|
Post by yeshuafreak on Feb 19, 2010 20:02:30 GMT -8
personally i think it only took one. One person (probably women) started the deception (whtether from hallucination or plain out lie) and others started to get mildly convinced. they may not have been totally convinced, but they didnt say that; everyone else seemed to really beleive. Then it just rooted out and built a communiity where no one dared not believe because
(1) nobody else would (2) they would hav ebeen excommunicated and the christian community gave them everything; they sold all their possessions for the church.
in other words, Christianity slowly developed as a cult after Yeshua's death; that is no longer the case, but that is what it was
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 19, 2010 20:56:30 GMT -8
Thanks for that. Now I can respond with some lengthier thoughts-- when I have some time to really compose.
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Feb 27, 2010 21:46:26 GMT -8
I don't know enough about Yeshuafreak's ideas to claim this is what he is doing, but it got me thinking about what others do:
I find it interesting that a lot of people claim there was no Jesus, that there is no historical evidence, that the scriptures were written 100's of years after his death, by people who were simply part of a Jewish Messianic cult; then they go on to prove their claim with loads of historical evidence, alternative scriptures, and the writings of Jewish Messianic cults.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 28, 2010 8:33:08 GMT -8
Yes, that is one rabbit trail which has become obsolete in light of evidence for a historical Jesus. Yesh rightly accepts a historical Jesus- he just thinks that the biblical Jesus differs from the historical Jesus significantly.
In this thread so far, however, I have been attempting (successful so, I believe) to bring the "biblical Jesus" (with it's belief in His physical resurrection) down to within at least 3 years of the death of the "historical Jesus".
He says Paul's belief may have been based on a subjective personal spiritual experience, so I'm now turning the flashlight on the original disciples with whom Paul met shortly after his "revelation". The question is: why did they believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus as a date so early it precludes legendary development?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 5, 2010 11:23:57 GMT -8
Yesh- I just remembered that I intended to write more on this (somehow I had it in my head that I was waiting for a reply from you). I'll try and post here soon.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Mar 5, 2010 13:04:08 GMT -8
Yeshua was clearly a historical figure. but he was an orthodox jewish rabbi who had no intentions of forming what we call christianity today. I have no problem with christians including him in their tradition as long as they realize historically it is just not right.
the pauline jesus was not the historical jesus, and the pauline jesus is the one that christians accept today.
i would even accept the premise that paul DID believe in and teach a historical jesus-- but the religious interpretation of what he taught is so far off from the historical jesus that they are actually detrimental to historical work.
-john
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Mar 5, 2010 13:25:17 GMT -8
Can you define the two? As in, can you show where the break is between these two men?
Why did Paul convert? What made the historical Yeshua... historical? Who then was the Pauline Jesus? Which one was crucified? When did their stories become one, and how?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Mar 5, 2010 19:38:56 GMT -8
holy crap! so many questions! :-)
lets see, why did paul convert? i dont know. ask him. according to the texts that we have available, he had some outstanding vision. there is no reason to doubt this was the case. where that vision came from is the better question and cannot be definitively said. therefore, this argument is null to me-- claiming the the pauline was the same as the historical because of the vision is insubstantial.
the historical Yeshua is.. well, we'll go with john meier's definition. heres the best quote i can find with the book out of hand:
perhaps Josh has his quote on defining what "historical jesus" was.
who was the pauline Jesus: paul saw the face of jesus that focused on death and resurrection. Paul undoubtedly believed Yeshua died and THEN rose again. this is a historical fact. however, verifying his claim is outside the realm of history, so we ll not get into that now.
both were crucified.
from the very beginning the pauline jesus was identified with the historical one. Paul never knew Jesus, and may have not even known of the gospels. he rarely spoke of anything outside of Yeshua's death and resurrection and seems not to have known much about his life. therefore, this leads me to beleive he did not teach Yeshua's death and resurrection for the traditional reasons given.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 5, 2010 20:41:54 GMT -8
All of the separate threads of early Christian tradition taught the death and physical resurrection of the historical man Jesus (Pauline, Johannine, Petrine, Gospels, etc..).
Yes, Paul focuses on the death and resurrection of Jesus, as well as the cosmic and theological implications of the incarnation (just as John does). But that doesn't mean he didn't know about the life of Jesus. It's impossible to imagine that in hanging out several times with Peter and the other disciples (from a very early date- within 3 years of Jesus' death) as well as numerous other Christians that he wasn't informed of the details of the life of the Jew Jesus.
He gives us a hint every now and then that he does know more details of the tradition of his life (for instance, 1 Cor. 11:23 or Acts 20:35). I suppose that he felt his role as "one who was abnormally born" (1 Cor. 15:8) was to explain the universal significance of Jesus, not catalogue the details of his life as others who were more qualified to do so did.
That the original disciples accepted Paul and his message is the best evidence that there really weren't two divisible Jesuses. Each of the apostles had their own perspective on Jesus, but they are all complimentary not contradictory.
So, yeshuafreak, we've traced belief in the essentials of the Christian message back to within 3 years of Jesus' death. And we can go back even further. So my next question is, if Jesus didn't physically rise from the dead, why were his disciples preaching that he did on Pentecost Sunday?
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Mar 5, 2010 23:00:50 GMT -8
I guess I'm really wondering where the idea that they are actually two different people is coming from.
I've heard a lot of discussion about Jesus being made up, being just a prophet, just a teacher, a mad man, or some blend of the mix of all; but I don't remember hearing that he was two different people.
I agree with the Meier statement, and this is one of the things I tell my non-believing friends: that you cannot use the Bible as 'history', especially not the type of history we are accustomed to reading these days -- I just finished a book, 100 of the 500 pages were references! The Bible is simply too far departed from us through time and culture to take it as literal fact all the way through. I liken it to four people standing on the four corners of the intersection where a terrible accident has just occurred -- each of the four people, in telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, would undoubtedly relate details of what could be mistaken for four different events.
I don't think we are supposed to be able to verify the claim of Jesus being exactly who he was, being killed, then raising from the dead... to do so would be to extinguish faith. The implications of the idea that the true history of the life of Jesus are actually hidden, by providential means, from the eyes and minds of men, is a bright light that suddenly flickers on in the dark room of one's faith.
This is not to say we should not curiously dig and explain and continue to attempt further understanding in all things, including the historical aspects of the Bible, but it is to say that we cannot pretend scientific understanding and proof are the same things as faith.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Mar 6, 2010 10:59:52 GMT -8
perhaps you are misundertanding me. i do not believe the pauline Jesus was a seperate person from the historical one, but an interpretation of the historical one's life. the pauline jesus is not the jesus that we should consider historically.
i agree totally with the first part. but i believe these different perceptions WERE contradictory and some opposed to who Jesus really was historically. this is not to say that these perceptions are not beneficial, as long as one realizes them for what they are. if we were to look at him historically, Jesus would come out very different from any of the perceptions put forth by Paul Peter John or James.
but the historical Jesus is not really as beneficial to people of faith. so save him for the historians. the pauline Jesus was for the gentiles, the johanine one for the mystics, the jacobic one for the jews. the closest view to the historical jesus was probably Peter's. And since it was his strand of tradition that produced mark, mark is probably the best source for the historical jesus.
but we are now talking about totally off topic things. Let us remain on topic and speak of the resurrection. is the resurrection a historical fact? no. the resurrection has no place in historical investigation. scientifically? maybe.
so lets discuss not whether the resurrection is historical, but whether it is possible and is a fact. and if it is a fact, how can we prove it to be so. but if it is not possible, of course Yeshua did not raise from the dead.
i think it was a gnostic valentine (?) who said "the christians say Jesus died and rose again, but they have it wrong. He first rose and then died."
in other words, the resurrection is seen as spiritual and internal, not bodily and after death. I agree completely. Not that paul and peter would, though. i still look at their words and read them my own way-- but i know that they did not beleive what i do. thsi may seem odd, but their writings were familiar to me and speak to me even though some of those messages may have been unintentional. they spark my mind to think, to hypothesize.
-john
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Mar 6, 2010 11:02:43 GMT -8
i completely disagree with this statment. of course, it is not necessary for beleivers to figure out exactly WHO jesus was, but there are curious people and historians who have the JOB to. and for some in the faith, it is necessary for them to know. this comment puts faith WAAAYYY above reason and borders ignorance. in no way is that supposed to be rude or call you stupid. but it seems that one who accepts ignorance is on a path of darkness.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 6, 2010 14:45:10 GMT -8
I agree with everything in this paragraph except your thesis . Sure you can use the bible as history- we just have to realize that it is not a history textbook. It is a primary source document.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 6, 2010 14:50:25 GMT -8
rbbailey wrote:
To verify his existence and certain details of his life would not "extinguish faith". It didn't for the disciples!
Some of it, of course, depends on what you mean by verify.
With history, we cannot prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. But we can use evidence to arrive at conclusions about what did occur.
yeshuafreak wrote:
Since the resurrection is said to have happened as an event in real history, it is therefor open to historical inquiry, just like any other event. I think this point is very important.
The resurrection is the best explanation for all the historical evidence. And the main point of this thread is to demonstrate that and invite anyone to come up with a better alternative conclusion if they are able.
The earliest view on what happened Easter Sunday is the orthodox view. The Gnostic view didn't rear it's ugly head until much later.
Yeshuafreak- you still have not given your hypothesis on why those closest to the historical Jesus were claiming from the get-go that he had risen bodily from the dead.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 6, 2010 14:52:39 GMT -8
I so disagree based on my own experience. The historical Jesus is the tether by which our own subjective experience of the cosmic Jesus is measured.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Mar 6, 2010 17:02:14 GMT -8
because they believed he did. duh. :-)
like i said, to some it is VERY beneficial, but not for all.
i guess what i am trying to say is not that the resurrection doesnt belong to history, but that explaining the resurrection or making any verdict as to its signifigance (ie, any descriminations) is outside of the realm of history.
but yes there needs to be evidence to explain the resurrection as an event.
i suppose that the women started the rumor. why? perhaps out of denial, perhaps for power, perhaps because of delusion. i havent the slightest idea of their psychological state at the time. but their rumor spread and the disciples beleived it. none of them ever visited the tomb, i am sure of it. and the stone was never removed, i am sure of it. the romans were far to regimented.
but it started with the women, spread to the disciples, spread to the disciple's disciples, and then there you go.
john
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Mar 6, 2010 20:44:01 GMT -8
Well, don't get me wrong, I am an 'historian' after all. I think the history of who Jesus is, is very important. I'm trying to say that it doesn't mean faith. Just as Josh said, the people who were with Jesus knew his actual, physical history, and they believed... and then again, some didn't. In other words, if Jesus himself descended out of the clouds and pointed to all the archeological history we could all possibly need to PROVE him, there would still be people who would not believe. The historical Jesus, the history of the Bible (much of which is being proven by archeologists in our lifetime) is not what faith can be based on.
Those things may be a way to get to a point of faith, as they have been for some people. But even those who knew the law, knew the prophecies, and saw Jesus with their own eyes, some of them never believed.
Once again, faith is something that can be based on rational thinking, and should be. But if the world fell into complete chaos, if rational thinking was thrown out, we would still rely simply on faith. And the reality of our situation is that we are really arguing a paradox: The ruler and creator of the universe, the one who wrote the primal rules by which that universe and all that is physically and spiritually in it operate -- well, in some way Jesus is at once the most pure example of rational cause and effect and the most absurd, irrational thing to have ever occurred. Perhaps this perfect paradox is the ultimate proof.
|
|