Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 01-24-2012, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

In my case, began as a myth created by post-Temple non-indigenous Hellenistic 'Jews' (ethinic Judeans) primarily as religious/political propaganda intended for consumption by the Gentiles (Greeks) and contemporary non-indigenous 'Jews', circa 100-180 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

A Jew shouldn't be engaged in attempting to legitimize any claims for the goyim's syncretized mythical sun god.

So where does the "goyim's syncretized mythical sun god" come in? Is it the product of "post-Temple non-indigenous Hellenistic 'Jews'?" And why the scare quotes?

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

Toto · 01-24-2012, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

..

But they do not hold that he was a Jew, ie. a Jewish man. That is unacceptable to the mythicists.

No more than the idea that he was an Aryan man, which has even less support.

Quote:

Anyway, which mythicist holds the position that Christ and the New Testament are wholly Jewish? R. G. Price in his self-published treatise is the only one I can think of. Every other mythicist roots Christ and the New Testament in some kind of pagan origin. Correspondences with the Talmud are never discussed by mythicists.

Robert Price - New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash

Why should anyone discuss the Talmud? It is too late to be a historical source.

Quote:

My own guess is that the Christianity of the Klan is only skin deep, that they harken back to the glory days of Celtic paganism, and that the scholarly consensus that Christ was a Jew is driving them into mythicism. Mythicists are paving the way for the far Right to establish a Jew-free Christ.

The Klan does not read scholarship.

Quote:

No one else wants to be associated with a burning cross.

Why not, if it is nothing but, "quaint anthropological relics of humanities bloody and shameful past?"

Because of its current aggressive and threatening meaning.

No Robots · 01-24-2012, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No more than the idea that he was an Aryan man, which has even less support.

For most mythicists, Christ is an Aryan god. On the far Right, this is the preferred alternative to the Jewish man.

Quote:

Robert Price - New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash

Price is really all about pagan sources for the New Testament (and the Old Testament). Here is an example, dealing with Christ's baptism:

The scene in broad outline may derive from Zoroastrian traditions of the inauguration of Zoroaster’s ministry.

Nothing about the Jewish John the Baptist. Just the pagan Zoroaster. This is just typical de-Judaizing.

Quote:

Why should anyone discuss the Talmud? It is too late to be a historical source.

The Talmud is of the cultural and literary background as the NT.

Quote:

The Klan does not read scholarship.

Hence its openness to mythicist scribbling.

Quote:

Because of its current aggressive and threatening meaning.

That accords well with the aggressively anti-Christian tone in the mythicist camp.

Toto · 01-24-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No more than the idea that he was an Aryan man, which has even less support.

For most mythicists, Christ is an Aryan god. On the far Right, this is the preferred alternative to the Jewish man.

For most mythicists, Jesus is a fictional, mythic character who draws from many traditions.

Quote:

Price is really all about pagan sources for the New Testament (and the Old Testament). Here is an example, dealing with Christ's baptism:

The scene in broad outline may derive from Zoroastrian traditions of the inauguration of Zoroaster’s ministry.

Nothing about the Jewish John the Baptist. Just the pagan Zoroaster. This is just typical de-Judaizing.

You skipped over the numerous Jewish references to find that. But Zoroastrian influence would come through Zoroastrian influence on Judaism.

Quote:

The Talmud is of the cultural and literary background as the NT.

What does this mean?

Quote:

Hence [the Klan's] openness to mythicist scribbling.

Which you have yet to demonstrate. The Klan just doesn't read.

Quote:

Because of its current aggressive and threatening meaning.

That accords well with the aggressively anti-Christian tone in the mythicist camp.

Another baseless calumny.

The burning cross represents Christian aggression against those who violate Christian norms (as they see it.) The Confederacy was a Christian theocracy that looked to the Bible, including Jesus' words, to justify slavery.

Sheshbazzar · 01-24-2012, 01:07 PM

Hey. My Internet has been down, but it now appears that frustrating delay has worked out better anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

So where does the "goyim's syncretized mythical sun god" come in? Is it the product of "post-Temple non-indigenous Hellenistic 'Jews'?"

Certain renegade post-Temple Hellenistic Jew's found it more profitable to syncretize, than to continue weeping for a earthly Jewish Temple.
The goyim wanted a god in human form so they obliged by creating a 'son' of the Hebrew's god named Jeebus.

They were quite willing to incorporate whatever the goyim demanded, (or if they weren't, the goy easily added it latter) so we ended up with a composite son of gawd sun gawd Jeebus, with the insane rituals and sayings of wine, blood, water, and fire drawn from this, that and whatever foreign philosophy/religion/cultic practice.

Even pre-Christian Jewish midrashic writings were already incorporating the Hades hell-fire and brimstone ideas gleaned from the religions of Hellenism religions and Zoroastrianism into their writings. The destruction of Jerusalem and its centralized and established old-guard Jewish cult and power structure only hastened the process.
Other Judeans stuck to their ancient religious beliefs, and their hopes for the restoration of their land and Temple along with its traditional rites and sacrifices. And the coming of a real human Messiach. These still do.
That is why they are Jewish rather than turning into half-baked Christians, Muslims, or other mongrel religions.

This is why I said 'A Jew shouldn't be engaged in attempting to legitimize any claims for the goyim's syncretized mythical sun god.'
Jeebus is f..king mytical fraud. One that no true Jew anywhere should ever touch with a ten foot pole, much less embrace as ever being any real citizen of Israel.

That ought to be clear enough.

Adam · 02-16-2012, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

"It is indisputable that he was put to death by the Roman authorities"

I always get a chuckle out of statements like this that ignore the obvious fact that non-believers, and skeptics have been disputing the Christian tale for ages.
'Course whenever the Church could get their hands on them, they never disputed anything ever again.

The Passion Narrative underlying the four gospels has nothing necessarily supernatural about it. A fair assessment cannot judge it all as oral, so it must be earlier than any of the four gospels and hence presumably historical, as it must have been quite an embarrassment for the first Christians.
As I have shown in Gospel Eyewitnesses in this sub-forum (in my Post #526 and #534) there is evidence that eyewitnesses wrote other accounts about Jesus without supernatural trappings, hence HJ triumphs over MJ. (Anybody ever hear of Q? Of L? The Discourses in John can also be separated from supernatural events.) I found MJ amusing when I started posting in FRDB, but I now find it just a sad commentary on human nature that people defend it so adamantly. (People are entitiled to their opinions, but not to shooting the messenger who dares to express contrary opinions.) I had always expected to reach a stalemate in my endeavours here, and that's how it remains regarding supernaturalism, but I see myself as having reached an unexpected victory in quashing MJ. (I realize that I have not explained my four eyewitness sources yet in a way that would be convincing to all MJ supporters, but judging by MJers who do know enough about my theory and who knee-jerk attack it, just presenting more evidence won't convince anybody. That's human nature.)

Any evidence is better than none. Adam may learn that one day. Railing against MJers is no substitute for cleaning up one's own house.

The emergence of the notion of a historical Jesus is a reaction to a slow intellectual awakening that began to manifest itself in the renaissance, expanded during the enlightenment and blossomed with the rise of science especially in the latter half of c. 19. A greater rigor had become the standard of intellectual pursuits, a rigor that was turned by more scholarly christians caught up in the cultural change toward making their understanding of the christian religion more coherent in the light of the new scientific approach to the world. The notion of the historical Jesus was born under these circumstances: the rigor of the age was used to repackage Jesus. By discarding the dross of the more unscientific and incoherent elements Jesus was given a shiny new intellectual face. It was ultimately doomed to scholarly failure due to the lack of historical raw materials of any significance. The harder one looked at the available sources the further away Jesus moved. When one looked beyond the ontological commitments the epistemology was not transparent. What we know today is just a subset of what we knew yesterday, for we have Jesus through inheritance. Our culture passed him on as a burden we must protect. It is perhaps too hard for us to be coherent about the reality of Jesus because he has always been of our culture's intellectual property (as Allah has been in muslim culture). Claiming that Jesus didn't exist given the available sources is not very different from the claim that he did. Either way it is a case of our desires hindering our understanding.

Has anyone noticed that this is the last post we have received from spin in
over three weeks?
I did not reply to spin's reply here to me, because it was so subtle and profound, quite unlike his usual fare, that I found nothing objectionable. I even thought to myself, "Is it possible that I have finally pried open at least one mind here in FRDB?" spin seemed like such an unlikely prospect to change, but it was always clear that he was well-read and a sharp thinker.

Whatever the story with spin, what about the general principle, is it possible for a leopard (a good analogy for spin, perhaps) to change his spots? I'm not making fun of you, spin (maybe you're temporily out ill), I'm just wondering whether anyone out there on whatever discussion board (here, TWeb, or Christian Forum) is ready yet to interact seriously with me?

maryhelena · 02-16-2012, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

"It is indisputable that he was put to death by the Roman authorities"

I always get a chuckle out of statements like this that ignore the obvious fact that non-believers, and skeptics have been disputing the Christian tale for ages.
'Course whenever the Church could get their hands on them, they never disputed anything ever again.

The Passion Narrative underlying the four gospels has nothing necessarily supernatural about it. A fair assessment cannot judge it all as oral, so it must be earlier than any of the four gospels and hence presumably historical, as it must have been quite an embarrassment for the first Christians.
As I have shown in Gospel Eyewitnesses in this sub-forum (in my Post #526 and #534) there is evidence that eyewitnesses wrote other accounts about Jesus without supernatural trappings, hence HJ triumphs over MJ. (Anybody ever hear of Q? Of L? The Discourses in John can also be separated from supernatural events.) I found MJ amusing when I started posting in FRDB, but I now find it just a sad commentary on human nature that people defend it so adamantly. (People are entitiled to their opinions, but not to shooting the messenger who dares to express contrary opinions.) I had always expected to reach a stalemate in my endeavours here, and that's how it remains regarding supernaturalism, but I see myself as having reached an unexpected victory in quashing MJ. (I realize that I have not explained my four eyewitness sources yet in a way that would be convincing to all MJ supporters, but judging by MJers who do know enough about my theory and who knee-jerk attack it, just presenting more evidence won't convince anybody. That's human nature.)

Any evidence is better than none. Adam may learn that one day. Railing against MJers is no substitute for cleaning up one's own house.

The emergence of the notion of a historical Jesus is a reaction to a slow intellectual awakening that began to manifest itself in the renaissance, expanded during the enlightenment and blossomed with the rise of science especially in the latter half of c. 19. A greater rigor had become the standard of intellectual pursuits, a rigor that was turned by more scholarly christians caught up in the cultural change toward making their understanding of the christian religion more coherent in the light of the new scientific approach to the world. The notion of the historical Jesus was born under these circumstances: the rigor of the age was used to repackage Jesus. By discarding the dross of the more unscientific and incoherent elements Jesus was given a shiny new intellectual face. It was ultimately doomed to scholarly failure due to the lack of historical raw materials of any significance. The harder one looked at the available sources the further away Jesus moved. When one looked beyond the ontological commitments the epistemology was not transparent. What we know today is just a subset of what we knew yesterday, for we have Jesus through inheritance. Our culture passed him on as a burden we must protect. It is perhaps too hard for us to be coherent about the reality of Jesus because he has always been of our culture's intellectual property (as Allah has been in muslim culture). Claiming that Jesus didn't exist given the available sources is not very different from the claim that he did. Either way it is a case of our desires hindering our understanding.

Has anyone noticed that this is the last post we have received from spin in
over three weeks?
I did not reply to spin's reply here to me, because it was so subtle and profound, quite unlike his usual fare, that I found nothing objectionable. I even thought to myself, "Is it possible that I have finally pried open at least one mind here in FRDB?" spin seemed like such an unlikely prospect to change, but it was always clear that he was well-read and a sharp thinker.

Whatever the story with spin, what about the general principle, is it possible for a leopard (a good analogy for spin, perhaps) to change his spots? I'm not making fun of you, spin (maybe you're temporily out ill), I'm just wondering whether anyone out there on whatever discussion board (here, TWeb, or Christian Forum) is ready yet to interact seriously with me?

icardfacepalm:

lmbarre · 02-17-2012, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

"It is indisputable that he was put to death by the Roman authorities"

I always get a chuckle out of statements like this that ignore the obvious fact that non-believers, and skeptics have been disputing the Christian tale for ages.
'Course whenever the Church could get their hands on them, they never disputed anything ever again.

The Passion Narrative underlying the four gospels has nothing necessarily supernatural about it. A fair assessment cannot judge it all as oral, so it must be earlier than any of the four gospels and hence presumably historical, as it must have been quite an embarrassment for the first Christians.
As I have shown in Gospel Eyewitnesses in this sub-forum (in my Post #526 and #534) there is evidence that eyewitnesses wrote other accounts about Jesus without supernatural trappings, hence HJ triumphs over MJ. (Anybody ever hear of Q? Of L? The Discourses in John can also be separated from supernatural events.) I found MJ amusing when I started posting in FRDB, but I now find it just a sad commentary on human nature that people defend it so adamantly. (People are entitiled to their opinions, but not to shooting the messenger who dares to express contrary opinions.) I had always expected to reach a stalemate in my endeavours here, and that's how it remains regarding supernaturalism, but I see myself as having reached an unexpected victory in quashing MJ. (I realize that I have not explained my four eyewitness sources yet in a way that would be convincing to all MJ supporters, but judging by MJers who do know enough about my theory and who knee-jerk attack it, just presenting more evidence won't convince anybody. That's human nature.)

Any evidence is better than none. Adam may learn that one day. Railing against MJers is no substitute for cleaning up one's own house.

The emergence of the notion of a historical Jesus is a reaction to a slow intellectual awakening that began to manifest itself in the renaissance, expanded during the enlightenment and blossomed with the rise of science especially in the latter half of c. 19. A greater rigor had become the standard of intellectual pursuits, a rigor that was turned by more scholarly christians caught up in the cultural change toward making their understanding of the christian religion more coherent in the light of the new scientific approach to the world. The notion of the historical Jesus was born under these circumstances: the rigor of the age was used to repackage Jesus. By discarding the dross of the more unscientific and incoherent elements Jesus was given a shiny new intellectual face. It was ultimately doomed to scholarly failure due to the lack of historical raw materials of any significance. The harder one looked at the available sources the further away Jesus moved. When one looked beyond the ontological commitments the epistemology was not transparent. What we know today is just a subset of what we knew yesterday, for we have Jesus through inheritance. Our culture passed him on as a burden we must protect. It is perhaps too hard for us to be coherent about the reality of Jesus because he has always been of our culture's intellectual property (as Allah has been in muslim culture). Claiming that Jesus didn't exist given the available sources is not very different from the claim that he did. Either way it is a case of our desires hindering our understanding.

Has anyone noticed that this is the last post we have received from spin in
over three weeks?
I did not reply to spin's reply here to me, because it was so subtle and profound, quite unlike his usual fare, that I found nothing objectionable. I even thought to myself, "Is it possible that I have finally pried open at least one mind here in FRDB?" spin seemed like such an unlikely prospect to change, but it was always clear that he was well-read and a sharp thinker.

Whatever the story with spin, what about the general principle, is it possible for a leopard (a good analogy for spin, perhaps) to change his spots? I'm not making fun of you, spin (maybe you're temporily out ill), I'm just wondering whether anyone out there on whatever discussion board (here, TWeb, or Christian Forum) is ready yet to interact seriously with me?

icardfacepalm:

Quotations are from Wikepedia:

"[Albert] Schweitzer, a Lutheran, challenged both the secular view of Jesus as depicted by historical-critical methodology current at his time in certain academic circles, as well as the traditional Christian view."

In 1906 he published Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung ("History of Life-of-Jesus research"). This book, which established his reputation, was first translated into English by William Montgomery and published in 1910 as The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Under this title the book became famous in the English-speaking world. A second German edition was published in 1913, containing theologically significant revisions and expansions: but this revised edition did not appear in English until 2001.[24]

In The Quest, Schweitzer reviewed all former work on the "historical Jesus" back to the late 18th century. He showed that the image of Jesus had changed with the times and outlooks of the various authors, and gave his own synopsis and interpretation of the previous century's findings. He maintained that the life of Jesus must be interpreted in the light of Jesus' own convictions, which reflected late Jewish eschatology. Schweitzer, however, writes: "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed."[25]

I admire Schweitzer for spotting a certain "sociology of biblical scholarship" at work in his day.

Spin, why is the claim that Jesus didn't exist, is it "not very different" from the claim that he did? But logically speaking with regard to a thesis (claim) and its evidence, they are "not very different". . . they are the same.

Toto · 05-21-2012, 11:43 AM

Tom Verenna comments.

Quote:

Here is the ToC:
Foreword – Morna Hooke

Introduction – The Rise of the Quest for an Authentic Jesus: An Introduction to the Crumbling Foundations of Jesus Studies – Anthony Le Donne

Part One: Historical Methodology and the Quest for an Authentic Jesus

The Indebtedness of the Criteria Approach to Form Criticism and Recent Attempts to Rehabilitate the Search for an Authentic Jesus Chris Keith
The Criteria of Authenticity in Jesus Research and Historiographical Method Jens Schröter
Part Two: Specific Criteria in the Quest for an Authentic Jesus
Why the Criterion of Semitisms Cannot Deliver Authenticity Loren Stuckenbruck
The Criterion of Coherence: Its Development, Inevitability, and Historiographical Limitations Anthony Le Donne
Saving the Quest for Authenticity from the Criterion of Dissimilarity: History and Plausibility Dagmar Winter
The Embarrassing Truth about Jesus: The Demise of the Criterion of Embarrassment Rafael Rodriguez
Criticizing the Criterion of Multiple Attestation: The Historical Jesus and the Question of Sources Mark Goodacre

Part Three: Reflections on Moving Past Traditional Jesus Research

Why the Authentic Jesus is Useless for the Church Scot McKnight
It Don’t Come Easy: A History of Disillusionment Dale Allison

Conclusion – The Fall of the Quest for an Authentic Jesus: Concluding Remarks Chris Keith

Toto · 05-21-2012, 11:53 AM

The conference around this book has been rescheduled, after the original location fired Anthony LeDonne for heresy.

The 2012 Jesus Conference will be held Oct. 4 and 5, 2012 in Dayton, OH. The co-hosts are United Theological Seminary (United Methodist) and the University of Dayton’s Center for Scriptural Exegesis, Philosophy, and Doctrine (Catholic).

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

05-21-2012, 11:53 AM	#140
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The conference around this book has been rescheduled, after the original location fired Anthony LeDonne for heresy. The 2012 Jesus Conference will be held Oct. 4 and 5, 2012 in Dayton, OH. The co-hosts are United Theological Seminary (United Methodist) and the University of Dayton’s Center for Scriptural Exegesis, Philosophy, and Doctrine (Catholic).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.