Warning - religious post.
It’s been a while since I’ve made a religious post here and some of my previous posts have been misinterpreted, so I am warning you right up front.
This post is mainly for TomS and is related to the book (that I’m still reading) by Bart Ehrman called The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
Of course, anyone is free to reply, but please note, this is not meant to be an attack on anyone’s belief’s, etc., although it may be interpreted that way.
TomS - I’ve always had problems understanding and believing that Jesus died for sins, etc., etc.
It just never made much sense to me, even as a child.
The above book talks about this a lot, and it’s basically boils down to the notion that the early Christians formed of a “suffering messiah.”
Jesus basically preached an apocalyptic message where the Son of Man was coming the the Earth and we would be judged.
He never really preached that he was going to die for our sins or that we should follow him for that.
And then all of a sudden he was wisked off and executed for sedetion against the Roman state.
It left Jesus’s followers wondering what has happened?
And no Jew at the time of Jesus believed in the “suffering messiah” either, which is probably why most Jews didn’t think Jesus was the messiah to begin with.
So basically the idea “suferring Messiah” was created by the early Christians to explain what just happened to their apocalyptic leader.
Also, the passages from the Bible, used to “prove” that the “suffering Messiah” had been predicted and was God’s will, were misinterpreted at best or misunderstood at worse, according to Ehrman.
Therefore, the whole notion of modern Christianity being based on Jesus’s death and ressurection becomes somewhat questionable.
And I fully realize what I am saying here.
Pardon me for greatly simplifying this topic but I’ve described the basic premise.
Thoughts?
Sorry Mike, but this is more than slightly OT…
Of course Jesus died for our sins, well, he died for someone’s sins anyway.
And the process continues…
I see that they’ve caught Karadzic, and no doubt he too will die, he’ll die for the sins of the Serbs.
Half a million people he killed apparently. Quite honestly, I’m surprised he found the time.
Anyway, die he will, and quite rightly so. And all those Serbs who actually carried the guns and fired the bullets can sit back with their souls washed clean.
Wonderful thing, human sacrifice, innit?
Heh, the more you learn, the less you know for sure… especially in things like this with relatively poor accounting at the time and you had “warring” factions such as Paul versus the various church’s in the field at the time. Essentially Paul was the loudest yeller and won the contest for the ages… but knowing this like that sure bring up a whole lot of questions as to why doctrine is what it is now. All very interesting.
Quote:
Of course Jesus died for our sins, well, he died for someone's sins anyway.
Well - that's what we're taught. I'm not so sure anymore. Jesus said the Son of Man was coming and he never said that he was that one. It was the early Christians that came to believe that.
Bubba - you're right about Paul. A lot of what we accept in modern Christianity comes from Paul. What's most interesting about Ehrman's book is how he points out how sketchy things really are from 2,000 years ago. And how many inconsistencies are in the things that are written.
Yep, that’s a good summary, and Ehrman even soft-sells it a bit, the evidence is pretty much there. It doesn’t just make most versions of modern Christianity somewhat questionable. It shows them to be rooted in mythmaking that itself presents a view of the world that is morally abhorrent. But note that not all of the early groups interpreted Jesus’ execution in this way; that’s one of the main things that makes all those other Christianities so interesting (although not necessarily morally better). The “proto-orthodox” (horrible name, but it’ll have to do) position won, but other views stayed pretty robust for centuries sometimes, e.g., the fascinating strains of gnosticism in texts like G Thomas or G Mary or G Judas, where salvation comes through understanding, and not some blood sacrifice.
Ehrman is a great academic - a scholar of the highest rank himself, he presents serious and difficult scholarship in very clear terms for the rest of us. Such a rare thing, and one of my intellectual heroes. Glad you are enjoying the book.
Karadzic - one bad person. And he was in plain sight all along… But I still don’t favor capital punishment. We’re better than that. Or we can be.
Oh - the son of man was just a way of saying human being, and had none of the meanings later Christians gave to it.
Quote:
It shows them to be rooted in mythmaking that itself presents a view of the world that is morally abhorrent.
Tom - I am not sure what you mean here? Can you elaborate?
To me, it's understandable why the early Christians tried to make sense of Jesus's execution. They also had to try to "sell" their Messiah to others, and since Jesus had been virtually unkown and a common criminal, that might have been a little hard to do. Ehrman also explains why he thought the early Christians would have believed it also, i.e., they already believed he was the Messiah to begin with and when they saw visions of his ressurection, then that would enforce that he was the Son of Man or the Messiah or both.
Quote:
Oh - the son of man was just a way of saying human being
Is this what Jesus meant though?
He clearly was talking about some apocalyptic vision.
Now I'm clearer about the whole suffering Messiah thing, I'd like to get back to what Jesus's actual messages were.
I'm not familar with what other groups felt about Jesus's execution?
Does Ehrman get into that?
Well, to take your questions/comments in reverse order:
1. Which other groups? Like you said, he was not exactly an important person at the time, so almost nobody cared, except for those few people close to him. Afterward…well, it depends on what other groups you are talking about, and when.
2. Yes, that’s what Jesus meant by the phrase “son of man.”
3. Remember, a messiah in the Jewish sense is quite different than in the (later) Christian sense.
4. As for the subethical (Funk’s word) nature of the myth that emerged from the proto-orthodox folks, the point should be obvious. A god who requires a blood sacrifice of his own son to magically free us from sin that is somehow inherited through sperm (I know, that’s Augustine) and will otherwise result in our eternal punishment. Well, I should just finish quoting Funk:
Quote:
The doctrine of the atonement—the claim that God killed his own son in order to satisfy his thirst for satisfaction—is subrational and subethical. This monstrous doctrine is the stepchild of a primitive sacrificial system in which the gods had to be appeased by offering them some special gift, such as a child or an animal.
From:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodi…es.html
That any one ever believed this is hard enough to fathom. That it is still treated as some deeply moral world view would be laughable, if it weren’t so tragic and destructive. The myth would be dead by now, except for the fact that there are folks who profit from it greatly, in money, power, and prestige, who with complete disregard for the well-being of others continue to propagate the nonsense.
Quote: (TomS @ Jul. 22 2008, 5:16 PM)
Oh - the son of man was just a way of saying human being, and had none of the meanings later Christians gave to it.
Authoritatively "spoken". Are you sure? You don't have to answer.
Don't mind me fella's... my ten foot pole is in the shop for repairs even if I were inclined to use it!
D
PS Good to see you around Mike.
PPS Saul was the biggest persecutor of early Christians, yet something happened on a road trip to Damascus and he
Quote:
was the loudest yeller and won the contest for the ages...
Reckon WHY?
Tom - yes Ehrman goes into the meaning of the word Messiah in great detail.
But do you know who Jesus talking about, just another man, when he spoke of his apocalyptic message?
Diogenes - yes this is pretty heavy stuff and it goes to the core of modern day Christian belief’s.
You have to be VERY open to obtaining the facts and the truth to accept the notion that Jesus did not die for our sins and that the early Christians basically fabricated this whole myth, as Tom puts in.
And I believe that is exactly what they did, for understandable reasons though, and Ehrman goes into in great detail.
However, he is very quick to point out all the places where there are holes in the knowledge and/or places where the true meaning cannot be known exactly.
I like his writing because he is not judgemental at all, i.e., he’s not out to destroy Christianity or anything like that.
He’s out to show exactly what was going on 2000 years ago and who Jesus really was, and that’s exactly what I am looking for.
Quote: (Mr Soul @ Jul. 23 2008, 7:05 AM)
Tom - yes Ehrman goes into the meaning of the word Messiah in great detail.
But do you know who Jesus talking about, just another man, when he spoke of his apocalyptic message?
Diogenes - yes this is pretty heavy stuff and it goes to the core of modern day Christian belief's.
You have to be VERY open to obtaining the facts and the truth to accept the notion that Jesus did not die for our sins and that the early Christians basically fabricated this whole myth, as Tom puts in.
And I believe that is exactly what they did, for understandable reasons though, and Ehrman goes into in great detail.
However, he is very quick to point out all the places where there are holes in the knowledge and/or places where the true meaning cannot be known exactly.
I like his writing because he is not judgemental at all, i.e., he's not out to destroy Christianity or anything like that.
He's out to show exactly what was going on 2000 years ago and who Jesus really was, and that's exactly what I am looking for.
Hi Mike,
Yep. I understand where you are coming from and applaud your research. If there is one thing I am absolutely certain of when it comes the the "religion" thing, we each have to search and make up our own hearts and minds.
Hang in there.
D
My Take -
Jesus Christ was the ‘ultimate’ social revolutionary - who supplanted
the whole power structure of the time with the concept that
’everyone’ had a power within them that was greater than any
king or prince. In one fell swoop he empowered every human being,
giving them a peaceful meaningful way to deal with tyrants and
oppressors. It was and is still the greatest revolution of our
existance. For this he was killed. All the religeous trappings
that surround this is good - because one should never forget
that no man or group of men is equipped to rule over me or you.
Quote: (Diogenes @ Jul. 22 2008, 9:31 PM)
Quote: (TomS @ Jul. 22 2008, 5:16 PM)
Oh - the son of man was just a way of saying human being, and had none of the meanings later Christians gave to it.
Authoritatively "spoken". Are you sure? You don't have to answer.
Don't mind me fella's... my ten foot pole is in the shop for repairs even if I were inclined to use it!
D
Well, Dio (and Mr Soul) permit me to answer in all humility, and with no intention of upsetting anyone, least of all you - as sure as the historical evidence warrants, which is pretty sure. The phrase is very old, found in Akkadian texts, e.g. In all of the pre-Christian texts it is used usually to refer to humanity in general, often to an individual. Jewish usage usually was/is as a reference to humanity or the person especially in a humble sense - look at the huge number of times it occurs in Ezekiel, e.g.
And then there is Daniel 7:13-14, which is about as close to the later Christian interpretation as you'll get, but in which the phrase is "one like a son of man" - and in which a bit later (8:17) is used the phrase "son of man" to refer to the author, a human being, in the usual humble sense. Being like the son of man, that is, looking like a human being, is not the same as being a human being. It takes a bit of interpretive twisting to make this a foundational text for the Christian version.
Jesus was a Mediterranean Jewish peasant, and understood and used the phrase as a Jew. Almost all of the empirical, historical evidence is that the term was reinterpreted after he died as part of the myth-making process that produced the orthodox view.
BTW, it's always worth keeping in mind that the mythmaking process never stopped, that each person who approaches the texts in a religious way takes up the texts and remakes them. Consider the Mormon take on the phrase - they take it to mean that God literally is a man, an interesting an understandable innovation.
I think the issue is ultimately an epistemological one. For many Christians, esp. Americans heavily influenced by the theology of the Second Great Awakening (the significance of which our European friends don't fully appreciate, sometimes) the standard for truth is precisely a religious one, and not a historical, evidence-based standard; these people are properly viewed as continuing the mythmaking process of folks like Saul/Paul. Which is an interesting thought, seems to me. It points to the problem. If we really want to resolve this debate, we need to come to some consensus about standards of evidence; otherwise we'll just end up flinging epistemological warrant at each other to no purpose. Of course, the alternative is to learn to live together and tolerate each other, but that's another problem.
Right - Wikipedia has a good discussion - Son of Man.
I also found this site which is a summary of another of Ehrman’s books - Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet
Here’s a quote:
Quote:
The Jesus of history, contrary to modern “common sense”…was not a proponent of “family values.” He urged his followers to abandon their homes and forsake families for the sake of the Kingdom that was soon to arrive. He didn’t encourage people to pursue fulfilling careers, make a good living, and work for a just society for the long haul; for him, there wasn’t going to *be a long haul. The end of the world as we know it was already at hand. The Son of Man would soon arrive, bringing condemnation and judgement against those who prospered in this age, but salvation and justice to the poor, downtrodden, and oppressed. People should sacrifice everything for his coming, lest they be caught unawares and cast out of the Kingdom that was soon to arrive.
So who was Jesus’s referring to here as the Son of Man?
Surely he was not talking about himself.
Not to change subject but what are we to think of his resurrection?
It gauled me to hear my pastor say that Jesus’s resurrection was FACT.
It was not fact, in the historical sense, but it was recorded.
What exactly do we make of it?
That’s the part I’m sort of stuck on now.
You won’t offend me Tom.
IMO that’s one of the biggest problems plaguing believers today whether it’s Christians, Musilms, Buddhist’s… whatever. Too easily offended.
D
Quote:
All the religeous trappings that surround this is good - because one should never forget that no man or group of men is equipped to rule over me or you.
God TELLS us we are not capable of ruling ourselves. So far, it has been FACT. Look at our history. What a mess... here's the cure:
Matthew Chapter 22
Quote:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Even if you don't believe in God, the last one would solve our problems. The thing is many don't know what "love" means anymore.
D
PS Doggone you guys! I thought I wasn't going to get pulled in...
Oh, well, I’ll try harder, then Diogenes. 
Sure sounds like someone else, doesn’t it?
Of the ressurection, Mike, you know what the conclusion is. Paradigmatic example of mythmaking. Not in other forms of early Christianity, e.g., Gnostic.
Quote:
Of the ressurection, Mike, you know what the conclusion is. Paradigmatic example of mythmaking. Not in other forms of early Christianity, e.g., Gnostic.
No - I really don't know the conclusion. Are you suggesting the resurrection was completely made up, i.e., mythology? It is true that only a few individuals witnessed it. It's pretty radical to make up such a thing.
Quote: (Mr Soul @ Jul. 23 2008, 11:30 AM)
Quote:
Of the ressurection, Mike, you know what the conclusion is.
Paradigmatic example of mythmaking.
Not in other forms of early Christianity, e.g., Gnostic.
No - I really don't know the conclusion.
Are you suggesting the resurrection was completely made up, i.e., mythology?
It is true that only a few individuals witnessed it.
It's pretty radical to make up such a thing.
Yes, I am not just suggesting it. No more radical than the idea that killing God's son was somehow necessary to satisfy God.
Really, what D just quoted is the radical stuff. The ethics of the Sermon on the Mount - esp. the Beatitudes - that's the radical stuff, it's authentic Jesus based on the historical evidence, and it is the stuff that nearly every Christian has forgotten because it is so damned inconvenient. It's radical now, and it was even more radical back then, in a way than almost no one gets anymore. All that nonsense about a bloody execution as a sacrifice for sin - that crapola pretty much derailed Jesus' core message. I am not a Christian, but I agree 100% with D, if folks got that stuff, really got it, the world would be a different place indeed. One good thing: it's not just Jesus' message, it's the message of secular humanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.