DevilsAdvocate

That seems to demonstrate my point. The Eastern Orthodox church has a very different view of church history. In simple terms, the Roman Bishop was the chair of the various church patriarchs. In part due to the greek/latin linguistic split, the Roman Bishop assumed upon himself the role of the one head of the church centered in Rome, eventually requiring latin as the church language, dictating his own doctrine, declaring himself the vicar of Christ, and isolating himself from the body of the church. The eastern church recognizes much of Roman Catholic canon (which has changed at various times), but have a distinct tradition based on the greek writings. They are not Roman Catholic and never have been.

gurugeorge

I dunno though, the thing is, would you have such a keen interest in the possibility of a "historical core" in fanciful tales about any other mythological character with pseudo-historiographical details? Isis? Osiris? Hercules?

If you came upon the documents fresh, without any Christianity, say buried in a jar in the desert, would your first assumption be that there's some "historical core" to the fanciful tales about this Joshua Messiah?

I think the only reason people leap to this idea is the homoepathic (as it were) remnant of the idea that the god-man of Christian faith was a historical entity, and then when that became untenable with the rise of rationalism and such, intelligent Christians sought to keep some raison-d'etre going for the institution of Christianity, thinking that some "historical core" might still give the institution some credibility. But when you think about it, that idea is quite lunatic, and if you don't go in that direction, you're left with - mythology, as it would obviously appear if found buried in jars in the desert, without 2,000 years of Christian institutional readings and contra-readings.

Of course, it's accepted in the study of mythologies that there might occasionally be "historical cores" to some of the great mythological entities, but no-one loses any sleep over it except possibly the academic specialists who wrestle with the relevant questions.

But with the "historical core" for Joshua Messiah it's different, because everyone can smell blood. Christians are rightly worried that once even the barest historical core is gone, there's really nothing left to give Christianity credibility (although this worry is in fact irrational, since, strictly speaknig, Christianity's credibility went with the advent of rationalism and the realisation that god-men don't exist, and with the political freedom for people to say this openly - nevertheless, a mythological Joshua Messiah would be the final nail in the coffin). Those who are opposed to orthodox Christianity, a broad spectrum of people from, on the one hand, rationalists who despise religion anyway, to, on the other hand, spiritual Christians who think the whole thing was spiritual in the first place and actually think a mythological Joshua Messiah is a better religious ideal, and was probably the original - this broad spectrum of naysayers also smells blood, and there's a kind of momentum building to really get people to wake up once and for all. Whether that's possible or even desirable is another question, but I think this is the core of why this is such a hot topic.

DevilsAdvocate

You speak of early church writings as if the were historically a deliberate orderly documentation of events of the early Christians preserved and managed by the church in Rome from the beginning. This seems to be an unrealistic view, besides being strictly Roman Catholic centered. Reading them, they are hardly a basis for a Rome centered movement. Rome is an afterthought.

The history of scriptures that is posited by apologists and many historians reads something as follows

- they were for the most part letters and documents believed to be from direct winesses or collected from direct witnesses and compiled
- there were likely some previous documents used to construct them along with oral history
- they were written to specific individuals and groups, or for general circulation among the churches
- they were copied and re-copied over the years resulting in variations
- they were collected and compiled from the various churches (perhaps in Ephesus among other places) ... they were hardly pristine
- canonical scriptures were selected based on traditional source and content, and have been continuously disputed for centuries.
- Marcion is said to be one of the earliest collectors and compilers of the various circulated writings, and he had a definite gnostic bias, which biased his choice of canon accordingly excluding writings that would refute gnosticism

Whether you believe the basis of the movement or not... this is a simple and plausible history perhaps of many of the writings.

DevilsAdvocate

Is there any historical core to Gilgamesh? Is there any historical core to the Iliad? Is there any historical core to the many fanciful writings of the Egyptians or Mesopotamians, or Mayans, or Zoastorians, or Bhudists, or .......? Is there any historic core to Plato, Aristotle which contain some very fanciful accounts? Even the ancient stories of the greek myths are thought by some to be based on stories of real people that have been fancified.

Examples are rife throughout "history" of fanciful accounts about most characters, peoples and beliefs up to our modern day urban legends. We sort through the incredible and dig through the muck to try to understand what really happened historically. But we don't throw everything out unless we have something to prove.

Or is all of world history a grand conspiracy?

schilling.klaus

of course it is

Klaus Schilling

DevilsAdvocate

To some extent, I would agree.

spamandham

Why? Justin is not Pauline, and Justin clearly considers Marcion a heretic:

From chapter 26 of The First Apology

"And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. "

It doesn't make sense for Justin to bring up Paul in a letter targetted to a non-Christian emporer with the purpose of persuading the emporer to dispense with summary trials against Christians, when Justin considers Paul's promoter, Marcion, to be a heretic.

From chapter 35 of Dialogue with Trypho

"...we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him. Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine. "

Again, Justin blasts Marcion (as well as other competing sects). Justin clearly sees Marcion's teachings heretical. Why then, would Justin name drop Paul in a letter designed to persuade Jews of the truth of Christianity? Although there are a few quotes from the NT embedded in the dialog, most of the references are from the OT, as you would expect given that the target audience is Jews.

In neither of these letters is the target audience Christians, so what would be the point of bringing up Paul, even if we assumed Justin had heard of him? Justin documents the fact that there are numerous sects calling themselves Christians, and that he considers the others heretics.

Paul's message is Marcion's message, and Justin considers Marcion a heretic. It wouldn't make sense for Justin to mention Paul, unless his audience was Marcians (such as in Tertullian's "Against Marcion", which DOES mention Paul extensively).

DevilsAdvocate

[QUOTE=gurugeorge;5173825]

I am not sure it is wholly different. Go tell the world Allah is dead and see what happens. Whether you think there was a god-man or not, does not really matter. We all choose to believe what we want to believe. Well over half the world still believes in spirituality, and many (even many who are scientifically informed) do not see a conflict with rationality. We still do not fullly understand nature, and our positions of "proof" and some mainstream scientific premises are obstacles to better understanding. The problem I think becomes religion which is a political organization, and as such becomes oppressive and something to be resisted. This was more the problem of the western and Roman Catholic churches than the eastern traditions.

The gospels are much the same practically speaking whether they are complete fiction or pseudofactual. They tell a story of someone living a life of service and self sacrifice, teaching an egalitarian message in an ancient context, and daring to face the opressing authorities though the deck is stacked against him. Is that not a heroic story and a worthy example for most world religions and philosophies? He could be Ghandi, or Martin Luther King Jr. Why would you argue against that example be it fiction or not?

The core of most of the epistles is the propogation of this form of stoic philosophy that is not without value whether the accounts are historically accurate or not, though it is at least somewhat consistent with the philosophy and most of the history of the time. It is not inconceivable that one of the many wandering sages of the time would adapt christianity and wander about the Aegean spreading his version and tending his harem of churches and fending off other influences. There is some credibility in historic context. The behaviors and ideals espoused are reasonably good even if wrapped in myth. The problem becomes the controversy over sloppy documentation over years... details of the christ, speculative view of the cosmos, the development of the religion as a controlling political structure, and the effort through this structure for some to control and enforce their own views as fact, proven, and the only possible way to think. I think if you understand the Epistles, the "Pauline" author would argue against that very thing.

spin

Of course, that's not useful information, is it? You will always be faced with the question, "how do you know?" and, if you can't answer that, what you've got doesn't appear to be of much value. We work from what we know and expand from there, otherwise we have no controls.

"[T]ry", being the operative word. There is no necessity that you can understand, especially when you are only arbitrarily manipulating the data by removing those things that seem incredible. You have a number of presuppositions already in play.

You are going about the process ass-up. You may not have any meaningful criteria for keeping anything. We accept as definite what we can prove. Otherwise you end up with untested data with no inherent value.

Are the inscriptions in temples part of the grand conspiracy? Are all the coins from antiquity also part of the conspiracy? What about the battlefields? the buildings? the tombs? the bones? the statues? the ceramics? the piles of shit? the waste dumps? the favissae? All part of this grand conspiracy? You start off with the tangible and evaluate from there.


spin

DevilsAdvocate

I don't think we are in stark disagreement. Inscriptions, coins, tangible evidence is evidence. It is not proof. Are the gods on the inscriptions proof that there was an historicity to their existance. The statues of the gods? The flood epic references in Gilgamesh and others? Nor does a lack of tangible information from antiquity a fiction proove. I listed a number of examples earlier and there are many more.

A logical argument based on these evidences is an argument. It is not proof. There is a degree of interpretation and it is subject too often to predispositions and paradigm blindness.

It is all obscure and entertwined in myth ... fiction ... My point is we do not throw it out because someone sometime thinks they have proven something, because without presuppositions and bias there is no proof in such obscure context. I would consider the possibility of the NT characters having some basis in fact including apologetic defenses and accounts because there is no less conspiracy and conjecture in it than there is in much of the arguments of detractors. In fact, the story is simpler, more direct, and by simplicity argument, more credible.

They are all subject to bias. If we malign believers because they see things differently, are we just modern inquisitors? If you look at their evidences and "proofs" without a predisposition to their foolery, you will in many cases find some rationality based on unbiased evidence - the very evidence discussed here to argue the other side. You will also find foolery and fraud.