Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NOGO · 01-31-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Amaleq, are you merely trying to say that Pauline Christianity is different than the kind of Christianity that he persecuted before converting?

Or are you trying to say that if we call the Pauline version Christianity then the version that he persecuted, apparently the version that Cephas and James and John held to, should not even be called Christianity?

Ben.

Based on Paul's description of the differences between himself and Peter and also his visit to Jerusalem I would say that if the Palestinian churches had survided they would have completely disowned Paul and his brand of Christianity.

I would venture that the James/Cephas clan never intended to split from Judaism. They probably saw their faith as the last chapter of Juaism rather than the start of something new.

jakejonesiv · 01-31-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Greetings,

If the historical evidence for Alexander was as slim as HJ,
and there was an argument he was a myth,
then yes,
an attack on his biography as a MYTH would be quite relevant.

Sure,
he is saying they are comparable, he is not quite saying his stories are legends.

Ben,
of course there is no obvious early smoking gun that claims HJ was a myth (if there had been, would it have lasted?)

Celsus, Porphry, Julian - they all assumed HJ existed, probably because such a figure was plausible to them (even if the Gospels were not.)

Perhaps the most "smoking" of the "guns" is Minucius Felix - have you studied him? Various threads deal with this issue - he seems to deny that Christians worship a man crucified, he seems to deny that Christians believe a man became god.

Absent a clear smoking gun - we see :
* no historical evidence for Jesus
* no Christians who even met him
* early claims he was a PHANTOM, not a physical being
* early claims his life story is MYTH
* variant Christian versions of his story
* signs his story is based on earlier scripture

All of which point to a myth, not history.

Iasion

Hi Iasion,

That is a good answer. And we haven't even gotten to the fictional arguments yet.

But I wonder what these guys are really arguing for when they claim there was a historical Jesus? If they are just claiming that some preacher guy named Jesus existed, but shared few of the acts and characteristics that define the gospel portrait of Jesus, then who cares? They were probably several of them, a dime a dozen.

However, if they are claiming that the Historical Jesus is recognizably the same guy as Gospel Jesus, then that is a more interesting , but the bar is much higher.

So before we go too much further, we need a definition of the Historical Jesus we are talking about. And the HJ proponents are the ones who have to define this.
Without that, it could be a big freakin' waste of time.

So come on guys, step up to the plate and define your terms.

Jake Jones IV

No Robots · 01-31-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

So come on guys, step up to the plate and define your terms.

Sorry, guy, but the thread is basically complete with this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

There is no obvious early smoking gun that claims HJ was a myth.

Booyah!

Chris Weimer · 01-31-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

How do you know what Paul thought? Seriously, because this gets to the heart of the whole debate.

I call what I see. Paul makes comments about Jesus being a real man, thus we should take it like that until it can be shown otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Are you assuming that when we open the latest edition of Nestle-Aland that we are reading letters by the alleged first century Apostle in their original form?

Non sequitur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Are you confident that they remained unsullied between the time of composition and the earliest extant manuscripts? Even though this time encompasses the great christological debates of the second century, when there would be every motivation to modify them?

Desperate speculation. Which verses in particular and why in particular you think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Given all that, what is your confidence level that the Pauline letters we have before us today existed in identical form in the first century. 100%? 50%? 20%? 0% What?

Does it matter? We can only go by what we have. Unless you have some different information, I'll go by what I have.

Chris Weimer · 01-31-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

As I parenthetically suggested, it might be more accurate to say he was calling for reform on the part of his fellow Jews but it is clearly within the context of Judaism. Mark 2:17 is probably the first indication of this:

"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

I don't see how the statement is related to your thesis. In any way, Matthew especially is very anti-Jewish - in one verse he basically says the kingdom will be taken away from the Jews and given to the Gentiles. Doesn't sound a lot like reforming Judaism to me. It sounds like creating a new religion where both Jews and Gentiles are accepted. Separate and distinct.

Quote:

I consider "founder" to require active involvement in the founding of a movement and what you describe seems more like the source of inspiration for the actual founder.

I can live with that. Actually, it may even better represent my views on the matter. Jesus, a human, was the inspiration for the later legends.

Quote:

That's where the religion, as it exists today, appears to have gotten its start.

It was no doubt a major change, but I wouldn't call it a different religion altogether. Are not Catholics, Protestants, and the Orthodox all Christians? Are we going to call Protestantism a different religion and say that Martin Luther was the founder? In any way, its far too arbitrary to really matter.

Quote:

Paul is clearly describing the birth of a new religion while James and Simon appear to have been trying to change certain traditional Jewish beliefs while retaining most.

I don't think so. The fundamental concepts are there for both - Jesus the Messiah, the Old Testament, and God.

Chris Weimer · 01-31-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

If the new store abandons central tenets of the original store and focuses exclusively on a new customer base, the name is generally changed and you have a new franchise.

So every Protestant denomination is technically a new religion then?

Ben C Smith · 01-31-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

So before we go too much further, we need a definition of the Historical Jesus we are talking about.

I thought Chris did a pretty good job of that already:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

The person I'm identifying is the leader of the earliest sect of Judaism which later became Christianity. He was executed through crucifiction by the Romans. He was a Messianic contender.

I frankly did not understand the objections to this definition, except that I myself would probably add: ...and was thought by some to have risen from the dead.

All the talk about what constitutes a true identity makes my head spin. I have no rebuttal to it because I have no idea what is being pursued.

Ben.

Chris Weimer · 01-31-2006, 03:52 PM

Ben,

The reason I didn't mention anything about others thinking him to be resurrected is because we're unsure of how they thought he was resurrected. Furthermore, what his disciples believed after his death aren't really pertinent to what he was before his death. I say let's separate the issues.

Chris

Ben C Smith · 01-31-2006, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

The reason I didn't mention anything about others thinking him to be resurrected is because we're unsure of how they thought he was resurrected. Furthermore, what his disciples believed after his death aren't really pertinent to what he was before his death. I say let's separate the issues.

You know, you may be right. I will stick to your general outline.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 01-31-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

If the historical evidence for Alexander was as slim as HJ,
and there was an argument he was a myth,
then yes,
an attack on his biography as a MYTH would be quite relevant.

Only if removing the legends left zero remainder.

Quote:

Ben,
of course there is no obvious early smoking gun that claims HJ was a myth....

Okay, your name goes in the none column.

Quote:

Celsus, Porphry, Julian - they all assumed HJ existed, probably because such a figure was plausible to them (even if the Gospels were not.)

Right.

Quote:

Perhaps the most "smoking" of the "guns" is Minucius Felix - have you studied him?

Oh, that is a good one to add to the list. Let me put an obelisk next to your name in the none column.

I have read the passage in question; it takes some forcing to get it to mean what some mythicists think it means. I also understand it is an open issue whether Tertullian copied from Minucius Felix or Minucius Felix copied from Tertullian. If the latter is the case, the passage melts as evidence for mythicism.

Quote:

Absent a clear smoking gun - we see :
* no historical evidence for Jesus

False. But that is for another thread.

Quote:

* no Christians who even met him

Again false. Another thread.

Quote:

* early claims he was a PHANTOM, not a physical being

True. In your opinion, what did they think was a phantom?

Quote:

* early claims his life story is MYTH

Change is to contains, and true.

Quote:

* variant Christian versions of his story

True. Also true of Alexander.

Quote:

* signs his story is based on earlier scripture

Change his story to parts of his story, and true. Also true of Paul the apostle.

Quote:

All of which point to a myth, not history.

All except the ones that are false and the ones that are equally true of persons you yourself would presumably regard as historical.

Ben.

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

01-31-2006, 03:52 PM	#138
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Ben, The reason I didn't mention anything about others thinking him to be resurrected is because we're unsure of how they thought he was resurrected. Furthermore, what his disciples believed after his death aren't really pertinent to what he was before his death. I say let's separate the issues. Chris

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.