No Robots

The purpose of this thread is to discuss Constantin Brunner. In particular, his essay against mythicism is under consideration.

No Robots

One question that has been raised is what is the nature and source of Christ's* genius according to Brunner.

Genius is for Brunner an innate quality of certain individuals. It is not acquired, but it can be stimulated or stunted.


*Brunner prefers to use Christ instead of Jesus. I will be following him in this. "Christ" is strictly titular in the same sense that "Buddha" is.

No Robots

Aaaand cue crickets...... now.

Julian

Critiquing Brunner is like critiquing Burgon. Why bother? It is impossible to take Brunner seriously and therefore pointless wasting time critiquing it. I realize that you take him seriously, I don't know of anyone else who does.

Julian

No Robots

That's what I was trying to tell Jake. Sheesh.

Burgon? Do you mean this guy? Or did you mean to write "Turton"?

Julian

I meant Dean John Burgon, a man with a large agenda and little reasoning.

No Robots

Are you sure you don't mean Turton?

jakejonesiv

Hi No Robots,

Thanks, I really do want to unserstand where you are coming from.

However, I will not use the term Christ exclusively rather than Jesus. Some early Christians viewed Jesus and Christ as two different entities, and I want to avoid the ambiguity.

Brunner wrote:

"...if the criticism which disputes the historical reality of Christ is right, it does not follow that Christ is abolished: we need to visualize what will still be there, for something (and what a something!) will still be there. The picture of Christ will remain, this picture, for which criticism will find the most nonsensical explanation, as we shall see - this picture of Christ which, in itself, is nothing less than the stringent demonstration of the existence of Christ."

I don't understand this. Maybe you can help.

We begin with, for the sake of argument, the premise that Jesus has no historical reality. Reasoning from that, Brunner asserts that we still have something, a picture of Jesus. OK, I can agree with that, if it is acknowledged that the "picture" is a myth. This mythic picture, which has no historical reality, is then asserted to be proof of the existence of Jesus.

Let's let Brunner explain why this "picture" is so important.

"...we live in the stream of history which takes its origin from Christ; our present, our very life, is vitally linked to him. The picture of Christ contains within it those world-transforming miracles which continue to display their power, none of us doubts them, and they would be impossible apart from the Miracle-worker himself."

Every assertion appears to be questionable. History existed before Jesus. The alleged miracles did not transform the world. And many people do doubt them. How can Brunner with any legitamcy make such as a statement as "none of us doubts them?" His credibility is destroyed by this statement alone.

Besides, these alleged miracles are not the deeds of any historical person. (Has he forgotten his premise so soon?). Nor could they be, premise or not. These are deeds that can only be attributed to a god or a myth (or some other type of fictional character).

No, a good story with plenty of detail cannot be turned into history by fiat, no matter how subjectively compelling it may seem to any particular person.

Brunner's philosophy is so fuzzy, with so many unproven assumptions, that it will not withstand any critical scrutiny.


Indeed, Brunner's philosophy is little more than religous fundamentalism in finer clothes.

What he needs to do is to repent and amend himself from within. My own generation would do well to throw away this kind of criticism: let criticism begin with you and your superstition! Allow yourself to be criticized by Christ, surrender yourself entirely to his criticism, but do not use criticism to try to dispatch Christ, to do away with the existence of this greatest of critical geniuses. Do not try to eliminate the possibility of an existence like his so that nothing is left but an existence like yours.

Well, Brunner was anti-intellectual, or do you have another explanation of the highlighed portion of the above quote?

I think I can see why you are reluctant to talk about Brunner.

Jake Jones

jakejonesiv

Whoa up there firepup! Michael Turton is a real genius.

Jake

No Robots

No prob.


Ok. He's saying that, yes, let's start with the premise the Christ never lived. That leaves us with this myth. Now, if we really look cogently at this myth, we will find it absolutely impossible to conclude otherwise than that it is ultimately derived from the life of a person. So, even if we start with the assumption that the myth has no historical basis, once we start to actually investigate it, we find that it simply must have such a basis.


Yes, but Western history, and really that means all human history, over the last 2,000 years has been dominated by this person's impact.

The miracles that he is talking about are not Jesus's wonders as described in the Bible. He is talking about the real impact that Christ has had on the minds of people over the last 2 millennia, and how these people acting in what they consider the spirit of Christ have had a decisive impact on history.


I don't think you would say that if you were more familiar with his anti-religious statements. He is, however, definitely pro-spirituality, pro-mysticism. He has much affinity with, for example, the Quakers. His mode of expression is definitely a problem for many people, but contextualized it is less off-putting.

Is it anti-intellectual to tell people not to discard the idea of the heliocentric solar system?

I'm not at all reluctant. In fact, he's all I really want to talk about. But after so many years beating the drum without eliciting much interest, I'm reluctant to believe anyone really wants to discuss him. Keep it coming. You may make a believer of me yet.