The Passion rotten so far

[The Mad Viking]

Wells, now 77, no longer is a Jesus mythologist.

He has redefined his theories, so not as to appear a total ass, and now suggests the Biblical Jesus is an amalgam of two different historical Jewish prophets, because,

Jesus, after all was a common enough name

[The Mad Viking]

Allegro's theory is that the story of Jesus is actually a personification of magic mushrooms.

He is not taken seriously by secular (or religious) scholars.

Here are some excerpts of Allegro's book:

Our present concern is to show that Judaism and Christianity are such cultic expressions of this endless pursuit by man to discover instant power and knowledge. ...

For the way to God and the fleeting view of heaven was through plants more plentifully endued with the sperm of God than any other. These were the drug-herbs, the science of whose cultivation and use had been accumulated over centuries of observation and dangerous experiment. ...

Vary rarely, and then only for urgent practical purposes, were those secrets ever committed to writing. Normally they would be passed from the priest to the initiate by word of mouth ... But if, for some drastic reason like the disruption of their cultic centres by war or persecution, it became necessary to write down the precious names of the herbs and the manner of their use and accompanying incantations, it would be in some esoteric form comprehensible to those within their dispersed comm unities.

Such an occasion, we believe, was the Jewish Revolt of AD 66. ... Judaism was disrupted ... The secrets, if they were not to be lost forever, had to be committed to writing ...

The means of conveying the information were at hand, and had been for thousands of years. The folk-tales of the ancients had from the earliest times contained myths based upon the personification of plants and trees. They were invested with human faculties and qualities and their names and physical characteristics were applied to the heros and heroines of the stories. ... Here, then was the literary device to spread occult knowledge to the faithful. To tell the story of a rabbi called Jesus, and invest him with the power and names of the magic drug. To have him live before the terrible events that had disrupted their lives, to preach a love between men, extending even to the hated Romans. Thus, reading such a tale, should it fall into Roman hands, even their mortal enemies might be deceived and not probe further into the activities of the cells of the mystery cults with their territories.

I know who was into the drug-herbs and it wasn't the ancient Jews...

[Boris Godunov]

So your argument against wells is an attack on him, not on his scholarship, I see. And what does the age of those sources have to do with anything? Surely there's no expiration date on ideas. And those are just a few of the sources. The most recent I can find published was in 1999 by Michael Martin. You can find a lot of commentary about that on the web, and he's a bonafide professor of philosophy. Is that enough to show that there's some scholarly debate over it? Again, if there wasn't, would there be so much written about it from the other side?

One of the most mainstream of historians, J.M. Roberts, sees fit to mention the debate in his magnum opus, The History of the World. Why would he even bother to waste type on it if it weren't something under historical debate? It defies logic.

Your argument is simply an appeal to tradition and an appeal to authority. I'm simply pointing out that there is indeed scholarly debate on the subject, albeit from a small minority of thinkers. No one would argue that the traditional view isn't most commonly accepted, but that doesn't remotely address the issues brought up.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Wells, now 77, no longer is a Jesus mythologist.

He has redefined his theories, so not as to appear a total ass, and now suggests the Biblical Jesus is an amalgam of two different historical Jewish prophets, because,

Jesus, after all was a common enough name

No one was arguing that the basis of the stories weren't some real figures. The most common theories put forward have always been that the figure of Jesus was a highly fictionalized amalgam of a few or several messianic figures in Judea in the time period between 100 BCE and 50 CE, as thanks to the troubled times, Judea was rife with messianic cults. The Dead Sea Scrolls support this condition rather succinctly. Any more straw men?

[Verto]

I saw The Passion tonight.

Overall, it was a very powerful movie for me. Perhaps a little bloody, but necessary for any realistic depiction of what Jesus endured.

I don't know if I could see it a second time.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Source would help... I'm not sure what you are talking about.

The NT, there is an episode in which some of the disciples are sitting around and one laments how Jesus' affection for Mary is greater, different, than his affection for the disciples. One of the disciples hears this envious talk and chastises the guilty party...

You fall into your own trap. Consider John the Baptist. Was he a priest according to the Jews? No.

To which Jews?

Was he considered to be a prophet from God, by his followers? Yes. As prophet, did they accept his baptism of repentence? Yes.

And? Yet Jesus asked John to baptise him. Why?

So how do you explain his supplication to Christ, and his claims of himself as a servant of Christ, as one unworthy of untying his sandals?

Because John the Baptist viewed Jesus as a greater teacher.

Christians do not believe Christ is a priest, but the Son of God. Peter exclaims that Christ is the Son of God, and receives blessings from Christ when he testifies.

What Christians now believe is irrelevant to what Jesus was then. Many Jews in the OT were referred to either as "messiah" or sons of God. Jesus himself told his disciples to pray to God as "our father", were they sons of God too? If you are a son of God, does that mean you can't be a priest.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


So. If Hitler had washed his hands, the holocaust would not have been his responsibility?

Absurd, and in all likelihood, convenient historical revisionism.

TMV, where is your source of information that Pilate executed Jesus to stop his "rebellion" and that no Jew had anything to do with it?

[Jon Miller]

actually cite it please

I beleive that youa re remembering slightly off

JM

[Ned]

TMV,

Explain this

According to Josephus (Antiquitates, XVIII, iv, 3), Caiphas was appointed High-Priest of the Jews by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pontius Pilate, about A.D. 18 (Ant., XVIII, ii, 2), and removed from that office by the procurator Vitellius, shortly after he took charge of affairs in Palestine, A.D. 36 (Ant., XVIII, iv, 3). During this period the famous Annas, father-in-law of Caiphas (John 18:13), who had been high-priest from A.D. 6 to 15, continued to exercise a controlling influence over Jewish affairs, as he did when his own sons held the position. This explains the rather puzzling expression of Luke 3:2, epi archiereos Anna kai Kaiapha (under the high-priest Annas and Caiphas; cf. Acts 4:6). Caiphas was certainly the only official high-priest at the time St. Luke refers to, at the beginning of the public life of Christ; but Annas still had his former title and a good deal of his former authority. The role assigned him in the trial of Christ, in John 18, points to the same continued influence. In the measures taken by the Jewish authorities to do away with Jesus, Caiphas certainly had the most discreditable part. After the raising of Lazarus, the priests and Pharisees held council to determine what was to be done in view of the manifest signs of the Prophet of Nazarus and what they were pleased to consider the danger resulting to the country. The words of Caiphas, the high-priest of that year, are reported by St. John: "You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient to you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not" (11:49-50). They show a disdain for others, and a determination to get rid of this man who was displeasing to him, without any consideration of the justice of his cause. But while we may see in the declaration of Caiphas the manifestation of very unworthy sentiments, we are warned by St. John that it was prophetical. The high-priest expressed in a striking way the meaning of the sufferings of the Man-God (John 11:51-52), though he could not have realized the full import of those mysterious words. The death of Jesus being resolved upon, the most unscrupulous means were employed in order to bring it about, and Caiphas is chiefly to blame. The meeting determined upon by the princes of the priests and the elders of the people, "that by subtilty they might apprehend Jesus", was held in the house of Caiphas (Matthew 26:3-5). The hill south of Jerusalem where this house is said by tradition to have stood is called the "Hill of Evil Counsel". As high-priest, Caiphas was the official head of the Sanhedrin, and consequently responsible for the travesty of a trial to which Christ was submitted by the Jewish authorities, before they handed Him over to Pilate and stirred up the people to demand his death.

After the death of Jesus, Caiphas continued to persecute his followers. When Peter and John were brought before the Council after the cure of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts 4:6 sqq.), Caiphas was still high-priest, since he was removed A.D. 36 or 37. We can say with almost equal certainty that he was the high-priest before whom St. Stephen appeared (Acts 7:1), and that it is from him that Saul obtained letters authorizing him to bring the Christians of Damascus to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1-2). At a time when high-priests were made and unmade by officials of Rome, and when the principal quality required seems to have been subserviency, it is no credit to the character of Caiphas to have enjoyed their favour so long. Josephus mentions his rule in connection with a series of acts of Vitellius which were agreeable to the Jews. We are not told what became of him after his deposition.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03143b.htm

[Ned]

Also, if you look at the link to the Sanhedrin, you will find

"Some scholars, however, deny that the Romans ever deprived the Sanhedrin of any part of its power: the Sanhedrin, they say, owing to the frequency of cases half-religious and half-political in nature, in order not to alienate the feelings of the people and at the same time not to incur the displeasure of the Roman authorities, practically surrendered into the hands of the latter the right to approve capital sentences; the cry of the Jews: "it is not lawful for us to put any man to death", was therefore rather a flattery to the procurator than the expression of truth.

It should be noted, however, that of these views the former is more favourably received by scholars. At all events, criminal causes were tried before a commission of twenty-three members (in urgent cases any twenty-three members might do) assembled under the presidency of the Ab Beth-Din; two other boards, also of twenty-three members each, studied the questions to be submitted to plenary meetings. These three sections had their separate places of meeting in the Temple buildings; the criminal section met originally in the famous "Hall of the Hewn Stone" (Mishna, Peah, ii, 6; Eduyoth, vii, 4) which was on the south side of the court (Middoth, v, 4) and served also for the sittings of the "Great Sanhedrin", or plenary meetings; about A. D. 30, that same section was transferred to another building closer to the outer wall; they had also another meeting place in property called khanyioth, "trade-halls", belonging to the family of Hanan (cf. John, xvii, 13). The members of the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle that they might see one another while deliberating (Mishna, Sanh., iv, 2; Tos., Sanh., vii, 1). Two clerks stood before them, the one to the right and the other to the left, to take down the votes (Mishna, Sanh., iv, 2). The members stood up to speak, and on matters of civil or ceremonial law the voting began with the principal member of the assembly, whereas the younger members were the first to give their opinion in criminal affairs. For judgments of the latter description a quorum of at least twenty-three members was required: a majority of one vote sufficed for the acquittal; for a condemnation a majority of two votes was necessary, except when all the members of the court (seventy-one) were present (Mishna, Sanh., iv; Tos.,Sanh., vii)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03143b.htm

[Ned]

So, just how legal was it for Caiphas to call a secret meeting at his home in the middle of the night with less than a quorum?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
actually cite it please

I beleive that youa re remembering slightly off

JM

Here is a link to TMV's post and my initial reply.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=2761396#post2761396

[Jon Miller]

I was refering to Beserker

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

I can't be bothered to read the last 100 or so posts, so can someone just tell me if Ben is still saying that Christians are obligated to love atheists, whilst simultaneously attacking and generalising against atheists, saying that most of us belittle Christians?

The former. Christians are obligated to love Atheists, while Athiests are not obligated to love Christians.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

First, glad to see you admit that your belief is based on an opinion.

Yeah, an opinion with plenty of evidence behind it from other sources.

Second, do you honestly not believe that Christianity gives the most personal fulfillment to you of any possible tenet?

Yes, but when you convert, you do not feel the fulfillment until after you have converted. At least this was so in my own case.

Secondly, I also find fulfillment in the Catholic church, in addition to my own, so this fulfillment does not really explain why I am a Mennonite in particular.

Do you not achieve personal fulfillment in practicing your religious doctrine? If not, I'd be amazed, and I actually might have to feel sorry for you...

I'm quite happy thank you.

No, I took your statements at face value when you accused atheism of promoting religious intolerance,

Again, reread my statement. I do not say that Atheism promotes hatred of Christians, but rather I ask the question on which foundation do they base their tolerance of Christians? And I got the answer I wanted, that there is no basis in Atheism to love Christians.

then stop making disingenuous arguments.

It seems clear to me, my argument.

Wait, you started this whole thing with a presumption of the minds of atheists,

I start with a presumption of atheism, not atheists. I do not accuse any one poster of being an atheist, or trying to assume what argument they will make so that I can knock down a strawman. I pose my case and I let you answer as you see fit. You seem to enjoy directly attacking me and not my arguments, to divert the point.

Hey, when you've done stuff the warrant the accusations,

And how do I warrant the personal insults? Please, state your case.

If you don't want to be accused os disingenuous arguing, then stop doing it.

Again, I am not trying to decieve, but rather, I sought a direct answer to a direct question. And my question has been answered, so I am satisfied.