Pre-Easter and Post-Easter Jesus

[Rainbow Mage]

I dont know, maybe they like it, maybe they need a job, just because something is ify doesnt mean that it will hold no interest for anyone. At least were in a country that will allow a diversified field of education, for those that want to know more about it.

Top universities teach the Q theory because it makes a lot of sense. It's got nothing to do with money or their job. Even conservative scholars like NT Wright admit that Q is a valid theory.

 

[EverChanging]

I would like to come back and read the rest of this thread later, but yes, I believe the distinction is important. After leaving a very fundamentalist Christianity, I didn't come back to study my religious roots again until around four years ago and have come to new conclusions.

The Christ story most definitely evolved. The writer of the gospel of Mark didn't seem to know about the Virgin birth. In some translations of Mark 3:20-30, Jesus' family, including his mother, doubted him, thinking him mad. Why would a mother who gave a virgin birth think her son was mad rather than divine? Paul never mentioned the Virgin birth.

The four gospel accounts of the resurrection evolve drastically from the earliest gospel (Mark) through the latest (John), becoming more and more extravagant and detailed.

The Christ story continues to evolve with each new generation of people who believe in him, Christians or not (Muslims and the Baha'i faith and others recognize him, too.) The legend grew with time. The post-Eastern Christ of Christianity, resurrected and divine, is a mythic, not historical Christ.

The problem with those of us in the modern West is that we are so caught up in logical thinking because of the enlightenment (and don't get me wrong, logic is vitally important) that religious and non-religious alike are often not able to read a myth and appreciate it for what it is. Instead, they often read it as literal history and either accept it or reject it.

Myths are important for what they are. They are not literal history.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I agree with the poster above me and will add, I agree it's highly unlikely Jesus spoke of himself in such grand terms as the Gospel of John say. The synoptic gospels say Jesus was meek and lowly of heart.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

*Bump

 

[dogsgod]

Do you think it's important to make a distinction between the two? The Pre-Easter Jesus being the man Jesus who taught things and was crucified. The Post-Easter Jesus being the risen Christ or mystic Christ, who Christians believe is divine, saviour of the world, etc. What can differentiating between the two show us?

The pre Easter Jesus calmed the seas, raised the dead, fed the multitudes, healed the blind, walked on water. The post Easter Christ defied death itself and rose up into the heavens where he is now judging people. This story is true, this guy really lived on earth, just ask the experts.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The pre Easter Jesus calmed the seas, raised the dead, fed the multitudes, healed the blind, walked on water. The post Easter Christ defied death itself and rose up into the heavens where he is now judging people. This story is true, this guy really lived on earth, just ask the experts.

Why should we believe that just because the gospels written after the fact tell us so? Furthermore, if Jesus could do miracles it doesn't prove he is what Christians claim, he could have been a mystic really connected to god within.

 

[dogsgod]

Why should we believe that just because the gospels written after the fact tell us so? Furthermore, if Jesus could do miracles it doesn't prove he is what Christians claim, he could have been a mystic really connected to god within.

He could have been a lot of things. I'm just going by what the experts say. Unlike those other mythical heroes, they say this one was real, this one really lived on earth. I know it sounds crazy but who are we to question the biblical scholars that believe this ****?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

He could have been a lot of things. I'm just going by what the experts say. Unlike those other mythical heroes, they say this one was real, this one really lived on earth. I know it sounds crazy but who are we to question the biblical scholars that believe this ****?

Well what if Jesus existed somewhat like the Gospels put forth, but they also can't help be somewhat exaggerated due to their late authorship? Is that not a logical conclusion?

 

[dogsgod]

Well what if Jesus existed somewhat like the Gospels put forth, but they also can't help be somewhat exaggerated due to their late authorship? Is that not a logical conclusion?

Anything's possible. We could apply the same logic to the stories of Hercules or Zoroaster for what it's worth.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Anything's possible. We could apply the same logic to the stories of Hercules or Zoroaster for what it's worth.

Hercules, in my view, was likely a real person whose story was also exaggerated. What about Zoroaster's story is hard to believe? A Bronze Age Iranian claiming to be a prophet of God, not unusual.

 

[dogsgod]

Perhaps they were real people, but what can we know about them?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Perhaps they were real people, but what can we know about them?

Well we can put Jesus into a first century Jewish context, something many so often fail to do, and examine the gospels from that perspective. We have to bear in mind they're not eyewitness accounts, but they can still tell us a lot about Jesus. Placing Jesus into a first century "Jewish" context pretty much allows us to discern what he likely said and what he likely didn't. Borg, Crossan, Ehrman and the like have all written good books about this.

 

[dogsgod]

Well we can put Jesus into a first century Jewish context, something many so often fail to do, and examine the gospels from that perspective. We have to bear in mind they're not eyewitness accounts, but they can still tell us a lot about Jesus. Placing Jesus into a first century "Jewish" context pretty much allows us to discern what he likely said and what he likely didn't. Borg, Crossan, Ehrman and the like have all written good books about this.

Sure, we can do that as long as we ignore all the cynic sage type sayings.

Some historians have noted the similarities between the life and teachings of JesusQ document, the hypothetical common source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke, has strong similarities with the teachings of the Cynics. Scholars on the quest for the historical Jesus, such as Burton L. Mack and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, have argued that 1st century Galilee was a world in which Hellenistic ideas collided with Jewish thought and traditions. The city of Gadara, only a day's walk from Nazareth, was particularly notable as a center of Cynic philosophy, and Mack has described Jesus as a "rather normal Cynic-type figure." For Crossan, Jesus was more like a Cynic sage from an Hellenistic Jewish tradition than either a Christ who would die as a substitute for sinners or a Messiah who wanted to establish an independent Jewish state of Israel. Other scholars doubt that Jesus was deeply influenced by the Cynics, and see the Jewish prophetic tradition as of much greater importance. wiki


So who do we believe?


And why assume the first century, because the gospels say so?

G. R. S. Mead and Ellegard have argued that the Gospel Jesus is a myth based on an earlier historical person described in either the Talmud or Dead Sea Scrolls. wiki

The gospels could have been put together by pulling from a number of sources, various teachings and sayings, anecdotes, traditions, movements, cults, oral traditions, ancient scriptures, they don't necessarily tell us anything about a particular person which is probably why the quest has produced so many different persona's. Albert Schweitzer showed how histories of Jesus had reflected the historians' bias.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

Do you think it's important to make a distinction between the two? The Pre-Easter Jesus being the man Jesus who taught things and was crucified. The Post-Easter Jesus being the risen Christ or mystic Christ, who Christians believe is divine, saviour of the world, etc. What can differentiating between the two show us?

No diference because he was'nt crucified.

 

[Oberon]

So who do we believe?

In any field, experts will disagree on any number of issues. Was Pre-Indo-European a language of the active type? Are grammatical rules represented in the brain, or do they result from less specific cognitive processes (e.g. schematic representation)? How much of who we are is determined by genetics? What is the difference between perception and cognition? How much do humans contribute to climatic changes and is this a problem?

The fact that experts disagree doesn't mean the layperson should just reject the whole field ("indo-european linguists can't seem to decide the exact nature of PIE or Pre-IE, so the whole lanuage likely never existed" isn't a valid conclusion). As a layperson, you really have two options. You can read a lot of the scholarship in the field to make a very informed opinion (and when I say scholarship I don't mean sensationalist books or those written by other laypeople, or blogs, or wikipedia), or you can go with the scholarly majority which makes it more likely you will be correct.

And why assume the first century, because the gospels say so?

Apart from anything else, because Paul, living in the first century, knew Jesus' brother, also living in the first century.

 

[dogsgod]

No diference because he was'nt crucified.

I came across this reference as to how it came to be that Muslims believe Jesus Christ wasn't crucified. Is the following accurate in your opinion?

" It is interesting to note that Barabbas literally means "son of the Father". As we have discussed, "Abba" means Father in Aramaic, and bar means "son of". In fact, the original text of Mark may have called Barabbas "Jesus Barabbas", not simply Barabbas. Thus, the two men on trial were not Jesus and Barabbas, but two men, both known as "Jesus Barabbas". Such a reading is not preserved in any of the extant Gospel texts, but there are several 2nd and 3rd century third-party references to the use of "Jesus Barabbas" in this context, and this is, in part, where the tradition developed which claimed that Jesus wasn't crucified, but instead a different man was crucified in his place. This is something that was expounded upon in later stories and is a belief of Muslims today. It all stems from this story element, where the author of Mark has the freed man named "Barabbas" or "Jesus Barabbas", thus some readers later believed that "Barabbas" was actually "Jesus Christ" and this developed into a rationalization for how someone could seemingly come back to life. The rationale went that Barabbas was actually Jesus and that the man crucified was someone else, and that really the man who people saw after the crucifixion was Barabbas, who was really Jesus all along, etc. The silly thing about all of this is that the entire rationalization is built on a fictional story line in the first place. At any rate, that is the history behind this alternate belief." R. G. Price

 

[dogsgod]

In any field, experts will disagree on any number of issues. Was Pre-Indo-European a language of the active type? Are grammatical rules represented in the brain, or do they result from less specific cognitive processes (e.g. schematic representation)? How much of who we are is determined by genetics? What is the difference between perception and cognition? How much do humans contribute to climatic changes and is this a problem?

The fact that experts disagree doesn't mean the layperson should just reject the whole field ("indo-european linguists can't seem to decide the exact nature of PIE or Pre-IE, so the whole lanuage likely never existed" isn't a valid conclusion). As a layperson, you really have two options. You can read a lot of the scholarship in the field to make a very informed opinion (and when I say scholarship I don't mean sensationalist books or those written by other laypeople, or blogs, or wikipedia), or you can go with the scholarly majority which makes it more likely you will be correct.




Apart from anything else, because Paul, living in the first century, knew Jesus' brother, also living in the first century.

I'm well aware of the traditional view of the gospels thank you. I once believed just as you now believe.

 

[Oberon]

I'm well aware of the traditional view of the gospels thank you.

I'm not talking about the "traditional view." For many issues related to the gospels, there is no consensus. For others, like gospel genre, the consensus is hardly traditional. In fact, to even speak of traditional in relation to scholarship on the gospels and Jesus is either misleading or indicative of a lack of knowledge concerning trends in the field.

The point you have made here and elsewhere, which isn't valid, is that a lack of agreement among experts somehow says something about a lack of ability to know anything about Jesus. My point was that this is simply incorrect. Experts of all fields disagree about many specifics. This doesn't indicate nothing can be known. You can't soundly jump from the observation that experts disagree who Jesus was to the conclusion he didn't exist or that we can't know things about him.

I once believed just as you now believe.

I doubt that. Or at least, I know you don't approach this subject as one looking for the truth or for accuracy. Most of your "research" consists of reading internet sources by non-expert or popular books by non-experts. Of the few experts you have read (Mack, Crossan, Price) you ignore any arguments for historicity and focus on what will reinforce the view you started with. Such methods aren't for someone objectively investigating an issue but for one who has made up his mind and systematically sets out to reinforce whatever view he began with.

 

[dogsgod]

I'm not talking about the "traditional view." For many issues related to the gospels, there is no consensus. For others, like gospel genre, the consensus is hardly traditional. In fact, to even speak of traditional in relation to scholarship on the gospels and Jesus is either misleading or indicative of a lack of knowledge concerning trends in the field.

The point you have made here and elsewhere, which isn't valid, is that a lack of agreement among experts somehow says something about a lack of ability to know anything about Jesus. My point was that this is simply incorrect. Experts of all fields disagree about many specifics. This doesn't indicate nothing can be known. You can't soundly jump from the observation that experts disagree who Jesus was to the conclusion he didn't exist or that we can't know things about him.




I doubt that. Or at least, I know you don't approach this subject as one looking for the truth or for accuracy. Most of your "research" consists of reading internet sources by non-expert or popular books by non-experts. Of the few experts you have read (Mack, Crossan, Price) you ignore any arguments for historicity and focus on what will reinforce the view you started with. Such methods aren't for someone objectively investigating an issue but for one who has made up his mind and systematically sets out to reinforce whatever view he began with.

I began with the beliefs about the historicity of Jesus that you now hold, I don't systematically reinforce the view I began with. As I stated before, I was not convinced by reading Doherty, Price, and Wells, it was reading Crossan, Friedman, Mack, Armstrong, Pagels, Funk and others that believe all this NT theology bottle necks down to one Jesus. They are the ones that have convinced me otherwise. They are extremely informative but I simply don't buy into all the conclusions that they draw from the information they provide.

 

[Oberon]

I began with the beliefs about the historicity of Jesus that you now hold, I don't systematically reinforce the view I began with.

Then why do you spend so much time quoting non-experts rather than experts? Why spend so much time quoting websites and blogs rather than scholarship?

They are the ones that have convinced me otherwise. They are extremely informative but I simply don't buy into all the conclusions that they draw from the information they provide.

So you understand their arguments better than they do?
What about crossan's arguments convinces you Jesus isn't a historical figure? Take Josephus: You've argued, without citing any scholarship, that the shorter reference is inauthentic (although you haven't studied textual criticism, haven't studied ancient texts, and can't read greek), yet Josephus is something that convinces Crossan. And, directly related to this thread, Crossan states "What strikes me most powerfully about Jesus is that- even or especially within the New Testament itself- there is a glaring discrepancy between his first (past) and second (future) coming, between incarnation and apocalype, between the Jesus who announced and lived nonviolent resistance based on the very character of God...and the Jesus who will return and wade through slaughter to that magnificant consummation in Revelation 21."

Your arguments against Paul knowing Jesus' brother don't come from Crossan or Pagels or any other scholarship. Your arguments against the reference to James, the brother of Jesus, in josephus likewise aren't from scholarship. What exactly is it about Mack, Crossan, Funk, etc, all who believe Jesus was historical, which convinced you to "change" your mind ?