Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-18-2005, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtype_alpha

I'm not much of a historian or anything, ...

Noted

Quote:

If Marx or Engels were irrelevant figures who caused nothing but trouble and have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory or the origin thereof, then by all means remove them. Unfortunately, Marx--despite the controversy around him--is still a massively influential figure both directly and vicariously through other socialist movements and thinkers. I think you'll find that quite a number of the mythicists in the late 19th and early 20th century were also symapthetic to socialism. Great minds think alike, sometimes.

I think you will find that quite a number of intellectuals in the late 19th and much of the 20th century were sympathetic to socialism - both mythicists and historicists. Dragging Engels into the discussion is not adding relevant imformation.

Vorkosigan · 12-18-2005, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtype_alpha

I'm not much of a historian or anything,

It's not a good idea to drop opening lines like that around here....

Quote:

If Marx or Engels were irrelevant figures who caused nothing but trouble and have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory or the origin thereof, then by all means remove them. Unfortunately, Marx--despite the controversy around him--is still a massively influential figure both directly and vicariously through other socialist movements and thinkers. I think you'll find that quite a number of the mythicists in the late 19th and early 20th century were also symapthetic to socialism. Great minds think alike, sometimes.

It's not a difficult question to answer. Just explain what Marx has to do with the development of Jesus Mythicism.

Quote:

I think you'll find that quite a number of the mythicists in the late 19th and early 20th century were also symapthetic to socialism.

A number of mythicists in the 19th century were sympathetic to Capitalism. And many socialists were Christians. Many atheists also liked ice cream, and certain theosophists often wore T-shirts even in the winter. And none of that has anything to do with Jesus mythicism.

Quote:

Great minds think alike, sometimes.

Interest how after chiding others for a lack of ethics, you end with a smear of your own.

Vorkosigan

Clivedurdle · 12-18-2005, 04:19 AM

I looked at the link to what Engels wrote, and unless I missed it, how exactly do his views fit with the mythicist viewpoint?

Maybe a subsection is required about history and development of the mythicist viewpoint - some one replied to me on another thread about these ideas had been fashionable in the twentieth century - I don't know anything about that - anyone else able to comment?

The position of Freke and Gandy, about the role of gnosticism, does require arguing coherently as part of this historical overview. A conclusion that the historicists have not answered the questions of the mythicists would be appropriate.

Quote:

robto
The origin of Xianity in a "gnostic redeemer myth" was a popular scholarly hypothesis for several decades. It has now been largely abandoned (tho Walter Schmithals still holds on to the idea, for one) for lack of evidence of any developed gnostic system that existed before Xianity.

I haven't read "Goddess" but I read Freke and Gandy's earlier book, "The Jesus Mysteries". I was unimpressed. They are trying to return to a "history of religions school" approach that is about a hundred years out of date, and have basically ignored the last century of scholarship.

Clivedurdle · 12-18-2005, 04:29 AM

http://www.rtforum.org/study/lesson11.html

Quote:

THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM
Study Program
Oblates of Wisdom, P.O. Box 13230, St. Louis, MO 63157 U.S.A.
Email to jfm@rtforum.org

LESSON 11: THE CALLING OF NATHANAEL (John 1:45-51): LITERAL SENSE
by John F. McCarthy
(October 1999)

71. The text of John 1:45-51. The text of the calling of Nathanael in an English translation reads as follows:

45Philip finds Nathanael and says to him: "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth."
46And Nathanael said to him: "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" Philip says to him: "Come and see."
47Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and he says concerning him: "Behold indeed an Israelite in whom there is no guile!"
48Nathanael says to him: "From where do you know me? Jesus answered and said to him: "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."
49Nathanael answered him: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"
50Jesus answered and said to him: "Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, you believe. Greater things than these shall you see."
51And he says to him: "Amen, amen, I say to you [plural], you [plural] will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."

72. Rudolf Bultmann's approach. As a leading historical-critic of the rationalist school and as a founder of the form-criticism of the Gospels, Rudolf Bultmann, in his celebrated commentary entitled The Gospel of John1, begins from the assumption that God does not exist in objective reality. Thus, the belief shown in the Gospel of St. John that God the Father is (by appropriation) the Creator of all things and that God the Son became incarnate to save us from our sins must be traced to mere figments of the religious imagination that arose among primitive dreamers in the past. For Bultmann, Jesus of Nazareth was a mere man, relatively uneducated and limited to the knowledge that he might have gained from the local culture that surrounded him. Neither he nor his disciples could have imagined him as a divine Person become incarnate, and so this idea, which pervades the Gospel of St. John, came into Christianity only after it had spread into the pagan Hellenistic world and had adopted this idea from the Gnostic Redeemer-myth.2 This myth "provides the terminology for the christology of John."3 Thus, while the expression "son of God" originally applied to the expected human Messiah in the Hebrew tradition, it is transposed in John to refer to Jesus as a divine Person.4 For instance, in John 1:51 the "Johannine Jesus" speaks of the angels of God ascending and descending upon himself as the "Son of Man," whereas the "historical Jesus" never called upon people to believe in his person, nor did he ever refer to himself as the "Son of Man."5 Hence, the episode of the calling of Nathanael is an invention of the Hellenistic Church, cast back into the life of the historical Jesus in order to ascribe divinity to his person. As far as historical truth is concerned, Bultmann allows that "it is possible that the Johannine narrative contains reliable historical tradition, namely, the fact that there were erstwhile disciples of the Baptist among Jesus' first disciples, who perhaps joined him when he broke away from the Baptist."6 But that is as much real history as Bultmann sees in it.

73. Bultmann's error. Bultmann's interpretation of the calling of Nathanael stems ultimately from his disbelief in the objective existence of God and of supernatural reality in general, with particular emphasis upon his disbelief in the divinity of Jesus. From this viewpoint any other interpretation is preferable to the true one, although the more plausible the substitute interpretation, so much the better. But Bultmann does not use historical science correctly. The Gnostic Redeemer-myth arose as a heresy of Christianity after the Incarnation, death, and Resurrection of Jesus were already known to have taken place; it arose from demonic suggestion aimed at twisting the historical truth about Jesus. The refutation of Bultmann's interpretation of this episode is given by straightening out the twisted notion of Gnostic influence upon the Gospel which he presents and by approaching the text of the episode with valid historical method.7.....

andrewcriddle · 12-18-2005, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I looked at the link to what Engels wrote, and unless I missed it, how exactly do his views fit with the mythicist viewpoint?

There is an interesting essay on Bauer by Engels http://libcom.org/library/bruno-baue...tianity-engels

(Apologies if it already has been posted)

Quote:

Bruno Bauer has contributed far more to the solution of this question than anybody else. No matter how much the half-believing theologians of the period of reaction have struggled against him since 1849, he irrefutably proved the chronological order of the Gospels and their mutual interdependence, shown by Wilke from the purely linguistic standpoint, by the very contents of the Gospels themselves. He exposed the utter lack of scientific spirit of Strauss' vague myth theory according to which anybody can hold for historical as much as he likes in the Gospel narrations. And, if almost nothing from the whole content of the Gospels turns out to be historically provable -- so that even the historical existence of a Jesus Christ can be questioned -- Bauer has, thereby, only cleared the ground for the solution of the question: what is the origin of the ideas and thoughts that have been woven together into a sort of system in Christianity, and how came they to dominate the world?
.................................................. ............
One can get an idea of what Christianity looked like in its early form by reading the so-called Book of Revelation of John. Wild, confused fanaticism, only the beginnings of dogmas, only the mortification of the flesh of the so-called Christian morals, but on the other hand a multitude of visions and prophesies. The development of the dogmas and moral doctrine belongs to a later period, in which the Gospels and the so-called Epistles of the Apostles were written. In this -- at least as regards morals -- the philosophy of the stoics, of Seneca in particular, was unceremoniously made us of. Bauer proved that the Epistles often copy the latter word-for-word; in fact, even the faithful noticed this, but they maintained that Seneca had copied from the New Testament, though it had not yet been written in his time. Dogma developed, on the one hand in connection with the legend of Jesus which was then taking shape, and, on the other hand, in the struggle between Christians of Jewish and of pagan origin.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 12-18-2005, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Bauer proved that the Epistles often copy the latter word-for-word; in fact, even the faithful noticed this, but they maintained that Seneca had copied from the New Testament, though it had not yet been written in his time.

Have you got references for the above - especially xians agreeing Seneca and the NT are the same?

Clivedurdle · 12-18-2005, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Bauer studied this question until his death. His research reached its culminating point in the conclusion that the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who was still living about A.D. 40 but was already very old, was the real father of Christianity, and that the Roman stoic Seneca was, so to speak, its uncle.

Fascinating that all the godman stuff, divus julius etc was commented on by Engels!

Is Bauer the equivalent to Darwin for theology?

Orthodox_Freethinker · 12-20-2005, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

scholarly-ethically-challenged apologists

Notice, this is the definition of any non-atheist.

The arguments against the "Jesus Myth" in this article are rather valid and show that the radical fringe is grasping for straws.

GakuseiDon · 12-20-2005, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skullnboner

I am not sure what I stumbled into here! Political ideologies seem to have influenced the opinions about "mythicism". I have noted the silent treatment, with one vitriolic comment, against Acharya S as a mythicist. I have few axes to grind, except against innate prejudices that deter one from seeking ALL opinions in the search for truth---if that what this forum is about. I have heard of some of the mythicists here, and have yet to read their viewpoints (some I am familiar with). However, to dismiss Acharya S for example, presenting a view of the Christ-myth as outside the scope of this theme involves prejudice and ignorance.
Acharya S is no slouch in representing this view in a creditable manner and with credentials, that most of us in here can hardly claim to have. Vitriolic....give me a break! There is nothing more vitriolic than a liar, deciever, fraudster...you name it. You all know how to get to her site....go and READ, before you make unfounded opinions. Ultimately, I hope truth is your objective, not based on some preconceived notions or fear of upsetting "sensitive' or rather cowardly sensibilities.

Skullnboner, Acharya S has been slammed by skeptics and Christ Mythers, hardly people who have an axe to grind or preconceived notions.

Isn't it possible that she is simply not as creditable as you believe? Has she published in a peer-reviewed format?

Marxist · 12-20-2005, 08:39 AM

Vork, I don't see why you would mention someone like Atwill, while not mentioning Marxists like Engels and Kautsky (who wrote a book arguing, like Price, that the Jesus of history, if he existed, is unknowable). Maybe you think it is a smear to the Christ-myth idea that it had its earliest supporters among Marxists, but I don't. It is actually a badge of honor for me.

Kautsky, The Foundations of Christianity

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

12-20-2005, 08:39 AM	#50
Marxist Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: US Posts: 301	Vork, I don't see why you would mention someone like Atwill, while not mentioning Marxists like Engels and Kautsky (who wrote a book arguing, like Price, that the Jesus of history, if he existed, is unknowable). Maybe you think it is a smear to the Christ-myth idea that it had its earliest supporters among Marxists, but I don't. It is actually a badge of honor for me. Kautsky, The Foundations of Christianity

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.