Biblical academic: it's just a religion really

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Biblical academic: it's just a religion really

Post by mlinssen »


This study has argued that constituent elements of the Jewish-Christian rift find their germinal roots in the historical Jesus. The reasons for Jesus’ death (a false prophet, blasphemy, Messiah) and his debates with his contemporaries that touched upon the pillars of Judaism (God, Torah, election and Temple) illustrate points of contention between Jesus and his contemporaries. Although Jesus himself remained within the orbit of a “common Judaism,” his attitudes and actions did push those boundaries to the point that he incurred violent opposition from other Jews. These actions and attitudes of Jesus were subsequently developed in the early church in a new religious and social context where a split between Jews and Christians became inevitable. The ongoing process of Jewish and Christian self-definition in light of the political developments of the first century prompted persons from both groups to see the other as excluded from the designation “the people of God.”

Michael Bird, JESUS AND THE “PARTINGS OF THE WAYS”

Lovely how Bird inserts the word "other" there, as if Jesus ever did anything that didn't violate Judaic habits - nothing in the NT attests to him being Judaic, but these "scholars" just desperately need him to be, so they make him so.
Wait - subsequently, that means after his alleged death, right? So from "violent opposition" we go to ... "an inevitable split"?
A split from what really, if I may ask?

All these religiots have so far failed to demonstrate that at any given point in time Christianity and Judaism WERE ON THE SAME PATH.
All these idiots fail to see that nothing in the entire NT attests to Judeo-Christian origins or roots - and the essential things to look for are not words, but actions.
Yes, there are tons of words in the NT that allege Judeo-Christian connections, but how many actions attest to that?
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Biblical academic: it's just a religion really

Post by GakuseiDon »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:03 amAll these religiots have so far failed to demonstrate that at any given point in time Christianity and Judaism WERE ON THE SAME PATH.
All these idiots fail to see that nothing in the entire NT attests to Judeo-Christian origins or roots - and the essential things to look for are not words, but actions.
Yes, there are tons of words in the NT that allege Judeo-Christian connections, but how many actions attest to that?
Surely Peter and James were Jewish? They wanted Christians to stick with circumcision and food purity rules. Paul seems to have deferred to them when it came to his gospel, which indicates they were important to early Christianity. Paul called himself Jewish. So at its earliest layer, Christians were Jewish.

In gMatthew, Jesus says:

22:36 “Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the Law?”
37 Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.…


This comes from Deuteronomy 6:5

And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

What could be more Jewish than that?

The problem is seeing ancient beliefs as though they were separate 'towers', much like we do today: Jewish people are Jewish, and that's that. Pagans are pagans, and that's that. But in ancient times, ideas mingled and changed. Greek philosophy had a big influence on Judaism, as Philo of Alexandria clearly demonstrates. He was Jewish. The destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and dispersion of the Jews and Christians must have had a big impact on their religious ideas. Who can say what "true" Judaism was?
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Biblical academic: it's just a religion really

Post by Ulan »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:03 am Lovely how Bird inserts the word "other" there, as if Jesus ever did anything that didn't violate Judaic habits - nothing in the NT attests to him being Judaic, but these "scholars" just desperately need him to be, so they make him so.
Now, that's an evaluation that stems from daisy-chaining your own hypotheses.

In principle, you could argue the opposite of what you say there: that the Jesus of the NT (at least some gospels like gMark; you are right regarding gJohn) never did anything that wasn't in line with Judaic habits.
What authors like Bird argue is that we just see a continuation of former fractions in Judaism, like the fights between Hasmonean priests and their pharisaic opponents, or the violent arguments between the schools of Hillel and Shammai over the oral Thora.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Biblical academic: it's just a religion really

Post by mlinssen »

Ulan wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 3:21 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:03 am Lovely how Bird inserts the word "other" there, as if Jesus ever did anything that didn't violate Judaic habits - nothing in the NT attests to him being Judaic, but these "scholars" just desperately need him to be, so they make him so.
Now, that's an evaluation that stems from daisy-chaining your own hypotheses.

In principle, you could argue the opposite of what you say there: that the Jesus of the NT (at least some gospels like gMark; you are right regarding gJohn) never did anything that wasn't in line with Judaic habits.
Really? By all means, Ulan - 3 examples will be enough to satisfy the initial thirst there I think
What authors like Bird argue is that we just see a continuation of former fractions in Judaism, like the fights between Hasmonean priests and their pharisaic opponents, or the violent arguments between the schools of Hillel and Shammai over the oral Thora.
None of that has anything to do with Christianity, or to be precise the content of the NT.
You are merely daisy-chaining
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Biblical academic: it's just a religion really

Post by mlinssen »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:48 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:03 amAll these religiots have so far failed to demonstrate that at any given point in time Christianity and Judaism WERE ON THE SAME PATH.
All these idiots fail to see that nothing in the entire NT attests to Judeo-Christian origins or roots - and the essential things to look for are not words, but actions.
Yes, there are tons of words in the NT that allege Judeo-Christian connections, but how many actions attest to that?
Surely Peter and James were Jewish? They wanted Christians to stick with circumcision and food purity rules. Paul seems to have deferred to them when it came to his gospel, which indicates they were important to early Christianity. Paul called himself Jewish. So at its earliest layer, Christians were Jewish.

In gMatthew, Jesus says:

22:36 “Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the Law?”
37 Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.…


This comes from Deuteronomy 6:5

And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

What could be more Jewish than that?

The problem is seeing ancient beliefs as though they were separate 'towers', much like we do today: Jewish people are Jewish, and that's that. Pagans are pagans, and that's that. But in ancient times, ideas mingled and changed. Greek philosophy had a big influence on Judaism, as Philo of Alexandria clearly demonstrates. He was Jewish. The destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and dispersion of the Jews and Christians must have had a big impact on their religious ideas. Who can say what "true" Judaism was?
The greatest Judaic commandment naturally is the first commandment, Don:

"I am the Lord thy God", under the Talmudic division of the third-century Jewish Talmud - which isn't much of a commandment really, hence why the Samaritans claim precedence:

"You shall have no other gods before me"

(Exodus 20:2)
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Biblical academic: it's just a religion really

Post by Ulan »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:34 am Really? By all means, Ulan - 3 examples will be enough to satisfy the initial thirst there I think
I mentioned gMark as example.
We had been talking about the initial scene already, where Jesus gets adopted by God as his son by receiving his spirit. The only unusual part of that scene was that it was shown like a possession, which is probably why the other gospels and most current translations changed this to the normative Judaic way, with the spirit resting "upon" the adopted. Other than that, the scene is a copy of what happened to David, including that David was considered a son of God, or as the normal crowning ceremony of kings (who also became sons of God), like it's shown in the psalms. Some prophets come to mind as well. It's the normal way how the OT god chooses his messengers. When the Persian king Kyros gets adopted as the anointed of God, it's also similar. At this particular point, the only transgression is the "possession" part.

Other stuff like plucking wheat on a Sabbath or the "love thy neighbor" part are also part of the OT. The question of how strictly certain commandments had to be followed are typical debates that were fought between different pharisaic schools. Jesus sounds like a typical member of the Hillel school, the only exception being his stance on marriage, which seems to be closer to Shammai. The time also checks out, as Jewish tradition has these fights turn violent in the time of the lead-up to the Jewish war. Of course, "Jewish tradition" has the issue of being concomitant with the rise of Christianity, so there's that.

gLuke presents Jesus as a messiah actor. He's doing stuff not because he wants it or God wants it, but because the script he follows says so (he's basically following a "magical" formula that is supposed to summon God's army). This somewhat surprising revelation is made when Jesus orders his followers to sell their stuff in order to buy weapons. What script? The peculiarly Christian interpretation of Isaiah and, other than that, mostly Daniel, I'd suggest. Even the "empty tomb" scene makes sense in that context. Daniel is one of the most popular texts preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's funny how failed prophesies never seem to want to die. As Paul puts it, he found his Christ in the scriptures. People still do that nonsense today.
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:34 am
What authors like Bird argue is that we just see a continuation of former fractions in Judaism, like the fights between Hasmonean priests and their pharisaic opponents, or the violent arguments between the schools of Hillel and Shammai over the oral Thora.
None of that has anything to do with Christianity, or to be precise the content of the NT.
You are merely daisy-chaining
That's what Christian preachers will tell you, because the Christian Jesus is this wonder boy that came up with all these cool ideas himself and himself alone. It's as if Jewish apocalyptic literature or all those debates over how strictly the law is to be followed never happened.

I know you think that Thomas came first and gJohn was the first gospel. You have shown your reasoning, and I see that you have put a lot of thought into this. Nevertheless, I don't agree with that your conclusions out of this necessarily follow, which means I don't see any reason to accept your view of the current particulars we are talking about. Given that gJohn is often seen as some kit bash of two or more predecessor texts, I'm not even sure there's much of a point to force a decision here, as what I say about gMark doesn't necessarily touch on your ideas at all, and vice versa. The recycling of stories and ideas is as old as mankind.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Biblical academic: it's just a religion really

Post by mlinssen »

Ulan wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:38 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:34 am Really? By all means, Ulan - 3 examples will be enough to satisfy the initial thirst there I think
I mentioned gMark as example.
We had been talking about the initial scene already, where Jesus gets adopted by God as his son by receiving his spirit. The only unusual part of that scene was that it was shown like a possession, which is probably why the other gospels and most current translations changed this to the normative Judaic way, with the spirit resting "upon" the adopted. Other than that, the scene is a copy of what happened to David, including that David was considered a son of God, or as the normal crowning ceremony of kings (who also became sons of God), like it's shown in the psalms. Some prophets come to mind as well. It's the normal way how the OT god chooses his messengers. When the Persian king Kyros gets adopted as the anointed of God, it's also similar. At this particular point, the only transgression is the "possession" part.
John invents the dove, and focuses on where the Spirit comes from: heaven (which I think is a redaction, as I would expect it to say heavens at the very least), and that it remains with IS. Mark takes that goal and implements it via the means of baptism, and thence changes it into something that physically enters IS, because he needs to have it ex-spirited again at his death, so he can reuse it after the resurrection and pass the ball to Paul who doesn't talk about a living IS, but a dead IS: XS is his pet, the XS that equals the Spirit

This is not an action by IS though, nor does it have anything to do with the observance of Judaic habits
Other stuff like plucking wheat on a Sabbath or the "love thy neighbor" part are also part of the OT. The question of how strictly certain commandments had to be followed are typical debates that were fought between different pharisaic schools. Jesus sounds like a typical member of the Hillel school, the only exception being his stance on marriage, which seems to be closer to Shammai. The time also checks out, as Jewish tradition has these fights turn violent in the time of the lead-up to the Jewish war. Of course, "Jewish tradition" has the issue of being concomitant with the rise of Christianity, so there's that.
This (plucking) is an action, yet not by IS, that does have something to do with the observance of Judaic habits. IS supports it, and as such this is an anti-Judaic action.
"Love thy neighbour"? Not the first commandment, so in essence this also is anti-Judaic behaviour
gLuke presents Jesus as a messiah actor. He's doing stuff not because he wants it or God wants it, but because the script he follows says so (he's basically following a "magical" formula that is supposed to summon God's army). This somewhat surprising revelation is made when Jesus orders his followers to sell their stuff in order to buy weapons. What script? The peculiarly Christian interpretation of Isaiah and, other than that, mostly Daniel, I'd suggest. Even the "empty tomb" scene makes sense in that context. Daniel is one of the most popular texts preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's funny how failed prophesies never seem to want to die. As Paul puts it, he found his Christ in the scriptures. People still do that nonsense today.
Luke is *Ev redacted, that is impossible to refute. Proving that *Ev is Thomas / John redacted is a whole lot trickier, so I am currently focusing all in logion 47, the piece de resistance of Chrestianity / *Ev.
Luke is directed at the Chrestian audience, and all of its messages are aimed at toning them down, watering down their content, yet also at changing their behaviour. They are told to be poor, meek, and giving above any other gospel's message

The resurrection was invented by Mark, and not present before his text. It got added to John, so that we now have a John with a resurrection - which evidently fits within the fout-fold gospel collection as it literally "closes the book" on it (credits due to Geoff Price for that)

No action here, alas
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:34 am
What authors like Bird argue is that we just see a continuation of former fractions in Judaism, like the fights between Hasmonean priests and their pharisaic opponents, or the violent arguments between the schools of Hillel and Shammai over the oral Thora.
None of that has anything to do with Christianity, or to be precise the content of the NT.
You are merely daisy-chaining
That's what Christian preachers will tell you, because the Christian Jesus is this wonder boy that came up with all these cool ideas himself and himself alone. It's as if Jewish apocalyptic literature or all those debates over how strictly the law is to be followed never happened.
They happened, but none of that is relevant to the NT, or to this topic. Can you not just show me at least one tiny pro-Judaic action by IS, so that we soothe ourselves with the illusion that he was Judaic in any way?
I know you think that Thomas came first and gJohn was the first gospel. You have shown your reasoning, and I see that you have put a lot of thought into this. Nevertheless, I don't agree with that your conclusions out of this necessarily follow, which means I don't see any reason to accept your view of the current particulars we are talking about. Given that gJohn is often seen as some kit bash of two or more predecessor texts, I'm not even sure there's much of a point to force a decision here, as what I say about gMark doesn't necessarily touch on your ideas at all, and vice versa. The recycling of stories and ideas is as old as mankind.
I can only guess that your concern is with the Judaism aspect that I now raise, and my concise claim that "Chrestianity + Judaism = Christianity", asserting that all the Judaism in the NT consists of mere feeble fantasies by people almost entirely unfamiliar with Judaism?

Simply strip all the Judaisation from the NT, and what remains is Chrestianity (plus a tiny bit of bullshit bingo) - it's as simple as that
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Biblical academic: it's just a religion really

Post by mlinssen »

To be precise, little bit more remains, and that is the "historical references" that also got introduced by the Romans: millstones around your neck, being good to children while you're evil,having to stand outside, and all that jazz.
The trick is to strip all Judaism first, and then we have Chrestianity + Roman references, the skeleton on which they hung the Chrestian story before they Judaised it. Because they DID need to fixate it in time in order to properly predate it, which naturally had FA to do with Judaism
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Biblical academic: it's just a religion really

Post by Ulan »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:56 am John invents the dove, and focuses on where the Spirit comes from: heaven (which I think is a redaction, as I would expect it to say heavens at the very least), and that it remains with IS. Mark takes that goal and implements it via the means of baptism, and thence changes it into something that physically enters IS, because he needs to have it ex-spirited again at his death, so he can reuse it after the resurrection and pass the ball to Paul who doesn't talk about a living IS, but a dead IS: XS is his pet, the XS that equals the Spirit
Well, that's your interpretation. I consider gJohn a commentary on the synoptics. Some of the sentences in there only make sense that way.
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:56 am This is not an action by IS though, nor does it have anything to do with the observance of Judaic habits
You are shifting the goalposts. This scene in gMark could also be from the OT. It's completely compatible with OT concepts and works inside the framework that is set up by the OT. The contention from the Jewish side was over JC's failure, which disqualified him from being a messiah figure. Simon bar Kokhba was a messiah until he failed.
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:56 am This (plucking) is an action, yet not by IS, that does have something to do with the observance of Judaic habits. IS supports it, and as such this is an anti-Judaic action.
"Love thy neighbour"? Not the first commandment, so in essence this also is anti-Judaic behaviour.
Nope, both of those are Torah laws, so as Judaic as it gets. The Torah contains more than just the first commandment.
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:56 am Luke is *Ev redacted, that is impossible to refute. Proving that *Ev is Thomas / John redacted is a whole lot trickier, so I am currently focusing all in logion 47, the piece de resistance of Chrestianity / *Ev.
Luke is directed at the Chrestian audience, and all of its messages are aimed at toning them down, watering down their content, yet also at changing their behaviour. They are told to be poor, meek, and giving above any other gospel's message
No problem with this. Today's gLuke is a Catholic redaction, addressing a Roman audience.
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:56 am The resurrection was invented by Mark, and not present before his text. It got added to John, so that we now have a John with a resurrection - which evidently fits within the fout-fold gospel collection as it literally "closes the book" on it (credits due to Geoff Price for that)
Here it gets into speculation territory, but that sounds like reasonable speculation. Of course, as gMark doesn't contain a resurrection scene, it also leaves room for other interpretations.
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:56 am They happened, but none of that is relevant to the NT, or to this topic. Can you not just show me at least one tiny pro-Judaic action by IS, so that we soothe ourselves with the illusion that he was Judaic in any way?
I did. Your answers were baseless rejections. There isn't one singular "Judaic way". There never was.
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:56 am I can only guess that your concern is with the Judaism aspect that I now raise, and my concise claim that "Chrestianity + Judaism = Christianity", asserting that all the Judaism in the NT consists of mere feeble fantasies by people almost entirely unfamiliar with Judaism?

Simply strip all the Judaisation from the NT, and what remains is Chrestianity (plus a tiny bit of bullshit bingo) - it's as simple as that
Well, if you think the Torah is a Christian work they somehow forced on Jews, that's on you.

Anyway, it looks as if I'm arguing against some rather idiosyncratic definitions here. Not much basis for a fruitful discussion then.
Last edited by Ulan on Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Biblical academic: it's just a religion really

Post by lsayre »

The Septuagint Torah with but a couple to a scant few passages translated in a Christian leaning way is a Christian work that might have been retroactively forced upon Jews. The original circa 273 BC Septuagint Torah is lost to history. All extant Torah's claiming to be the Septuagint are thereby forgeries. Rabbi Tovia Singer is an excellent source here.
Post Reply