Starboy

Leonarde,

That is my point. If Paul were "preaching to the choir" so to speak he would not have to know much about Jesus and could learn about him from those he sought to control. In other words like the nark that is supposed to bust the druggies but instead ends up in the drug business because he is in a great spot to do so. Paul was supposed to crack down on the new sect but instead ends up starting a new religion. There was nothing special about Jesus he was just the opportunity. Paul might have used any other popular Jewish sect that the orthodox movement wanted cleansed from Judaism. Purhaps he chose the most popular.

Starboy

Bede

Nogo/Toto,

Forgive my tardiness.

It is certainly true that inventing an unknown peasant is easier than inventing a conqueror, but you do not need a historical Alex to explain a big empire. There are always other explanations and motivations you can make up if you wish. You might claim one man conquering all he did in a few years is a more extraordinary explanation that a fifty year Greek expansion legitimised by inventing a man who did it all in a single super human campaign. You also do not seem to appreciate that just because we have people claiming to be contemporary eye witnesses does not mean they were. I mean 1 Peter and GJohn both contain such statements, and much of Acts is in the first person. Do you believe them - if not why do you believe the Alex sources? You are setting up higher standards for one than the other, even though a historical Jesus getting crucified is far less amazing than one man conquering the known world in record time.

My point is that the same methods we use to disentangle Alex from his myth are also used for Jesus. Those methods exist and have been explained. All of Vork's wishing them away will do no good at all. And you can always invent another clever theory if you are willing to simply disbelieve and explain away the evidence that gets in the way.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library faith and reason</a>

Radorth

Yeah. That's the differece between us IMO. One who fails to admit his/her own bias and presumptions is doomed to be less rational by my definition. The question is whether your presuppositions are any more of a stetch than mine, and whether we wish to know the truth regardless of what it might be. Thus I readily admit the errancies in the Bible if you can find one. I don't need it to be perfect. I don't need God to be perfectly omniscient. I don't even need him to be good, though I know him to be. I just need to accept the truth whether I like it or not. I will accept it if it seems the intellectually honest thing to do. I will not apply one standard to that theory and another to this one. I don't need to believe in the flood or special creation if I cannot honestly do so.

I believe what I do believe because, for me, it became intellectually dishonest not to. I hated giving up my sins and what I supposed was my "freedom." I hate the Sermon on the Mount. I hate what some Christians have done, but that does not excuse me to nitpick and find miutiae to support my case.

Sure I could be wrong, but if I am I'll be a dead person who at least followed his conscience enough to PO a few friends, while you'll be a live fool with lots of company.

Radorth

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Radorth writes: Sure I could be wrong, but if I am I'll be a dead person who at least followed his conscience enough to PO a few friends, while you'll be a live fool with lots of company.

Is this Pascal's Wager? If so, I ask that any rehash of this mercilessly whipped equine be taken to Misc. Religious Discussions; Rants, Raves, and Preaching; Existence of God; or a more appropriate venue (such as e-mail). I ask Radorth and everyone else not to make any comments with regards to this subject on BC&A, unless of course you can explain to the moderators how you are relating it to Biblical Criticism & Archaeology as the most appropriate forum.

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

My point is that the same methods we use to disentangle Alex from his myth are also used for Jesus. Those methods exist and have been explained. All of Vork's wishing them away will do no good at all.

Vork hasn't wished anything away, and your constant mentioning of me is starting to make you look obsessed.

The "same methods" may well be used to disentangle Alex from his myth (although they are not). However, the issue, Bede, is whether it is valid to do so in the case of the Jesus legends.

Vorkosigan

Toto

It would be quite extraordinary if the conquest of the world by Macedonians had been acomplished without a strong military leader.

We are pretty sure GJohn was written well after Jesus' presumed death, and it does not quote a prior written document by name, and we do not have physical evidence of the existence of that document.

Well no, those methods have not been explained, certainly not in your essay.

But I am wondering if your attempts to discover a Historical Jesus are not undercutting your Christian religion. In order to make this HJ compatible with the usual methods of history, you have to assume that he was totally obscure, one of a number of kooks and faith healers who wandered the land, that he had no impact on the Roman Empire that would bring him to the attention of the elites of the time, that he died and was resurrected, but his followers were not inspired to do more than attract a few followers while they continued worshipping in the Jewish temples and synagogues, (and they couldn't even agree on what his message was), that his presence in Palestine did not prevent the Romans from coming in and wiping out any trace of him, and that the religion started in his name only became powerful when a pagan emperor used it as a means of controlling his empire, much as the corporate-controlled Republican Party uses the Religious Right as its footsoldiers today.

I think a version of Christianity based on a spirit would make more sense.

joedad

But no one is "inventing" an unknown conqueror. That is one of the points of the thread. Historical reality makes no such demand. Simply concluded, historical Alexander is real and mythical Alexander is not. Rationally speaking, there is no disentanglement issue.

The HJ on the other hand, all hagiography aside, hangs on heresay. It is like accepting the existence of an historical Sasquatch or Kokopelli based upon some Native American rendering. Once again, rationally speaking, there is no disentanglement issue. Myth is myth.

We're talking about inventing fictional characters. Fiction is fiction. Degree of amazement has no place in any honest methodology, at least imho.

I guess I simply cannot yet understand what motivates the need for an HJ and not an historical Hercules, Bigfoot, Paul Bunyan, Kokopelli or Great Spirit. Why one and not all? I suppose that is simply the nature of religious zeal. Just my two cent, rhetorical opinion.


Radorth,

What about Hercules? Is there possibly an historical Hercules? If not, why not? Is it simply a matter of majority opinion or interest?

joe

leonarde

In what century?


Cheers!

Layman

Again Toto, please try and keep up. You seem incapable of actually following the ball on this one.

The fact is that whatever the Christian message was, Paul obviously learned some of its from humans. In other words, your argument that Paul claimed his "Gospel" came from God does nothing to counter the many indications that Paul learned some things about Christianity -- human Jesus or not -- from an existing Christian community.

And 1 Cor. 15 is not "possibly" an interpolation because one guy has claimed that it is. His utter failure to make his case or convince even liberal scholars of his argument just underscores how little value his arguments have.

joedad

I'd call that a big "Yes."

joe