Biblical Mary!

[metis]

The entirety of the Gospels are legends. Jesus never wrote anything, nor are the gospels written by eye witnesses. Now, legends often have a bit of history as their base. The difficulty arises that we cannot always know where the history ends and the fiction begins. Certainly, some stories are more likely than others. What are the odds of a virgin birth? Zero. What are the odds that Jesus taught to keep the commandments? Quite high.

So you clearly don't believe or understand the Bible. Why is that?

With the latter quote, what insulting nonsense that is.

 

[metis]

All of the gospels were written by multiple authors, having their writings spliced together. The idea that they were ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was merely an oral tradition of the early church, with no grounding in actual history. I understand that for many Christians, it is very difficult to make the break from oral tradition, so if you want to disagree, I understand.

The following videos are produced by a scholar with the Community of Christ, as restorationist denomination. I'm not so much interested in his denomination as I am impressed by his scholarship. He received his Masters from the University of Michigan, and, his areas of expertise are Medieval and ancient Western history. You wrote that you thought John could have been written by the Apostle John. This scholar presents the case in "Who wrote the Gospels" that John is actually written by three different authors, the earliest version being what scholars refer to as the Book of Signs. The second video by him, "Recovering the Signs Gospel," deals specifically with this.

(Sir) William Barclay [Anglican] is my all-time favorite Christian theologian, and what he believed and taught is VERY compatible with what you're saying. The formation of the Gospels is very complex and full of uncertainties, but yet it's here to help guide people.

 

[PureX]

Yes, you can help yourself. What motivates you to write something like this???

Humor.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

(Sir) William Barclay [Anglican] is my all-time favorite Christian theologian, and what he believed and taught is VERY compatible with what you're saying. The formation of the Gospels is very complex and full of uncertainties, but yet it's here to help guide people.

Does he make any videos that you recommend?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And yet you wrote ...



It just seemed to me that your comment closely resembles a fact claim.

There is a difference between thinking something is probable, and believing it is a fact. I hope I have sufficiently clarified.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a difference between thinking something is probable, and believing it is a fact. I hope I have sufficiently clarified.

Much as there is a difference between thinking something is probable and stating it as a fact.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hm. That suspicion might get in the way understanding what I’m saying, but maybe it will just take longer. Maybe it will help if I tell you about my beliefs. I don’t have any, or I try not to. I have a kind of faith in the original teachers of some religions including Judaism and Christianity, but I don’t claim to know or that I ever will know what they actually taught. I have some views and ways of thinking that I think would be good for anybody to try, including ways of thinking about religions and their first teachers, but I don’t think there’s anything in my views and ways of thinking that can’t be wrong. I’m not a member of any church or a believer in any their belief systems.

Okay this sounds interesting. Please elaborate.

Do you see anything in what I said above about what I’m reading into the gospels, that goes against your conception of God? For example, that it’s inconceivable maybe that He could have had any such person in mind as part of His creation?

I was a little foggy what you had said on the gospels, so I went back in the thread. Here is what you said for reference:

There's a theory that the earliest Christians worshipped Jesus. I personally think that it was actually Jesus who taught them the practices that looked like worshipping a god. In the gospel stories, he is a god as much as any Greek or Roman god and even more, with more authority and power over human lives than any of them, besides being real. I don't think he actually claimed to be anything that was outside of the range of Jewish thinking, but some Christian followers either didn't understand that or didn't think that others could, so they tried to explain how the Christians could be worshipping Jesus and God at the same time without that being two gods, using Greek philosophy, telling themselves that Greek philosophy was actually inspired by Moses. Different ones explained it in different ways, and various factions formed around those. That led to public feuding which threatened the ambitions of Roman emperors, which they tried to repress with an agreement signed by some of the bishops. That failed miserably the first time, but maybe halfway succeeded on the second try.

While I can understand you opinion, I tend to disagree.

I see no reason to believe that Jesus "taught them the practices that looked like worshiping a god." These were all Jews practicing Second Temple Judaism (including Jesus). They already had a format as to how to worship God.

It seems like you are saying that Jesus introduced Greek notions of the gods. I see no reason to believe that.

Jewish thought was absolutely antithetical to Greek thought. To Jews, there was just one God, the Creator, who has no body or form and "is not a man." This God, while present everywhere including outside the universe, was Creator and never creation. He was not a mountain or tree or the sun or any deity representing such things. He was not a god representing an abstraction such as a god of love or war. Any suggestion of these things would have been met with with STRONG objection.

You may find that some PARTS of Greek culture, such as the philosophers and rational thought, influenced Jews such as Philo, who lived in the diaspora. But not those in the Jewish heartland. And even Hellenized Jews such as Philo didn't embrace the polytheism and idolatry of the Greeks.

It may be good to remember that the issue of Hellenization was the driving force behind the Maccabean war. The Jews literally drove the Greeks form our land to avoid Greek influence.

I'm sure you have many comments in return. Go for it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Much as there is a difference between thinking something is probable and stating it as a fact.

So you are simply nit picking at my wording.

It is quite common, when stating things that are simply probable, to simply state them, and not go into detail about how "well, but there is a chance this may not be true." For example, I might go into the science forum and state that homo sapiens evolved from homo erectus. I would simply assert it, without mentioning all the stuff about how this is presently the best understanding of the facts as we know them today, but evidence could arise in the future that might change our minds.

This is what I think. My post struck you as something that was a little too assertive for your tastes. You thought I was making an absolute claim. But when you inquired, I clarified. That should have been the end of it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you are simply nit picking at my wording.

That's an interesting interpretation.

 

[jimb]

With the latter quote, what insulting nonsense that is.

It is not insulting nonsense. You made some preposterous claims. If they have any merit, prove them.

 

[jimb]

(Sir) William Barclay [Anglican] is my all-time favorite Christian theologian, and what he believed and taught is VERY compatible with what you're saying. The formation of the Gospels is very complex and full of uncertainties, but yet it's here to help guide people.

But you DON"T understand.

 

[jimb]

Humor.

Sorry, but it's not humor. It's immature garbage.

 

[Anne1]

Do any of those scholars have degrees in psychology, sociology and cultural anthropology, or do they have input from people with degrees in those fields, for their theories about who wrote what?

Of course. Try Rodney Stark.

 

[Anne1]

I am of the opinion that the earliest Christians, the Jewish believers in Jerusalem under the leadership of James, also known as Nazarenes, did NOT believe Jesus was God.

Then why did they kill James?

 

[Niatero]

The formation of the Gospels is very complex and full of uncertainties, but yet it's here to help guide people.

Exactly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then why did they kill James?

I don't know, but believing Jesus to be the anointed one is not the same as believing him to be a God.

(It's may also be worth noting that Hegesippus was writing roughly a century after James' death. The line between folk lore and reliable history is rather hard to determine.)

 

[Niatero]

Of course. Try Rodney Stark.

So far I've only looked at the Wikipedia page, but from what little I read about his theories, I like them. It didn't say in the article, but was he on the same bandwagon as some others about how one gospel or another had to have been written by more than one author, and none of the gospels could possibly have been written before the destruction of the temple?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Then why did they kill James?

The traditional story is that James was executed on the orders of the high priest, possibly in 62 CE. The charge was that he transgressed the law, but I can find nothing that says which law. It is likely related to his messianic beliefs or Christian ideas that might have been seen as blasphemous or heretical. And BTW, I don't know what documents this is based on; I could find no source mentioned online. So I don't really know how true the story is.

FWIW, there is an alternative story that James was killed by Paul after he refused to renounce Judaism. That seems less likely to me, since James was still alive when Paul was arrested according to Acts 21.

 

[Niatero]

I see no reason to believe that Jesus "taught them the practices that looked like worshiping a god." These were all Jews practicing Second Temple Judaism (including Jesus). They already had a format as to how to worship God.

You're making a lot more work for me than what I was planning for. If you're familiar with the work of Larry Hurtado, that might make it easier.

It seems like you are saying that Jesus introduced Greek notions of the gods. I see no reason to believe that.

Sorry, I didn't separate my ideas clearly enough. One idea is that the practices of the early Christians that looked like worshipping Jesus, not as a god but in ways compatible with some Jewish thinking of the time, were taught to them by Jesus himself. I don't remember any examples from Hurtado, but maybe for example like praying to Jesus, and addressing him as "God" without thinking that he actually is God. There is some kind of concept of the presence of God in Jewish thinking. Another idea, completely separate from that, is that in the gospel stories Jesus is as much of a god as any Greek or Roman god, with more supernatural powers, and more power and authority over human lives, than any Greek or Roman god. Not that he was saying that. Just that he is presented that way in the stories. That, along with the worshipful practices that Hurtado writes about, is part of what created the dilemma for early Christian thinkers of trying to explain how Christians could believe and do what they did without it being two gods.

Jewish thought was absolutely antithetical to Greek thought. To Jews, there was just one God, the Creator, who has no body or form and "is not a man." This God, while present everywhere including outside the universe, was Creator and never creation. He was not a mountain or tree or the sun or any deity representing such things. He was not a god representing an abstraction such as a god of love or war. Any suggestion of these things would have been met with with STRONG objection.

From me as much as from anyone else.

You may find that some PARTS of Greek culture, such as the philosophers and rational thought, influenced Jews such as Philo, who lived in the diaspora. But not those in the Jewish heartland. And even Hellenized Jews such as Philo didn't embrace the polytheism and idolatry of the Greeks.

I wasn't talking about the Jewish heartland. I was talking about the author of John, and the fathers, using Greek philosophy, more specifically the logos, to try to explain how Christians could be worshipping Jesus and the God of Abraham at the same time, without it being two gods.

For information in case you're interested, I'm planning to start a thread in The Social World forum about everyday practices that can help improve the world for all people everywhere.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You're making a lot more work for me than what I was planning for. If you're familiar with the work of Larry Hurtado, that might make it easier.

Good evening, my friend. Unfortunately, no, I am not familiar with Larry Hurtado. A glance at Wikipedia does identify him as a genuine scholar, so we are at least starting out on a good foot.

Sorry, I didn't separate my ideas clearly enough. One idea is that the practices of the early Christians that looked like worshipping Jesus, not as a god but in ways compatible with some Jewish thinking of the time, were taught to them by Jesus himself. I don't remember any examples from Hurtado, but maybe for example like praying to Jesus, and addressing him as "God" without thinking that he actually is God.

We really need those specific examples. It is really the only way I can understand the general idea of what you are referring to.

In response to praying to him like God and calling him God not meaning they believe him to be God makes no sense to me. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck...it's a duck.

There is some kind of concept of the presence of God in Jewish thinking.

Quite true. Judaism teaches that there is the "divine spark" in all of us. But we would never go around praying to each other, or calling each other God.

It is quite possible that I'm just not understanding you here. I really need specific examples so that I can wrap my head around what you are trying to say.

Another idea, completely separate from that, is that in the gospel stories Jesus is as much of a god as any Greek or Roman god, with more supernatural powers, and more power and authority over human lives, than any Greek or Roman god. Not that he was saying that. Just that he is presented that way in the stories. That, along with the worshipful practices that Hurtado writes about, is part of what created the dilemma for early Christian thinkers of trying to explain how Christians could believe and do what they did without it being two gods.

I do see some evidence of this in the gospel of John. But I don't think its origins are Jesus. I am of the opinion that the Greek Christians who came after Jesus, and viewed the world through the lens of their former paganism, were inclined towards this deification, and inserted it into the text.

I wasn't talking about the Jewish heartland.

Then I misunderstood you. I thought you were advancing the idea that Jesus himself was teaching these ideas. Jesus, and his disciples, were all Judean, not out in the diaspora, not Hellenized.

I was talking about the author of John, and the fathers, using Greek philosophy, more specifically the logos, to try to explain how Christians could be worshipping Jesus and the God of Abraham at the same time, without it being two gods.

If we are talking about the author of John, we can found a lot of common ground. IMHO, due to its misunderstandings of Judaism and its attempts to drive a wedge between Christians and Jews, I am inclined to believe that John (like the other gospels) was written either by a non-Jews, or by a Hellenized Jews out in the diaspora. Thus I agree with you that the authors of John are quite explicitly incorporating the Greek concept of Logos into the picture.

Unfortunately, they don't really do a good job at clearly explaining exactly how this works, which led to multiple schools of thought in the early church and great disputes, all coming to a head at Nicea.

Well, its nice to end on a note of agreement. I look forward to your reply.