FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-06-2007, 02:15 PM   #81
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Robots View Post
The affirmation of Christ's Jewishness began long before the Holocaust. In my view, the case presented by people like Klausner and Brunner was so inescapable that scholars had no option but to accept it.

As for the anti-semitic motivation behind the mythicism of a century ago, here is what Brunner has to say:
So long as Christ signified God, one could take a certain amount of comfort; for God's ways are marvellous, and if he actually wanted to go through the ultimate in terms of human suffering and humiliation, it was understandable that he descended to the level of the most despised and despicable people, the Jews, who, after all, had also been made by him. (For at that time people failed to notice that it was the Jews, too, who had made this God; because of their own belief in God, people were not able to hold the Jews guilty here. They only begin to become aware of it as a result of the tremendous progress of the Enlightenment, which brings the full malice toward Jews to light for the first time). Now, however, the more Christ stands recognized in general terms as a man, the more ill-starred the Jew Christ becomes. Christ a Jew?! In that case—given the undoubtedly true racial theory—how could the Jewish race be inferior? Then we, who have not produced such a genius, would be the inferior race! This is nonsense, since we are the highest race, as the scientific truth of the racial theory proves, and this in turn demonstrates the indubitable scientific integrity and truth of the theory itself. This Christ is ruining the whole racial theory!
I would say that in our day of radical egalitarianism, Christ is ruining our whole egalitarian ethic; and that this is the underlying motivation for people like Earl Doherty.
Oh please. As Toto said, the Nazis said that Jesus either had no race because God was the father, not Joseph, or that he was Aryan, which I don't know how they explained that one, but I do know that the teaching that Jesus was not a Jew was a a major teaching in Nazi Germany, but they didn't teach that Jesus was not real at all, they taught that we was the literal Son of God, and thus "raceless."

Quote:

At the creation of the world
The Lord God conceived the races:
Red Indians, Negroes and Chinese,
And Jew-boys too, the rotten crew.
And, we were also on the scene:
We Germans midst this motley medley-
He gave them all a piece of earth
To fill in the sweat of their brow.
But the Jew-boy went on strike at once!
For the devil rode him from the first...

The Devil brought them to our midst,
Like thieves they stole into our land
Hoping to get the upper hand...

From the start the Jew has been
A murderer, said Jesus Christ.
And as Our Lord died on the cross
God the Father knew no other race
To torment His Son to death,
He chose the Jews for this...

On Sabbath he won't move a finger;
The stupid "goy" does all the work!
And even to put out the light
He calls the "goy" to do the job.
Did you know that, my Christian friends?..

Other tricks performs the Jew,
Inspired by his Satanic blood.
Urged on by just this meanness.
He's fooled the lot of us Germans,
But he shan't do that any more.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/fuchs.htm

Quote:

"'Well, the pastor wants us to believe that Christ was a Jew. But we are good Christians who paid attention to what we were taught.

We learned that Christ was God's son, not the son of some Hebrew. Besides that, the Catholic Church teaches that Holy Mary, the mother of Christ, died a virgin. That means she never had sexual relations with a man, certainly not with a flat-footed garlic Jew. And thirdly, according to Catholic doctrine, Christ was born by a miracle, not by the normal natural process. Finally, the Church teaches that 'Holy Spirit came upon' the Virgin Mary. He must therefore be regarded as the father or source of Christ. Surely not even the pastor wants to tell us that the Holy Spirit is a Jew!'

His argument resulted in explosive laughter. Defeated on his own ground, the red-faced ultramontane Jew-lover had no choice but to disappear as fast as possible. Only later did he remember that he had left his hat and coat behind."
The above also from the Calvin website but I didn't have a link to it handy as its from an article of mine that didn't include a link, you can hunt around for though if you wish.

The major anti-Semites were Christians anyway, hardly people who would adopt mythicism. Part of the anti-Christian, and thus mythicist, movement was from humanists who opposed anti-Semitism, seeing in Christianity the primary root of the problem.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 02:23 PM   #82
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Really? Can you explain why Option 1 is stronger than Option 2?
Because we have more evidence for option 1 than option 2, because option 1 is how Paul describes Jesus, because option two cant explain how a "marginal Jew" (note I use this term because it is a title of a prominent book on this subject) became God. Because the core of the Jesus story is about God not about some guy.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 02:32 PM   #83
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Oh please. As Toto said, the Nazis said that Jesus either had no race because God was the father, not Joseph, or that he was Aryan, which I don't know how they explained that one, but I do know that the teaching that Jesus was not a Jew was a a major teaching in Nazi Germany, but they didn't teach that Jesus was not real at all, they taught that we was the literal Son of God, and thus "raceless."
What I am saying is that a century ago there was a vigorous reaction against the mounting evidence of Christ's Jewishness. This reaction took a variety of forms: retreat into fideist traditionalism, theories of an Aryan bloodline in Christ, and mythicism. None of these are Nazi beliefs in themselves, but the Nazi movement was part of the general reaction against Jews, including against their claims to Christ.
No Robots is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 02:35 PM   #84
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Because we have more evidence for option 1 than option 2, because option 1 is how Paul describes Jesus, because option two cant explain how a "marginal Jew" (note I use this term because it is a title of a prominent book on this subject) became God. Because the core of the Jesus story is about God not about some guy.
I cannot fathom how you, who are, I presume, an atheist, can state that there is more evidence in the Bible that God has a son than that a man was deified.
No Robots is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 02:45 PM   #85
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
The major anti-Semites were Christians
This is correct, commencing with Constantine and Eusebius, who
both leave us an ample supply of evidential literary material to this
very effect. Considering the foundational role that these two
human beings played in the binding together of the Judaic scripture
and the fabrication of the Galilaeans, what can anyone born after
the early fourth century really expect?
mountainman is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 02:50 PM   #86
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Robots View Post
I cannot fathom how you, who are, I presume, an atheist, can state that there is more evidence in the Bible that God has a son than that a man was deified.
That's part of the point. I'm saying that I could sooner believe that Jesus was the Son of God than that Jesus was a mortal man, and I defiantly don't believe that he was the Son of God.

I view "Jesus as mortal" the absolutely least sensible position of all, ranked below Jesus as Son of God.

On my scale the chance of Jesus being the Son of God is 0, and the chance that Jesus was a mortal around whom the story grew is -10.

"Jesus the mortal" is the ONLY thing that we don't have any evidence for, at least not any good evidence.

Basically, the "Jesus as mortal" plee can only rest on the claim that Jesus was so insignificant that he escaped historical notice, but think about how insane this is.

He escaped historical notice, but yet became deified as a god-man who had risen from the dead? And if so, then why does every detail of his life come from scriptures? The whole story doesn't add up or make sense.

Deification of Alexander the Great makes sense, we can see how a man built a legend around himself, but in this case one has to admit at the very least that the myth existed before the man, and thus we have the option of a preexisting myth into which a person stepped, but this person, out of everyone, was so insignificant that he went unnoticed by history, or we had a preexisting myth that took on a life of its own through fervent followers.

I think that the later is many times more likely than the former, for how does a guy that didn't actually perform miracles and rise from the dead inspire such a religion?

The fact is that human Jesus is totally unneeded to explain the religion. The only thing that really needs explaining possibly is why the name "Jesus", as a few things can be offered, A) this comes from Yeshua son of Nun from the OT, about whom some recent stories had been written, B) This was influenced from the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach writing which had just become popular, though the story has nothing to do with him, C) Jesus became adopted as an "everyman" name because it was so common and I favor this explanation, as Jesus was supposed to be taking on the sin of "every man" (this would be like using John Doe, etc.), D) Jesus was adopted because of its meaning of "God Saves".

To me it seems quite unlikely that unknown mortal Jesus would be the catalyst of this religion, whereas grand idea is a much more likely launching device.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 03:06 PM   #87
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Basically, the "Jesus as mortal" plee can only rest on the claim that Jesus was so insignificant that he escaped historical notice, but think about how insane this is.
Brunner puts paid to this whole argument from silence:
The greater the genius, the less effect he will have directly on his age, the less attention he will attract from those who would be in a position to record interesting details about his life. The genius is invisible to those who surround him; those who are closest to him will have forgotten the little they (poorly enough) observed, or else they will have died, before the age begins to take casual notice of him. And even when it does, it will be for its own purposes, which are not those of the genius. For instance, we can see how rapidly practically everything of a personal nature, concerning a man of some signficance, is forgotten, in the almost entirely inconsequential attempt by J.H. Mackay to produce a life of Max Stirner. Max Stirner died in Berlin in 1856. No critic has ever had doubts about the fact that he lived, nor did any critic concern himself with his life. And now, in spite of the most industrious research which began immediately after Stirner's death, there is almost nothing left to discover and describe. This is how things are in modern times, which, in that respect as in all essentials, are as like former times as two peas. Thus, in our case too, the argumentum e silentio must be seen as evidence that, at that time, criticism in Galilee and Judaea failed to take the proper interest in Christ that it ought to have done. Now, therefore, it should hold its tongue.
And if I said that modernism was synonymous with Spinoza, would you agree? Scholars increasingly understand this to be the case. And if I said that our era will be known as the age of Brunner, what would you say? Ridiculous, no? Yet I do say that this is the age of Brunner, and that so it shall be known by all. The genius who remains unknown in his time is the rule of history.
No Robots is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 03:17 PM   #88
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Norway's Bible Belt
Posts: 85
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Robots View Post
Brunner puts paid to this whole argument from silence:
The greater the genius, the less effect he will have directly on his age, the less attention he will attract from those who would be in a position to record interesting details about his life. The genius is invisible to those who surround him; those who are closest to him will have forgotten the little they (poorly enough) observed, or else they will have died, before the age begins to take casual notice of him. And even when it does, it will be for its own purposes, which are not those of the genius. For instance, we can see how rapidly practically everything of a personal nature, concerning a man of some signficance, is forgotten, in the almost entirely inconsequential attempt by J.H. Mackay to produce a life of Max Stirner. Max Stirner died in Berlin in 1856. No critic has ever had doubts about the fact that he lived, nor did any critic concern himself with his life. And now, in spite of the most industrious research which began immediately after Stirner's death, there is almost nothing left to discover and describe. This is how things are in modern times, which, in that respect as in all essentials, are as like former times as two peas. Thus, in our case too, the argumentum e silentio must be seen as evidence that, at that time, criticism in Galilee and Judaea failed to take the proper interest in Christ that it ought to have done. Now, therefore, it should hold its tongue.
Is this supposed to be genius? Makes only slightly more sense than the "God exists because there is no proof of His existence" argument. This quote merely argues that "argumentum e silentio" is no proof of non-existence in itself, and merely scrapes the surface of the Jesus Myth argument
Niall Armstrong is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 03:21 PM   #89
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Robots View Post
Brunner puts paid to this whole argument from silence:
The greater the genius, the less effect he will have directly on his age, the less attention he will attract from those who would be in a position to record interesting details about his life. The genius is invisible to those who surround him; those who are closest to him will have forgotten the little they (poorly enough) observed, or else they will have died, before the age begins to take casual notice of him. And even when it does, it will be for its own purposes, which are not those of the genius. For instance, we can see how rapidly practically everything of a personal nature, concerning a man of some signficance, is forgotten, in the almost entirely inconsequential attempt by J.H. Mackay to produce a life of Max Stirner. Max Stirner died in Berlin in 1856. No critic has ever had doubts about the fact that he lived, nor did any critic concern himself with his life. And now, in spite of the most industrious research which began immediately after Stirner's death, there is almost nothing left to discover and describe. This is how things are in modern times, which, in that respect as in all essentials, are as like former times as two peas. Thus, in our case too, the argumentum e silentio must be seen as evidence that, at that time, criticism in Galilee and Judaea failed to take the proper interest in Christ that it ought to have done. Now, therefore, it should hold its tongue.
And if I said that modernism was synonymous with Spinoza, would you agree? Scholars increasingly understand this to be the case. And if I said that our era will be known as the age of Brunner, what would you say? Ridiculous, no? Yet I do say that this is the age of Brunner, and that so it shall be known by all. The genius who remains unknown in his time is the rule of history.
Yes, because Einstein went unknown....

This is quite a different case. What I am telling you is that the entirety of the Jesus story as per Paul was pre-existing.

Paul and the early epistles don't tell us anything that hasn't already been said for 200 years regarding "the Son of God".

Paul and the early epistles fill in no details of a Jesus man that adds anything different from the existing 200 years long train of Jewish "Son of God" stories, with the one exception of the eucharist ritual in 1 Corinthians which I am quite suspicious of #1, and #2 rituals like this are the main thing that develop on their own and center cults like this in the first place, around which greater legends grow. Based on Didache I think that this was a ritual that developed organically on its own from earlier mystery cults.

Paul's Jesus needs no man to exist, indeed he already existed for over 200 years in a variety of Jewish stories.

And this is a key part of the whole Christian claim "the prophecies have been fulfilled", i.e. all of these is a story based on expectations.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 03:28 PM   #90
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: MiChIgAn
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
If you think you can damage Christianity a lot by telling people that Jesus started as a myth, then I think you can do greater damage by making the case that Jesus was a failed doomsday cult leader. Now go out and be excellent.
Oh brother. Your whole idea about Jesus being a failed cult leader because YOU misunderstand what He said about "this generation" is laughable at best.

Maybe you should read up first on it before you make such claims:

This Generation:http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/H...e/thisgen.html
TonyN is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.