I never cease to be amazed by the diversity of opinion out there in former-WCG country. We, the children of the Herbal diaspora, are an incredibly varied lot, ranging from wooden biblicism to radical atheism.
Take Neil Godfrey for example. Here's his potted bio on Ironwolf. Yes, I realise he's an Ocker, but, c'mon now, nobody's perfect. And here's his blog. Despite the dippy blog title (did I mention he's an Aussie?) this guy is incisive and articulate (even if he does hail from Toowoomba.) It's definitely a blog to follow if you're one of the evil, depraved Atheist brigade that hangs out in the comments zone here on AW. Despite obviously heading straight for Gehenna fire (which he would have anyway, especially if he supports the Wallabies) Neil seems well read and highly knowledgable. At the risk of being zapped by a lightning bolt myself, I've added a link to Vridar in the sidebar.
19 comments:
I think there is very little question that Jesus existed as person. There are four known secular references to Jesus
"...four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Greco-Roman_sources
There are also many reference to Jesus in both the Talmud and in the Koran.
But the Jesus of history is definitely not the Jesus you find in the New Testament.
There is ongoing search for the real "Historical Jesus". I think he was real... but he just isn't who Orthodox Christianity claims he was.
Orthodox Christianity is a massive hoax that the dark side of Western society continues to force on its people.
But there is a more important question than "who was the real historical Jesus"? It is why such a hoax continues unabated and with such incredible force behind it.
We really do live in a very dark world.
For those searching for the real "historical Jesus", you may want to read "Jesus the Last of the Pharaohs" by Ralph Ellis. It is yet another interesting perspective.
Godfrey's keen scholarly insights understood early the importance of Marcionism on the evolution of the Christ-myth. That's why I'm particularly enjoying this entry:
http://vridar.wordpress.com/category/book-reviews/tyson-marcion-and-luke-acts/
Another Aussie...
Wrote a ground breaking novel in 1972, "The Jesus Scroll" written by Australian author Donovan Joyce.
Joyce claimed "...to have seen a scroll stolen from the Masada excavations. He wrote that it was one of fifteen scrolls discovered during the dig there. His book states that the stolen autobiographical scroll was signed Yeshua ben Ya’akob ben Gennesareth, who described himself as eighty years old and added that he was the last of the rightful kings of Israel. The name when translated into English became Jesus of Gennesareth, son of Jacob. Joyce identifies the author as Jesus of Nazareth. Joyce's book further claims that Jesus survived the crucifixion, was present during the Roman siege of Masada during the Jewish Revolt of 66-74 AD, and that he had married Mary Magdalene and fathered a child with her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Scroll
"Joyce proposed controversial theories concerning the historicity of Jesus that caused outrage among many Christians; Joyce received numerous death threats."
Anon said...
>>I think there is very little question that Jesus existed as person. There are four known secular references to Jesus
"...four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger"<<
There isn't any evidence that any of the above people or the author of the koran ever met Jesus, yet their testimony is accepted as credible. Meanwhile, the testimony of those who shared Jesus' company for 3.5 years, if not longer, is rejected as spurious, because it has been recorded in a book called The New Testament.
Serious scholarship doesn't just dismiss evidence that doesn't agree with a preconceived hypothesis. It considers and evaluate all the available evidence before drawing any conclusions. Any other approach is mere prejudice against the sources with which one disagrees.
In response to Anonymous:
The Josephus passage was generally admitted to be a total forgery among scholars until around the 1960's. The passage is still debatable, and there are strong reasons for still thinking it a forgery. Links available on my blog and elsewhere to follow this up.
If Tacitus really wrote about Christians being persecuted by Nero there is not a single clue that anyone knew he did so until centuries later. Another surely obvious forgery.
Suetonius makes no mention of Jesus, but only of someone called Chrestus, a very common slave name of the day. Why should we take this as evidence for Jesus?
Pliny the Younger again makes no reference to Jesus. He only knows about some people worshiping a "christ" at a dawn sunrise service, and knows no links with any illegal activity -- hard to explain if their founder was crucified for sedition.
I recently finished reading "The Judas Brief" by Gary Greenberg.
Tom you should read this.
You wrote "Meanwhile, the testimony of those who shared Jesus' company for 3.5 years, if not longer, is rejected as spurious, because it has been recorded in a book called The New Testament."
The writers and editors of the NT had an agenda. They wanted to establish an all male priesthood that would control the people and control society.
They succeeded in spades! Such a priesthood was brought from Egypt into Judaism and was brought from Judaism into Orthodox Christianity.
Our system of modern priests and pastors goes all the way back to Egypt.
The early NT priests took long established pagan beliefs from Egypt, Canaan, and Persia and wrote them into the life of Jesus.
"The Judas Brief" seeks to deconstruct some of this fable, specifically blaming the Jews Jesus' death.
Greenberg makes an excellent case that the Jewish authorities did not seek to have Jesus put to death, but rather acted to save him and his followers and other innocent Jews from a crushing military assault by Roman soldiers. The true villain was Herod Antipas the Roman ruler of Galilee.
Greenberg contends that the Jewish authorities sought to prevent the planned massacre and opened up negotiations with Pilot and Jesus, Jesus was represented by his trusted disciple Judas. Jesus agreed to remain under house arrest with the high priest in order to guarantee that his followers caused no disturbances. Pilot agreed that if Jesus' followers remained quiet, he would allow Jesus to return to Galilee after the holidays ended.
But when Herod Antipas learned of this arrangement, he demanded that Pilate renege on his promise and execute Jesus or face charges of treason. Greenberg contends that Pilot yielded to Herod's threats.
Tom, the gospels and epistles do appear to contain elements of truth and some stories based on actual events, they were written very much like the Old Testament.
For the past three centuries folks have been working hard to discern what is true and what is fable.
Matt.27:52-53 says "The graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints arose, and came out of the graves and went into the holy city, and appeared to many".
Like the life and claims of Jesus, another biblical event that's hard to prove, the only "evidence" being hearsay.
I would think, that for a supernatural occurence like people coming up out of their graves, there would be tons of secular historical documentation that nobody (even the Roman government) could hope to suppress. Documentation telling about how long these people lived, what happened to them eventually, etc. etc. And yet there is absolutely NOTHING in the way of secular documentation about an event as fantastic as this. At least none that I have ever heard of.
Could somebody explain this one?
Niel,
The four are genuine Greco-Roman historians that make reference to a historical Jesus. Maybe not "the Christ", but to a historical person called Jesus.
There is a difference.
"The Josephus passage was generally admitted to be a total forgery among scholars until around the 1960's."
It may not be a total forgery, some of this may well be genuine.
"If Tacitus really wrote about Christians being persecuted by Nero there is not a single clue that anyone knew he did so until centuries later."
Scholars do not feel this is a forgery. Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire.
"Suetonius makes no mention of Jesus, but only of someone called Chrestus, a very common slave name of the day. Why should we take this as evidence for Jesus?"
My point exactly, the real Jesus is not the one we read about in the New Testament. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, commonly known as Suetonius (ca. 69/75 – after 130), was an equestrian and a historian during the Roman Empire. His stuff is early and genuine.
"Pliny the Younger again makes no reference to Jesus. He only knows about some people worshiping a "christ" at a dawn sunrise service, and knows no links with any illegal activity -- hard to explain if their founder was crucified for sedition."
Again, we are left with asking who was the real Jesus?
The Jesus we read about in the New Testament is a creation of Orthodox Christianity. He is not a genuine historical person. But there was a real Jesus from Galilee who lived and taught in the first century.
-----------
He was not the son of God.
He was not born of a virgin.
He did not die on a cross.
He was not resurrected after 3 days and nights.
He did not establish a church hierarchy.
But he lived.
He changed Judaism.
And he left a unique set of teachings that changed the world.
----------
"And he left a unique set of teachings that changed the world."
Agreed. Pity those teachings are no longer taught, and the "change" wrought at its alleged behest is now better known as "the Dark Ages".
'Agreed. Pity those teachings are no longer taught, and the "change" wrought at its alleged behest is now better known as "the Dark Ages".'
....... Amen
.
Hmm. But I don't agree with the "he lived" part though, Anon 3:00. I think we part ways in that respect. Sorry.
"Hmm. But I don't agree with the "he lived" part though, Anon 3:00. I think we part ways in that respect. Sorry."
The teachings came from somewhere, they didn't pop up out of thin air.
"The teachings came from somewhere, they didn't pop up out of thin air."
You are absolutely 100% correct, we are in complete agreement on this.
They came from that top bit right there.
:-)
"You are absolutely 100% correct, we are in complete agreement on this."
I agree, very nice teachings.
Very nice thoughts that someone had and someone wrote down. These are first century thoughts. They don't exist before that.
These thoughts have had an enormous impact on Western culture.
"These are first century thoughts. They don't exist before that."
Actually, the bulk of them don't exist before the third century. A couple hundred years makes all the difference, between "eye witnesses" and "fan fiction", wouldn't you agree?
"Actually, the bulk of them don't exist before the third century. A couple hundred years makes all the difference, between "eye witnesses" and "fan fiction", wouldn't you agree?"
Much of the Gospel of "Q" used as the core of Matthew and Luke is from the first century.
"Q" is purely a sayings gospel, much like the Gospel of Thomas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document
I would suggest "The Lost Gospel, the Book of Q and Christian Origins" by Burton Mack.
Burton Mack is really insightful...
Also "The Lost Gospel Q: The Original Sayings of Jesus" by Marcus Borg is very good.
The Gospel of Thomas contains sayings that also go back to the first century. It may have been compiled later, but the saying are first century.
The Gospel of Thomas is especially interesting and IMO genuine since it is non-canonical.
The Catholic Church tried hard to destroy it. It GT did not pass through the editors at Nicaea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas
We do have unique teachings, mostly sayings, from the first century.
"The Gospel of Thomas contains sayings that also go back to the first century. It may have been compiled later, but the saying are first century."
Right, and I agree with you that the Gnostic texts are earlier than the Christian ones; what the anonymous commenter was referring to were the canonical texts, however, wherein the christological figure is literalized.
That's what I got, anyway. I could be wrong.
I personally don't consider the Gnostic texts to be Christian, though, because gnosticism and Christianity are two entirely separate threads of religion.
"I personally don't consider the Gnostic texts to be Christian, though, because gnosticism and Christianity are two entirely separate threads of religion."
That is the approach most CoG folk take. I have a good friend who rails against Gnosticism. He heard that Gnosticism wasn't Christian from his pastor and from the conservative media.
But Thomas is not Gnostic.
Scholars have a hard time categorizing it, it doesn't fit neatly into any category.
But it is Christian, it just ended up on the loosing side of the doctrinal wars of the first three centuries. Orthodoxy won of course. The Churches of God is certainly Orthodox; it is on the fringe, but Orthodox.
April DeConick feels it is not Gnostic. She is GT scholar, she writes...
http://www.aprildeconick.com/gospelofthomas.html
"Is the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?
The quick answer to this is "no." The esotericism in this gospel has been misunderstood and mislabeled from the very beginning of its interpretative history. The reason for this has to do with the fact that until the Nag Hammadi texts were found, we didn't know what Gnostic really was. Scholars tended to apply it very loosely to any text or tradition that they believed to be dualistic and anti-world or body, which expressed the opinion that within the human being was "light" redeemable through gnosis or knowledge. After studying the Nag Hammadi texts for fifty years, we now realize that this is a nonsense definition because it is so broad as to be useless. Gnostic mythology has a couple of distinctive features: the belief that this world was created by a lesser (ignorant or arrogant) being known as the Demiurge; and the belief that this world is the result of the fall of an Aeon from the Godhead, usually Sophia. Neither of these are found in the Gospel of Thomas.
Instead the esotericism in the Gospel of Thomas is a form of early Christian mysticism. It was a contemplative type of Christianity that grew in Syria as well as Alexandria. The idea was that each person had the choice to grow into God's Image or to remain stunted due to Adam's decision. If the person chose to grow, then the divinization process was gradual and included not only ritual activities like baptism and eucharist, but also instructional and contemplative activities. Part of the process then was living as Jesus lived - it was imitative. The other part was contemplating who and where Jesus was. This contemplative life led to heavenly (or interiorized) journeys and visions of God. Eventually the faithful would become like Jesus, replacing their fallen image with the image of God. This contemplative Christianity is not heretical, but an early form of eastern orthodoxy!"
Just a comment on DeCornik
I think she is correct in saying that the Gospel of Thomas is not Gnostic, but I don't agree with much of what she writes about GT.
The GT is Christian mysticism, but it is not early Eastern Orthodoxy. In GT you find no Eucharist and no Christian baptism; you find almost nothing that is Orthodox, either Western or Eastern Orthodox.
You do find Sabbath and Holy day observance and a unique definition of the "the Father's kingdom".
About 30% of GT contains the same sayings you find in the four canonical gospels.
The remainder are unique.
Post a Comment