DaveWoo, thank you for putting that more clearly than I did. I didn’t mean to say that Jesus didn’t say anything of value about morality. He just didn’t come to bring new ideas. The things he said had been said by others before.
BUT, he also said (as you mentioned) that he was God, and that he had power over life and death. I don’t think you can separate one from the other. If he was a nut or a liar, then the moral insights he supposedly taught were probably meaningless.
Toecutter,
It’s an interesting time line, but the gospels were written too soon after the events for **that]/b] much legend to have grown up.
Well, you can separate one from the other because the validity of his teachings doesn’t depend on his divinity. We were talking about the circumstances of the vigin birth.
So, a looney guy who says he is the son of god may very well be a great preacher who[bold}believes[/bold} he’s the son of god and predicts that those who follow him will join him in his father’s kingdom. It’s called faith and is different from history or religion. I don’t know of any religious belief that doesn’t involve the supernatural
renee
Unless the Bible is made up of a lot of half-truths, exaggerations, lies, and frenzied ravings, in which case the fourth possibility is: Jesus was just this guy, you know? And it was others who attributed to him his divinity, his quotes, his life’s adventures (his blue eyes, his sandals, his sheep that followed him around).
Sometimes I think his life was much simpler than everyone ever considers:
He’s born, he’s a regular kid. He observes the world, he figures some stuff out. He watches people and how they work against each other, he feels there is some injustice, he gets to be 20 or so, and starts suggesting to people that if everyone was nicer to each other we’d get along just fine. People view him as a troublemaker, trying to upset the system. Jesus carries on with his life, still being outspoken about his ideas, earns a bit of notoriety. Eventually he catches the notice of some influential Romans who target him, suppress him, and kill him.
All divine, miraculous, omniscient, and otherwise attributes claimed of him are not true. All quotes are extrapolations, or even complete fabrications.
Zealots are everywhere, and they need something to believe in.
I say ‘Life of Brian’ has some very clever truths within.
The whole bit was just disinformation cooked up by an enemy (I’d tell you which one if I weren’t so ignorant of history.) of the Romans to make them look bad theologically. . .and also to bolster its own troops through getting across to them that Allah was on their side.
Then people starting writing books about these fictional characters (as authors are wont to do) and the story was soon made into a movie, and well people’ve been lookin’ at the video now for nigh onto 2000 yr. . .'cause their other hero’s’ve never panned out very well. . .and like, how can one live a respectable life without a hero of godlike proportions anyhow? Godzilla didn’t come till later, otherwise he coulda filled the role. . .and, being a reptile (I think), it woulda been easier to believe a parthenogenic birth in his case.
Ray (Adam and Eve coulda told ya all that would come to pass, but ya never asked 'em.)
Guano, I bet you read of the controversy that some think the original Hebrew word used to describe Mary actualy simply meant “young”, and not necessarily “virgin”. I first read of this as a brief aside in Richard Dawkin’s book “The Selfish Gene”.
I started a thread about this a while back, and if the search engine feels like working today…
Hmmm. Well, the engine appears to be working, it’s finding threads that fit my criteria, but it didn’t find the thread I started. Maybe it was usenet that I started the discussion.
Considering that the first Gospel wasn’t written down until at least 40 years after the events described in it allegedly took place, I see no reason to assume both (3.) and (4.) at the same time.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
The only significant evidence about Jesus is found in the Gospels and a few references included in the Acts and Epistles. Nothing worthwhile extrabiblical is known.
Both Matthew and Luke make it quite clear that both Joseph and Mary were quite cognizant of the facts of life, and that Mary was not apt to have gotten pregnant if they had not done the deed. Per those two Gospels, Gabriel had to do a sales pitch to both to convince them of God’s plan.
Parthenogenesis has been documented in humans, with daughters being effectively clones of their mothers. The statistic I recall is one in one million female births (i.e., approximately one in two million births). The children are always female, for obvious reasons. In one case, as noted by FlowerChild, the girl in question was virgo intacta and clearly had not had sexual relations.
It is not impossible that on this one specific occasion a parthenogenetic birth where the X chromosome was not replicated might have occurred. (The Y chromosome has little to do with primary sex characteristics, though it does carry genes for secondary. The X chromosome has genes coding for female, the somatic chromosomes carry genes coding for both but with the preponderance for male. Hence two X outweigh somatic and code for female, somatic outweigh one X and code for male.) This was discussed in a “Comments on Cecil’s Columns” thread a couple of months ago.) As a result, numerous bad jokes have gone around that the H. in Jesus H. Christ stands for haploid.
If one rejects the Gospel stories as accreted legend, Joseph is the obvious person to charge in a paternity suit. And he is the legal father, in any case, by marrying Mary and hence acknowledging Jesus.
Antichristian propaganda of the first and second centuries AD/CE suggest a Roman soldier named Panthera was responsible. Aside from that reference, though, there is no evidence of his ever having existed. It sounds very much like a headline from the Roman Imperial Enquirer, available weekly at the checkout of your friendly neighborhood greengrocer or fishmonger.
Cecil is on record as considering that the time span between the Crucifixion and Mark’s Gospel is not adequate for the complex myth structure surrounding Jesus to have sprung up. David B. is on record as considering the opposite. (I welcome correction.) It’s clear that the whole story is mythical in the strict genre sense, but so were what Churchill, JFK, and FDR accomplished. Their stories reek of being fictional wish-fulfillment fantasies. The only problem is that they are historically documented – and first century historians and gospel-writers were not adequately prescient to comply with the historiographical criteria that would satisfy 20th century skeptics. So: Myth? Yes. Fictional? Take your choice; I believe not.
TaleraRis said:
Well, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of evidence linking Buddhist teaching and the Near East, IIRC none at all (but I’ll accept correction). Even if you don’t accept the Christian view of Jesus, he was clearly a product of his ethnos and time… a first century Jew teaching within the context of the Law and Prophets. His quotations were from the Jewish Bible – what is usually now called the Old Testament outside Jewish circles. He had nothing to say about the four noble truths, the eightfold path, the achievement of nirvana, the ending of the wheel of reincarnation, none of the “core” Buddhist teachings as I understand them. His focus was on the right relationship of God and man, and between man and man, as defined in Jewish thought.
If Muhammed had anything to do with the origins of Christian thought, he is even more remarkable a man than his most vehement advocates would have us believe, since he lived several hundred years after Christianity became a going concern. And no, he was not “roughly the same purpose” – while both were great prophets, Jesus claimed a totally different role, as having in some way identity with God and as dying to draw all men to God. Any Muslim who claimed that Muhammad was in some way identical with Allah or a self-sacrifice to reunite men with Allah would be stoned by loyal Muslims as a blasphemer.
Bricker’s scenario has one fatal flaw: most evidence indicates that Joseph was long gone (presumably dead) by the time Jesus started his ministry.
Guano Lad – entirely plausible. One question: what about people who are documented to have known Jesus and to have lived until well after the first of these myths were set in writing (and may have written some of them). (I can scare up a shopping list if you like, but one quick example: John the beloved disciple, whether or not he was responsible for the fourth gospel and the three letters in the Bible, was known to have lived long enough to convert my namesake in his early teens, and he died at an age of either 86 or about 100 in 168 AD. So he was alve in either 82 or 96 AD, ater at minimum Mark’s gospel and most of the letters, and probably for the vast majority of the N.T. And he was probably the man closest to Jesus (on the testimony of the fourth gospel) and definitely one of the three closest (on the testimony of the Synoptics). I personally think he would have kicked butt and taken names if somebody was spreading false rumors, so whatever was being taught was either truth he could vouch for or stuff that he believed to have happened (the latter as a sop to David’s allegation of misinterpretation). While eyewitness testimony is notoriously not totally accurate, there would seem to be some likelihood that he would quash total fictions before he got around to convincing himself of them. At least some of them. And the entire Jesus story requires a whole lot of suspension of disbelief … while he may have misinterpreted the Resurrection appearances (I don’t think so, but I’ll give the skeptics that for the sake of argument), he was present for miracle after miracle, teaching after teaching. Either J.C. was somebody very special, or there is something drastically wrong with our understanding of first century history and economics, because John, living where he did as long as he certainly did, would certainly have heard about any mythical mystical buildup of the man he loved dearly and whose mother he had taken care of, and would have quashed it in the bud.
Dear Polycarp:
Could you provide documentation for this statement?
“3. Parthenogenesis has been documented in humans, with daughters being effectively clones of their mothers. The statistic I recall is one in one million female births (i.e., approximately one in two million births). The children are always female, for obvious reasons. In one case, as noted by FlowerChild, the girl in question was virgo intacta and clearly had not had sexual relations.”
If I recall my high school biology correctly, parthogenesis has never been observed in any mammalian species.
Polycarp:
7. Cecil is on record as considering that the time span between the Crucifixion and Mark’s Gospel is not adequate for the complex myth structure surrounding Jesus to have sprung up.
What do you(or Cecil, or whatever) mean by the complex myth structure?
If you mean the virgin birth, then I have to point out that the virgin birth isn’t mentioned in Mark. In fact, in the early versions of Mark, neither is the resurrection.
Also the idea of being born of a virgin was pretty much du jour at the time. (Julius Caesar was also alleged to have been born of a virgin) And finally what Christ referred to himself as was not the son of god, but rather the son of man. (Ok, so he doesn’t ever deny his divinity, but remember who wrote the Gospels as well…)
The Jews did not select the official version (the exact pieces of paper or scrolls) of the OT until 300 AD. Some old time Christian
claimed the Jews deliberately picked the scroll that said “maiden” will give birth over the one that gave a term for “Virgin.”
The LXX - Septuagint (?) uses the term “Virgin” and it’s version was already selected as standard by Jesus’ time. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls IIRC, used “Virgin” as well.
Of course, later Jews argued Christians chose that version because of the use of the word, “Virgin” so they were probably both right.
No case of having been able to induce parthenogenesis in mammals has ever been verifiably documented. The New Scientist link at that previous board discussion gives one instance where the weight of probability is on the mother’s claim that the daughter was parthenogenetically conceived. (In passing, one of the species mentioned in the article which does regularly reproduce by parthenogenesis is the “Jesus Christ lizard”! ;)) What I reported is an IIRC which may very well be me perpetrating an Urban Legend.
“Complex myth structure”: Sorry if you didn’t care for the terminological choice. Mark portrays Jesus as “the Son of God” (Mark 1:1) and reports several miracles. What precisely Mark understood by that term is, I suppose, subject to dispute. To the best of my knowledge, all versions of Mark include a very terse mention of the Resurrection, with two or three different endings amplifying this (the canonical version being the longest one given in more than one manuscripts). If you are aware of manuscripts which cut off short of the Resurrection, I’d be interested in knowing about them (as I’m sure would Tom~). “Complex myth structure” was intended to imply the role Mark saw for Jesus, the Marcan miracle stories, and the Resurrection. (N.B.: “Myth” is hereby declared to be a neutral word, not necessarily implying falsity, but simply apparent supernaturality, for purposes of this discussion.)
Alright, I am not exactly uptodate with social mores ion 1st century Judea, but a dozen years ago no one mentioned what exactly were the social mores and appropriate responses wrt to unexpected pregnancies in unmarried young women , but I have a sneaky suspicion that they “an angle came” was not usually accepted. Is their any record of what Mary’s family besides Joseph thought? Did they say “praise G-d” or “yeah right, you and Joseph have been fooling around have’nt you” or “please make up a better story next time”
To me the interesting part of this zombie is the prevalence of people (even Bricker) routinely signing their posts with their (presumably) real first name. Rick, Jeffrey, Renee, etc.
Things must have cozier 'round these parts before I got here in 2001.
