The Jesus Myth, and it's failures

[Brian-M]

They were going to stone her for her sin. which was part of the law. the problem was they committed sins of their own which they were not holding themselves accountable for.

No, they were going to stone her for breaking the law. Whether or not her breaking of the law was sinful was irrelevant.

What I find interesting is that they brought her to Jesus and asked him what they should do. They gave him a perfect opportunity for him clearly make a stance on the morality of the Old Testament. In fact, that's why they asked him.

But instead, he weaseled out of it. He shamed them into ignoring that Old Testament laws without having to admit that some of the laws supposedly handed down from God were immoral.

 

[Navigator]

No, they were going to stone her for breaking the law. Whether or not her breaking of the law was sinful was irrelevant.

What I find interesting is that they brought her to Jesus and asked him what they should do. They gave him a perfect opportunity for him clearly make a stance on the morality of the Old Testament. In fact, that's why they asked him.

But instead, he weaseled out of it. He shamed them into ignoring that Old Testament laws without having to admit that some of the laws supposedly handed down from God were immoral.

I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder.

Words attributed to Jesus say a few things about the god of the religion of those times and he wasn't very subtle about it. The idea of god that he taught was something new, and the belief that he represented the god of that religion is erroneous.

 

[ludin]

What I find interesting is that they brought her to Jesus and asked him what they should do. They gave him a perfect opportunity for him clearly make a stance on the morality of the Old Testament. In fact, that's why they asked him.

Because it was a trap. They were trying to trap him just like you are trying to do and go gotcha.

“Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded[c] us that such should be stoned.[d] But what do You say?”[e] 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.[f]

7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[g] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience,[h] went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last.

They were trying to convict him of ignoring the law when they themselves were doing the same thing which is what Christ responded with.

he didn't weasal out of it he gave the perfect answer. Just as Christ gave in all the traps that they tried to get him with.

Words attributed to Jesus say a few things about the god of the religion of those times and he wasn't very subtle about it. The idea of god that he taught was something new, and the belief that he represented the god of that religion is erroneous.

You have to remember that Christ came to redeem that which was lost.
God granted Moses 10 commandments under that were 600 laws. By the time of Christ there were over 2000 laws.

Christ said he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He is refering to the Abrahamic Covenant that God made with Abraham.

Christ was successful in his mission. He was both the suffering messiah and the conquering messiah. in that he suffered a horrible painstaking death and conquered death 3 days later.

Later on he was seen walking by as many of 500 people as recorded in acts.

 

[pakeha]

...Anyone can quote from the bible. even demons know the bible (no I am not calling you a demon).

Do you believe in demons, ludin?

...It is a warning about persecution of his disciples and of other Christians.
Which actually happened. More so during the dark years of the Roman empire.

Family members would turn their own family members over to the roman government to be killed if they thought they were Christians. It was basically a civil war inside of jewish society.

The rest of the chapter is spun off of that. Christ did divide families and husbands and wife and children.

not to turn in a family member if you knew was paramount to death.

Could you quote the Roman laws about that, please? I refer to the "not to turn in a family member if you knew was paramount to death."
I'm trying to document as much as I can the shifting attitudes of the Roman Empire towards the various religions practised.

What we do know is that the Roman attitude towards the members of that particular cult varied considerably depending on the time and place.
Did you know one of the earliest praying halls was designed for Christian legionnaires?
http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/oldest-church-02.asp
"Perhaps the most interesting building in the area where the bronze statuette of the Roman god Lar was uncovered (Area Q) was a large structure at least 65 by nearly 100 feet (20 x 30 meters) at the edge of the Jewish village. This rectangular structure featured an open central courtyard surrounded on all sides by small rooms and halls.2 The building served several functions. Some of the rooms appear to have been dwellings for legionnaires and their families. (Overall the building was not unlike the other buildings in this residential quarter.) In the northern wing the archaeologists found juglets, cooking pots and basalt querns for grinding food. Other sections of the building served an administrative or military function. A Roman spearhead and knife were found in and around the building. Evidence of its function as a Roman military administrative center also includes two bread stamps. Bread was a staple of the Roman army diet, and it was customary for the military bakers to stamp their breads, either with the name of the Roman commander or the name of the baker.a Bread for the nearby Roman camp was apparently baked in the building. The names on the stamps, Lic(nius) Priscus and Jul(ius) Maxim(us), clearly demonstrate that the bakers were members of the Roman legion.

The southwest corner of this building served a religious function for the Christians who served in the army, as well as for the local Christian community. In the extreme southwest corner of the building is what the excavators call a Christian prayer hall measuring about 16 by 32 feet (5 x 10 meters)."

 

[IanS]

Because it was a trap. They were trying to trap him just like you are trying to do and go gotcha.

“Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded[c] us that such should be stoned.[d] But what do You say?”[e] 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.[f]

7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[g] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience,[h] went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last.

They were trying to convict him of ignoring the law when they themselves were doing the same thing which is what Christ responded with.

he didn't weasal out of it he gave the perfect answer. Just as Christ gave in all the traps that they tried to get him with.



You have to remember that Christ came to redeem that which was lost.
God granted Moses 10 commandments under that were 600 laws. By the time of Christ there were over 2000 laws.

Christ said he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He is refering to the Abrahamic Covenant that God made with Abraham.

Christ was successful in his mission. He was both the suffering messiah and the conquering messiah. in that he suffered a horrible painstaking death and conquered death 3 days later.

Later on he was seen walking by as many of 500 people as recorded in acts.

Are you just telling us what it says in the bible (most people here already know what it says in the bible)?

Or are you saying Jesus really did these things?

 

[The Norseman]

Anyone can quote from the bible. even demons know the bible (no I am not calling you a demon).

the thing about the bible is that you cannot simply quote one verse and go see. the bible is meant to be read in passages and sometimes even chapters to fully understand the context in which it is being presented.

yes it can show ignorance people do it all the time.
for 2 reasons.

1. They are not aware of what they are doing
2. They are trying to distort something to prove an agenda of some kind.

*snip*

This is either done out of ignorance or it is done to try and further some agenda.

To be frank, there's not much to make me think you're not doing this exact thing yourself.

 

[Brian-M]

Because it was a trap. They were trying to trap him just like you are trying to do and go gotcha.

And if he fell into the trap, what would have happened to him? Crucifixion?

But time for a slight derail...

You have to remember that Christ came to redeem that which was lost.
God granted Moses 10 commandments under that were 600 laws. By the time of Christ there were over 2000 laws.

If you actually look at Exodus 20, there's only a slight break between the first 10 commands and all the rest (as the people cower at the thunder and lightning and ask Moses to approach God while they stay at a safe distance)

There's no mention that the first ten are in any way special, unless you're reading a version that adds in titles that weren't in the original text, such as the NIV.

It's not until Exodus 34 that the phrase "Ten Commandments" first appears.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

This happened when Moses went up the mountain a second time, when God gave him a new set of commandments making up a new covenant. There were ten commands given as part of the covanent.

If you go by the commandments that God refers to as "the ten commandments" in Exodus 34, then the Ten Commandments should be...

1. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
4. All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
6. And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.
8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

But all this is somewhat off-topic.

 

[ludin]

Do you believe in demons, ludin?

Why is that a problem for you? yes I believe in demons not to mention the documented evidence from exorcism that the catholic church has.

Could you quote the Roman laws about that, please? I refer to the "not to turn in a family member if you knew was paramount to death."
I'm trying to document as much as I can the shifting attitudes of the Roman Empire towards the various religions practised.

Depend on the time during the Roman empire. if you look at the time of nero and several emperor's before and after him is when most of the persecution took place.

The Romans pretty much allowed people to worship as they saw fit as long as they worshipped the Roman Gods as well and paid their homage this included the emperor.

The jews were exempted from his mostly because Roman was tired of sending in forces to squash rebellion after rebellion. Christians on the other hand were not. this went on over hundreds of year from Nero till Constantine.

Nero was probably the worst of the group. If you were a Christian and refused to acknowledge the roman gods then you were bound dunked in tar and used to light the streets of Rome.

religious function for the Christians who served in the army, as well as for the local Christian community.

there were times they were excepted but it really wasn't till Constantine that this was in full affect.

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-righ...tolerance-and-persecution-in-the-roman-empire

are you saying Jesus really did these things?

As a Christian myself yes I have no doubt that Christ did those things.

And if he fell into the trap, what would have happened to him? Crucifixion?

They would have tried. had he fell for it then he would not have been able to fulfill everything that he was suppose to do. he would have been arrested by the jewish priests (basically the law in those days).

Only the romans could put someone to death.

This happened when Moses went up the mountain a second time,

Correct because when he came down the first time he broke the tablets when he saw the people of Israel worshipping a golden calf and engaged in other questionable activities.

 

[pakeha]

And if he fell into the trap, what would have happened to him? Crucifixion?

But time for a slight derail...


If you actually look at Exodus 20, there's only a slight break between the first 10 commands and all the rest (as the people cower at the thunder and lightning and ask Moses to approach God while they stay at a safe distance)

There's no mention that the first ten are in any way special, unless you're reading a version that adds in titles that weren't in the original text, such as the NIV.

It's not until Exodus 34 that the phrase "Ten Commandments" first appears.



This happened when Moses went up the mountain a second time, when God gave him a new set of commandments making up a new covenant. There were ten commands given as part of the covanent.

If you go by the commandments that God refers to as "the ten commandments" in Exodus 34, then the Ten Commandments should be...

1. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
4. All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
6. And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.
8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

But all this is somewhat off-topic.

Thanks, Brian-M.
Bookmarked.

 

[pakeha]

Why is that a problem for you? yes I believe in demons not to mention the documented evidence from exorcism that the catholic church has. ...

Fascinating.
Obviously your belief in demons poses no problem to me. Why should it?
Still, I'm willing to bet this is the first time anyone has defended a belief in demons basing their argument on the Holy Mother Church's exorcism practices.

Nero was probably the worst of the group. If you were a Christian and refused to acknowledge the roman gods then you were bound dunked in tar and used to light the streets of Rome. ... http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-righ...tolerance-and-persecution-in-the-roman-empire ...

Really, ludin, why quote that source when you could have gone to the earliest and only report of that atrocity?
There, you could have learned the human torch was a specific punishment in the wake of a specific event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#The_passage_and_its_context

 

[IanS]

Why is that a problem for you? yes I believe in demons not to mention the documented evidence from exorcism that the catholic church has.



Depend on the time during the Roman empire. if you look at the time of nero and several emperor's before and after him is when most of the persecution took place.

The Romans pretty much allowed people to worship as they saw fit as long as they worshipped the Roman Gods as well and paid their homage this included the emperor.

The jews were exempted from his mostly because Roman was tired of sending in forces to squash rebellion after rebellion. Christians on the other hand were not. this went on over hundreds of year from Nero till Constantine.

Nero was probably the worst of the group. If you were a Christian and refused to acknowledge the roman gods then you were bound dunked in tar and used to light the streets of Rome.



there were times they were excepted but it really wasn't till Constantine that this was in full affect.

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-righ...tolerance-and-persecution-in-the-roman-empire



As a Christian myself yes I have no doubt that Christ did those things.



They would have tried. had he fell for it then he would not have been able to fulfill everything that he was suppose to do. he would have been arrested by the jewish priests (basically the law in those days).

Only the romans could put someone to death.



Correct because when he came down the first time he broke the tablets when he saw the people of Israel worshipping a golden calf and engaged in other questionable activities.

OK well that lot does at least explain your earlier posts. However, unfortunately it is all complete and utter religious drivel lol.

Sorry, but it's now the 21st century, and educated people really ought to know better than continuing to believe in 2000 year old ignorant superstitions about miracles, gods in the skies and devils under the ground etc.

 

[This Guy]

Ludin, not trying to turn the discussion in a different direction, or pile on you while you are already under attack (so to speak), but would like to make a couple of related comments and get your reaction, if you please.

...

See this comes from not knowing ancient history more specifically jewish history laws and customs.

They were going to stone her for her sin. which was part of the law. the problem was they committed sins of their own which they were not holding themselves accountable for.

....

First the whole adulteress story was most likely not in the original manuscripts. It is absent from a rather long list of early and diverse manuscripts.

"Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses that contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials." (A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition, Bruce M. Metzger, pages 187- 189)

There were however strong feelings that the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity, and is obviously a piece of oral tradition. (see the same reference)

However, when you consider that this story was likely added by someone, along with Mark 16.9-20 (see pages 102 - 107) and who knows what else has been added or removed from the bible, we have none of the original manuscripts, how can it be relied on as a guide? It seems obvious to me that the bible can't be the unerring word of God, if people have obviously added to (and likely removed from) it.

Anyone can quote from the bible. even demons know the bible (no I am not calling you a demon).

the thing about the bible is that you cannot simply quote one verse and go see. the bible is meant to be read in passages and sometimes even chapters to fully understand the context in which it is being presented.

yes it can show ignorance people do it all the time.
for 2 reasons.

1. They are not aware of what they are doing
2. They are trying to distort something to prove an agenda of some kind.

Second, this is often given as the source of non-believer's claimed contradictions and errors in the bible. Out of context quotes. Yet it appears to me that Christians do this best.

For example, how can the pulling out of Isaiah 7.14 from the whole discussion from the beginning of chapter 7 through at least chapter 8 and part, if not all of chapter 9 be justified?

The whole context describes an event that happened, with a child that can not have been Jesus, as this happened some 730 years or so before Jesus (my time frame may be off, and I ask for correction if anyone has better information). The child is conceived and born in chapter 8.3. And while "virgin" may have been the intended word, I can probably find as many quotes from Hebrew scholars that believe almah means "young woman" as you can find that say it means "virgin". That the prediction meant the prophetess was a virgin before the writer "went unto" her is more likely than it meant she was a virgin after the conception, in my opinion.

I would appreciate your thoughts on these items.

 

[pakeha]

...

"Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses that contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials." (A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition, Bruce M. Metzger, pages 187- 189) ...

Thanks, This Guy, that book is now on my wishlist at Amazon.

 

[This Guy]

Thanks, This Guy, that book is now on my wishlist at Amazon.

You might find The Text Of The New Testament, It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, (mine is the fourth edition) by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman more useful.

The main differences are that the Commentary actually deals with the finished product of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, and is actually sold as a companion for it. It deals with a lot of actual Greek, though there are some sections of the new testament that have what I consider good English only (or mostly English) write ups (those are the reason I bought it). I do not read Greek (do good to read English, and only good up to about 4 letters with it

The Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration is much more English friendly. About the only Greek is in examples of some of the early text types and to show how Greek letters can be mistaken for each other, that type stuff. It deals more with explaining how errors crept into the new testament, methods of determining what the earliest text likely said (textual criticism of the new testament). It gives a very good history of the new testament and the methods used to record it over the years. It also has a good write up on the ending of Mark.

Guess I might as well mention another related book. The Text Of The New Testament, An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes (my copy is of the second edition). It is more like a text book for a course on textual criticism. It covers some of the early attempts at determining what the original Greek texts said. It goes into the various ancient manuscripts of the new testament that are available today, how they are identified, their history. It's not a bad book, but I found the Metzger/Ehrman book much more enjoyable and generally more informative for my purpose.

Hope this helps you pick one you will find useful.

 

[calebprime]

http://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Test...-1&keywords=the+text+of+the+new+testament+its

I've got this little thing about the (rampant) misuse of it's around here, so I thought I'd link to the book to show the title. It's correct. Its title is: _The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration_

 

[This Guy]

http://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Test...-1&keywords=the+text+of+the+new+testament+its

I've got this little thing about the (rampant) misuse of it's around here, so I thought I'd link to the book to show the title. It's correct. Its title is: _The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration_

You are correct. Thanks

This doesn't mean I won't make the same mistake later, but thanks!

 

[calebprime]

If we could only change the title of the thread -- it's been bugging me.

 

[pakeha]

You might find The Text Of The New Testament, It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, (mine is the fourth edition) by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman more useful.

The main differences are that the Commentary actually deals with the finished product of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, and is actually sold as a companion for it. It deals with a lot of actual Greek, though there are some sections of the new testament that have what I consider good English only (or mostly English) write ups (those are the reason I bought it). I do not read Greek (do good to read English, and only good up to about 4 letters with it

The Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration is much more English friendly. About the only Greek is in examples of some of the early text types and to show how Greek letters can be mistaken for each other, that type stuff. It deals more with explaining how errors crept into the new testament, methods of determining what the earliest text likely said (textual criticism of the new testament). It gives a very good history of the new testament and the methods used to record it over the years. It also has a good write up on the ending of Mark.

Guess I might as well mention another related book. The Text Of The New Testament, An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes (my copy is of the second edition). It is more like a text book for a course on textual criticism. It covers some of the early attempts at determining what the original Greek texts said. It goes into the various ancient manuscripts of the new testament that are available today, how they are identified, their history. It's not a bad book, but I found the Metzger/Ehrman book much more enjoyable and generally more informative for my purpose.

Hope this helps you pick one you will find useful.

Thanks for the recommendations.
They're sure to be useful once my bank balance receives its monthly infusion from my employers.

 

[Brainache]

I think the main failure of the Jesus Myth of people like Carrier and Doherty, is the lack of evidence for any Second Temple Jewish Cult following a Messiah who wasn't made of flesh and blood. Being made of flesh and blood was kind of fundamental to the whole thing, even more than the triumphant liberation that he was supposed to bring.

The whole point of the prophecies that the Messiah of the book of Daniel was supposed to fulfill was the restoration of the Ancient House of King David. At which point God will send his armies led by someone who looks human (Daniel 7:13) to conquer the whole world for Israel. HOORAY! But you can't fulfill the prophecy if you aren't a human being from the right "Tribe".

If there was a cult at that time following a Heavenly Messiah who was not made of human flesh, I have yet to see evidence for it.

 

[IanS]

I think the main failure of the Jesus Myth of people like Carrier and Doherty, is the lack of evidence for any Second Temple Jewish Cult following a Messiah who wasn't made of flesh and blood. Being made of flesh and blood was kind of fundamental to the whole thing, even more than the triumphant liberation that he was supposed to bring.

Why do you think Jesus had to be a real person?

The outcome of the various current threads on this subject, and especially the rather lengthy "What Counts" thread, has been to show very clearly that the claimed evidence for a real Jesus just does not exist - it seems there is actually no reliable evidence of Jesus as a real living person. That's the entire problem.

By the time of the gospel writing, Christians may have come to believe that legendary stories were about a real person of the past. But the more you look at what is claimed to be the “evidence” of that real person, the more & more that “evidence” vanishes.