Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 03-21-2006, 12:53 PM

As I see it the balance of probabilities is strongly in favour of an MJ. We may never be able to move to a "beyond reasonable doubt" but we might.

But if we go with an HJ we are not left with much - rebel, magician, well read person, whatever.

No death resurrection, second coming with an MJ or an HJ.

Or are those arguing for an HJ wanting the next step of people falling on their knees and asking Jeebus into their hearts?

Chris Weimer · 03-21-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Or are those arguing for an HJ wanting the next step of people falling on their knees and asking Jeebus into their hearts?

Yeah, I'm definitely out looking for converts to Christianity.

Way to stereotype a scholastic field and incriminate every scholar out there. :down:

Toto · 03-21-2006, 01:01 PM

Campus Crusade for Christ starts their evangelism with the claim that everyone agrees that Jesus existed. I don't think they need any particular version of Jesus to exist, as long as they can hold open the possibility that their particular warrior triumphant Jesus is the right one; but with no historical Jesus, they would need a different gimmick.

There are also liberals whose ideology depends on a historical Jesus, because they need some concrete proof that acting in a selfless manner can change the world.

But in general, we try to avoid speculating about people's motives here. There are probably a variety of motivations behind historicists and mythicists, and one's motive for accepting a theory should not reflect on the truth of that theory.

I expect that the only people you can trust to make an honest evaluation of the evidence are people who have changed their mind at least once on the question, preferably several times.

jjramsey · 03-21-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Or are those arguing for an HJ wanting the next step of people falling on their knees and asking Jeebus into their hearts?

Some of us just find it frustrating to see those who supposedly come to a worldview based on reason--namely atheism--adopt a position that, as far as at least I can see, is based on fallacies, distortion, and badly-supported speculation.

Toto · 03-21-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Some of us just find it frustrating to see those who supposedly come to a worldview based on reason--namely atheism--adopt a position that, as far as at least I can see, is based on fallacies, distortion, and badly-supported speculation.

You keep repeating this canard, but you have not backed it up. Please ignore Acharya S and Freke and Gandy, and explain why Earl Doherty's or Wells' or Richard Carrier's work is full of fallacies, distortion, or badly-supported speculation.

Clivedurdle · 03-21-2006, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Some of us just find it frustrating to see those who supposedly come to a worldview based on reason--namely atheism--adopt a position that, as far as at least I can see, is based on fallacies, distortion, and badly-supported speculation.

I find it extremely frustrating that the mj position is assumed to be irrational and based on badly supported speculation!

This is why I asked Ok, assume an HJ. So what? How does that help the truth of the virgin birth, the resurrection, the second coming, the logos? It does not!

The "data" for example in the Eucharist does support a mythical position. I assume everyone is agreed there is a huge amount of myth and legend here, so the argument does turn on a balance of probabilities, did he or didn't he exist.

But the discussion does not feel like minor quibbles! It does feel like stage one of a process - swallow the hj "fly" and then you will swallow the whale behind it! Elephants are eaten a bite at a time!

According to xians, we are talking about a saviour of the universe remember!

I think the MJ position does give a reasonable explanation of the growth of this religion, without assumptions of goddidit. If some scholars are assuming someone moved in mysterious ways at various points they need to be called on it - they are in fact being far more mysterious than the mythicists!

If they are not, I cannot see they can call themselves xian, and feel that support for HJ may be out of habit and tradition.

Clivedurdle · 03-21-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Yeah, I'm definitely out looking for converts to Christianity.

Way to stereotype a scholastic field and incriminate every scholar out there. :down:

Ok! Eye catching OP tactic can be closed now, but seriously, why does MJ feel so taboo? Seriously it does feel like the sky will fall in if anyone questions the assumption of an HJ, but the reality is that any realistic HJ is not that significant a person!

jjramsey · 03-21-2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You keep repeating this canard, but you have not backed it up. Please ignore Acharya S and Freke and Gandy, and explain why Earl Doherty's or Wells' or Richard Carrier's work is full of fallacies, distortion, or badly-supported speculation.

Doherty's understanding of Middle Platonism seems woefully offbase, judging from what I've seen from Bernard Muller and other comments on this forum. I see Doherty write this in his attempted rebuttal of Paula Fredriksen:

Quote:

Christianity was allegedly born within Judaism, whose basic theological tenet was: God is One. The ultimate blasphemy for a Jew would have been to associate any man with God.

P.F.: This is not so. Monotheism in antiquity is not so austere, and lots of second temple writings that are not canonical make elevated claims for figures like Enoch, or Moses, or Solomon.

E.D.: A subset of the category "half-truth" ought to be the "half-comparison." Is Dr. Fredriksen saying that figures such as Enoch, Moses and Solomon were in any way turned into God, that they in any way compromised the Jewish God's monotheistic nature? The difference between any "elevation" of Enoch or Moses and the presentation of the cosmic Christ in the first century epistles constitutes a quantum leap. Enoch may have been taken up to heaven without having to pass through death, but he was not made God's Son in a literal way. (Not even in the pseudepigraphic literature.) Moses in Philo's thought possessed the Logos, but he was not the Logos. No Old Testament personage was regarded as sharing in God's nature and preexistent with him from all eternity. None of them were given the title "Lord" with power over all in heaven and earth, none (except for the mythological "Wisdom") were made agents of creation and the sustaining power of the universe. In no second temple writing do we find passages like Colossians 1:15-20 or Hebrews 1:1-3 applied to Enoch, Moses or Solomon.

Then I find out that this is in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Quote:

Moses' Preexistence.

The end of the great lawgiver especially was surrounded with legends. "While, after having taken leave of the people, he was going to embrace Eleazar and Joshua on Mount Nebo, a cloud suddenly stood over him, and he disappeared, though he wrote in Scripture that he died, which was done from fear that people might say that because of his extraordinary virtue he had been turned into a divinity" ("Ant." iv. 8, § 48). Philo says: "He was entombed not by mortal hands, but by immortal powers, so that he was not placed in the tomb of his forefathers, having obtained a peculiar memorial [i.e., grave] which no man ever saw" ("De Vita Moysis," iii. 39). Later on, the belief became current that Moses did not die, but was taken up to heaven like Elijah. This seems to have been the chief content of the apocryphon entitled "Assumptio Moysis," preserved only in fragmentary form (comp. Charles, "The Assumption of Moses," 1897, Introduction; Deut. R. xi.; Jellinek, "B. H." i. 115-129, vi. 71-78; M. R. James, "Apocrypha Anecdota," pp. 166-173, Cambridge, 1893). No sooner was the view maintained that Moses was translated to heaven than the idea was suggested that his soul was different from that of other men. Like the Messiah, he is said to have been preexistent; he is thus represented in "Assumptio Moysis" (i. 12-14); so too "He was prepared before the foundation of the world to be the mediator of God's covenant, and as he was Israel's intercessor with God during life [xi. 11, 17], so is he to be the intercessor in all the future." While his death was an ordinary one (i. 15, x. 14), "no place received his body"; "his sepulcher is from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof, and from the south to the confines of the north; all the world is his sepulcher" (xi. 5-8). Philo also calls Moses "the mediator and reconciler of the world" (ib. iii. 19). Especially in Essene circles was Moses apotheosized: "Next to God," says Josephus ("B. J." ii. 8, § 9), "they honor the name of their legislator, and if any one blasphemes him he meets with capital punishment" (comp. "Ant." iii. 15, § 3). Against such excessive adoration of a human being a reaction set in among the Rabbis, who declared that no man ever ascended to heaven (Suk. 5a).

This "half-comparison," while not quite as extreme as Paul's claims for Jesus, is pretty close, and enough to make Doherty's claim that "[t]he difference between any 'elevation' of Enoch or Moses and the presentation of the cosmic Christ in the first century epistles constitutes a quantum leap."

He overstates Paul's silence and exaggerates its importance, especially since it is clear enough from Paul that Jesus was a human who recently died. He even makes this argument from incredulity, "Is it conceivable that Paul would not have wanted to run to the hill of Calvary, to prostrate himself on the sacred ground that bore the blood of his slain Lord?" using rhetoric to hide that the answer to this question is "Yes." As I and others pointed out on another thread, this argument is bogus.

No Robots · 03-21-2006, 02:48 PM

That's absolutely kickass, Ramsey, especially the Moses quotation. :thumbs:

jjramsey · 03-21-2006, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Ok! Eye catching OP tactic can be closed now, but seriously, why does MJ feel so taboo? Seriously it does feel like the sky will fall in if anyone questions the assumption of an HJ, but the reality is that any realistic HJ is not that significant a person!

For a historicist, it isn't necessarily important that a realistic HJ isn't that significant a person. It might be important for certain kinds of liberal Christian (such as Crossan), but is certainly is not an issue for non-Christian historicists.

As for why an MJ feels so taboo, well, the above sentiments I made are on point.

03-21-2006, 12:53 PM	#1
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	MJ Versus HJ and elephants in the room As I see it the balance of probabilities is strongly in favour of an MJ. We may never be able to move to a "beyond reasonable doubt" but we might. But if we go with an HJ we are not left with much - rebel, magician, well read person, whatever. No death resurrection, second coming with an MJ or an HJ. Or are those arguing for an HJ wanting the next step of people falling on their knees and asking Jeebus into their hearts?

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

03-21-2006, 01:01 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Campus Crusade for Christ starts their evangelism with the claim that everyone agrees that Jesus existed. I don't think they need any particular version of Jesus to exist, as long as they can hold open the possibility that their particular warrior triumphant Jesus is the right one; but with no historical Jesus, they would need a different gimmick. There are also liberals whose ideology depends on a historical Jesus, because they need some concrete proof that acting in a selfless manner can change the world. But in general, we try to avoid speculating about people's motives here. There are probably a variety of motivations behind historicists and mythicists, and one's motive for accepting a theory should not reflect on the truth of that theory. I expect that the only people you can trust to make an honest evaluation of the evidence are people who have changed their mind at least once on the question, preferably several times.

03-21-2006, 02:48 PM	#9
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	That's absolutely kickass, Ramsey, especially the Moses quotation. :thumbs:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.