Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julian · 12-13-2005, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gudanov

Doesn't it basically boil down to how historically accurate the gospels are? One of the weaknesses of apologetics for me has been the assumption that the gospels are accurate or at least mostly accurate. I can't make that leap. OTOH, I think it's equally difficult to convince someone that Jesus was mythical by making the assumption that the gospels are fictional or at least mostly fictional.

That's not the only reason why people adhere to the MJ view. It stems mostly from the writings of Paul who, mysteriously enough, doesn't seem to know much, or anything, about a historical person. And his are the earliest writings we have.

Julian

RPS · 12-13-2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

There is no rational argument for considering Engels' interest in a particular mythical Jesus theory relevant to the credibility of the theory. Only the evidence is relevant. It doesn't matter how smart or how famous or how numerous the people are who believe it.

You may be right that the only intent was to poison the well. But given the discussion of the marginality of the Jesus-myth idea academically, I can imagine someone trying to be careful to list all the prominent Jesus-mythers to avoid an accusation that its support was minimized. Moreover, even if you're right (and you likely are), the new Wiki editing disingenuously suggesting that the Jesus-myth idea carries the day is far worse.

Toto · 12-13-2005, 01:10 PM

Engels wrote a book which Peter Kirby provides a link for, On the History of Early Christianity. Engels is actually fairly pro-Christian, and sees early Christians as proto-revolutionaries.

Quote:

The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead. Three hundred years after its appearance Christianity was the recognized state religion in the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty years socialism has won itself a position which makes its victory absolutely certain.

. . .

We therefore see that the Christianity of that time, which was still unaware of itself, was as different as heaven from earth from the later dogmatically fixed universal religion of the Nicene Council; one cannot be recognized in the other. Here we have neither the dogma nor the morals of later Christianity but instead a feeling that one is struggling against the whole world and that the struggle will be a victorious one; an eagerness for the struggle and a certainty of victory which are totally lacking in Christians of today and which are to be found in our time only at the other pole of society, among the Socialists.

In fact, the struggle against a world that at the beginning was superior in force, and at the same time against the novators themselves, is common to the early Christians and the Socialists. Neither of these two great movements were made by leaders or prophets -- although there are prophets enough among both of them -- they are mass movements. And mass movements are bound to be confused at the beginning; confused because the thinking of the masses at first moves among contradictions, lack of clarity and lack of cohesion, and also because of the role that prophets still play in them at the beginning. This confusion is to be seen in the formation of numerous sects which right against one another with at least the same zeal as against the common external enemy. So it was with early Christianity, so it was in the beginning of the socialist movement, no matter how much that worried the well-meaning worthies who preached unity where no unity was possible.

But I see no indication here that Engels is a mythicist. He describes the current German theological schools, and he describes Christianity as a mass movement, but nowhere does he say that Jesus never existed.

RPS · 12-13-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Engels wrote a book which Peter Kirby provides a link for, On the History of Early Christianity. Engels is actually fairly pro-Christian, and sees early Christians as proto-revolutionaries. ...But I see no indication here that Engels is a mythicist. He describes the current German theological schools, and he describes Christianity as a mass movement, but nowhere does he say that Jesus never existed.

Read here: "Strauss’ Life of Jesus, published in 1835, had provided the first impulse. The theory therein developed of the formation of the gospel myths was combated later by Bruno Bauer [the apparent Jesus-myth founder]with proof that a whole series of evangelic stories had been fabricated by the authors themselves."

Toto · 12-13-2005, 01:47 PM

Saying that the gospels are myths is a far cry from saying that Jesus never existed. Most liberal Christian scholars treat the gospels as essentially mythical (in a good way) but believe that there was a historical Jesus at the origins of Christianity.

But I see this, from Goguel's Jesus the Nazarene

Quote:

In Bauer's view the primitive evangelist was a creator, and his work is the product of the faith of the early Christians. Christianity was born at the beginning of the second century from the meeting of the different currents of thought originating in Judea, Greece and Rome. The person of Jesus was merely a literary fiction. Jesus is the product, not the creator, of Christianity.

Bruno Bauer remained a solitary. His ideas had but little influence. When, at a later period, analogous ideas to his were expressed, either by the radical Dutch school or by certain modern mythologists, it was not under his influence, and it was only after their expression that the authors of certain theories believed to be new found out that in Bruno Bauer they had a pioneer.

However, Engels did not endorse Bauer's views completely:

Quote:

If, therefore, the Tübingen school presents to us in the remains of the New Testament stories and literature that it left untouched the extreme maximum of what science today can still accept as disputable, Bruno Bauer presents to us maximum of what can be contested. The factual truth lies between these two limits. Whether that truth can be defined with the means at our disposal today is very doubtful.

Bauer as a Hegelian professor evidently was an early (but hardly definitive) influence on Marx and Engels. But the influence was philosophical, and the Jesus Myth seems an insignficant part of that influence.

Bright Life · 12-13-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by achristianbeliever

I'm sorry but could you explain how that's relevant to my question?

My point in telling you the *type* of evidence to look for is simple. Opinions are cheap. Who cares what the experts believe if they have no actual evidence to back their claims?

RPS · 12-13-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Bauer as a Hegelian professor evidently was an early (but hardly definitive) influence on Marx and Engels. But the influence was philosophical, and the Jesus Myth seems an insignficant part of that influence.

You won't get an argument on that from me.

Bright Life · 12-13-2005, 01:53 PM

Re: Josephus:

IIRC, the problem was not with Josephus as a historian, but with the actual documentation. The portion that mentions Jesus is believed to be a Christian forgery.

Emp-JohnIV · 12-13-2005, 01:54 PM

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...ally_live.html

I can't believe no one has linked to this artical. I agree with it, but would like to hear some serious critisum of it,

Bright Life · 12-13-2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gooch's dad

Bright Life asked for Roman census or tax data about Jesus, which seems to be rather a strange request. Do we have any such data at all, for anybody from Roman Palestine in the 1st century?

It was an example. One would imagine that such a massive event would be mentioned somewhere. However, AFAIK, there is no evidence of a census that huge (requiring people to return to their place of origin) even occuring at the time, much less any actual records.

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

12-13-2005, 01:53 PM	#98
Bright Life Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 8,345	Re: Josephus: IIRC, the problem was not with Josephus as a historian, but with the actual documentation. The portion that mentions Jesus is believed to be a Christian forgery.

12-13-2005, 01:54 PM	#99
Emp-JohnIV Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Makezero.com Posts: 1,547	http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...ally_live.html I can't believe no one has linked to this artical. I agree with it, but would like to hear some serious critisum of it,

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.