What passes as proof

[TimCallahan]

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I've just learned that "Son Of Joseph" might be a reference to a Messianic title like "Son Of David". The "Son of Joseph" being from the North (ie Galilee) and "Son of David" in the south (ie Judah).

So Jesus is supposedly both. There was also apparently a Samaritan one called the "Taheb", but I'm not sure how he fits in, apart from the Bible changing his sex and calling him Tabitha...

Sorry, I'm still reading Eisenman... and loving it. Can't put it down.

Interestingly enough, in the Gospel of Mark, his hometown people refer to him as the son of Mary, a possible indiction that there was no Joseph and that Jesus was born out of wedlock (Mk. 6:3

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

The word translated as "took offense" is, in the original Greek, eskandalizonto, a form of the verb skandalizo; i.e. they were scandalized at his words.

 

[Brainache]

Interestingly enough, in the Gospel of Mark, his hometown people refer to him as the son of Mary, a possible indiction that there was no Joseph and that Jesus was born out of wedlock (Mk. 6:3

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

The word translated as "took offense" is, in the original Greek, eskandalizonto, a form of the verb skandalizo; i.e. they were scandalized at his words.

So was the whole "Virgin Mary" idea just invented to rebut claims that Jesus was a bastard?

That is an interesting list of brothers there too. It's what got me started reading Eisenman after all these Historical Jesus threads. James is easier to find than Jesus outside the bible.

If we find James (ETA: Or any of these brothers), isn't that evidence for HJ?

 

[TimCallahan]

So was the whole "Virgin Mary" idea just invented to rebut claims that Jesus was a bastard?

That is an interesting list of brothers there too. It's what got me started reading Eisenman after all these Historical Jesus threads. James is easier to find than Jesus outside the bible.

If we find James (ETA: Or any of these brothers), isn't that evidence for HJ?

It's possible that the virgin birth was invented for that purpose. There's a long standing tradition that Jesus was the son of Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera ( from the site):

In the 2nd century, Celsus, a Pagan anti-Christian Greek philosopher, wrote that Jesus's father was a Roman soldier named Panthera. The views of Celsus drew responses from Origen who considered it a fabricated story.[9][10] Raymond E. Brown states that the story of Panthera is a fanciful explanation of the birth of Jesus which includes very little historical evidence.

Of course, since Celsus was extremely antagonistic toward Christians, the whole Pantera claim may be nothing more than a calumny.

 

[Brainache]

But what about these "Brothers". AFAIK all of the earliest writings present them as flesh and blood siblings of Jesus, it is only later that the traditions of "cousins" and other women called Mary etc, start creeping in.

And who the hell was Zebedee?

 

[TimCallahan]

But what about these "Brothers". AFAIK all of the earliest writings present them as flesh and blood siblings of Jesus, it is only later that the traditions of "cousins" and other women called Mary etc, start creeping in.

Yes, Mark's Jesus is very human, and he doesn't have the virgin birth of Matthew and Luke. It wasn't until the virgin birth had become entrenched that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was established.

And who the hell was Zebedee?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

 

[Brainache]

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

Zebedee is a name that crops up in the Bible for the father of one or more of these brothers.

 

[TimCallahan]

Zebedee is a name that crops up in the Bible for the father of one or more of these brothers.

Are you sure? I thought Zebedee was the father of some of his disciples (Mt. 4:21, 22, bracketed material added):

And going on from there [where he had called Peter and Andrew] he [Jesus] saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets,and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him.

 

[Brainache]

Are you sure? I thought Zebedee was the father of some of his disciples (Mt. 4:21, 22, bracketed material added):

And going on from there [where he had called Peter and Andrew] he [Jesus] saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets,and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him.

That's in Matthew. The way I've heard it, James and John are two of Jesus' brothers and the business with nets is related to religious imagery that was current at the time: "The Three Nets Of Belial" ; Fornication, Gluttony and Impiety.

Belial or Balaam is the Devil, Beelzebub.

And fishing is often associated with tax collecting, apparently.

I think this is one of these examples of the Gospel Authors distancing Jesus from his Zealot family members. By the time Mt. was written, the Zealots were well and truly established as enemies of Rome, favourable mention was not encouraged.

James is one of the disciples, but he is Jesus' brother in earlier traditions and famously "Zealous for the Law". The passage mentions that John and James are brothers, but at the same time subtly puts them down by associating them with those evil nets.

Or something, I'm still new at this.

 

[TimCallahan]

That's in Matthew. The way I've heard it, James and John are two of Jesus' brothers and the business with nets is related to religious imagery that was current at the time: "The Three Nets Of Belial" ; Fornication, Gluttony and Impiety.

Belial or Balaam is the Devil, Beelzebub.

And fishing is often associated with tax collecting, apparently.

I think this is one of these examples of the Gospel Authors distancing Jesus from his Zealot family members. By the time Mt. was written, the Zealots were well and truly established as enemies of Rome, favourable mention was not encouraged.

James is one of the disciples, but he is Jesus' brother in earlier traditions and famously "Zealous for the Law". The passage mentions that John and James are brothers, but at the same time subtly puts them down by associating them with those evil nets.

Or something, I'm still new at this.

You have to remember that John and James (in their Hebrew or Aramaic forms) were extremely common names in the first century. Our anglicized name "John" came into Europe as "Johan," with the "J" pronounced like "Y" (it's also why we have that silent "h" in John). The original Aramaic name is Yohanan, a variant of Yonathan (our "Jonathan"), meaning, "gift of Yahweh," hence a common name among first century Jews. Remember that, along with the John, son of Zebedee, we have John the Baptist, John of Patmos (author of Revelation) and John the gospel writer.

James is apparently a variant of of Jacob, just as "Jack" is an alternate for "John." Jacob was, of course a common Jewish name. The names of Jesus' brothers, according to Mark 6:3, are James, Joses, Judas and Simon. Joses was probably a hellenized form of Joseph, and Judas was a hellenized form of Judah.

 

[Rincewind]

I find it curious that Christianity has a guy who was born illegitimate, and died as a common criminal as their superhero.

Presumably the rationale is that what religion would pick such a person?

Therefore god.

 

[Iamme]

To be fair, I think the whole bit about washing the hands was supposed more symbolic than literal, the idea being that the Pharisees were too involved in the minutiae and were missing the big picture.

In any case, I'm more interested in what is taken as historical evidence of the existence of Jesus.

Do you really care if Jesus existed? Or, better yet, if he was he son of God, could raise the dead, was transfigured in Gethsemany(sp.?), angels appeared to a couple disciples to talk about Jesus, could walk on water, raise the dead, create bread and fish out of thin air to feed 5000, rose from the dead...and...was witnessed by about 400? ascending into heaven?

 

[Iamme]

I find it curious that Christianity has a guy who was born illegitimate, and died as a common criminal as their superhero.

Presumably the rationale is that what religion would pick such a person?

Therefore god.

You think a virgin birth was considered illegitimate? Seriously? And he was a common criminal? The asumption is only the people thought he was, but the dying Jesus asked God his Father to forgive them `for they know not what they do`(that he was not a criminal, as you say).

 

[Rincewind]

You think a virgin birth was considered illegitimate? Seriously? And he was a common criminal? The asumption is only the people thought he was, but the dying Jesus asked God his Father to forgive them `for they know not what they do`(that he was not a criminal, as you say).

Hi Iamme,

With regard to virgin birth, here are some comments from Wikipedia:

Parthenogenetic progeny of mammals would have two X chromosomes, and would therefore be female.

A mammal created by parthenogenesis would have double doses of maternally imprinted genes and lack paternally imprinted genes, leading to developmental abnormalities.

In common law, legitimacy is the status of a child born to parents who are legally married to each other; and of a child conceived before the parents receive a legal divorce. Conversely, illegitimacy (or bastardy) is the status of a child born outside marriage. The consequences of illegitimacy have pertained mainly to a child's rights of inheritance to the putative father's estate and the child's right to bear the father's surname or title.

I should add that I'm no expert on ancient Middle East Law, but as JC's father (the holy Spirit, IIRC) was not married to Mary at the time, I suspect that JC would be deemed to be illegitimate even back then.

I did write “as a common criminal”. Under ancient Roman penal practice, crucifixion was also a means of exhibiting the criminal's low social status. It was deliberately degrading, with a long slow death resulting.

The Bible tells us that he was tried and condemned - therefore a criminal.

OK?

 

[Brainache]

You have to remember that John and James (in their Hebrew or Aramaic forms) were extremely common names in the first century. Our anglicized name "John" came into Europe as "Johan," with the "J" pronounced like "Y" (it's also why we have that silent "h" in John). The original Aramaic name is Yohanan, a variant of Yonathan (our "Jonathan"), meaning, "gift of Yahweh," hence a common name among first century Jews. Remember that, along with the John, son of Zebedee, we have John the Baptist, John of Patmos (author of Revelation) and John the gospel writer.

James is apparently a variant of of Jacob, just as "Jack" is an alternate for "John." Jacob was, of course a common Jewish name. The names of Jesus' brothers, according to Mark 6:3, are James, Joses, Judas and Simon. Joses was probably a hellenized form of Joseph, and Judas was a hellenized form of Judah.

OK, I get that, but then we are left with a situation where the Gospel Author goes out of his way to tell us a little story about how Jesus met and recruited two random nobodies who just happen to have the same names as famous early church leaders and Zealots, brothers and cousins of Jesus. Brothers who can't be allowed to exist if Mary is a "perpetual virgin" and Jesus a "Prince of Peace"...

I know I'm starting to sound like a "join the dots, sheeple!" type conspiracy theorist about this, but I don't think it is too controversial to argue that the Gospels were written with a pro-Roman, anti-Semitic bias. The distancing of Jesus from famous Zealot relatives is a part of that.

 

[Brainiac2]

Jesus nonexistence would have been used by enemies of Christianity.

 

[TimCallahan]

Do you really care if Jesus existed? Or, better yet, if he was he son of God, could raise the dead, was transfigured in Gethsemany(sp.?), angels appeared to a couple disciples to talk about Jesus, could walk on water, raise the dead, create bread and fish out of thin air to feed 5000, rose from the dead...and...was witnessed by about 400? ascending into heaven?

No, I don't really care that much. Even if we accept his existence, there's little if anything in the gospels or the Book of Acts that wasn't derived from four basic sources: the Jewish scriptures, Jewish apocalyptic belief, pagan myth, Greek literature.

In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus, according to the Synoptic Gospels, went through a period of agony, not wanting to have to go through the crucifixion, but realizing he must. The transfiguration was an earlier event.

Of course, accepting Jesus as historical doesn't mean you have to accept any of the supernatural stories as true, anymore than accepting the historicity of Muhammad means that you have to accept as true that he split the moon in two and put it back together again.

 

[pakeha]

Jesus nonexistence would have been used by enemies of Christianity.

Why do you think so?

 

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by Brainiac2
Jesus nonexistence would have been used by enemies of Christianity.

Why do you think so?

Celsus, for example, said that Jesus was the illegitimate offspring of Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera. Had Celsus had reason to believe Jesus wasn't even a real person, one would think he would have said so, as in, "These Christians worship, as a god-man this guy named Jesus. Guess what. He didn't even exist!"

 

[pakeha]

I see your point, Tim, but, after all, is absence of evidence to be considered evidence of absence?

In any case, thanks for giving me the chance to review what we know of Celsus and Origen.
Celsus wrote around 177, more or less and apparently an Alexandrian.

Are his criticisms and comments typical of what the enemies of Christianity wrote in the second century, let alone the first?

Anyway, here's more from Celsus

"It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have heard that some of your interpreters...are on to the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism." -- Celsus, On the True Doctrine.

BOOK 4

Chap. 14

But let us look at what Celsus next with great ostentation announces in the following fashion: "And again," he says, "let us resume the subject from the beginning, with a larger array of proofs. And I make no new statement, but say what has been long settled. God is good, and beautiful, and blessed, and that in the best and most beautiful degree. But if he come down among men, he must undergo a change, and a change from good to evil, from virtue to vice, from happiness to misery, and from best to worst. Who, then, would make choice of such a change? It is the nature of a mortal, indeed, to undergo change and remoulding, but of an immortal to remain the same and unaltered. God, then, could not admit of such a change."...

BOOK 4

Chap. 14

But let us look at what Celsus next with great ostentation announces in the following fashion: "And again," he says, "let us resume the subject from the beginning, with a larger array of proofs. And I make no new statement, but say what has been long settled. God is good, and beautiful, and blessed, and that in the best and most beautiful degree. But if he come down among men, he must undergo a change, and a change from good to evil, from virtue to vice, from happiness to misery, and from best to worst. Who, then, would make choice of such a change? It is the nature of a mortal, indeed, to undergo change and remoulding, but of an immortal to remain the same and unaltered. God, then, could not admit of such a change."...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus.html

"What an absurdity! Clearly the christians have used the myths of Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesus' virgin birth." (57).

"After all, the old myths of the greeks that attribute a divine birth to Perseus, Amphion, Aeacus and Minos are equally good evidence of their wondrous works on behalf of mankind- and are certainly no less lacking in plausibility than the stories of your followers." (59).

www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus3.html


An interesting person, was Celsus.
ETA
One last observation of Celsus'

18. God either really changes himself, as these assert, into a mortal body, and the impossibility of that has been already declared; Or else he does not undergo a change, but only causes the beholders to imagine so, and thus deceives them, and is guilty of falsehood. Now deceit and falsehood are nothing but evils, and would only be employed as a medicine, either in the case of sick and lunatic friends, with a view to their cure, or in that of enemies when one is taking measures to escape danger. But no sick man or lunatic is a friend of God, nor does God fear any one to such a degree as to shun danger by leading him into error.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus.html

 

[TimCallahan]

pakeha, thanks for all those Celsus quotes. I particularly like what he said about the virgin birth. It once more puts the lie to all those who, in recent years argue that Jesus wasn't rally a dying and rising god. It also works well with what the Christian apologist Justin Martyr (ca. 100 - ca. 165, IIRC) had to say about Christian pagan parallels.