Why did at least three native pretend to be John Frum? One of the concepts of the cult is when John Frum returns to walk among the natives he will lead his army of 5,000 to 20,000 and push out all bad things and loads of cargo would come. Same problem and the answer is the same: when it comes to religious cults logic is out the window.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
Why did at least three native pretend to be John Frum? One of the concepts of the cult is when John Frum returns to walk among the natives he will lead his army of 5,000 to 20,000 and push out all bad things and loads of cargo would come. Same problem and the answer is the same: when it comes to religious cults logic is out the window.
You obviously have not read or do not understand Matthew 1 and Luke 1. They are genealogies of Joseph.
You also seem not to know that Christian writers attempted to harmonise the genealogies because it was obvious in antiquity that they did not add up.
Your "disjunctive argumentation" proposal is highly illogical and is mere speculation.
The conception of Jesus by a Holy Ghost and a Virgin is corroborated by the author of gLuke and is not an ancillary event in the NT. It is a fundamental belief of early Christians.
In antiquity, the "historical Jesus" was the Son of God--not Joseph--born of a Ghost and a Virgin.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
When I proposed stoning or beheading ordered by Jewish authorities (or even via an informal lynching) as more logical endings for a trouble-making street preacher than a Roman crucifixion, I neglected the possibility Herod himself wouldn't have taken matters in hand, as he did with JtB.
ETA Is it necessary to have a specific living person for the stories? The gospel writers seem to have side-stepped that requirement by having the putative cadaver disappear, as if by magic, after all.
Last edited:
Yes,that's what they came to believe. It's not what anyone in this thread believes about Jesus. And it won't be even if you repeat it a million times - and you must be getting near that figure.
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
I'm now almost through Ehrman's book, and I must say, I'm leaning a tiny bit towards a historical Jesus now. The evidence is fragmented and poor (poorer by far, I think, than Ehrman claims), but on the whole it's slightly more convincing to me than the arguments for a mythical Jesus.
However, having read Price's "The Jesus Myth theory and its Problems", as well as Carrier's responses to Ehrman's book, I have to say that Ehrman did not do his homework when it comes to knowing what he's arguing against.
He misrepresented or misunderstood most arguments by Price he addressed to a certain degree, and bizarrely, chided him several times for not being certain of his own case.
Ehrman regularly argues against certain claims based on assumptions the mythicists do not share, and seems unaware that this would affect the outcome of the argument. It may be that his assumptions make much more sense, but we never find out, because he never addresses these.
In short: The edifice of evidence for a historical Jesus is well presented, and certainly makes it clear why many scholars believe as they do. However, his discussion of the counterarguments is so poorly researched and lazy that his refutations are of no value. One has to read the mythicist arguments oneself to judge their merit or lack thereof.
However, having read Price's "The Jesus Myth theory and its Problems", as well as Carrier's responses to Ehrman's book, I have to say that Ehrman did not do his homework when it comes to knowing what he's arguing against.
He misrepresented or misunderstood most arguments by Price he addressed to a certain degree, and bizarrely, chided him several times for not being certain of his own case.
Ehrman regularly argues against certain claims based on assumptions the mythicists do not share, and seems unaware that this would affect the outcome of the argument. It may be that his assumptions make much more sense, but we never find out, because he never addresses these.
In short: The edifice of evidence for a historical Jesus is well presented, and certainly makes it clear why many scholars believe as they do. However, his discussion of the counterarguments is so poorly researched and lazy that his refutations are of no value. One has to read the mythicist arguments oneself to judge their merit or lack thereof.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
pakeha
Interestingly, if Luke's hand-over of Jesus from Pilate to Herod had really happened but gone a little differently, then I would have expected beheading. But Herod supposedly handed Jesus back, gift-wrapped.
If Jesus was entombed, then that presumably would have been the first step in secondary burial. About a year later, when all that would be left was his bones, they would be boxed up and very possibly shipped somewhere (in Galilee? somewhere else in Jerusalem? Who knows?), assuming further that nobody robbed the tomb, reclaimed it for its rightful owner, cleaned it up after an earthquake, etc.
Paul might not even have seen Jesus' ghost within a year of the alleged execution. After the experience, he says he avoided Jerusalem for three years - the tomb, if any, was supposed to be empty by then. Unsurprisingly, Paul never mentions checking out the now-legendary "empty tomb." There'd be nothing for him to see there anyway, no matter what.
maximara
dejudge
I understand that you see these things differently than I do. As I have mentioned earlier, I find this reassuring.
That's why I only pursued your stoning alternative. Beheading connotes a regular proceeding, while stoning opens the door to anything from Biblical due process through riotous mob action. There is no role for a stake in beheading, but mechanically restraining the victim is a godsend for the already hard-working stoner (and obviously, any restraint must be an inanimate object).
Interestingly, if Luke's hand-over of Jesus from Pilate to Herod had really happened but gone a little differently, then I would have expected beheading. But Herod supposedly handed Jesus back, gift-wrapped.
Well, disturbed or otherwise irregular burial is a cliche in ghost stories. Assuming there wasn't simply an actual historic Jesus, Paul needed a specific living Jewish man for his theological purpose, so if the Gospel writers follow suit, that's where the specific living person would fit in.
If Jesus was entombed, then that presumably would have been the first step in secondary burial. About a year later, when all that would be left was his bones, they would be boxed up and very possibly shipped somewhere (in Galilee? somewhere else in Jerusalem? Who knows?), assuming further that nobody robbed the tomb, reclaimed it for its rightful owner, cleaned it up after an earthquake, etc.
Paul might not even have seen Jesus' ghost within a year of the alleged execution. After the experience, he says he avoided Jerusalem for three years - the tomb, if any, was supposed to be empty by then. Unsurprisingly, Paul never mentions checking out the now-legendary "empty tomb." There'd be nothing for him to see there anyway, no matter what.
maximara
I don't know. What does that have to do with what I wrote? I didn't object that people could pretend to be Jesus (I have no doubt we could find one or two today, if we looked webside). I objected to your "(i)nspired by Paul's teaching..." A Jesus pretender purports to refute Paul's teaching (not necessarily intentionally, but very effectively).
So, apparently your pretenders disagree with the thousands-strong army part, and of course talk about what will happen tomorrow, which is irrebuttable today. In Paul, Jesus being accessible on Earth is the indicator event that the promise is right then fulfilled, at Jesus' advent, not that the promise will remain unfulfilled for a while longer.
John Frum cults maybe. Paul's cult is entirely logical. if you accept his premises, then his conclusions follow necessarily. That's all logic ever accomplishes. The hitch in Paul's cult is accepting the premises, not in checking his sums.
dejudge
I understand that you see these things differently than I do. As I have mentioned earlier, I find this reassuring.
It is descriptive of the texts we receive and consistent with "Luke's" description of his authorial goals. Further, whoever compiled Matthew and Luke into the same anthology cannot avoid having practiced disjunctive argumentation, since conjunctive is impossible. It is uninteresting that even-later authors might try to "reconcile" (that is, argue a conjunction where only the disjunction could be true), but then people also try to trisect arbitrary angles on a plane with a compass and unmarked straightedge. So what?
Actually, not. Mary talks to Gabriel, and a great fog of verbiage rolls in. If you see the shape of a ghost forming in that mist with any indication that Mary will retain her virginity, then that's on you and not on the author. It reads just as well as Gabriel telling Mary that the time has come to get a rise out of Joe, her betrothed, with God's hearty approval and with whom all things are said to be possible. Apparently that includes Joe taking an interest in a willing nubile girl, Mary, who complains of his conjugal neglect as bluntly as delicacy allows.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
What a weird thing to say. Why do you believe the bible ?
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
I see what you mean about the stauros used for a stoning as we know it via youtube.
However, the punishment of stoning under Jewish Law was rather different.
Let's start by review reasons why someone could be legally stoned to death
Intercourse between a man and his mother.
Intercourse between a man and his father's wife (not necessarily his mother).
Intercourse between a man and his daughter in law.
Intercourse with another man's wife from the first stage of marriage.
Intercourse between two men.
Bestiality.
Cursing the name of God in God's name.
Idol Worship.
Giving one's progeny to Molech (child sacrifice).
Necromantic Sorcery.
Pythonic Sorcery.
Attempting to convince another to worship idols.
Instigating a community to worship idols.
Witchcraft.
Violating the Sabbath.
Cursing one's own parent.
A stubborn and rebellious son.
What did legal stoning actually consist of?
This:
Sekila - stoning
This was performed by pushing a person off a height of at least 2 stories. If the person didn't die, then the executioners (the witnesses) brought a rock that was so large that it took both of them to lift it; this was placed on the condemned person to crush them.
Brought to you by wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita...in_Judaism#Punishment_by_Sekila_.28stoning.29
This information is also confirmed in the website "Ask the Rabbi"
"Sekila, usually translated as stoning, involved pushing the condemned off a high place backwards so that he broke his neck when he fell. He was first given a heavy sedative. "
http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/199/Q4/
I was surprised to learn this and mused over how deeply the Pericope Aduleraea has coloured our vision of 1st century Judaea.
In any case, wasn't this (sekila) more or less what the people of Nazareth wanted to do to Jesus when they had the opportunity (Luke 4:28-30)*?
*28And all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage as they heard these things; 29and they got up and drove Him out of the city, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city had been built, in order to throw Him down the cliff. 30But passing through their midst, He went His way.
Last edited:
Not only the proposed stoning of the adulteress, but also that of Stephen, look like collective enterprises of mass participation.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Very true.
However, if sekila was as described, both the PA and the stoning of Stephen would have been grafted onto those texts, rather than describing actual events.
As I come to think of it, that young Saul would have known this action (the lynching of Stephen) wasn't legitimate, wouldn't he, with his Temple education and all.
However, if sekila was as described, both the PA and the stoning of Stephen would have been grafted onto those texts, rather than describing actual events.
As I come to think of it, that young Saul would have known this action (the lynching of Stephen) wasn't legitimate, wouldn't he, with his Temple education and all.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
pakeha
As Luke says, the unrestrained and unsedated Jesus manages to pass among his erstwhile neighbors to safety, which would be about what I would expect from a man-toss improvised by people, none of whom are interested in being the one Jesus takes with him. "Today, you will be with me in paradise," indeed.
It is not in evidence that sekila is the only kind of turn-of-the-era stoning, either. John (not the adultress pericope, but 8:59 and10:32) shows people looking for stones to use in a "lynching" style stoning of Jesus. Craig has mentioned Acts 7 as well. Stephen, having failed to talk his audience to death, is killed by them instead, missile-style (with Paul running the coat check, evidently untroubled by anything from his training).
The pericope is all talk, and in that talk, who is said to get "the first stone" (not who Jesus says, but it allows him to allude to her accusers being light one witness) is from the Jewish Bible, so I am unsure what all this "legal stoning without any missiles" talk is about. It reminds me of the James with a brother named Jesus whose death Josephus recounts... and it isn't clear how legal that one was.
Perhaps, although the "sedative" your source mentions isn't a humanitarian gesture. It is difficult to push a resisting man backwards without endangering yourself (even if the man cannot resist your force, he can still grab). An awake man falling from 6 meters might well avoid fatal injury, and be tricky to kill afterwards with a difficult to manhandle boulder.
As Luke says, the unrestrained and unsedated Jesus manages to pass among his erstwhile neighbors to safety, which would be about what I would expect from a man-toss improvised by people, none of whom are interested in being the one Jesus takes with him. "Today, you will be with me in paradise," indeed.
It is not in evidence that sekila is the only kind of turn-of-the-era stoning, either. John (not the adultress pericope, but 8:59 and10:32) shows people looking for stones to use in a "lynching" style stoning of Jesus. Craig has mentioned Acts 7 as well. Stephen, having failed to talk his audience to death, is killed by them instead, missile-style (with Paul running the coat check, evidently untroubled by anything from his training).
Last edited:
I don't really go with that. The Stephen event might have been grafted on but why should the grafter not describe a real stoning, to make the fabrication more plausible? This is supposed to have happened in the Sanhedrin, at a hearing presided over by the High Priest; it isn't represented as being unpremeditated mob violence.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Are you saying selika vs lynching doesn't really enter into the possible ways people killed one another?
True, o eight bits.
I just thought that the legal definition of stoning back in the day added a bit of interest to the discussion. Granted, it does underlines once again the lack of historical rigor of the NT documents.
You're quite right, Craig B. Sanhedrin, and with all the bells.
I'd be tempted to think the writer knew jack about how things were done back in the day, myself.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
pakeha
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/13.htm
stone him with stones - nothing about defenestrate him, and then if need be, squish him with one big rock, no rocks, plural, anywhere in sight.
Your sources bother me, too. I believe they are Talmudic, and while Talmud may have some earlier content (like Wicca may actually have some earlier rituals), I think much of it was composed near the time of its written form - way late for our purposes. "Stoning" a la Talmud seems to be two modes of execution, which have little to do with each other, and for which stoning is a doubly odd translation: first, the only part that has to do with any stone is the fail safe method, which only happens if the first way fails. Second, there is a perfectly fine English word for the second method, pressing, which was a method for judicial execution in English law (one of the Salem, Massachusetts witches was killed that way).
So, I am not saying it didn't happen, it did (although the witch wasn't defenstrated first, I don't think), but I am unconvinced that the Talmud is an authority on the quality of translations of the New Testament, especially into languages which didn't exist when it was written.
No, I just suspect that missile-style stoning may have occurred in both "lynching" and judiicially sanctioned killings. I look at Deuternomy 13: 9-10
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/13.htm
stone him with stones - nothing about defenestrate him, and then if need be, squish him with one big rock, no rocks, plural, anywhere in sight.
Your sources bother me, too. I believe they are Talmudic, and while Talmud may have some earlier content (like Wicca may actually have some earlier rituals), I think much of it was composed near the time of its written form - way late for our purposes. "Stoning" a la Talmud seems to be two modes of execution, which have little to do with each other, and for which stoning is a doubly odd translation: first, the only part that has to do with any stone is the fail safe method, which only happens if the first way fails. Second, there is a perfectly fine English word for the second method, pressing, which was a method for judicial execution in English law (one of the Salem, Massachusetts witches was killed that way).
So, I am not saying it didn't happen, it did (although the witch wasn't defenstrated first, I don't think), but I am unconvinced that the Talmud is an authority on the quality of translations of the New Testament, especially into languages which didn't exist when it was written.
Last edited:
dejudge said:
Well, that is precisely your problem. You believe that whatever you assume about Jesus is true.
Christians of antiquity believe their Jesus was the Son of God and God Creator without a shred of supporting evidence and even though the stories were irreconcilable.
You believe your Jesus was just a little known man without a shred of supporting evidence and even though the stories are admittedly irreconcilable.
Essentially your position is far worse than the Christians--they typically believe everything about their Jesus in the NT.
You reject virtually all the Jesus story and admit the NT is unreliable yet cherry-pick parts of the NT to assemble your Jesus.
Your Jesus is not a product of history, but of Paul's hallucination.
Your HJ is "Hallucination Jesus".
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
(my strike and bold)
This is called the historical method. It works quite well, has done for many years.
Your stories are just your own personal speculation. Christians of antiquity that mentioned gLuke and the conception of Jesus claimed Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin and had no human father.
You appear to have no interest in the evidence but what you imagine.
Have you no idea that we are actually dealing with the evidence from antiquity?
Have you no idea that we are dealing with STATEMENTS of Christians in the Jesus cult of antiquity?
1. Ignatius--Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.
2. Aristides--Jesus was God who came down from heaven.
3. Justin--Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.
4. Irenaeus--Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.
5. Tertullian--Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.
6. Hippolytus--Jesus was God Creator
7. Origen--Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.
8. Eusebius--Jesus was divine and born of a Ghost.
9. Jerome--Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost.
10. Chrysostom--Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Dejudge, if I could, I'd start infracting you every time you use the phrase "X said Jesus was the Son of God born of a ghost." For the last time, no one here believes that Jesus was the Son of God or born of a ghost. Your continual reliance on that "argument" just underlines the weakness of your position.
dejudge said:
What?? Cherry-picking is not an accepted historical method. Cherry-picking has never ever worked well and is never used by historians.
You have already heard the Robert Eisenman state that no-one has been able to solve the question of an HJ.
Your statement is a known fallacy.
The SEARCH for HJ is still on-going and has been on-going for hundreds of years.
It is completely mis-leading to give people the impression that an HJ has been found when no such thing has ever happened.
Please, check the history of the SEARCH for HJ.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
The irony about you saying that is deafening.
- Status