Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 03-24-2007, 09:27 AM

From GRD thread what is religion, written by fatpie42

Quote:

Radical Christian views have generally been, for the most part, unknown to popular understanding of most British Christians. So when John Robinson, the former bishop of Woolwich, decided to address the changing understanding of God in academic Christianity in a book meant for ordinary Christians there was a great deal of controversy. It was thought that the clergy must be giving up on Christianity. Unfortunately this same backwards mentality still exists, and any questioning of orthodoxy is regularly taken as the end of religion rather than as an inevitable step in its revival. In Robinson’s book ‘Honest To God (or via: amazon.co.uk)’ he refers to the works of three theologians: Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Rudolf Bultmann.

Robinson refers to Paul Tillich’s ‘The Shaking Of The Foundations (or via: amazon.co.uk)’ which equates belief in God with the recognition of the ‘depth’ to life. Tillich makes a strong use of existentialism in this theology:

“If that word (God) has not much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern, of what you take seriously without any reservation. Perhaps, in order to do so, you must forget everything traditional that you have learned about God, perhaps even the word itself. For if you know that God means depth, you know much about Him. You cannot then call yourself an atheist or unbeliever. For you cannot think or say: Life has no depth! Life itself is shallow. Being itself it surface only. If you could say this in complete seriousness, you would be an atheist; but otherwise you are not. He who knows about depth knows about God.”

Another text which Robinson highlighted as an inspiration is particular letters from prison by Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

“Religious people speak of God when human knowledge (perhaps simply because they are too lazy to think) has come to an end, or when human resources fail – in fact it is always the deus ex machina that they bring on the scene, either for the apparent solution of insoluble problems, or as strength in human failure – always, that is to say, exploiting human weakness or human boundaries. Of necessity, that can do on only till people can by their own strength push these boundaries somewhat further out, so that God superfluous as a deus ex machina.”

Bonhoeffer also explains what ways God is wrongly used as a deus ex machina:

“Belief in the resurrection is not the ‘solution’ of the problem of death. God’s beyond is not the beyond of our cognitive faculties. The transcendence of epistemological theory has nothing to do with the transcendence of God.”

The other work was Rudolf Bultmann’s ‘New Testament And Mythology (or via: amazon.co.uk)’. This is by far the most radical of the three and it begins as follows:

“The world picture of the New Testament is a mythical world picture. The world is a three-storey structure, with earth in the middle, heaven above it, and hell below it. Heaven is the dwelling place of God and of heavenly figures, the angels; the world below is hell, the place of torment. But even the earth is not simply the scene of natural day-to-day occurrences, of foresight and work that reckon with order and regularity; rather, it, too, is a theatre for the working of supernatural powers, God and his angels, Satan and his demons. These supernatural powers intervene in natural occurrences and in the thinking, willing, and acting of human beings; wonders are nothing unusual. Human beings are not their own masters; demons can possess them, and Satan can put bad ideas into their heads. But God, too, can direct their thinking and willing, send them heavenly visions, allow them to hear his commanding or comforting word, give them the supernatural power of his Spirit. History does not run its own steady, lawful course but is moved and guided by supernatural powers. This age stands under the power of Satan, sin, and death (which are precisely ‘powers’). It is hastening towards its imminent end, which will take place in a cosmic catastrophe. It stands before the ‘woes’ of the last days, the coming of the heavenly judge, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment to salvation or damnation...

“All this is mythological talk, and the individual motifs may be easily traced to the contemporary mythology of Jewish Apocalypticism and of the Gnostic myth of redemption. Insofar as it is mythological talk it is incredible to men and women today because for them the mythical world picture is a thing of the past. Therefore, contemporary Christian proclamation is faced with the question whether when it demands faith from men and women, it expects them to acknowledge this mythical world picture of the past. If this is impossible, it then has to face the question whether the New Testament proclamation has a truth that is independent of the mythical world picture, in which case it would be the task of theology to demythologize the Christian proclamation.”

It is this request to demythologize which inspired many theologians since, including the aforementioned Paul Tillich. Bultmann is a major New Testament scholar and thus has little problem finding biblical verses to demonstrate how the New Testament portrays a mythological picture. Bultmann’s explanation is that myth represents a literary style which has become incommensurable with modern scientific understanding.

Why is not Jesus also myth?

Toto · 03-24-2007, 11:42 AM

I don't know that what this describes is "mainstream" in the US. But, yes, for a Christian that radical, it scarcely makes any difference if Jesus was mythical or human.

tubalkain · 03-24-2007, 11:58 AM

Writing from Rome, Italy, I tell you that the Vatican cannot be more distant
from these radical theologians. All the catholic establishment really believe, and try to convince everybody to believe, in the factual, historical, truth of the gospel stories
and derive from these stories all sorts of conclusions concerning social life,
human behavior, family, education, practical questions like divorce, abortion,
marriage, gays etc etc. If historians can show beyond
reasonable doubt that at least some of those stories are just myth, they
would contribute to deliver us from catholic superstition and from their pervasive power. Therefore the debate around a MJ vs HJ, or just around the mythical content in the gospel and in the Bible, is useful and needs to be carried out even if for some Christian intellectuals would make no difference. It sure makes a difference to those that on the presumed gospel historicity built an all-too- powerful repressive institution called the Catholic Church.

aa5874 · 03-24-2007, 04:44 PM

Jesus the Christ, the Word, was a myth long before he was thought to be historic.
For a description of the myth, see John 1:1-4, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him,and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men'.

And in John 1:14, we have the Word turn to flesh, the assumed historicity of Jesus the Christ, "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us...."

John 1 appears to be all myth to me.

Spanky · 03-24-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tubalkain

Writing from Rome, Italy, I tell you that the Vatican cannot be more distant
from these radical theologians. All the catholic establishment really believe, and try to convince everybody to believe, in the factual, historical, truth of the gospel stories
and derive from these stories all sorts of conclusions concerning social life,
human behavior, family, education, practical questions like divorce, abortion,
marriage, gays etc etc. If historians can show beyond
reasonable doubt that at least some of those stories are just myth, they
would contribute to deliver us from catholic superstition and from their pervasive power. Therefore the debate around a MJ vs HJ, or just around the mythical content in the gospel and in the Bible, is useful and needs to be carried out even if for some Christian intellectuals would make no difference. It sure makes a difference to those that on the presumed gospel historicity built an all-too- powerful repressive institution called the Catholic Church.

Solo una sana e consapevole libidine
salva il giovane
dallo stress e dall'azione cattolica:wave:

www.deveryharpermusic.com

mountainman · 03-24-2007, 05:56 PM

Mainstream theologians really have an HJ as
an unexamined hypothesis or postulate, to be
quite specific about the logic of the enterprise.

Mainstream theologians are totally contrained
by the quadrants and phalanxes of the literary
tradition, and cannot reach out to any other
form of accepted scientific/archeological citations
in any other discipline, other than that of
paleography, aka handwriting analysis.

Thus the greatest problem faced by mainstream
theologians are the assorted vagaries inherent in
the Eusebian pseudo-history, and its totally
unambiguous creation and authorship during the
rise to supremacy of the despot "bullneck".

Clivedurdle · 03-25-2007, 02:32 AM

Is there a reason Bultmann does not seem to be mentioned much here?

Clivedurdle · 03-25-2007, 04:00 AM

Quote:

The New Quest

These scholars asserted the Quest for the Historical Jesus was impossible because of insufficient evidence. These scholars demonstrated how later redactors adapted, relocated, framed and censored the stories (pericopes) about Jesus to form the New Testament. (See Form criticism.) Outright fictions about Jesus via "prophecy" were also speculated. The New Testament was seen as evidencing the later non-Jewish Christian followers only and saying virtually nothing about the Historical Jesus himself. These scholars tended to embrace the modern philosophy of Existentialism and to advocate Jesus as an ahistorical symbol who personified a pure act of will in the throes of the ungrounded subjectivity of freedom: that is, an Existentialist take on "faith". Despite claims of historical agnosticism about Jesus, they tended to present Jesus as an Existentialist philosopher.

* Rudolf Bultmann - identified the Signs gospel.
* Martin Dibelius - advocated that form criticism be applied to the New Testament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

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

03-24-2007, 11:42 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I don't know that what this describes is "mainstream" in the US. But, yes, for a Christian that radical, it scarcely makes any difference if Jesus was mythical or human.

03-24-2007, 11:58 AM	#3
tubalkain Junior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Roma, Italia Posts: 6	Writing from Rome, Italy, I tell you that the Vatican cannot be more distant from these radical theologians. All the catholic establishment really believe, and try to convince everybody to believe, in the factual, historical, truth of the gospel stories and derive from these stories all sorts of conclusions concerning social life, human behavior, family, education, practical questions like divorce, abortion, marriage, gays etc etc. If historians can show beyond reasonable doubt that at least some of those stories are just myth, they would contribute to deliver us from catholic superstition and from their pervasive power. Therefore the debate around a MJ vs HJ, or just around the mythical content in the gospel and in the Bible, is useful and needs to be carried out even if for some Christian intellectuals would make no difference. It sure makes a difference to those that on the presumed gospel historicity built an all-too- powerful repressive institution called the Catholic Church.

03-24-2007, 04:44 PM	#4
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Jesus the Christ, the Word, was a myth long before he was thought to be historic. For a description of the myth, see John 1:1-4, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him,and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men'. And in John 1:14, we have the Word turn to flesh, the assumed historicity of Jesus the Christ, "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us...." John 1 appears to be all myth to me.

03-24-2007, 05:56 PM	#6
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Mainstream theologians really have an HJ as an unexamined hypothesis or postulate, to be quite specific about the logic of the enterprise. Mainstream theologians are totally contrained by the quadrants and phalanxes of the literary tradition, and cannot reach out to any other form of accepted scientific/archeological citations in any other discipline, other than that of paleography, aka handwriting analysis. Thus the greatest problem faced by mainstream theologians are the assorted vagaries inherent in the Eusebian pseudo-history, and its totally unambiguous creation and authorship during the rise to supremacy of the despot "bullneck".

03-25-2007, 02:32 AM	#7
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is there a reason Bultmann does not seem to be mentioned much here?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.