Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[fallingblood]

also would not the 40 days jesus was sighted, what 6 times after his death. be fiction??

as well as the 40 day length be fiction?

The 40 days would not necessarily be fiction. Let's take an example. You and I spend some time learning from each other. We do this for around a month. After this is done, you tell a friend that you spent some time learning with someone for around a month. That friend tells someone else that you spent a month learning with someone. That friends tells someone else that you spent 30 days learning with someone. The story doesn't change a lot, but it does change in a logical manner.

The same is probably true with the story of Jesus. We have various sources stating that Jesus appeared after the resurrection. Matthew and John don't have Jesus ascending to heaven. Luke does, but there is a possibility that it was added by a later scribe. Acts is the one that really tells us the story of Jesus ascending to Heaven.

This story was written around the 90's C.E. We have a few decades between the supposed event, and the writing of it down. That gives a lot of time for a story to be added to. The story was that Jesus was resurrected, and for some time, appeared to various people (Paul includes many more appearances. John leaves it open). It is logical to put a time span here. 40 days is a logical number. It would not be hard to believe that this was the time that Jesus spent afterwards.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

God, your knowledge of Biblical criticism is abysmal! why don't you bow out of this argument, take some worthwhile classes, and then come back to debate when you actually know what you're talking about.

I’m sorry that my positions are agitating you so, sojourner, but if we’re to continue growing, we’ve got to examine our beliefs. Especially for someone who inhabits a forum like this, I find it odd that you’re reacting with such upset.

(I’m skipping over your next three insults. Sorry. No time for it.

(Um... make that four.)

First off, O Wizened and Venerable One, It's "plagiarism," not "plaigiarisms."

Actually, it’s ‘plagiarisms.’ You know... one plagiarism, two plagiarisms?

However, just to demonstrate what a man of integrity I am, I hereby admit – with the deepest shame, humility and remorse – that I did indeed post a typo to this board.

So you scored a big one there, dude, but don’t let it go to your head. I intend to start spellchecking my messages. You won’t think less of me, will you?

The motives for writing and the messages the gospelers intended to convey are completely different from each other.

And the sun is kinda yellowish, and most grass is green. I’m not sure why we are preaching such rudimentary truths to each other, but I try to follow the lead of my dialogue partner. I have faith that you are going somewhere with it.

That constitutes "reproducing different ideas," even when large chunks of text are "reproduced." It's how the text is used, not particularly that the text is used.

That’s as vague an argument as I’ve seen in awhile. Can you specify what you’re talking about?

(Y' know, seminary professors get paid to teach this stuff to beginners...)

What can I say, except that I hope they aren’t paid very much if they teach it in the same manner as you’re struggling to do.

Sorry. That was kinda cheap, but it was at least sincere.

I understand that your urge is to portray me as an ignorant neophyte regarding these matters, sojourner. It fits your purposes to do so, after all. But I think of forums like this one as places to actually argue about things. Rationally, if possible. Do you think you might be willing to engage me in that sort of dialogue, at least at some future point, or will you still be ignoring my requests for evidence and responding with insult years hence? Do you have an interest in arguing the issues?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

My "teachers" happen to be some of the preeminent Bible, cultural and oral communication scholars working today, thanks. Their "word" and "opinions" are good enough for the scholastic community, and certainly count for more than your (by camparison) uninformed opinions do.

So once again, I ask for evidence, and you reply that your teachers were the very finest in all the land. I wonder what that means. My best guess is that you don't understand oral cultures at all. If you did, you wouldn't mind arguing your position, would you?

Sorry. It's my best guess.

Anyway, as one of my dear new friends might put it... you are debunked and I am champion!

Just kidding you, bud. But seriously, have you got any evidence that ancient oral stories did not change over time?

BZZZZT! Thanks for playing.

Sergeant at Arms! Sergeant at Arms! The court jester has got ahold of that damn buzzer again! Take the thing away, smelt it, mold it into a rectal thermometer and deliver it back to him... very personally. Otherwise we'll never have any peace around here!

Everyone's a comedian. I wouldn't quit my day job though.

Ah. And here I was thinking you were a professional. Sorry for the bad assumption.

And yet some here are just using it as a virtual highway overpass to spray paint pointless graffiti that does nothing except sully the landscape with two-dimensional "billboards" advertising their own pitiful, overfocused worlds...

Overfocused world? What a charming concept. Feeling a bit like a fly under the microscope, are we?

Oh, I see! You're feeling embarrassed at having gotten caught with your academic pants down, and are, therefore resorting to any means possible to redeem yourself at my expense.

Since my pants are already down, let me take this opportunity to waft a bit of gas in the general direction of your academia.

Rather than boasting of your offstage Academic Heroes, why not bring one of them here so that I might examine them? Maybe they really do have evidence about 'oral cultures' and won't be so shy about presenting it.

 

[Pegg]

stay on target pegg...
there are plenty of other threads we can discuss the origins of the universe.

awww you're no fun!


you knew where i was going with that though didnt you.

from what i know for myself, and i'm sure i am not alone (in fact it is very probable i'm not ), these signs do not happen like jesus said it would...that is the reality of it. that is what we empirically experience, hands down.

But how do you know it was not the reality, considering you were not there? How can YOU be 100% sure it did not occur the way the early christians described it?

and i find it interesting that when hands are laid on sick people and they are not healed, it is understood it has to do with the sick persons lack of faith, when the act is supposed to be a sign to give reason to have faith...

the miracles that were experienced back in the 1st century were given as a sign in order to establish Jesus credentials. There is no need for miracles today and anyone who thinks they are performing miracles are being mislead. The apostles even said the 'gifts' (miracles they were performing) would be done away with. Once all the apostles were gone, miracles ceased.

 

[Badran]

***Mod post***

Please refrain from personally attacking other members. Criticize ideas or opinions, not the person holding them.​

 

[outhouse]

40 days is a logical number

not only that it was more figurative then acctual I believe.

doesnt 40 days in context, just mean a long time??

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Luke tells us specifically that he utilized both previous written accounts, as well as oral accounts.

I have no belief in an ‘oral culture’ as you seem to be using the term, and I can’t imagine that there could be any evidence to support it, though I’m ready to hear it. I asked someone else if we have tape recordings of 2000 year old stories so that we can compare them to the same stories a hundred years later. No answer as yet.

There is chanting, of course, which can preserve the form of a story, but so far as I know, the early Jewish-Christians did not chant their stories.

So I don’t accept that Luke had earlier accounts – not anything dependable anyway. Besides which, if Luke was a fictionalist (or even if not), he could claim anything he pleased about sources. Why do you trust him to be telling the truth – especially since you claim no vested interest in all of this?

However, if we would assume they are theology, then you would have to admit that they are nonfiction, as theology is nonfiction.

Actually, I feel no restriction about using words as you use them.

Also, there is a huge difference between Dracula, and Jesus. Jesus is always in the same place and time. The gist is always the same.

Another good point. I would say that because of intense cultural pressures, few would have the nerve to write continuing stories about Jesus, as I believe they did in the early days before he came to be seen as sacred. They’d likely be burned alive for doing that. Plus, they considered him to be an historical figure by then.

And here is the problem. You refuse to recognize that the Gospels are a product of an oral culture, in the first century Palestine.

If you’ll forgive me, I don’t think you can defend the idea of an “oral culture”. Obviously it’s a popular concept among those with a vested interest in embracing the historicity of Jesus, but it looks to me like a theory used mostly for explaining away the uncertainty of Jesus data.

But if there is evidence supporting the theory, please post it.

So yes, Jesus is a failed Messiah. Jesus, later on, becomes a very successful Christian Messiah; however, that is a new term, and we can't retroject that idea onto the idea of the Jewish Messiah during the first century.

So you’re quibbling over the definition of ‘messiah’? That’s what this confusion is about?

You need to have an understanding of what the Jewish Messiah is. If you did, you would see that Jesus in fact was a failure as the Messiah, as he never fulfilled the expectations.

Every teenager understands that Jews deny Jesus as having fulfilled their messiah criteria. Otherwise, they’d be following Jesus right now. I can’t understand why you would lecture me on a truth as obvious as that.

Is it because you believe that “Jesus did not meet the criteria” rather than “In the opinion of many people, Jesus didn’t meet the criteria”?

You do seem to believe in some sort of objective ‘Truth’ which you can access -- while others are somehow missing it. If so, that seems to me the outlook of the faithful – whether religious or secular – and I consider it an entirely indefensible posture. I’ll be glad to show you whyso if you’d like to engage that debate.

He is not a successful Messiah, unless you create a new term: the Christian Messiah.

You mean that for you, he’s not a successful messiah unless you can create a new term to fit him. I’m happy simply using ‘messiah’. Most people will understand me just fine. Almost all Christians, for example. After all, he did indeed meet the criteria in their opinions, quite well.

...why would the Jews create a failed messiah when all they had to do was pick any one of the various Messianic claimants?

Well, because Jesus was fictional, in my view. That was his great strength. You’re familiar with Rabbi Schneerson, I assume? With Joseph Smith? Do you see how much easier it is to embrace a fictional messiah, claimed to have been a real man, than to embrace a guy who lived in public in our own time?

All previous messianic claimants had been real -- picking their noses, suing their neighbors over some unhappy incident. They failed because people could observe them in their multi-warted flesh. So finally one messianic sect figured it out. They would create a fictional messiah, claim that he had really lived a few years earlier... and finally achieve a successful messiah.

It makes good sense to me.

(To lurking Christians: Please don’t despair. It’s not gospel truth but only my personal opinion.)

My argument is not complicated. Jesus did not fulfill Messianic prophecy. He is a failed Messiah. It is quite simple.

I understand that you hold that personal opinion, yes. And it’s a very fine personal opinion.

As for the godman business, you have never shown why we should believe that Jesus was a godman.

Sure I have. Virgin birth, visited by 3 shepherds at his birth, crucified, resurrected, etc.

You continue to retroject modern ideas onto a time they don't fit.

No, I’m pretty sure that’s just wishful thinking on your part.

Also, you haven't shown how Bible scholars misunderstand human psychology. You need to support your opinions with evidence....

Such a very curious request. I have no idea how to answer it. Can you help me? Please present your evidence that Bible scholars understand human psychology. Once I see the shape of your evidence, I will then present even better evidence that they misunderstand human psychology.

So how will you prove that Biblical scholars understand human psychology?

Now, your claim is that humans lust after Great Heroes. Prove it.

You still startle me so. Prove that humans desire heroes? Goodness.

OK. Here’s my evidence: Once upon a time, there was no Paul Bunyan. But a little later, there was a Paul Bunyan. So somebody had to get off the sofa, turn off the TV, and expend effort to creat the Hero Paul Bunyan.

But people only expend energy to satisfy some desire.

Therefore, there must be a human desire to create heroes.

Ipso facto and that about wraps it up.

More so, prove that in the first century, in Palestine, they were lusting over a great hero.

OK. Here goes:

Basic human nature hasn’t changed in 50,000 years.

Today, humans yearn for heroes.

Therefore, humans 2000 years ago yearned for heroes.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find it ridiculously easy to prove things.

 

[outhouse]

Basic human nature hasn’t changed in 50,000 years.

200,000 years roughly

I don’t think you can defend the idea of an “oral culture”.

actually even atheist historians and scholars we flat believe jesus never existed at all,,,,, know about oral transmission of storys.

its happened for most of the books of the bible not just the NT

there really is no debate about this.

early Jewish-Christians did not chant their stories

actually even some modern jews ca recite their whole books.

to give you an example of oral tradition,, just look at ancient hebrew culture. They started around 1250BC but the oldest hebrew writing goes back to roughly 1000BC. Now in these early storys you can find material from egyptian and sumerian cultures, sometimes word for word is some paragraphs.

 

[outhouse]

Now as far as fiction goes, I still think its fairly obvious and it has not been proven non-fiction.

[allthough some arguements have been cleared up]

If you look at ancient hebrews and how they created their early biblical books one cannot deny they were not written to be taken literally and so they had no reason to believe in the factual events but centered on the philosophy behind the storys.

we start with a flood of the Euphrates in 2900BC and the next thing you now a few thousand years later we have a ark atop the highest mountains due to a global flood.

I dont believe the creation myth was taken literally either and it wasnt ment to be. No real reason to believe what your writing to make a point.

This goes on and on though out most of the OT and NT

 

[fallingblood]

So I don’t accept that Luke had earlier accounts – not anything dependable anyway. Besides which, if Luke was a fictionalist (or even if not), he could claim anything he pleased about sources. Why do you trust him to be telling the truth – especially since you claim no vested interest in all of this?

Why do I trust Luke in this particular case? Because there is no reason not to trust him. He is simply stating that he used other sources. It is obvious that he used Mark as a source, as well as either Q (which is the majority belief), or Matthew (which I think is just as likely, but held by fewer scholars). So we can point to at least two sources in which Luke used, and since Luke stated that he used other sources (which we can check out for ourselves), there is no reason to doubt he also used oral sources.

Whether or not Luke was a fictionalist, you'd have to support that idea. Until you do, there is no reason to take it seriously.

Now, for the topic of oral culture. Just because you are not familiar with the idea doesn't mean it isn't true. It is an accepted fact. We still see oral cultures in areas today. Now, I believe I have already given you a link which supports my point, but since you want me to support my position, here it is again: The Story Of The Storytellers - Importance Of The Oral Tradition | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

You can also check out L. Michael White's book, Scripting Jesus, which gives a nice overview of the subject.

Actually, I feel no restriction about using words as you use them.

That's alright if you feel no restrictions. However, you are using the term incorrectly, and classifying theology as something it is not.

Another good point. I would say that because of intense cultural pressures, few would have the nerve to write continuing stories about Jesus, as I believe they did in the early days before he came to be seen as sacred. They’d likely be burned alive for doing that. Plus, they considered him to be an historical figure by then.

Actually, they continued to write stories about Jesus for centuries after the fact, well after he came to be seen "as sacred." So really your point doesn't work there.

As for considering him to be an actual historical figure, Paul already did that. And Paul was writing just some 20 years after the fact. Paul actually mentions that he met the brother of Jesus, placing Jesus in the near past. So again, your point really doesn't work. The reason being that people continued to have the nerve to write stories about Jesus centuries after he supposedly lived, well after he was considered "sacred" as you called it. And Jesus was instantly thought of as a historical figure, as shown by Paul.

If you’ll forgive me, I don’t think you can defend the idea of an “oral culture”. Obviously it’s a popular concept among those with a vested interest in embracing the historicity of Jesus, but it looks to me like a theory used mostly for explaining away the uncertainty of Jesus data.

But if there is evidence supporting the theory, please post it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/oral.html Just posting this source once again, in case you miss it the first time. That should be enough evidence supporting the theory.

Here are a few more sources. I don't particularly care for wikipedia, but for general information, it can do fine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition

Here is another source which seems okay: http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/2i/7_rosenberg.pdf

So you’re quibbling over the definition of ‘messiah’? That’s what this confusion is about?

The definition of Messiah is important here. We are talking about the Jewish Messiah, as that was the Messiah during that time period. It is not accurate to retroject a later idea, the Christian Messiah, into a time that it did not appear. So yes, there is a problem with your definition.

Every teenager understands that Jews deny Jesus as having fulfilled their messiah criteria. Otherwise, they’d be following Jesus right now. I can’t understand why you would lecture me on a truth as obvious as that.

Is it because you believe that “Jesus did not meet the criteria” rather than “In the opinion of many people, Jesus didn’t meet the criteria”?

You do seem to believe in some sort of objective ‘Truth’ which you can access -- while others are somehow missing it. If so, that seems to me the outlook of the faithful – whether religious or secular – and I consider it an entirely indefensible posture. I’ll be glad to show you whyso if you’d like to engage that debate.

I "lectured" you, as you did not seem to understand the subject at hand. Jesus simply did not fulfill Messianic expectations. Anyone who reads what the Messianic expectations were (and various sects had different expectations), one can see that Jesus simply did not fulfill them. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of looking at the evidence, and making a rational observation.

Now, before you try to tell me what I seem to believe, maybe you want to actually address the information. That would be a much better way to spend your time in this case. I don't need someone to try to read me over the internet.

 

[fallingblood]

You mean that for you, he’s not a successful messiah unless you can create a new term to fit him. I’m happy simply using ‘messiah’. Most people will understand me just fine. Almost all Christians, for example. After all, he did indeed meet the criteria in their opinions, quite well.

Here is the problem. You are confusing two separate ideas. There is the Jewish Messiah. We can read about expectations of this figure from various Jewish sources. As the Messiah is a Jewish figure (they are the ones who the belief began with), it is the Jews who get to define this figure. Again, the Messiah is for the Jews, it is detailed in Jewish writings, and the idea came from the Jews.

So when speaking about the Messiah, in first century Palestine, there is only one idea. It is not the Christian Messiah; Christians do not yet exist. It is the Jewish Messiah. Different sect may have had varying ideas about the Messiah, but they were still all Jewish ideas.

Now comes Jesus. I personally would argue that he did not claim to be Messiah, but later followers made the point; however, that is not important here. When he is called the Messiah, in context of first century Palestine, it is understood that the claim is to the Jewish Messiah. However, if we look at the expectations of this Jewish Messiah, Jesus simply does not fulfill those expectations. All that one needs to do to show this is actually read what the Jews believed about the Messiah. The fact is, Jesus simply does not fill the bill.

After Jesus died (his death is one thing that greatly rules him out as being the Jewish Messiah. And again, the Jewish Messiah is the only thing that matters here as we are discussing the idea of the Messiah in the context of first century Palestine), later individuals decided they would search the scriptures (the Hebrew scriptures), and pick and choose various verses that seemed to fit Jesus. Now, anyone reading those verses today can see that they don't actually speak about the Messiah. If one reads Jewish literature on the subject, one can also see that tradition has not equated these verses with the Messiah.

So what do we have here then? We have a group of followers of Jesus, who have gone back into the scripture, ripped out verses that have nothing to do with the Messiah, and attached them to Jesus, claiming that in fact they do have something to do with the Messiah. This is done after the fact. Essentially, what happens is that a new idea forms about what the Messiah is based on what Jesus did. To simplify it. People believed Jesus was the Messiah. Since they thought Jesus was the Messiah, whatever he did was what the Messiah was suppose to do. Since he did those things, he obviously was the Messiah. It is circular logic.

Why do I go over this? Because the modern Christian idea of the Messiah simply does not fit with the idea of the Messiah as it was thought of in the first century. Thus, we can not use the modern Christian idea. We can not retroject a modern idea into a time that it did not exist.

We have to take the idea of the Messiah in a historical context. Once we do, it is obvious that Jesus did not fulfill Messianic expectations as described by during that time.

Well, because Jesus was fictional, in my view. That was his great strength. You’re familiar with Rabbi Schneerson, I assume? With Joseph Smith? Do you see how much easier it is to embrace a fictional messiah, claimed to have been a real man, than to embrace a guy who lived in public in our own time?

First, you would have to show that Jesus is fictional. The general consensus is that he existed, and for good reason. That is what the evidence shows.

As for embracing a character from the past, instead of our time; when speaking about the first century, various Jews did embrace a wide array of characters. All of those religious leaders, and failed messiahs running around during that time did have followers. Some of them had very large followings. People did embrace those historical figures during that time period (the first century).

More so, Jesus was the quite recent past. For Paul, he was only writing some 20 years after the fact. And he didn't begin writing as soon as he started following the Jesus movement. Paul was following a contemporary of his. And in addition, Paul tells us that he met the brother of Jesus. If they really wanted to make a character from the past to embrace, they did not do a very good job by placing him as a contemporary of the earliest followers, and giving him a brother who was alive and a leader among the early followers.

All previous messianic claimants had been real -- picking their noses, suing their neighbors over some unhappy incident. They failed because people could observe them in their multi-warted flesh. So finally one messianic sect figured it out. They would create a fictional messiah, claim that he had really lived a few years earlier... and finally achieve a successful messiah.

Except you have no evidence for the above. Also, not all followers of messianic sects disbanded after their leader was killed. The followers of Jesus were not unique.

As for creating a fictional Messiah, they failed. Jesus was not a successful Messiah. The fact that he died ruled him out as the Messiah. More so, since nothing really changed after the death of Jesus, there would have been no real reason to assume he was the Messiah.

Really, to create a fictional Messiah, and place him in the recent past is simply ridiculous. It would have served no purpose. Especially when one understands what the Messiah was, according to first century Jews.

It makes good sense to me.

I'm sure it does. However, it simply is not accurate, and not really supportable. You are taking an idea, the Messiah, taking it out of historical context, creating a new meaning for it, and then retrojecting it unto the past. That really doesn't work. Especially when we know what was looked for in a Messiah.

I understand that you hold that personal opinion, yes. And it’s a very fine personal opinion.

You can't simply dismiss what I say by calling it a personal opinion. That doesn't make what I say vanish. If you really want to have a conversation, you either need to admit that you only have unsubstantiated opinions, or provide evidence for your stance. Trying to just dismiss what I say with a witty remark simply does not work.

 

[fallingblood]

Sure I have. Virgin birth, visited by 3 shepherds at his birth, crucified, resurrected, etc.

The problem is that god-men are not said to be born of virgins. That is not a common theme. Later tradition (tradition that started after the story of Jesus) did equate some of those god-men with virgin births, but that is after Jesus. The common idea was that a god impregnated a woman through some form of physical means (primarily sexual intercourse). That isn't true for Jesus. There is no intercourse. There is no physical connection between a god and a woman. That is unique.

3 shepherds at birth also isn't really mentioned in other birth stories. As for being crucified, that simply doesn't happen. It does not appear in the stories of god-men. You can read the actual sources, and you won't find such an idea.

As for being resurrected, even that isn't quite true with many of the god-men. If one looks at various god-men, either they aren't actually dead (such as Attis who actually displays various signs of life), or they go through a cycle of dying and rising each year (in conjecture with the season), which is very different from what is said of Jesus. Especially if one understand the idea of the resurrection in context of first century Palestine (and I'm only talking specifically in the culture of the Jews). The idea wasn't that Jesus was unique in being resurrected, but he simply marked the way for the general resurrection.

There are actually very few similarities with Jesus and various god-men. Really nothing to bat an eye at when one can find just as many similarities with Augustus and those god-men.

No, I’m pretty sure that’s just wishful thinking on your part.

Prove it. For once, back up your opinion. Dismissing me with a lame retort simply doesn't work.

Such a very curious request. I have no idea how to answer it. Can you help me? Please present your evidence that Bible scholars understand human psychology. Once I see the shape of your evidence, I will then present even better evidence that they misunderstand human psychology.

So how will you prove that Biblical scholars understand human psychology?

You made a claim. It was an unsubstantiated claim. Thus, you have the burden of proof. If you want to make such a claim, you need to be ready to back it up with something.

You still startle me so. Prove that humans desire heroes? Goodness.

OK. Here’s my evidence: Once upon a time, there was no Paul Bunyan. But a little later, there was a Paul Bunyan. So somebody had to get off the sofa, turn off the TV, and expend effort to creat the Hero Paul Bunyan.

But people only expend energy to satisfy some desire.

Therefore, there must be a human desire to create heroes.

Ipso facto and that about wraps it up.

So really, you have nothing? The fact that during one very specific moment, someone created a figure, doesn't mean anything accept that at one point in time, someone created a figure. It certainly doesn't prove that in the first century, Jews were hungering for a Great Hero.

OK. Here goes:

Basic human nature hasn’t changed in 50,000 years.

Today, humans yearn for heroes.

Therefore, humans 2000 years ago yearned for heroes.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find it ridiculously easy to prove things.

That simply is not sound logic. It is called affirming the consequent (and you even framed it very nicely).

Also, what you said should be that some humans year for heroes. Some being the key.

 

[Kathryn]

Thanks for making the suggestion, Kathryn. I love language and never mind being corrected.

But in this case, I did mean blowfly.

A blowfly, on the other hand, is like a vulture. He soars around high above the battle, pointing down and discussing with his buddies which soldier is beginning to stink. It's why I referred to myself as having been judged as rancid by the blowfly in question.

But thanks again for making the suggestion.

You're welcome. I enjoy being helpful.

I simply thought to myself, "Surely he doesn't mean blowfly - they fly about looking for piles of dung."

I just thought it a very ironic choice of words.

Sure I have. Virgin birth, visited by 3 shepherds at his birth, crucified, resurrected, etc.

Visited by three shepherds? Wow, that's a new twist.

I've heard of Jesus being visited by wise men (carrying at least three gifts, though the actual number of wise men is not mentioned in scripture). I've heard of Jesus being visited by shepherds, but, as with the wise men, I don't believe a particular NUMBER of shepherds is mentioned.

Also, I've never heard of any myths of god-men which included any of them being visited by shepherds. Please share!

From the book "God in the Dock" by CS Lewis:

The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens—at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle. . . . God is more than god, not less: Christ is more than Balder, not less. We must not be ashamed of the mythical radiance resting on our theology. We must not be nervous about “parallels” and “pagan Christs”: they ought to be there—it would be a stumbling block if they weren’t. We must not, in false spirituality, withhold our imaginative welcome.

If God chooses to be mythopoeic—and is not the sky itself a myth—shall we refuse to be mythopathic? For this is the marriage of heaven and earth: Perfect Myth and Perfect Fact: claiming not only our love and our obedience, but also our wonder and delight, addressed to the savage, the child, and the poet in each one of us no less than the moralist, the scholar, and the philosopher.

 

[sojourner]

or else that I was living in an insane culture in which historical truth was unimportant

A culture doesn't have to be "insane" in order to view history differently than we do. In fact, the ancient Middle East didn't care so much for the raw facts as they did a good story that gave them a broad idea. That's the kind of history Luke, for example, was writing: Stories that gave the audience broad brush strokes of large movements in human history, and how history was changed by the Jesus Event. Ancient history is more akin the the German Geschichte than it is to our concept of "history."

I don’t know what you mean. We were talking about Great Salvation Heroes, weren’t we? Godmen

One of the interesting things about early Xy is that when artwork began to appear, the Xians actually took famous works depicting Augustus and refashioned them, replacing Augustus with Jesus. In fact, Luke's birth narrative is lifted almost shamelessly from the Augustus birth narrative. There was an attempt by early Gentile Xians to make Jesus look like (in fact better than) Augustus, so that the Gentiles could buy into the Jesus cult.

that being said, even though we know about these sorts of practices, we also know that the historical Jesus was different than the mythic Jesus. the nature of the myths cannot be used to completely dismiss the historic figure as a fact of history.

No, not if Jesus was a fictional character.

Except it's nearly certain that he wasn't.

 

[sojourner]

But I think of forums like this one as places to actually argue about things. Rationally, if possible.

Yet... you don't do that...
Interesting choice...

have you got any evidence that ancient oral stories did not change over time?

They changed, but not as much as we might think. Our oral stories change, because our memory is geared toward visual input. Since theirs were not, they were able to regurgitate more accurately what they heard than we do. Added to that is the fact that minutia didn't seem to concern them as much as it does us. So when we hold their stories accountable to a certain standard, I don't think it's fair to hold them accountable to our standard of minutia.

I have no belief in an ‘oral culture’ as you seem to be using the term, and I can’t imagine that there could be any evidence to support it, though I’m ready to hear it.

so... you don't believe that the majority of the people living in ancient Palestine were illiterate?

So I don’t accept that Luke had earlier accounts – not anything dependable anyway.

You're living in an awfully lonely camp...
Most reputable scholars disagree.

Actually, I feel no restriction about using words as you use them.

Bingo! This is why your posts are so "agitating." You make up your own rules about the way things are and then tell everyone else that they're wrong, because they can't provide any evidence to show that they're right. If you were really a scholar, you'd be aware that there are accepted standards of language that are used. Terminology is important to good communication. It serves your purposes well to make up your own rules, as it provides a perfect dodge for you. "Well, that's not the way I use the term..."

Perhaps, if you're going to argue these points, it would be more productive for you to use the terminology in the generally-accepted fashion...
Just a suggestion.

You mean that for you, he’s not a successful messiah unless you can create a new term to fit him. I’m happy simply using ‘messiah’. Most people will understand me just fine. Almost all Christians, for example. After all, he did indeed meet the criteria in their opinions, quite well.

Most Jews, though, won't accept the term, as it is applied to Jesus. In that sense, Jesus is a failed Messiah, because he did not do what the Jews thought the Messiah would do. That's why Blood suggested the new term. "Messiah" is a Jewish construct -- not a Xian construct. So we have to deal with the term within its construct.

But, of course, you knew that already.

...didn't you?

They would create a fictional messiah, claim that he had really lived a few years earlier... and finally achieve a successful messiah.

It makes good sense to me.

On the surface, it makes "good sense." But let's look at some further facts. Why would a small group of Jews 1) risk being ostracized by their families, 2) risk ******* off the Romans, 3) risk losing their religious armor? To extend that, why would small groups of Gentiles 1) risk being ridiculed by their communities, 2) risk losing their religious armor, 3) risk persecution by the Romans? Why would either group risk these things by fabricating a story about a "hero" who was summarily killed and dumped in a ditch?

None of this stuff makes sense when viewed in light of the prevailing political climate.

If they had made this up out of whole cloth, they wouldn't have used someone completely fictional. Jesus was an itinerant preacher, who taught the inner, not outer, kingdom. He taught liberation, which was a HUGE concern to the Jews. He was killed for that. There is no reason to doubt any of this. That's the claim for the historical Jesus. There's no reason to think that any of it is fiction. Doesn't fit the profile for a good story of fiction.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

200,000 years roughly

Yes, that’s my rough estimate, too, although I’d have no problem stretching back even a bit further. The reason I use a closer date for ‘human nature’ is that the Great Awakening – burials, artwork – was perhaps as recent as 30,000 years or so, I think.

actually even atheist historians and scholars we flat believe jesus never existed at all,,,,, know about oral transmission of storys.

I’m not sure if you’re following the discussion quite closely enough. The question is not whether stories were transmitted orally. Obviously, humans have been telling stories and passing them down to future generations for thousands of years.

The question has to do with whether those stories substantially change over time. I’m pretty sure that – absent chanting – they necessarily undergo such changes.

But if you believe that they don’t change, I’ll be happy to review your evidence for such a belief.

there really is no debate about this.

Well, if we can believe our eyes, you are mistaken. We are debating it here in this thread <g>. You can read back and see.

If you mean that it shouldn’t be debated, I disagree. Everything should be debated.

If you mean that your belief (or even the beliefs of mainstream scholars) about oral transmission is beyond questioning, I disagree with that also.

actually even some modern jews ca recite their whole books.

Well, yes. I think everyone is aware of that. I’m not sure how it addresses my point, though. What does that have to do with Luke using oral sources about the life of Jesus?

to give you an example of oral tradition,, just look at ancient hebrew culture. They started around 1250BC but the oldest hebrew writing goes back to roughly 1000BC. Now in these early storys you can find material from egyptian and sumerian cultures, sometimes word for word is some paragraphs.

I’m sorry, but I can’t follow your argument. We’re taking about oral transmission, but you’re offering evidence about written texts. Can you explain how that should be seen as evidence for oral transmission?

 

[outhouse]

The question has to do with whether those stories substantially change over time. I&#8217;m pretty sure that &#8211; absent chanting &#8211; they necessarily undergo such changes.

there are times they change and there are times they do not change.

if i relionand culture is stable and the story originates during this period then it can be transmitted word for word.

if you take a story and run it from one culture to the next, the story will change.

The first 5 books of the OT is a great example of how oral tradition would not hold accurate between cross cultures and the beginning of a new religion.


what makes the NT a challenge is that you have the origin of a new movement and a movement targeted at a new market. [more open] You do have a new hellenistic religion emerging so I have my doubts about the NT

by the contradictions alone we know there were changes just by looking at some authors and knowing there were mutiple sources.

I&#8217;m sorry, but I can&#8217;t follow your argument.

just saying there is a clear path of oral transmission and how it did not hold true to its original source with the beginning of the hebrew culture and religion

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

>> Why do I trust Luke in this particular case? Because there is no reason not to trust him. He is simply stating that he used other sources. It is obvious that he used Mark as a source, as well as either Q (which is the majority belief), or Matthew (which I think is just as likely, but held by fewer scholars). So we can point to at least two sources in which Luke used, and since Luke stated that he used other sources (which we can check out for ourselves), there is no reason to doubt he also used oral sources.

Clearly he used written sources, and you make a fair argument that he therefore probably used oral ones, but I’m asking about “dependable” oral sources. So far as I understand you, you believe that Luke wrote maybe 50 years after the death of Jesus? So you seem to believe that over 50 years, the oral stories told about Jesus were somehow formalized. They became the sort of cultural items worthy enough to be recited again and again until they became rigid and therefore didn’t change much... and so Luke could depend on them. But I don’t believe that. Recited stories don’t pop up like that. First they’re formalized, after many years in creation; then they begin to be passed down in recitation. I see no reason to believe that the story of Jesus would have been that sort. Instead, he was some guy that people talked about. The stories began to grow more and more elaborate and outlandish. There were hysterics in that culture. Magic-believers. By the time Luke might have heard them, I don’t think they’d have been anything usable in an historical sense. Certainly not to our modern sensibilities.

Further, I believe that anyone who would believe such a thing is most probably slave to the Jesus meme. By this, I mean that if these facts were precisely the same except it was all about some guy name Omar... that no one would believe it for a second. Primitive folk in a primitive culture told stories about a miracle-doing, resurrected actual man? Riiiiight!

But Jesus is different. We are enslaved by cultural and religious respect for him.

Well, not all of us <g>.

Whether or not Luke was a fictionalist, you'd have to support that idea. Until you do, there is no reason to take it seriously.

I think you should take seriously what seems serious to you and reject that which doesn’t. Just as everyone else does.

QUOTE: >> Now, for the topic of oral culture. Just because you are not familiar with the idea doesn't mean it isn't true.

You can’t imagine that I might be as educated on these issues as you, can you? After all, I disagree with you.

Anyway, I think you should either support your apparently confused opinions about ‘oral culture’ – with rational argumentation and hard evidence – or else you should give the issue up and drop it.

That’s how it seems to me.

That's alright if you feel no restrictions. However, you are using the term incorrectly, and classifying theology as something it is not.

I’m sorry, but I really don’t accept you as the Final Arbiter of Word Meanings. If anyone is going to take that role, clearly it should be me. If it’ll make you feel any better, I do actually have some credentials in the field of linguistics. I don’t think that should sway you, even a little bit, but you do seem to have an unsettling respect for authority and scholarship.

Anyway, please don’t instruct me in the use of words -- else I will insist on teaching you about how they actually work.

(And yes, that's some serious arrogance -- equal to your sending me off to your favorite references in order to educate myself on oral culture.)

Continued later. Busy, and I haven’t conquered the message-length business yet.

 

[fallingblood]

Clearly he used written sources, and you make a fair argument that he therefore probably used oral ones, but I’m asking about “dependable” oral sources.

So you didn't check out the sources that I provided for you, after you asked for just that. Fine. However, honestly, I don't care what your personal opinion is if you are not willing to do the work and actually do some research (which should not be hard as I provided you the sources).

Further, I believe that anyone who would believe such a thing is most probably slave to the Jesus meme. By this, I mean that if these facts were precisely the same except it was all about some guy name Omar... that no one would believe it for a second. Primitive folk in a primitive culture told stories about a miracle-doing, resurrected actual man? Riiiiight!

Obviously you have not read the stories of various men from the first century and around that time period. There were a variety of people who were believed to be able to do magic. Apollonius of Tyana is a great example. Here is a historic figure that had many similarities to Jesus. So yes, yes is the correct answer to your question.

On a side note, there are still similar stories being told in various cultures. India is a great example (now not all of India, but there are areas that do so).

But Jesus is different. We are enslaved by cultural and religious respect for him.

Nope.

I think you should take seriously what seems serious to you and reject that which doesn’t. Just as everyone else does.

QUOTE: >> Now, for the topic of oral culture. Just because you are not familiar with the idea doesn't mean it isn't true.

You can’t imagine that I might be as educated on these issues as you, can you? After all, I disagree with you.

Anyway, I think you should either support your apparently confused opinions about ‘oral culture’ – with rational argumentation and hard evidence – or else you should give the issue up and drop it.

That’s how it seems to me.

So I should back up what I say with evidence; such as scholarly books and websites? I did that. Multiple times. I can provide the evidence again if you want.

And yes, I can't imagine you are as educated on the matter of oral cultures as I am since you have shown very little to no understanding of it. If you want to show that you should be taken serious, maybe instead of asking for things I have provided, or making arguments that really are neither here nor there, you might want to work on your argument on the subject.

I’m sorry, but I really don’t accept you as the Final Arbiter of Word Meanings. If anyone is going to take that role, clearly it should be me. If it’ll make you feel any better, I do actually have some credentials in the field of linguistics. I don’t think that should sway you, even a little bit, but you do seem to have an unsettling respect for authority and scholarship.

Anyway, please don’t instruct me in the use of words -- else I will insist on teaching you about how they actually work.

(And yes, that's some serious arrogance -- equal to your sending me off to your favorite references in order to educate myself on oral culture.)

Continued later. Busy, and I haven’t conquered the message-length business yet.

[/quote] So no actual arguments? Thats fine. Instead you attack me, and try to dismiss me. Not a very logical choice in trying to debate a subject.

As for me sending you off to references, you asked for evidence. I provided them. Don't complain when you get what you want.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Actually, they continued to write stories about Jesus for centuries after the fact, well after he came to be seen "as sacred." So really your point doesn't work there.

Mostly theology, as I’ve said. And haven’t you yourself claimed that the ‘gist’ of the Jesus Story itself doesn’t change from gospel to gospel?

As for considering him to be an actual historical figure, Paul already did that. And Paul was writing just some 20 years after the fact.

I don’t accept the 20-year figure. My best guess is that there was no man named Jesus who lived in Judea from 0-33AD. Paul did seem to think that Jesus was historical, but his confusion about Jesus can be explained by a much earlier date for the man himself, I think. It’s been a long time since I’ve reviewed that issue, though.

Paul actually mentions that he met the brother of Jesus, placing Jesus in the near past.

And you accept that quick, unembellished claim as irrefutably true? But why?

Are you aware of the internal politics of the church at the time? Have you ever witnessed a modern Christian congregation tear itself apart, with the theological dissenters cast out? It’s all about authority, after all – usually theological authority.

If Paul had actually met the brother of Jesus, it would be a serious feather in his cap of theological authority, I think. He had motive to make a false claim.

That’s just one idea which pops into my head. My point is this: How can you possibly accept as certain truth anything which you read in a 2000-year-old, cobbled together, magic-claiming book? I’m not saying it’s untrue. I’m just wondering about your unquestioning certainty that your favorite parts are true.

The definition of Messiah is important here. We are talking about the Jewish Messiah, as that was the Messiah during that time period. It is not accurate to retroject a later idea, the Christian Messiah, into a time that it did not appear. So yes, there is a problem with your definition.

You should go tell it to the Christians. I’ve got no dog in the fight. Correct them when they claim that Jesus was the messiah promised to the Jews. You’ve got quite a job ahead of you. There are millions and millions of those guys.

But don’t get me wrong. I appreciate a guy making up new terms to explain his theology. As a theologian myself, I’ve done so for years.

I "lectured" you, as you did not seem to understand the subject at hand.

I think you lectured me because you have a confused understanding of the nature of truth – thinking it an objective thing. Thinking that your personal opinion of things precisely matches the exterior reality. Just my opinion. I’ll explain more if you’re interested.

Jesus simply did not fulfill Messianic expectations.

In your personal opinion. Yes, I understand that. You’ve made it clear that you hold such an opinion.

Anyone who reads what the Messianic expectations were (and various sects had different expectations), one can see that Jesus simply did not fulfill them.

It’s hard to believe that you would say such a thing, so easily is it disproven.

I can show you many people who have read all about messianic expectations and have clearly seen that Jesus did indeed fulfill them.

Why should I accept your opinion over theirs? Why would I think of you as the guy who gets to instruct me in what’s true and what’s false?

It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of looking at the evidence, and making a rational observation.

I see. So everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Objectively wrong.

I don’t want to offend you, Blood, but that really is the outlook of a young mind. Paul and others have carried such certainty into old age, but I’m always hopeful that young minds will come to accept ambiguity as they age.

I don't need someone to try to read me over the internet.

You have no choice. When you speak, you throw wide open the windows to your mind.

It’s not fair to accuse me of peepingtomism just because I happen to be standing out in the yard.