Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 03-26-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

and knowing human nature hasn't changed much in 2k years, and looking at patterns that would have resulted from a core of intial faithful, the overal story to me is plausible.

I don't find the idea of some kind of an HJ implausible, I'm just asking why the list you provided is circumstantial evidence of it. What in that list would be unlikely if there was no HJ?

andrewcriddle · 03-26-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Actually, didn't Tertullian become a "heretic" later on in his life?

Tertullian became a Montanist a member of a controversial Charismatic group of Christians.

As a Montanist he denounced various church leaders for their worldliness and hostility to the New Prophecy.

Given the apparent refusal of the Bishops in North Africa to take formal step to excomminicate Tertullian, he probably should not be regarded as a full-blown heretic.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 03-26-2009, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razlyubleno

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, Tertullian wrote about Jesus Christ in Against Marcion.

And in the second book Against Marcion, Tertullian mentioned Christ over ten times.

Tertullian used the words Jesus, Jesus Christ and Christ to refer to the same character.

My examples are fairly terrible, I'm sure, since I'm not as widely read as I should be. But it should be clear that it's possible for a Christian to write something without talking about Jesus. It's not always necessary to mention him. I'm unpersuaded that we can be meaningful about Athenagora's beliefs, just by noticing that he never mentions Jesus at all and drawing conclusions from that. If he truly didn't believe in Jesus, then there must surely be other evidence for it. I'd rather see those evidences, than hear speculation about why he never said the name of his lord and savior.

Well, I would rather say Athenagoras did not believe in Jesus Christ since he never mentioned any character called Jesus Christ or any event with respect to Jesus.

Athenagoras wrote about the resurrection of the dead and did not use the resurrection of Jesus as the proof of resurrection.

Justin Martyr wrote about the resurrection of the dead and used the resurrection of Jesus as proof.

Tertullian wrote about the resurrection of the dead and claimed Jesus was resurrected.

I would not speculate that Athenagoras believed in Jesus Christ when there is no evidence to prove he was a Jesus believer in his writings.

Now, tell me which writers of antiquity do you know who were Jesus believers that never did mention Jesus Christ?

steve_bnk · 03-26-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Given the lack of objective evidence, knowing a bit about pscyholgy and relgious phenomena from obesreving the last 40 year especialy the last 4 years or so, and knowing human nature hasn't changed much in 2k years, and looking at patterns that would have resulted from a core of intial faithful, the overal story to me is plausible.

There are those who imagine that a study of Jesus requires chiefly a knowledge of languages and exegesis. Thus they set about interpreting and disentangling the gospels. But what is needed even more than Greek and hermeneutics is psychology — the sort of knowledge, sympathy, and imagination that help one to understand a soul. For that reason, a sympathetic and imaginative student like Renan and a novelist like Mr. Moore, despite their errors, are apt to get closer to the true story of Jesus than many a man whose chief aim is not the reading of a soul but the amassing of theological and linguistic footnotes.--A Jewish View of Jesus / Hyman Gerson Enelow, p. 46-47.

Don't misread me. I think razlyubleno made a weak agrument and I believe there was an historical JC. If you want to uderstand the backdrop of JC and what he may have been just look at the mid-east today. Transpose the Jews and Palestinians with Romans and Jews.

On the exteremist side Bin Laden would have had his counterpart in those times, a man who the Romans would have considered a Jewish terrorist. google Masada.

I don't believe in any divinty. By one account his party was armed when he was arrested. It is open as to wterer or not he had any ideas of rebellion.

His few words are not far off fronmBhuddism or Hinduism in ways. There was a theory back in the 70s that he had traveled the world and had studied in other cuktures, but all speculation. He appears At 30 years old son of a crpenter, the more likley trasnlation from my text is handyman, literate and debating the rabbais in temple.

There was good show on PBS in which theolgians showed how what we construre as the teachings of JC is really the same core message in virtulay all the major religions. If you focus on the wisdom literature in the OT instead of who begat who and when, what he says is perfectly consistent with Jewish tradition.

aa5874 · 03-26-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Don't misread me. I think razlyubleno made a weak agrument and I believe there was an historical JC. If you want to uderstand the backdrop of JC and what he may have been just look at the mid-east today. Transpose the Jews and Palestinians with Romans and Jews.

There are only weak arguments for an historical JC. The evidence is no good.

steve_bnk · 03-26-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

I'd argue there was an historical JC althlugh as is obvious the infernce is largely circumstantial.

1. At the time the time the gospels and Pauls's documents were written there appears to a number of Chriaian communities spread over a large geographical area(at least for ithe times). There had to be an initial core movement.

2. The Romans considered the Christians as heretic Jews and as such were not bothered much outside Judea until Chritianity assumed its own identity and split from Judaism..

3. For the general education level of the day for one or a group of people to invent it as fiction might be a stretch.

4. As evidenced by Paul's writings there was divergence and bickering early on, along with people taking on and modifing the doctrine to gain a following with no real connection to Christianity.

To me it all makes general sense as things might be expected to progress.

I'm missing how any of these points act as circumstantial evidence for a HJ. They are equally compatible with a mythical Jesus, a mystical Jesus, a metaphorical Jesus, or a deliberate invention by Rome to undermine Judaism.

That is all true. It is an old argument that the JC of the gospels was a comosite. JC could have been a convieient way of seaking, loosley like Sanata Claus is for us, w talk as if Santa Claus was real in order to make points, mostly with kids. Considering the level of literacy I personaly doubt it was a fictional fabrication.

I always belived there was an historical Noah. A recent show on the DC came up with a possible historical composite. He would likley have been a Sumerian trader caisght in 100 year flood carrying family and cargo, and survived.

Fictiion writers all take inspiration from events around them. I read a biography of Tolkien. The Lord Of The Rings did not emerge out of complete originality, he was steeped in Europen myths and tales. Whn the Noah tale was wrtten there was already flood myths, includidng Gilgamesh.

So, I belive there was an historical figure. Exactly who he was is open ended. We can look today at people who make their preacer a millionare on the faith that he is giving tem the 'gospel truth'..

steve_bnk · 03-26-2009, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Don't misread me. I think razlyubleno made a weak agrument and I believe there was an historical JC. If you want to uderstand the backdrop of JC and what he may have been just look at the mid-east today. Transpose the Jews and Palestinians with Romans and Jews.

There are only weak arguments for an historical JC. The evidence is no good.

Strong circumstantial case.

It is interseting how the non-belivers can be as much a zealot as the beleivers.

A philosphy prof I had for several classes back in the 70 was a Lituanian who had been a kid in WWII and witnessed the Soviet takeover of Lithuania. He told a story about a town meeting called by a Soviet political officer. One of the townspeople stood up and exclained 'If god does not exist the why must you prove it!', The Soviet responded without hesitiaion by drawing his pistol and shooting the man in the head.

My point being the faithful arguimg for and the those arguing against are flip sides of the same coin, both get something out of the exercise.

No Robots · 03-26-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Don't misread me.

I was trying to show some support for your position. I completely agree with everything you are saying.>

<

No Robots · 03-26-2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

I think razlyubleno made a weak agrument

I think you mean spamandham, no?

steve_bnk · 03-26-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Don't misread me.

I was trying to show some support for your position. I completely agree with everything you are saying.>

<

Go in peace, I am sprinkling you with virtual holy water.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.