• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Would Jesus put up with the very wealthy and very poor?

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
There are many historical writings about Herod outside of myths. However scholars are generally in consensus that his involvement in the gospel narratives is made up.

Historicity of Gospel narrative[edit]
Due to the lack of historical evidence, it has been suggested that Jesus' trial by Herod Antipas is unhistorical.
1/10
Scholars are not generally in consensus, just the few that you've cherry picked.
You've dismissed Antipas because scholars don't like the trial (which I don't think happened), and Antipas didn't arrest John because of any opinions of John's about adultery. But you've not grasped why Antipas had to arrest John the Baptist. You may never......

Josephus wrote about the Baptist, and here is one short account of several:-
Josephus, about John the Baptist

Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

what he did against John called the baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.
And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
We have already been down this path, you have not presented evidence to back your claim. Christian scholarship is in consensus that the gospels are anonymous. I have already sourced this. You can live in a fantasy world for as long as you like. I'm only interested in real evidence.
Please show me your evidence to prove that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were not written by their named authors.
You can overlook the other gospels.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Agian, no evidence and just a claim based on what you want to be true. Your own religion disagrees with you.
Please write down my religion.......
I am seeking evidence to show that you have no ability in comprehension or fact gathering.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Clearly you never read ancient historians. They give sources and express disbelief and amazement at improbable events. The gospels are not histories, they are religious fiction.
Please show your next set of improbable events, please only draw your evidence from G-Mark.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”
Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Yep...... Junk.......I'm not bothered about this Christian addition.
You say it's "junk" but fail to make any argument? It's like arguing with a nine year old? This demonstrates that this narrative was in fact copied from an older source.
I don't have to! You think that description is junk, I think it is junk.
I don't have to debate that point with you.
:facepalm:

How do your insults help your case, Joel? They just show me what you are really like.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
T
It's the original Greek that matched verbatim. Again, excellent evidence that Mark is using older sources to invent a crucifiction event.

Hilarious that just saying "junk" as if it means anything. It isn't even debunking the fact that Mark is shown to be copying lines from the OT to create new Jesus stories.
Why even bother just say "junk"?? You have no argument, no sources, no anything except just writing "junk", as if it says anything? Al it means is you simply don't care about what is true and want to pretend this fiction is real. But this was obvious from the start?
I don't think Jesus died on a cross, Joel.
You don't think Jesus died on a cross.
I don't need to debate this with you. My evidence for this is actually in the gospels. Just read the gospels....get your comprehension in order.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Sorry, I thought you might be educated enough to understand why this demonstrates literary fiction. This is way over your head.

I'm sure you can imagine all sorts of fiction being real. These types of literary sequences are not how events play out. They are devices to hide symmetry and meaning in fiction. It shows the writer was trained in high level myth/fiction writing. These devices were very common in Greek fiction but are never used in histories. I am sure you have no understanding of what is being said here regarding the literary devices.
.

I asked you to pick a single miracle description out of those that I supported but you didn't dare to.
Please pick one of the miracles that I have shown support for, and then show me your fine academic evidence to disprove it. Then I'll offer my reasoning to show how it could be a real event, withing the balance of probabilities. Make sure you pick an event that I sup[ported. Just one.

Let's see how clever you really are, Joel. It should be a push over for you, debating with a 'nine year old'.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
You hide behind your scholars, Joel, calling out your ideas over their shoulders.

Truly an uneducated thing to say. This explains your penchant for fantasy beliefs. Biblical scholars are the people who spend their lives learning all the original source languages, bother to read all historians of the period, all extra-biblical material and the same for all nearby religions. Tracing all stories to a common source, understanding what styles were used at the time and in what context. That's just a few of the resources and skills. They also spend 4 years focusing on how to determine what documents are actually source material, scientifically analyze writings that have been changed to arrive at a probable source version, understand literary styles of authors so they can demonstrate when something is a forgery. And so much more. Oh, not only that but a work first has to be read and scrutinized by all others in the field for mistakes. It is our best guess at truth.
I think you understand this but because you want a myth to be true and know these legends are not supported you are attempting to poison the well. It just looks desperate.

As if you do your own heart surgery? Do you build your own airplanes? Fly your own airplanes? Build your own MRI device? Analyze blood work? Should I only speak about special relativity from my personal experiments? OR is it ok to use Einstein? Ridiculous.

Is thyat how we get to truth? Should everyone just pick what the want to be true then ignore any evidence to the contrary?
I've seen this before from fundamentalists:
"I don't follow atheist scholars"
"Atheist scholars start out not believing the Bible"
"Atheist scholars are possessed by Satan"


I would love to know how does one "hide" behind scholars? As if no one should gain knowledge in a field? We should all make up what we want to be true? The hell with evidence that can be demonstrated.
We don't want historical studies to progress like all other science. Nope. Let's keep historicity in the Bronze Age. Weirdest statement ever?




Now, of the 613 Laws of Moses, pick one which you think didn't exist.
Pick ten...... you can pick the really strange ones if you like, or the everyday ones.
Pick some laws which you think did not exist back then.

The Deutronical laws were the things that DID exist. They were created by men. Other nearby nations had similar laws. The myth is that Moses (also a myth) came down from a mountain with stones that had lightning writing on them.
Israelite philosophers, reading text from older nations formed the laws they wanted. Just like every other nation. Then myths were written that claimed God said this.........
Why would you think I thought laws were mythical???????????????
Even in Star Wars the wisdom is legit. Don't give in to anger, follow the good, respect friends, stand up against evil, anyone can be redeemed, good vs evil, when you die you come back in a spirit body....
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
1/10
Scholars are not generally in consensus, just the few that you've cherry picked.

Again, ZERO evidence on your part.

Ok let's see what the Dr who did the latest 700pg historicity Jesus study says:

"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."






You've dismissed Antipas because scholars don't like the trial (which I don't think happened), and Antipas didn't arrest John because of any opinions of John's about adultery. But you've not grasped why Antipas had to arrest John the Baptist. You may never......

Josephus wrote about the Baptist, and here is one short account of several:-
Josephus, about John the Baptist

Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

what he did against John called the baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.
And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.


And this has exactly zero relation to any conversation. The savior demigod myths were set among the current day and political climate. The authors were clearly aware of the region and political figures. Myths usually feature prominent leaders, rulers and so on.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Please show me your evidence to prove that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were not written by their named authors.
You can overlook the other gospels.
No historian says otherwise, Carrier, Ehrman, Pagels, Goodacre, Purvoe, Crossan, Price, Thompson,

An Introduction to The Gospels by ordained Minister Mitchell G. Reddish
"All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.["


"Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses"
Gospel - Wikipedia



"
That the Gospels were not originally composed bearing their traditional titles is now a well-established matter in New Testament scholarship. This mainstream view is conceded even among various conservative scholars such as Craig L. Blomberg, who stated: “It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.”[1]

The age-old tradition that the canonical Gospels were authored by Mark the companion of Peter, Luke the physician to Paul, Matthew the tax collector, and John the Disciple comes down to us from the second century CE Patristic era of the Catholic Church.[2] Yet, even the Catholic Church now recognizes that those traditional titles are pseudonymous. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “the first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. […] It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves.”"
Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1




According to Dr Richard Carrier, in this er starting out a text with "Euangelion kata". is the way they said "As told to me by...."



Internal Anonymity of the Gospels
To start, there is the observation that not a single Gospel writer names himself within the text as composer of any New Testament gospel. This means that the Gospels are internally anonymous.

Early External Sources Treat the Gospels Anonymously
Another indication that the Gospels were written anonymously is that the earliest external attestations to the Gospels refer to them without the traditional names attached.

Justin Martyr and the Memoirs
Justin is the first source to make repeated and unmistakable references to the content found in the Gospels. But not once does he name any of the four evangelists for authorship or source attribution when he quotes or cites to this material. Never. He instead refers to these writings as a single volume that he generically dubs the “memoirs of the apostles” – treating the ‘apostles’ as a unitary sourc

The Didache
The Didache (pronounced did·eh·kay) is another example of an early Christian source from this period that treats the gospels anonymously.

Relevant Observations on Luke and Mark
Prior to Irenaeus in 180 CE providing the very first attestation to a Gospel attributed to ‘Luke’, a fellow named Marcion of Sinope (c. 140 CE) possessed a slightly shorter and simpler form of this same Gospel, which was not identified with Luke or any specific author. Rather, this gospel text was circulated with the title “Euaggelion Kuriou” (‘The Gospel of the Lord’).[14] To reiterate, this Gospel was in circulation approximately 40 years before any source ascribed the name “Luke” as its author.


The traditional titles that are affixed to our manuscripts of the Gospels contain the phrase ευαγγελιον κατα (‘The Gospel according to… [insert name]). Thus, we have the Gospel according to Luke, the Gospel according to Mark, and so on. This is quite the atypical title convention for that time. In fact, it is unheard of in all of antiquity, as no other authors in the entire history of the Greco-Roman or Jewish world self-titled their books “according to” in the manner found on Gospel manuscripts. This observation alone is compelling reason to suspect that perhaps those titles were not originally affixed to the Gospels by their authors.

Furthermore, the Greek preposition κατα (“according to”) is not per se understood as a claim to a specific individual’s authorship, as the phrase “according to” in this context is best taken to mean “handed down from” a tradition or community associated with the attached name. For example, there is the Gospel according to the Nazarenes, the Gospel according to the Ebionites, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and many others. So, from these examples we can see that the phrase “according to” is not referenced to named individuals, but is a designation for sectarian groups.[17]

Finally, the Fourth Gospel (aka, Gospel of John) provides us with a glaring clue that this text was originally penned anonymously – namely, that the narrative goes out of its way to avoid explicitly identifying the author by name. Whoever wrote this Gospel employed a rhetorical technique to shroud the source’s identity behind the moniker “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Please write down my religion.......
I am seeking evidence to show that you have no ability in comprehension or fact gathering.
That was regarding the Markan priority. A great article on Bible.org covers the 7 arguments all Christian scholarship now recognizes.
No matter how hard you try to pretend scholars don't know things, the best source of truth are people who study.
Your fantasy opinions based on wishful thinking are not rooted in reality.


The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
T

I've seen this before from fundamentalists:
"I don't follow atheist scholars"
"Atheist scholars start out not believing the Bible"
"Atheist scholars are possessed by Satan"
What kind of fundamentalist do you think I am, Joel?

The Deutronical laws were the things that DID exist. They were created by men. .
.....and they were brilliant for their time. Quite brilliant.
No myths there, then.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Please show your next set of improbable events, please only draw your evidence from G-Mark.
I showed you a number of improbable events, ring structure, verbatim lines from the OT. There are many many more examples. Jesus scoring highest on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale (higher than any other fictional character) is another marker of myth.

Unfortunately all you did is write "junk" after each example. You provided no argument, no reason why, no counter analysis, no debunking, no example that you even understood what was being said. It was as if I put the argument to a 9 year old and they just said "no" each time.
I will not waste time on evidence you cannot understand.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Again, ZERO evidence on your part.

Ok let's see what the Dr who did the latest 700pg historicity Jesus study says:
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."
Please quote the author of the above, and the volume or report title.

And this has exactly zero relation to any conversation. The savior demigod myths were set among the current day and political climate. The authors were clearly aware of the region and political figures. Myths usually feature prominent leaders, rulers and so on.
Are you agreeing with me that John the Baptist did exist and that Herod Antipas did have him arrested and taken to Perea?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I don't have to! You think that description is junk, I think it is junk.
I don't have to debate that point with you.
:facepalm:

How do your insults help your case, Joel? They just show me what you are really like.
They are not descriptions? Talk about facepalm? They are examples that Mark used verbatim lines from the OT to create an earthly narrative in this story. These examples go on and on. I just posted a small amount. You didn't even understand the point? You didn't say "yes, these lines are verbatim.....I see that.....are there more?" Or go on to give an explanation. Obviously the lines are verbatim. Saying "junk" shows you have no clue what's being said.

They are not insults, you actually don't understand what is being said. Your response isn't related to the conversation?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I don't think Jesus died on a cross, Joel.
You don't think Jesus died on a cross.
I don't need to debate this with you. My evidence for this is actually in the gospels. Just read the gospels....get your comprehension in order.
As I have been pointing out, Mark is a fiction created using older sources and made to create a Jewish savior demigod. Mark is clearly a work of fiction and the others copy Mark and make political and theological changes.

To now tell me to read fiction to find truth demonstrates (yet again) you barely even understand the conversation. It's just one long facepalm.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I asked you to pick a single miracle description out of those that I supported but you didn't dare to.
Please pick one of the miracles that I have shown support for, and then show me your fine academic evidence to disprove it. Then I'll offer my reasoning to show how it could be a real event, withing the balance of probabilities. Make sure you pick an event that I sup[ported. Just one.

Let's see how clever you really are, Joel. It should be a push over for you, debating with a 'nine year old'.
Dying/rising demigod myth from Hellenism. 6 known confirmed resurrecting savior sons/daughters of a God before Jesus.




Not in ancient Asia. Or anywhere else. Only the West, from Mesopotamia to North Africa and Europe. There was a very common and popular mytheme that had arisen in the Hellenistic period—from at least the death of Alexander the Great in the 300s B.C. through the Roman period, until at least Constantine in the 300s A.D. Nearly every culture created and popularized one: the Egyptians had one, the Thracians had one, the Syrians had one, the Persians had one, and so on. The Jews were actually late to the party in building one of their own, in the form of Jesus Christ. It just didn’t become popular among the Jews, and thus ended up a Gentile religion. But if any erudite religious scholar in 1 B.C. had been asked “If the Jews invented one of these gods, what would it look like?” they would have described the entire Christian religion to a T. Before it even existed. That can’t be a coincidence.

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

  • They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
  • They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
  • They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
  • They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
  • They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
  • They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
  • They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
  • They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
  • They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
  • They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
  • They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
  • And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).
You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

  • They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
  • They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
  • They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
  • That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
  • By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
  • Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
  • They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
  • Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.

Not all these savior gods were dying-and-rising gods. That was a sub-mytheme. Indeed, dying-and-rising gods (and mere men) were a broader mytheme; because examples abounded even outside the context of known savior cults (I’ll give you a nearly complete list below). But within the savior cults, a particular brand of dying-and-rising god arose. And Jesus most closely corresponds to that mythotype.

Other savior gods within this context experienced “passions” that did not involve a death. For instance, Mithras underwent some great suffering and struggle (we don’t have many details), through which he acquired his power over death that he then shares with initiates in his cult, but we’re pretty sure it wasn’t a death. Mentions of resurrection as a teaching in Mithraism appear to have been about the future fate of his followers (in accordance with the Persian Zoroastrian notion of a general resurrection later borrowed by the Jews). So all those internet memes listing Mithras as a dying-and-rising god? Not true. So do please stop repeating that claim. Likewise, so far as we can tell Attis didn’t become a rising god until well after Christianity began (and even then his myth only barely equated to a resurrection; previous authors have over-interpreted evidence to the contrary). Most others, however, we have pretty solid evidence for as actually dying, and actually rising savior gods.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
What kind of fundamentalist do you think I am, Joel?
The kind that ignores the scholarship inside the religion and won't accept long known facts like the gospels are anonymous, names added in the 2nd century, Mark was the source and Matthew is a creative re-interpretation, among other things.



.....and they were brilliant for their time. Quite brilliant.
No myths there, then.


Every single myth in every culture has real laws embedded in the myths. Why you thought this was in question shows again you have no idea what I'm talking about.
Star Wars has good morals as well. The story is still fiction. All cultures wrote their laws in religious scripture in this time. The Canaanites ALSO had laws in their myths? Doesn't mean EL is the supreme God?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Please quote the author of the above, and the volume or report title.

When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves.


Dr Richard Carrier, author On the Historicity of Jesus, peer-reviewed
Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier[/QUOTE]

Are you agreeing with me that John the Baptist did exist and that Herod Antipas did have him arrested and taken to Perea?

Scholars believe John the Baptist is a historical figure. The interpretations of what Josephus is saying about him I'm not up to speed on and it's not directly related to Christian mythology.[/QUOTE]
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
No historian says otherwise, Carrier, Ehrman, Pagels, Goodacre, Purvoe, Crossan, Price, Thompson,

A quick lesson in Individual investigation.
Choose a name from the above list of scholars.
Investigate that one scholar. OK.

Dominic Crossan........ who actually does believe that a Jesus did exist, who travelled through Galilee with friends and survived through his 'magic for meals' initiatives.

Read and Learn.....

Magic and Meal: Miracle and Covenant – Wheat & Tares
https://wheatandtares.org › 2011/05/28 › magic-and-me...


John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus. In a post earlier this month, I wrote about Crossan's interpretation of Jesus' advocacy of a “brokerless ...

Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography - Grace Evangelical Society
https://faithalone.org › journal-articles › book-reviews


John Dominic Crossan is one of the more influential members of the “Jesus Seminar” (a group of 74 ... Crossan calls this combination “magic and meal.

John Dominic Crossan Quotes (Author of The Historical Jesus)
https://www.goodreads.com › author › 43692.John_Do...


43 quotes from John Dominic Crossan: 'My point, once again, is not that those ancient ... The deliberate conjunction of magic and meal, miracle and table, ...

The Miracles of Jesus: Three Basic Questions for the Historian
https://www.jstor.org › stable


by JP Meier · 1996 · Cited by 4 — magic and hence that Jesus was a Jewish magician. ... of John Dominic Crossan, see his The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish

 
Top