Comment by Heather Spoonheim on May 21, 2011 at 2:40am

Thanks for the review and so much expansion of the idea.  :D

Comment by demcmanamy3 on May 21, 2011 at 2:45am

no problem.  i think you've got a great idea there. it's a shame that some attack it due to their non religious beliefs with as much veracity (fueled by their beliefs) as those would attack it for their religious beliefs.  keep thinking.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on May 21, 2011 at 2:48am

I don't think Josephus was a contemporary of James, however.  Josephus is said to have been born in 37 A.D.  His first writings were completed more than 30 years later.  If James was even alive when Josephus began writing, he would have been a very very old man for the age - but he likely wasn't alive by the time Josephus began writing the history of his age.

Comment by demcmanamy3 on May 21, 2011 at 2:59am

contemporary just means they lived at the same time.  so from a historical standpoint it is important because it give the historian proximity to the event.  so when my uncle ken would tell me what it was like parachuting into normandy on d day it gives me insight to the occurrence, even though i was born after it happened. i could write a fairly historical account of d-day, but without knowing my uncle, i'd have a lot less insight.  He died before i could write well, but his stories are insightful and  give me a little more knowledge of what was going through, let's say, a generals mind. More so than if i had not known my uncle.  it's about proximity. Josephus didn't talk to Jesus, he probably didn't talk to James either, but he was a Jew and probably knew someone that was lived really close to what was going on.  he had more insight, than let's say the guy that wrote the book of matthew.

Comment by demcmanamy3 on May 21, 2011 at 3:15am

My uncle is real by the way and did jump into normandy.  But here's a better example... Bobby Kennedy.  He died before I was born.  about the same time difference between Jesus and Josephus.  My college Criminal science teacher (this is true by the way) worked his murder as a junior agent.  I wasn't there, I never spoke to a Kennedy, and am a contemporary, as you are, of Ted Kennedy. that's pretty close. If i was an interested historian with connections (josephus had a ton of roman connections, he was considered a Roman apologist on top of being a roman employed historian) he'd have good insight making him a relatively reliable source.  as i would be if i was writing a history of bobby kennedy and interviewed my college professor.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on May 21, 2011 at 3:21am

Ok, well I'll grant you that.  It sure would have been nice, however, had anyone who actually met Jesus ever written anything down.  Perhaps they did, and the early church fathers had that destroyed with all the other materials that contradicted their views on the matter.

Comment by demcmanamy3 on May 21, 2011 at 3:37am

absolutely.  and what would be even better is if people hadn't associated him with supernatural powers too.  i guess the point is this... history can rarely ever give you the whole truth but its far more reliable than  religion, which rarely comes close. 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on May 21, 2011 at 3:54am

I've been rereading Mark for the first time in almost 20 years and it's hilarious.  Looking back on it, I'm left wondering how the book isn't easily recognized as inner church narrative by everyone.  Jesus happens to walk past some fishermen and says, 'Hey, come with me,' and these guys just drop their nets and go with him, and then then walk into someone's home and sit down for dinner.  Who the hell would drop the tools of their trade and follow some guy who just said, "Hey, come with me"?  Who the hell would just let some wanderers walk into their home and sit down for dinner just because one of the dudes tells some really insightful stories?  There is zero background or explanation, making it so obvious that the book was written for the already indoctrinated, that one simply MUST ask - what was early indoctrination based on?

 

It's issues like these that I think are fascinating and when you read the book through non-indoctrinated eyes there is a lot to be learned about the history of the religion itself, which is very important history to our world today.

Comment by demcmanamy3 on May 21, 2011 at 4:12am

yeah that's the point.  there are lots of reasons why that would happen. none of them are miraculous.  in 30 AD the area surrounding galilee was notorious for famine and starvation.  life expectancy was low as a result. the romans imposed harsh taxes as a means of controlling the population. palestine, as a whole was extremely difficult to mange (think hadrian's wall and the roman issue with the natives of scotland- the picts.  the jews and the scots where the only peoples that rome could never make capitulate fully.  so some guy walks by and offers you free food.  the problem is this, your looking at it through today's standards.  it's not uncommon for 1. oppressed people to band together 2. hungry people to take a free meal. 3 in jewish culture, as in early christian culture and in muslime culture, especially in the early first millenium, eating with a stranger of the same faith isn;t uncommon at all.  the bible attributes this particular occurence to the power of the message, history attributes it to the power of the economic conditions.  did this particular story happen? no one can say. is it possible, given the state of things at the time, absolutely. the church's narrative isn't so much that it happened, it;s why it happened, the church says it was divine.  i think the reality is necessity.

Comment by MikeLong on May 21, 2011 at 4:24am

Not odd at all. I can picture it in black and white. Jesus clicks into focus and the theremin starts. The motion of the apostles' legs is clearly involuntary. The same theremin riff starts again as they all enter the stranger's house and Jesus locks eyes. No indoctrination necessary. It all fits.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page