Jesus: Tales From The Crypt

[ghostdog19]

"I think this stuff about Jesus is rubbish!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes it is!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes it is!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes it is!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes it is!"

But this is called Theology 101.

No it isn't.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

"I think this stuff about Jesus is rubbish!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes it is!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes it is!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes it is!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes it is!"

But this is called Theology 101.

No it isn't.

Maybe it's a fake to make people think it's Theology 101.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

Nowadays we can get DNA from the remains of Neanderthal Man, which goes a lot further back than 2000 years.

Yes, but that's from Neanderthal bones, isn't it? Not from stone or soil where those bones once rested.

And there have been failures in attempting to extract DNA from burials merely several centuries old.

Extracting DNA from an empty 2,000-year-old stone container still strikes me as iffy, although I'd be interested in scientific citations to the contrary.

P. S. But I still remember how reluctant I was originally back in my teenage years to accept the fact that an automobile parked on a hot summer day could be photographed AFTER it had left the scene (from the heat-signature left behind). Oh, the shame.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

No it isn't.

You're right. Theology 201.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

Something just occurred to me which I think has some relevance to the question of Jesus Christ's historical existence.

There are several dozen individuals, hangers-on at the courts of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero and so on, whose existence is testified to by no more than one brief mention in the writings of Suetonius. And there are an equal number of similar characters who perform their walk-on turns in Tacitus.

Nobody doubts these personages' historical existences.

Now while I agree that there is no one single unimpeachable extra-biblical proof ff Christ's existence, there are so many different strains of "almost convincing" evidence that denial of Christ's existence seems to ride roughshod over the law of parsimony.

Thus the evidence for Christ seems stronger than that for those bit-players in Suetonius and Tacitus, whose historicity nobody denies.

P. S. And it's also worth noting that the time gap between the above-mentioned Roman Emperors and Suetonius and Tacitus was longer than the period between the climax of Jesus' earthly mission and the composition of the canonical Gospels.

 

[decipheringscars]

I still can't figure out why all the concern with magic tricks, though. There seems to be this false dichotomy that EITHER Jesus performed a bunch of honest-to-gosh miracles, OR he did a bunch of magic tricks to fool people, whether for a good cause or a bad one. There's a LOT of middle ground.

Well, Quazi's pointed out a few times now that it's just a pet theory of his and that it's not meant to cause any offense. As for motives of someone 'fooling people'... I don't believe we've even got on to that yet, but I don't think that's really what Quazi's theory is all about. It's just simply the suggestion that he could well have been a magician if the miracles he performed were performed at all.

As I've been trying to point out, many Christians with a very serious faith commitment don't care whether Jesus performed any miracles or not - some don't even care if he was "really" resurrected.

If you check the thread over you'll notice that's been covered a couple of times (I recall mention of the important aspect which is the relevance of the teachings). Nobody here is trying to say it's irrelevant I don't think. Personally, I don't believe it's relevant whether he physically existed or not as I believe it's the story itself that is more important. I personally think he survived print as a legend in much the same manner as Robin has done to this day. We all know Robin Hood is fictional, but still you'll find record of a guy who vaguely fits the picture from the period and you'll even find historical data supporting his possible existence outside of fiction by those that would like to think the stories were about a real guy. That he's real or not... who cares? It's a great story, people remember it, and to some it's more relevant than to others. Likewise King Arthur. But that doesn't mean that the bible is irrelevant, or that Christianity is under any threat. Nonsense. Is Morte De Arthur irrelevant? Or Robin Hood for that matter (I suppose it is if you watch the BBC adaptation... eek!!).

So coming up with all these theories about how he faked this or that does nothing at all to help explain the movement that has followed him for 2,000 years.

See, "faked" is your contribution. We're just discussing 'explanations' via a 'non-spiritual' route. Which I think beats hands down just saying 'it's all made up nonsense for no rhyme nor reason'.

Yes, I was the one who mentioned the relevance of his teachings, which you vaguely recall. Actually, I was pointing more to the deeper meanings of the stories, which is slightly different from the relevance of his teachings. His teachings, after all, really weren't anything new - they mirror much of the contemporary (to him) rabbinical teaching. The stories about Jesus really are meant to illustrate the Reign of God (as opposed to the reign of, say, Caesar), and to point to his person, which is interpreted by the New Testament anyway as the decisive in-breaking of that Reign of God within human history. In other words, it's not something totally relegated to the eschaton.

And whether Jesus existed does matter if you believe he was the incarnation of God, which not all Christians believe anymore, but the majority do.

To clear things up: I'm not offended by anything anyone's posting here. It's actually pretty hard to offend me. I've just been trying to poke at the "either/or" thinking a little bit. If that's a bit too advanced for this discussion, I can stop.

See, you fall into the "either/or" thinking again by saying:

We're just discussing 'explanations' via a 'non-spiritual' route. Which I think beats hands down just saying 'it's all made up nonsense for no rhyme nor reason'.

We're dealing with very ancient texts here. They have genres we don't really use anymore. The way people wrote 2,000 years ago doesn't have to fit into our contemporary models of newspaper reporting, biography, history, or fairy tale.

All I'm trying to say is that what I'm reading on this thread sounds to me like this:

• 
  The people who wrote the Gospels recorded miracles performed by Jesus. Therefore, either (1) they really happened and were miracles, or (2) they really happened but were magic tricks, or (3) the Gospellers made it all up for no reason.

and

• People believed in or followed Jesus. Therefore, either (1) they were inspired to do so by witnessing or hearing about his actual miracles, or (2) they were fooled by his magic tricks, or (3) they were fooled by fictional reports of miracles.

Is that an unfair assessment? And I'm trying to throw in other options - in part because knowing they exist should inform your discussion, even if you still choose to limit it to a certain set of assumptions.

And since it's been asked twice now, I suppose I might use the time-travelling machine to go see Jesus' life, although it might not be the first thing on my list. It's not that I prefer to "leave it all a mystery," as in, "Oooh, what if I don't see what I'm expecting? My faith might be shaken, and that prospect scares me!" It's that I really can't imagine what I might see that would threaten my faith - not because I'm stubborn and won't let the facts interfere with what I believe - quite the contrary. It's that my faith can encompass a wide range of possibilities about the facts.

That said, I do think finding Jesus performing magic tricks might be a bit off-putting, but then again, maybe not. I mean, why can't God incarnate have a hobby?

 

[Xanatico]

Didn´t C S Lewis talk something about how a Jesus that wasn´t God´s son would have been an awful spiritual teacher? The idea of turning the other cheek is okay if you know God will punish them, but otherwise not such a good idea.

 

[ghostdog19]

There are several dozen individuals, hangers-on at the courts of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero and so on, whose existence is testified to by no more than one brief mention in the writings of Suetonius. And there are an equal number of similar characters who perform their walk-on turns in Tacitus.Nobody doubts these personages' historical existences.

Slightly more than one, I'm afraid. Much of it, while subject to hyperbole, is correlated documentation (mostly written by senators). Certainly in the case of Caligula.

Now while I agree that there is no one single unimpeachable extra-biblical proof of Christ's existence, there are so many different strains of "almost convincing" evidence that denial of Christ's existence seems to ride roughshod over the law of parsimony.

Well, if we had Pilate's reports to Tiberius, it would certainly clear a lot up. But there are no records. Actually, more intriguingly, those records are considered 'lost'.

 

[decipheringscars]

Didn´t C S Lewis talk something about how a Jesus that wasn´t God´s son would have been an awful spiritual teacher? The idea of turning the other cheek is okay if you know God will punish them, but otherwise not such a good idea.

CS Lewis' famous statement on this matter was that Jesus was either "liar, lunatic, or God" - something like that. He thought either Jesus was who he said he was, or he was crazy (like people who think they're Napoleon), or he was intentionally trying to deceive people. I think he did claim that he wasn't that great of a spiritual teacher.

However, regarding your example, Walter Wink has an interesting analysis. He claims that turning the other cheek was an active nonviolent resistance. Something about how the first strike would've been a back-handed slap, which people higher up on the totem pole would give to those lower down, so if you turned the other cheek, you would be forcing them to slap you with an open hand, which they would only do to an equal. I don't know if he's right about all that, but it does offer another perspective. Anyway, the gist of it was nonviolent resistance, which is why so many people mention Jesus and Gandhi in the same breath. It's also a pretty good explanation for Jesus' death - we only have to look back as far as MLK to see how that works.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

Didn´t C S Lewis talk something about how a Jesus that wasn´t God´s son would have been an awful spiritual teacher?

Yes, indeed. Lewis wrote that the individual who rejects Christ's divinity but accepts him as a "teacher" MUST decide whether he wants to follow Christ the Blasphmer, Christ the Liar or Christ the Madman, "as crazy as the man who thinks he's a piece of burnt toast."

 

[OldTimeRadio]

But I'm sure I can rustle up some lions.

Reminds me of a very old joke and it's all YOUR fault:

"And here's the latest score just in from the Colisseum - Lions, 52 - Christians, NOTHING."

 

[ghostdog19]

Yes, indeed. Lewis wrote that the individual who rejects Christ's divinity but accepts him as a "teacher" MUST decide whether he wants to follow Christ the Blasphmer, Christ the Liar or Christ the Madman, "as crazy as the man who thinks he's a piece of burnt toast."

I thought it was a 'poached egg'?

 

[QuaziWashboard]

If I said I was Jesus, and showed you a card trick.... would you believe me?

I thought I saw Jesus on a tram.
I said, Are you Jesus?
He said, Yes. I am.

- Spike Milligan.

Ahh Spike.
My favorite one of his was;

I've never felt finer
Said the king of China
Whilst coming down to dine.
He fell down dead,
He died he did,
T'was only half past nine.

And his only line in The Life Of Brian, just after the argument between the shoeites and the followers of the gourd.
'Let us pray'
Which I think is a little apt for this conversation.

 

[Gemaki]

Oh, and OTR? Your question about the processing of the DNA from the ossuary can be answered by watching that program I was referring to, The Naked Archaeologist...

http://www.visiontv.ca/NakedArchaeologist/episodes.htm

 

[OldTimeRadio]

I thought it was a 'poached egg'?

You could be right. I've heard it both ways.

 

[ghostdog19]

I thought it was a 'poached egg'?

You could be right. I've heard it both ways.

Sunny side up?

 

[QuaziWashboard]

Now this doesn't negate the miracle but it surely doesn't do much for the stereotyped image of Christ as poor peripatetic preacher.

Yes, the stereotype was put about by the church - IIRC, the NT doesn't actually say that Jesus was poor, and some people now believe that he came from an influential and possibly wealthy family.

Early Christian missionaries in western Europe were likewise often men of good family, with education and experience of travel. On the whole, poor uneducated peasants do not start rambling miles from home and preaching to the people!

Well he was supposed to be decended from King David wasn't he? If he was Jewish royalty, maybe the family still had wealth. Besides, he was given gold and a couple of other expensive items when he was born that could have easily been converted into good old currency.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

Well he was supposed to be decended from King David wasn't he? If he was Jewish royalty, maybe the family still had wealth.

But weren't most Jews of Christ's day descended from David?

It's like being descended from Charlemagne or the ancient kings of Ireland.

 

[rynner2]

It's like being descended from Charlemagne or the ancient kings of Ireland.

Yeah - who's got my share of the family silver?

 

[OldTimeRadio]

And 5000 people following him around don't count?[/i]

There's surely a difference betweeen listening to some guy speak and becoming that guy's "follower."

If I'd become a follower of every person I've ever heard deliver an oration, I really would have a strange mish-mash worldview.

Besides, many of Christ's listeners may have simply shown up for the free food. In those days when you preached, you were expected to FEED the audience! Thus the entire matter of the loaves and fishes.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

It's like being descended from Charlemagne or the ancient kings of Ireland.

Yeah - who's got my share of the family silver?

I got it. They liked me better.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

In those days when you preached, you were expected to FEED the audience!

Anybody care to speculate how the Reverends Jim Bakker and Peter Popoff and Robert Tilton would have made out in that milieu?

 

[QuaziWashboard]

And 5000 people following him around don't count?[/i]

There's surely a difference betweeen listening to some guy speak and becoming that guy's "follower."

It says in the Bible that Jesus was pretty upset when his friends came to tell him that John the Baptist had been killed by King Herod. Jesus needed to have some time alone, so he went to a desert place. And that 5000 people followed him there. If you follow someone anywhere, then surely it stands to reason that you are a follower?

 

[QuaziWashboard]

Well he was supposed to be decended from King David wasn't he? If he was Jewish royalty, maybe the family still had wealth.

But weren't most Jews of Christ's day descended from David?

It's like being descended from Charlemagne or the ancient kings of Ireland.

So if that description accounts for most of the Jews at the time, why was such a big deal made about it in prophecy that the messiah would be a decendant of David. Does it just mean 'He will be Jewish'?

 

[Xanatico]

No, but Jesus seems to be a direct descendant. Except of course that two different lines of descent are given for him on two different gospels.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

No, but Jesus seems to be a direct descendant. Except of course that two different lines of descent are given for him on two different gospels.

Heir to the throne, so to speak, then?

 

[lupinwick]

Now this doesn't negate the miracle but it surely doesn't do much for the stereotyped image of Christ as poor peripatetic preacher.

Yes, the stereotype was put about by the church - IIRC, the NT doesn't actually say that Jesus was poor, and some people now believe that he came from an influential and possibly wealthy family.

Early Christian missionaries in western Europe were likewise often men of good family, with education and experience of travel. On the whole, poor uneducated peasants do not start rambling miles from home and preaching to the people!

Didn't Robert Graves in King Jesus make some interesting comments?

The novel is controversial for the way it treats Jesus not as the son of God, but rather as a philosopher with a legitimate claim to the Judaean throne through Herod the Great, and also for the way it treats numerous Biblical stories and contradictions while demystifying Jesus' life.

(via Wiki).

Surely the myth of the poverty of Christ was just a way to extract cash from converts?

 

[OldTimeRadio]

Surely the myth of the poverty of Christ was just a way to extract cash from converts?

Are you referring to Christ himself or to the later Church?

 

[lupinwick]

Sorry, the later church

 

[OldTimeRadio]

Sorry, the later church

I'm probably the one who should be apologizing to you for needing an explanation. But I just wanted to be certain. Thanks!