tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post3812812236327619833..comments2024-03-12T17:34:02.225-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Did Jesus Exist? with Richard Carrier and me on Unbelievable?Mark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger401125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-50385671938742766722014-04-25T20:55:23.807-04:002014-04-25T20:55:23.807-04:00Dr Goodacre,
I think you said to Dr Carrier that ...Dr Goodacre,<br /><br />I think you said to Dr Carrier that Paul started off with the Jesus tradition he received from Cephas et al, but when his authority was challenged he switched to saying he learned everything directly by revelation. It seems to me that makes sense if the challenge was "that stuff that Cephas teaches is rubbish, why should we believe Cephas or you when you repeat it" and Paul answers "I am NOT channeling Cephas. I taught this stuff before I every spoke to Cephas because I got it direct from the Lord". <br /><br />But since the challenge seems to comes from the Cephas camp, that doesn't make much sense, does it? <br /><br />So is your view something like: 1. Paul started teaching Cephas-compliant Jesus tradition 2. Paul introduced something not from that tradition and was challenged "This ain't what Cephas teaches, this doesn't meet the standard". 3. He responded, "Of course it's not from Cephas, and I have been teaching it before I ever spoke to Cephas (a little white lie, in your view?), and it's as good as (or better, to be blunt) than Cephas-stuff, since I got it directly from the Lord".macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-23902827780367101852014-04-25T17:02:05.462-04:002014-04-25T17:02:05.462-04:00Dr Goodacre,
I think you said to Carrier that Pau...Dr Goodacre,<br /><br />I think you said to Carrier that Paul started off with the Jesus tradition he received from Cephas et al, but when his authority was challenged he switched to saying he learned everything directly by revelation. It seems to me that makes sense if the challenge was "that stuff that Cephas teaches is rubbish, why should we believe Cephas or you when you repeat it" and Paul answers "I am NOT repeating Cephas, stuff. I taught this stuff before I every spoke to Cephas. I got it direct from the source". <br /><br />But since the challenge seems to comes from the Cephas camp, that doesn't make much sense, does it? <br /><br />So is your view something like: 1. Paul started teaching Cephas-compliant Jesus tradition 2. Paul introduced something not from that tradition and was challenged "This ain't what Cephas teaches, this doesn't meet the standard". 3. He responded, "Of course it's not from Cephas, I have been teaching it before I ever spoke to Cephas, and it's as good as (or better, to be blunt) than Cephas-stuff, since I got it directly by revelation".macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-49993406260416845492013-08-07T10:28:35.523-04:002013-08-07T10:28:35.523-04:00Bernard:
"But I do not see why Zechariah woul...Bernard:<br />"But I do not see why Zechariah would be considered a companion of Moses ..."<br /><br />You are using an artificially narrow definition of the word "companion". Meaning something like "a contemporary of Moses". Then claiming that you don't see how Zechariah is a 'companion/contemporary' of Moses.<br /><br />Philo uses the word to mean something like 'of similar character'. So all holy and pious people, such as prophets, can be described as "companions" of each other. Moses and Zechariah are both prophets and hence "companions". This does not require them to be contemporaries.<br /><br />"... the immortal and most perfect race of beings [prophets?], ... and of these men Isaac is reckoned as a<br />companion."<br />ON THE BIRTH OF ABEL AND THE<br />SACRIFICES OFFERED BY HIM AND BY HIS<br />BROTHER CAIN II.(4)<br />Lepernethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12120597096237979870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-7655532638471547272013-04-04T09:56:15.856-04:002013-04-04T09:56:15.856-04:00I'm not a believer, but given what I've se...I'm not a believer, but given what I've seen in the research I've done, historical Jesus just makes more sense. A lot of the arguments mythicists put forward just show that its possible that Jesus didn't exist, not that its probable. Certain things we learn in the gospels (that he was from Galilee, that he preached adherence to mosaic law, that he predicted the world would end in his generation, and that he never clearly referenced his divinity) don't fit in well with the Christianity practiced in the first century, or today. Historical Jesus just fits those ideas better.TheCommonStandardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02779458044756999941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-32747982295948002042013-01-08T16:45:28.097-05:002013-01-08T16:45:28.097-05:00In my opinion the reliability of Christianity depe...In my opinion the reliability of Christianity depends on the reliablility of the resurrection. If the resurrection of Christ dit not take place, ‘we are the most piteable of all humans’ (St. Paul). Historically we can not understand resurrection directly, but we may recognize it indirectly in its effects (paradigm shift, glorification of Jesus).<br /><br />In the Gospels, being a remythologisation of reality, the resurrected Jesus is described as ‘one who resurrects the death’: see Lazarus and also the daughter of Jaïrus. In a mythological way, this makes sense.<br /><br />But as we hear these stories, we wonder about them: could it have been happening in reality there and then? Of are these just stories? Imagine for a moment that in the case of Jesus the laws of nature temporarily were put out of order by the almighty God and that therefore the impossible became real but only temporal, what would this mean for us? In fact nothing at all, because if this happened ‘there and then’ and only ‘once and for all’, it would not have any potence to change our world for better or for worse. So the story is quite meaningless to us, if it only wants to convince about a miracle. It would only make sence to us if the miracle ‘there and then’ can be also a miracle ‘here and now’. If the Gospel wants to testify that from the perspective of the resurrection (their paradigm) the impossible can become a reality and that belief can move us beyond the imaginable, they might have a point. But a historical reading of the myth of resurrection tells us that the dead do not come alive again, just with faith and a pray. They never did and even if they did for once in the past, this has no meaning to us, since it does not happen in our lifetime. ‘Credo quia absurdum’: believing may be absurd in itself, but believing in the absurd is complete madness. Does this mean that these mythical stories are useless?<br /><br />One may wonder that these absurd stories have given hope and strength to people in the past and that they still do nowadays. The historian has to recognize that the church still exists, being the living body of the Resurrected. How is this possible if these stories would have no meaning to us? Jesus being ‘the way, the truth and the life’ might be madness to some, it is the ultimate truth to others and they live and die with His name on their lips. From a historical perspective we cannot close our eyes for this factual truth either. The conclusion might be: how we understand what happened (historical, mythical) has a meaning for our survival and the way we live and die. What is objectively true may still not be the ultimate truth, a truth people can live and die with. Thank you for your interesting contributions. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02365778962566255411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-74485155077324941422013-01-08T13:11:58.495-05:002013-01-08T13:11:58.495-05:00Well, we're down to a defense of the faith now...Well, we're down to a defense of the faith now, rather than the topic of hand. I may need to close here therefore. But if so, here's a statement that might serve as "final" for me for now.<br /><br />How reliable is the Historical Jesus? For that matter, how reliable is Christianity itself? If it depends on the reality of Resurrection for instance, then we should face the fact. That though Jesus was said to have raised Lazarus with just faith and a prayer, we don't see that happening in our own time much. Suggesting many ancient religious promises and “realities” like physical resurrection, were not accurate. While as it will turn out, there are "spiritual" problems with a "spiritual" Christianity that minimizes physical death.<br /><br />Oddly enough, in fact, I find elsewhere that the Bible itself began to cancel itself; to selfdeconstruct; to confess errors even in itself. “Let not many of you become teachers,” the apostle St. James said, “For we all make many mistakes”; “If any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man” - “but no man can tame the tongue” (James 3.1-2-8). Here St. James begins to confess sins and errors, even in “we” apostles and others, it seems. He warns specifically about the trickiness of language, the “tongue,” and errors in speaking. <br /><br />The Bible confesses sins in itself in effect. But how reliable are modern alternatives to religion? How reliable is Mythicism? Ancient religion made many mistakes; and no doubt, I've probably made a few “mistakes” of my own, especially slips of language, here and there. My PhD is not in Religious Studies. And furthermore, my remarks on Internet blogs are presented as informal, preliminary, ad hoc hypotheses; as a quick informal “brainstorming” session. <br /><br />In fact, I'd probably present the Mythicist thesis itself not as fully-proven “fact,” but as an heuristic; as the Mythicist “Hypothesis.” <br /><br />While then too, more specifically, my own very quick remarks on Internet blogs, are very largely unedited; and many occasional slips therefore undoubtedly take place. However, many of my seeming “mistakes” are probably justified in more scholarly, thought-out works, elsewhere. Other apparent mistakes could be resolved in part by me, by quick edits; as due largely to slips of the tongue after all. <br /><br />However, I hope that my many remarks here and other blogs on Historicism and Mythicism, etc., preliminary and informal as they are, will be taken as what they often are: a first, ad hoc body of hypotheses and speculations; some of which might be rejected, but a high percentage of which might be verified and retained.<br /><br />I once presented most of my remarks without spelling and typo corrections; and with a Germanic question mark after them, to signify a question open to discussion; until Neil Geoffrey complained. But here I explain the reason for the question marks, after all; Mythicism is much better-founded than current religious scholars think; but many of our own more modern efforts are still “pioneering,” and speculative; especially informal remarks on blogs. Still? If even the apostles who wrote our Bibles, acknowledge that they “make many mistakes,” and were not yet “perfect” (as Paul confirmed of himself), I'm not too embarrassed to be throwing out some quick speculations, here and elsewhere … even under the watchful eye of a cautious and accomplished scholar like Mark Goodacre. <br /><br />To some extent, historically, Mythicism is still a new field; and so I hope that readers here and elsewhere will take my quick notes in blog com boxes, as a simple first brainstorming session; from which many ideas will stand. While others might need to be, of course, edited. (And often even reversed).<br /><br />That's how it is for now.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-6376495147308191192013-01-07T18:14:16.697-05:002013-01-07T18:14:16.697-05:00This brings me to your other remark: people that t...This brings me to your other remark: people that tell it is good for you to die for them. Humans are mortal and hope to live and to die for what is worth to live and to die for. As Jesus lived for people, he died for them too. It is nothing else then the ultimate gift of one’s life to others. The radix of love. <br />People who believe that it is good for you to die for them, is another cup of tea. This idea is strange to christianity for the idea ‘that He died for that we live’ is central. The letter to the Hebrews make very clear that after His sacrifice no other sacrifice is needed, nor useful in any way. Jesus even said that the emperor may have right on you money but not on your life, since we have to give God what God belongs. In refusal of the idolatery of the emperor, the christian martyrers have trusted their lives to the right Owner. <br />I agree fully that St. Paul did not describe much about Jesus. You can even ask if he had any information about the ‘historical’ Jesus at all (in the sense of ‘memoria Jesu’). I doubt it if the Lord’s supper already had the sacramental character at that early time. Jewish christians participated in the synagogal liturgy on Saturday and had a kind of brunch together on early Sunday morning ensembled at home, in remembrance of the Lord. Later they brunched also on the graves of the martyrers. The last supper may originally have been a Pesach meal that was and still is celebrated in intimacy at home. Since Jesus and his disciples were quite close, I do not see any reason for a ‘lord-knight’ – scheme, that – by the way – is well known to me from Germanic culture. The ‘Lord’ in Jewry really means something else and should be understood in its own terms, so within its own jewish cultural context. In my view the pivotal point of the Lord’s supper is that Jesus is Lord and that in the gift of his life, out of love for us, we are encouraged to do the same for each other. So reconciliation seems to be the core of this brunch.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02365778962566255411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-61483317222700193582013-01-07T18:13:44.421-05:002013-01-07T18:13:44.421-05:00Although Jewish tradition rejected human sacrifice...Although Jewish tradition rejected human sacrifices (e.g. against the Moloch-practice), the ‘kiddush ha Shem’ (sacrifice for the Name) was well known. The minimalization of death has been a real danger in christian tradition, because the belief in the resurrection could lead to a contempt for death. It gave reason to St. Paul to stress the cross of the resurrected and for the gospels to extensively describe the suffering and death of Christ. In this way suffering and death are not minimalized at all, but at the heart of christianity. There is no minimalization, but an overcoming. The resurrection has never been the reason to remove the cross as meaningless, but rather to stress it. Although there are differences between the gospel of Mark and the gospel of John: in time the cross became more and more innocent and a kind of safe passage to heaven. Although St. Paul believed the new aeon started with Christ, he knew all to well that man and world were not free from suffering and death. He mentions his own suffering for the purpose of the Good News and he tries to brake the too enthousiastical christians who consider themselves to be in heaven already. The new aeon started in Christ, but at the same time we seem to experience the contractions of its birth. <br />Death is not seen as an end but as a transit, you may say. The river Jordan (river of death) is overcome in Christ, therefore we can overcome. Although we die (no doubt about this), there is a kind of death-optimism here! In a historical reading of mythology we will have to criticize this optimistic ‘death-myth’ so to speak, so your remarks are certainly to the point. <br />In some way death is welcome: Abraham, being old and tired, welcomes death, knowing that Isaak will carry on and the Jewish people will live. The problem starts when people die because of evil. There is a great sense of injustice (their blood cries to God from the earth - Hosea) and righteousness has to be! In fact the roots of the idea of resurrection in the Old Testament are not ontological, but ethical. God has to resurrect the murdered, because justice has to be done. This ethical imperative of resurrection may give a new light on resurrection in general and on christian resurrection in particular. For resurrection is primary not about overcoming death, but about overcoming injustice. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02365778962566255411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-31227434168880564312013-01-07T16:03:20.528-05:002013-01-07T16:03:20.528-05:00Standard apologetics sermons insist that Christian...Standard apologetics sermons insist that Christianity does not "glamorize" death. However, we would have to say that it at the very least, "minimalizes" it, as unimportant. It is OK to die now; because we "go to Heaven" or some such. We don't really die. In this way, it makes death negligable; even attractive, if we die as a "martyr." <br /><br />While making death seem unimportant, or even attractive, might be a dangerous thing, I continue to suggest. <br /><br />While of course, the Old Testament is full of Jewish soldiers dying to save others. A kind of martyrdom.<br /><br />Christianity does emphasize self-martyrdom; but my point is that when someone else, tells you it is good for you to die, for THEM? The speaker is not supporting self-martyrdom at all. Rather he is encouraging others, to die for HIM.<br /><br />But all this is a distraction: did Paul really describe much about Jesus? The Lord's supper in 1 Corin. might seem one example; though 1) sacramental as it is, it might seem also to be a late interpolation of the Church. Or? 2) My own suggestion: Christianity largely derives from traditional Servant/Lord economies: a solider or knight can eat supper with the Lord, or at his table, so long as he serves him. The Lord is sacrificing part of his goods; his food; what he needs to live himself, what would become his body, for his servants. And in exchange, they are expected to serve and obey him. <br /><br />So that? A kind of "Lord's Supper" or "table," would be generic to most economies and cultures of the time. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-24531764695780707132013-01-07T03:29:24.056-05:002013-01-07T03:29:24.056-05:00There are signs of a pre-pauline christitianity in...There are signs of a pre-pauline christitianity in the writings of St. Paul. E.g. the already existing tradition of the Last Supper that he has heard about and the poor christian community of Jerusalem that he tried to facilitate by collecting money. We find mostly 'kerygma' and no 'memoria Jesu' in his writings. There is some mythology here! Saulus became Paulus and the pauline paradigm shift is quite radical in its understanding of Thora, that not longer can be considered as a positive 'road to heaven'.<br /><br />Marc is considered to be the oldest Gospel and comparison of Matthew and Luke then lead to the hypothesis of the 'Logienquelle Q', a collection of TEXTS that might have been used by both Matthew and Luke for they share material that is not in Marc. The idea that Jesus is a figure that is composed solely by Marc alone may therefore not be true. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02365778962566255411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-65682639308880230162013-01-07T03:04:55.036-05:002013-01-07T03:04:55.036-05:00'The Book of Acts rather clearly shows Paul me...'The Book of Acts rather clearly shows Paul meeting mostly pagans, and perhaps Jews.' I wonder if this is true. When St. Paul arrived somewhere his first visit would be the local synagoge to find shelter. He uses the synagoge also as a starting point for his local mission... until he gets into trouble with the local Jewish authorities again and has to leave town. It is like a pattern. So as to say he PERHAPS met Jews...? Why the synagoge? Near the synagoge pagans could be found who shared in the jewish belief, but not in the jewish people(proselytes). They were often the first candidates for the christian mission of St. Paul. They might have been vulnerable for his mission, because the jewish community was accessible at one hand, but it was not easy to become a Jew (e.g. circumcision, dietary laws)on the other hand. Therefore these proselytes were to stay in a second-class position: not to be considered as really 'real' Jews. St. Paul offered them an easy alternative to free themselves from this inferior position without losing their faith and to reverse the relation with the Jews. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02365778962566255411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-7563279424088448132013-01-06T09:30:13.820-05:002013-01-06T09:30:13.820-05:00And here's yet another categorization of views...And here's yet another categorization of views, yet of less recent vintage:<br /><br />http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/how-do-you-view-the-bibles-jesus/Mike Gantthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00053915240281421992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-21955381581436738732013-01-06T08:29:16.027-05:002013-01-06T08:29:16.027-05:00Ian at Irreducible Complexity has a contribution t...Ian at Irreducible Complexity has a contribution to the topic:<br /><br />http://irrco.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/views-on-mythicism/Mike Gantthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00053915240281421992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-28497523781622686542013-01-06T05:15:26.349-05:002013-01-06T05:15:26.349-05:00The vision on the Kingdom is far from gone though....The vision on the Kingdom is far from gone though. Just take a look:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=GBaHPND2QJg&feature=youtu.be<br /><br />Happy Newyear!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02365778962566255411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-45918486373953601342013-01-06T05:05:14.878-05:002013-01-06T05:05:14.878-05:00What is important for the subject of this threat i...What is important for the subject of this threat is that if we could find the ‘historical’ Jesus, he would not be identical to the Christ in whom christians believe. Between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ is the theologoumenon of the ressurection, the ‘fides qua’ itself. This abbys is bridged however in the Gospels with their mythological reading of history. No doubt, their subject is still Jesus of Nazareth. There are soms ‘historians’ who deny the historical existence of Jesus and see him not mostly, but purely as a literary construct. I am not their follower, but the question is if this really matters, for resurrection is not ‘ there and then’, but ‘here and now’. For a believer Jesus lives ‘here and now’ or he does not live at all. Christ is about Gods actual presence in our presence.<br /><br />Christian belief is not about death, but about life. The Greeks however considered life being a deadly illness and welcome death as eu-thanasia that liberates from this lifelong illness. There is some life-pessimism here! The meaning of the ‘world’ (that should be hated) has to be examined carefully in a moral and in a metaphysical sense. It might be the world of those living without hope as in the days of Noach? ‘World’ might be those who still live ‘in the flesh’ (the old aeon) and not in the (holy) Spirit, the context post resurrectum? <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02365778962566255411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-17247747675841056542013-01-06T05:04:28.647-05:002013-01-06T05:04:28.647-05:00The original christian martyrs martyred themselves...The original christian martyrs martyred themselves and not other innocent people for their belief. This however changed: the persecution of heretics, the crusades, the Reformation and last but not least the Jews. Looking at history one ponders: in the last age the murdered are like flies on the wall and the Kingdom of God seems to be further away then ever before. The societas christiana has been far from a societas perfecta. There are some holy men and women, but most of us are not. We may doubt if God exists, but may be sure the devil is alive and well.<br />The resurrection has its ground (Boden) in human suffering and death. But is it not because of human suffering and death that this christian ‘myth’ exists. The reason is its theologoumenon that God resurrects Him. It is this living giving power that is dramatically reenacted in representing the cross. If we share (with our suffering and death) in His suffering and death, we will also share it His resurrection by the power of God. (St. Paul) The preposition is: if we would share the same historical context, we would share the same myth. That is why a Jewish child is asked - as it were - to stand at the Red Sea by himself. In christianity there is a problem however. The history of Jesus is not the history of the church, because ante resurrectum en post resurrectum are devided by the a-historical resurrection itself. The expectation of the Kingdom of God (not yet) is ante resurrectum, the beginning of the Kingdom of God in the risen Christ (already) is post resurrectum. There is a shift in the historical paradigm that devides the christian Jewish sect from the Jewish mainstream. For the Jewish mainstream its rootexperiences (that are normative for the historical paradigm) are the liberation at the Red Sea and the giving of Thora on Mount Sinaï, but for the christian Jewish sect its rootexperience is the resurrection of Christ. This means that the historical Jesus is read after Eastern and Good Friday ante resurrectum is quite different from post resurrectum. Christians can call it GOOD Friday and the murderweapon of the cross, being the symbol of suffering and death, becomes a sign of victory over suffering and death. This is what I call the (christian) mythological reading of history, with ‘history’ understood in the ante resurrectum way. This new paradigm makes also clear that christian martyrdom could even be experienced as a gift of grace. For christians certainly die, but death they will no see. (also St. John 11, 21-27). With this myth countless common christians lived, suffered and died in dignity with their head held high. If we want to call this a ‘myth’ we might to re-evaluate the meaning and the importance of this term. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02365778962566255411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-33764124985973281812013-01-05T16:25:49.361-05:002013-01-05T16:25:49.361-05:001) There are no "undisputed Paulines."
...1) There are no "undisputed Paulines."<br /><br />2) The Book of Acts rather clearly shows Paul meeting mostly pagans, and perhaps Jews: not many signs here (if any) of a pre-existing Christianity. <br /><br />Next, even if our apologists like Mike, inconsistently reject this part of the Bible, in Acts? The rest of the Paulines are even worse in looking for evidence of a Jesus that existed before Paul. ("Churches" were likely synagogues, etc.).<br /><br />3) Indeed, Paul is travelling in order mostly to establish for the first time, Christian churches; clearly not just meeting pre-existing ones. Why travel around, telling others what they already knew?<br /><br />4) Was there a firmly Christian church in Jerusalem before Paul? A reliably Christian church, that Paul learned about jesus from? If we accept Galatians for instance too, Paul says he is an apostle "not from men" (1.1); suggesting he did not get his ideas of Jesus from the apostles. Indeed he first meets earlier alleged apostles "by revelatin" (2.2). Meeting only those "reputed to be something"; apostles who "added nothing to me" (2.6). While Paul, far from humbly learning a viable Jesus traditon from others before him, actually condemnes Peter and what Peter knows, in Gal. 2.11. <br /><br />There are no "undisputed Paulines"; all have been questioned often. And if we accept Galatians anyway? Then we don't see Paul humbly meeting and learning an earlier tradition from undisputed apostles; but from highly questionable, "alleged" pillars. Whom Paul often condemns.<br /><br />There is no real case in the writings of Paul, for any firmly-defined, reliable, firmly Christian church or Jesus legend, pre-existing Paul himself.<br /><br />Finally Paul offers little more than vague, random bits of legend and myth - in Philo and others - might have handed him. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-75563104585390847312013-01-05T15:29:36.710-05:002013-01-05T15:29:36.710-05:00gbarrett,
Your theory does not explain the Christ...gbarrett,<br /><br />Your theory does not explain the Christ movement of the 50's as evidenced by the undisputed letters of Paul which are dated to that decade. Jesus' life as a descendant of David, his death by crucifixion, his resurrection, and his status as Israel's messiah are all depicted as commonly held beliefs by many people across the Mediterranean world of that time. Moreover, these beliefs are depicted in such as way as to indicate that they had been held for some time - probably beginning in the 30's. <br /><br />Thus if you want to put forth a theory about Christian origins that is consistent with extant evidence acknowledged by scholars, you cannot begin "very late in the first century." The show was well on the road by then.Mike Gantthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00053915240281421992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-54355623775451585242013-01-05T15:13:29.485-05:002013-01-05T15:13:29.485-05:00Mike,
"Again, don't just tell us what yo...Mike,<br /><br />"Again, don't just tell us what you think could have happened, or even what you think happened, but rather how and when you think it happened that a myth became history. "<br /><br />I would venture that an unknown author, sometime late in the first century(very late) penned a tract known now as the Gospel of Mark, for all we know, out of the blue. The events in this gospel are not corroborated by any contemporary sources, or any later indisputably independent or authentic source. Earlier sources, allegedly earlier anyway, such as the epistles of Paul seem to mention the same central character, but do not corroborate key historical data such as: birth in Bethlehem, hometown of Nazareth, crucifixion BY ROMANS (an idea actually contradicted by Paul's views), or that any of the characters created by the Mark author knew a Jesus of Nazareth in person. The easiest explanation? Some unknown author created this fiction out of elements he found around him in history, probably Josephus, and interesting bits of sectarian theologygbarretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12919315704094699096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-89756807506356688982013-01-05T14:15:17.840-05:002013-01-05T14:15:17.840-05:00Indeed. Why would some instantly regard Palestini...Indeed. Why would some instantly regard Palestinian martyrdom and Bin Laden, as myth, and a bad myth at that ... and yet not also see a dangerous myth in Christian martyrdom too?<br /><br />No doubt, there is occasional need for some self-sacrifice. But? The crucifixion with its symbolism of self-sacrifice does not really act as a very strong reason to accept Christianity as "true." Or even as a "good" myth. Consider this perspective: when others sold us on the whole notion of sacrifice, they sold us on the idea that it is good to die ... for them. (Cf. McGrath's current selfish cartoon cat, accepting Jesus' efforts as simply his due).<br /><br />Then too? Many Christians are fond of asserting that the notion of Christ being great, but dying, is so singular that it must be historically true. Yet of course, martyrdom, the idea of your dying to say "Save" others, to save your country, is nearly the most common myth of all, in probably most cultures.<br /><br />And it's not always good; as we saw in the case of millions of German soldiers dying to "save" Germany, in WW II. Arguably in fact, there are some ethical issues even in Christian self-sacrifice too.<br /><br />This issue is not directly related to the question at hand; to the question of the historical status or historicity of Jesus. However? To the extent that Historicists are motivated, in their Faith in Historical Jesus, by a sense that theirs is the "moral" position? Here it might be useful to briefly note that even the Christian morality, that is in love with Death and Sacrifice, (and say, apostles' "hate" for the "world," as seen in John?) should undoubtedly be very critically examined.<br /><br />Even the moral value of the Jesus legend is questionable. So that researchers need not feel any lingering sentimental attachment to the Jesus Legend, on account of its alleged moral perfection.<br /><br />As in all true academic inquiry, all these things should be regarded as questions, open for investigation. And confirmation - or dis-confirmation - as either "true," or "historical."<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-31035439544105216802013-01-05T10:37:50.296-05:002013-01-05T10:37:50.296-05:00The Deutsche Kirche had no problems with the Nazi&...The Deutsche Kirche had no problems with the Nazi's, on the contrary. In the Netherlands most christians did not see the danger in time and when they saw it, their reaction was 'too little too late'. However, there were some who did resist, even in Germany(e.g. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Bernard Lichtenberg, Kurt Huber)and who paid for it with their own life. It is because of them that I can still be a christian today. I do not like the holy cross 'mit Rosen umschlungen' and other pius perversities and I reject the idolatry of martyrdom and self-sacrifice, although 'a man has to do what a man has to do' and face the ultimate consequence. I think of Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Oscar Romero and also the man nextdoor who cares half his life for his handicapped wife. Were they all mythesists and martyrers? And what about Bin Laden and his friends? No lack of self-sacrifice and martyrdom here, but for what case? Only myth? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02365778962566255411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-7895296462196958682013-01-05T08:38:09.006-05:002013-01-05T08:38:09.006-05:00But since say, many - even most - Germans in WW I,...But since say, many - even most - Germans in WW I, and even most everyday Nazis in WW II, claimed to be Christian? Then we have a practice that suggests severe problems with Christian "fruits."<br /><br />While indeed, the deep and intrinsic Christian glamorization of suffering and death (crucifixion) might have, if anything, contributed to all this. Love of death of certain things in oneself, seems to bleed over, all too easily. While the sacrifice even of one's self, always interfaced all too easily with (and perhaps originated in part with), the expected self-sacrifice of the good Greek or Roman soldier or centurion (cf. Luke 7.9).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-2304960570981960442013-01-05T06:13:23.537-05:002013-01-05T06:13:23.537-05:00With the theologicum of the resurrection I introdu...With the theologicum of the resurrection I introduced the root of christianity. Without it no one would remember. The search for the historical Jesus seems - if it would be possible at all - not very relevant after all. We will find a son of a carpenter who tried to do well. The Gospels give us a mythological reading of history, to mediate revelation.<br /><br />On the other hand I pleaded for a historical reading of mythology. First I have to justify why history is relevant at all. To clear this, I focus on the term ‘resurrection’. Resurrection is not only a theologicum, but a theologicum in a historical context. Theological speaking: if there was no cross of suffering and death, the term resurrection would become impossible. The term resurrection includes as it were the ‘Mort und Totschlag’ of Jesus in particular and of mankind in general. Countless christians identified their own suffering and dying with the suffering of Christ. ‘Every home has its cross’ is a dutch expression. It points to the inescapability of human suffering and death. Being human, we need a human world and a human existence, this means: a world in which we can live and a life that we can live. <br /><br />The theologicum of the resurrection includes this ‘Nichtigkeit’ of human existence. Suffering and death are at its historical core. St. Paul insisted on the cross of the resurrected Christ, for he was fully aware that the resurrection could otherwise vaporize as a mythical phantasy. So he stressed that the historical context of the resurrection is the suffering and death of Christ(the cross). Herewith we seem to have found a criterion and therefore a horizon for our historical reading of reality. If history has no eye for human suffering and death it is estranged from human reality and therefore ideology.<br /><br />This means that we have a christian criterium for the historical reading of mythology. You referred to St. Paul and his ‘fruits’. To analyse and evaluate myth we can ask for the fruits of a myth. Does it make possible a world in which we can live and a life that we can live? What about human suffering and death? You can call Christianity a myth, but Nazism was a myth too. And I am sure you will hesitate to compare both. But what is the distinguishing criterion? I do not separate myth from reality: there is no ideal christian myth without a bad christian practice. So I propose the criterion is about their ‘output for humanity’: did they make a human world and human existence possible? Theologically spoken: do these myths bring the Kingdom of God a bit nearer to mankind? Can they help us to give an answer on human suffering and death? For a historical reading of mythology the proof of the pudding should be in the eating. <br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02365778962566255411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-12612518674642275622013-01-04T03:32:40.492-05:002013-01-04T03:32:40.492-05:00In the eyes of the historian with his secular para...In the eyes of the historian with his secular paradigm nothing really new can happen in history. He is not able to really wonder about life. For everything is understandable en explainable. There is no room for the impossible that can be a reality. I remember having been in Tallinn (Estonia) some years before the perestrojka. At that time life was not very pleasant over there. A few years later I visited Tallinn again. The MacDonalds was ready and women were wearing colourful dresses. For the historian just fact of change. But I wondered: how could this been possible? If I would have told someone in Tallinn he would visit the MacDonalds within five years, he would think I was completely out of my mind. The historian may try to analyse what happened in its presupposed inner logic, but can he really wonder? Reality is greater than we can imagine or even think of. And although historical analysis is a great tool and we really should invertigate the origins and causes as best we can, we at least should keep in mind that tomorrow can proof we are all completely wrong. History is only definitely written at the end of time, before that it is only guessing. <br /><br />Now the arrogance of religion is even greater. Mythology is in fact dangerous. People kill for it. The fruits can be pretty sour or bitter. Berdjajev said that man is incurable religious. Even the historian can not hide his own belief in science. If he wonders, he will start immediately to search for an explanation, for miracles cannot be. But why not? You may have your dogmas. Historians know about actions of great moment in history that have a paradigmatic relevance. For christian religion the resurrection was a great moment in history. It could not be caught in historical terms. It was more than history. It is the historical unexplainable in christian belief, the theologicum. From there it is ‘fides quaerens intellectum’ and rationality comes in. We can not understand resurrection, but we can understand what it did. We have the Gospels, we know about the movement of the church that developed itself. Even the secular historian could not close his eyes for that. And paradoxically all this strange christian behaviour must have a cause, for science asks for it. If there would not have been a resurrection, an a-historical moment in history, no one would remember. I would like to mention that this a-historical moment is also given in me being a believer. For I am aware that history is not all. History is contingent, it changes with time. But I have a notion of eternity, of infinity. And I am not alone. Most people have. It is the presumption for the experience of contingence and even the condition of possibility for history. Without this horizon history would be sacred and in fact religion itself. Now I do not ask an historian to become a promulgator of eternity, but I do ask for an open mind that is able to transcend the own a priori’s and categories of thought. For to place Reason on the place of God is in fact not reasonable at all. In my opinion this is also valid for religion. I like the idea of Karl Barth that ‘Religion ist Unglaube’ and can be the most effective way to repress the mystery of life. On the other hand it seems the only way people can deal with it. If you close your eyes for what could make you wonder, you will see nothing what makes you wonder.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02365778962566255411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-3891833757191310912013-01-03T17:09:11.563-05:002013-01-03T17:09:11.563-05:00You DO seem to suggest it is all mostly Myth.... ...You DO seem to suggest it is all mostly Myth.... Though you hope some of our myths are somehow, true. You suggest that even if promises of miracles say are not, then we learn other "spiritual" lessons. <br /><br />Still though? If your sense of Christianity is right ... then many peoples' sense of it is wrong. So there is still a sense of "right" answers and "wrong" ones. A kind of quasi-objectivity.<br /><br />And indeed? The danger of going too far beyond rationality, is falling into a self-destructive sentimentality, or mere illusions and delusions. We need some kind of objectivity here; if for no other reason than to choose the best myth or illusion.<br /><br />Speaking in a general way about Christianity in the modern world, is an important discussion in many ways; but I'm not sure I can follow it much further here, without warndering far from our prompted topic. <br /><br />But clearly you are almost explicitly arguing for a deliberate embrace of even irrationality, or very speculative intuition. Yet I see too many people making too many mistakes, with too much subjectivity and so forth.<br /><br />So I hold to the reality and usefulness of a more scientific/objective method. And to a distinction between Myth and History; speculation and proven facts. <br /><br />Possibly at some point, our rational knowledge always runs out, and we need to substitute guesses and intuitions. But in that case, my intuition tells me that the best guess as to what is out there, is rather more natural, than supernatural. Based on what HIstory has shown to be most materially productive here on this earth.<br /><br />And when I am speculative? Why choose specifically to follow an allegedly "Historical" Jesus? Maybe it would be better to know your Jesus is a "Myth"; albeit an occasionally useful myth. That gives you some greater freedom of interpretation; an openness to more things. <br /><br />Whereas an "Historical" Jesus pretends to more dogmatic firmness than a religion or credo should have. Even according to your account, I would suggest.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com