Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-09-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

...

Is the myth historicist argument really a post enlightenment one - HJ was invented by xians post 1500 as a response to the slow dissapearance of things that go bump in the night?

Malachi151 would probably get some value out of Charlotte Allen's The Human Christ (read with a grain of salt).

Clivedurdle · 07-09-2006, 02:30 PM

A possible conclusion of your review is that catholicism is preaching and always has preached an mj? Have I read that correctly?

Toto · 07-09-2006, 02:37 PM

Catholicism has always preached that Jesus Christ is supernatural (as well as human). The idea that a rational, human Jesus can be separated out from Christ, and the mystery removed from the religion, is a post-enlightenment Protestant-type heresy.

Solo · 07-09-2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

There is a huge amount of unpicking to do, we have all the features of novel, godman, hero. If there was anyone around from Nazareth they cannot be recognised as anything like the jesus of the nt. Thus on logical grounds you go mythical, as there are clear mythical antecedents all over the place!

The elementary problem with the NT myth is that it is a type almost completely unknown to other religions. The only other major religion whose traditions describe the "opposition" to its founder and disbelief in his mission is Islam but none of the struggle reaches the mythical plane.

We know for example from several hadith' that one of the central religious events the prophet's ascension and overnight journey to Jerusalem ("al isra wal Miraj") caused a split in the movement, yet the scripts do not present the happenings of the night (which has an actual date pinned to it) as something open to debate, let alone as something that could be seen from an opposing point of view as an act of sacrilegous sorcery. Jibril comes in the dark, removes the roof of the prophet's house, rips his chest open, washes his inside with holy water, puts him on a paradisiac version of a donkey and beams him up into heaven, and that's that. Don't believe it at your own peril !

When Jesus raises Lazarus, some seeing the miracle believe in him but some seeing the miracle go complain to the authorities. Complain about what ? How could it be possible they believe Jesus performed a miracle and yet they conspire to harm him ? Where would people, who saw a man rewarding a family’s faith in the unlimited power of God by making a stinking corpse of their relative walk, get the idea that this was the wrong thing to do ? Why should the Sanhedrin have been afraid of the Romans if they believed in the reality of Jesus’ deeds ? (Jn 11:47) Could not the native son who brought men back from the dead – could he not also turn the Imperial legions into heaps of stones ? Would it not, at the very least, have been prudent to ask a question to make sure he could not do that ? No ? Because, even if the priests were wicked and hated Jesus, would they not have been afraid he could turn them into a heap of stones ? They would, if they had believed.
But they evidently did not believe Jesus performed miracles. Therefore, the story does not have the making of a mythical event. Mythical heros do not enter into contests with mortal dwarfs. Mythical events are not subject to opinions from within. John's Lazarus is transparently a theological thesis overwriting something else. What ? A novel ? :rolling: I am afraid not.

JS

Malachi151 · 07-10-2006, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The elementary problem with the NT myth is that it is a type almost completely unknown to other religions. The only other major religion whose traditions describe the "opposition" to its founder and disbelief in his mission is Islam but none of the struggle reaches the mythical plane.

We know for example from several hadith' that one of the central religious events the prophet's ascension and overnight journey to Jerusalem ("al isra wal Miraj") caused a split in the movement, yet the scripts do not present the happenings of the night (which has an actual date pinned to it) as something open to debate, let alone as something that could be seen from an opposing point of view as an act of sacrilegous sorcery. Jibril comes in the dark, removes the roof of the prophet's house, rips his chest open, washes his inside with holy water, puts him on a paradisiac version of a donkey and beams him up into heaven, and that's that. Don't believe it at your own peril !

When Jesus raises Lazarus, some seeing the miracle believe in him but some seeing the miracle go complain to the authorities. Complain about what ? How could it be possible they believe Jesus performed a miracle and yet they conspire to harm him ? Where would people, who saw a man rewarding a family’s faith in the unlimited power of God by making a stinking corpse of their relative walk, get the idea that this was the wrong thing to do ? Why should the Sanhedrin have been afraid of the Romans if they believed in the reality of Jesus’ deeds ? (Jn 11:47) Could not the native son who brought men back from the dead – could he not also turn the Imperial legions into heaps of stones ? Would it not, at the very least, have been prudent to ask a question to make sure he could not do that ? No ? Because, even if the priests were wicked and hated Jesus, would they not have been afraid he could turn them into a heap of stones ? They would, if they had believed.
But they evidently did not believe Jesus performed miracles. Therefore, the story does not have the making of a mythical event. Mythical heros do not enter into contests with mortal dwarfs. Mythical events are not subject to opinions from within. John's Lazarus is transparently a theological thesis overwriting something else. What ? A novel ? :rolling: I am afraid not.

JS

Actually, the conclusion is the opposite. Why, indeed, would real people see someone raise the dead and not think anything about it other than to go tell authorities on him. Does this really seem reasonable to you?

Why would someone who was really healing sick people, be so hated?

Doesn't make any sense at all.

If you read books like The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, you see that these things are quite easily explained by the mythic tradition of the Greeks.

In The Bacche, for example, a play about Dionysus written in 404 BCE, Dionysus claims that he is the son of Zeus and a mortal woman, but that people don't believe it, he travels throughout Greece and there are dispelievers, some people can't witnesss his mericles, and he says it is becuase they do not have enough faith, a powerful disbeliever captures him, tortures him, and kills him, then he is resurrected.

The end of the play:

Quote:

DIONYSUS: Yes, I am Dionysus, son of Zeus.
You see me now before you as a god.
You Thebans learned about my powers too late.
Dishonouring me, you earn the penalty.
You refused my rites. Now you must leave—
abandon your city for barbarian lands.
Agave, too, that polluted creature,
must go into perpetual banishment.
And Cadmus, you too must endure your lot.]
Your form will change, so you become a dragon.
Your wife, Harmonia, Ares' daughter,
whom you, though mortal, took in marriage,
will be transformed, changing to a snake.
As Zeus' oracle declares, you and she
will drive a chariot drawn by heifers.
You'll rule barbarians. With your armies,
too large to count, you'll raze many cities.
Once they despoil Apollo's oracle,
they'll have a painful journey back again.
But Ares will guard you and Harmonia.
In lands of the blessed he'll transform your lives.
That's what I proclaim—I, Dionysus,
born from no mortal father, but from Zeus.
If you had understood how to behave
as you should have when you were unwilling,
you'd now be fortunate, with Zeus' child
among your allies.

CADMUS: O Dionysus,
we implore you—we've not acted justly.

DIONYSUS: You learn too late. You were ignorant
when you should have known.

CADMUS: Now we understand.
Your actions against us are too severe.

DIONYSUS: I was born a god, and you insulted me.

CADMUS: Angry gods should not act just like humans.

DIONYSUS: My father Zeus willed all this long ago.

...

DIONYSUS: Yes. For at your hands I suffered, too—
and dreadfully. For here in Thebes
my name received no recognition.

Hmmm... so Jesus comes to earth, people don't recognize him as a god, he gets angry with them, he does throw in a line about "forgive them for they know not what they do", but in the end its still the same, if you don't believe in me, then you wiull suffer for all eternity....

So, you are completely wrong, there are plenty of other religions that describe opposition to the founder. The Mystery Religion of Dionysus went on to become one of the most popular religions in Greece and Rome by the 1st century.

Roger Pearse · 07-10-2006, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Catholicism has always preached that Jesus Christ is supernatural (as well as human). The idea that a rational, human Jesus can be separated out from Christ, and the mystery removed from the religion, is a post-enlightenment Protestant-type heresy.

Associated fairly strongly with Germany in the 19th century, if I understand correctly.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Solo · 07-10-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Actually, the conclusion is the opposite. Why, indeed, would real people see someone raise the dead and not think anything about it other than to go tell authorities on him. Does this really seem reasonable to you?

I don't think you understand my argument. If Jesus "really" brought a "really" dead Lazarus to life, the witnesses would have been too awed, overwhelmed to go and "complain". But in the story they do go to the authorities and complain, and the authorities on evaluating the reports decide to kill Jesus. Ergo, within the story, you have a group of people who, by their actions belie the assertion that a miracle happened.

If that miracle is visible only to believers, what did the non-believers witness ?

Quote:

Why would someone who was really healing sick people, be so hated?
Doesn't make any sense at all.

Precisely my point. You see there is an external, Talmudic view of Jesus as a sorcerer and trickster who mocked the traditional Judaic teachings and the Pharisees. This view was known to Celsus. Origen denies that Jesus was a sorcerer but admits, a) that resurrection is visible only to "faith" b) there are "esoteric" doctrines within Christianity.

So logically speaking, one would have to admit that there were parallel myths about Jesus: one as a miracle worker and great power of God on earth, who nonetheless suffered an ignominius crucifixion, and the other as a sorcerer and fraud who therefore suffered ignominius crucifixion.

To my way of thinking, and anayzing the texts for cognitive patterns, the historical existence of Jesus seems a much reasonable assumption for the self-contradicting myth of Lazarus (based on the way John 11 was written) than one arguing that it was a nonsensical myth about a fictitious person written to defeat a hostile counter-myth.

Quote:

If you read books like The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, you see that these things are quite easily explained by the mythic tradition of the Greeks.

They are evidently "easily explained" that way to you.

Quote:

In The Bacche, for example, a play about Dionysus written in 404 BCE, Dionysus claims that he is the son of Zeus and a mortal woman, but that people don't believe it, he travels throughout Greece and there are dispelievers, some people can't witnesss his mericles, and he says it is becuase they do not have enough faith, a powerful disbeliever captures him, tortures him, and kills him, then he is resurrected.

A 'powerful disbeliever'....hmmm, would that be something akin to 'atheist enthusiast' ?

JS

PhilosopherJay · 07-10-2006, 08:30 AM

Hi Clivedurdle,

Excellent points.

A similar example to the situation with Jesus I believe is the mythological founder of Rome, Aeneas. Although, Homer is the source of the Aeneas character and there is nothing to suggest that is he anything but mythological (his mother was the Godddess Aphrodite), even the best Roman historican, Livy, never doubts his existence for a moment.

Warmly,

PhilosopherJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I think there is a real problem that before the enlightenment everyone's world view contained god gods spirits devils. Jesus was part and parcel of this.

The concept of jesus as myth could therefore only be spoken post enlightenment, but it is in fact the converse side of a coin - the hj is the other side, or like janus.

HJ and MJ are both post enlightenment ideas that developed with a bias towards hj arising because the enlightenment asks historical type questions and it was an easy assumption to make that this godman was a real person. Would the question have been that important in a world where the dead could be raised? Even the story of Doubting Thomas - putting hands in wounds of a ressurected person, cannot be true - but is reasonable in a world where everyone believes in this stuff!

There is a huge amount of unpicking to do, we have all the features of novel, godman, hero. If there was anyone around from Nazareth they cannot be recognised as anything like the jesus of the nt. Thus on logical grounds you go mythical, as there are clear mythical antecedents all over the place!

aa5874 · 07-10-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

In The Bacche, for example, a play about Dionysus written in 404 BCE, Dionysus claims that he is the son of Zeus and a mortal woman, but that people don't believe it, he travels throughout Greece and there are dispelievers, some people can't witnesss his mericles, and he says it is becuase they do not have enough faith, a powerful disbeliever captures him, tortures him, and kills him, then he is resurrected.

Is the date of this play about Dionysus authentic?, because if it is, this play may be the carbon copy of the 'life of Jesus'. This information about Dionysus is fascinating. I need to know more about this very interesting 'play' about Dionysus.

It is my opinion that is not necessary for a historic Jesus, all that is needed is a believable story. The birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus appears to have been believable 2000 years ago, today we know that everything about Jesus is basically unsupported by evidence, his followers included.

Mythra · 07-10-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Precisely my point. You see there is an external, Talmudic view of Jesus as a sorcerer and trickster who mocked the traditional Judaic teachings and the Pharisees.

Just to clarify, it's my understanding that this reference in the Talmud is Yeshu ben Stada, (ben Pandira). Not Jesus of Nazareth. About 100 years too early to be the Jesus of the gospels. Whether it's part of the underlying tradition, who knows?

There are no specific references in the Talmud to the Jesus of the gospel traditions.

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

07-09-2006, 02:30 PM	#12
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	A possible conclusion of your review is that catholicism is preaching and always has preached an mj? Have I read that correctly?

07-09-2006, 02:37 PM	#13
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Catholicism has always preached that Jesus Christ is supernatural (as well as human). The idea that a rational, human Jesus can be separated out from Christ, and the mystery removed from the religion, is a post-enlightenment Protestant-type heresy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.