Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Yes, you know the Romans and their strict observance of Passover.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Quest for the historical Jesus
- Thread starter steeltoes
- Start date
Yes, you know the Romans and their strict observance of Passover.
***Mod Post***
Thread closed for staff review.
Thread closed for staff review.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
MOD POST
Several posts have been deleted as Violations of Rules 1 and 11, and as replies to those violations.
Please keep these rules in mind when posting and refrain from responding to post you may think violate the rules.
Several posts have been deleted as Violations of Rules 1 and 11, and as replies to those violations.
Please keep these rules in mind when posting and refrain from responding to post you may think violate the rules.
OK, I stated 67CE in that post you refer to but if you're stuck on 70CE that's fine.
outhouse
Atheistically
Heres one article ive tried to digest on several occasions. Its not the only source.
Jesus' Last Passover Meal
Don't know if that was intentionally funny, but it was funny: Circa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thankfully, though, we have more far than 5,000 essays (not to mention countless volumes) already produced going back about 2 centuries, including a back-and-forth over the various incarnations of mythicist arguments (and, if memory serves, a nice parody of one which used the same arguments to show that Napolean, still living then, didn't exist).
1) They weren't books, but a form of ancient historiography.
2) The vast majority of literary works are lost to us, especially the kind that the gospels would fit into (similar in approach to various Lives, but without the literary abilities of Plutarch, Philostratus, etc.). Instead, the gospels are the most documented (both in terms of ancient copies/textual witnesses and indirect witness through quotes) of any ancient works ever.
3) Pseudepigrapha was a more common technique than simply not attaching a name, but it's not that different. And it was extremely common for works to be accepted as written by Plato, Euripides, Socrates, Aristotle, Clement, even the gospel "authors" later on, all the time. It's just that classicists and early christian scholars (among others) have diligently studied these and sorted out what is likely to be by the original authors, and what is likely not. I don't see the big difference between numerous works thought to be by the same authors but which were actually by different hands, and works by different authors thought to be different.
4) Also, they are different. They aren't just different additions. In fact, there is so much different between them that for over 100 years the reigning hypothesis has been to posit an independent source which Matthew and Luke were based upon as well as Mark.
5) Dependency on works, cited or not, goes back to the origins of Greco-Roman historiography. Herodotus relies on Homer, which really means he relies on a corpus of epics/myths of unknown origin. But this is not made any more explicity than Matthew and Luke's use of Mark.
Only this ignores all three, as well as the relationship between historical works which likely existed (as well as did) based upon indirect quotations, or descriptions of the same individual by different authors which seem to have depended upon one another. This isn't just true for big events or important people either. Our evidence for the druids comes from multiple hands, but the best guess is that almost all relied on Caesar, who wasn't accurately portraying them.
John does count. So does Thomas. They are usually regarded as less reliable, but seeing as e.g., The Life of Apollonius of Tyana was composed at least as long after the death of the man himself as John (and also contains magic and fantastic stories), and similar Lives were seperated by even greater lengths of time, independent attestation for the existence of Jesus matters even if we can't trust much of the content (or all).
1) He was writing to people who were already Christians. Why would he need to write about Jesus' life, especially since it was mainly unimportant to him, apart from the few details we get (that he was born of women, how he died, etc.).
2) Paul knew Jesus' brother personally, and tells us this.
3) Paul does cite Jesus' teachings at least once quite directly, and probably indirectly a few times.
Jesus wasn't a "hero". Heroes were great warriors like Achilles (whom some historians argue is named in our Hittite texts) or divine emperors like Alexander. Not a messiah who failed to do what one "anointed" while Israel was ruled by a foreign power was supposed to.
outhouse
Atheistically
I think he was on many levels. We would ruin the beauty of the gospels to say he wasnt. This alone adds to his historicity. He was a poor oppressed hard working Jewish mans hero fighting against the poverty and corruption they suffered under.
In my eyes he was standing up for the poor oppressed peasants, mouthing off to the corrupt authorities in the temple, of which extent is unknown, but a certain amount of violence is a high probability. The reason is, money or the lack of due to the Roman oppression and corruption of the sect running the temple/treasury.
This was in front of a multitude of people, enough so, it generated enough oral tradition to be spread all through Israel and the Roman empire, long before Paul took it to the road.
What did Paul know of a Jesus of Nazareth?
outhouse
Atheistically
Paul only knew the theology and mythology that spread for over a decade after this passover event.
He learned the most hunting them down and persecuting them. Killing them in my opinion.
My opinion here, take with a grain of salt, or two. Ill run a little deep here
There is only one way Christianity could have spread so fast.
Knowing headhunters were paid to eliminate the leaders of this early movement. States a few things, there would have been more then just Paul doing the hunting. For someone to pay headhunters to seek out and destroy this sect, someone or some government was afraid of the possibilities at hand.
This means the sect was already a decent size, and it caused fear to those in power.
Second. The rift between Judaism and this sect had formed before Jesus/Yehoshua was even alive. This Hellenistic sect had formed from Gate Proselytes and God-Fearers who in my opinon were already looked down upon by the Religious elite of Judaism. This sect had worshipped Judaism for centuries in synagogues and probably viewed themselves as a sect of Jews, despite real Jews looking down on these outsiders who had dug in and latched on to their one powerful monotheistic God.
So you have a event witnessed at passover with thousands in attendance, by E.P. Sanders accounts, 400,000 ish, and this martyred man would have been the talk of the event. these attendants who were Jewish and Gentile, Gate Proselytes and God fearers came from all over the Roman empire and beyond, each having the possibility of taking back the legend of this martyred man sticking up for the poor hard working oppressed people of Israel.
These highly illiterate people lived within a oral culture, and oral tradition began instantly. Enough so we have a man we know as Paul who has to hunt down leaders for years before converting and taking his version of the oral tradition on the road some 15 ish years after Jesus/Yehoshuas death.
So Paul only knew what he had heard and learned, living so close in time to the actual event, but geographically was removed from the actual history.
The gospels really only deal with the last week of his life and death, becasue that is all these passover attendants, "therapeutae" in Greek, knew. Not to be confused with Philos described sect.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Paul helped to spread this movement, but he is not the originating reason it spread. Afterall it was Jesus/Yehoshuas show.
When he took his own theology to the road, he found people already following this movement and guided and taught them.
The movement was very widspread and diverse, as was Judaism at this time. Paul wanted his theology taken seriously so he took his message to places with large populatons and spread his theology within a already working movement even if in its infancy.
Often Paul is seen as taking this movement and starting it from scratch in different places its not the case in my opinion. Im sure he took in who ever would listen on his journey, but a impossibility alone to start the whole hellenistic gentile Roman population throughout the empire?
When he took his own theology to the road, he found people already following this movement and guided and taught them.
The movement was very widspread and diverse, as was Judaism at this time. Paul wanted his theology taken seriously so he took his message to places with large populatons and spread his theology within a already working movement even if in its infancy.
Often Paul is seen as taking this movement and starting it from scratch in different places its not the case in my opinion. Im sure he took in who ever would listen on his journey, but a impossibility alone to start the whole hellenistic gentile Roman population throughout the empire?
F0uad
Well-Known Member
I don't belief Paul was a front runner there were already Hellenistic sects out there. Paul looks more like a priest with influences who opposed the Council of Jerusalem and had influenced people in Palestine, Syria and so forth enhance the Gospels.
outhouse
Atheistically
Yes, would you like to describe them?
Paul flat states he took his message to Gate Proselytes and God Fearers as well as Gentiles, he was converting Pagans and Jews as well.
Historians know about these different sects that appealed to the movement.
Paul lived before the gospels existed on papyrus.
Paul was a influential teacher, and did take his version to those that would listen.
In general it sounds like you agree.
F0uad
Well-Known Member
Yup we do, as for the sects i don't exactly there names but i heard about some individual who were really the front runners of those sects.
I am curious do you maybe know of more sects? James, John and Peter were members of the Council of Jerusalem right?
So you are claiming that Mark was written circa 67CE but "the gospel story was almost unheard of until the second half of the second century"?
OK, I've now read it twice and still do not understand why. What did you find compelling and worth sharing?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Hi, Legion. I'm going to be move quickly through your points, mostly for our audience since you and I have already hammered on most of them.
More proof that the gospels were not history but rather theology dressed up with historical tidbits.
Why not address the language tracking issue? The more you avoid it, the more I come to believe that it is irrefutable evidence of Jesus' non-historicity.
Now imagine that scenario happening 2000 years ago. If you want to believe there is historicity in such a story, well... thats what you want to believe.
If you say otherwise, I'm sorry but I believe that you just don't know human nature.
We see things differently.
Anyway, since Mark wrote late in the century, how could he make Jesus into a military hero who defeated the Romans? He had to use what he had. So he made a son of God who cursed the secular power, was crushed by that power, but will rise again to rule one day, meanwhile ruling us all spiritually.
Mark was a genius, I think, although he probably didn't know it.
Yes, but my essay is evidenced, unbiased, rational and watertight. I can't be responsible for all the weak thinkers and writers out there. (In other words, arguments from authority fall on my deaf ears.)
More proof that Jesus Realers are intimidated by the arguments against Jesus. Why else make fun of nonhistorical positions rather than addressing them with rational evidence and argument?
So you claim. I claim that Mark, the best and only info we have about Jesus, was not only written 40-50 years after the supposed Jesus by a man who never knew Jesus, and probably didn't know anyone who knew Jesus, but it was probably written as fiction -- by which I mean that the writer probably knew that he was not writing about a physical man.
Yeah, I doubt the gospels of Joseph Smith will ever be lost to the world either. People tend to fuss over such material in an obsessive way, unlike they do with secular works.
More proof that the gospels were not history but rather theology dressed up with historical tidbits.
Irrelevant to anything I've said, at least so far as I can figure. Why not actually address the issue of the language tracking? I labeled it as Point#1. Shouldn't you be willing to address it?
Language tracking. Why not take a shot at explaining it away?
Do you recognize any difference between being inspired by a story -- and therefore writing a similar story -- vs. actually copying parts of a story -- and thereby writing a similar story?
Why not address the language tracking issue? The more you avoid it, the more I come to believe that it is irrefutable evidence of Jesus' non-historicity.
So if I write a story right now about a guy who supposedly lived in 1932, you'll accept that my story is historical? Even though there is no secular record of this man? Even if I claim the guy could do miraculous stuff like walking on water and even rising from the dead? You would accept my story as historically true?
Now imagine that scenario happening 2000 years ago. If you want to believe there is historicity in such a story, well... thats what you want to believe.
Paul was the original Jesus nut. If he'd known about Jesus' life, no one could have stopped him from going on and on and on about every detail.
If you say otherwise, I'm sorry but I believe that you just don't know human nature.
This is the one and only bit of evidence for an historical Jesus, in my view, but I haven't examined it closely. With so much evidence against the man, I just haven't felt compelled to study this one piece of counter-evidence. My best guess is a Christian scribe added it. Second guess is a misunderstanding of the word 'brother' as being a physical, blood-related person.
He may have been citing Q for all we know, yes? If he knew of Jesus second-hand, why didn't he go on and on about many of Jesus' teachings? Why only once?
So a son of God walking among men, doing miracles and rising from the dead... that's not a hero in your view?
We see things differently.
Anyway, since Mark wrote late in the century, how could he make Jesus into a military hero who defeated the Romans? He had to use what he had. So he made a son of God who cursed the secular power, was crushed by that power, but will rise again to rule one day, meanwhile ruling us all spiritually.
Mark was a genius, I think, although he probably didn't know it.
outhouse
Atheistically
Because it deals with a limited amount of cultural anthropology of first century traditions in Judaism.
Much more important then trying to recreate a historical events using Hellenistic mythology.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
So you disagree that Paul met some of the disciples in Jerusalem shortly after 30 CE?
Perhaps, but what is it's relevance to the question of historicity?