Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-09-2010, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The problem with the crucifixion story - if, for argument it was historical,
is that the early christians would have used a miscarriage of justice as the central clarion call for its atonement theories. Bizarre to say the least. Such a theory betrays a complete lack of any moral compass....Hence, we do them an injustice to presume that that is what they did. Much rather take the crucifixion story as being non historical - and that they were proposing a spiritual/theological/intellectual context not a historical flesh and blood context.

But, is not the crucifixion of an innocent Jesus by the Jews a fundamental theme in the salvation story?

There is no reason to try and pretend that the crucifixion of Jesus was not placed in an historical setting right here on earth in Jerusalem of Judea. According to some version of the crucifixion story a criminal was released instead of Jesus. This release of the criminal most likely did not occur in a heavenly plane.

And even before crucifixion, some person carried his supposed cross. Then again in the story Jesus did talk to Pilate. These events are written in an assumed historical setting unless Pilate had died and was in Heaven or a Hell-like plane.

maryhelena · 02-09-2010, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The problem with the crucifixion story - if, for argument it was historical,
is that the early christians would have used a miscarriage of justice as the central clarion call for its atonement theories. Bizarre to say the least. Such a theory betrays a complete lack of any moral compass....Hence, we do them an injustice to presume that that is what they did. Much rather take the crucifixion story as being non historical - and that they were proposing a spiritual/theological/intellectual context not a historical flesh and blood context.

But, is not the crucifixion of an innocent Jesus by the Jews a fundamental theme in the salvation story?

There is no reason to try and pretend that the crucifixion of Jesus was not placed in an historical setting right here on earth in Jerusalem of Judea. According to some version of the crucifixion story a criminal was released instead of Jesus. This release of the criminal most likely did not occur in a heavenly plane.

And even before crucifixion, some person carried his supposed cross. Then again in the story Jesus did talk to Pilate. These events are written in an assumed historical setting unless Pilate had died and was in Heaven or a Hell-like plane.

Storyline, aa5874, storyline.....

And really, Dawkins has said all that needs to be said in regard to finding some salvation potential in such a fleshly, bodily, crucifixion............"moral depravity".....

PhilosopherJay · 02-09-2010, 10:54 PM

Hi maryhelena,

Yes, good insight by Eric Reitan.

the closest thing that we have to a massively popular savior character in the 20th century in the United States is Superman. His comic book persona was based on the movie persona of Douglas Fairbanks Sr, while his alter ego, Clark Kent was based on the persona of Harold Lloyd. Douglas Fairbanks Sr. and Harold Lloyd were historical persons. However, it would be incorrect to say that they are the historical Superman and Clark Kent. Rather we simply have to say that some aspects of the Superman character was modeled on characters portrayed by Fairbanks and Lloyd.

In the same way we can say that Jesus was probably modeled from various reports on historical persons, without saying that there was an historical Jesus.

From this point of view, even saying that Jesus is a composite of several historical characters would not be quite correct.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

There is an interesting comment on McGrath’s blog - by Eric Reitan
(award-winning scholar and writer, teaches philosophy; author: Is God A Delusion? A reply to Religion's Cultured Despisers (or via: amazon.co.uk))

Quote:

“(3) There was an historic king of the Britons named Artur whose impact was sufficiently great to prompt storytelling about him. This storytelling became quickly severed from actual historic events, becoming interwoven with the creative fancies of bards whose interest lay more in telling colorful tales than in preserving history. Eventually these stories evolved into the legendary figure we now know as King Arthur. But the King Arthur we encounter in the inherited legends has little similarity to the historic figure that inspired the original storytelling.....

The case of (3) is interesting. If we accept it, is there a sense in which there is an “historic Arthur”? I’d say yes, but only in the sense that there is an historic figure who prompted the storytelling—and I’d be quick to add that the character in the stories bears little resemblance to the historic figure.”

I do think that any forward movement re the early beginnings of Christianity might well have to travel this route. The mythicists position, bottom line, is that Jesus in the gospel storyline is not historical. However, that position does not rule out the possibility that a historical figure has played some part in the understanding of the early Christian movement.

Whatever the role played by Paul’s Cosmic Christ - that role cannot account for the gospel storyline. There are two very different elements at play. One centred in a spiritual/theological context and the other centred in a dated historical context. It cannot be a case of having to choose between the two - of being either a historicist or a mythicist. These two positions are not contradictory positions but are interrelated.

So, of the 4 examples given in the blog comment - I would quite happily go with no.3. There is a historical core to the gospel storyline - but that historical core is not Jesus - it is not the carpenter’s son who was crucified. It could be a historical figure that is quite unrelated to that gospel figure, a historical figure that bears “little resemblance” to the gospel Jesus. This is a very important insight by Eric Reitan - an insight that the historicists need to appreciate if they are ever to find the historical core to the gospel storyline that they seek.

maryhelena · 02-09-2010, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

Yes, good insight by Eric Reitan.

the closest thing that we have to a massively popular savior character in the 20th century in the United States is Superman. His comic book persona was based on the movie persona of Douglas Fairbanks Sr, while his alter ego, Clark Kent was based on the persona of Harold Lloyd. Douglas Fairbanks Sr. and Harold Lloyd were historical persons. However, it would be incorrect to say that they are the historical Superman and Clark Kent. Rather we simply have to say that some aspects of the Superman character was modeled on characters portrayed by Fairbanks and Lloyd.

In the same way we can say that Jesus was probably modeled from various reports on historical persons, without saying that there was an historical Jesus.

From this point of view, even saying that Jesus is a composite of several historical characters would not be quite correct.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Bingo..............:wave:

aa5874 · 02-09-2010, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, is not the crucifixion of an innocent Jesus by the Jews a fundamental theme in the salvation story?

There is no reason to try and pretend that the crucifixion of Jesus was not placed in an historical setting right here on earth in Jerusalem of Judea. According to some version of the crucifixion story a criminal was released instead of Jesus. This release of the criminal most likely did not occur in a heavenly plane.

And even before crucifixion, some person carried his supposed cross. Then again in the story Jesus did talk to Pilate. These events are written in an assumed historical setting unless Pilate had died and was in Heaven or a Hell-like plane.

Storyline, aa5874, storyline.....

And really, Dawkins has said all that needs to be said in regard to finding some salvation potential in such a fleshly, bodily, crucifixion............"moral depravity".....

It is the author of the story who chooses his own themes or storyline.

Jesus the God/man was placed in Judea from around a few years before the death of Herod to sometime in the governorship of Pilate.

That is the storyline and it cannot be altered even if it is fiction.

It is the very same with a Harry Potter fiction novel, you cannot re-write the Harry Potter story because you believe it is fiction.

It must be recognised that the Jesus story was not the only salvation story or the only God that came to earth in antiquity. There numerous gods available to save perhaps the entire world several times over.

mountainman · 02-09-2010, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

The father of history was a very bad historian. The reason, for example, you find the beautifully written, edifying piece about Solon and Croesus (despite the fact that they lived decades apart), is that Herodotus didn't particularly care if it was true or not. Accuracy wasn't the point.

The same assessment may be levelled at the father of Christian history Eusebius of Caesarea.
In fact such an assessment has already been levelled by Arnaldo Momigliano, the foremost
of ancient historians of the 20th century ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

"At the beginning of this imposing movement of research and controversy
there remains Eusebius of Caesarea. In 1834 Ferdinand Christian Baur
wrote in "Tubingen" a comparison between Eusebius and Herodotus:
Comparatur Eusebius Caesarensis historiae ecclesiasticae parens cum
parente historiarum Herodoto Halicarnassensi.

We can accept this comparison and meditate on his remark
that both Herodotus and Eusebius wrote under the inspiration
of a newly established freedom.

p.152

The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography
Arnaldo Momigliano
Sather Classical Lectures (1961-62)
Volume Fifty-Four
University of California Press, 1990

mountainman · 02-09-2010, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Why bother looking for someone called Jesus :huh:

Name changing seems to be quite a serious pastime in the NT....

The only name changes I can recall off the top of my head in the NT are Saul to Paul, Simon to Peter, and (textually) Cephas to Peter.

Name changes seems to be more common in the Tanakh. Relevant in this instance was "Hoshea" being renamed to "Jesus" in Numbers 13.

Jesus is not mentioned in the NT and Joshua is not mentioned in the OT. The most ancient of the Greek texts explicitly use the nomina sacra "J_S" for both these characters and there exists no explicit scribal convention to explain the identification of this equation of identity behind the one nomina sacra except the textual assertions of Eusebius.

To make matters worse, Eusebius is the only known editor of the new testament. The assertion that the earlier Old Testament nomina sacra "J_S" representing the name of Joshua was simply HIJACKED by the editor of the New Testament is not without any basis.

maryhelena · 02-10-2010, 04:56 AM

Creationism and Mythicism according to James McGrath

Quote:

Accusations and Assumptions: Another Mythicist-Creationist Parallel

CREATIONISM
Sean Carroll (or insert other scientist here) writes a book explaining his research into the way genes get put to new uses as part of the evolutionary process.
Creationists continue to say "Evolution is merely an assumption made by scientists, none of their work actually demonstrates that evolution has occurred."
Logical conclusion: The creationists in question have not read Carroll's book(s).

MYTHICISM
E. P. Sanders (or insert other New Testament scholar or historian here) writes a book explaining why he believes the temple incident reflects an actual historical event.
Mythicists continue to say "The historicity of Jesus is merely an assumption historians and scholars make, none of their work actually addresses whether Jesus existed.

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.c...s-another.html

Steven Carr · 02-10-2010, 05:43 AM

JAMES
E. P. Sanders (or insert other New Testament scholar or historian here) writes a book explaining why he believes the temple incident reflects an actual historical event.

CARR
Burton Mack (or insert other New Testament scholar or historian here) writes a book explaining why he does not believe the temple incident reflects an actual historical event.

maryhelena · 02-10-2010, 10:10 AM

An interesting point made in the comments section of McGarth's article re Creationism and Mythicism.

Quote:

Jay Raskin

Technology often affects ideological fields in strange ways. The invention of the book brought about the reconfiguration of ancient greco-Roman mythology into Christianity, the invention of the printing press brought about the Protestant reformation of Christianity, the invention of the internet, I would conjecture is reconfiguring the field of religious studies in a similar revolutionary way.

It is forums, like this one, blogs, like Neil's - that are doing their bit in keeping the skeptic viewpoints center stage....

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

02-10-2010, 05:43 AM	#49
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	JAMES E. P. Sanders (or insert other New Testament scholar or historian here) writes a book explaining why he believes the temple incident reflects an actual historical event. CARR Burton Mack (or insert other New Testament scholar or historian here) writes a book explaining why he does not believe the temple incident reflects an actual historical event.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.