who wrote it down?
did jesus write anything down?
he certainly didn’t write a single thing, did he?
who wrote down what Jesus supposedly said?
his followers and his cohorts, Poly
so if his followers, those who account for Jesus’ teachings, are involved in such activites we should question their honesty ion recording his words.
I don’t have a specific problem with this contention–provided one uses the anthropological meaning of the term myth: the stories used by a people to express their understanding of Truth. (And as long as it is not incorrectly overstated to claim that there is no history included.)
And I will also note that there is, indeed, an element of an “end times” perspective among the early Christians. (In fact, that is one of the aspects of Christian literature that is factored into attempts to date various works: the less a work appears to view the return of Jesus as imminent, the less likely it is to be considered an early work. Of course, that does not stop anyone from arguing about any number of perspectives regarding the Eschaton, the dating of Scripture, the makeup of early Christianity, etc.)
On the other hand, I find Lolo’s argument to be just a bit ironic, in that it requires us to accept that a specific event occurred, but that we then must decide that the description was corrupted in a specific way in order to portray the participants in the worst possible light. It is every bit as easy to say simply that Ananias was created for the purpose of the tale as it is to say that he really lived, but that his murder was re-worked to make a special point. Selecting a single incident, rather than actually building a comprehensive scenario that draws on multiple pieces of evidence would appear to be simply a way to raise hackles without actually engaging in serious discussion.
(John John tried this against Judaism a couple of years back, insisting that the story of Moses was true on exactly the points that he needed for his polemic, but that the entire rest of the story was invented. This sort of attack works better–that it, it seems less silly–when the whole of a work is discussed, rather than cherry-picking single events or phrases.)
spoke for the answer try a search. For your first stop you might want to try the infamous “Jesus doesn’t impress me” thread. Go from there.
Ikujinashi that’s an incredibly well-reasoned post. Are you taking pointers, Lolo?
I think you are right that the early Church was definitely an EOTW cult. I question whether Jesus was of that mentality, though. Your main argument is Matthew 24:34. I have always read it with the next sentence in mind: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” So I take the word “generation” referred to in verse 34 to mean his teachings and not to mean individual people.
This was posted while I was composing my last response, otherwise I would have addressed this also.
Actually, nothing is wrong with the logic. In fact, until the Nicene Creeds of about 325 CE, there was much debate among Christians as to whether Christ was God or not. I think he was an enlightened human. He was divine in the same way that all life is divine.
I’ve got some agreement that the early church was watching for an imminent doomsday. While this might upset some people who hold the entire Bible to be the infallibly inspired Word of God (including the epistles and Revelation) I don’t think it does much to refute Christianity’s basic tenets.
The crux of my argument of Jesus is not God was Matthew 24:34. I think Polycarp is suggesting that it is a misquote, maybe a bit of editing on the part of one of the end-of-the-world early Christians. Looking at other accounts of Jesus’ words, Mark 13 sounds like the same sermon, but I couldn’t find a time frame in it. Luke 17 is the closest I could find in that gospel, also without a specific time reference. Is there a passage I’m missing? At any rate, the argument against Matthew 24:34 being verbatim seems pretty strong, I don’t know enough to contest it.
I don’t find Neurotik’s exact explanation quite as convincing. Generation seems like an awfully poor choice of words to describe teachings. However, on rereading to catch the following verse, I saw that the NIV site I’m using as a bible reference had a footnote on generation giving an alternate interpretation as ‘race’. Also, reading more of the passage as context I’m less certain what ‘this generation’ refers to. So maybe I am misinterpreting Matthew as well.
At any rate the premise ‘Jesus thought the world was going to end very soon’ isn’t soundly supported I’ll concede.
If you’ll read even a few of St. Paul’s epistles, you’ll find that he was constantly warning his followers NOT to obsess about the end of the world, and NOT to listen to anybody who proclaimed that the apocalypze was at hand, even (especially!) if they claimed to be speaking on Paul’s behalf.
Indeed, one of Paul’s most famous quotes (any man who will not work shall not eat") was issued precisely because many new Christians, assuming that the end was near, gave up working entirely… and as a result, they were in no position to help support the poor or the missionary work of the Church.
Though Paul certainly did believe that Christ would return soon (he certainly didn’t expect we’d all still be here in the year 2001), he had no illusions about seeing the end himself (he knew he might well be put to death long before that happened… and in fact, he was). And he too great pains to encourage his followers to work diligently on the immediate tasks before them, and to worry about the apocalypse only when it happened.
Well, but if Paul comes out in his letters and warns that people shouldn’t worry about the end of the world, then there must be people who are worried about it.
The evidence presented in this thread seems to suggest:
Some groups of early Christian groups that the end of the world was imminent.
In some of the statements of the gospel, Jesus says things that suggest the world is going to be ending soon.
The world has not yet ended.
Many Christians now interpret the words of Jesus as meaning something different than that the world would end a short time after Jesus’ life.
What this would seem to suggest to me is that Christianity has changed its beliefs and reinterpreted its scriptures over time to adapt to changing circumstances and those matters that concern Christians at the time.
See, that was kinda my point. It depends entirely on your definition of “doomsday cult.” There are people taken, but there are people left–the world isn’t ending, right?
Of course, that’s based on a purely literal reading, too. AFAIC, it could well be oblique prophesy.