Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 06-18-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Robert Price's book Deconstructing Jesus was reviewed in the RBL:

http://bookreviews.org/bookdetail.as...5&CodePage=805

It was politely panned.

From the cited review :-

'The record we have from non-Christian sources, while late, point toward an actual person named Jesus, whose life generally matches—at least in its most broad outline—what is said by the earliest Christian sources.'

The same old, oft-refuted stuff, trotted out time and time aagain.' But Tacitus confirms what Paul says, is the cry!'

And it is never explained to readers that the earliest Christian sources do not confirm what Tacitus says about Christ. (Tacitus, as is well known , does not even mention the name Jesus, yet he is regarded as proof of a historical Jesus)

Steven Carr · 06-18-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

This is true, but as jjramsey seems to point out, the MJ-sect is never even mentioned again, yet many other heresies are. The MJ completely disappears, and somehow every single person (and not very much later) thinks Jesus was human, or at least appeared human, on the earth, and no one counters this (that we are aware of). This is no doubt not a good historical argument, but to me it is very suggestive of a HJ in the first place.

There is an argument from silence , if ever there was one.

What exactly is your evidence that the Christians mentioned in 2 John 1:7 thought of a Jesus who walked the earth? (rather than say made appearances in the way Moses was supposed to have done at the Transfiguration)

And how could docetic heresies have ever got started?

One easy scenario.

Some people held Jesus was a spirit.

When they met claims that Jesus had lived on earth, and realised that the proponents of such a view were increasing in numbers, they polemicised that Jesus had only appeared to be on earth. They simply incorporated Jesus being on earth into their theology.

It is much harder to start from all concerned preaching a flesh and blood Jesus on earth, and then get docetism.

gstafleu · 06-18-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChandraRama

Even if we agree the MJ, and the christ cult, the question still remains why "jesus"?

Because "jesus" means "god saves." It is hard to come up with a better name for a savior

.

Steven Carr · 06-18-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

You can interpret Paul's letters in the backdrop of a real historical person named Jesus, or you can interpret Paul's letters the way Doherty's MJ camp does, as a heavenly Christ crucified in the spiritual realm. However, there are specific reasons why academic historians prefer the former as opposed to the latter. The former makes sense of the human sound passages, the latter does not.

G.A.Wells interprets Paul's letters in the backdrop of a real historical person named Jesus. Wells writes that Paul believed Jesus walked the earth in a flesh and blood body and had parents etc.

Does this make Wells a HJer, rather than a MJer?

Malachi151 · 06-18-2006, 03:22 PM

I think that Paul thought that Jesus was a real live person that had been on earth, but I'm also an "MJer".

Just because Paul believed it doesn't make it true.

I find it hard to argue that Paul didn't think that Jesus had been on earth since he says:

Quote:

Galatians 1

18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Of course, the funny thing is that it probably certian that it is a lie, because he makes such an effort to "assure" the reader.

Nevertheless, I think it seems pretty clear that he is talking about James like a flesh adn blood brother of Jesus.

RUmike · 06-18-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

There is an argument from silence , if ever there was one.

Ok.

Quote:

What exactly is your evidence that the Christians mentioned in 2 John 1:7 thought of a Jesus who walked the earth? (rather than say made appearances in the way Moses was supposed to have done at the Transfiguration)

What is your evidence that those Christians didn't think Jesus walked on earth, the way docetists believed? The casual mention is so brief and non-explanatory that it seems one would have to be agnostic on it.

Quote:

And how could docetic heresies have ever got started?

One easy scenario.

Some people held Jesus was a spirit.

When they met claims that Jesus had lived on earth, and realised that the proponents of such a view were increasing in numbers, they polemicised that Jesus had only appeared to be on earth. They simply incorporated Jesus being on earth into their theology.

Sure, that's plausible I guess. But I don't see any evidence in support of it. Also, why wouldn't the people simply say, "No, Jesus never appeared on Earth. You're wrong!" We don't get any of that.

Quote:

It is much harder to start from all concerned preaching a flesh and blood Jesus on earth, and then get docetism.

I don't see it as very difficult at all. But doesn't HJ literature (e.g. Mark, etc.) pre-date Docetist literature? Without any evidence showing a development like the one you gave, a conclusion of going from HJ to Docetism seems the most plausible given the literary evidence.

Malachi151 · 06-18-2006, 06:26 PM

How do we call Mark HJ though?

I mean, Mark is very outrageous with all kinds of mythical nonsense, and then Matthew and Luke are just like more reasonable versions of Mark. Really, and, of course Matthew is presented first in the Bible, as the most reasonable account.

So, really Matthew is the best account that seems to establish HJ, but we now have good reason to beleive that the most seemingly reasonable account was just a toning down of the Hellenistic Mark account, which has all the trappings of mythology.

RUmike · 06-18-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

How do we call Mark HJ though?

I mean, Mark is very outrageous with all kinds of mythical nonsense, and then Matthew and Luke are just like more reasonable versions of Mark. Really, and, of course Matthew is presented first in the Bible, as the most reasonable account.

So, really Matthew is the best account that seems to establish HJ, but we now have good reason to beleive that the most seemingly reasonable account was just a toning down of the Hellenistic Mark account, which has all the trappings of mythology.

I don't see how you can think Matt establishes a HJ but Mark may not. They both record ridiculous/mythological stuff, but regardless they both place Jesus on earth as a real human. Also your comment about Matthew's placement in the NT is pretty ridiculous. Matthew's gospel contains extensive teaching (beatitudes, Lord's prayer, etc.) which Mark completely lacks, and it is the only gospel to mention the church. It is no wonder it became the most popular and placed first, but it had nothing to do with how "reasonable" it was with regards to mythology and legend.

Malachi151 · 06-18-2006, 07:44 PM

I don't see how "placing Jesus on earth" in a story makes any case for the HJ position. All kinds of myths place the heros on earth.

Quote:

I've arrived here in the land of Thebes,
I, Dionysus, son of Zeus, born to him
from Semele, Cadmus' daughter, delivered
by a fiery midwife—Zeus' lightning flash.
Yes, I've changed my form from god to human,
appearing here at these streams of Dirce,
the waters of Ismarus. I see my mother's tomb—
for she was wiped out by that lightning bolt.
It's there, by the palace, with that rubble,
the remnants of her house, still smoldering
from Zeus' living fire—Hera's undying outrage
against my mother. But I praise Cadmus.
He's made his daughter's shrine a sacred place.
I have myself completely covered it
with leafy shoots of grape-bearing vines.
I've left the fabulously wealthy East,
lands of Lydians and Phrygians,
Persia's sun-drenched plains, walled towns in Bactria.
I've moved across the bleak lands of the Medes,
through rich Arabia, all Asian lands,
along the salt-sea coast, through those towns
with their beautifully constructed towers,
full of barbarians and Greeks all intermingled.
Now I've come to Thebes, city of Greeks,
only after I've set those eastern lands
dancing in the mysteries I established,
making known to men my own divinity.
Thebes is the first city of the Greeks
where I've roused people to shout out my cries,
with this deerskin draped around my body,
this ivy spear, a thyrsus, in my hand.
For my mother's sisters have acted badly,
something they, of all people, should avoid.
They boasted aloud that I, Dionysus,
was no child of Zeus, claiming Semele,
once she was pregnant by some mortal man,
attributed her bad luck in bed to Zeus,
a story made up (they said) to trick Cadmus.
Those sisters state that's why Zeus killed her,
because she lied about the man she'd slept with.
So I've driven those women from their homes
in a frenzy—they now live in the mountains,
out of their minds. I've made them put on costumes,
outfits appropriate for my mysteries.
All Theban offspring—or, at least, all women—
I've driven in a crazed fit from their homes.
Now they sit out there among the rocks,
underneath green pine trees, no roof overhead,
Cadmus' daughters in their company as well.
For this city has to learn, though against its will,
that it has yet to be initiated
into my Dionysian rites. Here I plead
the cause of my own mother, Semele,
appearing as a god to mortal men,
the one she bore to Zeus. Now Cadmus,
the old king, has just transferred his power,
his royal authority, to Pentheus,
his daughter's son, who, in my case at least,
fights against the gods, prohibiting me
all sacrificial offerings. When he prays,
he chooses to ignore me. For this neglect
I'll demonstrate to him, to all in Thebes,
that I was born a god. Once these things here
have been made right, I'll move on somewhere else,
to some other land, revealing who I am.
But if Thebans in this city, in their anger,
try to make those Bacchic women leave,
to drive them from the mountains forcibly,
then I, commander of these Maenads,
will fight them. That's why I've transformed myself,
assumed a mortal shape, altered my looks,
so I resemble any human being.
- The Bacchae; 440 BCE

Dionysus is placed on earth in his story, does that make a case for HD?

Steven Carr · 06-18-2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

What is your evidence that those Christians didn't think Jesus walked on earth, the way docetists believed? The casual mention is so brief and non-explanatory that it seems one would have to be agnostic on it.

So a claim that Jesus has come in the flesh is a claim that Jesus was on earth, but a denial that Jesus has come in the flesh is not a denial that Jesus was on earth?

In any case. it is hard to maintain that nobody believed a position X when there are groups that you cannot show did not believe X.

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

06-18-2006, 06:26 PM	#27
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	How do we call Mark HJ though? I mean, Mark is very outrageous with all kinds of mythical nonsense, and then Matthew and Luke are just like more reasonable versions of Mark. Really, and, of course Matthew is presented first in the Bible, as the most reasonable account. So, really Matthew is the best account that seems to establish HJ, but we now have good reason to beleive that the most seemingly reasonable account was just a toning down of the Hellenistic Mark account, which has all the trappings of mythology.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.