like to see some evidence of this.

Read the OT. It's rife with it.

ME: In a sense, yes. Which is why the Sermon on the Mount, for example, would have been (and clearly was) rejected by the Jews in the region as a "message" from a false prophet. If their "messiah" had come to Earth at that time, then it would have meant that the Romans, in particular, would have all been murdered by this messiah. According to Jewish dogma, all non-Jews were to be completely erradicated by their messiah as a preparation for god's kingdom on earth.

YOU: On the contrary, it clearly wasn't rejected, at least not by everyone.

Non-Jews don't count. Remember what we're talking about here.

ME: Exactly. Which is why a doctrine of loving your enemies because their oppression meant you were blessed and you would inhereit the earth makes no sense coming from their alleged messiah. When the messiah comes, the enemies of god's chosen are to be annihilated by that messiah; brutally and physically destroyed. The messiah of the OT is by no means a savior to all mankind; "he" is the phsyical embodiment of the wrath of god and "his" presence means that all of those Roman slaps will now be paid for in blood.

YOU: The doctrine of hating your enemies appears nowhere in all of Jewish literature, outside of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nowhere.

Nor does it need to be a doctrine. Enemies are hated axiomatically; that's why they're "enemies." Judaism is a dogma of god's chosen people and how their suffering will be purged by god's messengers and their enemies (god's enemies) will be destroyed by god. If you weren't Jewish, then you were an enemy of god and will therefore be dealt with by god.

Jews were to concern themselves with being Jewish; God will deal with everyone else (and the non-annointed Jews).

MORE: Why would I view the contrary in Matt.5.43 as an attempt to deceive rather than a polemic against Qumranic doctrine?

The "messiah" of Daniel/Isaiah's purpose on earth is to slaughter the enemies of god's chosen people; i.e., the enemies of god. If you weren't Jewish, then you were an enemy of god (and even if you were Jewish, there were still problems).

If there were such a Sermon on the Mount, then it would be to instruct all of the Jewish people to get their shit together and start annointing the righteous before the shit storm begins as Daniel prophesies and Jesus quotes:

Daniel 9:20___And while I am speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin, and the sin of my people Israel, and causing my supplication to fall before Jehovah my God, for the holy mount of my God,
21___yea, while I am speaking in prayer, then that one Gabriel, whom I had seen in vision at the commencement, being caused to fly swiftly, is coming unto me at the time of the evening present.
22___And he giveth understanding, and speaketh with me, and saith, `O Daniel, now I have come forth to cause thee to consider understanding wisely;
23___at the commencement of thy supplications hath the word come forth, and I have come to declare [it], for thou [art] greatly desired, and understand thou concerning the matter, and consider concerning the appearance.
24___`Seventy weeks are determined for thy people, and for thy holy city, to shut up the transgression, and to seal up sins, and to cover iniquity, and to bring in righteousness age-during, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies.