Is Jesus unique in any way?

[zev_steinhardt]

*Originally posted by FriendRob *
**And in “Judeo-Christian tradition” there was Honi “the Circle-Drawer”, and Hanina ben Dosa, both of whom were labeled "son of God.

**

Is that from the Christian Bible? There are several references to Choni HaMa’agol and Rabbi Channina ben Dosa in the Talmud, but never referred to in that manner.

**
In our own time, the Rebbi Schneerson was considered to be the Messiah prophesied by scripture. See http://www.rickross.com/reference/ultra-orthodox/ultra23.html for example.

**

It should be noted that only a small percentage of Jews ever considered Rabbi Schneerson to be the messiah. And, in any event, he never publicly proclaimed himself to be such.

Zev Steinhardt

[Just_Ed]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Is quixotic78 unique in any way? **

Um . . . no?

[FriendRob]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zev_steinhardt *
**

*Originally posted by FriendRob *
**And in “Judeo-Christian tradition” there was Honi “the Circle-Drawer”, and Hanina ben Dosa, both of whom were labeled "son of God.

**

Is that from the Christian Bible? There are several references to Choni HaMa’agol and Rabbi Channina ben Dosa in the Talmud, but never referred to in that manner.

**

Hmm, well, I don’t have the reference in front of me, but check out http://freespace.virgin.net/graham.lawrence/chtwo.htm:

One of them, called Honi, was credited with power over the winds and the rain. Another, Hanina ben Dosa, was born about 20 CE in the district of Sepphoris, about ten miles north of the village of Nazareth. He was said to have heard a heavenly voice proclaiming him son of God. He was known as a healer, and it was claimed that on one occasion he healed a sick boy from a distance, without having to go and see him personally. Many of the people speculated whether holy men of that period, including Hanina, were a reincarnation of the prophet Elijah, as it had become popularly expected that he would reappear as the first sign of the coming of the Kingdom of God.

[zev_steinhardt]

I’m sorry, FriendofRob, but your link does not work.

In any event, in Jewish literature, neither person would have ever been referred to as “Son of God.”

There is a famous story of Choni HaMa’agol (Ma’agol means “circle-maker”) who, in a time of drought, drew a circle on the ground and vowed that he would not move from that spot until it rained.

I’m not aware of any Jewish literature describing supernatural events surrounding Rabbi Channinah ben Dosa (who is mentioned numerous times in the Talmud). But, even if he were capable of doing miracles, that would not have made him a “Son of God”.

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

*Originally posted by zev_steinhardt *
**I’m sorry, FriendofRob, but your link does not work.
**

My apologies. I got your name wrong, FriendRob.

Zev Steinhardt

[SeatTime]

(remove colon at end)

link

[jdl]

[QUOTE
Vigin birth? Funny, cause the first thing I thought of when I saw a thread about Jesus not being unique was the virgin birth.

Because what could be less unique? Half a dozen Greek and Roman Gods and Godesses were vigin births. In the ancient world divinity was endowed by virgin birth left and right. Hell, Caesar Augustus was a virgin birth. Everybody who was anybody two thousand years ago was a virgin birth. **[/QUOTE]

Exactly. The idea of the scriptures saying that Jesus was born of a “Virgin” was intended to piss off the Romans. It was a direct challenge to the political order. After all, their own legendary deity-like king, Ceasar, was born of a virgin.

Of course, the Hebrew prophesy wasn’t that the Annointed One [a.k.a. Meshiach (in Hebrew), Chistos (in Greek), King] would be born of a “virgin”, but of a “young woman”. In the Hebrew Bible, there are all sorts of stories about really old ladies giving birth. The prophecy wanted to make clear that the Annointed One would be the product of a non-old woman.

The Hebrew Bible was mistraslated into Greek by Paul et al who wanted to play up this idea of “virgin” birth.

Why? Because the Greeks (and Romans) had all sorts of virgin stories for their own deities. Give the audience what they want - said Paul.

[Fear_Itself]

*Originally posted by arisu *

Like virgin birth, being the son of god was in no way unique in the ancient world. Alexander the Great comes to mind.

I’ll bet this would come as a surprise to Phillip of Macedonia…

[wevets]

Not even assuming biblical inerrancy, wasn’t Jesus the first moral philosopher to have suggested that one should love one’s enemies? (At least, the first we have any record of.) I suppose that would qualify as unique.

I seem to remember this from Michael Hart’s book “The 100.”

[jdl]

*Originally posted by wevets *
**Not even assuming biblical inerrancy, wasn’t Jesus the first moral philosopher to have suggested that one should love one’s enemies? (At least, the first we have any record of.) I suppose that would qualify as unique.
**

On a related subject, on the ABC News special on Jesus, one Jesus scholar pointed out that we’ve all misunderstood what is meant by the following passage:

“I say to you, do not resist evil; if anyone strikes your right cheek, give him your left” [Mt 5.39].

The scholar speculates that Jesus aint saying ‘let people walk all over you’. To understand the true meaning, you have to visualize a master slapping a servant with the back or top) of his hand. That kind of demeaning slap would lead the top of the right hand to hit the servant’s right cheek. Go ahead, visualize it. See what I mean?

BUT The only way for the master to hit the left cheek with his right hand (and that was a right-handed society) would be to slap the cheek with the palm of the hand.

And this would mean that the master would have to treat the servant as an equal.

And that is what Jesus is talking about. He’s not saying ‘take crap from others’, but ‘make others treat you as their equal.’

[panamajack]

*Originally posted by jdl *
The Hebrew Bible was mistraslated into Greek by Paul et al who wanted to play up this idea of “virgin” birth.

Why? Because the Greeks (and Romans) had all sorts of virgin stories for their own deities. Give the audience what they want - said Paul.

Just a minor hijack here – since the glossed “et al” here are the Jewish translators of the Septuagint, and Matthew the gospel-writer. In fact, Paul didn’t translate it at all AFAIK.

Also, the word (Heb. almah), while having a broader meaning, could be translated to virgin (Grk. parthenos) – and it wasn’t just in Isaiah that this occurred. There is and has been plenty of controversy over the applicability of this word, and whether this prophecy was interpreted correctly. This thread probably isn’t the place to get into that, unless that were the only evidence we had.

I just wanted to make it clear that putting the blame on Paul is inappropriate.

[Gr8Kat]

FriendRob, when I first glanced at your name, I read it as FriendofGod. After reading your post, I had to go back and double check the name–I couldn’t believe FoG could have written something like that! LoL

I recently came across an essay written in 1925 by Joseph McCabe, a former RCC monk, on the myths of the virgin birth and the resurrection. Both themes were quite prominent in pagan religions and examination of the earliest Christian literature finds them absent. This essay makes the case that the religion of the crucified rabbi wasn’t catching on like his followers hoped and they began embellishing it with familiar themes from competing religions to make it more appealing to converts. While I recommend everyone read the whole thing, here is an excerpt specifically relating to the Gospel of Mark:

It is not probable that one modern Christian out of one hundred thousand knows that centuries before the time of Christ the nations annually celebrated the death and resurrection of Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Mithra, and other gods.

---

There is a remarkable difference between the evidence for the virgin birth and that for the resurrection. I must here assume that the reader has seen Did Jesus Ever Live? (Little Blue Book No. 1084), in which I discuss the age and respective value, or lack of value, of the various writings of the New Testament. Paul comes first: then Mark (except the last part): and so on. Now the earlier parts know nothing whatever about a miraculous birth of Jesus, but they are quite certain of the resurrection. Unless we deny the genuineness of the whole of the Epistles, which is a desperate venture, Paul was absolutely convinced of the resurrection; and this proves that it was widely believed not many years after the death of Jesus. His insistence in the Epistles shows, of course, that it was disputed. The statement was a piece of folly" and a “stumbling block” to the converts from paganism; precisely because they saw resurrection-celebrations every year. But the belief existed, and Paul was sure of it, within a few years of the crucifixion.

Well, let us examine the story as it is told by the writers of the Gospels. Mark, the oldest Gospel, has the simplest account: that is to say, Mark as you read it in your American bible today. It is the easiest thing in the world to prove that these Gospels have received additions and interpolations. Turn to Matthew xxviii 19: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Not only had Jesus given his disciples exactly the opposite instructions (Matthew x 5-7), but he certainly never baptized, or ordered the baptism of, anybody; and he never taught any cut-and-dried Trinitarian doctrine of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It took the Church three centuries to settle these matters. Even orthodox theologians, in fact, admit that this ending has been flagrantly tacked on to the Gospel of Matthew in the fourth century.

Now the oldest manuscripts of Mark end at v 8 of ch. xvi. The rest of the last chapter is in an entirely different style, and it flatly contradicts what precedes. In v 7 an angel says to the women: “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.” According to the writer of the Gospel as it originally was, the three women told nobody, for they were afraid. So the new writer (v 9) makes Jesus appear in person to one of the women, and she goes to tell the “mourning and weeping” disciples. They refuse to believe; and a second apparition was heard of by them with the same refusal to believe. These clever men had, presumably, seen daily proof for two or three years that Jesus was God, and Mark says that he had foretold his resurrection to them; but they stubbornly refused to believe in his power to come to life again and they timorously thought that the whole business was ended! The entire passage from v 9 onward is preposterous.

But the earlier part is not much better. The three women went early on a Sunday morning to “anoint” the body of (God) with “spices.” How you anoint a body with spices I do not know; or why they waited until two days after the burial. In Judea in April no one would dream of anointing a body two days dead; and Jewish laws permitted them to go after sunset on Saturday. Moreover, they are supposed to know that the tomb is closed with a stone which they cannot move, but they take no man with them, and they idly wonder (v 3) how they can get it done. Then they find “a young man” sitting inside (what one sits on in a tomb is not clear); and, of course, they cannot tell an angel when they see one-and even the word of an angel only frightens them; and we are asked to believe that three gossipy Jewish women-it would be a greater miracle than the resurrection-had these tremendous experiences, and were expressly ordered to tell them, yet went home and told nobody, even that the body of the Lord was missing!

The truth is that the whole final narrative of Mark is a tissue of interpolations and contradictions. Joseph of Arimathea had already (xv 46) had the body properly prepared for burial. Even the officer in charge of the soldiers is made to say, at the cross: “Truly this man was the Son of God.” A likely expression for a Roman officer; but the chief point is that with all these portents all the relatives and followers of Jesus are smitten with grief and confusion. They are supposed to know that the most sublime thing in history has happened under their eyes:

God in human shape has died and released mankind from the curse. Yet they weep copiously, and are “amazed,” “afraid,” and slink off into quiet corners to whisper to each other. It is a most clumsy fabrication. Obviously, some early life of Jesus, in which he was conceived merely as a good man, and was correspondingly mourned, has been crudely tampered with by these later resurrectionists; and, as the first interpolations were not strong enough, more were added. The Church, which the Catholic imagines as “guarding the deposit of revelation” was improving it every half century.

Needless to say, the rest of the Gospels are equally scrutinized and all their inconsistencies are laid bare. If anyone can read this and still find that the Gospels are the 100% unadulterated gospel, they have much greater faith than I.

[Gr8Kat]

Oops, here’s the link again: http://www.primenet.com/~heuvelc/bible/library/myth.htm

[Randy]

*Originally posted by quixotic78 *
**For this discussion to be meaningful, we have to work under the stipulation that the Bible is 100% accurate. **

Hebrews 1
Vs.2 God, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds.
3"…when HE (Jesus) had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For to which of the angels did He (God) ever say:
“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?
8 To the Son He says;
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”
13 To which of the angels has He ever said:
“Sit at My right hand
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?

Now that’s unique.

[Orual]

*Originally posted by Fear Itself *
**

*Originally posted by arisu *

Like virgin birth, being the son of god was in no way unique in the ancient world. Alexander the Great comes to mind.

I’ll bet this would come as a surprise to Phillip of Macedonia… **

Al himself said that he was the son if Zeus-Amon, and was proclaimed to be so by a priest of Amon in Egypt when he went a’conquering. The situation is no different than Jesus saying he was the son of God and his followers proclaiming it.