Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 04-07-2012, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

... regardless of when the gospels are dated - the copies of copies of copies etc - the story within those pages can be read as reflecting a historical event that was relevant to the gospel writers. What that historical event was is the question - not that there was no such event. And that is the basic failing of some types of mythicism - the failure to acknowledge that an historical event was deemed to be relevant to the writers of that gospel JC story.

I think it is possible there was not a single historical event, or if there was, the story could still have been embellished or altered in subsequent generations.

Note that I said my position on JC is that this figure is a composite figure - basically reflecting the life stories of two historical figures.....and as for the embellishing - that's what we have in the gospel JC story!

Quote:

The question is not - "is the gospel crucifixion of JC true, was it historical?" - but ... "what is the gospel JC crucifixion story a reflection of?". What history is being utilized; what history is being memorized, in that gospel JC crucifixion story.

Whether the gospel JC is a composite figure reflecting the lives of two historical figures (my own position); or, a reflection of a single historical figure - is of interest historically - but of no real concern for the gospel JC story itself. That gospel JC story is about a crucified man. Now, so far so good. Men get put on crosses and die. However, once the resurrection idea comes into play we enter the realm of speculation - or to be more charitable - philosophysing.

The crucifixion story may be a reflection of something, but that thing may not be historical ...

Then it's open season on the gospel JC story - a never-ending roundabout of speculation, interpretation....

Quote:

Two crucifixion stories - the gospel JC and 'Paul's' JC?

Interesting - there may be a 3rd,or 4th, etc?

Again - they would maintain the never-ending road trip to nowhere.....

Quote:

Any mythicist theory that is seeking to negate a historical component, a flesh and blood crucified component, relevant to the early christian writers - hence relevant to early christian history - is a losing ticket in the HJ/MJ debate....

Of course crucifixions may have spurred a number of stories to compete with all the other stories going around, but some, such as the ultimate Christian story, may have changed forms over a few generations.

All we can do is deal with what we have re the gospel JC story....

Plus the history from the relevant time frame...

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-07-2012, 01:53 AM

ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἔγνωκεν εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν

Is there something known to have esoteric significance in that bolded construction - "the rulers of this age" (actually "rulers of this world" makes more grammatical sense in this sentence - and I see that's how the Vulgate translates it...principum huius saeculi)? How does "of this age/world" change the meaning of "archon" from the prosaic to the esoteric?

aa5874 · 04-07-2012, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...So, 'Paul' is viewing his JC as crucified in a heavenly realm. But this heavenly/spiritual crucifixion of 'Paul's' JC does not negate the gospel story of a crucifixion on terra firma. Pseudo-history, mythologized history, salvation history - are all reflections, interpretations - of history! The question is not - is the gospel crucifixion of JC true, was it historical - but what is the gospel JC crucifixion story a reflection of. What history is being utilized; what history is being memorized, in that gospel JC crucifixion story....

There is ZERO information in the Pauline Epistles that the character called Jesus Christ was crucified in an heavenly realm.

A Canonised Writing cannot be Heretical.

Doherty is using ambiguity to RE-WRITE the Jesus story.

The Pauline Jesus is God Incarnate--God's OWN Son born of a woman crucified on earth, buried, and resurrected which is COMPLETELY Compatible with the Gospels.

All the Canonised Gospels that mention a birth narrative show that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a WOMAN and in gJohn Jesus is upgraded to the status of God who was later made Flesh and WENT to DWELL on earth.

Galatians 4:4 KJV

Quote:

But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

John 1

Quote:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God........ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth....

Jesus Christ is the ONLY Begotten Son of God and DWELT on earth AFTER he Created everything and was MADE Flesh.

The MOST Fundamental part of the Canonised Jesus story is the REJECTION of Jesus ON EARTH and that he was CRUCIFIED by those who REJECTED him.

John 1

Quote:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not....

The STORY of the crucifixion of Jesus on EARTH by his OWN and that he RESURRECTED is the MOST BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL to understanding the NT Canon.

In the so-called letters to the churches The Pauline writer is SIMPLY claiming to be a WITNESS of the Resurrected Jesus and a WITNESS to the Apostles and followers of the FAITH BEFORE HIM.

The Pauline letters can be shown to have been written AFTER the Fall of the Temple or AFTER the Short-Ending gMark.

The Pauline letters are historically and chronologically BOGUS--they do NOT represent activities that actually happened before c 68 CE--letters found attempting to place Paul BEFORE c 68 CE have been deduced to be FORGERIES.

The Pauline writer/writers EITHER Believed the Existing Jesus stories were true or wanted people to BELIEVE them and stories were FABRICATED to historicise the RESURRECTION of Jesus and the apostles when no such persons ever existed.

The Jesus story was INVENTED BECAUSE of the Fall of the Temple based on so-called prophecies in Hebrew Scripture--it has nothing whatsoever to do with any real human character.

People of antiquity BELIEVED the short-ending gMark story was true [that a character called Jesus was rejected and crucified by his OWN and was coming back in the clouds to judge them] and were DUPED EXACTLY the same way people TODAY are DUPED by the WRITINGS in the Canon.

Christians and HJers TODAY show EXACTLY how the Jesus cult most likely started--they simply BELIEVED what was WRITTEN although they had NO proof or corroboration.

maryhelena · 04-07-2012, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...So, 'Paul' is viewing his JC as crucified in a heavenly realm. But this heavenly/spiritual crucifixion of 'Paul's' JC does not negate the gospel story of a crucifixion on terra firma. Pseudo-history, mythologized history, salvation history - are all reflections, interpretations - of history! The question is not - is the gospel crucifixion of JC true, was it historical - but what is the gospel JC crucifixion story a reflection of. What history is being utilized; what history is being memorized, in that gospel JC crucifixion story....

There is ZERO information in the Pauline Epistles that the character called Jesus Christ was crucified in an heavenly realm.

A Canonised Writing cannot be Heretical.

Doherty is using ambiguity to RE-WRITE the Jesus story.

The Pauline Jesus is God Incarnate--God's OWN Son born of a woman crucified on earth, buried, and resurrected which is COMPLETELY Compatible with the Gospels.

All the Canonised Gospels that mention a birth narrative show that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a WOMAN and in gJohn Jesus is upgraded to the status of God who was later made Flesh and WENT to DWELL on earth.

Galatians 4:4 KJV

Quote:

But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

John 1

Quote:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God........ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth....

Jesus Christ is the ONLY Begotten Son of God and DWELT on earth AFTER he Created everything and was MADE Flesh.

The MOST Fundamental part of the Canonised Jesus story is the REJECTION of Jesus ON EARTH and that he was CRUCIFIED by those who REJECTED him.

John 1

Quote:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not....

The STORY of the crucifixion of Jesus on EARTH by his OWN and that he RESURRECTED is the MOST BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL to understanding the NT Canon.

In the so-called letters to the churches The Pauline writer is SIMPLY claiming to be a WITNESS of the Resurrected Jesus and a WITNESS to the Apostles and followers of the FAITH BEFORE HIM.

The Pauline letters can be shown to have been written AFTER the Fall of the Temple or AFTER the Short-Ending gMark.

The Pauline letters are historically and chronologically BOGUS--they do NOT represent activities that actually happened before c 68 CE--letters found attempting to place Paul BEFORE c 68 CE have been deduced to be FORGERIES.

The Pauline writer/writers EITHER Believed the Existing Jesus stories were true or wanted people to BELIEVE them and stories were FABRICATED to historicise the RESURRECTION of Jesus and the apostles when no such persons ever existed.

The Jesus story was INVENTED BECAUSE of the Fall of the Temple based on so-called prophecies in Hebrew Scripture--it has nothing whatsoever to do with any real human character.

People of antiquity BELIEVED the short-ending gMark story was true [that a character called Jesus was rejected and crucified by his OWN and was coming back in the clouds to judge them] and were DUPED EXACTLY the same way people TODAY are DUPED by the WRITINGS in the Canon.

Christians and HJers TODAY show EXACTLY how the Jesus cult most likely started--they simply BELIEVED what was WRITTEN although they had NO proof or corroboration.

aa - there may be many twists and turns in the NT JC story. However, I'm not prepared to discredit the writers of that story - that they were using a crucifixion of a man - albeit in the gospel story, a symbolic or figurative man - upon which to base a salvation theology.

I think Dawkins well grasped the horror of such a theology. Yes, he blames 'Paul'. I'm not prepared to do that. I'd rather credit the Pauline writer with more respect for human life than to be developing such an immoral theology/philosophy. I've suggested that the Pauline writer has changed the context for crucifixion. From a no-value, immoral, crucifixion of a flesh and blood man - to a spiritual/intellectual context where 'crucifixion', where death and rebirth - of ideas - has 'salvation' potential.

Quote:

Among all the ideas ever to occur to a nasty human mind (Paul’s of course), the Christian “atonement” would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7007065.ece

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-07-2012, 08:07 AM

The idea of sacrificial atonement was not invented by Paul. The entire religious world, both Jewish and Pagan, was ritualistically grounded in animal sacrifice and sacrificial atonement.

Deciding to interpret the execution of a human as the ultimate act of ritual sacrifice - the ultimate, unblemished lamb as a universal and holistic final sacrifice - had a superficial resonance and logic to that audience.

The ethical and logical issues inherent in this soteriology once you really unpack it are problems stemming from the whole idea of ritual sacrifice at all. It's a practice which started because at one time, people thought the gods literally wanted to be fed (and often that gods basically fed off the smoke of burnt offerings). The more religion and ritual evolved, the sillier and more embarrassing the original assumption becomes.

Christian sacrifical soteriology is logically and ethically unsustainable, but the problems it has are created by the underlying problems and almost comically primitive assumptions inherent in the practice of all ritual sacrifice.

There was no malice in Paul's intentions, though. He didn't examine things that deeply. He thought it up, but he didn't think it through.

maryhelena · 04-07-2012, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The idea of sacrificial atonement was not invented by Paul. The entire religious world, both Jewish and Pagan, was ritualistically grounded in animal sacrifice and sacrificial atonement.

Deciding to interpret the execution of a human as the ultimate act of ritual sacrifice - the ultimate, unblemished lamb as a universal and holistic final sacrifice - had a superficial resonance and logic to that audience.

The ethical and logical issues inherent in this soteriology once you really unpack it are problems stemming from the whole idea of ritual sacrifice at all. It's a practice which started because at one time, people thought the gods literally wanted to be fed (and often that gods basically fed off the smoke of burnt offerings). The more religion and ritual evolved, the sillier and more embarrassing the original assumption becomes.

Christian sacrifical soteriology is logically and ethically unsustainable, but the problems it has are created by the underlying problems and almost comically primitive assumptions inherent in the practice of all ritual sacrifice.

There was no malice in Paul's intentions, though. He didn't examine things that deeply. He thought it up, but he didn't think it through.

Certainty no malice in 'Paul's' intentions......:notworthy:

However, I'd rather grant the Pauline writer some intellectual credibility rather than assume a lack of deep insight as to the theology/philosophy that was being developed.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-07-2012, 08:50 AM

I see no evidence of any deep insights in the Pauline corpus.

You know who had the insight? John the Baptist. He's the one who figured out out how to make sacrificial atonement obsolete.

maryhelena · 04-07-2012, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I see no evidence of any deep insights in the Pauline corpus.

Doherty's strong point - which George Wells is prepared to credit him with....

Quote:

George Wells: “Perhaps Doherty's strongest point is Paul's assertion (1 Cor.2:8) that Jesus was crucified by supernatural forces (the archontes). I take this to mean that they prompted the action of human agents: but I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.”

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../earliest.html

Quote:

You know who had the insight? John the Baptist. He's the one who figured out out how to make sacrificial atonement obsolete.

John the Baptist? Nothing more than Josephan pseudo-history....:wave:

outhouse · 04-07-2012, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I see no evidence of any deep insights in the Pauline corpus.

You know who had the insight? John the Baptist. He's the one who figured out out how to make sacrificial atonement obsolete.

and have you figured out why he did this???

No money to go to the temple and have the public BBQ, shared meal with god.

its about survival.

He took worship out of the roman infected temple. No synagogue, No temple, No taxes, no charge for healing the sick and expelling demons and bad spirits.

He brought worship to the firepit or dinnertable as we know it, working for dinner scraps and preaching free religion was powerful, and why the movement took off among poor peasant jews.

outhouse · 04-07-2012, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I see no evidence of any deep insights in the Pauline corpus.

Doherty's strong point - which George Wells is prepared to credit him with....

Quote:

You know who had the insight? John the Baptist. He's the one who figured out out how to make sacrificial atonement obsolete.

John the Baptist? Nothing more than Josephan pseudo-history....:wave:

false

plenty of evidence for a JtB

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

04-07-2012, 01:53 AM	#132
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἔγνωκεν εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν Is there something known to have esoteric significance in that bolded construction - "the rulers of this age" (actually "rulers of this world" makes more grammatical sense in this sentence - and I see that's how the Vulgate translates it...principum huius saeculi)? How does "of this age/world" change the meaning of "archon" from the prosaic to the esoteric?

04-07-2012, 08:07 AM	#135
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The idea of sacrificial atonement was not invented by Paul. The entire religious world, both Jewish and Pagan, was ritualistically grounded in animal sacrifice and sacrificial atonement. Deciding to interpret the execution of a human as the ultimate act of ritual sacrifice - the ultimate, unblemished lamb as a universal and holistic final sacrifice - had a superficial resonance and logic to that audience. The ethical and logical issues inherent in this soteriology once you really unpack it are problems stemming from the whole idea of ritual sacrifice at all. It's a practice which started because at one time, people thought the gods literally wanted to be fed (and often that gods basically fed off the smoke of burnt offerings). The more religion and ritual evolved, the sillier and more embarrassing the original assumption becomes. Christian sacrifical soteriology is logically and ethically unsustainable, but the problems it has are created by the underlying problems and almost comically primitive assumptions inherent in the practice of all ritual sacrifice. There was no malice in Paul's intentions, though. He didn't examine things that deeply. He thought it up, but he didn't think it through.

04-07-2012, 08:50 AM	#137
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I see no evidence of any deep insights in the Pauline corpus. You know who had the insight? John the Baptist. He's the one who figured out out how to make sacrificial atonement obsolete.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.