Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 11-23-2009, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

But doesn't Martyr admit exactly that?

Quote:

Early Jewish Platonism
Well before the beginning of the Christian Era, Jews with some Greek education had begun to make casual use of popular Greek philosophy in expounding their revealed religion: there are traces of this in the wisdom literature of the Old Testament. In Paul’s speech to the Areopagus in Acts 17, commonplaces of Stoic philosophy were employed for apologetic purposes. But, as far as is known, the first Jew who was really well-read in Greek philosophy and used it extensively in the exposition and defense of his traditional religion was Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria [c. 15 bc–after ad 45]), an older contemporary of St. Paul. Philo expressed his philosophical religion in the form of lengthy allegorical commentaries on the Jewish Scriptures, especially on Genesis. In these he showed to his own satisfaction that the ancient revelation given to Moses accorded with the teaching of the best Greek philosophers, which, in his view, was later and derivative. The Greek philosophy that he preferred and found to be most in accordance with revelation was an early form of Middle Platonism. Philo was neither approved of nor read by later orthodox Jews, but his influence on Greek-speaking and Greek-educated Christians from the 2nd century ad was great; and in important ways he determined the tone of their religious speculation.

Ancient and medieval Christian Platonism
Like Philo, the Christian Platonists gave primacy to revelation and regarded Platonic philosophy as the best available instrument for understanding and defending the teachings of Scripture and church tradition. But, also like Philo, they did not believe that truth could conflict with truth and were confident that all that was rationally certain in Platonic speculation would prove to be in perfect accordance with the Christian revelation. Their unhistorical approach and unscholarly methods of exegesis of texts, both pagan and Christian, facilitated this confidence. The general attitude of Christian Platonists was one of relatively moderate and humane otherworldliness (the cruder sorts of Christian otherworldliness and hatred of the body seem to derive from non-Platonic and non-Greek sources). They stressed the transcendence of God though, by insisting that it is a transcendence that is also the deepest immanence, they acknowledged his intimate presence within the world as well. They took a dualistic view of soul and body (though accepting bodily resurrection) and emphasized the primacy of the spiritual, while insisting on the goodness of God’s material creation.

PATRISTIC PLATONISM
From the middle of the 2nd century ad Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms, both for their own intellectual satisfaction and in order to convert educated pagans. The philosophy that suited them best was Platonism. Though Stoicism had exerted a considerable influence on Christian ethical thinking (which has persisted to modern times), Stoic corporealism—the belief that God and the soul are bodies of a subtle and peculiar kind—repelled most Christians, and Stoic pantheism was incompatible with Christianity. The Platonism that the first Christian thinkers knew was of course Middle Platonism, not yet Neoplatonism. Its relatively straightforward theism and high moral tone suited their purposes excellently; and the influence of this older form of Platonism persisted through the 4th century and beyond, even after the works of Plotinus and Porphyry began to be read by Christians.

The first Christian to use Greek philosophy in the service of the Christian faith was Justin Martyr (martyred c. 165), whose passionate rejection of Greek polytheism, combined with an open and positive acceptance of the essentials of Platonic religious philosophy and an unshakable confidence in its harmony with Christian teaching, was to remain characteristic of the Christian Platonist tradition. This was carried on in the Greek-speaking world by Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215), a persuasive Christian humanist, and by the greatest of the Alexandrian Christian teachers, Origen (c. 185–254). Although Origen was consciously more hostile to and critical of Platonic philosophy than either Justin or Clement, he was, nonetheless, more deeply affected by it. He produced a synthesis of Christianity and late Middle Platonism of remarkable originality and power, which is the first great Christian philosophical theology. In spite of subsequent condemnations of some of his alleged views, his influence on Christian thought was strong and lasting. The Greek philosophical theology that developed during the Trinitarian controversies over the relationships among the persons of the Godhead, which were settled at the ecumenical councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), owed a great deal to Origen on both sides, orthodox and heretical. Its most important representatives on the orthodox side were the three Christian Platonist theologians of Cappadocia, Basil of Caesarea (c. 329–379), Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330–c. 389), and Basil’s brother Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–c. 394). Of these three, Gregory of Nyssa was the most powerful and original thinker (as well as the closest to Origen). He was the first great theologian of mystical experience, at once Platonic and profoundly Christian, and he exerted a strong influence on later Greek Christian thought.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...#ref=ref407183

and a few others!

Dave31 · 11-23-2009, 11:45 AM

The newly updated "Origins" bit is actually a 30 page e-book not 12. And, it's actually an excerpt from a new upcoming book titled, "The Christ Myth Anthology," which is from what I understand, essentially a type of 2nd edition to her original "Christ Conspiracy" from 1999.

Acharya/Murdock, apparently, has some prominent scholars signing on. Dr. Christian Lindtner, a 30 year Buddhist and Sanskrit scholar, has peer reviewed the excerpt and written an introduction (originally in Danish but here's the English translation):

Quote:

"In her most recent essay, "The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus", the American scholar Acharya S /D.M.Murdock argues, forcefully and boldly, in favour of the thesis that Jesus was not at all a historical person, but rather - as so many other sons of God in those days of old - a personification of the Sun.

In support of this point of view - one that she is not the first to advocate, but for which she deserves credit in graciously attending the advocacy - she adduces Christian as well as non-Christian sources, primary as well as secondary. Unremittingly, she reminds her readers of the fact that nearly everything that is said or written about the Jesus called Christ, had already at an earlier date been reported about the Buddha - or the Buddhas (too many to count), about Krishna, about Horus, about Prometheus, and, indeed, about numerous other now less known mythical figures.

That this is actually the case, no scholar familiar with Hellenistic religion and syncretism will be able to deny. Should he venture to deny, as some still do, then his colleagues can only deplore his ignorance of the relevant sources. Should anyone, moreover, wish to claim that Jesus - as opposed to so many other sons of God - is a historical person, then that defender of the old faith has a very heavy burden of proof resting upon his shoulders.

Our theologians, as a rule, simply postulate that there is no reason to doubt that Jesus was or is a historical person. There may be doubt, they admit, about the nature of that person, about the credibility of the evangelists in certain details etc., but about his existence, no, no, there can be no doubt.

Such a stand is apologetic and anything but scientific. An appeal to mere faith is an appeal to sheer ignorance.

Under such circumstances, our professional historians of religion would be expected to raise a storm of protest. They do, as a rule, fail to protest, and their failure is nothing short of a disgrace. Educated historians ought to enlighten and warn the public that there is neither solid external or internal evidence in support of the claim that Jesus was in any way a historical person.

Did Jesus really exist? - the question is not a new one. The great German theologian, Adolf Harnack once (back in 1909, before he became von Harnack) called it "the embarrassing question", i.e. embarrassing for those who raised it (viz. Kalthoff, Jensen, Drews). We must now say that von Harnack got it wrong. The question is now embarrassing - and even more so now than then - for those who fail to account for the lack of external and internal evidence, and for the parallels that are now much more numerous and close than they were in 1909. (Adolf Harnack, "Hat Jesus gelebt?" in: Aus Wissenschaft und Leben, Zweiter Band, Giessen 1911, pp. 167-175.). Above all, new Buddhist sources, in Sanskrit, have provided numerous literal parallels, i.e. direct loans.

The reason for clinging to the myth of Jesus as a historical person is, I assume, double: First of all, it is not easy to rid oneself of old and inveterate misconceptions. Such struggle not only requires freedom of mind but also personal courage - both are rare at a time where a higher Classical education and civilization with emphasis on human character have been banned from our universities and now are but remnants of brighter days.

Then there is the fear of loss of livelihood. If the story of Jesus is merely a solar myth - then our priesthood will have lost all its credibility. Who can make a living by talking about the Sun?

The edifice of Christianity - in any form it may be - rests on a ground of nonsense neatly summarized in the Apostles' Creed - that the mother of Jesus, who went to hell, was a virgin etc. etc.

If the thesis that Jesus is a mere solar myth is correct - and who is there to rebuke its validity on solid scholarly grounds? - then this must have serious consequences not just for conscientious Christian individuals, but also for a society that considers itself to be Christian in this or that respect.

The Danish church - not unlike other Lutheran or reformed churches - considers itself to be fairly "open and broad, " I am told. But is it "open and broad" enough to give room for the view that Jesus never existed, and for infidels taking that stand?

In Denmark (and elsewhere) we recognize and allow other religions, provided they do not violate certain rules or standards of decency and decorum - reflecting a Classical, and not at all a Christian tradition, I may add. The concept of decency or decorum may not be altogether clear to a modern mind, but no matter how we agree about definitions, it would be hard to leave out honesty and truthfulness from that definition. How can we have decency without honesty?

If, thus, honesty and truthfulness be recognized as natural and essential parts of decency and decorum, it follows, surely, that our professional professors of theology, along with our bishops and our priests find themselves facing a difficult dilemma: Either they must, openly and boldly, step forward to defend their honour and refute the thesis that Jesus be merely a solar myth, or they must, should they choose to remain silent, fear the disgraceful charge that their lack of honesty - not to speak of "Lutheran boldness" - makes them violate the standards of decorum and decency.

In other words: If our professional theologians do not respond and come up with strong arguments against the thesis of Jesus as a solar myth, then they will, day by day, transform the church and Christian society that for centuries have provided them with even more than their daily bread into institutions the nature of which is increasingly infested by dishonesty and lack of decency - until the day of the final and total collapse of the ancient myth."

Christian Lindtner, PhD
November 22nd, 2009

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/for...hp?f=22&t=2946

Roger Pearse · 11-23-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Acharya/Murdock, apparently, has some prominent scholars signing on. Dr. Christian Lindtner, a 30 year Buddhist and Sanskrit scholar, has peer reviewed the excerpt and written an introduction

This Lindtner is the editor of http://www.jesusisbuddha.com, apparently. (His political views are of no concern here, of course). I do wonder about his academic credentials. Most of the material online about him seems to be by himself. Looking for books by him in library catalogues doesn't turn up a lot.

Anyone know anything about him? Or who we might ask who knows about Buddhist studies?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto · 11-23-2009, 02:02 PM

Lindtner came up in this archived thread.

Since then, his name has become more associated with Holocaust Denial, which might have been anticipated by this (note the accusations of "insane amateurism.")

The Secret about Christian Lindtner - a preliminary response . . . By Dr. Burkhard Scherer

Quote:

Here we discover a main Secret about Christian Lindtner: A deep unwillingness to ponder the Jewish (and Hellenistic) background of the Gospels. In order to avoid going the trodden path of Hebrew and Aramaic heritage, CL wanders on the devious route into Sanskrit.

Lindtner replies to that webpage here

His political views might not be relevant, but his denial of reality is. His qualifications in Sanscrit might be sterling, but his attempts to find linguistic connections between Buddhist documents and the gospels have no academic support.

Dave31 · 11-24-2009, 09:11 AM

Dr. Lindtner responds to that quote in # 5.
http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/SCHERER1.html

From what I understand he's not a "Holocaust Denier" per say - he is simply asking for the evidence to substantiate all the claims made. He appears quite grounded in reality, just asking critical questions.

Quote:

"no academic support"

Shocker!!! What a surprise. Why should anyone trust academia on these issues when they fail miserably when it comes to Jesus? Academia is afraid to even consider that Jesus might be a myth. They might lose their funding and many life's works would be rendered obsolete. They seem to utterly fear the mythicist position even though it's the 900 pound gorilla in the room.

Dr. Lindtner seems to be getting support from Dr. Robert Price and others. Price has posted in Acharya's forum giving Dr. Lindtner a "Bravo!" At the bottom of page 1
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/for...t=2946&start=0

Dave31 · 11-30-2009, 09:38 PM

I notice there is a decent conversation about Buddhism presenting much of the same info found in Acharya's work even by some of the same sources i.e Thundy, Christian Lindtner etc from 2005 and there appears to be no hysteria.

Is Christianity western BUDDHISM??
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...d.php?t=123887

:huh:

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

11-30-2009, 09:38 PM	#46
Dave31 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 425	I notice there is a decent conversation about Buddhism presenting much of the same info found in Acharya's work even by some of the same sources i.e Thundy, Christian Lindtner etc from 2005 and there appears to be no hysteria. Is Christianity western BUDDHISM?? http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...d.php?t=123887 :huh:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.