Re: Why was Jesus killed (Jon) (Pt 1 & 2)
>Your behavior confirms a point I madeI have seen no evidence whatsoever to justify this historical jesus crap.
>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.
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 ofYou should have spent a lot more time and thought about it. You go on to
>> 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:
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,Does any of this show any knowledge of a text that you can cite? Or have
>being sent forth, apostles, resurrection, Word of God, "Kingdom of God is at
>Hand," preaching in countries and cities.
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 toSocrates?
>(Polycarp to Phil. ch 6, near-contemporary with Clement)
>(4) beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God "not to lead us intoWhat gospel text does this show? You show assumptions and nothing else.
>as the Lord has said: "The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak."
>(5) Ignatius (30 CE-100):This dating is wrong. Add at least fifteen years, and more likely thirty.
>Letter to Ephesians:Gospel knowledge? Which was the source? Which was the receiver?
>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
>(6) For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power that Christ standsGospel? This is what my two versions say: "Assuredly, if the prayer of one
>in the midst of them, (ch 5)
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 aI couldn't find this one at all.
>wolf in sheep's clothing, while he presents a mild outward appearance (ch 5)
>Ignatius stuff is most impressive because of his as-expected use of John,What exactly am I to be impressed about here?
>which jibes with their being in Antioch.
>Ian continues:You have misrepresented both Ignatius and Clement. They don't give any
>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?
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 theTry a more reliable witness. Papias is as trustworthy as Basilides. Both
>Resurrection is also well-accounted for in Papias, as you know.
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?Obviously, you! You have nothing up your sleave on this matter.
>Well, well Ian. WHO is waffling on this subject???
>Jon:I was talking generically. One is always so willing to take a "take it or
>> >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.
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* thenPersisting in the notion of "invention" will only keep you in error.
>some Christian invented it. The phrase 'from whole cloth' fits.
>But, I will grant you that Christians who repeated the original lie (if itSo was I.
>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.
>> The gospelsOr reality.
>> 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
>> >Why should the newThe term itself used as you do is from late second century and is an
>> >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.
>And I was basing my sense of conflict on the New Testament. Also I recallWhat happened to the Pauline churches after Paul? You can't really guess
>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
>> 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.
from the fact that a Clement sent a letter to some Corinthians.
>Next, early patristic letters such as 1st Clement and Ignatius' confirm andI don't know what you have in mind for Clement, but Ignatius wrote his
>discuss the Pauline-era schisms and the latter mentions 'Judaizers.'
stuff into the second century
>Next, the Talmudic statement Jesus 'led Israel astray' in late 2nd cent,Two or three months earlier?
>which has a high probability of being based on earlier tradition.
>Next, I have the logic of the Shema. Clearly, Jesus was worshipped andYou're waffling again. "proto-effing-heretic". You needn't do that sort of
>referred to as the Son of God.
>[much deleted, about whether Jesus really did /said enough to p*** peopleWhen you have found a way to get information about Jesus and not about his
>off or whether this was later Xian-v-Jews polemic ]
>> 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.
followers, let me know.