Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 12-18-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freigeister

The impression that all this gives, however, is that any thread will be subverted if it assumes the essential authenticity of any NT statements.

Any thread that involves circular reasoning like this should be subverted.

It makes no sense to assume the authenticity you are trying to establish.

freigeister · 12-18-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Any thread that involves circular reasoning like this should be subverted.

It makes no sense to assume the authenticity you are trying to establish.

Essentially, you argue for disallowing discussions that assume the historicity of Christ until the case for his historicity has been proved to everyone's satisfaction. Mythicism is then the default position for the Biblical Criticism and History Forum. Any discussion must overcome mythicism before engaging on a subject in a way that disregards it. This being the case, it proves my point that this board will choke the life out of any discussion of the NT that doesn't take into account mythicism. Mythicists and mythicism clearly dominant the forum. It appears that this is the express desire of a significant number of participants. If this is the result of bullying, however, and there are a significant number of people who object to the status quo, then something should be done. If on the other hand everyone is more or less content to have this forum operate as a home for mythicists, then perhaps it should be left as such.

Amaleq13 · 12-18-2005, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freigeister

Essentially, you argue for disallowing discussions that assume the historicity of Christ...

No. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, the historicity of Christ is different from assuming "the essential authenticity of any NT statements".

Or did you mean "the essential authenticity of a given NT statement"?

We've had several threads where a historical Jesus was a required assumption of the OP.

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-18-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freigeister

Diogenes:

You said that even if Christ is historical, the statement under discussion is inauthentic. When challenged on this point, you said, "I don't have the burden [of proof]." You did redeem yourself by providing a rationale. The impression that all this gives, however, is that any thread will be subverted if it assumes the essential authenticity of any NT statements.

To be precise, what I said was that the saying was not considered to be authentic by NT scholars.

Quote:

In attacking the authenticity of the statement under discussion, you stated " Claiming to be God was also fundamentally un-Jewish as well as anti Messianic." This is a point worth discussing. As I said above, the answer lies in understanding Christ's language as that of a mystic. We are all familiar with mystical statements about union with the One. This statement by Christ is essentially the same thing. As far as its Jewishness is concerned, this can be discussed at great length. For the moment, I will simply quote Spinoza in defence of Christ's standing at the center of Judaism:

This still presumes the authenticity of saying, and I don't think that can be granted even if we presume historicity. The presumption of HJ (which I am perfectly willing to go along with) does not necessitate a presumption of authenticity for every saying.

Your mystic interpretation of Jesus might be a valid speculation, but as it pertains to this particular saying, it probably isn't applicable because authenticity is so dubious.

Incidentally, I took the mystic view of Jesus myself when I was more certain of HJ, and I spent quite a bit of time in college studying mysticism. I used to favor using the Bengali mystic, Ramakrishna, as an analogical model in arguing my case. I can still make a fairly presentable hypthetical case but I am no longer so sure of myself as I used to be.

freigeister · 12-18-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

We've had several threads where a historical Jesus was a required assumption of the OP.

Ok. Cool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

To be precise, what I said was that the saying was not considered to be authentic by NT scholars.

I would still like to see a citation on this. And claiming that the whole Gospel of John is questionable doesn't cut it.

Quote:

Incidentally, I took the mystic view of Jesus myself when I was more certain of HJ, and I spent quite a bit of time in college studying mysticism. I used to favor using the Bengali mystic, Ramakrishna, as an analogical model in arguing my case. I can still make a fairly presentable hypthetical case but I am no longer so sure of myself as I used to be.

You should take a look at Brunner's book. He does an extensive presentation of Meister Eckhart as a way normalizing Christ's mode of speech. Here is a sample quotation from Eckhart:

Whoever possesses God in their being, has him in a divine manner, and he shines out to them in all things; for them all things taste of God and in all things it is God's image that they see.

Mysticism assimilates the self to the Absolute. In many cases, this is expressed as the loss of self in the Absolute. With Christ and some others, however, the language is more about the appropriation of the Absolute by the self.

Helpmabob · 12-19-2005, 03:06 AM

Hi Diogenes -

Quote:

No, existence has to be established first.

If you thought there was something better after death rather than nothingness, would you not be prepared to bend these rules a bit? Or must the rules always be adhered to in every single thread of discussion? Do you not like variety; does it unnerve you? I'm interested to know.

Quote:

In fact, we know that they can't be, if for no other reason than because they are written in Greek and Jesus would have spoken Aramaic.

You seem to be saying that in addition to proving that Jesus existed, proof that these were the actual words spoken by Jesus must be offered prior any discussion of any meaning the words contain.

Hi John -

Quote:

Are you saying that what a fictional character is reported as saying will demonstrate that that character actually is NOT a fictional character?

No, not at all.

Hi 911 – If the people recognised that Jesus was God (some did) then worshipping Him was okay.

Hi Clarice –

Quote:

Only Christians are "sinners." You should not say that anyone else is. Everyone is allowed to define and describe themselves. As well, *I* am the way and the truth and the life--it's up to me. Jesus lied, if he lived.

I invite to you to imagine for a moment there really is a God, and re-examine your words, and see if they still stack up.

Clarice O'C · 12-19-2005, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helpmabob

Hi Clarice – I invite to you to imagine for a moment there really is a God, and re-examine your words, and see if they still stack up.

Yes, gods are products of the imagination.

Clarice O'C · 12-19-2005, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

ETA, the specific claim that Jesus was a way to salvation is also based on assumptions that are completely unJewish and anti-Messianic. The Jewish Messiah is not a redeemer of sins and can't save anybody's soul. Judaism also has no concept of "original sin," hence. nothing to be "saved" from except one's own bad deeds and no way to redeem one'self except by one's own righteousness, Christian salvation theory would have been gibberish to a bunch of Galileean peasants.

And so the Genesis temptation/'apple'/snake scene has been Christianized? If, so, what does the story mean in Judaism?

Freiheit · 12-19-2005, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarice O'C

And so the Genesis temptation/'apple'/snake scene has been Christianized? If, so, what does the story mean in Judaism?

Yeah, that's exactly what happened.

Original Sin was a concept invented by Christians. Judaism has no concept of Original Sin. The story of the Fall in Genesis was an explanation as to why we live in a less than perfect world. Individuals are punished for their own sins and sometimes those of their ancestors (even up to four generations back), but there is no concept of an inherent stain that existed on mankind and needed to be removed. Christians created this concept as an attempt to give a basis for their religion—and it combined the pagan conception of a spiritual redeemer with the Jewish obsession with sin (an obsession which was, incidentally, the cultural equivalent of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and stemmed from the Jews’ state of powerlessness).

From Wikipedia.org:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Sin

Quote:

The original sin (the Fall)

Classical Biblical and Orthodox Jewish view

Adam's sin, as recounted in the Book of Genesis is sometimes called in Hebrew החט�? הקדמון (the original sin), on the basis of the traditional Christian term. But the term used in classical Jewish literature is חט�? �?ד�? הר�?שׁון), (the first sin of man, or of Adam).

The account in Genesis 2–3 implies that Adam and Eve initially lived in a state of intimate communion with God. God warned Adam not to eat of the fruit of "the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" (Genesis 2:15–17).[1] The serpent persuaded Eve, who in turn persuaded Adam, to disobey this commandment. After eating of the fruit, they immediately recognized their mistake, and became ashamed of their nakedness (Genesis 3:1–7).[2] God cursed the serpent, apparently changing its physical form, and setting up eternal enmity between mankind and serpents (Genesis 3:9–15).[3] God pronounced judgements on both Eve and Adam. Eve's judgement was the difficulties of pregnancy and subjection to her husband. Adam's was toil and struggle for his sustenance (Genesis 3:16–21).[4] Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden and doomed to die (Genesis 3:22–24).[5]

According to Jewish tradition, the divine prohibition was to give them free choice and allow them to earn, as opposed to receive, absolute perfection and intimate communion with God, a higher level than the one on which they were created.

The consequences affected Adam and Eve's descendants. People are not intrinsically condemned and sinful, but nevertheless begin life at a spiritual and metaphysical level inherited from Adam and Eve, far lower than Adam's original level. The course of history is meant to return humanity to Adam's original level, and then allow it to surpass that level by completing the task that Adam failed to complete. The curses and changes imposed on mankind and womankind following their sin are meant to facilitate this return to glory.

According to this tradition, Adam and Eve would have attained absolute perfection and retained immortality had they succeeded in withstanding the temptation to eat from the Tree. After failing at this task, they were condemned to a period of toil to rectify the fallen universe. In Jewish tradition, this is a 6,000 year period.

Jewish tradition views the serpent, and sometimes the Tree of Knowledge itself, as representatives of evil. Evil's job was and is to mislead Mankind and give the appearance that God does not actually control all elements of Creation. Adam's task was to see through this veil. After his failure, this became humanity's task through history.

Reform and Conservative Judaism's views

The more modern liberal branches of Judaism, such as Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism, which see no "evil" other than the evil actions of human beings, disagree with traditions that identify the serpent with Satan. Eve's only transgression was that she disobeyed God's order. Adam was with her the entire time and at no time stopped her. Therefore, it is incorrect to blame Eve alone. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden and had to live ordinary, human lives. In other words, they had to "leave home" and grow up and live as responsible human beings. If they had never eaten from the forbidden tree, they would never have discovered their capacity to act with free will in the world. God doesn't want human beings who have no choice but to always do what is good and right.

Freiheit · 12-19-2005, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

The Jesus-Horus connection appears to be based on some questionable 19th century - early 20th century writings, as is most of the other Savior god comparisons.

This may be the case, but as far as I know it is accurate. Perhaps you could be more specific as to why you think it is not? Some of the comparisons seem too close to ignore. In addition, such comparisons have the benefit of explaining how the Jewish concept of a militant messiah got combined with the idea of a human with a God as a parent--which is found in Pagan culture but not Judaism.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.