For the No-Jesus Camp

[PotatoStew]

If you intended this comment to be viewed as mere speculation that you "don't hold [as] an absolute certainty", then I misunderstood you and clearly owe you an apology. If, however, it was intended as an assertion of fact, it differs qualitatively from headscratcher's speculation and my comments stand. So, were you speculating then, or are you dancing now?

I hold that it is reasonable to believe that those descriptions of Jesus and his activities are relatively accurate, but that there is a possibility that such a conclusion may be incorrect. Categorize that however you want, but realize that I've never claimed that I know anything with absolute certainty. At least not that I'm aware of. I could be wrong about that too.

headscratcher:

You're fine. No need to apologize. Your comments have been perfectly reasonable and level-headed. I appreciate your considerate tone and the fact that you actually listen to what people are saying, rather than projecting positions onto them.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

..., if you are going to say that they are accurate, then my response to you would be that even if they are accurate, then there is still this other possibility which the stories lend themself to, that being that either Jesus himself was mentally ill, or that one or more of the people who wrote about him was.

The last days of the 2nd Temple Period were not the most coherent. Society was unravelling. Magicians and healers were a dime a dozen. Messianic claimants were not at all unusual. Even given some backwater cult leader named Yeshua, it seems to me far more likely that various myths associated with various 'messiahs' were merged, embellished, conflated with paganism, and later interpolated and harmonized - a Hellenized Judaic version of King Arthur or Robin Hood.

 

[Guest]

Since I happen to share the position that mental illness is a possible explanation for Jesus, I will jump in here and hope I don't misrepresent anyone else's position.

My first point in an argument of this type is that I don't particularly believe the stories in the Bible, for reasons which I have already discussed.

However, and that however is important, if you are going to say that they are accurate, then my response to you would be that even if they are accurate, then there is still this other possibility which the stories lend themself to, that being that either Jesus himself was mentally ill, or that one or more of the people who wrote about him was. This means that either way, I can say there is doubt about the authenticity of Jesus as the son of God. The Bible may be inaccurate in the first place, or it may be accurate, but written about a paranoid schizophrenic. (Religious delusions are fairly common among paranoid schizophrenics, by the way.)

Wow. Mentally ill.

Does that go for people who buy magnetic soles, too? And who swear that they work?

How 'bout John Edward fans who report on his "amazing" readings? Mentally ill?

How about someone who watches a magician make the statue of Liberty disappear and can't figure out how he did it?

How about anyone who holds a mistaken belief about anything?

Mentally ill. What an arrogant position.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Wow. Mentally ill. Does that go for people who buy magnetic soles, too? And who swear that they work?

So, a man and a woman walk into a crowded room:

• The woman says: "I bought the magnetic sole shoes and I feel great!"
• The man proclaims: "I infested 2000 pigs with suicidal demons!"
• The impartial observers come to the conclusion that ...

 

[wolfgirl]

Wow. Mentally ill.

Does that go for people who buy magnetic soles, too? And who swear that they work?

How 'bout John Edward fans who report on his "amazing" readings? Mentally ill?

How about someone who watches a magician make the statue of Liberty disappear and can't figure out how he did it?

How about anyone who holds a mistaken belief about anything?

Mentally ill. What an arrogant position.

You may note that I never claimed Jesus or any of his followers were mentally ill, but rather that it was a possibility. The followers most likely were just deluded.

Yeah, if somebody says they think John Edward is real, I question their reasoning ability or their gullibility, but not (necessarily) their sanity. If somebody, however, says that they are the son of God and can heal people and have magical powers, yeah, I'm gonna question their sanity.

So I still believe mental illness is a possible explanation for the biblical stories. I think it's more likely, though, that they are a combination of fabrication, misunderstanding and degradation of the story over time.

 

[Gregor]

Off your high horse

LukeT - calm down

There is an apparently scholarly group that views Jesus as an "ecstatic" healer - that is someone who went into trances to communicate with god and heal people.

"Mental illness" may have negative connotations, but Headscratcher and Wolf refer to an actual acedemic position.

 

[Tricky]

Yeah, if somebody says they think John Edward is real, I question their reasoning ability or their gullibility, but not (necessarily) their sanity. If somebody, however, says that they are the son of God and can heal people and have magical powers, yeah, I'm gonna question their sanity.

Not to be pedantic, and God forbid I should defend Christianity, but Jesus didn't go around claiming he was the son of God. In fact, he very pointedly and frequently called himself "The Son of Man". I have a suspicion that if he existed, he would be very sad to learn that he had been deified. It was his followers who elevated him to Co-God status. Were they mentally ill? I think not, just overzealous.

 

[stamenflicker]

What a shoddy and disingenuous little tap-dance that was.

Actually, you've really caused me to waste about two hours of my time this evening with that silly little cut and paste you pulled. I had to go back through my seminary books and try to figure out where the gaps in my education were. What you fail to mention in any of your "research" is that these types of textual criticisms have a variety of names, depending on who you are reading. Alexandrian has been called the "Neutral criticism" by Wescott-Hort and "Eastern" criticism by others, Byzantian text is also called the "Koine" text, which is what I called it and this is the currently accepted canon, which is also what I called it and the "Western" text is mostly disputed and questioned to have ever existed in the first place.

So what you basically have is a handful of texual critics arguing over even what to call it, and what it is. I have read Metzger whom the web site you've cut from basis the outline. Granted, that was over 10 years ago for me. What I did come away with in my education is a Metzger edited Greek New Testament which I can read and analyze. This same source for your nice cut and pace, rates every passage in the following ways:

1) The evaluation of the evidence for the text (rated A-D). A = virtually certain; B=some doubt, etc. This grade is given on a variety of factors including how many other variants there are, whether they are obvious errors in copy only, and whether some intentional rewording seems to have taken place.

2) The Manuscript Evidence, ie. what source did it come from, where was it found, is it a special miniscule, what family does it belong to [here is your Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western question. Please note how embedded it is], what is it's believed date, how solid is the lectionary evidence, etc.) And by the way there are over 3,000 parchaments #'d and labeled in my margins by the editors-- unlike the 414 parchament attempt by von Soden.

3) Evidence from ancient versions. An analysis of Vulgate, Syraic, Coptic, etc. copies of the NT (there are over 100 different languages prior to the 4th century BTW.

4) Evidence of the Church Fathers. ie. Who quoted the text, how early was it quoted, etc.

Not that I actually plan on spending the time, but what exactly is it you want to know? I claim that the text speaks to a historical Jesus and you say that it doesn't right?

The text has evidence in it of an early dating at numerous points. The text also has portions which seem to be tampered with, I've not disputed that, but I fail to see (as does every textual critic) where anything "major" has been fabricated. In fact, since you seem bent on researching this harder than me, I challenge you to go find us all a textual critic who asserts there has been an obvious and "major" fabrication in the NT.

Perhaps you know of verse or passage, or can go find one, that is clearly fabricated and we can debate that one together? You use your sources and I will use mine.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Regarding the Psalms 22 connections, even if these references were cut and pasted back into the documents in hindsight, it doesn't really answer the question as to why the fabricators would want their deity crying out to big daddy deity in defeat, when obviously (as the fabricators knew) he was going to be raised from the dead anyway.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

RDoubt,

Let's get started on something specific. I just referenced my handy-dandy Metzger et. al NT on the phrase "My God, My God why have you forsaken me," Mark 15:34.

Besides being quoted by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (who don't count to you), the copies indicate that the textual disputes arise from the latter half of the verse when the author(s) translate the phrase. Several of the copies say "which is to say," others say "which translates as." Others contain other minor variants.

So what exactly are we left with? A "B" rating, according to my book, which is a liberal score at best it seems to me. Clearly we don't know what the original source was due to these minor variations, but it also seems clear these changes don't really matter to theology, or even dating. This was most likely a part of the original manuscript.

Thought?

Flick

 

[BobM]

Not to be pedantic, and God forbid I should defend Christianity, but Jesus didn't go around claiming he was the son of God. In fact, he very pointedly and frequently called himself "The Son of Man".

The Son of Man thing is actually another one of those references to OT prophecy. It doesn't mean what you claim here at all. I'm too tired to go find the relevant bits right now, and I suspect you wouldn't really care if I did. If that's not true, let me know, and I will find he relevant bits.

 

[Tricky]

The Son of Man thing is actually another one of those references to OT prophecy. It doesn't mean what you claim here at all. I'm too tired to go find the relevant bits right now, and I suspect you wouldn't really care if I did. If that's not true, let me know, and I will find he relevant bits.

No, I'm very interested. But take your time. I know how difficult research is.

My preliminary search indicates that almost all the references in the Old Testiment to the "Son of Man" come from Ezekiel. While not a great biblical scholar, I cannot see anywhere that a prophesy is being made. But I withold judgment in lieu of your results.

 

[Gregor]

SF - While you still ignore many posts, I'll keep trying

Jesus did not say "My God, why hast thou forsaken me" as his last words on the cross.

He said "It is finished." John 19:30.

Oh, that's right, that's a contradiction.

----------

But at least he was upset in Gethsemane when he asked God to save him from this fate and take this cup from him (Mk 14:36).

Oh, that's right, no he didn't. Another contradiction. In John there was no agony. He merely went to a garden (not Gethsemane) and awaiting his fate proudly.

----------

If you read Mark, and realize that it ended at 16:8 at the empty tomb and before any ghost stories were added in later writings, it all is somewhat consistent. Jesus feels powerless, a pawn of God's will, someone who does not want to die, and he asks "why have you foresaken me."

Gee, what comforting words those would be to a Jew after 66 CE after the Romans had crushed your civilization, or after 70 CE when they destroyed your temple. I bet those Jews felt like powerless pawns. I bet they felt that God had foresaken them. What a coincidence that Jesus had suffered a similar fate, just 40 years before.

If the Jesus death story did not already exist by that time, it would sure have been nice for someone to write a story about how this guy named Jesus knew just what you were feeling, too.

 

[Guest]

Re: Off your high horse

LukeT - calm down

There is an apparently scholarly group that views Jesus as an "ecstatic" healer - that is someone who went into trances to communicate with god and heal people.

"Mental illness" may have negative connotations, but Headscratcher and Wolf refer to an actual acedemic position.

The chances of a lunatic, who is incapable of actually performing a single miracle, kickstarting a religion which has lasted 2000 years and shows no signs of diminishing, are extremely remote. It is more likely Jesus was the real deal than that.

We won't be reading The Gospel According to Squeaky (Fromme) a 100 years from now, much less 2000.

As for the "forsaken me" statement, Christ was probably signalling the fulfillment of Psalm 22, since the "forsaken" quote is the first line of that Psalm. As was pointed out earlier, every Jewish schoolboy would get the reference.

And since the prophecy, and others, had been fulfilled, Christ then said, "It is finished." All that remained were the ones foreshadowing his resurrection.

 

[Gregor]

Sure, sure

It's more logical that these "prophesies" were fulfilled, rather than someone wrote down what did not happen.

Oh, and it's easy to explain away the contradictions.

I'm sure you loved Mr. McDowell's book.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

LukeT wrote:
The chances of a lunatic, who is incapable of actually performing a single miracle, kickstarting a religion which has lasted 2000 years and shows no signs of diminishing, are extremely remote.

CONSTANTINE

By the way, how many miracles (roughly) did Kali and/or Buddha perform to "kickstart" those religions? Almost exactly 2 years ago, a gentleman named Stephen Roberts wrote:

• I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Regarding the Psalms 22 connections, even if these references were cut and pasted back into the documents in hindsight, it doesn't really answer the question as to why the fabricators would want their deity crying out to big daddy deity in defeat, when obviously (as the fabricators knew) he was going to be raised from the dead anyway. Flick

Crying out in defeat? You should be truly embarrassed by such ignorance.

So, for example, The Stone Edition of the Tanach (pg. 1453) says of the 22nd Psalm:

• "David, speaking as an individual Jew, prays for a final end to Israel's long exile from it's land and temple."

If, in the context of the catastrophic end of the 2nd Temple Period, you can see neither meaning nor value to a poetic allusion to King David's prayer for Israel, you are beyond reason.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Three posts by stamenflicker

Let's get started on something specific. I just referenced my handy-dandy Metzger et. al NT on the phrase "My God, My God why have you forsaken me," Mark 15:34. Besides being quoted by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (who don't count to you), the copies indicate that the textual disputes arise from the latter half of the verse when the author(s) translate the phrase. Several of the copies say "which is to say," others say "which translates as." Others contain other minor variants.

Given your exegesis regarding the 22nd Pslm and your silly straw-man arguments, this will quickly get tiresome, but fine, let's get started ...

1. What is the earliest manuscript containing Mark 15:34?
2. Where is Mark 15:34 quoted by Justin Martyr (ca 150-160 CE)?
3. What is the earliest manuscript containing this Justin Martyr reference?
4. Where is Mark 15:34 quoted by Irenaeus (ca 175-185 CE)?
5. What is the earliest manuscript containing this Irenaeus reference?
6. Using your self-proclaimed knowledge of textual criticism, what do these purported manuscripts (ca 150-185 CE) tell you about Marcan text dated dated a century earlier (ca 65-80 CE)?
7. Where have I indicated that Justin Martyr and/or Irenaeus "don't count"?

 

[stamenflicker]

RD,

You're appropriately slamming me on the Psalms 22 bit, even though I was being fecious. I think I would have attacked my statement based on the alleged "fabricators" attempts to include additional Messianic references to the story of Jesus. The 22nd Psalm is better understood in Jewish tradition as being Messianic. My point, not clearly articultated, was why pick such a disparaging passage (whether a fabricator, or a Jewish Messianic scholar) to define your God. Clearly, the agony of the would-be Messiah which continues for approximately 20 verses or so is hardly befiting of describing a deity. The restoration passages bring an air of redemption to the passage, but it does seem logically inconsistent with what a fabricator would want for his god.

On your other questions, I will post when I return from a business trip to Houston. It will take time for me to parouse my sources. I do see your point and I think the following question is the one that deserves the most merit:

Using your self-proclaimed knowledge of textual criticism, what do these purported manuscripts (ca 150-185 CE) tell you about Marcan text dated dated a century earlier (ca 65-80 CE)?

At a glance, I think I'm trying to make the case that the bulk of Christian theology, true or not, was established by the turn of the century, countering the notion that the Bible was written over the course of 1,000 years as purported here. So our fabricators were most likely those with first hand knowledge, or near first hand knowledge of the figure in question. What we see as a primary controversy in the latter years of theological construction are minor details, like bodily resurrection vs. spirit resurrection and other meaningless banter. The last great controversy was most likely settled by Paul, that being the inclusion of Gentiles into the salvation process.

What we are left with is that by 70AD, a mere 40 years after the crucifixion, we see a pretty solid record (or fabrication) of the figure of Jesus. This is far different than claiming the story of Jesus was established centuries after, as it has been claimed here.

More later...

Flick

 

[Gregor]

Is it just to hear your head rattle?

Stamenflicker's post is beyond the pale - for someone wishing to make a cogent argument.

1. Are we to believe that his prior statements regarding the recapitulation of Psalm 22 were meant to be facetious?? That term means joking. His prior post was never intended as a joke - it was the primary basis of his argument for the accuracy of Mark's crucifixion narrative.

2. The Psalm is Messianic?? What craziness is that - you're 750 years too early for messiahship. I've already explained how Mark is entirely consistent with a fabrication - if the goal was to make the conquered Jews see the "truth" of Jesus.

3. Finally, the pinnacle of an outrageous statement for a literal christian:

" [most debate involves] minor details, like bodily resurrection vs. spirit resurrection and other meaningless banter.

MINOR details?
MEANINGLESS banter??

Bodily resurrection is the bedrock of the Christian faith. You have the gall to come here and argue historicity (and inerrancy, to a degree), and call bodily resurrection meaningless?

Wow