What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[watchamadoodle]

Discussion of John the Baptist made me look-up Mandaeism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism

Apparently there is a backlash against connecting Mandaeism with early Christianity, but there are a lot of parallels.
- way of light and darkness (like Dead Sea Scrolls)
- cross as their symbol
- John the Baptist
- theology in the language of parables
- gnostic
- sometimes called "Nasoreans" (similar to Nazarenes)

It makes me wonder if Nazareth was the name of a religious center (like Qumran) for followers of John the Baptist. Jesus tried to take over after John the Baptist was imprisoned or executed. Then Jesus was executed too. James the brother of Jesus took over and the early Christians began rationalizing and mythologizing the failure of Jesus to deliver Israel?

[Drich]

I dont know if you are aware but Christians typically deal with empirical data, not just blind faith.

Sometimes I really can't help thinking Drich is a troll.

It only seems trollish because you only think you understand the true meaning of the words I used in that quote. If you bothered to ever look those words up you would see what I and other Christians believe is based by defination in the tangible, and what I was referring to (which was a belief by an atheist) was not based in tangable evidence, but just blind faith/what an atheist believed in blind faith.

That's what empirical evidence is. It is tangible physical evidence. this is in stark contrast to theoreticaly based beliefs . This is what the vast majority of what atheist believes is made up from.

[robvalue]

Was James really the "other jesus" that went on a bit of a military campaign, and then his story got mixed up with "good jesus" hence the split personality?

I gotta find out where I read about that, it was very interesting. Two jesuses. They got combined into one, and that's where the "christ" bit comes from, somehow.

[Mudhammam]

Discussion of John the Baptist made me look-up Mandaeism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism

Apparently there is a backlash against connecting Mandaeism with early Christianity, but there are a lot of parallels.
- way of light and darkness (like Dead Sea Scrolls)
- cross as their symbol
- John the Baptist
- theology in the language of parables
- gnostic
- sometimes called "Nasoreans" (similar to Nazarenes)

It makes me wonder if Nazareth was the name of a religious center (like Qumran) for followers of John the Baptist. Jesus tried to take over after John the Baptist was imprisoned or executed. Then Jesus was executed too. James the brother of Jesus took over and the early Christians began rationalizing and mythologizing the failure of Jesus to deliver Israel?

As a side note, as far as I know, no archaeological finds locate Nazareth as an inhabited village until many years until after Jesus is said to have lived. It may not prove that Nazareth didn't exist (even if no writer mentions it until the Gospels---not even Josephus, who mentions a number of insignificant towns in the vicinity) but mythicists have made something of it nonetheless.

[Godscreated]

Oh, the question of what Jesus was doing in the days after the baptism is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a reason Christians refer to the first three Gospels as "Synoptic", acknowledging that John sits oddly along side of them.

John's gospel wasn't written as chronology of Christ's life, actually none were intended as a chronology. Each has differences, none disagree with each other over the life of Christ other than when events happened, and as I said, none were intentionally written as a chronological account.

OK, let's assume you're correct that John was telling a retrospective of what happened earlier. This would make Jesus' appearance at least a second one, presumably after the 40 days in the wilderness but before JtB was put into prison. Jesus begins to gather disciples and starts his ministry. Not only does Jesus not wait for JtB to be put away before he starts his ministry, he starts a rival baptism business and beats JtB at his own game.

Let's what? assume, seems to me it's quit clear what was happening in John's account. All the gospel accounts are told somewhat differently, yet nothing is changed among them, they all point man toward salvation through the Christ as the most important thing in one's life.

3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
3:24 For John was not yet cast into prison.
...(JtB speaks about "he must increase but I must decrease")...
4:1 When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

Yet when I read the Synoptic Gospel accounts, Jesus is baptized, Jesus goes into the Wilderness, JtB is thrown into prison, Jesus starts his ministry. He doesn't gather disciples until after JtB was out of the picture.

There is no time designated between the time Jesus starts his ministry and John testifies to his previous encounter with Christ. No designated time is given in any of the other gospels, these writings are not about a minute by minute account of Christ's life nor were they intended to be chronological. You think you can tear down the gospels because they were not put into chronological order, you will and have failed, they are about finding and living a new life, born again into the grace of God our savior, born unto salvation through Christ who came to save us. He did not come to have his story told in a chronological order to satisfy you, He came to offer you salvation through the sinless life He lead and died for and promise you a new resurrected life through his resurrection. The scriptures are not scientific papers written because it needs an orderly presentation to satisfy it's readers and reviewers. Most scientific papers are written to be accepted by peers, carefully constructed to be accepted. The NT wasn't, it was written to tell mankind that salvation is an offering from God, God has no peers to impress, He was giving a gift, you know the one you purposely left out because of the power of conviction it brings. John 3:16, a reminder.

1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, ... 1:16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
1:17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

4:11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him. 4:12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; ... 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

4:13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
4:14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.

So in your retcon of John chapter 1, when did JtB have the opportunity to have his second meeting with Jesus when he says "behold the lamb of God"? When did he have the opportunity to baptize along side Jesus at Salim? In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus gets back from the Wilderness and hears that JtB was put into prison. You'll probably say that some time passed between Jesus' return from the Wilderness and the imprisonment of JtB, long enough to allow for that second meeting, but even so, Jesus in the Synoptics doesn't start his ministry or gather the disciples Simon and Andrew until after JtB was put away.

Your point is taken by telling you that the gospels do not lean on chronology. There are time gaps all through the gospels, they never were meant to be an accurate account of Christ's every movement, they are given for mankind to understand that He came as our only Redeemer. You can not tear them apart because you do not like they were not written chronologically, they stand strong on their own as for what they were intended. True or false many of the old writings outside the scriptures were not written chronologically. Chronology was only very important when generations were given and they were not intended as a time line, but usually to show a line of succession.

Now all of this makes sense if you read the Gospels not as a consistent timeline but a work of fiction that gets better with the telling.

So how do you feel about revising much of ancient history because a timeline was not written into those ancient accounts, do we call all we have fiction because timelines were not established with absolute accuracy as you demand from the Gospels. Don't be so ridiculous. The OT was far from chronologically put together and it was given in part as history. When a chronology was important in the OT we were given generations, and in that it was given to point to a important event or a certain person within a certain time period. None of scripture was given to be a perfect historical account, it was given to give the perfect and absolute need for a Savior.

John was clearly written much later than the other Gospels, evidenced not just by the more theologically advanced Jesus who proclaims himself one with his father but also by how "the Jews" are constantly referred to as a separate and rival religion. The Synoptics write of "the priests", "scribes" or "pharisees", apparently written at a time when the emerging Christian sect had not yet fully split off into its own.

This could only be a true statement if the priest, pharisees and scribes accepted any part of the Christ account, and that then and now is clearly unacceptable to them. All four gospels show the division of Christ and the priest, scribes and pharisees, all laid the blame on them for the crucifying of Christ. Your story holds no water on many accounts.

JtB's nature also changes in John's Gospel. In history, JtB had his own following that clearly dwarfed the one of Jesus, as evident by how his ministry gets a mention in history while Jesus' did not.

Really, (I know you want hold to the scriptures as recording history that didn't make it into accounts by secular writers), but I do not see where John had thousands following him, nor does the historical accounts you rely on say he had a huge following. John himself says, as you noted above, he was sent to introduce Christ as the Savoir.

Strangely, there was no mention of JtB being a warm-up act for anyone to come and his followers continued to be rivals to the early Christians. The first three Gospels were written to assimilate JtB, have him kneel before Jesus and then get out of the way so Jesus could take center stage. However, in John's Gospel, JtB is so insignificant and submissive that there is no need for him to get out of the way. He remains on the stage so Jesus can show how awesome he his by beating him at his own game, racking up more baptisms with JtB as his cheer leader.

I've heard some tales before but this is as ridiculous as it gets. All four gospels tell of John being the messenger to announce Christ, it's made very clear in each one. John nor Jesus could help that some men would not listen to the message given that Jesus was the Christ. The Jews who believed they should follow after John's name were doing so because he was dead and he certainly had no resurrection. Jesus also called John the greatest ever born by a women, meaning through a sexual act, just so you'll understand. Remember this, Jesus never baptized with water.

So even granting your whole apology that JtB was offering testimony of an earlier meeting, the Synoptic Gospels don't allow for Jesus to start his ministry or gather disciples prior to JtB's arrest and hence, the two different stories still fail to mesh.

The gospels were not written to mesh together perfectly, they were written to give a message to the world, all four gospels address this. Also John's following was of Jewish decent only, Jesus came to save the world and Jesus interacted with non Jews as His disciples did later. So John's followers made a mistake in following him. The small and few historical accounts you accept about John do not tell of a mass following. Tell me if Christ was so insignificant how is it that Christianity ever made it, it over took the Roman empire and then the world, this happened through a handful of believers. With a world full of other gods to choose from and the carnal pleasures afforded people through them, Christianity shouldn't have stood a chance, yet it raced to the forefront in short order.

This is a show of your intellect. Prove I started from a conclusion, I like all others was not born a believer.

Correct. You were indoctrinated to believe. Apologetics, by definition, is the art of defending the faith. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence and against all evidence. You start with the faith, meaning you have no evidence, and then practice apologetics, which is looking for reasons to believe the things you already believe by a process of faith. And the great thing about this fallacious approach to defending the faith is no matter what you believe, you can always find reasons to believe it by selectively looking.
This is not just my opinion. This is the definition of faith and the definition of apologetics, the defense of the faith.
So it is pure psychological projection when you accuse skeptics who simply pick up the Bible and read what is there with a critical mind (the same critical mind by which you would read anyone else's sacred scriptures) of reading the Bible with an agenda. Skepticism is not an agenda. Apologetics, by definition, is.

An absolute perfect description of all the other religions, however not Christianity. You see when one picks up the Bible and uses the critical thinking you profess to, you miss the whole teaching of the Scriptures. By the way to read anything with critical thinking at the forefront means one is looking to dismiss it before one begins, so sure the message is lost on the reader, bias has that tendency and/or result. So call it what you desire skepticism or critical thinking, the approach is to dismantle the material before a full understanding even begins, this by definition is an agenda.
The NT teaches we come to Christ through faith and then through our living the life He prescribes (believing) and the study of scriptures we will come to a knowledge of God, meaning we can know Him without doubt. So you see I do not have to defend a faith because I know God is real, what I do is show people that the Bible tells us how we can receive this knowledge of God and that I received this knowledge through the same way. Now if you decide for your personal belief not to accept it, that's on you and your God given right, IMHO you are making an eternal mistake and I feel bad about it, but what can I do other than show the truth of scripture.

GC

---

Discussion of John the Baptist made me look-up Mandaeism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism

Apparently there is a backlash against connecting Mandaeism with early Christianity, but there are a lot of parallels.
- way of light and darkness (like Dead Sea Scrolls)
- cross as their symbol
- John the Baptist
- theology in the language of parables
- gnostic
- sometimes called "Nasoreans" (similar to Nazarenes)

It makes me wonder if Nazareth was the name of a religious center (like Qumran) for followers of John the Baptist. Jesus tried to take over after John the Baptist was imprisoned or executed. Then Jesus was executed too. James the brother of Jesus took over and the early Christians began rationalizing and mythologizing the failure of Jesus to deliver Israel?

As a side note, as far as I know, no archaeological finds locate Nazareth as an inhabited village until many years until after Jesus is said to have lived. It may not prove that Nazareth didn't exist (even if no writer mentions it until the Gospels---not even Josephus, who mentions a number of insignificant towns in the vicinity) but mythicists have made something of it nonetheless.

There are thousands of unidentified towns lost to history, if we had never learned to survive a couple of hours under water there would be many more things lost to history that are mentioned in ancient writings. Who knows what's waiting to be found.

GC

[Mudhammam]

As a side note, as far as I know, no archaeological finds locate Nazareth as an inhabited village until many years until after Jesus is said to have lived. It may not prove that Nazareth didn't exist (even if no writer mentions it until the Gospels---not even Josephus, who mentions a number of insignificant towns in the vicinity) but mythicists have made something of it nonetheless.

There are thousands of unidentified towns lost to history, if we had never learned to survive a couple of hours under water there would be many more things lost to history that are mentioned in ancient writings. Who knows what's waiting to be found.

GC

Sure, it may have existed. The absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence. Still, it's an interesting fact that nothing of the town as it may have existed in Jesus' day remains, which, if the mythicists have a point, Nazarene may have more to do with the vow of the Nazarite or the Hebrew word for branch, NZR, which I believe is featured in a Davidic psalm attributed to Jesus by early Christians.

[robvalue]

Jesus sucked a donkey's dick. You can't prove he didn't. The bible doesn't say he didn't. I think that would have been am important point to make, don't you?

[watchamadoodle]

... Nazarene may have more to do with the vow of the Nazarite or the Hebrew word for branch, NZR, which I believe is featured in a Davidic psalm attributed to Jesus by early Christians.

Here is the prayer to say before drinking the communion wine in the Didache which dates somewhere between 50 CE and 120 CE.

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
There is no mention of Jesus' blood and atonement, but there is mention of the holy vine (i.e. branch) of David. Maybe Jesus came from a family who claimed descent from David and called themselves the Nazarene (branch) family? Or maybe there was a Jewish sect called Nazarene (branch) who were expecting a descendent of David to deliver Israel?

On the other hand, Tim O'Neill made a post in Rob's blog thread claiming evidence for a village of Nazareth (post #116).

---

1. Nazareth - Christopher Hitchens was not inclined to believe much about Christianity. But he did believe it was most likely that a historical Jesus existed. And the thing that convinced him of this were the nativity stories in gLuke and gMatt. That's because both of these stories fall over themselves to find a way to "explain" how the Messiah came to be born in Bethlehem (where he was supposed to be born according to Micah 5:2) and yet was a Galilean from the tiny village of Nazareth. Not only do they go to elaborate lengths to explain how this could be, but they actually tell two totally different and completely contradictory and mutually exclusive stories.

In gLuke we get told his parents lived in Nazareth, just happened to be in Bethlehem when Jesus was born because of the census of P. Sulplicius Quirinius, and then returned to Nazareth. Except in gMatt they are depicted living in Bethlehem to start with and have to flee persecution by Herod and then settle in Nazareth later. Not only are both these stories fraught with problems in themselves, they are set ten years apart. Herod died in 4 BC and Quirnius' census was in 6 AD. So they can't both be true.

The fact is that they are both most likely untrue and are two different ways that developed to deal with the awkward fact that Jesus was from the wrong town in the wrong part of Palestine. John 7:41-42 even depicts some Jews making precisely this objection to the idea that he was the Messiah.

If Jesus existed and was from Nazareth in Galilee, all this makes sense. But if he didn't exist or didn't come from Nazareth and/or Galilee, it's very weird that the gospel writers (or their sources) are going to such trouble to fit Nazareth into their stories, while still trying to shoehorn Jesus into their Messianic expectations.

In the late second century Sextus Julius Africanus wrote about the descendants of Jesus' family:

"Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of the Jews, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible. Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer."

---

http://atheistforums.org/thread-31417-page-12.html

[Mudhammam]

Is that this Tim O'Neill?
http://www.quora.com/Tim-ONeill-1
http://www.strangenotions.com/author/tim-oneill/

[DeistPaladin]

John's gospel wasn't written as chronology of Christ's life, actually none were intended as a chronology.

You keep saying that but it doesn't make it so.

The Gospel of John uses language like "this day he did this, the next day he did that, the third day he did something else". This is the language an author uses to communicate the order of events over a passage of time.

And frankly, for a book said to be "The Word of God", my standards are apparently higher than yours. I believe the very being that gave me sense, reason and the capacity to communicate should be expected to understand three basic elements of good communication which are "clarity", "brevity" and "consistency". These are not qualities of the Bible. To write a book that jumbles the events around for no reason is, at best, confusing, and at worst, a sign of being a terrible writer. Yet this doesn't stop Christians from making one feeble excuse after the next for their vaunted scriptures, from "it's not supposed to be a chronology" to "oh, picky, picky, picky; it's not supposed to be perfect". The Word of the very Creator of the universe and the very being that endowed us with reason, to quote Shakespeare, "should be made of sterner stuff".

There is no time designated between the time Jesus starts his ministry and John testifies to his previous encounter with Christ.

Did Jesus start his ministry (1) after JtB was put in prison or (2) before JtB was put in prison?

So how do you feel about revising much of ancient history because a timeline was not written into those ancient accounts, do we call all we have fiction because timelines were not established with absolute accuracy as you demand from the Gospels.

Historical accounts written by God is held to a higher standard than historical accounts written by humans.

Furthermore, we do have standards from stories from more ancient times and whether or not they're considered reliable or not. We don't use "The Iliad" to understand what happened during the Trojan War. We don't use the grade school song about "Davy Crocket, King of the Wild Frontier" as a reliable biography of the man. Historians do make an effort to separate fanciful folklore and sectarian mythology from our understanding of real events.

All four gospels show the division of Christ and the priest, scribes and pharisees, all laid the blame on them for the crucifying of Christ. Your story holds no water on many accounts.

But none of the other three refer to "The Jews" as a separate rival sectarian group. Christianity did emerge as a separate sect eventually from Judaism. Texts that refer to "The Jews" as a rival sect are clearly written once this separation had taken place. Forgive the tautology of my explanation, "they refer to them as separate when they became separate" but you seem a little slow to grasp the idea.

John himself says, as you noted above, he was sent to introduce Christ as the Savoir.

Only in Christian mythology. Josephus tells us nothing of the kind.

I've heard some tales before but this is as ridiculous as it gets. All four gospels tell of John being the messenger to announce Christ, it's made very clear in each one.

But my point is that tale got better with the telling.

GOSPEL OF MARK: JtB baptized Jesus and told everyone he was just a forerunner of Jesus. JtB got out of the way, being arrested, and then Jesus took the stage.

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW: JtB recognized how awkward it was baptizing his better but Jesus ordered him to do it anyway and JtB complied. JtB was arrested and Jesus took the stage.

GOSPEL OF JOHN: JtB was totally Jesus' bitch boy! We won't mention the baptism at all, because that's really theologically awkward with JtB baptizing his better. Jesus didn't have to wait for JtB to exit the stage. In fact, Jesus started his own rival ministry, stole some of John's disciples, kicked John's ass at his own game and John was cheer leading for Jesus the whole time.

The progression is not lost on you, I hope.

John nor Jesus could help that some men would not listen to the message given that Jesus was the Christ.

Really? A cult leader tells his followers to follow another man. In fact, that's the whole point of his ministry. In the Gospel of John, JtB does everything but get down on his knees and suck Jesus' cock in front of all his followers. And you're telling me it's perfectly believable that his followers said "meh, what does our rabbi know?"

This, by the way, is one of many reasons why I reject Islam. According to Islam, Jesus was Mohammad's forerunner. The Muslim Jesus told everyone to be monotheists and wait for the great prophet to come. Three years after the Muslim Jesus flew up into the sky to go to Heaven, along comes the heretic Paul who tells everyone, "pay no attention to what Jesus said and instead worship him as your lord and savior, thereby committing blasphemy in the highest order since that would be idolatry." And all of Jesus' followers went "duh, OK."

When you understand why the story of the Muslim Jesus seems silly to you, you understand why the Christian story of the Christian John the Baptist seems silly to me.

Tell me if Christ was so insignificant how is it that Christianity ever made it, it over took the Roman empire and then the world, this happened through a handful of believers. With a world full of other gods to choose from and the carnal pleasures afforded people through them, Christianity shouldn't have stood a chance, yet it raced to the forefront in short order.

Why do cults take off at all? Why did everyone commit suicide when Jim Jones told them to drink the Kool-Aid? Why does anyone follow a religion made up by a bad science fiction writer? Why did anyone follow David Koresh with all his crazy claims? Why did people give up all their worldly possessions to follow Bagram Shri Rashnish? None of these cults and their popularity require any supernatural explanation.

An absolute perfect description of all the other religions, however not Christianity.

A more perfect example of special pleading would be hard to invent.

By the way to read anything with critical thinking at the forefront means one is looking to dismiss it before one begins, so sure the message is lost on the reader, bias has that tendency and/or result.

Um, no.

That's not "critical thinking" at all.

Holocaust deniers, 9/11 Truthers and Global Warming Conspiracy Theorists are not "skeptics", however much they claim to be. Reading history or an "official account" with the mind-set that "it's not true" is not critical thinking. Critical thinking is where you're open-minded to claims but you don't accept them as true either until they've met the burden of proof, with mundane claims being accepted with testimony and outlandish claims being accepted with extraordinary evidence.

I'm not letting you get away with calling skepticism a "worldview" and drawing a false-equivalency between that and your religious view, with a flippant "you see it your way, I see it mine." They are not both equally rationally valid. Faith is believing things without reason and against all reason. Apologetics is about finding reasons to believe things people already believe without reason and against all reason. At best, it is inherently irrational and, at worst, inherently dishonest.