Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 08-10-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

... You may also find an extended discussion in Brunner, Our Christ, p.229ff.

Can you give us a synopsis of what Brunner wrote?

Thanks,
Jake Jones IV

Ted Hoffman · 08-10-2006, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Can you give us a synopsis of what Brunner wrote?

Thanks,
Jake Jones IV

:grin:
I will be writing a full refutation of what Brunner wrote in a few weeks. His arguments include:

The critical method is damaging and dangerous and has contributed nothing to the portrayal of Christ's genuine character. The critical method is mischiveous and is a misappplication of criticism. We should therefore shun its pernicious nonsense.
It is ridiculous to purport to discuss and criticize Christ without first acknowledging that his genius cannot be grasped by common sense: it can only be grasped spiritually.
The picture of Christ will still be there even after all the strident criticism. Therefore Christ existed.
Christ's world-transforming miracles, which are not doubted by anyone, are an ontological proof for the existence of Christ. One cannot invent such a sublime being. Buddha and other cult founders contrast sharply with Christ. Buddha for example has Indian rigidity all over him and is lifeless like an automaton. Their reachings are just logical reiterations with textbook conventionality. Christ's teachings are vivid and ineffable. Therefore Christ existed.
Because many are affected (i.e. Christians) these concrete effects, we are logically constrained to believe, are a result of his human existence.
Jewish dfishermen, tax collectors and harlots were too stupid, superstitious, illiterate and ignorant to have fabricated such a genius character. Therefore Christ existed.
Arthur Drews' The Christ Myth is the crudest nonsense any criticism can bring forth.
We cant conceive how the world would have been without Jesus. He essentially determined the history of the human race. His uniqueness and importance in human history prove that he must have existed.
Christ demonstrates the highest calibre of genius in his speech, table manners and habits. He uttered such ultimate and profound things such as would not have been imagined by anyone. His case was that of a genius fighting his times. Therefore Christ existed.
Christ did not meet messianic expectations. The whole Jesish people rejected him as the measiah. Therefore Christ must have existed.
The trilemma. Christ was either a fool or a Charlatan or a god.
Extra-biblical sources (Talmud, Midrash etc) are silent because the greater the genius, the more he is ignored by his age. Therefore their silence is proof that Christ existed.
The fact that he was called a bastard (mamzer) and other degrading characterizations in the Talmud, Mishna, Gemara and other sources are proof that he existed.
Comparative religion is not learning. It is stupidity. True learning must be localized.
There is no Greek influence in the character of Christ. Therefore he is authentic.
Apagogical proof (an indirect "deductio ad absurdum"): the critic's arguments are so absurd that they must be wrong. Therefore Christ existed.

More later.

Clivedurdle · 08-11-2006, 12:01 AM

I have just started a discussion in S and S on this

Quote:

New Scientist p 52 12 August 2006 reports that imaginary friends should be encouraged.

Children who have imaginary friends develop a theory of mind earlier than othrs, produce more complex sentences, view problems from the others point of view, and imaginary friends act as a bridge enabling egocentric toddlers into wder more complex mental spaces.

Adults too can have imaginary friends - Jung is the classic example.

But maybe it is very common - what do fundies say about Jesus walking with them?

This might help explain the increased competencies, levels of happiness etc that have been found in religious folk.

Why should a childhood solution not continue into adulthood?

Isn't this a scientific explanation of the growth of xianity?

"What a friend we have in Jesus" - a way to mass produce a superhero imaginary friend - we label "religion" when it is a normal psychological phenomenon.

Quote:

IF YOUR child regularly talks to someone you cannot see, plays with them and drops their name into conversation, don't worry, it's not an early sign of a personality disorder. It's something to be encouraged, according to researchers in the UK and US. Children who have imaginary friends appear to develop faster both psychologically and linguistically.

An imaginary friend can take many forms. They can be a dog, a child, an adult or a fantastical creature. Alternatively, a child might endow a physical object such as a stuffed toy with a personality, or the child herself might take on a different persona. In western cultures, where characters like Harry Potter and Superman abound, a child might take on the persona of a superhero, whereas in more traditional cultures they might assume various roles in an imaginary family. Whatever the form it takes, the child treats their imaginary friend as real. ...

The complete article is 522 words long.
To continue reading this article, subscribe to New Scientist. Get 4 issues of New Scientist magazine and instant access to all online content for only £2.95

Alf · 08-11-2006, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

:grin:
I will be writing a full refutation of what Brunner wrote in a few weeks. His arguments include:

The critical method is damaging and dangerous and has contributed nothing to the portrayal of Christ's genuine character. The critical method is mischiveous and is a misappplication of criticism. We should therefore shun its pernicious nonsense.
It is ridiculous to purport to discuss and criticize Christ without first acknowledging that his genius cannot be grasped by common sense: it can only be grasped spiritually.
The picture of Christ will still be there even after all the strident criticism. Therefore Christ existed.
Christ's world-transforming miracles, which are not doubted by anyone, are an ontological proof for the existence of Christ. One cannot invent such a sublime being. Buddha and other cult founders contrast sharply with Christ. Buddha for example has Indian rigidity all over him and is lifeless like an automaton. Their reachings are just logical reiterations with textbook conventionality. Christ's teachings are vivid and ineffable. Therefore Christ existed.
Because many are affected (i.e. Christians) these concrete effects, we are logically constrained to believe, are a result of his human existence.
Jewish dfishermen, tax collectors and harlots were too stupid, superstitious, illiterate and ignorant to have fabricated such a genius character. Therefore Christ existed.
Arthur Drews' The Christ Myth is the crudest nonsense any criticism can bring forth.
We cant conceive how the world would have been without Jesus. He essentially determined the history of the human race. His uniqueness and importance in human history prove that he must have existed.
Christ demonstrates the highest calibre of genius in his speech, table manners and habits. He uttered such ultimate and profound things such as would not have been imagined by anyone. His case was that of a genius fighting his times. Therefore Christ existed.
Christ did not meet messianic expectations. The whole Jesish people rejected him as the measiah. Therefore Christ must have existed.
The trilemma. Christ was either a fool or a Charlatan or a god.
Extra-biblical sources (Talmud, Midrash etc) are silent because the greater the genius, the more he is ignored by his age. Therefore their silence is proof that Christ existed.
The fact that he was called a bastard (mamzer) and other degrading characterizations in the Talmud, Mishna, Gemara and other sources are proof that he existed.
Comparative religion is not learning. It is stupidity. True learning must be localized.
There is no Greek influence in the character of Christ. Therefore he is authentic.
Apagogical proof (an indirect "deductio ad absurdum"): the critic's arguments are so absurd that they must be wrong. Therefore Christ existed.

More later.

Is this for real or is this a mis-representation of Brunner's arguments? If this is for real the guy is simply too stupid to be taken seriously, if it is not then perhaps we would benefit from seeing his actual arguments.

To sum up: He has nothing substantive to say except that he use very bold words and strong assertions and absolutely zip to back any of it up and a load of common sense and others against them.

How can anyone take such a guy serious?

Please tell me you were joking! I know there are idiots in the world but this takes idiocy to a new level...

Ted Hoffman · 08-11-2006, 08:00 AM

Alf,
I am serious. Brunner was a product of his age: the historico-critical method had not yet gained such a wide appeal and Brunner criticized anyone who did not rely on faith and mysticism - even those that are historicists - so long as they applied critical methods, they became enemies of Christ. MJers were just the nadir in his pot of what he saw as pernicious ideologues.
You really cannot expect much from an individual who relied on Spinoza to construct his Christology. Any average diletante today can take out most of his arguments blindfolded because he does not seem to appreciate the thick line between theology and history, or the purpose of critical scholarship in a field imbued with fideism.
Most of his arguments are dogmatic assertions and he seems comfortable to make ex-cathedra pronouncements and expect readers to treat them as fact. As such, his recourse to logic is superficial and secondary at best.
Since No Robots has presented him so many times, I guess I have to take him on. In a while.
We don't want Jeffrey to jump on us and refuse to let go for missing a comma of missing any nuanced arguments.

No Robots · 08-11-2006, 08:16 AM

Ted, Jake was asking about Brunner's comments on the eating of the Messiah. I will get to that here in a moment, Jake.

Ted, I am thrilled that you are doing this critique of Brunner. I know that your plan is to attack and destroy. From my perspective, though, any attention is better than none. I look on it as viral marketing. Please let me know if I can help.

Alf, sometimes you say very sensible things, like on the historicity of Moses. I would think that you would keep an open mind, even read Brunner for yourself. BTW, Brunner's favorite place to vacation was Norway.

Now, Jake, here is the quotation you wanted (I put "XXX" in place of Hebrew passages):

Was there then anything which he did not thoroughly change expressing the originality of his own nature, and whereby he always pointed to himself? And so he celebrated Passover with such innovation that nothing of Passover remained. He celebrates himself in the splendidly bold words of himself and of all. He thinks of himself, truly not of the Passover celebration, but as he thinks of himself, he thinks of everything, of the Passover-sacrifice, too, and he himself becomes the Passover sacrifice; the Passover-sacrifice immediately becomes the Messiah-sacrifice, and he is the Messiah! He, in his humanity, his "flesh and blood," as the Jews are wont to call a human being (XXX). His flesh and blood accomplished all this. It has and retains the tremendous significance of: this is my flesh, and this red wine is my blood! (Mt. 26:26). He is the Messiah, who is sacrificed, who sacrifices himself—he is the offering, which they eat. He also thinks about the eating of the Messiah, for this, too, is a Jewish expression (Sanh. 99a: XXXX and XXXX)*.

*Ed. Note: The expression "to eat" is applied to the Mashiakh: "They ate him (the Mashiakh) in the days of (king) Hezekiah"; "they have eaten the years of the Messiah ("eat" in the sense of "use up").

If anybody wants a copy of Brunner's book, please pmail me. I will send you a pristine, shrink-wrapped copy for US$10 (via Paypal) to cover shipping.

aa5874 · 08-11-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

I will be writing a full refutation of what Brunner wrote in a few weeks. .

I have seen enough, don't even bother. Brunner is a total waste of time.

No Robots · 08-11-2006, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have seen enough, don't even bother. Brunner is a total waste of time.

This is what I mean by viral marketing: Surely there are people around here who think that there must be some value in anything that aa5874 hates.

Btw, I make no comment on what Ted says regarding Brunner, awaiting his full critique. Well, okay, one howler: Here is what Brunner actually says about the trilemma (long before C.S. Lewis):

I must believe in the reality of Christ; he was either a God or a fool or a charlatan - Julian calls him the greatest trickster and mountebank who ever lived (Cyril, Contr.Jul. 11) - or else the perfect mystical genius. I believe in Christ as the perfect mystical Genius, for he is too exalted, too significant a man to be either a charlatan or a fool, and altogether too human to be God.

You can read the full text of Brunner's critique of mythicism here.

aa5874 · 08-11-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I make no comment on what Ted says regarding Brunner, awaiting his full critique. Well, okay, one howler: Here is what Brunner actually says about the trilemma (long before C.S. Lewis):

I must believe in the reality of Christ; he was either a God or a fool or a charlatan - Julian calls him the greatest trickster and mountebank who ever lived (Cyril, Contr.Jul. 11) - or else the perfect mystical genius. I believe in Christ as the perfect mystical Genius, for he is too exalted, too significant a man to be either a charlatan or a fool, and altogether too human to be God.

You can read the full text of Brunner's critique of mythicism here.

Who is this 'Christ' that Brunner believes in, Matthew's Christ, Mark's, Luke's, John's, Paul's, or Brunner's Christ?

May I remind of words claim to be said by one of the Christs, 'Many shall come in my name saying I am Christ, and shall deceive many. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they should deceive the very elect'.(Matt 24:5 & 24)

Who or what is a real Jesus Christ? Surely it cannot just be anyone.
Is Brunner's Christ a deceiver?

jjramsey · 08-11-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Who is this 'Christ' that Brunner believes in, Matthew's Christ, Mark's, Luke's, John's, Paul's, or Brunner's Christ?

This is just another variant on this:

Quote:

The parents of Jesus Christ in Matthew is definetly different to the ones described by Luke, so this surely means that we have at least 2 distinct characters called Jesus Christ.

It was nonsense before, and it is still nonsense.

08-11-2006, 08:16 AM	#146
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Ted, Jake was asking about Brunner's comments on the eating of the Messiah. I will get to that here in a moment, Jake. Ted, I am thrilled that you are doing this critique of Brunner. I know that your plan is to attack and destroy. From my perspective, though, any attention is better than none. I look on it as viral marketing. Please let me know if I can help. Alf, sometimes you say very sensible things, like on the historicity of Moses. I would think that you would keep an open mind, even read Brunner for yourself. BTW, Brunner's favorite place to vacation was Norway. Now, Jake, here is the quotation you wanted (I put "XXX" in place of Hebrew passages): Was there then anything which he did not thoroughly change expressing the originality of his own nature, and whereby he always pointed to himself? And so he celebrated Passover with such innovation that nothing of Passover remained. He celebrates himself in the splendidly bold words of himself and of all. He thinks of himself, truly not of the Passover celebration, but as he thinks of himself, he thinks of everything, of the Passover-sacrifice, too, and he himself becomes the Passover sacrifice; the Passover-sacrifice immediately becomes the Messiah-sacrifice, and he is the Messiah! He, in his humanity, his "flesh and blood," as the Jews are wont to call a human being (XXX). His flesh and blood accomplished all this. It has and retains the tremendous significance of: this is my flesh, and this red wine is my blood! (Mt. 26:26). He is the Messiah, who is sacrificed, who sacrifices himself—he is the offering, which they eat. He also thinks about the eating of the Messiah, for this, too, is a Jewish expression (Sanh. 99a: XXXX and XXXX). Ed. Note: The expression "to eat" is applied to the Mashiakh: "They ate him (the Mashiakh) in the days of (king) Hezekiah"; "they have eaten the years of the Messiah ("eat" in the sense of "use up"). If anybody wants a copy of Brunner's book, please pmail me. I will send you a pristine, shrink-wrapped copy for US$10 (via Paypal) to cover shipping.

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

08-11-2006, 08:00 AM	#145
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Alf, I am serious. Brunner was a product of his age: the historico-critical method had not yet gained such a wide appeal and Brunner criticized anyone who did not rely on faith and mysticism - even those that are historicists - so long as they applied critical methods, they became enemies of Christ. MJers were just the nadir in his pot of what he saw as pernicious ideologues. You really cannot expect much from an individual who relied on Spinoza to construct his Christology. Any average diletante today can take out most of his arguments blindfolded because he does not seem to appreciate the thick line between theology and history, or the purpose of critical scholarship in a field imbued with fideism. Most of his arguments are dogmatic assertions and he seems comfortable to make ex-cathedra pronouncements and expect readers to treat them as fact. As such, his recourse to logic is superficial and secondary at best. Since No Robots has presented him so many times, I guess I have to take him on. In a while. We don't want Jeffrey to jump on us and refuse to let go for missing a comma of missing any nuanced arguments.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.