In non apocolypse related news...jesus's childhood home may have been found

[Textcritic]

Thanks for your response. You are on the right track with all of this stuff, except for this...

Originally Posted by doozwimp

Scholars i've listened to seem pretty convinced of John the Babtists historicity and too find his letters (which have been well vetted, though i'll admit i haven't read them myself) credible in their description of Jesus. John himself contemporaneous with jesus, seemed to believe in Jesus.

John the Baptist was not the author of John's epistles. John the Baptist was murdered by Herod Antipas before the crucifixion of Jesus. The short letters known as 1–3 John have been traditionally ascribed to one of Jesus's disciples, also named "John." More recently scholars are suggesting that these epistles were written by an entirely different "John," a leader in the first century church, but distinct from John the disciple of Jesus, as well as the writer of John's Gospel.

Also, a small pet peeve of mine. It is always very odd to me to hear an atheist describe her or himself as "devout." This word expresses devotion which is entirely contrary to the notion of non-religiousity. I think it triggers me because this is precisely how many Christian apologists describe their pre-conversion selves; Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Kirk Cameron, J. Warner Wallace and others—they all do it. I would encourage you to not use this word because, for guys like me, it's a tell. When apologists use it to describe themselves, it is an attempt to convince their sympathetic, Christian audience of just how deeply anti-Christian they once were, and this somehow increases the validity of their new-found faith in Jesus. If even they have become Christians after such strong "devotion" to atheism, then surely it must be true. I think it is also a clear indicator that they were never atheists to begin with, as the only way they can imagine describing atheism is in religious terms.

Not that I am suggesting you are being dishonest like these charlatans; only a recommendation to find a more accurate way of describing yourself. A "staunch atheist," or a "convinced atheist"; I suspect this is more in line with what you mean.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

It always amazed me with the wide variety of writings in the first century that every writer failed to mention Jesus or "Yeshua" until 6 decades after his death.

Writers cramp?

It was three decades, not six.

BTW, this should not be at all surprising, since virtually all of Jesus's followers during his lifetime were illiterate, and the ministry and execution of a back-water apocalyptic prophet was commonplace enough as to warrant no exceptional attention at all. It certainly took some time for the Jesus cult to infiltrate literate quarters of society.

[doozwimp]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Thanks for your response. You are on the right track with all of this stuff, except for this...


John the Baptist was not the author of John's epistles. John the Baptist was murdered by Herod Antipas before the crucifixion of Jesus. The short letters known as 1–3 John have been traditionally ascribed to one of Jesus's disciples, also named "John." More recently scholars are suggesting that these epistles were written by an entirely different "John," a leader in the first century church, but distinct from John the disciple of Jesus, as well as the writer of John's Gospel.

Also, a small pet peeve of mine. It is always very odd to me to hear an atheist describe her or himself as "devout." This word expresses devotion which is entirely contrary to the notion of non-religiousity. I think it triggers me because this is precisely how many Christian apologists describe their pre-conversion selves; Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Kirk Cameron, J. Warner Wallace and others—they all do it. I would encourage you to not use this word because, for guys like me, it's a tell. When apologists use it to describe themselves, it is an attempt to convince their sympathetic, Christian audience of just how deeply anti-Christian they once were, and this somehow increases the validity of their new-found faith in Jesus. If even they have become Christians after such strong "devotion" to atheism, then surely it must be true. I think it is also a clear indicator that they were never atheists to begin with, as the only way they can imagine describing atheism is in religious terms.

Not that I am suggesting you are being dishonest like these charlatans; only a recommendation to find a more accurate way of describing yourself. A "staunch atheist," or a "convinced atheist"; I suspect this is more in line with what you mean.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Thanks for calling me out on John the Baptist/Paul. I realized i amalgamated the two in my mind. John the Babtiste being mentioned by josephus (a non christian source) who stated that he was killed by Herod. Paul who wrote the letters setting upthe doctrine of the early christian faith.

Ill try to to avoid ysing the word "devout" in future too. I was merely trying to ascribe my interest in theology to academics rather than zealotry. Im not a militant non believer, i just dont expect my mind to change.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by doozwimp

Ill try to to avoid ysing the word "devout" in future too. I was merely trying to ascribe my interest in theology to academics rather than zealotry. Im not a militant non believer, i just dont expect my mind to change.

No, I get it. It is a fairly innocuous thing in tbe end, but it really grates on me for how the term "devout atheist" has been employed by apologists. I do believe in ensuring a high level of precision in our usage of language, and this is a case where I think the term helps to enable Christians, while also betraying their insecurity about the very idea of "faith."


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[doozwimp]

Thanks for your contribution to this thread. Your posts have been highly illuminating and productive to the conversation and demonstrate a depth of knowledge that I am jealous of. Thank you.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It was three decades, not six.

BTW, this should not be at all surprising, since virtually all of Jesus's followers during his lifetime were illiterate, and the ministry and execution of a back-water apocalyptic prophet was commonplace enough as to warrant no exceptional attention at all. It certainly took some time for the Jesus cult to infiltrate literate quarters of society.

So, I'm to believe a superhuman "man" who supposedly performed many supernatural miracles and is resurrected in front of 500 people isn't mentioned because the people he did it to and in front of couldn't write? amazing, they must have had aphasia as well

Here's the biggest problem, not one mention of Jesus came from someone who met him or even saw him. including Paul.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

So, I'm to believe a superhuman "man" who supposedly performed many supernatural miracles and is resurrected in front of 500 people isn't mentioned because the people he did it to and in front of couldn't write? amazing, they must have had aphasia as well

Did you even read my primer on the historical Jesus posted above? If this was my first-year class on New Testament studies, you would seriously get an "F". Go back and complete the assigned reading before attempting to engage with the current scholarship. I know it is long and filled with lots of big words, but surely you are capable of handling it.

At no point have I ever suggested that Jesus was a superhuman miracle worker. At no point did I posit even the possibility that he was resurrected from the dead and actually appeared to anyone, to say nothing of 500 people. Re-stating what I said above:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Jesus was charged with blasphemy by the Jewish Sanhedrin, and for insurrection by the Roman administrators, and the Romans crucified him as an enemy and a threat to the Empire. His body was most likely tossed into a mass grave with undoubtedly dozens of other political dissidents.

So, the death of Jesus proved to be such a traumatic turn of events for his eager followers that at least one of them began to have bereavement fantasies in which he (they?) imagined that Jesus had risen from the dead, in accordance with Jewish apocalyptic teachings which held that in the Last Days the faithful, the persecuted and the martyred would rise bodily from death.

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Here's the biggest problem, not one mention of Jesus came from someone who met him or even saw him. including Paul.

It is ABSOLUTELY NOT PROBLEMATIC. The reason for this is because EVERYONE WHO KNEW JESUS WAS ALMOSTY CERTAINLY ILLITERATE. The reason no one outside of his probably modest following noticed Jesus is because HE WAS ENTIRELY UNREMARKABLE.

Yes, Paul never met Jesus, and likely never saw him. But you are missing the significance of his writings entirely for how they attest to the actual existence of an actual Yeshua bar Yoseph. I will simplify this as best as I can for you: Paul was actively engaged in opposing a Jewish sect within less than two decades after Jesus's death. The only reasons a Jewish official in the first century would have to confront, denounce and extricate a fellow Jewish sect was because either it was a dangerous messianic movement, it was a form of blasphemy, or both. Paul's background and his writings pretty clearly demonstrate the existence of a new messianic movement that viewed the messiah as divine within a handful of years after the death of this messianic figure. The most plausible explanation for this is that this was a person who actually existed and actually died.

[flamesfever]

Textcritic, with regard to how his body was treated after his crucifiction, i.e. "likely tossed into a mass grave...", did you discover anything in your studies that would lead you to believe the Resurrection, or any part thereof, as outlined in the Gospels or Paul, or do you consider it a myth?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Textcritic, with regard to how his body was treated after his crucifiction, i.e. "likely tossed into a mass grave...", did you discover anything in your studies that would lead you to believe the Resurrection, or any part thereof, as outlined in the Gospels or Paul.

No.

I was once a believer, but the easily most plausible explanation for the rise of Christianity is that Jesus's body was disposed of in a mass grave—as the Romans were want to do, and that one or more of his first followers suffered bereavement fantasies that they interpreted as an actual resurrection event. The idea of bodily resurrection in the Last Days was one that was common among Jewish apocalypticists since at least the second century BCE, if not earlier.

Paul quite obviously considered Jesus's resurrection as a fulfilment of this fairly widely held expectation. Of course, for him and the first Christians this was also proof that the Last Days were immanent. They quite clearly believed that they were living at the end of the age, but these ideas have been greatly massaged and recasted after centuries of waiting for the Apocalypse.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Great read Text, but I do have a question of two. The Romans and the Jews were meticulous record keepers, but there is no record of Jesus, especially his crucifixion. How does this square? I've read the records of Pontius Pilot supposedly exist, but no word of Jesus. So while I appreciate what you're saying about the Christian documentation to support "historical" Jesus, isn't this just the early oral narrative that was used as the basis for the Church? Why would there not be any documentation from the Romans or Jews to support the existence of this all important figure?

[flamesfever]

nm

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I was once a believer, but the easily most plausible explanation for the rise of Christianity is that Jesus's body was disposed of in a mass grave—as the Romans were want to do, and that one or more of his first followers suffered bereavement fantasies that they interpreted as an actual resurrection event. The idea of bodily resurrection in the Last Days was one that was common among Jewish apocalypticists since at least the second century BCE, if not earlier.

Isn't this counter to the Roman crucifixion method? From what I've read the Romans crucified an individual and then left the body on the cross to rot as a message to the local population. Guards were posted to prevent bodies being taken down from the cross as this was a way of sending a message and not allowing the crucified to be buried in a traditional manner. Is this not accurate?

I don't think any of these details are likely to sway anyone's beliefs, but I'm curious what your expertise has to say about these details. I just find the story and the history interesting more than anything.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Jesus was charged with blasphemy by the Jewish Sanhedrin

But yet no record of it, was the Jewish court just words spoken...I think not.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

At no point have I ever suggested that Jesus was a superhuman miracle worker. At no point did I posit even the possibility that he was resurrected from the dead and actually appeared to anyone, to say nothing of 500 people.

You use Paul as the source as the Jesus writings 3 decades after his death but yet it was Paul who gives the list of 500 people to whom the risen Jesus appeared.

I get it, this is your work but like most things involving religion it's nothing but a massive pile of BS full of hypocrisy.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by New Era

Isn't this counter to the Roman crucifixion method? From what I've read the Romans crucified an individual and then left the body on the cross to rot as a message to the local population. Guards were posted to prevent bodies being taken down from the cross as this was a way of sending a message and not allowing the crucified to be buried in a traditional manner. Is this not accurate?

I don't think any of these details are likely to sway anyone's beliefs, but I'm curious what your expertise has to say about these details. I just find the story and the history interesting more than anything.

I doubt they would leave most bodies up there for long, first they needed to reuse the cross fairly frequently, secondly even in the reek of 1st century Rome the smell of hundreds of rotting bodies as they fell off their crosses as the arms and legs gave way after a few weeks and then were dragged about by dogs would be distasteful, my guess is most of the non important were taken down once dead (that could take a few days, it was a nasty death) and either the family took the body away or they were dumped in a pit, I also guess that this may be were the myth of resurrection came from, some of Jesus followers may have gone back and dug the body up to give him a more sacred burial, as the authorities were trying to kill off an embryonic religious movement I have no doubt they forbade the proper Jewish rituals of death and burial to try and really shame the movement.

Jesus reappearing may have just started as his body reappearing as a select trusted few followers were invited to take part in its ritual burial

[doozwimp]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

But yet no record of it, was the Jewish court just words spoken...I think not.



You use Paul as the source as the Jesus writings 3 decades after his death but yet it was Paul who gives the list of 500 people to whom the risen Jesus appeared.

I get it, this is your work but like most things involving religion it's nothing but a massive pile of BS full of hypocrisy.

I think you may be misunderstanding the argument textcritic is making. No one is claiming to be definitively right about the existence of Jesus but that his existence is a more plausible theory in explaining the resultant religion and texts than is his invention out of thin air. Indeed as pivotal as the Jesus story is to the rise of Christianity and the direction of western civilization it would be a big deal if a historical Jesus was mere fairy tale but thats not the hypothesis that is most convincing to most scholars. It slightly undermines ones argument when it is agenda driven. IE religion is foolish and therefore anything contained within it is also and contains no kernel of truth.

[doozwimp]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I doubt they would leave most bodies up there for long, first they needed to reuse the cross fairly frequently, secondly even in the reek of 1st century Rome the smell of hundreds of rotting bodies as they fell off their crosses as the arms and legs gave way after a few weeks and then were dragged about by dogs would be distasteful, my guess is most of the non important were taken down once dead (that could take a few days, it was a nasty death) and either the family took the body away or they were dumped in a pit, I also guess that this may be were the myth of resurrection came from, some of Jesus followers may have gone back and dug the body up to give him a more sacred burial, as the authorities were trying to kill off an embryonic religious movement I have no doubt they forbade the proper Jewish rituals of death and burial to try and really shame the movement.

Jesus reappearing may have just started as his body reappearing as a select trusted few followers were invited to take part in its ritual burial

Theres any number of conceivable origins to the resurrection but i like yours. The twin angle i just discovered is really intriguing to me too but i'm sure it's highly disputed.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

But yet no record of it, was the Jewish court just words spoken...I think not.



You use Paul as the source as the Jesus writings 3 decades after his death but yet it was Paul who gives the list of 500 people to whom the risen Jesus appeared.

I get it, this is your work but like most things involving religion it's nothing but a massive pile of BS full of hypocrisy.

We have no day to day records on anything from that period, Jewish courts operated every day and yet we have no records of them because it was 2000 years ago and about 70 years later the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem, burned it to the ground, destroyed anything Jewish and expelled the jews from the region, what we have histories written a few decades later, by their nature histories only mention things that are notable, so Jesus only appears once his 'church' becomes big enough to be worth mentioning

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

But yet no record of it, was the Jewish court just words spoken...I think not.



You use Paul as the source as the Jesus writings 3 decades after his death but yet it was Paul who gives the list of 500 people to whom the risen Jesus appeared.

I get it, this is your work but like most things involving religion it's nothing but a massive pile of BS full of hypocrisy.

I believe you are losing much by taking that point of view.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe you are losing much by taking that point of view.

Loosing what? I'm at total peace with my beliefs

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

But yet no record of it, was the Jewish court just words spoken...I think not...

How many Jewish court records do you imagine to have survived from the first century?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk