A call-in talk show (in San Francisco of all places!) is not the most appropriate venue for serious New Testament scholars to discuss Jesus, Christianity, history and fine points of theology. After listening to the people calling in to the show, which once again portrays the abysmal ignorance of a large segment of the population here, I am once again embarrassed to be living in the Bay Area.
Of course Wright's a Christian, he was the Bishop of Durham ;) But he's known as one of the greatest experts on Early Christianity and especially its Jewish and Roman context. Being Christian doesn't exclude you from being a good scholar. Maybe you should get familiar with his work. "The evidence that Jesus was Caesarion " I'm not aware of any evidence existing for this theory. It seems kinda absurd - Christians were persecuted exactly because they wouldn't worship the Emperor and his family.
Why do we think the Bible should satisfy all our questions? It was surely written down to give hope, from hearts that found hope. E.g. When faced with DEATH, read Psalm 88....when very close, may you find hope in the 1st verse.
etymology or 'other hidden meaning' of greek words/names applied only to greek words/names. eg. Αλέξανδρος (Alexander) is a greek name. it means etymologically Άλεξ=defender ανδρός=man, defender of man. non-greek names/words e.g Yehashua, which in hebrew means saviour, is not a greek name. the greeks phonetically transliterated it to Ιησούς. Ιησούς has no meaning whatsoever in greek. i am greek, and can read and understand homeric and koine, apart from modern greek. cheers
How is it possibly ethical to suggest the equivalent of a notion we all travel with one foot in a stranger's fantasyland, using fictional vocabulary: prophecy, prayer, etc. ?
Using the events of the New Testament as factually correct is what we moderns have done since the Enlightenment. Instead of thinking that the gospel writers told dumb, literal stories that we were now smart enough to recognize as such. Not quite, says Crossan and others. Those ancient people told smart, metaphorical stories that we were now dumb enough to take literally.
@@lukemedcalf1670 Intellectualism and snobbery are two different things. I live in America where one of our foundational myths of the city slicker and the country bumpkin still holds resonance. Were Copernicus and Galileo referred to as "snobs" because they believed in a science most of their contemporaries & clerics were ignorant of?
Luke 1:38 - "And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant[f] of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her." This was prior to her becoming pregnant. I don't think any victim of rape ever said that. Check your facts before you come to throw your nonsense around.
I drive myself crazy thinking about all this "Jesus" stuff. It's just mental masturbation at the end of the day. I wish I could just wash my hands of it.
2) "Jesus" - God helps. "Caesarion" - Son of Caesar/little Caesar. Same meaning? ... 3) Caesarion died roughly 60 years before Christianity even started. Any claims to deity were the standard Roman Emperor-cult and were firmly rejected by the Jewish background of early Christianity. Even if these parallels were true, I can't see at all how you would go from that to identity of these two persons. One would think ANY of the Gospels, Epistles or Early Church fathers would mention Caesarion, then.
Considered "a joke" by whom? Afaik he's currently research professor for Early Christianity & NT studies and had similar jobs since the 1980s. I have some of his scholarly work here, which show extensive knowledge about the first century Roman and Jewish world & beliefs. I remember him going into theories of Cultural Science in one of his works, what I study at university, and brilliantly summing them up. I only heard him be talked about as one of the best experts in his field.
now you totally confused me. i merely used alexander (not the great or anyone in particular) but just the name itself as an example because it was greek. my point was to show that Joshua/Yeshua is not a greek name and therefore it's transliteration to the hellenised Ιησούς could not mean anything in greek like σώτερ-σώτηρ etc because it was a hebrew name. non-greek names/words that are hellenised do not have a meaning in greek except the meaning ascribed to them in their pre hellenised form
Carpenters and fishermen, however, had memories and passed down their recollections to the next generation of Christians, amongst whom some wrote it down, as one can see in the case of Papias, who went around around the year 100, inquiring of witnesses who spoke with the Apostles.
If Jesus lived today he won’t be considered a social advocate. He would be considered a master teacher. Paul would be considered a social advocate. Jesus had no opinion on right or wrong behavior outside of the context in which any such behavior might occur. He directed his disciples “go not into the way of Gentiles or Samaritans“. Ergo, his teaching appears as how to live life in the broadest way that respected free choice. In his understanding the Gentiles chose (on some level) their lifestyle as did the Samaritans. He taught those who wanted his teaching about how to live life. Once one understood how to live life, then life itself became that teacher.
The exceeding foolishness of so many laymen thinking they know better than the consensus of serious scholars for the historicity of Jesus is astonishing.
So is the widespread biblical illiteracy of members of mainline Christianity. I have very often offered online comment quotes from Jesus taken from the Bible's New Testament and then later attacked because "Jesus said no such thing!"
I think the perception of Jesus in my lifetime has been reflected by the times. In the 70s post hippie era he was like a loving buddy. In the 80s conservative counter reaction he was someone who didn’t like gays and abortion. In the 90s globalization’s Jesus wanted world peace. Today many Christians view him as a vehicle for Theocracy of sorts and authoritarianism. Aside from whatever times we’re in I think Jesus was centered around love. With Hell being the paradox that makes no sense to me. Almost as if it’s the great lie to keep people in line or else. A necessary evil if you will. I would say Jesus is love. That’s my preferred view of him.
Jesus is not a who but a what. Jesus is parody, mocking, slur, & propaganda. We don't have so much as a single monument of the cult-Jesus for the first 300 years of the bogus history & chronology left to us by the church-fascists. The public is thick as a brick to it. Even in this age, the Christian gets a pass while publicly insulting intelligence with suggestions progress is made with one foot in some divine fantasyland. God help us all.
One main claim of early Christians was that Jesus was king. Not the king in Jerusalem, the Roman Procurator, or the Emperor in Rome. That's a point Wright makes very, very strongly in his published work. Christianity spreading over that region probably has to do with the infrastructure of the Roman Empire and Greek as Lingua franca. If they'd have preached Caesarion, maybe they wouldn't have called him "Jesus"... "Cosmic zombie" is an obvious straw man and petty attempt to mock Christianity.
the second point is why anybody living in Herodian Judea would give a crap about who octavius killed or didnt kill over 100 years earlier is another mystery you havent explained, since the earliest dating of the first gospel is 70c.e.. at which point al lthe principles in your story are well and truely dead.
Why Jesus and not Joshua? Why Christ and not Messiah? Why Hell and not Sheol? It is very important to me to understand why it appears that christianity (as opposed to the Jesus Movement of Peter and James) evolved from a Hellenistic/Pagan religion into a Judaism 2.0. It makes more sense that Saul/Paul, who was supposedly a Hellenized Jew, attempting to destroy the Jesus movement in Palestine, intentionally created an alternative popular movement by combining the two ideologies.
jesus christ isnt a full name for jesus, jesus is his name and christ is his post pourrissi title, you are making very elementary and silly mistakes in your theory here
Crossan is not even close of being in the same league than Tom Wright. A little bit of objectivity from mainstream media would be very welcome in selecting their "scholars."
Gosh. I think absolutely the opposite. Crossan did not get enough chance to speak here. In other lectures Crossan has shown himself as an incredibly conscientious historian, but I feel NTW is biased more towards his theology and being an apologist. In my experience, he tends to not question enough what is written in the New Testament and really delve down to ideas of what was going on and why. Crossan has an incredible understanding of this era to draw on and questions and questions and questions...
thats not the correct translation from armaic, you have a Roman name going through greek back to aramaic? you are attributing Jesus's greek name to ptolemy who was a roman citizen living in alexndria? your claims are nonsensical and your insults dont add creedence to the lack of substance in your argument
There was a man living 2,000 years ago who was called God, the Son of God, Savior of the World, Lord and King. His name was Octavian: Caesar Agustus. Everyone in the empire knew these elevated titles well. They were carved into the stone buildings and stamped on coins in the city streets. Jesus called his spiritual program the Kingdom of God. In other words, what would the world be like if God sat on the ruling throne instead of Caesar? To apply those sayings to the identity of a wandering rabbi would be an offense of high treason.
theres no confusion, the N.T. is written in greek all four books including the one authored by the clearly Jewish Mathew and John who appears to be samarian. Greek was the most commonly written language in Judeah and Gallillee by the 1st century, remeber you are talking about a society with an illiteracy rate of about 97% so who was reading what you see as a conspiracy , was just about nobody. the 3% who could read were almost entirely be educated by the priestly class
In all the writings about Socrates, never once is Socrates portrayed as crying/weeping -- only laughing. In all the writings about Jesus, including the Gnostic texts, never once is Jesus portrayed as laughing -- only crying/weeping.
Miracles ARE impossible. By definition, one must accept the impossibility of miracles, in order for something to be called a miracles. Please explain to me the difference between a miracle and sorcery... I'll wait.
Jesus is a real person, not composite. I have seen him in person recently because I did not feel close to him, and told someone I wanted to see him in person. He came to me two weeks later to let me know he really does exist.
John Dominic Crossan well knows of the two aspects within Christianity of Jesus the suffering servant lamb of God and the mighty Son of David King of Kings and Lord of Lords at the second advent. When he speaks of Jesus developing a violent nature as a result of the persecution of the early church, he seems to be ignorant of the Old Testament duel prophecies such as Psalms 22 and Isaiah Ch. 9, Even if embellished it would still nullify his theory. He knowingly choses what to be ignorant of, which makes his credibility suspect and bias.
All yee who have ears, listen! Christ is the Christ, a Jewish Christ, who is eternal and reign's over the whole world forever, under the line of Zadok, and Zaddikim, Zadok is a priestly descent from Aaron, Zaddikim is the Righteous Teacher, or Just One, Christ is the Eternal High Priest, the Essene Master
2) Answer: Constantine was the creator of the Christian religion, his handpicked fashioned many bibles/contradictions which where most likely left overs from those very same polytheistic times. Constantine meets with everyone he had placed into power and fashioned what he thought appropriate, and this became the New Testament (well before the Church started their editing and re-writes). I believe there were already 158 different bibles before Constantine restricted the creation of anymore.
I admit tyo you Philip Weller, I am not much of a historian: nevertheless, in response to your post "History has shown that doesn't really work - changing a people's main religious traditions without a major attempt to back away." Answer: LOL, well killing all that opposes the “NEW” religion has almost always worked, hard to claim ‘always’ as an absolute when the first thing the victor does is to attempt to destroy all records.
Really, well considering the is absolutely no evidence that contradicts my stamen I challenge you to prove otherwise (when I say prove I mean let's look at any evidence you believe you have).
I read Jesus A Revolutionary Biography in 1995. Subsequently I have read many of Bart D Ehrman's books. While John Dominic's egalitarian Jesus is appealing, Bart's apocalyptic Jesus seems more likely. It is obvious to me that Jesus believed in a god. Everyone believed in gods and goddesses at that time. There is speculation that belief began in the middle paleolithic period. Entering the 21st Century, acknowledgement that deities are human creations is less risky. Fewer people are executed or shunned. Such people may eventually run for political office and get elected.
Yeshua, the god that needed human sacrifice when the Jews were polytheists before reorganizing as a monotheist practice and claiming this was a 4000 year old belief structure....Google forbidden gospels.
History has shown that doesn't really work - changing a people's main religious traditions without a major attempt to back away. For example, when Akhenaten tried something similar to monotheism in the 14th century BC, he was so despised that he was condemned by a memoria damnatiae by the succeeding pharaoh, Ramses. The same with Julian the Apostate, who was responding to Constantine. Also, forbidden Gospels have nothing to do with Old Testament history.
Jesus, the man who was seen by many(?) and remembered by no-one. If Jesus were indeed real, then it took over a generation before any wrote about him. If you follow the chronological order of the books of the bible Jesus became a sorcerer then a god as the New Testament was written. 300 plus years have now passed...but until Constantine came into power no-one had still heard of Jesus except by the second and third hand stories according to the anonymous writers
Lol people have such a bee in their bonnet about whether there was really a person named Jesus or not. It's like interrupting people discussing ideas about Buddhism to ask whether there was really ever a figure called Buddha. 1. Of course someone existed, they probably aren't identical to what we have written down but there was certainly someone who inspired these movements and 2. Who even cares?
Same region - already wrote about that. To the rest: 1) Jesus' title would be Christus/Messiah. Even a messianic king in its proper Jewish context have a very different meaning than a Roman one, would even be considered to be its antagonist; early Christians adopted terms used in context of the Roman Emperors (e.g. "evangelion"/gospel), but in means to contrast their beliefs from it, to show that what they believed was the true thing. So this thing just goes the other way round than you see it.
Yeah, I know many Christians who believe that Jesus is/was God's Son in essence, not literally and biological. I think only the hardline fundamentalists think He was the biological Son.
