Radio Free Mormon: How Jesus Became the Savior

[dastardly stem]

Stem, I read Paul as being completely Jewish. I think your desire to import non Jewish Roman ideas is more fantasy than specifics. Consiglieri is correct I think to see Jewish sacrificial and atonement ideas in Paul not Roman ideas.

I doubt I could disagree more. Paul is not completely Jewish. Many take him to be a heavily influenced hellenized Jew, excited to push a new sounding religious movement. It doesn't seem to have taken off until the second century long after him--and that which took off may have differed in ways Paul would not have approved of. I thought COnsig's question was addressing when Jesus was said to be called a Savior. I'd say right form the start, at least as our historic records show it. It wasn't a development added in time. But as you know, I don't think there was a person Jesus behind the myth, as many do. There definitely could have been. It simply seems more likely there was not. It does appear as is the assumption, if there was a Jesus who lived, he was not like that which Paul describes, nor Mark, nor Luke. He would have been somethign different--a non-Savior, human, making unappreciated religious noise upsetting a few too many. On that assumption, and I can't see how it's not an assumption at this point, Jesus wasn't given the savior tag until after he died. But if so, I mean, Paul was already calling him savior (or rather promoting the notion he saved humanityor folowers) before Matthew copied Mark, deciding he could one-up that august author. Matt followed by Luke who also was trying to improve the myth, then John wanting to be clear Jesus was really really divine--not just some quasi human teaching Son of God, Savior-type.

He has a point I think in seeing how strong religious belief can reconstruct expectations when met with disappointment. In Consiglieri presentation he proposes the idea of a second coming as being logically prior to the idea of a resurrection though the two ideas could take place very close to the same time.That builds the picture of resurrection experiences upon not just emotions and memory but on a strong expectation.(of a messianic kingdom)

Yes. I agree. It's a good point. I just didn't buy the illustration. Ever since the time someone thought "maybe god isn't behind the storms that rage" people experienced the same type of feelings. I suppose in a way it's a story as old as time.

[huckelberry]

... I thought COnsig's question was addressing when Jesus was said to be called a Savior. I'd say right form the start, at least as our historic records show it. It wasn't a development added in time. But as you know, I don't think there was a person Jesus behind the myth, as many do. There definitely could have been. It simply seems more likely there was not. It does appear as is the assumption, if there was a Jesus who lived, he was not like that which Paul describes, nor Mark, nor Luke. He would have been somethign different--a non-Savior, human, making unappreciated religious noise upsetting a few too many. On that assumption, and I can't see how it's not an assumption at this point, Jesus wasn't given the savior tag until after he died. But if so, I mean, Paul was already calling him savior (or rather promoting the notion he saved humanityor folowers) before Matthew copied Mark, deciding he could one-up that august author. Matt followed by Luke who also was trying to improve the myth, ......

Stem, I think it is a pretty safe idea to say Jesus was considered a savior after his death and not during his lifetime. In fact I am not aware of anybody questioning that. It is another question of perhaps some interest to ask why anybody started calling him that after he was executed. The Romans executed quite a few people and it was not normal to consider those people saviors.

Consiglieri focused upon the hope of a messiah understood as conquering military hero reestablishing the Davidic throne. I mentioned that I do not think Jesus was offering himself to fill that role. But if he had it is difficult I think to see why his death would be such a big disappointment. Other people might arise to complete the role. If your hoped for messiah dies is it not more direct and reasonable to change expectations waiting for a better candidate to arise? Why get stuck on Jesus?

It is likely that people were not all sure just what sort of expectation Jesus was intending. He was clear to propose the kingdom of God is coming or is near. This is of course why people refer to him as an apocalyptic prophet. I do not think all such prophets must have thought or intended the same things. I think Jesus was intending to create a hope for a better way of living which by caring and respecting others better reflects the will of God and would allow a closer relationship with God. The kingdom is among us and is growing like a seed. People were to alerted, supposed to be alarmed to be able to notice the small changes which could grow into something large.

I think what Jesus was doing made a significant impression upon people and that difference made him more valuable than just another possible messiah. He created a hope which some people loved. I think that love is closer to a why people could have resurrection experiences than disappointment of a military hope could be. I think the hope for a better world which Jesus spread lived on after his death. I can believe Jesus returned to confirm that hope but I cannot believe resurrection experiences would be very meaningful without that hope and love.

[huckelberry]

Perhaps to clarify my thought in the previous post I will note that in writing it I was actually thinking of the parable about virgins waiting for the bridegroom needing enough oil. I do not think the story makes a lot of sense if thought of in terms of waiting for a second coming or waiting for Rome to be conquered or the world to end. I have tried to hear the story in that context and thought the parable lame.

No I feel strongly that the theme is recognizing the call of the Kingdom of God present now. To have enough oil means to be open to the call that love presents. That would have been now when Jesus was standing there. It would also be now ,now, when we recognize the needs and opportunities for love which confront us. Those with no oil do not see needs and thus miss the kingdom and are locked out.

Jesus speaks of a variety of ways people are locked out. They all amount to not recognizing the call that love and respect for others is making to us.

When is not some second coming, when is when need and opportunity calls. Now.

[dastardly stem]

Thanks for your comments, Huckelberry. I enjoyed them. I'm not sure I have much to say on them, as we already know I disagree on some of the premises. Interesting anyway...and I hope this finds you well.

[huckelberry]

dasterdly stem, I have enjoyed our exchanges, your different views have been an occasions to rethink. That can create (hopefully good) change even if new agreements are not created.

[Dr Moore]

Here’s a good one from Ehrman, on apologists and their most common tactic: accusing non believers anti-belief “bias.”

It’s always easy to scream “anti-supernatural bias” when someone does not think that the miracles of one’s own tradition can be historically established; it’s much harder to admit that miracles of other traditions are just as readily demonstrated.

From How Jesus Became God

[huckelberry]

Here’s a good one from Ehrman, on apologists and their most common tactic: accusing non believers anti-belief “bias.”

It’s always easy to scream “anti-supernatural bias” when someone does not think that the miracles of one’s own tradition can be historically established; it’s much harder to admit that miracles of other traditions are just as readily demonstrated.

From How Jesus Became God

Dr Moore, I am not sure that there much reason to think that I must view miracles in other traditions untrue in order to think some miracle such as Jesus being raised from the dead is true. I suppose a person might observe it is easier to disbelieve miracles in foreign traditions.

I would not wish to dispute Ehrman's point that miracles cannot be historically established. I know of no way to be sure historically or scientifically whether a miracle happened. There is evidence that Jesus followers believed he was raised from the dead and that the belief started within a fairly short time after his death. As Ehrman and others consider there are other possible explanations for the belief starting ,not just the miracle version.