Pre-Easter and Post-Easter Jesus

[Rainbow Mage]

Good questions Oberon. I'd like to know what about those scholars' arguments doesn't make sense.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

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

Gossips calimed that Jesus assumed that he was son of God or he must be hounered as a God, that was due to the probaganda that Jews was attempting to spread then.


Jesus deserved crucification because he was accused of blasphemy
Mat 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

however, we shall not consider that he was crucified according to jews law,they were trying to convince Pilate that he claimed to be son of God or to be hounered as a God

Through Greek methology we can read a similar story of a king who wanted to be God or Hounered as God.

AETOS DIOS

THE AETOS DIOS was a giant, golden eagle which served as Zeus' personal messenger and animal companion. According to some, the eagle was once a mortal king named Periphas, whose virtuous rule was so celebrated that he was came to be honoured like a god. Zeus, in anger, would have smote him with a thunderbolt, but Apollon intervened and, transforming the king into an eagle, set him beside the throne of Zeus. In other accounts, Zeus adopted the eagle as his bird when it first appeared to him before the Titan War as a sign of good omen. The eagle was later sent by Zeus to carry the handsome youth Ganymedes up to heaven to become the cupbearer of the gods.
The bird received a place amongst the stars as the constellation Aquila. Its consort was Lyra, the heavenly vulture.

can we consider Jesus as (Periphas) mortal eagle?

lets take a look at "First Epistle of Clement(the roman)".

"
Chapter XXV.—The phœnix an emblem of our resurrection.

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phœnix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

through understandingthis approach for this methology lets get back to bible
Mat 2:1-10
2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.​

2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.​

2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,​

2:6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.​

2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.​

2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.​

2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.​

2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.​

so, the star may be a symbol for the phoenix , for a simple reason; because star does not fly and hover over the boy.

now let go dirictly to the plot ,

Is the following accurate in your opinion?
It is interesting to note that Barabbas literally means "son of the Father"

in my opinion, Barabbas or Periphas leads to the same meaning, someone who claimed that he is the son of God and he deserve curse from Zeus OR from jewish G-d due to the blasphemy.

anyway , according to Islam far apart from methology, Jesus(Isa PBUH) hadn't claimed that he was the son of God, and he wsan't crucified.

 

[dogsgod]

The only difference between the mythicists and the historical Jesus authors is the necessity by some to assume these various movements and cults they describe have a common founder. That is the only difference between a Crossan and a Price.

 

[Oberon]

The only difference between the mythicists and the historical Jesus authors is the necessity by some to assume these various movements and cults they describe have a common founder. That is the only difference between a Crossan and a Price.

No, it isn't. Because they don't assume. They look at stuff called evidence and judge what most likely happened.
1. Sociological studies of religious movements and sects like the Jesus sect reveal they ARE started by a founder.
2. Unlike with mythic characters, Jesus is placed in a specific time and place close to the time of writing: "This is always the fatal flaw with the "Jesus myth" thesis: the improbability of the toatl invention of a figure who had ppurportedly lived within a generation of the inventers, or the imposition of such an elaborate myth on some minor figure from Galillee."
3. The mythicists like Price get to a mythical Jesus by dismissing all the evidence, as in Price's remark "let me leapfrog the tiresome debate over whether the Testimonium Flavianum is authentic" which, as Crossan points out, "is not an acceptable scholarly comment." Price uses methodologies only when they support his view in, as Bock points out, a "heads I win tails you lose" way in which all evidence supports his view.
4. The early sources all point back to a specific figure, and the later sources are simply built on the earlier ones for various purposes.
5. Paul DOES state that Jesus was historical, that he knew Jesus' brother, and so on, and he was a contemporary of Jesus
6. There is no reason to take the reference in Josephus to James, the brother of Jesus (attested to in Paul and the gospels) as interpolation.
7. Study of gospel genre and content reveals greater similarity with other forms of history in the ancient world than myth

In short, the only way you can explain the evidence we have is to understand Jesus as historical, or to do as Price does and simply use historical methodologies only in ways that suit your purposes (e.g. the hero-archetype as a way of explaining away historicity, while ignoring that the same archetype was used in desribing historical figures).

As for your "unbaised" view which you got not from setting out to find it in the first place but from stuy, again you haven't explained why so many of your sources are not from scholarship. Or why so many arguments have nothing to do with history. For example, you have made claims about historical evidence using US courtrooom procedures as guides, as if this means anything. You make claims about stifling of sholarship by the church, which ignores the fact that most research is done independently of any religious institution (although that doesn't really help you explain why nobody in related fields buys the mythicist hypothesis). And, you distort the views/arguments of the scholars you claim to have read by statements like "The only difference between the mythicists and the historical Jesus authors is the necessity by some to assume..." This isn't indicative of someone "who used to think" as I do but was then convinced by evidence, but of a dogmatic and biased approach to the primary and secondary materials to get a predetermined result.

 

[dogsgod]

Crossan and Price et al fail to show how these different cults and movements they all describe dovetail back to a common founder, the difference is that the Price's can live with it while the Crossan's can't help but grasp at straws in vein attempts to make the connections. If that unknown author of Mark could only have known what he caused when bringing them together by writing his novel.

 

[Oberon]

Crossan and Price et al fail to show how these different cults and movements they all describe dovetail back to a common founder

No, they haven't. It is quite easy to show. The diversity within the first generations wasn't so great that it can't be easily explained by different purposes of the writings, emphasis on different aspects of Jesus' teachings, different understandings as to his nature, etc.

If that unknown author of Mark could only have known what he caused when bringing them together by writing his novel.

Oh I get it. This is back to Mark tying together a variety of different legends and myths into one. Only Mark puts a specific person with a specific background a mere 40 years before the time of writing. Mark may well have been alive at the time Jesus was. To assert that he simply created his gospel out of various sources but had no historical Jesus to work with is to assert that Mark created a new genre, a move of literary genius, which is belied by his literary talent.

Positing a variety of different and varied sources in Mark from different legends and myths and perhaps persons makes it far less possible to explain mark. Over a century of research on orality, and particularly since form-critical scholarship, has more than aptly accounted for marks "string of pearls" literary format. Wrede aptly demonstrated that Mark also had theological purposes which shaped his narrative, and other scholars have built upon that work. With authorial intent, orality, the Jewish background, and the historical Jesus, we can account far better the material in Mark (and the other gospels) than any ridiculous hypothesis put forward by laypersons such as Doherty, R. G. Price, and others of that ilk.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I agree with Oberon

 

[dogsgod]

Price has two PhD's in NT studies but you can downplay that as well, besides it's all part of your MO.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Price has two PhD's in NT studies but you can downplay that as well, besides it's all part of your MO.

If he has two PHDs in NT studies then he knows fully well from attending seminary that the gospels cannot be taken at face value. I think people like Price who learn better at seminary, but continue this cherade of being dishonest with the laypersons are just dispicable.

 

[dogsgod]

I agree with Oberon

A lot of people do and a lot don't believe a single founder for Christianity. I just happen to have read books by these scholars, I know what they say about oral tradition and how the gospel writers drew from scriptures, and they can achieve to establish these different movements that the historical Jesus camp and the mythicists alike describe, but they fail to provide the evidence that connects them. Oberon can do his song and dance but when it gets down to what these connections actually are all he can repeat like a mantra is that Paul knew Jesus' brother. He can interpret three words out of the entire epistles and out of context at that to suit his assumptions but the actual evidence for this is non existent.

 

[dogsgod]

If he has two PHDs in NT studies then he knows fully well from attending seminary that the gospels cannot be taken at face value. I think people like Price who learn better at seminary, but continue this cherade of being dishonest with the laypersons are just dispicable.

You are contradicting yourself. Price does not take the gospels at face value, he's a literary scholar, he dissects these writings and is well trained and skilled enough to analyze them. He doesn't claim to read what isn't there, unlike those that have a need to see a common historical figure behind all these various writings. Price doesn't see one and that's because there isn't enough information to show that there is one single founder behind it all. He's not a pretender, he's not making claims for what is not there.

 

[tomato1236]

Well they make good points, such as, is the post-Easter Jesus more a creation of Christianity then the actual Jesus pre-Easter? I think they raise a good question. The Bible itself gives us reason to raise these questions. I'll use an example. The Gospel of John, the latest of the gospels and not considered synoptic, has Jesus calling himself: word of God, true vine, saviour of the world, son of God, bread of life, etc. Do you think it's likely Jesus spoke of himself this way, or that the late Gospel of John is a Christian reflection onto Jesus?

Honestly I don't know what is the point in doing any Jesus research at all as a skeptic. Either he is what he claimed to be, and there is a God, and Jesus was our savior, etc., or it's untrue and useless. If you're doing the research already with the view that he was a fraud, why do the research at all? There have been a lot of frauds in history. If Jesus was not one, then there has been only one Savior.

 

[Oberon]

Honestly I don't know what is the point in doing any Jesus research at all as a skeptic. Either he is what he claimed to be, and there is a God, and Jesus was our savior, etc., or it's untrue and useless.

So any influential person who isn't the son of god isn't worth studying? Jesus was and is an important figure. One can be interested in him as a historical figure like one can with anyone.

 

[Oberon]

Price has two PhD's in NT studies but you can downplay that as well, besides it's all part of your MO.

Actually he has one PhD in NT studies. And there are thousands of people with PhD's in NT studies and related fields. There is massive amounts of scholarship on the historical Jesus. One guy with a PhD who has never published any academic works supporting his view isn't impressive.

Oberon can do his song and dance but when it gets down to what these connections actually are all he can repeat like a mantra is that Paul knew Jesus' brother. He can interpret three words out of the entire epistles and out of context at that to suit his assumptions but the actual evidence for this is non existent.

James is attested in Josephus, Paul, and Mark/Matthew. It isn't just Paul's epistles. And there is far more in Paul's epistles I use. You are the one who rips quotes out of context to ignore the fact that Paul specifically places Jesus life and death in a particular context by virtue of the execution method. That Paul makes clear Jesus did live and walk on earth. And this is hardly the only evidence we have. I have referred you to lots of scholarship on gospel genre vs. myth. You come back with blogs and websites. I refer you to scholarship on Josephus and I have analyzed the greek (which you can't read) myself for you. You have yet to produce any scholarship on the passage in antiquities about James. In fact, while putting up this whole "I was an objective researcher who discovered that there is no real evidence for Jesus" facade you determine what constitutes evidence based on legal procedures rather than historical methods, because gives you the outcome you wanted in the first place. You talk about my downplaying Price's expertise, but then you use the work of other experts and claim you know where their arguments lead better than they do and you misrepresent their work by claiming the "assume" things they don't assume at all.

And recently, your latest tactic is to ask "will the real jesus please stand up" and make comments about a lack of agreement as to who the historical Jesus was as if experts disagreeing somehow means the whole project is meaningless. No wonder you like Price. He wants to "leapfrog" over parts of the evidence that don't support his view too.

 

[dogsgod]

Actually he has one PhD in NT studies. And there are thousands of people with PhD's in NT studies and related fields. There is massive amounts of scholarship on the historical Jesus. One guy with a PhD who has never published any academic works supporting his view isn't impressive.

He also has a PhD in Systematic Theology, a little research would have revealed that but it's noted that research has never been your strong point.

James is attested in Josephus, Paul, and Mark/Matthew.

Coming from you I'm not surprised that you are completely unaware that Mathew is reliant on Mark for the name of Jesus brother and a lot more. I guess you missed that when pouring over the massive amounts of scholarship on the historical Jesus just like you missed the problems regarding the Jesus references in Josephus.

It isn't just Paul's epistles. And there is far more in Paul's epistles I use.

There's nothing in Paul's epistles nor any other epistles for anyone to use. You just like to pretend.

You are the one who rips quotes out of context to ignore the fact that Paul specifically places Jesus life and death in a particular context by virtue of the execution method.

Have you been visiting the Tektonic site for your lame arguments again? Perhaps you're totally unaware that crucifixion is the means by those under the occupation of Rome were put to death. Paul's Christ was a savior to the people and therefore had to suffer as the people under Roman occupation suffered in that very time. Besides, he was sacrificed by demons in a heavenly realm, if you actually read the epistles you could learn a lot about the beliefs of the early Christians that practiced their religion before the gospels were even written but that would require that you actually understand what it is that you are reading when you're reading it.

That Paul makes clear Jesus did live and walk on earth. And this is hardly the only evidence we have. I have referred you to lots of scholarship on gospel genre vs. myth.

You offer nonsense like what you are spewing right now about Paul making clear that Jesus walked on earth. Paul doesn't make anything clear except that he and the other epistle writers are totally unaware of a Jesus from Galilee.

You come back with blogs and websites. I refer you to scholarship on Josephus and I have analyzed the greek (which you can't read) myself for you.

So you're biased in other languages as well. You make a mockery of scholarship that can go a lot further making a case for an historical Jesus than you ever could. You have no idea where to look evidenced by those dead end leads that you keep prattling on about.

You have yet to produce any scholarship on the passage in antiquities about James.

I have, you've ignored them. You'd rather repeat your mantra that the majority of scholars believe Josephus is God. You've repeated it so much that I'm convinced that you are totally unaware of the problems with both references.

In fact, while putting up this whole "I was an objective researcher who discovered that there is no real evidence for Jesus" facade you determine what constitutes evidence based on legal procedures rather than historical methods,

That's crap and you know it. I mentioned something once about tampered evidence not being admissible in a court of law to make a point about Josephus' Jesus references being tampered with. I read scholarship and none prattle on as you do about how certain it is that Jesus is historical. Crossan admits the limitations and the difficulties, on the other hand you obviously spend far too much time on that Tektonic site, "The hardest-hitting Christian apologetics Web site on the Net" for inspiration.

You talk about my downplaying Price's expertise,

Yes, you do every chance you get, Price and anyone else, you think that it proves your case somehow, but since you can't counter their questions because you don't have a case all you do is demonstrate your bias.

but then you use the work of other experts and claim you know where their arguments lead better than they do and you misrepresent their work by claiming the "assume" things they don't assume at all.

There are very few people I totally agree with if any, I assess information for myself, unlike yourself that enjoys the National Inquirer because you assume everything is real history.

And recently, your latest tactic is to ask "will the real jesus please stand up" and make comments about a lack of agreement as to who the historical Jesus was as if experts disagreeing somehow means the whole project is meaningless. No wonder you like Price. He wants to "leapfrog" over parts of the evidence that don't support his view too.

There you go down playing Price again as if that makes you something. What is this, the third quest for the historical Jesus? Let's hope they have better luck than with the first two quests that went nowhere.

 

[Oberon]

He also has a PhD in Systematic Theology, a little research would have revealed that but it's noted that research has never been your strong point.

Apparently it isn't yours. You said

Price has two PhD's in NT studies but you can downplay that as well, besides it's all part of your MO.

But systematic theology isn't a PhD in NT studies.

Coming from you I'm not surprised that you are completely unaware that Mathew is reliant on Mark for the name of Jesus brother and a lot more.

Why do you think I said "Josephus, Paul, and Mark/Matthew" and not Josephus, Paul, Mark, and Matthew? Because I know that Matthew used Mark. This doesn't mean that the author of matthew was not independently aware that James was Jesus' brother, but it does mean we have no evidence s/he was.

There's nothing in Paul's epistles nor any other epistles for anyone to use. You just like to pretend.

Great response. Now in response I will cite some scholarship, and you can ignore it or quote from a blog.
For Paul and orality in the Jesus tradition-
Holtz, Traugott. (1991). "Paul and the oral Gospel Tradition." in Wansborough, Henry (Ed.) Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. Sheffield Academic Press, pp. 380-393.

On Paul's knowledge of the historical Jesus:

Akenson, Donald Harman. Saint Saul : A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus.
Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000.

On James specifically as the brother of Jesus:

Chilton, Bruce, & Neusner, Jacob. (Eds). (2001). The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and his Mission. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Have you been visiting the Tektonic site for your lame arguments again? Perhaps you're totally unaware that crucifixion is the means by those under the occupation of Rome were put to death.

Are you totally unaware that rome only started to take a direct role in governing israel in the first century? Which pretty much nails down Jesus to a specific time period?

if you actually read the epistles

I've read them all. In the language they were written in, actually.

You offer nonsense like what you are spewing right now about Paul making clear that Jesus walked on earth.

περι του υιου αυτου, του γενομένου εκ σπέρματος Δαυῒδ κατα σάρκα/peri tou hiou autou, tou genomenou ek spermatos David kata sarka/ concerning his son, the one born from the seed of David according to [the] flesh. So he was born in the flesh. And, in fact, born jewish: γενόμενον υπο νόμον/genomenon hypo nomon. And he died. And if Paul thought he never walked on earth, it is especially strange that he ate with his followers: ο Κύριος ᾿Ιησους εν τη νυκτι ᾗ αρεδιδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον.../ho kyrios Iesous en te nukti e aredideto elaben arton.

So despite the fact that Paul isn't interested in the earthly Jesus, isn't writing a gospel, and so forth, it is nonetheless quite clear from his letters he believed Jesus walked on earth. And, of course, that he had a brother.

So you're biased in other languages as well. You make a mockery of scholarship that can go a lot further making a case for an historical Jesus than you ever could.

So far, you haven't cited a single academic work supporting your view.

I have, you've ignored them.

I went over the posts throught threads. You cited nothing. Do you not know what scholarship is? It doesn't mean what you can find online.

You'd rather repeat your mantra that the majority of scholars believe Josephus is God.

They don't.

You've repeated it so much that I'm convinced that you are totally unaware of the problems with both references.

I'm well aware of the debate. Unlike you, I can back my view with both an analysis of the greek and references to scholarship. You have consistently failed to provide anything resembling either for the reference to James in Josephus.

That's crap and you know it. I mentioned something once about tampered evidence not being admissible in a court of law to make a point about Josephus' Jesus references being tampered with.

That and "hearsay." Why on earth bring court procedures into a debate about history? Unless you are unaware of historical methods, and in particular textual critical methods...

I read scholarship and none prattle on as you do about how certain it is that Jesus is historical.

Like what? And by the way, there is still a difference between popular works written by experts intended for the public and scholarship. Don't know if you are aware of this.

Crossan admits the limitations and the difficulties

And yet finds that the evidence that Jesus existed and is historical and that we can know about him is overwhelming, as evidenced by his numerous books both popular and for experts.

, on the other hand you obviously spend far too much time on that Tektonic site,

I have no idea what you are talking about. Unlike you, I don't need the internet to back my views. I've actually read extensively in this area.

Yes, you do every chance you get, Price and anyone else, you think that it proves your case somehow, but since you can't counter their questions because you don't have a case all you do is demonstrate your bias.

1) There are no other experts with degrees in the NT.
2) None of these experts or non-experts have published academic works detailing their views.
3) What questions? I assure you I will have no problem addressing any questions or "problems"the mythicists make-up to get Jesus to the vanishing point.

There are very few people I totally agree with if any, I assess information for myself, unlike yourself that enjoys the National Inquirer because you assume everything is real history.

It isn't simply a matter of not agreeing. You have claimed to have read these scholars, but then claim they assume things they never did. All this simply to further your ability to take bits and pieces from their arguments, while ignoring the rest, to get to the view you had to begin with. Which also explains why you

1) Fail to cite actual scholarship and for the most part experts too, relying on popular works but even more so on blogs and websites
2) Downplay the centuries of work by experts by claiming they are all christian
3) downplay the non-christain and christian experts by claiming they are all too afraid to write what they really think despite widespread publication of anti-christian scholarship and independence from church institution
4) use courts as a basis for understanding history
5) misrepresent the few experts like crossan, mack, funk, etc, you refer to

and so on.

There you go down playing Price again as if that makes you something. What is this, the third quest for the historical Jesus? Let's hope they have better luck than with the first two quests that went nowhere.

They went somewhere. We continue to develop better methods and to know more. As with most of ancient history, of course, we will never be sure of much. But this doesn't mean we should just determine it is all ahistorical. Unless, of course, one doesn't understand the sources, the scholarship, the context, and so on.

 

[tomato1236]

So any influential person who isn't the son of god isn't worth studying? Jesus was and is an important figure. One can be interested in him as a historical figure like one can with anyone.

Well sure, but my point is, if he's not the son of God, he was just some crazy dude.

 

[Pegg]

Scholars seem to believe a distinction should be made between the two. Why would they think that?

because that is what the trinity doctrine dictates.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

------------------------------

Dear Mr. dogsgod

I tried to send you aprivate message but i didn't work.

can you please answer me what is ithe meaning of "parakletos"?

Is it an Aramiac word? and what does it mean according to neutral resources?


this is my ideas about this word

parak | let | os
------ | -------- | -------------
! | cursed | greek suffix


do you have any ideas?

 

[Pegg]

Dear Mr. dogsgod

I tried to send you aprivate message but i didn't work.

can you please answer me what is ithe meaning of "parakletos"?

Is it an Aramiac word? and what does it mean according to neutral resources?


this is my ideas about this word

parak | let | os
------ | -------- | -------------
! | cursed | greek suffix


do you have any ideas?

parakletos is the Greek word for “helper”

Jesus said he would send a parakletos or helper soon after his departure.