They didn't recognize resurrected Jesus

[Swammerdami]

When Paul converted gentiles to Judaism (ie Christianity) he only did it inside Jewish temples around the empire. These gentiles, in particular, needed little convincing.

Where were these "Jewish temples," pray tell?

All over the Roman empire. This is literally explained in the Bible. Paul wasn't talking to Christians in the epistles. He was talking to Jews (pagan to Judaism converts and bonafide Jews who accepted them as such).

There was a whole bunch of terms for what these pagan converts were supposed to be called.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

The Roman empire was extremely interconnected. Jews lived throughout the empire and had communities and temples in every major city and port.

Getting through to you is quite a challenge!


"This is literally explained in the Bible."
Well, let's look at the Bible then. Setting aside apocalyptic writings and references to Zerubbabel's Temple, there are only a few mentions of "temple" in the New Testament (KJV).

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Do you think this speaks of a "temple" as a physical building?

How about in the next quote?

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, ...

Would you like to revise your remark?

If you were just using "Jewish temple" in the ignorant sense of "a building where 'religion' happens", then I apologize for bothering you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

All over the Roman empire. This is literally explained in the Bible. Paul wasn't talking to Christians in the epistles. He was talking to Jews (pagan to Judaism converts and bonafide Jews who accepted them as such).

There was a whole bunch of terms for what these pagan converts were supposed to be called.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

The Roman empire was extremely interconnected. Jews lived throughout the empire and had communities and temples in every major city and port.

Getting through to you is quite a challenge!


"This is literally explained in the Bible."
Well, let's look at the Bible then. Setting aside apocalyptic writings and references to Zerubbabel's Temple, there are only a few mentions of "temple" in the New Testament (KJV).

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Do you think this speaks of a "temple" as a physical building?

How about in the next quote?

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, ...

Would you like to revise your remark?

If you were just using "Jewish temple" in the ignorant sense of "a building where 'religion' happens", then I apologize for bothering you.

I don't think you understand what I said. Because none of this is relevant, nor casts any doubt on the statement.

Early Christians mostly used people's private homes as temporary churches/temples.

I think you fundamentally misunderstood what I was saying, and are on some project to prove that misunderstanding wrong. But I have no idea what you are doing or what you are arguing against (or for)

 

[Swammerdami]

Early Christians mostly used people's private homes as temporary churches/temples.

I think you fundamentally misunderstood what I was saying, and are on some project to prove that misunderstanding wrong. But I have no idea what you are doing or what you are arguing against (or for)

Getting through to you is quite a challenge!

"Jewish temple" is NOT a word used to refer to "people's private homes". LOL. "Jewish temple" has very specific denotation and connotation. Every single religious scholar is well aware of that.

Of course you have no familiarity with the study of religions. (None of us can be expert in every field.) It might behoove you to read more and write less on topics of which you are ignorant. Using words you don't understand — e.g. "Jewish temple" — will just confuse or amuse the people reading your posts.

HTH.

If you had had the grace to type "Ooops, 'Jewish temple' was a typographical error. I meant 'private home'" then the whole diversion would have been over long ago. (I tried to help with the light-hearted 'Where were these "Jewish temples," pray tell? ') But you insist on doubling down on your confusions.

 

[steve_bank]

There is Roman graffiti. Graffiti was found inside Egyptian pyramids. Humor, parody, and satire has a long history.

Aesop's Fables.

Look at a wall map of the region today. What jumps out is how tiny modern Isreal plus Gaza and the West Bank are. The allged events would have taken place within a very small area.

The claim of a resurrection would have spread quickly if there were actual observers.

The Jesus of the gospels is said o be educated, he lectured in temple. He also said give to Caesar what is his and to god what is god's. A roman Jew telling Jerusalem Jews to deal with Roman rule?

I keep seeing the gospel Jesus as a composite character. A collection of various events. Common in the modern docu-drama form. Disclaimers at the start of the movie, based on real events with fictional composite characters.

From what I rad on Herodotus that was common, filling in the blanks. Understandable with the communications and reporting of the day. Herodotus' nickname was Herodotus The Liar, he carried it to an extreme. He turned oral stories and hear say of distant events into alleged first hand experience.

 

[OLDMAN]

It seems to suggest that an actual charismatic person, Yeshua Ben Joseph, existed and was the foundation for the embellishments and mythology in the gospels?

Or someone composed a closet drama, or borrowed a script and gave the protagonist the most common male name.

Quite possibly, but Paul was a contemporary who met Peter, who is said to be a disciple of Jesus. Which suggests a charismatic preacher/miracle worker (one of many) as a foundation for the myth. This may or may not be true, but it's possible.

You know, there is good reason to question wither Paul actually existed as well as Jesus. If you look at the account of his life, it practically mirrors Jesus"s own. He is even stoned and left for dead, but simply gets up and walks away. He is the super-Christian who founded the church, he is a little too great to be real....thus he may well be fictional as well.

 

[Politesse]

Quite possibly, but Paul was a contemporary who met Peter, who is said to be a disciple of Jesus. Which suggests a charismatic preacher/miracle worker (one of many) as a foundation for the myth. This may or may not be true, but it's possible.

You know, there is good reason to question wither Paul actually existed as well as Jesus. If you look at the account of his life, it practically mirrors Jesus"s own. He is even stoned and left for dead, but simply gets up and walks away. He is the super-Christian who founded the church, he is a little too great to be real....thus he may well be fictional as well.

And like Jesus, he was the subject of some dubious hagiographies that ascribe miraculous happenings and so forth. If you want to you can cast reasonable doubt on the existence of almost anyone in the ancient world, but certainly anyone of religious importance as they tend to accumulate mythic overwrapping even in their lifetimes, and certainly after. I don't know of any religious founder whose existence has not been questioned by at least some scholars.

 

[James Brown]

I don't know of any religious founder whose existence has not been questioned by at least some scholars.

Joseph Smith?

Sorry, too soon?

 

[Politesse]

I don't know of any religious founder whose existence has not been questioned by at least some scholars.

Joseph Smith?

Sorry, too soon?

Sorry, I meant in the ancient world. Obviously in the modern era you have charcters like Smith, The Bab, and so forth whose historicity is difficult to challenge. On the other hand, you do also have some figures that did supposedly live in modern times and should perhaps have a paper trail, like Old Dorothy and John Frum, who nevertheless collect much skeptical ire from historians. So it isn't just in the ancient world that we see this phenomenon of ontologically dubious founding figures.

 

[bilby]

I cannot for the life of me understand why it matters.

Insofar as any religious founder actually lived, he was basically wrong in his belief that there are Gods, and his followers were wrong in their belief that he was speaking for the Gods.

It's completely unimportant whether or not there ever was a reporter called Clark Kent whose girlfriend and coworker was called Lois Lane; Regardless, it remains undeniable that nobody can (or ever could, or ever did) leap tall buildings in a single bound, or run faster than a speeding bullet.

The question "does this claim contradict reality" is only approachable via the scientific method. And the key claims of all major religions fail that test. If it's necessary to choose between the Standard Model of particle physics and the effectiveness of prayer, or the possibility of life after the destruction of the brain (and it demonstrably IS necessary to choose - these things are mutually exclusive), then it requires abject ignorance and a complete rejection of science (both as a methodology and as a body of work derived via that methodology) to bet against the Standard Model.

Whether or not Jesus existed, it's less likely that he was divine than it is that the moon is made of Stilton, so he's Clark Kent. He may or may not have been based on a real person (or persons), but frankly, why should anyone care?

Religion, like so many other widely popular and passionately defended ideas, is simply wrong. It's an error of fact, and anyone who cares to do so has the ability to demonstrate this. The Big Question is, as far as I can see, only "Why are people so scientifically illiterate as to imagine that religions might be true?" and the answer is much the same as to the smaller questions like "Why did my father in law give his bank account details to an online scammer?".

People are ignorant and stupid. The best we can hope for is that they won't wallow in their ignorance and stupidity for too long before realising that their egoistic desire not to admit error is harming them and giving power to cruel people whose only interest is in obtaining something for nothing.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Hold it, fellow! You can't PROVE that Samson didn't catch 300 foxes and tie their tails together and tie a burning torch to each of the tied-up tails and then release them into the Philistine's wheat fields and olive orchards and burn their crops up.
THAT'S RIDICULOUS AND TOTALLY ILLOGICAL.
Your claim, I mean.

 

[OLDMAN]

Quite possibly, but Paul was a contemporary who met Peter, who is said to be a disciple of Jesus. Which suggests a charismatic preacher/miracle worker (one of many) as a foundation for the myth. This may or may not be true, but it's possible.

You know, there is good reason to question wither Paul actually existed as well as Jesus. If you look at the account of his life, it practically mirrors Jesus"s own. He is even stoned and left for dead, but simply gets up and walks away. He is the super-Christian who founded the church, he is a little too great to be real....thus he may well be fictional as well.

And like Jesus, he was the subject of some dubious hagiographies that ascribe miraculous happenings and so forth. If you want to you can cast reasonable doubt on the existence of almost anyone in the ancient world, but certainly anyone of religious importance as they tend to accumulate mythic overwrapping even in their lifetimes, and certainly after. I don't know of any religious founder whose existence has not been questioned by at least some scholars.

Never mind the scholars, the very book Paul is writing about doesn't conform to his story. In Mark he is quoted to have seen something but his companions only hear a noise, but in Luke the story is told just the opposite. Which means this is just a story being told two ways and eventually it gets written down both ways. It is evidence of myth building and not just a side character, but one of the most important after you know who.

 

[DBT]

It needn't be one or the other. It could be that something happened to impress people during that time - a notable charismatic preacher arose - and mythology was built around the event. We have examples of that happening with Gurus, cult leaders and the like in recent times, just on a smaller scale and different times.

 

[Swammerdami]

I cannot for the life of me understand why it matters.

Insofar as any religious founder actually lived, he was basically wrong in his belief that there are Gods, and his followers were wrong in their belief that he was speaking for the Gods.

John Brown of Osawatomie has been dead for over 160 years but it is STILL fun — and instructive — to study his biography and ponder what influence he had.

Jesus of Nazareth's biography is hard to reconstruct, but that makes it more of a fun challenge. He was much more influential than John Brown. Did Jesus get some things wrong? Maybe. But so did Sir Isaac Newton.

Primitive men were aware that the Sun and the Moon had great influence on their lives. They may have labeled them with words that later came to be translated as "God." I seriously do not understand the thrill that some atheists seem to get in ridiculing such people.

 

[OLDMAN]

I cannot for the life of me understand why it matters.

Insofar as any religious founder actually lived, he was basically wrong in his belief that there are Gods, and his followers were wrong in their belief that he was speaking for the Gods.

John Brown of Osawatomie has been dead for over 160 years but it is STILL fun — and instructive — to study his biography and ponder what influence he had.

Jesus of Nazareth's biography is hard to reconstruct, but that makes it more of a fun challenge. He was much more influential than John Brown. Did Jesus get some things wrong? Maybe. But so did Sir Isaac Newton.

Primitive men were aware that the Sun and the Moon had great influence on their lives. They may have labeled them with words that later came to be translated as "God." I seriously do not understand the thrill that some atheists seem to get in ridiculing such people.

Such people vote, deny science, block human rights, educate, influence and have a seats on supreme courts....should we pat them on the back?

 

[WAB]

I cannot for the life of me understand why it matters.

Insofar as any religious founder actually lived, he was basically wrong in his belief that there are Gods, and his followers were wrong in their belief that he was speaking for the Gods.

John Brown of Osawatomie has been dead for over 160 years but it is STILL fun — and instructive — to study his biography and ponder what influence he had.

Jesus of Nazareth's biography is hard to reconstruct, but that makes it more of a fun challenge. He was much more influential than John Brown. Did Jesus get some things wrong? Maybe. But so did Sir Isaac Newton.

Primitive men were aware that the Sun and the Moon had great influence on their lives. They may have labeled them with words that later came to be translated as "God." I seriously do not understand the thrill that some atheists seem to get in ridiculing such people.

Such people vote, deny science, block human rights, educate, influence and have a seats on supreme courts....should we pat them on the back?

I think what Swammy means (and perhaps bilby - but one hesitates to try and speak for bilby - oy!) is that ANY PERSON, meaning ANY INDIVIDUAL (sorry for the shouting, but those are two words that we should not relish seeing put up for questioning and possible removal from the common language, along with 'I', "self', and especially, 'free') who intentionally and with malice can be shown by virtually incontrovertible evidence to support the harm (you can discuss harm in the morals and principles forum. I admit it's a dooooozy, but look, you people obviously have plenty of time, am I right, or am I wrong?) of another person (be that 'person' a cat, a dog, a mouse, or a beetle even. Hell, some people keep pet rocks and give them names. Who am I to judge? But that is neither here nor there...) and does so without undue influence or coercion of any kind (see compatibilism in the... now isn't that Martin a sweet kid? Finally, somebody gets it), for instance mental illness, or some compelling force which can be explained as having been exerted on them inordinately from a different causative agent than themselves and the various causative drives and instincts and pleasures, you name it, that are in constant operation in everyone and every thing in the known universe (including Yours Truly!...which inevitably lead to silly beliefs and dangerous behavior...ahem...a tickkkkl...el in the throat. Anyone have a lozenge? Thank you...), then such a person should expect and probably even deserves, to be ridiculed. You figured out it's fine to ridicule me, and nothing happens. And do I look like it bothers me? Of course not, so let's forget I even mentioned it. (Oh and by the way, watch out for drafts. A walking carpet for bacteria. Florence kept telling everyone that, but did they listen? Of course not, but that's another story...such a nice girl, cute, such dimples...)

 

[Swammerdami]

I think what Swammy means (and perhaps bilby - but one hesitates to try and speak for bilby - oy!) is that ANY PERSON, meaning ANY INDIVIDUAL (sorry for the shouting, but those are two words that we should not relish seeing put up for questioning and possible removal from the common language, along with 'I', "self', and especially, 'free') who intentionally and with malice can be shown by virtually incontrovertible evidence to support the harm (you can discuss harm in the morals and principles forum. I admit it's a dooooozy, but look, you people obviously have plenty of time, am I right, or am I wrong?) of another person (be that 'person' a cat, a dog, a mouse, or a beetle even. Hell, some people keep pet rocks and give them names. Who am I to judge? But that is neither here nor there...) and does so without undue influence or coercion of any kind (see compatibilism in the... now isn't that Martin a sweet kid? Finally, somebody gets it), for instance mental illness, or some compelling force which can be explained as having been exerted on them inordinately from a different causative agent than themselves and the various causative drives and instincts and pleasures, you name it, that are in constant operation in everyone and every thing in the known universe (including Yours Truly!...which inevitably lead to silly beliefs and dangerous behavior...ahem...a tickkkkl...el in the throat. Anyone have a lozenge? Thank you...), then such a person should expect and probably even deserves, to be ridiculed. You figured out it's fine to ridicule me, and nothing happens. And do I look like it bothers me? Of course not, so let's forget I even mentioned it. (Oh and by the way, watch out for drafts. A walking carpet for bacteria. Florence kept telling everyone that, but did they listen? Of course not, but that's another story...such a nice girl, cute, such dimples...)

Does anyone have the Cliff's Notes version of this?

 

[bilby]

I cannot for the life of me understand why it matters.

Insofar as any religious founder actually lived, he was basically wrong in his belief that there are Gods, and his followers were wrong in their belief that he was speaking for the Gods.

John Brown of Osawatomie has been dead for over 160 years but it is STILL fun — and instructive — to study his biography and ponder what influence he had.

Jesus of Nazareth's biography is hard to reconstruct, but that makes it more of a fun challenge. He was much more influential than John Brown. Did Jesus get some things wrong? Maybe. But so did Sir Isaac Newton.

Primitive men were aware that the Sun and the Moon had great influence on their lives. They may have labeled them with words that later came to be translated as "God." I seriously do not understand the thrill that some atheists seem to get in ridiculing such people.

I am not ridiculing anyone.

I am pointing out that they are factually wrong.

Many of them had good reasons why they couldn't be right; Their errors were in no way ridiculous. But they remain errors, and now that we have the benefit of centuries of hard scientific labour, granting us the ability to avoid those errors, we no longer have that excuse, and should stop treating their understandable errors as though they were insightful, helpful, and true. They're not.

 

[WAB]

I think what Swammy means (and perhaps bilby - but one hesitates to try and speak for bilby - oy!) is that ANY PERSON, meaning ANY INDIVIDUAL (sorry for the shouting, but those are two words that we should not relish seeing put up for questioning and possible removal from the common language, along with 'I', "self', and especially, 'free') who intentionally and with malice can be shown by virtually incontrovertible evidence to support the harm (you can discuss harm in the morals and principles forum. I admit it's a dooooozy, but look, you people obviously have plenty of time, am I right, or am I wrong?) of another person (be that 'person' a cat, a dog, a mouse, or a beetle even. Hell, some people keep pet rocks and give them names. Who am I to judge? But that is neither here nor there...) and does so without undue influence or coercion of any kind (see compatibilism in the... now isn't that Martin a sweet kid? Finally, somebody gets it), for instance mental illness, or some compelling force which can be explained as having been exerted on them inordinately from a different causative agent than themselves and the various causative drives and instincts and pleasures, you name it, that are in constant operation in everyone and every thing in the known universe (including Yours Truly!...which inevitably lead to silly beliefs and dangerous behavior...ahem...a tickkkkl...el in the throat. Anyone have a lozenge? Thank you...), then such a person should expect and probably even deserves, to be ridiculed. You figured out it's fine to ridicule me, and nothing happens. And do I look like it bothers me? Of course not, so let's forget I even mentioned it. (Oh and by the way, watch out for drafts. A walking carpet for bacteria. Florence kept telling everyone that, but did they listen? Of course not, but that's another story...such a nice girl, cute, such dimples...)

Does anyone have the Cliff's Notes version of this?

Swammy, I maybe can give you the Cliffs Notes wrap, who knows. I will have to really reign it in, however. Here goes:

I am working on a play called The Bible Reimagined. It will be a very long play. I envision (or enlisten?) the voice of the late character actor Lee J. Cobb, known (at least to me) primarily for his role as Detective Lt Kinderman in the Exorcist. My favorite film. I explained in another post that when I try to be funny here at TFT I often hear a comical, heavy Jewish accent in my head to help me along. It really helps when talking about religion, and I have found that it really really works when thinking of God to have God sound like Detective Lt Kinderman. Well, naturally, God sounds and looks, just like that character - in my noodle that is, when I write these bits of the play called The Bible Reimagined. I have interspersed some of these sections and vignettes across many posts over the past several months, perhaps longer, who can tell? A person forgets.What can we do?

Anyway, in the last post, I was using the Kinderman voice (from here in called the KV - or perhaps we should spell it kayvie? Looks more Kosher that way, or am I wrong?) to illustrate a paraphrasing of what I thought you and bilby were saying, meaning that it is morally acceptable, and perhaps even has a certain, oh, level of utility, in that it could possibly be used as a means of foisting shame on a particular kind of person who makes a point of acting in such a way that it could possibly be relatively and objectively near the point of certainty determined that the aforementioned person had acted with the intent to cause unnecessary harm to the well being and mental, emotional, and physical health of another person.

There, that's as close as I could cut it, Mr. Have it Your Way. No? It's still too long, you're going to tell me? Well then what is it you want, you want a summary, or you want perhaps I should make a haiku?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Early Christians mostly used people's private homes as temporary churches/temples.

I think you fundamentally misunderstood what I was saying, and are on some project to prove that misunderstanding wrong. But I have no idea what you are doing or what you are arguing against (or for)

Getting through to you is quite a challenge!

"Jewish temple" is NOT a word used to refer to "people's private homes". LOL. "Jewish temple" has very specific denotation and connotation. Every single religious scholar is well aware of that.

Of course you have no familiarity with the study of religions. (None of us can be expert in every field.) It might behoove you to read more and write less on topics of which you are ignorant. Using words you don't understand — e.g. "Jewish temple" — will just confuse or amuse the people reading your posts.

HTH.

If you had had the grace to type "Ooops, 'Jewish temple' was a typographical error. I meant 'private home'" then the whole diversion would have been over long ago. (I tried to help with the light-hearted 'Where were these "Jewish temples," pray tell? ') But you insist on doubling down on your confusions.

I have no idea why you wrote the above. But since it's mostly just you insulting me, I don't feel you have an interest in any kind of dialogue, and I don't feel particularly inclined to help you figure out where you went wrong. So I'm going to drop this. Enjoy talking to the voices in your head.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is Superman based on fact? Yes. Therefore Superman has a historical counterpart. IOW there is an historical Superman.