Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-27-2011, 01:00 PM

Quote:

René Salm: I wouldn’t say that. I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as might some of my atheist colleagues, those who repudiate all “religion.” You see, I believe that before Paul came along with his kerygma in the ﬁrst century of this era, there was a sectarian religion in Palestine with a profound seed of truth. That seed was gnostic, stringently ethical, and had something to do with the Semitic term “Natsarene.”

Incidentally, that term goes back millennia. In the Akkadian flood story, “natsar” (“preserve”) describes the ark that saves Noah (who has the gnostic name Atrahasis, “Ultra-wise”) and the seeds of future life. The rest of living things, as we know, died in this story of early cosmic judgement.

What my research is showing is that a very different sort of Christianity predated Paul — one that we would not recognize today. The religion of the Natsarenes was far too difficult for the ordinary person. It was devoted to the search for understanding and required total commitment, total sacrifice. It left no room for the world, for the enticements of pleasure, riches, and power. This ascetic religion had little to recommend it to the great masses, to the gentiles. Paul took care of that. He basically took this profound religion and debased it, made is “easy.”

He turned the all-consuming search for understanding into a religion of mere belief. In Christianity, the hard work has already been done for us — by Jesus. He died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins. Paul created a ‘savior.’ All we need do is ‘believe.’ Very convenient!

stephan huller · 04-27-2011, 05:03 PM

I'm a member of Rene's Yahoo group but I don't buy the Natzarene etymology. Connecting Christian concepts to Akkadian narratives? That would be like explaining terms in Dante with language from Seneca or Ovid. Really? This is supposed to be a better explanation rabbinic, Mandaean and Nag Hammadi explanations of the terminology? Really? Why? Because the Akkadian stories are myths that's why

neilgodfrey · 04-28-2011, 08:28 PM

I have posted the following on McGrath’s site in response to his blatantly dishonest attack on Salm. McGrath has attracted the usual lights of honest and civil discourse like Tim O'Neil (who is reportedly lurking here under another name):

Quote:

Has anyone here actually read the interview with Salm? I don’t believe so because Salm nowhere suggests the the gnostic or Mandean evidence (second and third centuries onward) attributes a positive influence to the planets.

Or if anyone did actually read what Salm wrote then they have incredibly poor reading comprehension levels or have a malicious motive in publicly accusing him of something he nowhere says, has to my knowledge never said, and from other readings of his, nowhere believes.

Salm has elsewhere actually said that the gnostics and mandeans believed the planets were malevolent, but that his studies are looking at the hitherto inconclusive scholarship on pre-Christian ideas.

A civil response, one from a public intellectual from whom we might expect an example of rationality, comprehension and honesty in public debate, would be to post a civil question in response to ask Salm to clarify his point if it was truly felt that there was some error of fact.

But attention to facts would mean treating anyone who espouses a mythicist case seriously, and McGrath has already declared he does not believe he should do that.

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

04-27-2011, 05:03 PM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I'm a member of Rene's Yahoo group but I don't buy the Natzarene etymology. Connecting Christian concepts to Akkadian narratives? That would be like explaining terms in Dante with language from Seneca or Ovid. Really? This is supposed to be a better explanation rabbinic, Mandaean and Nag Hammadi explanations of the terminology? Really? Why? Because the Akkadian stories are myths that's why

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.