virgin birth paradox makes jesus not messiah

[Sasha]

I was flipping channels yesterday night and ended up watching the brilliant show QI and they mentioned a entertaining theological paradox that I never realised but must be fun to troll Christians with;

The old testament contains a prophecy that the messiah "will be born from the stem of David in betlehem". This is the reason of the story of Mary and Josef traveling to betlehem for the census in the new testament. Even when disregarding that there a. was no census held around that time and B. that during a census people where not obliged to return to their birthplace fact is that its Josef that was descended from king David, so the later insertion of the miracle birth effectively removed all claim for jezus being the prophecied Messiah...

Since religion is allegorical nonsense anyway not really important but still an entertaining problem to troll your family during Christmas dinners with..

[Devrim]

I think if you check you will find that Mary is descended from King David too, which sort of destroys your argument.

Devrim

[Zostrianos]

I think if you check you will find that Mary is descended from King David too, which sort of destroys your argument.

Devrim

That both of them are descended from David poses a problem seeing as they're a couple

[Aleksandr Karelin]

Don't muslims believe in the Torah as revealed to Moses and the Psalms as revealed to David and jews believe in the okld testament still?

Also I war recently reading a book that states that the Muslim, christian and Jewish texts have all been translated and the actual meanings have thoroughly changed, for example in the bible Jesus argues with someone and makes a reference that would only make sense in the language it was originally translated from and ow makes no sense at all?

Shit I can't remember it, it has loads of interesting things in about the development and changing of the text through language and the fact the quaran was not written down but passed orally for the longest time.

[Sasha]

Afaik the whole virgin thing probably started as just a mistranslation, the aramenian (i believe it was) word for virgin is the same as the word for "young girl"...

[Sasha]

I think if you check you will find that Mary is descended from King David too, which sort of destroys your argument.

Devrim

Yeah, seems the Christians stumbled in this problem too and inserted some lineage later too; http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?29656-Mary-s-genealogy

[Devrim]

That both of them are descended from David poses a problem seeing as they're a couple

I think it was supposed to be generations before. Anyway, why should it be a problem. I know lots of people whose parents were cousins, and therefore shared a grandparent.


Afaik the whole virgin thing probably started as just a mistranslation, the aramenian (i believe it was) word for virgin is the same as the word for "young girl"...

The English word is Aramaic.

Devrim

[Sasha]

Thanx, in dutch its Arameens..

[Jimmie Higgins]

Afaik the whole virgin thing probably started as just a mistranslation, the aramenian (i believe it was) word for virgin is the same as the word for "young girl"...I've read that translation explaination too.

I'm pretty ignorent of theological debates and questions, but I do find this contradiction strangely interesting and amusing. I really is "how many angels fit on the head of a pin" type stuff isn't it. I'm just imagining someone reading the bible for the first time and thinking, "well I can buy that she got pregnent from an angel's divine turkey baster, but the geneology of it all just doen't work out!":lol:

[Sasha]

Well thats what you get with all those pages of lineage meeting the "word of god" absolutism, ppl are going to look for mistakes.
No one is surprised with some mistakes in say the Odyssey or Iliad because that is always presented as an alagory written centuries later, the bible not so much

[Vanilla]

Speaking of the lineage thing, I think it's funny how Christians pretend that we actually know who people 2000 years ago descended from. It isn't like there is solid proof that a Mary and a Joseph were descended from that guy, and that they were Jesus's parents.

[Devrim]

Speaking of the lineage thing, I think it's funny how Christians pretend that we actually know who people 2000 years ago descended from. It isn't like there is solid proof that a Mary and a Joseph were descended from that guy, and that they were Jesus's parents.

There isn't any solid proof that Jesus even existed. If he did exist, I am sure his birth story was written well after the event specifically to fit himinto historical prophecies. Therefore, the fact that he was Jesus meant that he had to be descended from the house of David whether he actually was or not.

Devrim

[Zostrianos]

Afaik the whole virgin thing probably started as just a mistranslation, the aramenian (i believe it was) word for virgin is the same as the word for "young girl"...

If I remember correctly the word used in the Old Testament prophecy is 'Almah which does not mean virgin, it simply means 'young woman'. The Hebrew word for virgin is Betulah. I think it was the gospel writers trying to fit Jesus with the Old Testament prophecies. Most supposed Old Testament prophecies foretelling the coming of Jesus were either taken out of context or later repeated by gospel writers to their "biography" of Jesus to convince readers that he was indeed the Messiah, which he was not.


There isn't any solid proof that Jesus even existed. If he did exist, I am sure his birth story was written well after the event specifically to fit himinto historical prophecies. Therefore, the fact that he was Jesus meant that he had to be descended from the house of David whether he actually was or not.

Actually, most scholars don't dispute Jesus' existence. Have a read of "Did Jesus exist" by Bart Ehrman, he makes an airtight case. The only thing that's disputed is how much the real Jesus and that of the gospels differ. Most (non-christian) scholars generally theorize that the historical Jesus was very different than the one in the New Testament. The gospel writers embellished Jesus' story and created a new, messianic figure, sometimes using contemporary myths which they added to their version of Jesus. So the gospels are part history, part fiction, and can best be described overall as "based on a true story". There are many interesting parallels between the Jesus of the gospels and the Greek God Dionysus for instance:

Is son of Zeus, king of the Greek gods
Is Son of God (Mark 15:39)

Is son of Semele, a virgin princess of Thebes
Is son of Mary, a virgin of Nazareth (Luke 2)

Survives an attempt by Hera to kill him as an infant
Survives an attempt by King Herod to kill him as an infant (Matt. 2)

Performs miracles to inspire faith in his divinity
Performs healings and other miracles (Mark 1-2)

Battles supernatural evil in the form of Titans
Resists Satan; exorcizes demons (Mark 1-3; Matt 4; Luke 4)

Returns to his birthplace, where he is denied and rejected by family and former neighbors
Returns to his hometown, where he is rejected and threatened with death (Mark 6; Luke 4)

Invents wine; promotes his gift to humanity throughout the world
Transforms water into wine (John 2); makes wine the sacred beverage in communion (Mark 14)

Suffers wounding and death at the hands of the Titans
Suffers wounding and crucifixion at the hands of the Romans (Mark 15; John 19)

Descends into the underworld
Descends into the Underworld (1 Pet. 3:19; 4:6)

Rises to divine immortality, joining his father Zeus on Olympus
Resurrected to glory; reigns in heaven at God's right hand (Phil. 2; Acts 7:55-57)

Evangelizes the world, establishing his universal cult
Directs followers to evangelize the world (Matt. 28:19-20)

Punishes opponents who denied his divinity
Will return to pass judgment on non-believers (Matt. 24-25; Rev. 19-20)

(q.v. "The New Testament: A Student's Introduction")

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The thing is, haven't there always been itinerant rural types suspicious of the trappings of "big city" religion along with its influences from pagan and foreign sources? Given the contradictory stories of Jesus in the New Testament (and the fact they were written a goodly while after his supposed death), it seems more likely that if the Biblical Jesus is based on anyone real, then he is a composite character (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_character) of some kind.

[Sasha]

Most supposed Old Testament prophecies foretelling the coming of Jesus were either taken out of context or later repeated by gospel writers to their "biography" of Jesus to convince readers that he was indeed the Messiah, which he was not.
he is a very naughty boy! :D plZRe1kPWZw


The thing is, haven't there always been itinerant rural types suspicious of the trappings of "big city" religion along with its influences from pagan and foreign sources? Given the contradictory stories of Jesus in the New Testament (and the fact they were written a goodly while after his supposed death), it seems more likely that if the Biblical Jesus is based on anyone real, then he is a composite character (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_character) of some kind.

sure, remember that bullshit facebook post going arround atheists at easter claiming that the word easter came from some sankrit goddess or something? that might have been full of shit but in dutch easter is called "pasen", and yes, thats just a reworking of pesach..
and didnt you ever wonder why christmas is on a fixed date while easter and the other spring cellebrations move every year?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

sure, remember that bullshit facebook post going arround atheists at easter claiming that the word easter came from some sankrit goddess or something? that might have been full of shit but in dutch easter is called "pasen", and yes, thats just a reworking of pesach..
and didnt you ever wonder why christmas is on a fixed date while easter and the other spring cellebrations move every year?

Maybe not Sanskrit, but the English word Easter definitely seems cognate with Ēostre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre), which was a Germanic pagan goddess.

[cynicles]

Yeah Yeshua is basically a modified version of the classic geek archetypal hero, he shares commonalities with all of them to varying degrees. Oedipus being the quintessential archetype, the only difference is that Yeshua is boring, sexless and at best achieves the role of a slobby liberal pacifist putchist revolutionary figure.

[Devrim]

Actually, most scholars don't dispute Jesus' existence.

I think that is hardly surprising given the place of Christianity within Western society. Personally, I don't really care, but there isn't any contemporary evidence at all.

Devrim

[Captain Ahab]

A critique of Bart: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ehrman.html

[hatzel]

A critique of Bart: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ehrman.html

I got as far as the bit where it says...


The positive side to all this is that Bart – an accredited scholar, as they say – has been compelled to acknowledge that the very existence of Jesus is "one of the most pressing questions in the history of religion"...and then I stopped because I'm far too quick to judge people sometimes. Seriously that's one of the least pressing questions I could ever possibly imagine and anybody who wants to get so dramatic about it is automatically a massive clown with little to no understanding of anything of relevance to the discussion. Not to mention shamelessly Christianocentric; when exactly did Christianity earn its right to speak of itself as if questions relevant to it are of universal importance to 'the history of religion' and - here's a question for you, far more pressing than 'the very existence of Jesus' - why are anti-Christians proudly affirming the absolute centrality of Christianity, as if all other religious traditions pale into insignificance against it?

I repeat: the (non-)existence of Jesus isn't even amongst the most pressing questions in the history of Christianity - acting like it is obscures considerably more important issues in the fields of anthropology, sociology, psychology, (political) philosophy etc., - and in the history of religion it's but a tiny little speck that's hardly even worth thinking about. Claiming otherwise is not a positive side, but a deeply negative, flawed and ignorant side imho.

[Brutus]

We must not forget mithras:
Was born of a virgin on December 25th, in a cave, attended by shepherds
Was considered a great traveling teacher and master
Had 12 companions or disciples
Promised his followers immortality
Performed miracles
Sacrificed himself for world peace
Was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again
Was celebrated each year at the time of His resurrection (later to become Easter)
Was called “the Good Shepherd”
Was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion
Was considered to be the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Logos,” “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.”
Celebrated Sunday as His sacred day (also known as the “Lord’s Day,”)
Celebrated a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper”

[Dave B]

The details of the nativity of Jesus are in Matthew and Luke, and they contradict each other.

The Narrative of the Matthew dates Jesus’s birth as under the reign of Herod the great which would place his birth at 4BC, or before.

The census story is in Luke.

There was actually a ‘census of Quirinius’; but it was in 6AD.


Most objective scholars view the Luke version of the nativity as possible and the Matthew version with dead babies etc legendary and myth-making to appeal to a Judaic readership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

There are two main other infancy gospels dated speculatively to 200-400AD

Fragments of the Thomas one also appears in the Quran, which also, accepts the virgin Mary story in several places, one of them has Jesus being born under a palm tree.

As opposed to in a cave (Justin the Martyr 120AD) and in a stable in the gospels.

Although artificial ‘caves’ were often used as stables.

The other infancy gospel ( of James) has Joseph as an elderly widower already with several children being ‘compelled’ to marry a young and pregnant virgin’ girl.

It also joins together in one narrative the Matthew Herod the great version of 4BC and the Luke census version of 6AD.

Orthodox Christians prefer to believe that there was an unrecorded Quirinius census in 4BC thus claiming that both Matthew and Luke are correct.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James



There are several references in the gospels to Jesus having brothers and sisters.

And Paul names James as one of them as does Origen, “and Jospehus”

From Origens commentary on the gospel of Mattew dated circa 220AD


1


7. The Brethren of Jesus.

……………. and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun. And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) "is not this the carpenter's son?" [5262]And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" [5263]They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary.

But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, [5264] as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," [5265] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee," [5266] might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her.

And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [5267]

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. [5268]And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James." [5269]With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell; but the saying, "And His sisters are they not all with us," [5270] seems to me to signify something of this nature--they mind our things, not those of Jesus, and have no unusual portion of surpassing wisdom as Jesus has.

And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man but something diviner, inasmuch as He was, as they supposed, the son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of four, and of the others--the women--as well, and yet had nothing like to any one of His kindred, and had not from education and teaching come to such a height of wisdom and power. For they also say elsewhere, "How knoweth this man letters having never learned?" [5271] which is similar to what is here said. Only, though they say these things and are so perplexed and astonished, they did not believe, but were offended in Him; as if they had been mastered in the eyes of their mind by the powers which, in the time of the passion, He was about to lead in triumph on the cross.
Footnotes
[5260] Matt. xiii. 54. [5261] Matt. xii. 42. [5262] Matt. xiii. 55. [5263] Matt. xiii. 55, 56. [5264] The Gospel of Peter, of which a fragment was recovered in 1886 and published in 1892. [5265] Protevangelium Jacobi, c. 9. [5266] Luke i. 35. [5267] Gal. i. 19. [5268] Jos. Ant. xviii. 4. [5269] Jude 1. [5270] Matt. xiii. 56. [5271] John vii. 15.



http://mb-soft.com/believe/txua/origenmt.htm

Roman Catholicism rejects outright that Jesus had any brothers and sisters.

Origen also wrote a response to an early critic of chrisitainity called Celsum.

Celsum didn’t seem to question the ‘basic’ authenticity of the general story.

Whilst Kautsky rejects the likelihood that the gospel stories were authentic, like Engels he considered early Christianity to be a prototype anti ruling class ‘communist’ movement of the oppressed classes.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm

That view was originally Fuerbachs and Karl’s in the early 1840’s ie that original Christianity was an the religious and psychological ‘projection’ of innate or instinctive communist tendencies.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_08_11.htm

[Bostana]

Mary and Joseph were cousins :lol:

[Klaatu]

There isn't any solid proof that Jesus even existed. If he did exist, I am sure his birth story was written well after the event specifically to fit himinto historical prophecies. Therefore, the fact that he was Jesus meant that he had to be descended from the house of David whether he actually was or not.

I am sure there probably was a man named Jesus (just as there were men known as The Buddha, Augustus Caesar, and Muhammed, etc.)

I am also sure that the histories of these men and others have been somewhat (or greatly) embellished and exaggerated by their fans.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Raoul Vaneigam makes a persuasive case that the historical Jesus never existed but rather evolved as a composite figure among messianic post-Diasporah Essene communities.Also the Jesus story pretty obviously had big chunks of Eastern Middle Sea mythology-the virgin birth, birth in a manger, a dying and rising god, etc., grafted on to it.

http://www.notbored.org/resistance-introduction.html


Joseph Campbell pretty much made a living out of tracing the mytholohical connections of Christianity and the other "higher religions"

http://www.amazon.com/The-Masks-God-Vol-Occidental/dp/014019441X

[Zostrianos]

I think that is hardly surprising given the place of Christianity within Western society. Personally, I don't really care, but there isn't any contemporary evidence at all.


The hypothesis that Jesus never existed is certainly possible, but presents several problems. For one, although Jesus' teachings are not entirely new , his way of using certain expressions is unique. Another problem that's rarely addressed is if Jesus never existed, then who exactly made up the Jesus story and those teachings, and what exactly were his/their motivations?
Paul? I don't think so. Pauline Christianity (fanatical, misogynistic, intolerant) is very different from the one originally attributed to Jesus, who never meant for his message to be preached to non-Jews (there is a "Great commission" passage in the Gospels but its authenticity is disputed). Paul could not have created Christianity in the way it's found in the gospels. He certainly corrupted it, but he didn't make it up.

Scholars propose that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic teacher whose followers distorted and modified his story, believing him to be the son of God and attributing miracles to him. There are stories in the Bible that have been proven false, such as the massacre of the innocents by Herod, and the reasons for Jesus being crucified (he was not executed for being the Son of God, he was killed because he preached about a kingdom in a Roman occupied territory). However, the basic possibility that he existed makes more sense than the alternate. People back then would never have invented a story of a teacher or spiritual leader who was crucified: crucifixion was seen as the most undignified way to die, reserved for the lowest of the low.

Another is Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist, which most scholars view as factual because it's embarrassing for Christianity: if Jesus was the son of God, why would he need to be baptized? Yet another, often seen as the most embarrassing verse in the Bible, is when Jesus said in Mark that "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" when referring to the end of the world. He was certainly wrong about that prediction, and a fabricator would never have made such a precisely timed prophecy knowing he might be wrong - he would have kept it vague. Thus the most logical conclusion is that there was indeed a Jesus, even if his biblical version might not be entirely accurate.

And is it so far fetched that a 1st century apocalyptic teacher actually existed? I'm not talking about the miracles here, or the resurrection, or anything else tacked on to him by his followers. I'm addressing the basic premise that there was a preacher going around in 1st century Judea whose name was Jesus, who spoke in parables. Given the popularity of such teachers back then, it's the most likely possibility.

Now, the lack of contemporary historical mention is not really an issue: Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher, who mainly preached around villages in Palestine and was a rather obscure figure during his own lifetime. Most of the miracles attributed to him have also been described as apocryphal. It's thus not surprising if most of the late antique world was initially unaware of his existence, aside from his initially small number of followers in Judea. There are Jewish figures mentioned in the Talmud whose historicity is not disputed, and yet they're unknown in non-Jewish literature from the same age. There's good reasons why every reputable scholar today, even the most skeptical ones, don't dispute Jesus' existence. It was only after Paul started going around that Jesus became known more widely.

Here's a relevant quote by Ehrman (from "Did Jesus exist") on the perceived lack of historical evidence:

"In that connection, I should reiterate that it is a complete “myth” (in the mythicist sense) that Romans kept detailed records of everything and that as a result we are inordinately well informed about the world of Roman Palestine and should expect then to hear about Jesus if he really lived. If Romans kept such records, where are they? We certainly don’t have any. Think of everything we do not know about the reign of Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. We know from the Jewish historian Josephus that Pilate ruled for ten years, between 26 and 36 CE. It would be easy to argue that he was the single most important figure for Roman Palestine for the entire length of his rule. And what records from that decade do we have from his reign—what Roman records of his major accomplishments, his daily itinerary, the decrees he passed, the laws he issued, the prisoners he put on trial, the death warrants he signed, his scandals, his interviews, his judicial proceedings? We have none. Nothing at all. I might press the issue further. What archaeological evidence do we have about Pilate’s rule in Palestine? We have some coins that were issued during his reign (one would not expect coins about Jesus since he didn’t issue any), and one—only one—fragmentary inscription discovered in Caesarea Maritima in 1961 that indicates that he was the Roman prefect. Nothing else. And what writings do we have from him? Not a single word. Does that mean he didn’t exist? No, he is mentioned in several passages in Josephus and in the writings of the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo and in the Gospels. He certainly existed even though, like Jesus, we have no records from his day or writings from his hand. And what is striking is that we have far more information about Pilate than about any other governor of Judea in Roman times.5 And so it is a modern “myth” to say that we have extensive Roman records from antiquity that surely would have mentioned someone like Jesus had he existed."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am sure there probably was a man named Jesus

I'd be surprised if there wasn't more than one person in that place and at that general period in history, who was named "Jesus" or something close enough.

I find it funny that for all of Jesus' railings against the Pharisees, it was the latter who won out in the end. What other kind of person would compile such a disjointed and contradictory "book" like the Bible?

Using spirituality to try and improve anything is like wrestling with snakes - you think you've got it by the throat, but then it bites you in the arse. Such is inevitable when everything is down to "interpretation".

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Here's some food for thought.

The names 'Joshua' and 'Jesus' are both butcherings of the Aramaic name 'Yeshua', with 'Joshua' being the English/Germanic name and Jesus the Latin derivation of the greek butchering, Ἰησοῦς.

From this, it's quite easy to surmise that there were multiple people named 'Yeshua' (Jesus?) in the Bible, implying that this wasn't really only an archaic name given to this manifestation character, but a commonly given name like 'Jack' or 'John' in English.

[Fionnagáin]

There isn't any solid proof that Jesus even existed.
Of course, that's true of 98% of figures from this period in history, pre-modern book-keeping being what it was. Even somebody like Socrates comes to us mostly through a cluster of nth-hand anecdotes, attributed to a small clique of writers working after his death.

[Captain Ahab]

I got as far as the bit where it say...

I got as far as the bit where it says...

...and then I stopped because I'm far too quick to judge people sometimes.
And then I stopped right there.
I'm sorry but this has little relevance to the critique.

I'll give a response to Poimandres when I have the time.
Also:

It suggests that the critic's skull contains an unfavourable ratio of brains:mashed turnips, which is at least somewhat relevant.
Then in that case ol' Bart also has the unfavorable ratio of Brains.

[Fionnagáin]

It suggests that the critic's skull contains an unfavourable ratio of brains:mashed turnips, which is at least somewhat relevant.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I understand the three historians who supposedly referred to Jesus or at least early Christianity were Flavius Josephus, Philo, and Tacitus.

Josephus was a leader of the Jewish Revolt.He wrote a history of this and the political situationof Palestine in the Antiquities of the Jews. Jesus isn't mentioned. There are versions of Josephus which do mention Jesus but they are widely regarded as later Christian forgeries.

Philo was a Jewish Neo-Platonic philosopher who lived roughly 20 BCE – 50 CE. He wrote very detailed accounts of Jewish politics of the time Jesus was supposed to have lived.Our historical Jesus isn't mentioned once.There were several people named "Jesus" (Yeshua) which seems to have been a title meaning the "Annointed One". One was a rebel who was crucified.

Tacitus was supposed to have lived a hundred years after Jesus referred condemningly to a group in Palestine he called the "Chretiens". This is often taken to be proof that at least an early Christian community existed.

It seems very likely that the biblical Jesus emerged as a composite of various half remembered folk heroes in the post diasporahic Jewish community aided with a good deal of borrowing from popular mythology and even chunks of Buddhism.As said elsewhere I think Ehrman discounts the mythological cut and pasting which occurred in the formation of Christianity.

Baptism seems to have been erived from pagan mystery cults and, like much else was added to the story. Vaneigam provides a persuasive account of how the Gospel stories could have evolved.

[Devrim]

There isn't any solid proof that Jesus even existed. Of course, that's true of 98% of figures from this period in history, pre-modern book-keeping being what it was. Even somebody like Socrates comes to us mostly through a cluster of nth-hand anecdotes, attributed to a small clique of writers working after his death.

Yes, maybe I phrased that a bit poorly. Perhaps it would have been better so say that there are no surviving contemporary references to him, which of course only suggests that he wasn't considered that important at the time.

There are though figures that are entirely mythical, Robin Hood and King Arthur to name just a couple of English examples.

Devrim

[Dave B]

I am open minded about the historicity of Jesus but take the similar view to Fuerbach Kautsky and Engels that early christianity (eg the gospel material) was a working class political movement probably triggered by social and economic upheaval after full incorporation of Judea etc into the Roman empire after 6/7AD.

The economic background was;

After 6AD, as I understand it, taxes on small landowning peasants were required to be collected and paid in cash as opposed to in kind.

And land was allowed to be put up as collateral for debt and usury and foreclosed on for non payment.

After 6AD less forward thinking peasants hoped to sell their produce at harvest time to pay their taxes; when there was glut of produce on the market and thus prices were low.

Rich peasants could pay out of their cash hoard and sell their produce later a higher prices. And also loan money at interest to poorer peasants who couldn’t pay their taxes.

With the rising indebtedness of the poorer peasants, the richer ones acquired their land and they became agricultural wage labourers.

A similar thing happened in Russia post 1860.


--------



On Flavius Josephus.

Flavius Josephus after fighting the Romans defected and became a collaborator and quisling and was subsequently disowned by nationalist ‘Jewish’ community.

There are quite few obviously different Jesus’s in the works of Josephus and Jesus was a common name apparently.

There are two that are claimed to refer to the Jesus;


……….so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified..http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm (http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm)

And the generally recognized as a forgery Testimonium Flavianum


Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm (http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm)




It is useful I think to look at Origen when assessing Joesphus.

Origen was a well read (including Josephus) intellectual albeit Christian who took himself seriously and was a prolific writer, most of his work is lost.

He theologically fell out of favour in 4th and 5th century his work becoming taboo and heretical.

In his commentary on Matthew circa 220 AD he refers to the first Josephus passage making plain according to him that the stoned James the Just was the brother of the Jesus.

Thus;



………And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, ………….. in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; http://mb-soft.com/believe/txua/origenmt.htm (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txua/origenmt.htm)


That would be a bold false statement for an intellectual to make in 220AD.

That statement also must falsify as a forgery the Testimonium Flavianum because Origen says Josephus

“did not accept Jesus as Christ”.


Speculating; that statement by Origen might suggest that he had read a passage by Flavius that said the Jesus was not the ‘Christ’.



Which may have been the substance of the original Testimonium Flavianum.

There is also quite a bit of anti Christian Judiac material dated in period of about 200-600AD of which the content is interesting.

It claims that Jesus was a magician and a conman. And dismissing the virgin Mary story, claiming that Jesus was the product of a disgraceful sexual liason with a Roman soldier.

Later versions name the soldier (an archer apparently) and even the legion he was in.

Included in the film ‘Life of Brian’.

I seemed to remember that part of that claim was included in the anti Christian tract by Celsum that was presumably written before Origen’s rebuttal of it in 220AD.

The main thrust of Celsus’s argument was that it was absurd to suggest that a god or demi god would appear as an artisan carpenter, between a slave and a peasant in social status.

And then allow himself to be crucified like a common criminal.

It would have been interesting to see what Origen would have made of the two nativity versions of Luke and Matthew; as being familiar with Josephus he must have recognised that the two dates were 10 years apart.

As Fuerbach sort of did, you an do a materialist analysis of early Christianity from its content.

Ideologies including religions, however mad they may be, do not appear in a socio- economic vacuum, the superstructural ideology and its value systems are a reflection of the economic base and interests of its adherents and followers.

People cut their religious cloth to suit themselves.

The original Judaic God apart from being vain and tyrannical rewarded those on earth to whom he approved and punished those he didn’t, including their descendents, albeit in a capricious way.

It was a ruling class ideology as those in power were essentially sanctioned by an intercessionist God in a world that was organised according to his whims.

The poor, oppressed and disabled were under God’s just curse.

A divine right of kings ideology that later revisionist Christianity returned to.

The Gospel material turned this idea on its head.



The Pharisees of organised religion and the rich were going to go to hell and it was the poor and oppressed that were under god’s grace etc.

It doesn’t take much to work out what the likely constituency of early Christianity was, or their political outlook.

As in Acts 2;44, they even appeared to be communists.

That even seemed to continue into 2nd and 3rd century as Kautsky cites some examples in his book.

An idea that creates just as much outrage from our modern Christians as it does Marxists.




.