Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-06-2011, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

....

The Historical Jesus hypothesis predicts that the historical Jesus would be the type of person who, in his life time, would be noteworthy for nothing; ... The Historical Jesus hypothesis predicts a virtual lack of contemporary accounts of the Jesus figure: ...

The Historical Jesus hypothesis does not predict this. The historical Jesus hypothesis has been shaped to fit the available evidence, so Jesus is no longer the gospel Jesus who attracted crowds and was threatening enough to be worth crucifying, and is instead an obscure nobody.

Historicists have not ruled out the possibility of finding some concrete evidence of historical Jesus. That's why there was a such rejoicing over the James Ossuary - finally some sort of proof that it wasn't just a myth. And that's why historicists cling to the possibility that the Josephan passages are not totally made up.

mountainman · 06-06-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Backing up, why was the orthodox version strong enough to be a useful ally of Constantine? Organization. Organization allowed the orthodox to marshal resources for Constantine. The justification for that organization was Apostolic succession and a canon that provided proof of that succession back to Jesus.

By the time of Constantine there were a number of important and influential Apostolic successions focussed on a canon of books. The most influential of these was the Apostolic lineage of Plato, who preserved the canon of Plato's books, (and his letters) in which they perceived there to be an expression of the deity and theology of Plato. See Ammonius, Plotinus, Porphyry et al.

Another widespread, but persecuted Apostolic lineage was that of the crucified Persian sage Mani, who preserved the canon of Mani's books, including his Gospel, and letters written to his apostles, who had founded monasteries in the Roman Empire.

Quote:

A valid question is did organization proceed from a history of that Apostolic succession(real history or tradition and oral transmission) or was the history created in service to the organization.

Eusebius simply created a list of "christian bishops".
Read Momigliano on this.

Quote:

The only luck was being in the right place at the right time when a rebel needed an ally and that rebel won. An interesting speculation is what would Christianity look like today if Constantine had lost and the victors destroyed the orthodox in revenge.

Christianity would not exist, and the Dark Ages may not have happened. We could be out past Alpha Centauri.

ApostateAbe · 06-06-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think that is a fair point. If he wasn't exceptional enough to attract attention, then maybe we wouldn't have expected him to be the founder of the largest religion in the world. I have often wondered and thought about the things that made Christianity as big as it is. It must have been a combination of many things--such as monotheism, ancient scripturalism, heaven and hell, apocalypticism, and lower-class morality. I think GakuseiDon has a lead on an aspect of early Christianity that would have made it jump out from its competitors--the perceived fulfillment of Jewish scriptural prophecies. I earlier made the mistake of thinking that Clement bent the Jewish scriptures toward his own religious purpose, but actually he didn't and it wasn't necessary, because the LXX versions of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 seem to fit several key aspects of the death of Jesus, including the piercings and stripes, and of course the myth of Jesus was adjusted well before Clement to fit those aspects of perceived prophecy not fit by the historical Jesus. There have been thousands of cults in history that did not have the convergence of circumstances in their favor, but Christianity was just that lucky cult, for reasons that I think we can plausibly explain, not for anything especially notable about the founder with respect to disinterested contemporaries.

Lets work backward a bit. Christianity became big because of Constantine choosing it to be the Roman state religion and enforcing the orthodox view as a political decision to unite the empire. In one aspect the destruction of all but one version of Christianity meant that most of Christianity lost. Backing up, why was the orthodox version strong enough to be a useful ally of Constantine? Organization. Organization allowed the orthodox to marshal resources for Constantine. The justification for that organization was Apostolic succession and a canon that provided proof of that succession back to Jesus.

A valid question is did organization proceed from a history of that Apostolic succession(real history or tradition and oral transmission) or was the history created in service to the organization.

The only luck was being in the right place at the right time when a rebel needed an ally and that rebel won. An interesting speculation is what would Christianity look like today if Constantine had lost and the victors destroyed the orthodox in revenge.

There are a lot of theorists who tend to attribute the rise of Christianity to Constantine (or more often blame the rise of Christianity on Constantine). There is a significant inadequacy with that attribution, because it doesn't explain Christianity's rise before the time of Constantine. It had grown well beyond a cult and into a very considerable religion, or else Constantine would not have harnessed the power of the religion to his own ends. Since it went very much against the grain of the common Grecco-Roman culture, the rise of the religion and its considerable size, even as a minority, demands explaining, and you can't do it with anything that happened in the 4th century.

mountainman · 06-06-2011, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There are a lot of theorists who tend to attribute the rise of Christianity to Constantine (or more often blame the rise of Christianity on Constantine). There is a significant inadequacy with that attribution, because it doesn't explain Christianity's rise before the time of Constantine.

There is no need to explain something for which there is no unambiguous evidence.

Quote:

It had grown well beyond a cult and into a very considerable religion, or else Constantine would not have harnessed the power of the religion to his own ends. Since it went very much against the grain of the common Grecco-Roman culture, the rise of the religion and its considerable size, even as a minority, demands explaining, and you can't do it with anything that happened in the 4th century.

The revolution of the 4th century was one that involved the military machine of the Roman Army turned against the Panhellenic culture in the name of the Christian religion. At the head of that army was Constantine and Jesus. It was a gruesome spectacle.

And it has remained a gruesome spectacle even unto this day.

Quote:

In the NHC 11.1 "Interpretation of Knowledge" the Gnostics flee before the onrush of the Christian message, which was associated with reproaches and humiliations, and never got to hear the end bit of the story, that Jesus had been crucified.

"they came to believe by means of signs and wonders and fabrications. The likeness that came to be through them followed him, but through reproaches and humiliations before they received the apprehension of a vision they fled without having heard that the Christ had been crucified." ....

"But our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive"

.... "And he was crucified and he died - not his own death, for he did not at all deserve to die because of the church of mortals. And he was nailed so that they might keep him in the Church."

Toto · 06-06-2011, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
There are a lot of theorists who tend to attribute the rise of Christianity to Constantine (or more often blame the rise of Christianity on Constantine). There is a significant inadequacy with that attribution, because it doesn't explain Christianity's rise before the time of Constantine. It had grown well beyond a cult and into a very considerable religion, or else Constantine would not have harnessed the power of the religion to his own ends. Since it went very much against the grain of the common Grecco-Roman culture, the rise of the religion and its considerable size, even as a minority, demands explaining, and you can't do it with anything that happened in the 4th century.

Pete is the only poster here who tries to tie the origins of Christianity to Constantine in the fourth century. Most historians do connect the subsequent success of Christianity to Constantine.

Rodney Stark (or via: amazon.co.uk) seems to have an explanation for the success of Christianity before Constantine that makes a certain amount of sense and does not require any extraordinary or supernatural elements. His explanation does not depend on the content of Christian theology or any particular theory of the historical Jesus. I don't know what you mean about Christianity going against the grain of Greco-Roman culture. Stark points out that it tended to soften the harsh edges of parts of that culture, which was part of its recipe for success.

The factors that made Christianity a successful religion before Constantine would not have made it a successful world religion if it had not attracted state support.

This is wandering off topic.

aa5874 · 06-06-2011, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There are a lot of theorists who tend to attribute the rise of Christianity to Constantine (or more often blame the rise of Christianity on Constantine). There is a significant inadequacy with that attribution, because it doesn't explain Christianity's rise before the time of Constantine. It had grown well beyond a cult and into a very considerable religion, or else Constantine would not have harnessed the power of the religion to his own ends. Since it went very much against the grain of the common Grecco-Roman culture, the rise of the religion and its considerable size, even as a minority, demands explaining, and you can't do it with anything that happened in the 4th century.

Again, your claims are UNSUBSTANTIATED.

In fact, we have "Against Celsus" written in the 3rd century which SHOWS the Jesus cult of Christians were REGARDED as CANNIBALS and ATHEISTS by the Roman writer CELSUS and that they OPERATED in SECRET.

Examine "Against Celsus" 1

Quote:

...The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that of associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws......

So, based on "Against Celsus" the Jesus cult of Christians were SECRET groups so there was NO public places of worship. The Jesus cult of Christians were UNDERGROUND.

And this appears to be the situation with Justin Martyr since he did NOT mention a single Public place of worship before he was converted. Justin Martyr met an OLD MAN by mere co-incidence who told him about the Jesus story.

Please read "Against Celsus" by Origen where the Jesus cult of Christians were regarded a despicable sect BEFORE the 4th century.

Toto · 06-06-2011, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There are a lot of theorists who tend to attribute the rise of Christianity to Constantine (or more often blame the rise of Christianity on Constantine). There is a significant inadequacy with that attribution, because it doesn't explain Christianity's rise before the time of Constantine.

There is no need to explain something for which we have no evidence.

Quote:

It had grown well beyond a cult and into a very considerable religion, or else Constantine would not have harnessed the power of the religion to his own ends. Since it went very much against the grain of the common Grecco-Roman culture, the rise of the religion and its considerable size, even as a minority, demands explaining, and you can't do it with anything that happened in the 4th century.

The revolution of the 4th century was one that involved the military machine of the Roman Army turned against the Panhellenic culture in the name of the Christian religion. At the head of that army was Constantine and Jesus.

Please do not hijack this thread into another discussion of your pet theory.

You can only claim that there is no evidence of Christianity before the 4th century by disputing the clear Christian iconography of the accidentally preserved house church of Dura Europas and by refusing to give any credit to document analysis. You've had your chance, you have your own website devoted to this theory, and you haven't persuaded anyone.

aa5874 · 06-06-2011, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Christianity is big because of 4th century POLITICS.

Precisely; which is why the objection that someone as insignificant as the historical Jesus could not have been the basis for the Christian religion is simply nonsense.

Jesus didn't found a new religion; at most he was the basis of a sect of Judaism with peculiar messianic beliefs.

Jon

Well, people who believe it was an INSIGNIFICANT OBSCURE historical Jesus who started Christianity must PROVIDE the credible historical sources from antiquity for what they BELIEVE.

I do not hold such a weak and INSECURE position at all.

I FAVOR the theory that Jesus was just a MYTH FABLE just like Marcion's PHANTOM myth fable and was NOTHING different to the MYTH fables of the Greeks and Romans as Justin Martyr EXPLAINED.

It was KNOWN since the 2nd century that Jesus story was like the MYTHS of the Greeks and the Romans or like the myth fables of the Sons of Jupiter.

See "First Apology" by Justin Martyr.

JonA · 06-06-2011, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The historical Jesus hypothesis has been shaped to fit the available evidence, ...

Such a quality is often to be admired in theories.

Quote:

Historicists have not ruled out the possibility of finding some concrete evidence of historical Jesus.

Of course not; I never claimed that they did.

Jon

Toto · 06-06-2011, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

....

Quote:

Historicists have not ruled out the possibility of finding some concrete evidence of historical Jesus.

Of course not; I never claimed that they did.

Jon

But you did when you said that the HJ theory would predict a total lack of evidence :huh:

Did you mean that the HJ theory is compatible with a total lack of evidence? Meaning that it cannot be falsified?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.