Jesus--Fact or Fiction??

[Mike Cl]

Element 43
(a) Voluntary human sacrifice was widely regarded (by both pagans and Jews) as thew most powerful salivation and atonement magic available. (b) Accordingly, any sacred story involving a voluntary human sacrifice would be readily understood and fit perfectly within both Jewish and pagan worldviews of the time.

Of course, Jews and pagans both embraced a value for martyrdom as a morally praiseworthy end of a just man.  The most beloved martyr in pagan imagination was Socrates, unjustly executed by the state on a false charge of challenging state religion (but in reality, for preaching wisdom that would lead to the salvation of the community as well as individual souls); and he voluntarily went to his death, to prove he was a just man. 

Even more importantly, 'substitutionary sacrifice; was also a well known religious concept within both pagan and Jewish theology.  The idea of a hero standing in for his nation or people (and thus 'substituting' for it or them) and voluntarily exchanging his death for their salvation (he dies so they may live) was a common motif in Greco-Roman culture.  A prominent example in Roman patriotic history was the legendary general Publius Decius Mus, who fulfilled a formal religious ritual in Roman culture called devotio, in which a hero is anointed to sacrifice himself in a battle in exchange for the victory for his army (and hence, in consequence, the victory, liberty and survival of the Roman people collectively), which is basically what Jesus does (or was understood to have done).  .............................The Jews embraced the same value system--the Maccabean literature, for example, includes a tale of the seven martyrs who, bu giving their lives, save the land, literally atoning for the sins of Israel, and thus becoming a 'ransom for the sin of our nation'. In fact, Jewish use of human sacrifice as atonement magic appears several times in the OT.

In this system of understanding, the more awful and shameful the manner of death, the more heroic and powerful it was.  This thinkinhg dates at least as far back as Plato, who confronts the logic of the Nihilist Glaucon in relating  the legend of Gyges, who upon acquiring a ring of invisibility was able to do anything without detection and thus seized supreme power by murder and other sins.  And so, Glaucon argued, no one is really just; they only wish to seem just, because that's all that is useful.  Glaucon then argues that the only way to know if a man is truly just is to take everything away from him and treat him completely as an unjust man, despised by everyone, and punished to the utmost, including torments and, finally, crucifixion (the Jewish model for the very same notion appears in the book of Job).  If a man, after all this, remains just to the end, only then will we know he was a just man--although Glaucon argues that such a man would by the end conclude justice was something not worth all that he suffered, and there fore one aught to be nu-just, and, like Gyges, merely conceal one's crimes.

...........................the  Jesus sacrifice reverses the Isaac sacrifice.  In the Isaac story, in the place of the singular sacrifice of Abraham's beloved firstborn son, animals must be slain every year in perpetuity.  The one equals the other.  Logically, therefore, a singular sacrifice of God's believed firstborn son would be sufficient substitute for all animal sacrifices in perpetuity.  Therefore, if you wanted to be rid of those animal sacrifices (in other words, if you wanted to be rid of the otherwise divinely ordained temple cult and all the corrupt political and economic  powers that controlled it, as many Jews did: Element 28), logic would compel you to look for a singular human sacrifice to accomplish that, and it would have to be the most powerful sacrifice imaginable, which to any Jew would be the sacrifice of God's firstborn son, which we've already seen some Jews already believe existed (Element 40) and was already named Jesus (Element 6).  The problem of the temple cult that the Jews faced therefore entailed a solution that is essentially the core teaching of Christianity.  It would therefore not be a wholly radical step for any Jew to propose that solution, but in fact entirely in accord with much Jewish thinking at the time.

[Baruch]

A lot happened between 150 BCE and 100 CE ... roughly the same time as from when George Washington inherited Mt Vernon from his older brother, until now.  Jewish martyrdom didn't become prominent until the Maccabean period.  Before that, salvation was collective, not individual.  There was a point to partial sacrifice of the community, not that of particular individuals.  Sacrifice of particular individuals, came from Greco-Roman culture.  Socrates would have been thinking about the legendary last king of Athens (before oligarchy) ... in order to fulfill a prophecy, this king sacrificed his life in order to save Athens.  Just as Leonidas had sacrificed his life per prophecy, to save Sparta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus

On not counting your chickens until they roost ... and heroism ...

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/08/14/count-no-man-happy-until-the-end-is-known/

[Mike Cl]

A lot happened between 150 BCE and 100 CE ... roughly the same time as from when George Washington inherited Mt Vernon from his older brother, until now.  Jewish martyrdom didn't become prominent until the Maccabean period.  Before that, salvation was collective, not individual.  There was a point to partial sacrifice of the community, not that of particular individuals.  Sacrifice of particular individuals, came from Greco-Roman culture.  Socrates would have been thinking about the legendary last king of Athens (before oligarchy) ... in order to fulfill a prophecy, this king sacrificed his life in order to save Athens.  Just as Leonidas had sacrificed his life per prophecy, to save Sparta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus

On not counting your chickens until they roost ... and heroism ...

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/08/14/count-no-man-happy-until-the-end-is-known/

Amazing knowledge, Baruch, amazing!

[Cavebear]

Mike CL:  "Logically, therefore, a singular sacrifice of God's believed firstborn son would be sufficient substitute for all animal sacrifices in perpetuity."

While I don't have much interest in specific biblical arguments, that seems to be a singularly interesting explanation of the transitition from the Old Testament nomadic tribes to the New Testament city-dwellers.

[Baruch]

Mike CL:  "Logically, therefore, a singular sacrifice of God's believed firstborn son would be sufficient substitute for all animal sacrifices in perpetuity."

While I don't have much interest in specific biblical arguments, that seems to be a singularly interesting explanation of the transitition from the Old Testament nomadic tribes to the New Testament city-dwellers.

It didn't get serious, until the Temple was destroyed, first by the Babylonians and later by the Romans.  Hope still existed, and still exists to rebuild and resume.  But I hope not.  There were problems with the Temple cult at every period.  But people who think they are dependent on it, are in a pickle, if Gentiles have removed their tool for atonement.  That is why also, in Babylon, and in Rome, Jews came up with the idea that prayer is atonement enough.  Animal sacrifice isn't necessary anymore.  I happen to agree with the rabbis on this, I don't need a divine sacrifice to atone.

[Mike Cl]

Mike CL:  "Logically, therefore, a singular sacrifice of God's believed firstborn son would be sufficient substitute for all animal sacrifices in perpetuity."

While I don't have much interest in specific biblical arguments, that seems to be a singularly interesting explanation of the transitition from the Old Testament nomadic tribes to the New Testament city-dwellers.

Remember, Cavebear, I am channeling Carrier here. :)))  But this too, caught my attention.  I had often thought that the 'sacrifice' Jesus is supposed to have made was modeled after the OT practice of scapegoating.  And it all reverts back to 'sacrificing' something to appease one god or another.  Why is it that the Aztec's are condemned so soundly for their form of human sacrifice when Christianity is modeled after the same thing?  (And no, I did not forget that Christian are, if nothing else, hypocrites of the highest order.) 

[Cavebear]

Remember, Cavebear, I am channeling Carrier here. :)))  But this too, caught my attention.  I had often thought that the 'sacrifice' Jesus is supposed to have made was modeled after the OT practice of scapegoating.  And it all reverts back to 'sacrificing' something to appease one god or another.  Why is it that the Aztec's are condemned so soundly for their form of human sacrifice when Christianity is modeled after the same thing?  (And no, I did not forget that Christian are, if nothing else, hypocrites of the highest order.)

Well, one can also look at the differences between the old and new testaments as an allegory for the transition from hunter-gathering societies to agricultural ones.  And that the jews were among the last to catch on. 

The old "conquer thy neighbors" and take from them the promised lands (full of milk and honey - cattle and beekeeping) to the new "have peace and prosper" of the settled farmers. 

[Mike Cl]

Element 44:
In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.  In fact, the persuasive power of representing a story as true was precisely why fabricated stories were often represented as true.  We therefore must approach all ancient religious literature from an assumption of doubt, and must work to confirm any given story or account as true, not the other way around.  Because prior probability always favors fabrication in that genre.

...................for when we look at all faith literature together, most of it by far was fabricated to a great extent, and most was fabricated in its entirety.  This leaves us with a very high prior probability that Christian literature will be the same.

And we can confirm this to be the case.  If we exclude devotional and analytical literature (e.g. apologies, commentaries, instructionals, hymnals) and only focus on primary source documents'  about earliest Christianity, we find that most Christian faith literature in its first three centuries is fabricated--indeed, most by far. 

There were in fact over forty different Gospels written, of which even fundamentalists agree only the canonical four are in any way authentic (while most mainstream scholars entertain the possibility that only one of two of those are, at best), plus over half a dozen different acts.  Examples of this fabricatory activity in early Christian faith literature are vast in quantity.  This was clearly the norm, not the exception.  Most of what Christians wrote were lies.  We therefore should approach everything they wrote with distrust.

[Cavebear]

Element 44:
In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.  In fact, the persuasive power of representing a story as true was precisely why fabricated stories were often represented as true.  We therefore must approach all ancient religious literature from an assumption of doubt, and must work to confirm any given story or account as true, not the other way around.  Because prior probability always favors fabrication in that genre.

...................for when we look at all faith literature together, most of it by far was fabricated to a great extent, and most was fabricated in its entirety.  This leaves us with a very high prior probability that Christian literature will be the same.

And we can confirm this to be the case.  If we exclude devotional and analytical literature (e.g. apologies, commentaries, instructionals, hymnals) and only focus on primary source documents'  about earliest Christianity, we find that most Christian faith literature in its first three centuries is fabricated--indeed, most by far. 

There were in fact over forty different Gospels written, of which even fundamentalists agree only the canonical four are in any way authentic (while most mainstream scholars entertain the possibility that only one of two of those are, at best), plus over half a dozen different acts.  Examples of this fabricatory activity in early Christian faith literature are vast in quantity.  This was clearly the norm, not the exception.  Most of what Christians wrote were lies.  We therefore should approach everything they wrote with distrust.

"In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.  In fact, the persuasive power of representing a story as true was precisely why fabricated stories were often represented as true."

Isn't that sort of behavior allowed only for children these days?

"Most of what Christians wrote were lies.  We therefore should approach everything they wrote with distrust"

Gee, you would think SOME group of people might have been saying that for years.  Oh wait, there are...  ;)

[Mike Cl]

"In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.  In fact, the persuasive power of representing a story as true was precisely why fabricated stories were often represented as true."

Isn't that sort of behavior allowed only for children these days?

"Most of what Christians wrote were lies.  We therefore should approach everything they wrote with distrust"

Gee, you would think SOME group of people might have been saying that for years.  Oh wait, there are...  ;)

It has been constantly astounding to me that most Christians believe the bible plopped to the earth,  totally complete and error free; and written in all the languages of the earth, then and now. 

[Baruch]

Remember, Cavebear, I am channeling Carrier here. :)))  But this too, caught my attention.  I had often thought that the 'sacrifice' Jesus is supposed to have made was modeled after the OT practice of scapegoating.  And it all reverts back to 'sacrificing' something to appease one god or another.  Why is it that the Aztec's are condemned so soundly for their form of human sacrifice when Christianity is modeled after the same thing?  (And no, I did not forget that Christian are, if nothing else, hypocrites of the highest order.)

There was a strange symmetry between the Aztecs and the Conquistadores.  Both were violent warrior cultures, both had a system of human sacrifice.  For the Conquistadores, this was symbolic (except to Moors and Jews).  For Aztecs it was literal.  Both priesthoods dressed in black.  Christians drank blood (symbolically, literally for the Aztecs).  Christians ate human flesh (symbolically, literally for the Aztecs).  For the Conquistadores, it mattered if you got to heaven or not.  For the Aztecs, it mattered if the sun came up or not.  And Cortez did look a bit like Quetzalcoatl both literally and symbolically.  Both drank alcohol for instance, outside of medicinal purposes.  Both were wind gods (Ehecatl as a form of Quetzalcoatl) and Cortez and his wind born ships.  Cortez came from the East, from which Quetzalcoatl left.  Both had  beard in some depictions.  Both Madrid and Tenochtitlan were empires.

[Baruch]

Well, one can also look at the differences between the old and new testaments as an allegory for the transition from hunter-gathering societies to agricultural ones.  And that the jews were among the last to catch on. 

The old "conquer thy neighbors" and take from them the promised lands (full of milk and honey - cattle and beekeeping) to the new "have peace and prosper" of the settled farmers.

Partly true.  Jews converted to farming circa 1000 BCE.  They had been civilized for 1000 years by Jesus' time.  Is America civilized yet?  But this wasn't without controversy ... since in Genesis Canaanite farming, technology, and city life were considered evil (by both pastoralists and hunter/gatherers).  Jesus didn't say, blessed are the farmers and damned are the pastoralists.  He compared himself to the good shepherd, not the good farmer or good householder.  Now Muslim Arabs ... they were a bit wilder, and didn't settle down until around 750 CE.  But per Paul, early Gentile Christianity was pro-city and pro-Roman.  Rabbinic Judaism that formed at that time, was pro-farmer.  The rabbis betrayed the OT while claiming to save it.  After 135 CE, the Christians were mostly Gentiles.  The OT didn't matter to them in the least, they were urban proletariat.  Hence ... "pagani" means country bumpkin.

[Cavebear]

There was a strange symmetry between the Aztecs and the Conquistadores.  Both were violent warrior cultures, both had a system of human sacrifice.  For the Conquistadores, this was symbolic (except to Moors and Jews).  For Aztecs it was literal.  Both priesthoods dressed in black.  Christians drank blood (symbolically, literally for the Aztecs).  Christians ate human flesh (symbolically, literally for the Aztecs).  For the Conquistadores, it mattered if you got to heaven or not.  For the Aztecs, it mattered if the sun came up or not.  And Cortez did look a bit like Quetzalcoatl both literally and symbolically.  Both drank alcohol for instance, outside of medicinal purposes.  Both were wind gods (Ehecatl as a form of Quetzalcoatl) and Cortez and his wind born ships.  Cortez came from the East, from which Quetzalcoatl left.  Both had  beard in some depictions.

I love a good historical  comparison.  I consider Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' an explanation of civilization development 2nd only to Darwin's 'Natural Selection'.

But did you notice in your post that the Aztecs did everything literally and the Spaniards did everything symbolically?  It pains me to defend any theism, but eating a wafer and sipping wine is not quite the same are cutting a living victim open and ripping his still-beating heart out.

Not a sermon, just a thought...

[Baruch]

Element 44:
In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.  In fact, the persuasive power of representing a story as true was precisely why fabricated stories were often represented as true.  We therefore must approach all ancient religious literature from an assumption of doubt, and must work to confirm any given story or account as true, not the other way around.  Because prior probability always favors fabrication in that genre.

...................for when we look at all faith literature together, most of it by far was fabricated to a great extent, and most was fabricated in its entirety.  This leaves us with a very high prior probability that Christian literature will be the same.

And we can confirm this to be the case.  If we exclude devotional and analytical literature (e.g. apologies, commentaries, instructionals, hymnals) and only focus on primary source documents'  about earliest Christianity, we find that most Christian faith literature in its first three centuries is fabricated--indeed, most by far. 

There were in fact over forty different Gospels written, of which even fundamentalists agree only the canonical four are in any way authentic (while most mainstream scholars entertain the possibility that only one of two of those are, at best), plus over half a dozen different acts.  Examples of this fabricatory activity in early Christian faith literature are vast in quantity.  This was clearly the norm, not the exception.  Most of what Christians wrote were lies.  We therefore should approach everything they wrote with distrust.

Applying modern standards to ancient people?  Sorry, invalid.  This is where Carrier leaves scholarship and does special pleading for atheism.  Pagan sources were fanciful, monotheist sources were fanciful, and secular sources (see Socratic dialogs) were fanciful.  None of it is true.  You can't apply a 1700 CE standard of truth to them, any of them (and in 1700 CE this was hypocrisy too).  To me, the ideology of the Enlightenment is a brief flash in the pan of historical dramas ... it was over with the enthronement of Napoleon as Emperor of France.  The French Revolution aka secularism ... had failed.  New myths replaced old ones (invincibility of the Old Guarde).  The new French Revolution in Russia ... has failed also.  Because New French Man and New Soviet Man are chimeras.  You had better stick to your little red book of Mao ... China is still a comer.

[Baruch]

I love a good historical  comparison.  I consider Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' an explanation of civilization development 2nd only to Darwin's 'Natural Selection'.

But did you notice in your post that the Aztecs did everything literally and the Spaniards did everything symbolically?  It pains me to defend any theism, but eating a wafer and sipping wine is not quite the same are cutting a living victim open and ripping his still-beating heart out.

Not a sermon, just a thought...

The Aztecs were sincere literalists, like you.  They were wrong about what it took to keep the sun rising.  But you would cut the hearts out of the well to do, to satisfy your Robespierre tendencies. "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" mon cherie.  Not a sermon, just a diatribe ...