Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your posts have a lot of good information as always, but Christianity in the modern understanding is more than an ideal - it is historical events - especially the crucifixion and claimed resurrection.How do you convert people to your ideals? You make them understand it, you present it in a way that they understand, you use their known symbols and language forms.
Proven resurrection.claimed resurrection.
To the first century writers, they were fully historical. Whether that means they fully occurred in the manner they wrote, as we think history does today, is another matter entirely. Their narrative expressed the belief of the event, it represents the point thereof, and is clearly fully conceived as the telling of a Real thing. This is all that would have mattered to them.Your posts have a lot of good information as always, but Christianity in the modern understanding is more than an ideal - it is historical events - especially the crucifixion and claimed resurrection.
Let's take the Nativity stories as an example. What do you think about them and the possible motives of the creator (if they were not historical)?
Again, not to a first century reader. Histories weren't conceived as factual representations of actual events. They were a literary genre meant to conjure up the situation, to express the truth of what occurred, but no one felt that embellishing or omitting lessened this in any way. They would probably conceive it as more closely following the Form of what occurred, that they would help us understand the essential events that they were trying to convey, would make it mirror the Real thereby. Again, the idea that something being mostly 'myth' or 'symbolism' and therefore not having occurred, is not how people thought back then. You are anachronistically importing centuries of sceptical tradition into the manner that people in the first century understood things.^ @Quid est Veritas? to clarify my point. If Christianity is partly about historical events, then embellishing the gospel histories with symbolic fictional events might lead the reader to question the actual historical events recorded - especially if there is no obvious way to distinguish real events from the symbolic.
This is why I suspect the early Christians thought the gospels were mostly myth, symbolism, etc. The Book of Enoch was highly regarded by many Jews, but most of them probably realized it was a work of fiction to communicate religious ideas. Maybe that is how early Christians thought about the gospels, and maybe that is why they were so willing to absorb and reinterpret pagan traditions.
^ @Quid est Veritas? to clarify my point. If Christianity is partly about historical events, then embellishing the gospel histories with symbolic fictional events might lead the reader to question the actual historical events recorded - especially if there is no obvious way to distinguish real events from the symbolic.
This is why I suspect the early Christians thought the gospels were mostly myth, symbolism, etc. The Book of Enoch was highly regarded by many Jews, but most of them probably realized it was a work of fiction to communicate religious ideas. Maybe that is how early Christians thought about the gospels, and maybe that is why they were so willing to absorb and reinterpret pagan traditions.
The early Christians "baptized" pagan traditions to facilitate conversions.
Regardless of whether you agree with every example that I gave above, most will surely agree that some of these "baptisms" occurred, and they were apparently endorsed by early Christian leaders.
- Some Christian saints were apparently pagan gods.
- The Marian devotion apparently sprang-up in Ephesus as a "baptism" of the goddess Artemis and propagated to other regions like Arabia where similar fertility goddesses were popular.
- Some quotations and miracles associated with Jesus in the gospels apparently originated from earlier figures in Judaism or Hellenism.
- The Christmas traditions (tree, date, etc.) are another popular example of this.
My question is: what does this suggest about the early Christian leadership? These "baptisms" apparently happened within a few generations of the crucifixion. How could a sincere church leader endorse the idea of polluting the historical facts with myths? How could anybody who valued truth go along with this?
To me this suggests that the early Christian leaders did not actually care about the history - almost as if they knew that the historical narrative of the gospels was mostly allegory. IDK
Is it all that matters to you? For example, if the resurrection and ascension of Jesus was an embellishment to express the gospel community's idea of what must have happened because it should have happened, would that bother you?To the first century writers, they were fully historical. Whether that means they fully occurred in the manner they wrote, as we think history does today, is another matter entirely. Their narrative expressed the belief of the event, it represents the point thereof, and is clearly fully conceived as the telling of a Real thing. This is all that would have mattered to them.
Let's look at our sources and apply textual criticism. We have four gospels, which likely represent three independant witnesses. John and Mark are independant; Luke and Matthew dependant on Mark, but having material in common which suggests another source for both (Q-gospel). These three independant sources clearly suggest Jesus to have been resurrected.Is it all that matters to you? For example, if the resurrection and ascension of Jesus was an embellishment to express the gospel community's idea of what must have happened because it should have happened, would that bother you?
This is probably referring to Appolonius of Tyana. He was a similar first century miracle worker that was often juxtaposed unfavourably to Jesus by pagan sources in the third century, and by later opponents of Christianity like Voltaire.I have not heard much about Jesus' works originating from other sources -- I'll have to defer that to someone else
All of these were written by followers of Paul, who seized upon his theology. His school of thought was clearly the most successful, with the "Judaizers" becoming insignificant by the end of the first century CE.Let's look at our sources and apply textual criticism. We have four gospels, which likely represent three independant witnesses. John and Mark are independant; Luke and Matthew dependant on Mark, but having material in common which suggests another source for both (Q-gospel). These three independant sources clearly suggest Jesus to have been resurrected.
All of these, of course, depend on word-of-mouth, looking back from a vantage point that is already far removed from the actual events.We have Josephus' account, which though corrupted, clearly originally referenced Jesus' crucifixion and a claim of resurrection, based on the nature of the work, later reference to James the brother of the Lord, and early mentioning of it in Eusebius and others.
We have Pliny's letters, which also reference such a claim made by Christians.
Were they?So on historical-critical grounds, it is quite clear that the Resurrection is not an embellishment, but an essential part of the narrative of the gospels, which were conceived as history by their writers, and this contention is supported by other writings of the period. For the history they are presenting is the core of Christianity, that God became man, suffered, died and was resurrected. So here I don't see the problem.
Oh really?It all comes down to how much you trust the writers of the period. The gospels have well supported elements, like Roman Governors or administrative boundaries, that no one doubts.
I was thinking more about the sayings of Jesus that were originally spoken by earlier Jews. Some might argue that Jesus was simply repeating sayings that He had heard from these earlier Jews and then the gospel writers dutifully recorded the quotes without attribution and later generations mistakenly assumed that Jesus had invented the sayings. I suspect that the gospel writers were knowingly or unknowingly attributing these saying to Jesus when He probably did not say them. (That often happens - where famous people get credit for the sayings of others. It's usually accidental.)This is probably referring to Appolonius of Tyana. He was a similar first century miracle worker that was often juxtaposed unfavourably to Jesus by pagan sources in the third century, and by later opponents of Christianity like Voltaire.
He was a Neopythagorean philosopher, that could supposedly heal and had extra-sensory perception. Our first account of him however, comes from Philostratus in 220s AD though, so to claim Jesus to be based on him is speculation and they aren't really that similar. Chesterton argued that Appolonius has no similarity to the passion narrative, nor the purposiveness of the gospels, so similarities wear thin and are superficial at best. His historicity is based largely on Philostratus, so while likely an actual historical personage, Jesus is much better attested.
Alternately, it may refer to dubious associations of Jesus with figures like Mithras or other first century Messiah candidates, but the former is nonsense when you know a bit of Mithraism, and the latter are usually only known from a few lines in Josephus, so has no data to support the contention at all.
It is similar to how Pliny writes on monopods or Herodotus on the gods' intervention or how histories of Alexander may record him being fathered by Zeus in the form of a snake. We don't discount them on account of these for other elements of history.
We need to decide what elements we trust, even if multiple sources concur thereon. The very claim of Christianity is fantastic, even to its writers. Like so much, it boils down to a matter of faith, but its position is no weaker or stronger than secular history of the period.
This is a suppositional assertion, but irrelevant to the argument of independant derivation of the content as can clearly be seen by the differences therein.All of these were written by followers of Paul, who seized upon his theology. His school of thought was clearly the most successful, with the "Judaizers" becoming insignificant by the end of the first century CE.
Given that Paul's epistles clearly suggest an ongoing rivalry between him and the "Pillars", even after the council, it would have been fascinating to see what a different tale the Jerusalem Church might have told. Sadly, almost all we've got today comes from Pauline sources.
Yes? Point being?All of these, of course, depend on word-of-mouth, looking back from a vantage point that is already far removed from the actual events.
They clearly tell us what Christians believed at the time.
I made multiple posts on first century conceptions of history in this thread.Were they?
They certainly considered the content to be true, but that is not the same.
This is that variation in sources and elaborations we are talking of. Everyone agrees Pontius Pilate, Quirinius, Festus, Herod Agrippa, Archelaus, Herod the Great, etc. existed. We all agree on the borders of Judaea, on Archelaus following his father before Judaea became a Roman province, etc. There is far too much period specific information, such as the Biblical account correctly giving Pilate's title (according to Archaeology such as the Pilate Stone), while Tacitus later made an error here. There is information universally acknowledged as historical, whether you believe the narrative or not.Oh really?
No one doubts that the Romans (being quite efficient bureaucrats) would require people to return to the place of their ancestors for a census - a measure that'd not only be utterly nonsensical, but also create total chaos?
No one notices the incompatibility between Quirinius's governorship in Syria and the death of Herod the Great a decade earlier?
No one notices how the depiction of Jesus's trial as described by the gospels seems very intent on shifting as much of the blame as possible to the Jews, and has the Romans conducting a crucifixion on the eve of a major holiday, which would basically ensure an uprising in the volatile province?
Jesus is depicted as frequently referencing the scriptures, so I don't think this would be seen as a problem for anyone. So His statements aren't original, He is working from Jewish tradition. Yes? Why is this a problem at all? We Christians all think this anyway, that Jesus brings the OT to fruition.I was thinking more about the sayings of Jesus that were originally spoken by earlier Jews. Some might argue that Jesus was simply repeating sayings that He had heard from these earlier Jews and then the gospel writers dutifully recorded the quotes without attribution and later generations mistakenly assumed that Jesus had invented the sayings. I suspect that the gospel writers were knowingly or unknowingly attributing these saying to Jesus when He probably did not say them. (That often happens - where famous people get credit for the sayings of others. It's usually accidental.)
The Epistle of Eugnostos is probably a century or so after the canonical gospels reached a stable form, but there is an example of somebody deliberately putting the words of others in the mouth of Jesus. The person doing that obviously did not have the modern regard for preserving the integrity of the sayings of Jesus.
The Resurrection is presented as a one time event, a dramatic change of the normal state of affairs. Why would 'probability' in the sense of repeatibility as you use it here, be in any way relevant? As I said, this is a matter of faith in the writers, or more generally a matter of Faith.I think we have to approach this using subjective probabilities. What is the probability that the resurrection actually happened versus the probability that it was Christian folklore? Nobody takes the monopods seriously today, because we should have found some evidence by now if they exist. The probability that monopods ever existed is much smaller than the probability that Pliny was writing malarkey for some reason.
So what is the probability that dead people can be resurrected and ascend to heaven? The resurrection is more than reviving a dead body - it is a new body that will never die. The only evidence for resurrection that I can imagine is the reports of people interacting with deceased loved ones. Those reports suggest that something in humans continues after death.
I have heard some Christians say that Lazarus was a resuscitation instead of a resurrection, because he came to life in his existing mortal body. Jesus was supposed to be the "first fruits"/"first born" of the resurrection promised for all Christians (and all humans?).The Resurrection is presented as a one time event, a dramatic change of the normal state of affairs. Why would 'probability' in the sense of repeatibility as you use it here, be in any way relevant? As I said, this is a matter of faith in the writers, or more generally a matter of Faith.
If someone says: "only this one time this happened" (two if we count Lazarus, but this is a bit different); you would disavow it because it didn't happen more frequently? That is the whole fantastic claim upon which the Gospel, the Good News, is based.
I've heard a couple of different theories:On the Trial, crucifying a messiah figure was forced on Pilate by the account. He clearly tried not to do it, to head off a possible uprising, but judged he had to, to keep the Sanhedrin from doing so anyway or at least docile. The trial and crucifixion fits the first century very well, especcially when taking Sejanus, Pilate, Roman politics and Philo and Josephus into account.
Philo and Josephus report Pilate being very anti-Jewish and show a strong governor. I wrote a piece on this recently as well:I've heard a couple of different theories:
- NT Wright claimed that Pilate was merely pretending to see no reason to execute Jesus, because he generally tried to annoy the Jewish authorities at every opportunity and he could see that they wanted Jesus eliminated. Pilate was a pretty cruel person, so this makes more sense than believing that Pilate cared about Jesus IMO.
- Most scholars think the account of Pilate's hesitancy was designed to place blame on the Jewish religious authorities instead of the Romans. One theory of the historical Jesus is that He was making a claim to be the Messiah, and that was reason enough for the Romans to execute Him.
Indeed, which is what Christianity claims.The reason to dismiss the resurrection of Jesus is that it would imply a whole new understanding of reality.
Yes, but one experiment that by nature cannot be repeated.It would be like inventing quantum mechanics on the evidence of one experiment.
One approach that makes sense to me is understanding the Jewish sects that might have inspired Christianity. Here are book reviews for a couple that I liked:All of these were written by followers of Paul, who seized upon his theology. His school of thought was clearly the most successful, with the "Judaizers" becoming insignificant by the end of the first century CE.
Given that Paul's epistles clearly suggest an ongoing rivalry between him and the "Pillars", even after the council, it would have been fascinating to see what a different tale the Jerusalem Church might have told. Sadly, almost all we've got today comes from Pauline sources.
Regardless of whether you agree with every example that I gave above, most will surely agree that some of these "baptisms" occurred, and they were apparently endorsed by early Christian leaders.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?