Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
02-06-2007, 02:15 PM | #81 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||
02-06-2007, 02:23 PM | #82 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
|
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.
|
02-06-2007, 02:32 PM | #83 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
|
Quote:
|
|
02-06-2007, 02:35 PM | #84 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
|
Quote:
|
|
02-06-2007, 02:45 PM | #85 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
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? |
02-06-2007, 02:50 PM | #86 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
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. |
|
02-06-2007, 03:06 PM | #87 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
|
Quote:
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. |
|
02-06-2007, 03:17 PM | #88 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Norway's Bible Belt
Posts: 85
|
Quote:
|
|
02-06-2007, 03:21 PM | #89 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
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. |
|
02-06-2007, 03:28 PM | #90 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: MiChIgAn
Posts: 493
|
Quote:
Maybe you should read up first on it before you make such claims: This Generation:http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/H...e/thisgen.html |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|