Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 12-02-2009, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Guru,

Thanks for the only really deep contribution so far. There is a quibble, though, in that RSV 2 Corinthians 5:16 says "From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer."

"We" actually refers to Paul and his followers in their "understanding" of Jesus. By "human point of view" I take him to mean to consider him a man like any other man. But this POV Paul (or as I think, the Pauline redactor) has abandoned for one he considers much better, a spiritual POV, in which Jesus transcends what he was in the flesh. In fact, he looks at everyone this way now, not as mere humans, but spiritually transformed beings.

So, it seems that Jesus was transformed from a human being to a supernatural being.

DCH

The Greek verb OIDA means (1) as having come to a perception or realization of something, know, understand, comprehend (MK 4.13); (2) as having come to knowledge through experience know (about), recognize, understand (EP 1.18); (3) as having knowledge and ability to do something with an infinitive following know how to, can, be able to (MT 7.11); (4) of intimate or close relationship with someone know, have knowledge of (MT 26.72); (5) as a formula for introducing a well-known and accepted fact (e.g. ... we know that . . . MT 22.16); for introducing a rhetorical question (e.g. ... don't you know that. . . ? 1C 3.16); (6) as giving deserved recognition to someone respect, appreciate, have regard for (1TH 5.12)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

To me, the evidence is basically threefold:

1) There is nothing in the letters of Paul (which I accept, for the sake of the argument, as being the earliest texts we have) which suggests any of the people he is talking about (the Jerusalem people) ever knew a human being called "Jesus". As an example of the kind of thing I mean, suppose there was something like "Cephas told me that Jesus had said this was not so", then that would be the kind of evidence that would suggest a link between Paul, a human being Paul knew, and a human being that person knew. There's nothing of that kind there.

2) There is positive evidence in the letters of Paul that the Jesus he (at least) is talking about is a visionary entity. This is a common type of religious experience, the other kind being mystical experience, strictly so-called, which Paul also seems to be familiar with (unio mystica).

3) While it has been claimed that the mini-credo in 1Corinthians 15 may be an interpolation, if it isn't, or even if it's only partly an interpolation (e.g. the dubious "500"), it's a plain enough "smoking gun" to the effect that the "appearance" was a "self-revelation of the divine", and that "according to Scripture" means, quite literally, the same as "according to the BBC" would today. IOW, Jesus "appeared" to them, made himself manifest to them, in Scripture, and (it looks like) in the same kind of visionary experience that Paul had (since he comes at the end of a list, and there's no hint that the "appearance" to him is of any different quality). IOW, scripture and visionary experience are the source of their belief that some entity had been on the earth in recent-ish times, been crucified, etc., and was the Messiah.

In the absence of any evidence like 1), the positive evidence of 2) and 3) just squeaks through to win the day.

I think Paul is talking about how he and his believers will now view Jesus, as in "in the spirit" and not about the physicality of Jesus himself.

spin · 12-02-2009, 05:01 AM

It seems that the mythicists are just as lacking in evidence as the historicists. Oh, well.

spin

dog-on · 12-02-2009, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It seems that the mythicists are just as lacking in evidence as the historicists. Oh, well.

spin

How much and what type of evidence would one expect to find for a myth?

Steven Carr · 12-02-2009, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It seems that the mythicists are just as lacking in evidence as the historicists. Oh, well.

You could say the same anybody whose first appearance is in a historical novel.

yalla · 12-02-2009, 05:39 AM

From the back page blurb of Thomas Thompson's "The Messiah Myth" [briefly]

"The Jesus of the bible is an amalgamation of themes from Near Eastern mythology and traditions of kingship and divinity. The theme of a messiah - a divinely appointed king who restores the world to perfection - is typical of Egyptian and Babylonian royal ideology dating back to the Bronze Age. .....the contemporary audience for whom the Old and New Teastament were written would naturally have been interpreted David and Jesus not as historical figures, but as metaphors embodying long established messianic traditions."

Thompson gives numerous examples of the development of motifs and themes that formed political and religious ideology for centuries in the region that were became fused into the historicizing of David and JC. Examples include, the figure of the prophet, the children and the kingdom, the song for a poor man, the myth of the good king, the myth of the conquering Holy Warrior, the Myth of the dying and rising god, Holy war, good king bad king.
He does not claim borrowing or plagiarism but that JC fitted into a set of stereotyped literary myths common to the mythical history and traditions of the religion for centuries that follow a common pattern.

spin · 12-02-2009, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It seems that the mythicists are just as lacking in evidence as the historicists. Oh, well.

How much and what type of evidence would one expect to find for a myth?

Calling something a myth is a substantive position. As in all substantive positions one expects the proposer to actually know what evidence there is to support the claim. My comment is merely that of an observer looking for the evidence to support the claim and so far none has been proffered. Take for example your first effort (in this thread which ask for evidence):

Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the gospels is a mythical being.

This is untainted assertion. Other people pouring over the same raw material conclude that Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the gospels is a credible presentation of a real person. Isn't your take as good as the other?

If you want to call something a myth you are the one who is supposed to know the evidence and be able to provide it. All I need do is point out that such evidence has not as yet been provided. If you think this is harsh, just show the substantive evidence for the myth. However, from my understanding of the raw material available, there is no conclusive position. Jesus historicism and Jesus mythicism are merely interpretations lacking in substantive evidence.

spin

spin · 12-02-2009, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

From the back page blurb of Thomas Thompson's "The Messiah Myth" [briefly]

"The Jesus of the bible is an amalgamation of themes from Near Eastern mythology and traditions of kingship and divinity. The theme of a messiah - a divinely appointed king who restores the world to perfection - is typical of Egyptian and Babylonian royal ideology dating back to the Bronze Age. .....the contemporary audience for whom the Old and New Teastament were written would naturally have been interpreted David and Jesus not as historical figures, but as metaphors embodying long established messianic traditions."

Thompson gives numerous examples of the development of motifs and themes that formed political and religious ideology for centuries in the region that were became fused into the historicizing of David and JC. Examples include, the figure of the prophet, the children and the kingdom, the song for a poor man, the myth of the good king, the myth of the conquering Holy Warrior, the Myth of the dying and rising god, Holy war, good king bad king.
He does not claim borrowing or plagiarism but that JC fitted into a set of stereotyped literary myths common to the mythical history and traditions of the religion for centuries that follow a common pattern.

We have on another thread someone citing just as tendentious material from the opposite point of view, ie from the historical Jesus view. Someone else says that the gospels fit the genre of ancient biography. Both ancient biography and mythic tropes. Who wins that little literary tug-of-war?

(:wave

spin

spamandham · 12-02-2009, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Thanks for the only really deep contribution so far. There is a quibble, though, in that RSV 2 Corinthians 5:16 says "From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer."

"We" actually refers to Paul and his followers in their "understanding" of Jesus. By "human point of view" I take him to mean to consider him a man like any other man. But this POV Paul (or as I think, the Pauline redactor) has abandoned for one he considers much better, a spiritual POV, in which Jesus transcends what he was in the flesh.

I think a simpler perspective, is that they were once *anticipating* a human messiah, but no longer do. Notice that the general messiah label "Christ" is used here, not "Jesus". The equivocation between Jesus and Christ is not in the text. "Jesus" is not mentioned at all in 2 Cor 5.

dog-on · 12-02-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

How much and what type of evidence would one expect to find for a myth?

Calling something a myth is a substantive position. As in all substantive positions one expects the proposer to actually know what evidence there is to support the claim. My comment is merely that of an observer looking for the evidence to support the claim and so far none has been proffered. Take for example your first effort (in this thread which ask for evidence):

Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the gospels is a mythical being.

This is untainted assertion. Other people pouring over the same raw material conclude that Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the gospels is a credible presentation of a real person. Isn't your take as good as the other?

If you want to call something a myth you are the one who is supposed to know the evidence and be able to provide it. All I need do is point out that such evidence has not as yet been provided. If you think this is harsh, just show the substantive evidence for the myth. However, from my understanding of the raw material available, there is no conclusive position. Jesus historicism and Jesus mythicism are merely interpretations lacking in substantive evidence.

spin

Regarding my comment that Jesus Christ of the gospels is a mythical being, be serious. Characters portrayed in such ways are mythical, whether or not they are based on actual people or not.

The best evidence for Jesus Christ of the gospels being a myth are the mythical gospels themselves.

Since no one can actually prove when, where, by whom or even, why these books were written, I can only take them at face value. In my experience, peopledo not walk on water, raise from the dead, etc. However, such events are quite common in mythical stories.

Now as to the possibility of some actual person being at the center of these myths, I have never seen any good evidence to say that there actually was one.

On the other hand, the fact that so much of the story seems derived from other pre-existant stories leads me to question why an actual historic individual is even necessary and that, in the end, the lack of an actual person may actually make more sense, all things considered.

Steven Carr · 12-02-2009, 08:03 AM

SPIN
Calling something a myth is a substantive position. As in all substantive positions one expects the proposer to actually know what evidence there is to support the claim.

CARR
What evidence do you have that Jack never existed and never climbed a Beanstalk?

Produce it in the next post please.

Perhaps the same evidence as for the Jesus who flew off into the sky on his way to Heaven?

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

12-02-2009, 05:01 AM	#22
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	It seems that the mythicists are just as lacking in evidence as the historicists. Oh, well. spin

12-02-2009, 05:39 AM	#25
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	From the back page blurb of Thomas Thompson's "The Messiah Myth" [briefly] "The Jesus of the bible is an amalgamation of themes from Near Eastern mythology and traditions of kingship and divinity. The theme of a messiah - a divinely appointed king who restores the world to perfection - is typical of Egyptian and Babylonian royal ideology dating back to the Bronze Age. .....the contemporary audience for whom the Old and New Teastament were written would naturally have been interpreted David and Jesus not as historical figures, but as metaphors embodying long established messianic traditions." Thompson gives numerous examples of the development of motifs and themes that formed political and religious ideology for centuries in the region that were became fused into the historicizing of David and JC. Examples include, the figure of the prophet, the children and the kingdom, the song for a poor man, the myth of the good king, the myth of the conquering Holy Warrior, the Myth of the dying and rising god, Holy war, good king bad king. He does not claim borrowing or plagiarism but that JC fitted into a set of stereotyped literary myths common to the mythical history and traditions of the religion for centuries that follow a common pattern.

12-02-2009, 08:03 AM	#30
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	SPIN Calling something a myth is a substantive position. As in all substantive positions one expects the proposer to actually know what evidence there is to support the claim. CARR What evidence do you have that Jack never existed and never climbed a Beanstalk? Produce it in the next post please. Perhaps the same evidence as for the Jesus who flew off into the sky on his way to Heaven?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.