Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whoever it was, he was more than likely a member of the Essene sect. The writer of John basically paraphrases the War Scroll (Light vs Dark).
We know Buddhists and others from the far east were in Egypt in the 1st and 2nd Centuries BCE, and they had a least some influence on theological thought, in addition to Greek Gnosticism which also influenced the Essenes.
There were Hellenistic Buddhist in modern-day Afghanistan et alia, but in Egypt? It sounds possible, but what's your source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
If you aren't reading a New Testament based entirely on Codex Sinaiticus, then you're basically reading someone else's fantasy, because there are numerous additions from about 800 to 1400 CE.
Are there any accurate translations of Sinaiticus online?
I don't know how you can make a judgment that they "falsely show Jesus doing" what have you. The Gospels and Paul is pretty much all we have close to the era. The few other things (the Didache, the writings of Polycarp, etc) don't really point to a different idea.
Granted many like to do the "I speculate Jesus was really X and that makes more sense to me" but that's just speculation. If it works for someone that's fine I guess, but individual speculation isn't really binding on anyone except the individual. Maybe not even then.
You have sen my posts. You know my arguments. You should know why I think that the gospels were written by Paulinists Christians and not by Jews. It is not speculation, it is based on the internal evidence of the gospels and the comparison of the content with Paul's writing.
Quote:
Also much of what Jesus does in criticism is not really out-of-line to earlier Prophets. The Messianic ideal often contained the idea that the Gentiles will learn from the Jews. Christianity did cause some change by not putting Jews perpetually in the centerpiece of this vision. It still stated Jews were primary in some sense, but not in the sense the Jews are the center of the world and font of wisdom we must learn from. Nor was harsh criticism of Jews something unique to Jesus. Ezekiel was scathing and rather earthy in his criticism of Israel, seeing it as something like a randy donkey at one point. That's because Jews were important. If they were just everyone else you'd talk to them like everyone else, but instead they were still in some sense "family" for Jesus and early Christians.
Of course what Jesus is shown as doing was not totally out of line with the earlier prophets. Paul again and again referred to the OT to suit his argument, not that the Jews should shape up but that they had lost their exclusive right to the promise of abraham and the gentiles (through faith in the messiah) were just as entitled.
The Gospel writers going even further, began to argue that the Jews were excluded from the promise. You don't need to take my word for it. Read it for yourself.
Quote:
Rifts between relational religions are often bigger deals than two religions that have nothing in common. The Muslim world right now is hostile to the Ahmadiyya and Baha'i in a way that's possibly more intense than anything directed at Buddhists or even Hindus. Because A & B are seen as using Muslim prophecies in ways mainstream Islam finds upsetting.
Of course. And that just underpins my point; it is more to do with human schism and disagreements and hostility to other groups than it is with any plan of God's or fulfillment of prophecy.
John 14:6
JESUS ANDSWERED, "I AM THE WAY AND THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE. NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME"
Mark 16:15
GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD AND PREACH THE GOSPEL TO EVERY CREATURE.
Matthew 28: 19-20
GO YE THEREFORE AND TEACH ALL NATIONS... ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU.
Matthew 24:14 AND THIS GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM SHALL BE PREACHED IN ALL THE WORLD FOR A WITNESS TO ALL NATIONS; AND THEN SHALL THE END COME.
We have to keep all this in perspective since the whole idea was to be that only followers of Jesus would rise from the grave, float away on a cloud, pass through pearly gates, walk streets paved with gold, have the creator of the universe prepare a feast before them in the presence of their enemies than after a big supper they could watch all those who disagreed with their belief burn in hell fire and brimstone. That's the way I read the message.
So I gather. However, quoting from a text which is itself the subject of question, proves nothing.
I find the book Saving Paradise by Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker an interesting read. These two women have tried to piece together a picture of the early church.
Among their findings, I find two things rather interesting:
1. The early Christians focused on the birth, the resurrection, and the coexistence of paradise with reality. For at least the first six hundred years, the crucifixion was "buried" as something that had a relatively minor aspect of the Christ's ministry.
I can't say I buy that. The Cross, while originally being a problem in a world where crucifixion was a degrading death for the worst criminals (that was probably why the fish was prefered in the early church), was transformed into a supreme sacrifice and held up from early times as the single most potent symbol of Christianity.
Quote:
2. The NT was written to be anti-Roman in nature. Inasmuch as the Roman Empire was the super-power of the day and could control just about any aspect of daily living, the idea is that the writers of the NT and the leaders of the various churches (and sects) were emphasizing that it was possible to move one's spiritual and physical dependence away from a secular authority to a spiritual authority. Hence, the first Christian churches, according to these women, became more like communes: self-supporting and, yet, able to reach out to the community at large.
What an astonishing idea. It ought to be blindingly obvious that the Gospel (on which the four we now have and some of the others, e. g Peter, were based) was written to show the Graeco -Romans as having more faith, the Jews being anti - Christian hypocrites and did thier best to take the unwelcome fact of a Roman crucifixion and try to blame the Jews for it.
Quote:
Alfred Edersheim, author of the tome The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, wrote that rabbis were highly regarded if miracles could be attributed to them. Edersheim also pointed out that many of the attributed miracles were either made up or exaggerated.
My understanding is that Rabbis were highly regarded if they had a good knowledge of the Law and could expound and argue on it. The miracles were of lesser importance.
Quote:
1. We are faced with a bit of a dilemma. Since we must look at the writings of the gospels in the light of the literary mechanisms used thousands of years ago, it could be very possible that the miracles attributed to Jesus were fabrications. The intent was not to dupe the people but to lend an accepted method of assigning authority to the teachings of a rabbi.
Indeed. Bearing in mind the literary conventions of the time is neccessary. For example, it is accepted that the speech Tacitus put into the mouth of Boudicca was wholly invented by him as reflecting his take on her attitude.
That device is reasonable to use in writing speeces for Jesus, but the point is that such speeches would reflect the Evangelists' 'take' which was a Paulinist, pro - gentile Christian Jesus - is - God take and one pretty hostile to to the Jews. And I argue that this was not how Jesus thought. Mainly because that is not how the Apostles (if Paul is to be trusted) thought.
Quote:
The dilemma appears if we modern people base our faith on the need to believe that Jesus did do miracles. If the argument that he did not and because he did not, then faith in his philosophy is flawed, and we lose whatever faith we have in believing or following his philosophy: then, in my opinion, we have lost a great deal of our own spirituality and possibly humanity.
Partly. It is more the need to believe that the events of the gospels persuade people to believe the Christian claims, whether miracles, teachings, prophecy fullfillment or Jesus' general demeanour. If one doesn't buy that then Faith is indeed on the skids. But I contest that we lose anything other than our spiritual chains by losing faith.
Quote:
Miracles happen every day. They may not be very earth-shattering. They may be as simple as a word from someone that brightens up your day. Only a person reflecting on his/her own life can truly state whether or not a miracle occurred (even if we no longer use or accept the old denotation of the word).
Then one ought to be a little more circumspect about what one applies the term 'miracle' to and even more circumspect about treating them as in some way supporting the claims of the gospels.
Quote:
2. When we take the parables that Jesus used, Edersheim shows that these very same parables were well known by the Jews. Except, Jesus often turned the old parables upside down at the end. The original parables usually ended with God rewarding the faithful for whatever "righteous" actions they took against the non-faithful--or worse yet--all non-Jews. Jesus changed these parables to teach that there are no "chosen people" and "non-chosen people" in the eyes of God.
I should like to see examples of that (perhaps a thread on Parables?) since I see many of the parables as the work of particular evangelists. For example, I see the Good samaritan and the prodigal son as Luke's own work as I fail to see how Matthew and Mark could have forgotten them or thought they were not worth repeating.
Quote:
One of the reasons that acceptance of non-Jews was extremely difficult to swallow was, of course, the "brainwashing" of Jewish theology (termed Rabbinism) upon the masses. In contrast to a "heaven-hell" dichotomy of most modern Christian congregations or organizations, the Jews simply had a City of God. All Jews were admitted into the City of God, which would eventually descend to Earth in the last days. Of course, God would divide the Jews up into different classes, with the most righteous being closest to Its Holy of Holies, and the lesser righteous closer to the walls. Birth and occupation often divided the Jews (by the church hierarchy) into classes, a kind of predestination, if you will. I mean, if you were a butcher, your "heavenly" reward would put you right up against the walls.
The term 'brainwashing' aside, I agree. If one already has a faith and a faith ingrained in everyday life as is Jewish law and tradition, it is very hard to give it up for another faith.
Quote:
The non-Jews would be relegated to exist outside the walls of the City of God. This was not a damnation, just a denial to enjoy the fruits of God. Then, Jews would be able to stand on the walls of the City of God and laugh at the hapless non-Jews for their plight.
Hell, in Jewish philosophy was not eternal in the aspect of eternal torment. It was eternal in the fact that it was total annihilation. There was no more soul to endure torment: there was just no more soul.
In effect, Jesus sought to tear down this Jewish (or Rabbinic) concept of this City of God. He ripped down the walls that separated the Jews from the non-Jews, and that did not sit well with the church hierarchy.
Do you mean the Jewish heirarchy?So far as I can see what Jesus is shown as doing is ripping down the walls that excluded Gentiles from the jewish god and saying that the faith of gentiles entitlesdthem to be saved, as well as hinting that the lack of faith of the Jews would put them outside the walls. The Church would have no problem with that. If Jews converted they were welcome. if not, they could burn.
Quote:
It is also interesting to read St. Augustine's City of God, albeit a very long and often rambling treatise. After digesting his work, I can agree wtih one assessment that the title of his work was an apology (defense) against the Rabbinic view of the City of God and promoted a more ecclesiastic view of the City of God where all people are saved and brought into the presence of God, regardless of nationality.
If we look deeply enough into the gospels, perhaps an easy explanation for minor differences in the telling of Jesus' work, parables, and miracles, is not necessarily the target audience (although that is a factor) but more likely the authors' differing literary approaches to eliciting an emotional, spiritual, and cognitive understanding of this radical philosophy of all people being equal in the sight of God and classless in structure and form.
An easy explation is just a theory, as they say. We have to go further and look at the evidence. And that evidence shows that you are right. The authors had differing literary approaches to elicit "an emotional, spiritual, and cognitive understanding of this radical philosophy of all people being equal in the sight of God"
But it's more than that. They had an agenda. A Christian, paulinist agenda. It was the same one but they all carried it out in their own way. That is why the gospels all differ (and contradict) when compared.
You have seen my posts. You know my arguments. You should know why I think that the gospels were written by Paulinists Christians and not by Jews. It is not speculation, it is based on the internal evidence of the gospels and the comparison of the content with Paul's writing.
I find them interesting, but not really convincing or persuasive. Certainly not inevitable. They are still ultimately "one guy's idea on reading the New Testament."
That the three synoptic Gospels are going off a common source seems pretty common and I'm not sure I object to it as such. However I don't see why that source would be Pauline. The Hebrew or Ebionite Christians are said to have accepted a version of Matthew, which doesn't seem to make sense to me if Matthew is Pauline as the Ebionites were in some ways in opposition to Pauline tendencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Of course what Jesus is shown as doing was not totally out of line with the earlier prophets. Paul again and again referred to the OT to suit his argument, not that the Jews should shape up but that they had lost their exclusive right to the promise of abraham and the gentiles (through faith in the messiah) were just as entitled.
That is a bit of a break with Judaism, but I'm not sure it means mention of it in the Gospels is a sign of Pauline influence. To me any Messiah worthy of worship would probably not place one ethnic group in an unusually exalted posited. From a secular perspective Messianic movements becoming ethnically universal is not unusual.
All that said Paul does at times indicate the Jews are and remain special. The eventual conversion of Jews remained important. As hostile as Christians got to Jews wiping them out altogether was therefore never a possibility for Christians. Christians had to switch to racial and nationalistic concepts before that was possible for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The Gospel writers going even further, began to argue that the Jews were excluded from the promise. You don't need to take my word for it. Read it for yourself.
I have read the Gospels. If you want to interpret it that way I suppose you can, but it doesn't really make any sense to do so. Even the thing about "Our children and children's children" is possibly literal as certain books in the Old Testament speak of Jews being punished for 2-3 generations for some transgression. So that "curse" would have ended sometime in the second century at latest. Even then it clearly didn't mean all Jews as Simon the Cyrene's kids presumably became Christians and Joseph of Arimathea was in the Sanhedrin or something. Christians sometimes liked to spread legends about leading Jews like Gamaliel converting even though he probably didn't.
Movements, like Marcionism, that rejected the Old Testament or any connection to Judaism were condemned. The Nazis tried to revive Marcionism to some degree, but they kind-of got bored with that as most of them were fairly nominal in their Christianity and others hostile to Christianity. Also they didn't see the effort as politically successful. (Himmler was occultic/Hindu in pre-occupations, Bormann reportedly deemed Christianity irreconcilable to Christianity, Hess was interested in Anthrosophy, Rosenberg was influenced by some kind of Neo-Paganism, etc)
You assume man is in control of the content of Scripture. I believe God is in control.
Believe what you will...there's no way to prove that anything happens after a person truly dies. Anybody who's died never showed any sign of life again. There's no way I'll ever believe the new testament...I read it at least ten times over a period of nearly forty years while I was active in the church and tried to believe it the entire time. When I was in my late twenties and thirties I had most of the new testament committed to memory...chapter and verse.
If a person flatlines for more than a few minutes permanent brain damage is to be endured. The idea that someone was hung on a tree, bled like a hog over a period of hours, spent two nights in a tomb before rising again is not just false...it's ludicrous.
I don't believe in miracles and I don't believe in ghosts from the past. I'm agnostic...I don't know and you don't either.
Last edited by Melvin.George; 06-04-2010 at 06:06 AM..
14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.")
Yes. I am convinced of it. The whole this is part of a long sermon delivered to the Jews after the healing of a blind man. None of the other gospel - writers even hint at this. As John never hints at any of the parables, the synoptic gospel - writers never hint at those long but theologically very significant, sermons. I think they were the work of the Evangelists themselves and Jesus never spoke them.
The words are a prediction after the event, foretelling the calling of the gentiles (the 'other' sheep) written by someone who was one of those gentile sheep and I am forced to suppose, thought it was quite correct to have Jesus speaking the 'Truth' whether he actually said it or not.
Originally Posted by Fred314X Surviving disciples suddenly found themselves without the requisite Jewish audiences for their teachings. Apparently, the possibility of not preaching any more wasn't much of an option; they continued to do what they'd been doing, but to an audience that knew and cared nothing about Judaism. Voila...the foundation of Christianity. And once that happened, there was no chance of the originally intended audience ever coming on board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's a good assessment. During the Jewish Wars 66-70 CE, most of the Christians, and that would be Jewish mostly Greek-speaking Christians fled Galilee, Samaria, Idumea, and Judea to Pella and other areas on the Aegean Sea. Paul ends up going there, and because of the similarities between Gnosticism and Mithrianism, he gets a lot of Gentile Greek converts.
I think that's on the right lines. However, Paul got his particular mission in Antioch and it was he who took the message to the Gentiles, because he was born in a Gentile community in Asia minor. I don't believe that the apostles themselves ever intended to preach to the Gentiles or commissionned Paul to do that - it was entirely his own idea and was constantly trying to sell the idea of extending salvation for the gentiles to the apostles.
After the Jewish war I would guess that Paul, Peter, most of the apostles and the Jerusalem church were all gone. There was a free field for Gentile Christianity. The Paulinists in greece and Rome and the Gnostic - dualists in Alexandria.
I'm posting a lot on this, partly because I'm answring posts but mainly because I think that understanding the way in which Christianity got started and the way the Gospels got written is absolutelly basic to any approach to the validity of the Christian claims and the understanding that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not Jews, or not what we would call observing Jews.
P.s. This, rather than First cause, Evolution or Pol Pot was an atheist, is the real meat of the matter.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-04-2010 at 05:47 AM..
Reason: P. s There's always a Ps...
Whoever it was, he was more than likely a member of the Essene sect. The writer of John basically paraphrases the War Scroll (Light vs Dark).
That's interesting. You know, I'm not so sure that the identification of the Qumran community with the Essenes is so cut and dried. I have often wondered whether the Qumran lot might not have been Nazorenes. It's true that Josephus doesn't refer to them as one of the 'Schools' of Jewish thought, but we have mention of the Ebionites and I believe Nazorenes too, and I think the church fathers hint at links between the followers of John and the Jewish followers of Jesus. They might have all been generally rounded up in the Pharisee ambit so Josephus wouldn't mention them separately.
Quote:
We know Buddhists and others from the far east were in Egypt in the 1st and 2nd Centuries BCE, and they had a least some influence on theological thought, in addition to Greek Gnosticism which also influenced the Essenes.
Yes, I'd like to see the support for that interesting idea. It's not impossible as indians traded in the Roman world and a Roman lamp turned up in Dvaravati Thailand. But I never heard that they had a literary or religious input into Alexandria (which is what we are talking about in Roman Egypt)
Quote:
You don't seem to be very familiar with John. You might want to read (B. M. Metzger's summary: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the Pericope of the Adulteress is overwhelming).
More embarrassingly, in some texts, the Pericope of the Adulteress occurs at John 21, while in other texts, it occurs at either Luke 21 or Luke 25.
For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, this is the story:
Pseudo-John 7:53 And each one departed to his own house. 8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 8:2 Early in the morning he came to the temple courts again. All the people came to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. 8:3 The experts in the law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught committing adultery. They made her stand in front of them 8:4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 8:5 In the law Moses commanded us to stone to death such women. What then do you say?” 8:6 (Now they were asking this in an attempt to trap him, so that they could bring charges against him.) Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground with his finger. 8:7 When they persisted in asking him, he stood up straight and replied, “Whoever among you is guiltless may be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8:8 Then he bent over again and wrote on the ground.
Pseudo-John 8:9 Now when they heard this, they began to drift away one at a time, starting with the older ones, until Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 8:10 Jesus stood up straight and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 8:11 She replied, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”
I have argued in the past that this was an insertion to justify the adulterous affairs (including bisexual and homosexual affairs) and rapes committed by many of the popes (one pope in particular used to rape women on the streets in front of horrified on-lookers).
The Pericope comes from Document E14 (or, um, "witness" if you prefer) circa 1400 (just before the Reformation).
Codex Sinaiticus (circa 350 CE) is the only complete version of the New Testament, and there's huge conflicts between it and other Codices.
If you aren't reading a New Testament based entirely on Codex Sinaiticus, then you're basically reading someone else's fantasy, because there are numerous additions from about 800 to 1400 CE.
Yes. This tends to knock on the head the idea of Inerracy or Word of God and revert it more to 'inspired by'. That said, it's not unlikely that it it like Luke's haul of fish. Perhaps a tale that was picked up and added in one or another place in the gospel. That in itself doesn't make it untrue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
