Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 01-04-2007, 04:09 PM

Gamera: My proposal for development is this:

1) Development of apocalyptic and Messianic traditions in Judaism from the 6th century BCE to the 1st century CE
2) Fusion of apocalyptic and Messianic Judaism with Hellenistic culture
3) Emergence of "Jesus Christ" mystery religion among Hellenistic Jews
4) Development of "flesh" based Christ theology within the mystery religion
5) Development of Christ-specific passion narrative
6) Writing of allegorical Christ narrative(s?)
7) Writing of pseudo-historical Christ narratives
8) Development and defense of historical Christ theology
9) Development of post-canon dogma
10) Elimination of remaining non-historical Christ theologies

Actually some of these steps were on-going, or could be switched, for example 9 and 10.

Here are the things that I think are key:

> The Eucharist
> The passion narrative
> Theology of the flesh

The key to the historization of Jesus is the fact that "flesh" based theologies developed, requiring a real "person" to fulfill. When you look at the conflicts between the Gnostics and the "proto-Catholics" (for lack of a better term) the proto-Catholics return again and again to this issue of "the flesh", and they defend "the flesh" of Christ relentlessly, but they do so only through the use of scriptures and theological reasoning.

A lot of the early defenses didn't even rely on the Gospels, they went straight to the OT, defending the "humanity" of Jesus using passages from Isaiah and Daniel, and other such things, saying basically "Jesus had to have walked the earth in the flesh because the prophecies say so!"

aa5874 · 01-04-2007, 04:32 PM

My MJ postulate is that Jesus Christ was conceptualised for the sole purpose of creating a universal Saviour in contrast to what appeared to be an ethnic oriented God, the God of the Jews.

The writing 'Against Heresies' by Irenaeus shows some of the numerous concepts that were conceptualised by different sects in the 2nd century. The disciples of Valentinus, according to Irenaeus, did have a very 'absurd' and complex myth of the 'Saviour'.

jgibson000 · 01-04-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

A lot of the early defenses didn't even rely on the Gospels, they went straight to the OT, defending the "humanity" of Jesus using passages from Isaiah and Daniel, and other such things, saying basically "Jesus had to have walked the earth in the flesh because the prophecies say so!"

I'm curious about this claim. It it is vague. And, more importantly, it is (as of yet) utterly unsubstantiated.

So may I first ask you to define what you mean by "early"? Does this mean written before 100 CE? Before 200 CE? Something else?

May I also ask you not only to state exactly (a) how many of these "defenses" there actually were and (b) who it was who wrote them, but to give me (c) the exact number of these "early defense" that do what you say they did?

And where specifically within the particular "early defenses" that purportedly say what you claim they say may we actually find the assertions that "basically" run "Jesus had to have walked the earth in the flesh because the prophecies say so!"?

In other words, will you please finally put your money where your mouth is?

JG

Clivedurdle · 01-05-2007, 10:29 AM

Another postulate just to try out for size - the mj hypothesis was the accepted one until the enlightenment - they thought jesus was a god walking around in Palestine who died and rose again.

HJ was invented probably some time in the last few hundred years.

Malachi151 · 01-05-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Another postulate just to try out for size - the mj hypothesis was the accepted one until the enlightenment - they thought jesus was a god walking around in Palestine who died and rose again.

HJ was invented probably some time in the last few hundred years.

This is not true. There was lots of defense of a real historical Jesus from the 2nd century on.

Malachi151 · 01-05-2007, 11:02 AM

Defense of humanity of Jesus:

Quote:

And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son; and of Him we will, in what follows, relate how He took flesh and became man. For as man did not make the blood of the vine, but God, so it was hereby intimated that the blood should not be of human seed, but of divine power, as we have said above. And Isaiah, another prophet, foretelling the same things in other words, spoke thus: "A star shall rise out of Jacob, and a flower shall spring from the root of Jesse; and His arm shall the nations trust." And a star of light has arisen, and a flower has sprung from the root of Jesse—this Christ. For by the power of God He was conceived by a virgin of the seed of Jacob, who was the father of Judah, who, as we have shown, was the father of the Jews; and Jesse was His forefather according to the oracle, and He was the son of Jacob and Judah according to lineal descent.
- First Apology; Justin Martyr, 2nd century

Doug Shaver · 01-05-2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Another postulate just to try out for size - the mj hypothesis was the accepted one until the enlightenment - they thought jesus was a god walking around in Palestine who died and rose again.

Mythicists don't question whether Christians have always thought Jesus was a god. They question whether Christians have always thought that he walked around in Palestine for a while during the early first century.

Of course, in either case, if we're actually treating it as a postulate, then we're arguing in a circle. It's not supposed to be a postulate, but a conclusion.

Gamera · 01-05-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Gamera,

In this thread I am trying to abstract attention towards what
in mathematics and geometry are termed "axioms", and in physics
and the sciences are termed "postulates" or "hypotheses".

I can understand that your position is more towards the HJ
mode of thinking. Here are the postulates which may be observed
at the basis, and foundation, of theories (of history and/or
historiography), related to an historical Jesus.

You may not like the MJ hypotheses, but that is not the purpose
of this thread. Please, if you are compelled to support an HJ
position, at least select one (or more) of the following basic
HJ postulates, so that your opinion is clarified. Thanks.

List of postulates for HJ Theories

1) Sufficient historicity - the actual history of the time can be recovered in sufficient detail to have some assurance that one obscure person existed.
2) HJ Core (assumed as an unexamined postulate).
3) Evidentiary - because "of the fact" that christianity exists, it may be concluded that some HJ, or charismatic founder, or "NRM personality" started it.
4) Textual core written records are historical evidence of an HJ.

5) Source Language: the New Testament was written in Greek
6) Transmission: the critical Westcott-Hort transmission is correct
7) History: the christian historiology written c.314 is true and correct
8) Apostlic lineage: the apostle Paul wrote something preserved to us
9) Paul and his letters are "historical"

I have no desire to defend the HJ position here. You've asked for what you think constitutes the necessary postulate of the MJ thesis and I gave one that I think is necessary and ultimately lethal to the position. Discuss if you want to, or don't. But don't blame me for answering your question.

Gamera · 01-05-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Gamera: My proposal for development is this:

1) Development of apocalyptic and Messianic traditions in Judaism from the 6th century BCE to the 1st century CE
2) Fusion of apocalyptic and Messianic Judaism with Hellenistic culture
3) Emergence of "Jesus Christ" mystery religion among Hellenistic Jews
4) Development of "flesh" based Christ theology within the mystery religion
5) Development of Christ-specific passion narrative
6) Writing of allegorical Christ narrative(s?)
7) Writing of pseudo-historical Christ narratives
8) Development and defense of historical Christ theology
9) Development of post-canon dogma
10) Elimination of remaining non-historical Christ theologies

Actually some of these steps were on-going, or could be switched, for example 9 and 10.

Here are the things that I think are key:

> The Eucharist
> The passion narrative
> Theology of the flesh

The key to the historization of Jesus is the fact that "flesh" based theologies developed, requiring a real "person" to fulfill. When you look at the conflicts between the Gnostics and the "proto-Catholics" (for lack of a better term) the proto-Catholics return again and again to this issue of "the flesh", and they defend "the flesh" of Christ relentlessly, but they do so only through the use of scriptures and theological reasoning.

A lot of the early defenses didn't even rely on the Gospels, they went straight to the OT, defending the "humanity" of Jesus using passages from Isaiah and Daniel, and other such things, saying basically "Jesus had to have walked the earth in the flesh because the prophecies say so!"

What do you do with Marcion, who proposed the first canon, and who significantly left out the OT (a position by the way which I'm sympathetic to)

Assuming first in time first in priority, it would appear the significance of the OT to Christians was a later development, not an early one.

This is further suggested by Paul's almost complete disinterest in the OT.

Anyway, kudos for constructing a coherent thesis.

Malachi151 · 01-05-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

What do you do with Marcion, who proposed the first canon, and who significantly left out the OT (a position by the way which I'm sympathetic to)

Assuming first in time first in priority, it would appear the significance of the OT to Christians was a later development, not an early one.

This is further suggested by Paul's almost complete disinterest in the OT.

Anyway, kudos for constructing a coherent thesis.

I can't really speak to Marcion in any detail, but I know he accepted Mark pretty much as is, which itself draws on many OT scriptures. Even though Marcion put together an early canon, he was by no means the first Christian, and was already taking up something that had formed before him.

Marcion's reasoning for rejecting the Old Testament makes sense. He noted the differences in the message of love in the new teachings, and the violence and terror in old scriptures.

So, we can understand his reasoning, he himself just didn't understand the scriptural basis of the new story.

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

01-04-2007, 04:09 PM	#21
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Gamera: My proposal for development is this: 1) Development of apocalyptic and Messianic traditions in Judaism from the 6th century BCE to the 1st century CE 2) Fusion of apocalyptic and Messianic Judaism with Hellenistic culture 3) Emergence of "Jesus Christ" mystery religion among Hellenistic Jews 4) Development of "flesh" based Christ theology within the mystery religion 5) Development of Christ-specific passion narrative 6) Writing of allegorical Christ narrative(s?) 7) Writing of pseudo-historical Christ narratives 8) Development and defense of historical Christ theology 9) Development of post-canon dogma 10) Elimination of remaining non-historical Christ theologies Actually some of these steps were on-going, or could be switched, for example 9 and 10. Here are the things that I think are key: > The Eucharist > The passion narrative > Theology of the flesh The key to the historization of Jesus is the fact that "flesh" based theologies developed, requiring a real "person" to fulfill. When you look at the conflicts between the Gnostics and the "proto-Catholics" (for lack of a better term) the proto-Catholics return again and again to this issue of "the flesh", and they defend "the flesh" of Christ relentlessly, but they do so only through the use of scriptures and theological reasoning. A lot of the early defenses didn't even rely on the Gospels, they went straight to the OT, defending the "humanity" of Jesus using passages from Isaiah and Daniel, and other such things, saying basically "Jesus had to have walked the earth in the flesh because the prophecies say so!"

01-04-2007, 04:32 PM	#22
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	My MJ postulate is that Jesus Christ was conceptualised for the sole purpose of creating a universal Saviour in contrast to what appeared to be an ethnic oriented God, the God of the Jews. The writing 'Against Heresies' by Irenaeus shows some of the numerous concepts that were conceptualised by different sects in the 2nd century. The disciples of Valentinus, according to Irenaeus, did have a very 'absurd' and complex myth of the 'Saviour'.

01-05-2007, 10:29 AM	#24
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Another postulate just to try out for size - the mj hypothesis was the accepted one until the enlightenment - they thought jesus was a god walking around in Palestine who died and rose again. HJ was invented probably some time in the last few hundred years.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.