Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 06-05-2006, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/BkrvEll.htm

Well, now you just may have changed my mind. Because here is the alternative explanation I was asking for: 'Christianity began with the development, spread, and acceptance of new ideas within the pre-existing Essene movement'. Because we know there was an Essene movement. I don't know enough about the Essenes to know how plausible this explanation is, in comparison with the 'origin in the following-of-Jesus' model I was talking about before. But at least it is a model that the question can be asked about.

J-D · 06-05-2006, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

The questions are the ones Geetamore posted in response to my simplistic summarization of my objection to an HJ back in post 404.

In that case, my general answer is indeed the one I mentioned in the post you responded to. And specifically I see a lot of merit in the answers given by The Bishop in post #407.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

So the single issue twixt you and I it seems is whether there was an indivdual (or possibly multiplle individuals later conflated) at the root of Christian origins or not. Either way, no miracles were performed, no one rose from the dead. Not much of a squabble in my view.

Perhaps not much. But I thought it was the issue this thread was about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

My biggest concern is that the state of reasoning skills in many powerful people is such that if your sort of HJ is shown to have existed, then they consequently assume that all of the other stories we have about him are also true and proven. You and I won't go there, but many do.

OK. But I hope you're not suggesting that I shouldn't say what I think because some boneheads might misinterpret it.

J-D · 06-05-2006, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Does anyone put forward a founder of rabbinic judaism? It can be understood as a solution to a problem - how can we worship without a temple or if we are not near the temple. Why not see xianity in the same light, we need a messiah, Ok, let's make one up!

You haven't heard of Rabban Yokhanan ben Zakkai? Or do you dispute his historicity?

J-D · 06-05-2006, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I am saying that there is something wrong in the way mythicists portray their opponents as unscientific fideists. This is akin to the way clerics treated their opponents as dangerous heretics.

The way I see it, there's nothing necessarily wrong with calling people 'unscientific' and there's nothng necessarily wrong with calling people 'heretics'. Burning people to death for being heretics, that's wrong. But I never heard of anybody being burned to death for being unscientific.

J-D · 06-05-2006, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is Brunner a reaction to a Nietzchean (sp) superman?

Does not his jesus make more sense as a superhero? A theme in Batman is his dark side - why is he hiding his identity?

Taoism is an ancient approach to what is to be done about the interplay of good and evil - why not argue it is circular and interrelated?

I am reminded of a song - godspell, jc superstar (?), is he a man?

gods in druidic times were larger than life (might goliath have been a god?)

When I hear hero stories the presumption has to be - another god - imaginary hero, fiction.

There are hero stories about the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. Does that make you presume there was no such historical figure?

J-D · 06-05-2006, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

What else is needed to explain the existence of a group of like-minded individuals reconsidering traditional messianic expectations besides recognizing that this activity was apparently quite common at the time?

Reading is a common activity. But if I asked how a particular reading group got started, it wouldn't be a sufficient answer to say 'reading is a common activity', now would it?

J-D · 06-05-2006, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

like this:
Child: Dad, why are there Christians?
Dad: Because there was a man named Jesus, who was called Christ, the Savior of all mankind.
Child: How do we know Jesus really existed.
Dad: Because there are Christians.

J-D, since these responses are to my post 456, let me just wait until you catch up to 506 to say much more.

How do we know Jesus existed? --Because there are Christians.
How do we know there are Christians? --Because we can see them and hear them!

No circularity there. So let's try it the other way:

Why are there Christians? --Because of Jesus.
Why was there Jesus? --Well, when a Mummy and a Daddy love each other very much, there's a special thing they like to do, and sometimes a baby comes.

No circularity there, either.

Sparrow · 06-05-2006, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

How do we know Jesus existed? --Because there are Christians.
How do we know there are Christians? --Because we can see them and hear them!

No circularity there. So let's try it the other way:

Why are there Christians? --Because of Jesus.
Why was there Jesus? --Well, when a Mummy and a Daddy love each other very much, there's a special thing they like to do, and sometimes a baby comes.

No circularity there, either.

You're going to make me mention you know who just to invoke Godwin's Law aren't you?

Amaleq13 · 06-05-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Reading is a common activity. But if I asked how a particular reading group got started, it wouldn't be a sufficient answer to say 'reading is a common activity', now would it?

Of course it would.

"I don't know how that particular reading group started but they were apparently not uncommon."

Likewise:

"I don't know how that particular group of messianic reinterpreters started but they were apparently not uncommon."

It seems unreasonable to expect more or to consider the absence of more specific evidence to be significant.

Didymus · 06-05-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Unlikely, especially since his Gospel is built up from the kind of self-contained stories that one would expect to be the stuff of oral tradition.

Again, read Turton's commentary. The LXX, not oral tradition, appears to have been Mark's prime source. The correspondences are just too numerous and too similar to be explained in any other way.

Quote:

If Paul can casually refer to the Pillars as if he expected the Galatians to know who they were, the likelihood that Mark wouldn't know roughly who they were and what they were about is pretty small.

We have no way of knowing what Mark's readers in the Diaspora knew or didn't know about Peter, James and John two or three decades after Paul wrote Galatians, and prior to the publication of Mark. Even if Mark's community had heard the Epistle word for word, there's nothing there to preclude the additional information that the Pillars were Jesus' companions during his earthly ministry.

Quote:

Making up unverifiable legends about movement leaders is one thing, and a common thing at that, but making up a history about them that would be false on its face to fellow Christians is quite another.

Mark made up lots of things, many of which he probably believed to be "true" in the grandiose sense of the term. Peter, James and John were famous leaders of the early church. Including their names on the roster of disciples would have made sense to his readers/hearers. It would not have been "false on its face," it was simply additional biography that they hadn't known about previously.

Despite repeated attempts, you have still not made a case for Paul having thought that "the Pillars" were Jesus' constant companions during his time on earth. Of all the Pauline Silences, his omission of that crucial "fact" is one of the most glaring.

Didymus

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.