Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 05-29-2010, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

You made your remarks above to christian theology... based upon a human sacrifice, ...which in your opinion created its own vulnerability. Kindly assure yourself that Hoffmann's essay has nothing to offer on that score. In contrast, he states that critical "Christian scholarship" (in which he includes the secular examination of the NT texts) has undermined the extravagant early doctrine of X-ity, by exposing the incredibility of the divine and the uncertainty of the human. He finds no parallel to this academic fifth column in Islam.

Jiri

Hoffmann's full quote

Quote:

The incredibility of the divine and the uncertainty of the human is a potent defense against a totalizing imperative, an inadvertent safeguard created by the extravagance of early doctrine. The vulnerability of Christianity is a vulnerability created by critical examination of its sacred writings–the legacy of its scholars, including its religious scholars, its secular scholars, and even scholars whose speculation outruns caution and evidence. It was Christian scholarship that first put Christianity at risk. Islamic scholarship has played no equivalent role in relation to Islam.

"the extravagance of early doctrine"

Ephesians 5:2
and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Romans 3:24-26

24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Colossians 1:20
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Giving up a historical Jesus is, for many believers, giving up on that human sacrifice to god - it means giving up on a theological assumption that is itself 'grounded' in the assumed historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, Christianity has placed itself, unlike Islam, in a most vulnerable position - a vulnerable position that its scholars are continually exposing...

But you know what - Christianity has not been called the 'mother of heretics' for nothing - thus, it has always contained an inherent 'fifth column' - an ability to self-destruct - but a destructive ability that is counterbalanced with an ability for self-renewal...

There is a bee in your bonnet, maryhelena. You are mixing the 'incredibility' with the 'uncertainty' in a pell mell that leaves no distinguishing marks between theology based on 'human sacrifice', preached by a priest of Quetzalcoatl and the one preached by Paul. But it is apparent that the vulnerability that Hoffmann has in mind is not in that Christianity is 'destructive' but that it has, through the cultural development of the West, opened itself to rational examination.

Jiri

Toto · 05-29-2010, 06:10 PM

The title of Hoffmann's essay is now What do you mean, “Did Jesus Exist”?

Did it change? Were there too many complaints about "suigenerity" ??

I usually like Hoffmann's essays, but this feels too much like an exercise in getting one up on the rest of his profession. There's a lot of discussion about the theological implications of the historicity of Jesus, and not much if anything about the non-theological study of Christian origins.

mountainman · 05-29-2010, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, the deeper the NT scholars dig for a historical Jesus the deeper the hole they dig for themselves....Since christian theology is based upon a human sacrifice, it has thus created its own vulnerability - and when its assumptions re a historical Jesus can't be historical verified - down must come its theological speculations...

You have misread Hoffmann's argument. He refutes both the historicist and the mythicist positions as lacking substance. Jesus, as the more insightful writers here will acknoweldge, is an 'emotional' issue.

Despite the fact that the new testament is charged with an abundance pathos and very little logos and/or ethos, and despite the fact that the public relations department of the first empire-wide published edition of the new testament bundled and packaged up many other narratives deliberately charged with an abundance pathos and very little logos and/or ethos to be published as the "publications of the Christians", the historical Jesus is not an 'emotional' issue with respect to the field of ancient history.

Hoffmann soundly chastises the field of "Biblical History" with respect to the theories which have been, and which continue to pour forth from that field in respect of the historical jesus. He points out that the mythological jesus is being relegated to the sidelines, the sin bin or to a place of non discussion, such as the hole dug in the sand by the orthodox ostriches.

Quote:

Theologians in the “mainstream academic tradition” have always been reluctant to touch the subject because, after all, seminaries do not exist, nor for that matter departments of religious studies, to teach courses in the Christ Myth. For that reason, if the topic is given syllabus space at all it is given insufficient space and treated as the opposite of where sober, objective scholarly inquiry will take you in New Testament studies.

mountainman · 05-29-2010, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The title of Hoffmann's essay is now What do you mean, “Did Jesus Exist”?

Did it change? Were there too many complaints about "suigenerity" ??

It may have allowed for too many ambiguities.

Quote:

I usually like Hoffmann's essays, but this feels too much like an exercise in getting one up on the rest of his profession.

I dont read it that way.

Quote:

There's a lot of discussion about the theological implications of the historicity of Jesus, and not much if anything about the non-theological study of Christian origins.

But isn't that precisely the point he is making?

mountainman · 05-29-2010, 07:21 PM

Quote:

.... some of the Christian fathers flirted with Neoplatonism–Clement of Alexandria, for example–and they were saved by a pragmatic hair from being gnostics themselves, as I think–if we are being honest and not pedantic–the author of the Gospel of John was.

The writer’s tortured theological prologue is our best evidence of the philosophical dilemma confronting some early christian communities.

Was the author of the gospel of john a "Gnostic" or within a "hairs breadth of being a gnostic? I dont think so. The author of the gospel of John was obviously very much part of the "orthodox tetrarchy of Apostolic memoirs". Quite to the contrary, the author of the (non canonical) Acts of John, is revealed as a "Gnostic". The Gnostics do not appear in the canonical material. The Gnostics reacted against the canonical material. The Gnostics reacted against the new testament (canon) with their own "Tall Stories". IMVHO the "Gnostics" were no more than the (academic non-christan) Greeks upon whom the Imperial Jesus was thrust c.324/325 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnaldo Momigliano

We all know the story of the man who went into a London bookshop and asked for a New Testament in Greek. The assistant retired to a back room and after ten minutes came back with a grave look: ‘Strange, sir, but Greek seems to be the only language into which the New Testament has not yet been translated.’ The story may remind us of two facts. The first is that there was a time in which the New Testament was only available in Greek. The second and more important is that at that time it was as difficult as it is now to find a bookshop with a New, or for that matter an Old, Testament in Greek. About A.D. 180 a man like Galen could walk into a bookshop only to discover that they were selling an unauthorized edition of his own lectures. But though he was interested in the Christians, Galen would hardly have found a Bible. The Bible was no literature for the pagan. Its Greek was not elegant enough.

Source

maryhelena · 05-30-2010, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Hoffmann's full quote

"the extravagance of early doctrine"

Ephesians 5:2
and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Romans 3:24-26

24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Colossians 1:20
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Giving up a historical Jesus is, for many believers, giving up on that human sacrifice to god - it means giving up on a theological assumption that is itself 'grounded' in the assumed historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, Christianity has placed itself, unlike Islam, in a most vulnerable position - a vulnerable position that its scholars are continually exposing...

But you know what - Christianity has not been called the 'mother of heretics' for nothing - thus, it has always contained an inherent 'fifth column' - an ability to self-destruct - but a destructive ability that is counterbalanced with an ability for self-renewal...

There is a bee in your bonnet, maryhelena. You are mixing the 'incredibility' with the 'uncertainty' in a pell mell that leaves no distinguishing marks between theology based on 'human sacrifice', preached by a priest of Quetzalcoatl and the one preached by Paul. But it is apparent that the vulnerability that Hoffmann has in mind is not in that Christianity is 'destructive' but that it has, through the cultural development of the West, opened itself to rational examination.

Jiri

The theology preached by 'Paul' - well now, who should we ask re just what was that theology preached by 'Paul'? And which answer should be deemed to be the correct interpretation of 'Paul'? Quite frankly, I'm not interested in theology - or what variation 'Paul' might have had - if ever such variation could be historically established.

Hoffmann's view re the vulnerability exposed by christian scholars has not identified any specific doctrine, simply "the extravagance of early doctrine".

Hoffmann

Quote:

Odd, then, that the historicity of Jesus should be of any concern at all in relation to a person whose humanity, in the letters of Paul and in the gospels (to a lesser extent, perhaps) is of no consequence to the core tradition. The battle of the post-New Testament period in the early Church, as Harnack recognized, was not to define the divinity of Jesus but to defend his humanity.

An early battle - defending the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth - and along with that claimed, assumed, humanity - goes the earthly crucifixion and the human sacrifice - and all the nonsense, and immoral, theology that has been built upon it.

Sure, that claimed humanity of Jesus of Nazareth is still popular today - along with the human sacrifice etc. However, the work of christian scholars has been destructive regarding some of the elements of the Jesus storyline. No incarnation, no virgin birth, no miracles - Jesus is now viewed, by sophisticated christian scholars, as an ordinary human man. Now, if you don't call all that destructive of early christian doctrine then I'm afraid there is little more I can say on the matter.....:huh:

maryhelena · 05-30-2010, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The title of Hoffmann's essay is now What do you mean, “Did Jesus Exist”?

Did it change? Were there too many complaints about "suigenerity" ??

I usually like Hoffmann's essays, but this feels too much like an exercise in getting one up on the rest of his profession. There's a lot of discussion about the theological implications of the historicity of Jesus, and not much if anything about the non-theological study of Christian origins.

Yes, Hoffmann changed the title of his essay - I have the original title in a news reader....I think its a great essay - he takes a shot at both the historicists and the mythicists. Both sides can learn something from his position - and should give some thought to how to proceed...

Solo · 05-30-2010, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is a bee in your bonnet, maryhelena. You are mixing the 'incredibility' with the 'uncertainty' in a pell mell that leaves no distinguishing marks between theology based on 'human sacrifice', preached by a priest of Quetzalcoatl and the one preached by Paul. But it is apparent that the vulnerability that Hoffmann has in mind is not in that Christianity is 'destructive' but that it has, through the cultural development of the West, opened itself to rational examination.

Jiri

The theology preached by 'Paul' - well now, who should we ask re just what was that theology preached by 'Paul'? And which answer should be deemed to be the correct interpretation of 'Paul'? Quite frankly, I'm not interested in theology - or what variation 'Paul' might have had - if ever such variation could be historically established.

Hoffmann's view re the vulnerability exposed by christian scholars has not identified any specific doctrine, simply "the extravagance of early doctrine".

Hoffmann

Quote:

Odd, then, that the historicity of Jesus should be of any concern at all in relation to a person whose humanity, in the letters of Paul and in the gospels (to a lesser extent, perhaps) is of no consequence to the core tradition. The battle of the post-New Testament period in the early Church, as Harnack recognized, was not to define the divinity of Jesus but to defend his humanity.

An early battle - defending the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth - and along with that claimed, assumed, humanity - goes the earthly crucifixion and the human sacrifice - and all the nonsense, and immoral, theology that has been built upon it.

Sure, that claimed humanity of Jesus of Nazareth is still popular today - along with the human sacrifice etc. However, the work of christian scholars has been destructive regarding some of the elements of the Jesus storyline. No incarnation, no virgin birth, no miracles - Jesus is now viewed, by sophisticated christian scholars, as an ordinary human man. Now, if you don't call all that destructive of early christian doctrine then I'm afraid there is little more I can say on the matter.....:huh:

In your understanding, maryhelena, did Jesus have a choice in God's 'requirement' of human sacrifice ? Or does that matter in your finding of Christian immorality ? If then Jesus was obedient to God, even unto death, even the death on the cross, if he emptied himself of trivial self-seeking and served a noble purpose, and willingly - even if in weakness - laid down his life for it, would that still not matter to you in the final assessment of those who believed and still believe that the misery of the world could be carried on the shoulders of one man ?

Or am I howling in the wind ?

Jiri

maryhelena · 05-30-2010, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The theology preached by 'Paul' - well now, who should we ask re just what was that theology preached by 'Paul'? And which answer should be deemed to be the correct interpretation of 'Paul'? Quite frankly, I'm not interested in theology - or what variation 'Paul' might have had - if ever such variation could be historically established.

Hoffmann's view re the vulnerability exposed by christian scholars has not identified any specific doctrine, simply "the extravagance of early doctrine".

Hoffmann

An early battle - defending the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth - and along with that claimed, assumed, humanity - goes the earthly crucifixion and the human sacrifice - and all the nonsense, and immoral, theology that has been built upon it.

Sure, that claimed humanity of Jesus of Nazareth is still popular today - along with the human sacrifice etc. However, the work of christian scholars has been destructive regarding some of the elements of the Jesus storyline. No incarnation, no virgin birth, no miracles - Jesus is now viewed, by sophisticated christian scholars, as an ordinary human man. Now, if you don't call all that destructive of early christian doctrine then I'm afraid there is little more I can say on the matter.....:huh:

In your understanding, maryhelena, did Jesus have a choice in God's 'requirement' of human sacrifice ? Or does that matter in your finding of Christian immorality ? If then Jesus was obedient to God, even unto death, even the death on the cross, if he emptied himself of trivial self-seeking and served a noble purpose, and willingly - even if in weakness - laid down his life for it, would that still not matter to you in the final assessment of those who believed and still believe that the misery of the world could be carried on the shoulders of one man ?

Or am I howling in the wind ?

Jiri

Howling in the wind....

Dawkins said it best:

Quote:

. Among all the ideas ever to occur to a nasty human mind (Paul’s of course), the Christian “atonement” would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity.

I'm a mythicist re Jesus of Nazareth - your questions are meaningless to me...

aa5874 · 05-30-2010, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I'm a mythicist re Jesus of Nazareth......

But, from your posts I get the impression that you are an historicist for Jesus of Nowhere, Jesus of the UNKNOWN, Jesus of NO history or the Jesus of Silence.

The authors of the NT and Church writers have presented THEIR evidence for Jesus of Nazareth and it is that Jesus of Nazareth who was TRULY:

1. the offspring of the Holy Ghostin the Synoptics

2. the Creator of EVERYTHING in heaven and earth in gJohn and the Pauline Epistles.

3. Did TRULY walk on the sea during a storm in the Synoptics

4. Was TRULY equal to God and did exist BEFORE all things in gJohn and the Pauline Epistles.

5. Was TRULY raised from the dead in the NT Canon.

6. DID TRULY ascend to heaven in the Synoptics, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writers

There is no other Jesus to be investigated but JESUS of NAZARETH and once you have found that JESUS of Nazareth was MYTH then your deliberations are basically done until NEW EVIDENCE can be found to contradict your conclusions.

I have Also come to the conclusion that JESUS of Nazareth as described in the NT Canon and the Church writings was TRULY MYTH. My deliberations are done until NEW EVIDENCE can be found.

There is NO credible EVIDENCE for JESUS of Nowhere, Jesus of the UNKNOWN, Jesus of NO history, or the Jesus of Silence also called the "historical" Jesus.

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

05-29-2010, 06:10 PM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The title of Hoffmann's essay is now What do you mean, “Did Jesus Exist”? Did it change? Were there too many complaints about "suigenerity" ?? I usually like Hoffmann's essays, but this feels too much like an exercise in getting one up on the rest of his profession. There's a lot of discussion about the theological implications of the historicity of Jesus, and not much if anything about the non-theological study of Christian origins.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.