How much of Christianity came from Jesus, and how much came from other sources?

[RumTumTugger]

Generally, the biggest problem is her propensity to pad her posts with irrelevancies in order to feed her need to demonstrate that "I knows stuff," that can lead the eyes to glaze over and miss something that was actually pertinent.

Like another member here, Starlight

[tabibito]

Which probably explains why they are likened to Greco-Roman biographies

And you know what? Written "History" back then was also nothing like our modern understanding of the concept.

So much for H_A's oft posted declaration that it is necessary to understand the text from the perspective of the author.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So much for H_A's oft posted declaration that it is necessary to understand the text from the perspective of the author.

That is nice ruse tabs but the verse I cited [Joh chapter eighteen verse three] had nothing to do with that author's perspective. It was a narrative verse. You also appear to have accepted that σπεῖραν referred to soldiers [a band of] and the only soldiers in Judaea in the first century CE were those in the Roman auxiliary.

Furthermore, John is the only gospel account that uses that word when describing the arrest/capture of Jesus.

[tabibito]

That is nice ruse tabs but the verse I cited [Joh chapter eighteen verse three] had nothing to do with that author's perspective. It was a narrative verse. You also appear to have accepted that σπεῖραν referred to soldiers [a band of] and the only soldiers in Judaea in the first century CE were those in the Roman auxiliary.

But no, without a solid reason to question the lexical definitions and sub-definitions of a word, I will take into account the full range of meaning of a word as provided by lexicons. There are a few words where usage patterns have revealed deficiencies in lexicons.

Nothing an author writes is free from his own perspectives and understandings. Even when he cites another, his own perspectives and understandings will colour the interpretation of what he cites. The perspective of the author extends to the meaning and application of words and phrases, and what he expects his audience to understand by them. If he is writing in a second language, his vocabulary might not extend to the precise word in that language that is required, or he might simply use the word closest in meaning to the one that he would use in his own language. σπειρα was used as a translated term for a military tactical unit equivalent to a Roman maniple in the Ptolemaic Army, which cannot be considered a likely intended meaning of John's part, but the possibility that he used the term as an equivalent to θιασος can't be dismissed.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But no, without a solid reason to question the lexical definitions and sub-definitions of a word, I will take into account the full range of meaning of a word as provided by lexicons. There are a few words where usage patterns have revealed deficiencies in lexicons.

Nothing an author writes is free from his own perspectives and understandings. Even when he cites another, his own perspectives and understandings will colour the interpretation of what he cites. The perspective of the author extends to the meaning and application of words and phrases, and what he expects his audience to understand by them. If he is writing in a second language, his vocabulary might not extend to the precise word in that language that is required, or he might simply use the word closest in meaning to the one that he would use in his own language. σπειρα was used as a translated term for a military tactical unit equivalent to a Roman maniple in the Ptolemaic Army, which cannot be considered a likely intended meaning of John's part, but the possibility that he used the term as an equivalent to θιασος can't be dismissed.

It seems you have been busy consulting LSJ online.

[tabibito]

It seems you have been busy consulting LSJ online.

I never cease to be amazed at the number of times an author has said "this word means" and checking reveals that the word means no such thing. When it comes to theology, whether atheist or Christian authors do it more often is debatable. My surmise is that they do it simply because they can be confident that almost no-one in their audiences will ever check.


No doubt someone, somewhere, has said that Jungfrau means nothing more than a young woman.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I never cease to be amazed at the number of times an author has said "this word means" and checking reveals that the word means no such thing. When it comes to theology, whether atheist or Christian authors do it more often is debatable. My surmise is that they do it simply because they can be confident that almost no-one in their audiences will ever check.


No doubt someone, somewhere, has said that Jungfrau means nothing more than a young woman.

In the case of the usage of σπεῖραν by the author of John's gospel it was used as a reference to soldiers. I doubt the author was referring to a particular hairstyle or something twisted up into a ball.

[rogue06]

I never cease to be amazed at the number of times an author has said "this word means" and checking reveals that the word means no such thing. When it comes to theology, whether atheist or Christian authors do it more often is debatable. My surmise is that they do it simply because they can be confident that almost no-one in their audiences will ever check.


No doubt someone, somewhere, has said that Jungfrau means nothing more than a young woman.

More than likely it was something they were taught, never checked it out themselves, and simply pass it on uncritically.

[tabibito]

In the case of the usage of σπεῖραν by the author of John's gospel it was used as a reference to soldiers. I doubt the author was referring to a particular hairstyle or something twisted up into a ball.

I think we can dispense with the inanimate objects that the word might refer to. The author seems to have been referring to people.

[tabibito]

More than likely it was something they were taught, never checked it out themselves, and simply pass it on uncritically.

Which seems to confirm that the "almost no-one in their audiences will ever check" comment in my post is validated.

[tabibito]

Dispassionate assessment for dummies:

Dispassionate assessment is not in evidence what the author says, "it is possible that John might have been wrong, therefore John was indubitably wrong."
Dispassionate assessment is in evidence when the author says, "it is possible that John might have been wrong, therefore John might have been wrong."

[rogue06]

In the case of the usage of σπεῖραν by the author of John's gospel it was used as a reference to soldiers. I doubt the author was referring to a particular hairstyle or something twisted up into a ball.

You shoulda seen some of my sleeping positions as a young'un.

[One Bad Pig]

And precisely what is your position?

You may consider vague references to be acceptable. I do not.

What I stated with regard to early Christian persecution was correct. It was not solely their religious beliefs that were at issue it was their refusal to participate in civic ceremonies and to accept the authority of the state. These actions would have included open defiance towards legal magisterial direction, which in itself constituted a criminal offence of contumacia. All of these actions therefore were considered to be both subversive and dangerous. The pax deorum was extremely important to Roman society.

In his Roman History Cassius Dio wrote of how religious subversion could lead to danger and chaos for the state, and he presents this in the form of an imaginary speech given by Maecenus to his friend Octavian in 29 BCE. [Cassius Dio LII 36 1-3].

I would have thought someone who was reasonably well informed concerning Roman religions and society would have understood all that. However, perhaps you thought I intended the word political in its more general modern application.

I LOVE it when your "knows stuff" proves me right. This whole sidebar started when you explicitly attempted to divide politics from religion during the time in question.

Given that nowhere in the gospel narratives is it written that Jesus ever uses the tetragrammaton, he therefore did not commit blasphemy. Your point therefore is somewhat irrelevant.

You are truly impervious to contrary data, aren't you? Pro tip: The Pharisees and Saducees differed on interpretation of the law (even Shimei and Hillel disagreed widely, and they were both Pharisees!); your repeated assertion of a (late) monolithic position doesn't make it any truerer.

The Jewish leaders were always trying.

Most people are bright enough to distinguish between "the Jews" and "the Jewish leaders."

Although these ideas had been current for some time previously whether they had permeated popular thought is open to question.

However, the interpretation of those Qumran documents is in itself another very large subject and, as such, is somewhat tangential to the narratives found in the gospels

In each gospel Pilate asks Jesus "Are you the king of the Jews?" A king was anointed - Messiah.

Given your repeated insistence with tabibito regarding exact words used, your attempt to conflate terms here is interesting.

This is the excuse regularly proffered that eye witness accounts of an event offer differing recollections. All of which is nothing but an apologetical position that attempts to reconcile significant differences in all four gospel narratives of those events.

Even read in translation it is evident that the four accounts of those events are contradictory.

Ah, the usual excuse of those who wish to handwave away the accounts. See, two can play that game.

You consider that John was present at the interrogation in the house of Annas and again in the house of Caiaphas? Who let him in?

I suggest you read the actual text, so you can find out for yourself.

Who did he interview?

Given the accounts, at least Mary the mother of Jesus, Peter, James and Philip the evangelist - and he accompanied Paul for quite some time on his missionary journeys.

So again, you think John was present at the interrogation by Pilate as well? Again, who let him in?

Considering his connections could get him into the house of the high priest and he was at the crucifixion, it's a reasonable possibility that he was there throughout.

Once again your remarks belie your claims to have read anything of serious merit on these matters.

Titus' Triumph was held in early 71 CE following the official end of the war in 70 CE but mopping up operations continued until 72/73 CE with the capture of Herodium, Machaerus, and Masada. All of which indicates that the insurgency continued for some time after the war's official end, with Jews still fighting against Rome and continuing to rely on raiding local areas to support themselves. Those local raids, according to Josephus, had previously in 67/68 CE, included the massacre of some seven hundred Jewish villagers at Ein Gedi during the Passover by the sicarii. One might assume that was not an isolated incident if local villagers were less than willing to supply the various insurgents.

Surely you can tell the difference between Jesus' execution and the (general) rebellion against Rome. I'm sure you're also aware of others with Messianic claims from the time period which make a rather more obvious parallel with Jesus.

I fail to see the relevance of Trajan to the events during, or shortly after, the First Jewish War. Why did you mention him?

Because he interrogated members of Jesus' family to assess their potential for rebellion; Christianity was clearly spreading, and merited investigation. I fail to see the relevance of your fixation on the First Jewish War.

[R]eliable in what regard? Or is that comment premised entirely on your religious beliefs?

Based on these and your previous comments I disagree with your contention that you engage in any critical evaluation of these texts. You certainly appear unable [or unwilling] to assess them solely as ancient texts, and nothing more.

Duly noted.

[tabibito]

Oh look - three gospels say exactly the same thing: that's proof positive that there is collusion and not one of them is reliable.
Oh look - one out of the four gospels uses slightly different wording: that's proof that none of them is reliable.

And any more than halfway competent researcher questions the reliability of the people making the claims.

[eider]

I LOVE it when your "knows stuff" proves me right. This whole sidebar started when you explicitly attempted to divide politics from religion during the time in question.

You sent this to another, but your mention of 'divide politics from religion' caught my eye.
I've often wondered how extreme right wing Christians knit their politics and their religion together....or do they live two separate lives?

Considering his connections could get him into the house of the high priest and he was at the crucifixion, it's a reasonable possibility that he was there throughout.
.

If you believe that the Galilean boatman John BarZebedee was at the crucifixion or that he wrote the Gospel of John........ that just looks like nonsense to me.