Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 11-17-2006, 04:13 PM

As far as I know there is a book that makes the whole case at this point.

I think that The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert Price is one of the best, though it never specifically endorses the MJ hypothesis.

EarlOfLade · 11-17-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Don't forget that people back then were also stupid, and ugly.

You haven't seen Cleopatra I can see...

WishboneDawn · 11-17-2006, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you search for Harpur in this forum, you will find some rather unfavorable reviews.

I'd heard some unfavourable things about it and wasn't sure I really wanted to spend time reading it. I'll do that search.

And thanks for the reccomendation Malachi.

Roland · 11-17-2006, 07:27 PM

What evidence is there from Paul's writings that the "pillars" he talks about are the same "apostles" familiar to us from the gospel stories?

Is there any indication that he believed they were men who actually walked and talked with Jesus Christ?

seeker · 11-18-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

Well, the question of if Paul would have given up his life for a myth, if you take the histories at face value, it seems to have provided a pretty good career, lots of travel, no worries about bills, providing for a household, obtaining food, lodging, etc. And, of course, after a couple of years of living of the fat of the lamb, so to speak, pretty hard to give it up and admit the scam. I imagine the victims might have gotten a tad sore. Plus everyone else he set up would have taken the fall with him. House of cards, once you get it going you have to maintain it. Too many people have too much riding on the myth. Eventually it becomes a self fulfilling and sustaining entity.

Personally i think Paul was setting himself up as the head of a religion for money and power. Since the account of his death really only comes from Christian sources I'm sure it was somewhat romanticized.

WishboneDawn · 11-18-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seeker

Personally i think Paul was setting himself up as the head of a religion for money and power. Since the account of his death really only comes from Christian sources I'm sure it was somewhat romanticized.

Do you think you might be assigning more modern motivations to him? I can't think of anything that would support your assumption.

neilgodfrey · 11-18-2006, 06:52 PM

Some years ago Dr Spong visited my little town of Toowoomba and after his public address I had the chance to shake his hand and thank him in person for helping me on my journey to atheism. It was in part his writings, I assured him, that had helped me accept that there was nothing personal in the Bible for any but the mystically minded. I explained how I found his books honest and hard hitting until, in each of his final chapters, he suddenly switched into mystical gear, disconnecting from all the rationality and evidence of the previous chapters, and waxing with subjective eloquence on how nothing he had written denied the reality of the historical Christ (nothing affirmed it either!) or the more important question of what Christ means to him now.

I could not understand why he and others like him did not follow their logic through consistently to the end, but of course Spong's books are not treatises in rational studies of the Bible but are attempts to enlighten or liberalize the views of the converted. "Above all else, it has been my purpose to call people into a love of Scripture for what it is . . . I also write to challenge mainline church members . . ." (p.245 of Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism).

Looks like now he has tried to address all those like myself who have used him as stepping stones to the same position (atheism) as his mentor, Dr Michael Goulder. In his Liberating the Gospels he admits: "Do these things mean that I believe that Christianity is something of a hoax or a delusion, or am I suggesting that there is no history, no firm objective truth on which the Jesus story stands? That will be the way the questions are posed by some." (p.324)

Spong did not respond with any offence to my gratitude, but I could not say he was not to some extent disappointed. So I explained that since I had given up belief and become an atheist I felt far more relaxed and mature within myself. He admitted that he had found that to be so with many atheists he had met, and volunteered that most believers seemed to have a certain up-tightness about them.

Given that Spong's aim has been to educate Christians within their Christianity, and that his personal confessions expressed in his writings appear to be fundamentally mystically based, and perhaps given the disappointment he must have felt with the "waywardness" of his mentor Goulder and other readers like me, I am not surprised that he can do little more than write for non-believers:

"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a argument for those things thich are most assuredly believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministiers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had a perfect understanding of all things from the time when "sex drove me to the bible" (p.1 of Rescuing...), to write to you an orderly argument, most excellent atheistic nonbeliever, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were once instructed."

seeker · 11-18-2006, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Do you think you might be assigning more modern motivations to him? I can't think of anything that would support your assumption.

Consider the time. There were dozens of mystery religions all of whom had their own priests.

The priests were supported by their followers which is why they were so competitive with each other. The more followers a priest could gather the better he could live. Some of the better known of the mystery religions like that of Mithra or Dionysius actually counted among their initiates rulers of Rome itself.

The cult of Mithra required tithes of one quarter of a persons income. Other of the mystery religions had their tithes and prices for the revelation of their mysteries.

Some of these cults grew quite wealthy and there are descriptions of artwork and statuary they owned. With wealth came power.

Paul was most likely an apostate Jew who had been initiated into one or more of the mystery religions. It would have been fairly easy to start preaching about the savior of the Jews and how this new God was the real one.

Fencesitter · 11-18-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwalcmai

Spong claims:

I didn't read your post very carefully, so perhaps you mentioned it in the text, but could you point me to where you found this information? Was this quoted from another website? If so, could you provide the link, please? Thanks.

spamandham · 11-18-2006, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwalcmai

Spong claims:

First, the data about his historicity. Paul writing to the Galatians around the year 51 C.E. chronicles his activities, including his consultations with Peter and others who were called by Paul "the pillars" of the Christian movement. This means that Paul knew Peter and others who were the disciples of the Jesus of history. Paul says that this meeting took place three years after his conversion (see Galatians 1:18-24). The best evidence that has been amassed to date the conversion of Paul was done by a 19th century church historian named Adolf Harnack, who places it no earlier than one year and no more than six years after the crucifixion. So Paul was in touch with disciples of Jesus within 4 to 10 years after the crucifixion. These disciples did not think of Jesus as a fantasy or a mythical person.

In this brief description, I count the following unsubstantiated assumptions, errors, and anachronisms:

- It is simply assumed Peter knew Jesus personally (this idea comes from the Gospels written much later). Paul never says anything like that at all.

- Peter was not referred to as one of the pillars by Paul, unless you assume Peter= Cephas. There is no basis for such an assumption except much much later apologetic writings that make that claim.

- It is merely assumed that Paul was in contact with people who knew Jesus personally. He never actually says so! This is anti-evidence of a historical Jesus that Spong somehow decides is evidence for a HJ nonetheless!

- There is nothing in the authentic writings of Paul to indicate Jesus was crucified in the recent past. 1 Timothy is generally not considered to be authentically Paul's.

With so many critical logical errors in such a short span, it seems fair to summarily dismiss the rest of Spong's "analysis".

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

11-17-2006, 04:13 PM	#21
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	As far as I know there is a book that makes the whole case at this point. I think that The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert Price is one of the best, though it never specifically endorses the MJ hypothesis.

11-17-2006, 07:27 PM	#24
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	What evidence is there from Paul's writings that the "pillars" he talks about are the same "apostles" familiar to us from the gospel stories? Is there any indication that he believed they were men who actually walked and talked with Jesus Christ?

11-18-2006, 06:52 PM	#27
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	Some years ago Dr Spong visited my little town of Toowoomba and after his public address I had the chance to shake his hand and thank him in person for helping me on my journey to atheism. It was in part his writings, I assured him, that had helped me accept that there was nothing personal in the Bible for any but the mystically minded. I explained how I found his books honest and hard hitting until, in each of his final chapters, he suddenly switched into mystical gear, disconnecting from all the rationality and evidence of the previous chapters, and waxing with subjective eloquence on how nothing he had written denied the reality of the historical Christ (nothing affirmed it either!) or the more important question of what Christ means to him now. I could not understand why he and others like him did not follow their logic through consistently to the end, but of course Spong's books are not treatises in rational studies of the Bible but are attempts to enlighten or liberalize the views of the converted. "Above all else, it has been my purpose to call people into a love of Scripture for what it is . . . I also write to challenge mainline church members . . ." (p.245 of Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism). Looks like now he has tried to address all those like myself who have used him as stepping stones to the same position (atheism) as his mentor, Dr Michael Goulder. In his Liberating the Gospels he admits: "Do these things mean that I believe that Christianity is something of a hoax or a delusion, or am I suggesting that there is no history, no firm objective truth on which the Jesus story stands? That will be the way the questions are posed by some." (p.324) Spong did not respond with any offence to my gratitude, but I could not say he was not to some extent disappointed. So I explained that since I had given up belief and become an atheist I felt far more relaxed and mature within myself. He admitted that he had found that to be so with many atheists he had met, and volunteered that most believers seemed to have a certain up-tightness about them. Given that Spong's aim has been to educate Christians within their Christianity, and that his personal confessions expressed in his writings appear to be fundamentally mystically based, and perhaps given the disappointment he must have felt with the "waywardness" of his mentor Goulder and other readers like me, I am not surprised that he can do little more than write for non-believers: "Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a argument for those things thich are most assuredly believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministiers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had a perfect understanding of all things from the time when "sex drove me to the bible" (p.1 of Rescuing...), to write to you an orderly argument, most excellent atheistic nonbeliever, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were once instructed."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.