Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Why was Jesus killed (Jon) (Pt 1 & 2)

Expand Messages
  • Ian Hutchesson
    ... I have seen no evidence whatsoever to justify this historical jesus crap. Is that categorical enough? ... We all keep talking about Adam and Enoch as well.
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 28, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      >Your behavior confirms a point I made
      >to you weeks ago in a post titled 'reductio ad absurdum' -- To whit, those
      >who claim that all the evidence of an HJ has absolutely no validity will not
      >state so categorically.

      I have seen no evidence whatsoever to justify this historical jesus crap.
      Is that categorical enough?

      >And in every case, you all keep talking about him!

      We all keep talking about Adam and Enoch as well. And Santa Claus, Robin
      Hood, King Arthur, William Tell. You wanna make a serious point?

      >> We should be at the point now of seeing that there is no serious way of
      >> dating the gospels. The early patristic works don't reflect the
      >> information in the gospels.
      >O come off it. I just spent a few minutes today and collected the following
      >sample. No doubt these could be multiplied with more effort and time:

      You should have spent a lot more time and thought about it. You go on to
      cook your books well, reading what you want into the texts and mixing
      dates. You show nothing relevant from Clement indicating textual knowledge.
      Take this little gem:

      >Clement mentions following gospel events: Jesus, Christ, preaching,
      >being sent forth, apostles, resurrection, Word of God, "Kingdom of God is at
      >Hand," preaching in countries and cities.

      Does any of this show any knowledge of a text that you can cite? Or have
      you found things that are also found in the gospels -- whenever they were
      written? You can't say.

      >(3) If then we entreat the Lord to forgive us, we ought also ourselves to
      >(Polycarp to Phil. ch 6, near-contemporary with Clement)


      >(4) beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God "not to lead us into
      >as the Lord has said: "The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak."
      >(ch 7)

      What gospel text does this show? You show assumptions and nothing else.

      >(5) Ignatius (30 CE-100):

      This dating is wrong. Add at least fifteen years, and more likely thirty.

      >Letter to Ephesians:
      >For even Jesus Christ does all things according to the will of the Father,
      >as He Himself declares in a certain place, "I do always those things that
      >please Him." ch 3

      Gospel knowledge? Which was the source? Which was the receiver?

      >(6) For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power that Christ stands
      >in the midst of them, (ch 5)

      Gospel? This is what my two versions say: "Assuredly, if the prayer of one
      or two has such efficacy, how much more that of the bishop and the entire

      >(7) "the Church of the first-born whose names are written in heaven," is a
      >wolf in sheep's clothing, while he presents a mild outward appearance (ch 5)

      I couldn't find this one at all.

      >Ignatius stuff is most impressive because of his as-expected use of John,
      >which jibes with their being in Antioch.

      What exactly am I to be impressed about here?

      >Ian continues:
      >The events in the gospels get no support from the
      >> contemporary literature of the period they are supposed to refer to. The
      >> earliest Christian documents we have are the letters of Paul, which have
      >> been tampered with, and their first known maintainer was Marcion. These
      >> documents deal with a theology quite different from that found in the
      >> gospels, a theology that might be seen to have been emerging at the time
      >> Ignatius but more probably with Justin. It is in the early middle second
      >> century that knowledge of gospel materials is clearly manifested.
      >Ian, is it really plausible that all these Christian zealouts would have
      >restrained themselves from writing about Jesus until *so late* -- and yet,
      >the early letter-writers Ignatius and Clement are already citing Jesus'
      >words and gospel events two generations earlier?

      You have misrepresented both Ignatius and Clement. They don't give any
      evidence of knowing any of the gospel texts. You premise is therefore not
      correct. Where are all those Christian zealots?

      >The explanation for why the Gospels didn't appear within weeks of the
      >Resurrection is also well-accounted for in Papias, as you know.

      Try a more reliable witness. Papias is as trustworthy as Basilides. Both
      got their information second hand, ie not directly from an eye-witness.
      Nevertheless, what are you actually saying here?

      >> How can people seriously waffle on on this subject?
      >Well, well Ian. WHO is waffling on this subject???

      Obviously, you! You have nothing up your sleave on this matter.

      >> >Did Christians invent such accounts entirely from whole cloth? I doubt it.
      >> Talking of "inventing" limits the process too much. The development of
      >> thought and the evolution of stories can be quite complex processes, and
      >> putting it all down to a "simple" act of invention trivialises the process
      >> enough for you to glibly respond "I doubt it."
      >Here, I think you're mistaken, because this a binary logical situation.

      I was talking generically. One is always so willing to take a "take it or
      leave it" approach, when the literature we are trying to understand has a
      wealth of possibilities for how texts grow.

      >A single point is asserted: Caiaphas collaborated. If that is *untrue* then
      >some Christian invented it. The phrase 'from whole cloth' fits.

      Persisting in the notion of "invention" will only keep you in error.

      >But, I will grant you that Christians who repeated the original lie (if it
      >was) may be less culpable than the one(s) who invented the slander.
      >> >Enmity existed between Pharisees and Sadducees after all.
      >> When was this enmity between Pharisees and Sadducees? The nearest thing to
      >> a historical source is Josephus on the matter and he deals with a conflict
      >> that actually manifested itself in the late second century BCE.
      >I was thinking of Josephus too.

      So was I.

      >> The gospels
      >> know sfa about the Sadducees other than one thing Josephus reported: they
      >> didn't accept the resurrection. Was there any enmity between the Pharisees
      >> and Sadducees in the first century CE? Were there sufficient Sadducees in
      >> the first century CE for them to have been a polical force?
      >Okay, I don't know how serious such enmity may still have been. The earlier
      >enmity was ferocious and lethal of course. But the two sects may well have
      >made-up. My studies indicate a serious class division, in that the Pharisees
      >were more popular and Sadducees aristocratic. But who know? Perhaps some S's
      >and P's snuck off and became personal friends and knock down some Fosters
      >together. None of this has much to do with Jesus tho

      Or reality.

      >> >Why should the new
      >> >kid on the block Jesus, not be dislike by its rivals who already harangued
      >> >against each other? Even within Pharisaic Rabbinicism men had passion and
      >> >intense sensitivity about rival ideas. Heresy as a formal concept was
      >> >invented in this period.
      >> If we are talking about a hypothetical first century then, heresy had to
      >> wait another century until the term was coined by Justin. Until then there
      >> was only a notion of sedition or diturbance in the religious community.
      >I was talking about 1st Ce. Rabbinical invention of heresy, not Christian.

      The term itself used as you do is from late second century and is an
      anachronism here.

      >And I was basing my sense of conflict on the New Testament. Also I recall
      >from one of Neusner's books how seriously at odds various early Rabbinical
      >schools were with each other.
      >> >All of this makes it likely that Jesus was in fact
      >> >considered a proto-heretic. Obviously, a schism occurred almost
      >> >immediately.
      >> Have you got any real reason for this?
      >Yes. Obviously the Gospels portray Jesus being rejected by the Jews. Paul's
      >letters indicate mutual rejection with Jews -- Paul rejected fellowship with
      >Judaizers, and he and Christ and all Christians got treatment in kind. I
      >gather you don't dispute the Epistles.

      What happened to the Pauline churches after Paul? You can't really guess
      from the fact that a Clement sent a letter to some Corinthians.

      >Next, early patristic letters such as 1st Clement and Ignatius' confirm and
      >discuss the Pauline-era schisms and the latter mentions 'Judaizers.'

      I don't know what you have in mind for Clement, but Ignatius wrote his
      stuff into the second century

      >Next, the Talmudic statement Jesus 'led Israel astray' in late 2nd cent,
      >which has a high probability of being based on earlier tradition.

      Two or three months earlier?

      >Next, I have the logic of the Shema. Clearly, Jesus was worshipped and
      >referred to as the Son of God.

      You're waffling again. "proto-effing-heretic". You needn't do that sort of

      >[much deleted, about whether Jesus really did /said enough to p*** people
      >off or whether this was later Xian-v-Jews polemic ]
      >Ian concludes:
      >> Polycarp called Marcion "the first-born of Satan" (and no,
      >> Yuri, I didn't make that one up either). If he used that toward Marcion,
      >> what were the Christians using against the Jews? Jesus here reflects the
      >> conflicts that developed between the Christians and the Jews, just as a lot
      >> of gospel material was aimed at dealing with contemporary situations the
      >> Christian community found itself in.
      >You have convinced me that portrayals of squabbles are probably literary
      >rather than historical. That I basically knew. But you have got me
      >questioning how much rejection of Jesus actually occurred in his life, and
      >how much took place post-Resurrection. That distinction is one I've never
      >thought much about. I will keep thinking it over.

      When you have found a way to get information about Jesus and not about his
      followers, let me know.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.