Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julian · 05-16-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Judging by the lack of positive response on the part of the mythicists, this focus on Christian martyrs appears to be entirely successful in exposing just how weak their case is.

Yuri.

What a bizarre conclusion. You have been shown that martyrs, if they can be called that, do not need a historical figure in order to occur. From that it follows that the MJ/HJ debate has nothing to do with martyrdom. There, your question has been shown to have been in error.

Since a potential historical Jesus has been completely marginalized by the time we have any christian writings, the rise of early christianity would appear identical regardless of the seminal urge.

Julian

chapka · 05-16-2005, 12:16 PM

A few points:

First of all, the idea of "martyrdom" is likely overblown. The creation of martyrs works like other mythmaking processes. We hear "martyr" and think it requires someone with great faith maintaining that faith against pressure to recant. That may be hard for you to believe. But is it really that hard to believe that someone would join a strange new church, and that the Romans would decide at some point to kill a bunch of its adherents?

Second, I don't understand the premise that a historical Jesus would be more martyr-worthy than a mythical Jesus. In the mythical Jesus scenario, the early religion isn't a giant conspiracy to fool future generations into thinking there was a Jesus; it's a rich religious ideology of its own that just doesn't happen to involve a historical human founder. Why would such a religion be unworthy of martyrdom?

Third, remember that the early Christian church, in the eyes AFAIK of most mythical and historical scholars, was closely tied in to Jewish ethnic-identity politics, a cause for which we know many people were prepared to martyr themselves at that time. Even if the religion were the vague mishmash you seem to feel a mystical Jesus religion would have to have been, some early Christians might well have been martyrs purely for political reasons.

I can understand you wanting someone to put forth a positive proposal of what this early Christian religion looked like and how modern Christianity developed out of it. But I just don't see the idea of martyrdom as a "problem" with the mythical Jesus scenario. In other words, the mythical Jesus scenario may have some holes in it, but this simply isn't one of them.

Solo · 05-16-2005, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Yuri, I don't think much of Doherty's ideas, but I can't see the connection. St Paul was persecuted, flogged and had his life endangered from his preachings. If he represents an expression of the Christ Myth, then it isn't unreasonable to assume that the Christ Myth could inspire martyrdom.

I agree with the last statement. People martyr themselves for all sorts of abstracts - God, king, country, communism. Yuri's smoking something if he thinks that Christian martyrdom presupposes a historical figure; quite the contrary, it presupposes some form of myth, whether around a historical figure or not is not all that relevant.

Quote:

The charges against Christianity that appeared to result in the conditions leading to martyrdom were rejection of the Roman gods (atheism), love feasts and blood sacrificing - there is no evidence that it was because they were worshipping a historical figure (though by the end of the 2nd C CE we can see that Christ was thought to have been a wicked man due to his crucifixion)

Why wouldn't a heavenly Christ's crucifixion have been a shining example?

Jesus was thought to be a wicked man well before the end of 2nd century,
in fact by Saul himself. The cross was a scandal to the Judaic legal mind, and folly to the Greek cosmopolitan !

Paul's writings (or what remains of them) in fact provide the most solid ground on which to postulate Jesus historicity. Paul never accepted the claim of the James' church that Jesus was a prophet. To Paul, the earthly Jesus was (made) an insane fool (1 Cor 1:18-31), but that was how God showed (to Paul) that all flesh was perishable, even that of an incarnated deity.

J.

Toto · 05-16-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

. . .

Jesus was thought to be a wicked man well before the end of 2nd century,
in fact by Saul himself. The cross was a scandal to the Judaic legal mind, and folly to the Greek cosmopolitan !

Paul's writings (or what remains of them) in fact provide the most solid ground on which to postulate Jesus historicity. Paul never accepted the claim of the James' church that Jesus was a prophet. To Paul, the earthly Jesus was (made) an insane fool (1 Cor 1:18-31), but that was how God showed (to Paul) that all flesh was perishable, even that of an incarnated deity.

J.

Hi Solo - welcome to the forums!

But I don't think that Paul thought that the earthly Jesus was an insane fool. 1 Cor 1:18-31 does not mention an earthly Jesus.

For reference:

Quote:

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

GakuseiDon · 05-16-2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Paul's writings (or what remains of them) in fact provide the most solid ground on which to postulate Jesus historicity.

Shhhhh! You crazy man! You can't say that on this board! Oh dear.

Toto · 05-16-2005, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Paul's writings (or what remains of them) in fact provide the most solid ground on which to postulate Jesus historicity.

Shhhhh! You crazy man! You can't say that on this board! Oh dear.

GD - you know that you can say practically anything on this board as long as you are polite to other posters.

Solo - That is the thesis of Donald Akenson's St. Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, reviewed here by Vork. (and searchable on Amazon.) But Akenson's thesis has not been well received in general. If Paul/Saul's writings are the most solid ground on which to postulate Jesus' historicity, you might as well be a mythicist.

Vorkosigan · 05-16-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

SOLO: Paul's writings (or what remains of them) in fact provide the most solid ground on which to postulate Jesus historicity.

DG: Shhhhh! You crazy man! You can't say that on this board! Oh dear.

DG, what are you talking about? Solo is absolutely right. The best evidence for the historical Jesus is Paul. And the best evidence for Bigfoot is the hoaxed Patterson tape. And the best evidence for WMDs in Iraq is Bush Administration propaganda. And the best evidence for ....

NOGO · 05-16-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Usually people select a subset of the evidence upon which to base their models, not giving the same consideration to all the evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, I think you're right. But in science it is imperative that all the evidence is considered carefully, before any conclusions are drawn, or a theory is formulated.

Failure to consider all the evidence (i.e. shunting some of the evidence to the side) is the first sign of pseudo-science.

NOGO
We are not talking about science.
It is obvious that Paul's Jesus is different than that of the Gospels.
Also the Gospels themselves contradict.
Therefore we cannot use all the evidence.

Christianity evolved and the books contain a mix of evidence from various periods and beliefs.

NOGO · 05-16-2005, 07:52 PM

Yuri,

You seem to think that only an HJ can make Christianity credible and therefore worthwhile dying for.

You have yet to prove this.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-17-2005, 09:30 AM

Hi, Andrew,

That's an interesting rundown of possible martyrs among the Roman Popes...

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One possible indication of the number of martyrdoms is the list of supposed bishops of Rome.

Peter is claimed to have been executed under Nero. The next six bishops die by natural causes the seventh bishop after Peter Telesphorus was according to Irenaeus martyred.

Some scholars say that these names are not really historical, although I'm not so sure... One wonders, if these names are really made up, then why didn't the Church authorities also make up some fictitious martyrdoms, at least for some of them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The next death by violence involves the 15th bishop after Peter the controversial Callistus who seems to have died in an anti-Christian riot.

One would also naturally suppose that the more recent these names are, the more likely it is that they are historical...

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The 17th bishop after Peter Pontain died in a forced labour camp. The 19th after Peter Fabian died in prison. His successor Cornelius died of natural cause while in exile. Sixtus (or Xystus) II the 23rd after Peter was executed by beheading in 258.

There is then peace till the Great Persecution under Diocletian, where two bishops of Rome seem to have died in exile and one escaped death by apostasy but none were martyred in the strict sense.

The risk of violent death for a church leader like the bishop of Rome was presumably unusually high but these figures suggest a quite high casualty rate at least in the 3rd century CE.

Andrew Criddle

But my general impression is that it's rather surprising how few of them got martyred (according to the official version).

All the best,

Yuri.

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

05-16-2005, 12:16 PM	#42
chapka Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 6,290	A few points: First of all, the idea of "martyrdom" is likely overblown. The creation of martyrs works like other mythmaking processes. We hear "martyr" and think it requires someone with great faith maintaining that faith against pressure to recant. That may be hard for you to believe. But is it really that hard to believe that someone would join a strange new church, and that the Romans would decide at some point to kill a bunch of its adherents? Second, I don't understand the premise that a historical Jesus would be more martyr-worthy than a mythical Jesus. In the mythical Jesus scenario, the early religion isn't a giant conspiracy to fool future generations into thinking there was a Jesus; it's a rich religious ideology of its own that just doesn't happen to involve a historical human founder. Why would such a religion be unworthy of martyrdom? Third, remember that the early Christian church, in the eyes AFAIK of most mythical and historical scholars, was closely tied in to Jewish ethnic-identity politics, a cause for which we know many people were prepared to martyr themselves at that time. Even if the religion were the vague mishmash you seem to feel a mystical Jesus religion would have to have been, some early Christians might well have been martyrs purely for political reasons. I can understand you wanting someone to put forth a positive proposal of what this early Christian religion looked like and how modern Christianity developed out of it. But I just don't see the idea of martyrdom as a "problem" with the mythical Jesus scenario. In other words, the mythical Jesus scenario may have some holes in it, but this simply isn't one of them.

05-16-2005, 07:52 PM	#49
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Yuri, You seem to think that only an HJ can make Christianity credible and therefore worthwhile dying for. You have yet to prove this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.