Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-13-2010, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What then was the point of Jesus coming to earth as a man to be deified by people who do not worship historical figures?

There were many messianic pretenders in the first century. Why did the Jews believe these persons were going to deliver Israel from the grip of the Roman Empire?

We are not dealing with messianic pretenders. The question is direct. Did Jesus believers worship a man (HJ) or a God/man (MJ) called Jesus Christ?

Some may have regarded Simon BarCochebas as a Messianic figure some may have regarded him as a pretender but there is NO indication the he was worshiped as a God by the Jews or Gentiles.

King David was called Christ yet there is no indication that he was worshiped as a God by the Jews or Gentiles.

Jesus was worshiped as a God/Man by Jews and Gentiles according to the Sacred Scriptures and the very supposed disciples of Jesus Christ did not worship men as Gods and did NOT advocate the worship of the CREATED but worship of the Creator.

In the NT it is propagated that Jesus was the Creator.

A Pauline writer claimed he was an apostle of and that he got his gospel from a mythological entity, one who was raised from the dead, why are you prtetending that Galatians 1 is not part of the Pauline writings?

The Pauline writer worshiped and was an apostle of MJ. Let's not waste time.

Ga 1:1-12

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead).........

......10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

arnoldo · 02-13-2010, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

There is no historical information about thousands of people who lived over two thousand years ago.

Can you name one who was (a) a Jew and (b) worshiped by other Jews as a god (or something similar to a god) within a few years after his death?

Menachem Mendel Schneerson

Quote:

An Eternal Tzaddik

Some meshichists insist that despite appearances the Rebbe did not in fact die on 12 June 1994. They argue that just as, according to the Talmud, the patriarch Jacob did not die,[49] nor did the Rebbe. He therefore remains the messiah just as he was before 1994. These believers refuse to put the typical honorifics for the dead (e.g. zt"l or zecher tzaddik livrocho, "may the memory of the righteous be for a blessing") after Rabbi Schneerson's name. They do not visit his grave, or mark his yahrtzeit. They rely upon Schneerson's statement that the world has entered a new period in its history and that, contrary to what has happened in the past, the leader of the generation will not be hidden "even through burial", but that he would remain alive until the revelation of the Messiah.[50]

Some of the sources that believers in this view are as follows. In the blessing of the new moon, Jews say, "David the King of Israel is alive and well". There is also the Tanya's explanation[51] of the Zoharic statement (III, 71b), "When a tzaddik departs he is to be found in all the worlds more than during his lifetime". The Baal HaTanya explains that the tzaddik's life is "not a physical life, but a spiritual life", and therefore physical death does not affect this state of living.[52]
[edit]
A resurrected Messiah?

Others in this camp accept that the Rebbe did indeed die in 1994, but still believe that he will return as the messiah. They point to various sources in Jewish tradition that can be interpreted as allowing for such a possibility.[53] They also emphasize the belief that the classic meaning of death does not apply to a truly righteous person.[3] In this view Schneerson never "died" spiritually despite his physical death, and is still alive in some way that ordinary humans cannot perceive. Thus they believe that while Schneerson is dead he will later return to be revealed as Messiah.[54]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism

Does it follow that since some jews worshipped this Rabbi after his death that he is mythical rather than historical?

GakuseiDon · 02-13-2010, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
So you have already proposed that there were Christians who would be expected to "avoid historical details that just might mess up his theological certainly".

You then go on to say "It's quite another thing for a first century Christian to not care about the historical details of a man who was his contemporary, who presumably left family members or followers behind."

My question is: Why wouldn't a First Century Christian also avoid historical details that just might mess up his theological certainty? Especially if he is writing to people who were nowhere near Jerusalem when the events occurred?

....

You realize that if you admit 1st c, Christians thought like this, you are supporting mythicism. This is the essence of the mythicist case: Jesus is a theological construct. There is no historical information about him, and there never was.

How can it support mythicism? Because the writers avoided historical details? You have already proposed that there were Second Century 'historicists' (meaning they believed that Jesus was historical) who thought that way. You use this to explain why they didn't interpolate historical details into Paul and other early writings. Why can't First Century 'historicists' also have thought that way?

"First Century Christians avoid historical details that might mess up their theological certainty". What is their theological certainty? For Paul, it was that "Jesus Christ, who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)

For those Second Century historicists: what was the theological construct, and how does it differ from Paul's?

And again: can you name the earliest Second Century writer who avoided historical details that might mess up their theological certainty?

GakuseiDon · 02-13-2010, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

spamandham, can you lay out what you regard as the best possible case for mythicism, please, so we can examine it and ask questions?

The case:

- Paul never quotes from Jesus even when it would be a home run for the points he makes

- Paul claims his gospel was revealed to him directly in a vision and not by men (except in 1 Cor 15 which I do not consider genuine for multiple reasons)

- Paul states twice that the the crucifixion was demonstrated/portrayed by him to others. It's clear he is referring either to a scriptural argument he developed, or some kind of flim flam show he went around putting on.

- Jesus' family (save James) dropped off the face of the earth until Tertullian discusses them. This is an extraordinarily odd cult phenomenon.

- Regarding James, he was the leader of the Jerusalem church, which was the lead church. He was effectively the pope and was later memorialized as "James the Just"...indicating how people viewed him in his day. In Romans 8:29+, Paul basically states that those of high virtue are brothers of Jesus. Combining all this, "brother of the lord" was clearly (to me) a special title for James and did not indicate a blood relationship.

- The gospels are outlandish and absurd. It's easy to see why though, they are a symbolic exegesis of OT scriptures rather than history reports...Jesus is the foundational character in the origins story of Christianity just like Abraham is the foundational character in the origins story of Judaism. Not too surprising, since those most intimately familiar with the Abraham myth simply reused the concept when it was time to invent Jesus.

- The gospels predict the complete decimation of the temple. This actually happened..not in 70CE, but in the 2nd century as a result of the Bar Kochba revolt. The temple was destroyed in 70CE but not utterly. This indicates a later date for the gospels, and much of the Christian/Jewish conflict in them makes historical sense. It's at that time that an origin story becomes needed.

- Improbable symbolism:
Jesus' name matches the role he plays. This is common in Jewish mythology but must be chocked up to coincidence otherwise.
Jesus has 12 disciples. Paul refers to "the 12" as if they were some legendary group rather than 12 men of recent history. They were of course, since Jesus is symbolic of the Jews themselves, and the 12 tribes are "the 12".
The body and blood ritual - not found Judaism, but elements of it are found in the surrounding culture. This indicates that Christianity was a merger of Jewish and Hellenistic ideas rather than the result of some Jewish messiah cult rooted in a recent cult leader.
The passion story. It's easily seen as a script right out of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. Jesus even quotes form Psalm 22 to drive the point home.

...anyway, these are the major points I would make that are difficult to explain with any straightforward HJ hypothesis, but trivial to explain once that bugaboo is abandoned.

Thanks for laying that out, spamandham. That's what I've been asking people for, and you are the first to do it in detail.

I'm afraid I have to say, I don't see immediately how these necessarily support mythicism. Many are certainly points against the Gospel Jesus, but few argue for that. On the other hand, it wouldn't be right to handwave your case away, since we can't just assume a historical Jesus. I think each point on your list would be a separate thread on its own, so probably not worth going through here. But it is good to have them listed, thanks.

Toto · 02-13-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
How can it support mythicism? Because the writers avoided historical details? You have already proposed that there were Second Century 'historicists' (meaning they believed that Jesus was historical) who thought that way. You use this to explain why they didn't interpolate historical details into Paul and other early writings. Why can't First Century 'historicists' also have thought that way?

That's why I think it is incorrect to call these people historicists. They aren't historicists and didn't believe in a post-Enlightenment merely-historical Jesus. They believed in a divine Jesus, and anything they believed was based on theology and not historical investigation or memory. If you think Paul fits into this category, you concede that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, and you will have a hard time convincing anyone that a real flesh and blood man can explain Christian origins.

Quote:

"First Century Christians avoid historical details that might mess up their theological certainty". What is their theological certainty? For Paul, it was that "Jesus Christ, who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)

I do not think that Paul wrote any of that.

If Jesus had been married, lived an ordinary life, enaged in business - some second century writers would have rejected those details.

Quote:

... And again: can you name the earliest Second Century writer who avoided historical details that might mess up their theological certainty?

That was a theoretical idea on my part, that second century writers would avoid historical details because they didn't fit into their theology. I don't have any particular writers in mind. I note that many current day Christians avoid details about the historical Jesus that they allegedly believe in when those details don't fit their political or theological stances.

Toto · 02-13-2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo
There is no historical information about thousands of people who lived over two thousand years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Can you name one who was (a) a Jew and (b) worshiped by other Jews as a god (or something similar to a god) within a few years after his death?

Menachem Mendel Schneerson

...
Does it follow that since some jews worshipped this Rabbi after his death that he is mythical rather than historical?

This is not an unknown person who lived over two thousand years ago.

arnoldo · 02-13-2010, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The passage does support a mythicist interpretation if one holds the position of dogmatic materialism

Does it have to be dogmatic materialism? Could I be justified in holding to a mythicist interpretation if I simply accept materialism without being dogmatic about it?

The passage in question referred to the aramaic idiom of "drinking blood/eating flesh" which some make the bald assertion that it supports a MJ rather than a HJ stance. From a materialistic perspective, dogmatic or otherwise, why could it not simply support someone starting a cannibalistic cult?

Rick Sumner · 02-13-2010, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Can you name one who was (a) a Jew and (b) worshiped by other Jews as a god (or something similar to a god) within a few years after his death?

The self-glorification hymn in the Hodayot. The speaker (the teacher of righteousness, either actually or pseudepigraphically) has deified himself. To be sure, it isn't quite the same thing as Christianity. But to be equally fair, it does sit on that spectrum.

Without getting into quibbles about whether or not the ToR was historical, there can be no doubt that the Scrolls present him as an historical character.

GakuseiDon · 02-13-2010, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
How can it support mythicism? Because the writers avoided historical details? You have already proposed that there were Second Century 'historicists' (meaning they believed that Jesus was historical) who thought that way. You use this to explain why they didn't interpolate historical details into Paul and other early writings. Why can't First Century 'historicists' also have thought that way?

That's why I think it is incorrect to call these people historicists. They aren't historicists and didn't believe in a post-Enlightenment merely-historical Jesus. They believed in a divine Jesus, and anything they believed was based on theology and not historical investigation or memory. If you think Paul fits into this category, you concede that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, and you will have a hard time convincing anyone that a real flesh and blood man can explain Christian origins.

My personal view: the early writers didn't necessarily avoid historical details, they just didn't write about them for some reason. This is not only on Jesus, but about virtually anything historical. That was the point of my "elephant in the room" thread a while back. The idea that historical details would have been so important seems to be part of post-Enlightenment thinking. I don't know why they wrote the way they did, but that there was a lack of desire to give historical details (and again, I stress that it isn't just the lack of historical details about Jesus but about virtually everything) is certainly a pattern in early Christian writings.

That's why it is so hard to date early literature: all we have are the clues that pop up. But I think from those clues a case can be built that Paul thought Jesus was an earthly flesh-and-blood person who was crucified in Paul's near past.

Anyway, back to this thread: Let me ask again, and never mind the implications for historicity. Why can't First Century writers like Paul also have thought that way? That is, "avoid historical details that just might mess up his theological certainty".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

"First Century Christians avoid historical details that might mess up their theological certainty". What is their theological certainty? For Paul, it was that "Jesus Christ, who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)

I do not think that Paul wrote any of that.

OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

... And again: can you name the earliest Second Century writer who avoided historical details that might mess up their theological certainty?

That was a theoretical idea on my part, that second century writers would avoid historical details because they didn't fit into their theology. I don't have any particular writers in mind. I note that many current day Christians avoid details about the historical Jesus that they allegedly believe in when those details don't fit their political or theological stances.

Could Paul have also been like that?

Chaucer · 02-13-2010, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That's why I think it is incorrect to call these people historicists. They aren't historicists and didn't believe in a post-Enlightenment merely-historical Jesus. They believed in a divine Jesus, and anything they believed was based on theology and not historical investigation or memory. If you think Paul fits into this category, you concede that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, and you will have a hard time convincing anyone that a real flesh and blood man can explain Christian origins.

My personal view: the early writers didn't necessarily avoid historical details, they just didn't write about them for some reason. This is not only on Jesus, but about virtually anything historical. That was the point of my "elephant in the room" thread a while back. The idea that historical details would have been so important seems to be part of post-Enlightenment thinking. I don't know why they wrote the way they did, but that there was a lack of desire to give historical details (and again, I stress that it isn't just the lack of historical details about Jesus but about virtually everything) is certainly a pattern in early Christian writings.

That's why it is so hard to date early literature: all we have are the clues that pop up. But I think from those clues a case can be built that Paul thought Jesus was an earthly flesh-and-blood person who was crucified in Paul's near past.

B I N G O !!!!!!!!!!!

Galatians 1 - 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

Galatians 4 - 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,
5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

Romans 1 - 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,

1 Corinthians 2 - 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Corinthians 7 - 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

1 Corinthians 9 - 5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

1 Corinthians 9 - 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

1 Corinthians 11 - 23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

1 Thessalonians 4 - 15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Phillipians 2 - 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Anyway, back to this thread: Let me ask again, and never mind the implications for historicity. Why can't First Century 'historicists' like Paul also have thought that way? That is, "avoid historical details that just might mess up his theological certainty".

OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That was a theoretical idea on my part, that second century writers would avoid historical details because they didn't fit into their theology. I don't have any particular writers in mind. I note that many current day Christians avoid details about the historical Jesus that they allegedly believe in when those details don't fit their political or theological stances.

Could Paul have also been like that?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.