Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 07-05-2010, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If there was a theory of everything that seems a better explanation than quantum theory and the theory of relativity, then you can bet that physicists would accept it. In this subject, if one theory, with the details to match the data, seems to make almost complete sense, then it has an advantage over a theory without the details.

I agree that if such a model existed, it would need to be taken seriously. I just haven't seen any such complete model that doesn't depend on speculation to hand wave problems away.

Quote:

When we start to apply the details, then maybe it no longer makes sense. Or maybe it does. We simply don't know how competitive it is until we supply an equal level of detail for each model.

This is putting the cart before the horse. We are collectively still in the data gathering / observation phase. Without some major new finds or analytical techniques though, I think we will not progress beyond this stage.

Quote:

It is easy to play the role of a critic--always criticize the perceived fallacies of the established theory.

Of course it's easier to tear down than to build up, but on this subject even more so, since the "theories" that exist are pretty much just wild-eyed speculation. Have you ever looked into how many HJ theories there are? I'd guess there are at least 2 per publishing scholar. This is an impossible turn of events for a subject that has suficient data from which to draw conclusions. Physicists don't each have there own set of pet theories of gravity.

Quote:

Toto and company may not agree with that. They may think that any theory without enough evidence (however much that may be, I don't know) should simply not be declared the winner in any sense.

I'm in that same camp too. Look, the quality of the data we are working with is total crap. There is very little we can say definitely in regard to a historical Jesus, a historical Paul, etc., since the evidence is all highly refined textual data with many authors over perhaps a several hundred year period. It's full of nonsense claims, impossible faked up histories, mysticism, funky exegesis, bogus authorship, conflicting theology, and propoganda of every imaginable shape and color.

The real history of early Christianity is lost in the noise I fear. This task is a bit like trying to fit the pieces of a bomb back together when you aren't even sure that it was a bomb.

Quote:

What about the hypothesis that there was no tomb, that it was invented merely to fit prophecy?

The body is left unaccounted for in that case, which is just as bad. I'm not saying it's impossible that people who were aware that Jesus body was accounted for would invent a resurrection story, it's just far fetched, and it's an Achilles heal in almost every HJ model. The invention of a resurrection story is best explained by a missing body even in the earliest stages of Christianity, which just doesn't add up. You can invent creative resolutions to this of course, but there is no reason to take those speculations seriously.

For example, I might say that Jesus' followers actually knew he was not buried in a tomb, but was instead left hanging for buzzard chow. But the pain of that memory was too great so they simply ignored it. One of them, probably Thomas, invented the resurrection story and since everyone found it comforting, they latched onto it even though they knew it wasn't true. Thomas was then painted as a disbeliever to hide the fact that he invented the story. Surely this "theory" is the most comprehensive one yet discovered as to the origin of the resurrection story, and is therefor most probable. Perhaps I should write a book now.

Quote:

I don't know if it is generally accepted in the mainline scholarship, but I posited that in light of the perceived messianic prophecy and the description of crucifixion by the poet Pseudo Manetho, so it is not an ad hoc explanation (or else it is a very small one), because it follows easily from the expectations of my own model (that Christians very much tended to invent elements to fit the perceived messianic prophecies).

This aspect of your model - that Christians (and everyone else in that culture as well) simply invented stories to match expectations is well founded. I agree with that particular bit, but it is not specific to your model, nor is it a prediction that came from your model. It's just a common observation any reasonable unbiased person will draw.

Quote:

They lived, died, and were later idolized in myth. James shows up in a myth of martyrdom reported by Josephus, he has a letter attributed to him, and Mary and Joseph become mainstays in gospel myth. They don't disappear from history any more than Peter and John, two subsequent leaders of the church. I am not sure exactly what you would expect.

I expect them to play a pivotal role in the early church...which perhaps they did if Jesus was actually a much earlier figure than the 1st century, and I expect that Jesus' bloodline would have been remembered considering we are discussing a Jewish cult - a people obsessed with bloodlines. Even if no-one really could recall the bloodline, I would expect competing claimed bloodlines to have existed. We don't even see that much. Instead, we see Jesus basically repudiate blood relationships. How convenient.

Quote:

And, here is a point to illustrate the necessity to supply details for your own theory: for an elaborate myth like we see in the earliest Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the result of developing gradually over time.

I don't view the gospels as myth in the sense that they were gradually developed over time, I view them as myth in the sense of truly fictional stories invented to explain Christian origins. The ancients called this a biography, and so that's how scholars refer to it, but by modern standards it's what we would call a tall tale.

If you want a 'theory' that's the closest I can give you. I can justify this position by showing how the passion is constructed from Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, how several of the stories (such as the withering of the fig tree) are really theological statements, how other stories (such as the suicidal pigs) are really satires of historical events, how some ideas were simply stolen from pre-existing myths (such as Matthew's story of the 153 fish), how the gospel Jesus parallels what was happening to the Jews themselves in the 1st and 2nd centuries, and how real historical figures were inserted into the bogus stories (Herod's role in the birth narrative).

If there was a contemporary real historical Jesus, I can understand his memory being dressed up with miraculous trappings - that was commonplace, but I can't understand how his memory could be completely lost and require whole cloth fabrication. This just doesn't fit HJ models.

Quote:

Therefore, it is necessary to ask: who may have been the person who first came up with the idea of Jesus and the elaborate story surrounding him?

The idea of a savior messiah of the Jews (which is after all, what the name "Jesus Christ" actually means), is very ancient. Whether the writings of Paul are genuine or not, we nonetheless see this idea taking on a spiritual meaning rather than a literal meaning, so I think it's safe to say that *somebody's* OT exegesis turned state messianic expectations into spiritual savior expectations. I can't imagine we'll ever know exactly how it happened, but the fact that it did happen is pretty solid.

Who then created the gospel fables? How can we know who did it, and why does it even matter who did it. If we said his name was Josephus Blowsephus, would it really change anything?

Quote:

What is your alternative explanation for what Paul says and doesn't say about Jesus? I have an explanation, and I am willing to put it on the table so it can be tested against the competition--Paul was a rival against disciple apostles who personally knew Jesus and were the authorities of his earthly human existence, therefore Paul can claim only to be an authority of the spiritual existence of Jesus. It seems to be a plausible explanation. It is at least a little ad hoc, but that would be a problem only if there is a competing theory that explains the evidence better.

This idea does not explain why Paul uses the OT to justify his moral teachings rather than Jesus' words on such matters. Does this really seem so easy to dismiss to you?

aa5874 · 07-05-2010, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

..... In this subject, if one theory, with the details to match the data, seems to make almost complete sense, then it has an advantage over a theory without the details. When we start to apply the details, then maybe it no longer makes sense. Or maybe it does. We simply don't know how competitive it is until we supply an equal level of detail for each model.

But the abundance of evidence from the NT and Church writings are compatible with mythology. Since 1800 years ago apologetic and non-apologetic source saw evidence of similarities of mythology in the Jesus story and Greek myths.

"First Apology"XXI

Quote:

.....And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

This is another one of the points. What is your alternative explanation for what Paul says and doesn't say about Jesus? I have an explanation, and I am willing to put it on the table so it can be tested against the competition--Paul was a rival against disciple apostles who personally knew Jesus and were the authorities of his earthly human existence, therefore Paul can claim only to be an authority of the spiritual existence of Jesus. It seems to be a plausible explanation. It is at least a little ad hoc, but that would be a problem only if there is a competing theory that explains the evidence better.

The PAULINE letters are useless without the attached mythology where he claimed he heard from the FIRST-BORN of the dead called Jesus.

The Pauline claims that salvation of ALL mankind is dependent upon a non-historical event or mythology, the resurrection of the dead, does NOT need an actual Jesus just the belief that Jesus was resurrected.

The claims that the Pauline writers had VISIONS or Revelations do NOT need actual actual human Jesus just belief that he had them.

The PAULINE writings do not need an actual human Jesus since an human Jesus would have been UNABLE to resurrect and the resurrection was the fundamental basis of his theology.

dog-on · 07-06-2010, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

1. Original Paul does not need to be 2nd century
2. Mark seems to know Paul
3. Why assume flesh when spirit works even better.

OK, so why do you think that Mark seems to know Paul? I am not claiming that you are wrong, but I would like to get further information on the subject. Thanks.

Joe Wallack has a fairly decent thread about just this subject on this forum. Give it a read.

maryhelena · 07-06-2010, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

And, here is a point to illustrate the necessity to supply details for your own theory: for an elaborate myth like we see in the earliest Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the result of developing gradually over time. Therefore, it is necessary to ask: who may have been the person who first came up with the idea of Jesus and the elaborate story surrounding him? Whoever he or she is, would we not expect him or her to be revered by the cult as the revelator, much like L. Ron Hubbard? If the under-emphasis of Jesus' family is a problem, then is it not an equal problem in your model? Well, maybe it would be a problem if you had a model. If you don't have an alternative explanation, then the objection sort of rings hollow.

Not so, re the originator of the Jesus myth idea to be revered. Ideas are ten a penny. If all this was is a battle of ideas - then nothing but pure luck would be the winner! Ideas, to have any relevance, need to have a foot in reality, some connection with real stuff instead of flights of pure fancy.

As regards the myth theory itself: It is a weak point for any mythicist theory to uphold the idea that it was all mythical, or that it was all visionary experience - ideas unrelated to any reality. If, as Paul says, there were others prior to his time, then Paul’ role, even as an inventor of the spiritual Jesus storyboard, would not be a role that would warrant any undue reverence of him. Paul, or whoever, even though his intentions are ‘good’, would not necessarily be viewed, by those prior to him, as being ‘good’ ie heretic, betrayer, would be the kind of opinion that would also arise. Paul would be viewed as a source of contention rather than a unifying source meriting reverence.

Consider Nelson Mandela: a man revered in his own life, and in the early days of his release from prison was even referred to as ‘Africa’s Messiah’. Imagine now, if you will, upon the death of Mandela. His memory will be revered etc . But someone comes along with a new idea - after all Africa is in much the same dire straits; poverty, malnutrition etc. So maybe the real significance of Mandela is not what he did or did not do in any material sense - but in what he achieved ‘spiritually’ ie he awakened an African Renaissance; an uplifting sense of African pride and identity. (one has only to think of the soccer World Cup to realize how much this event has further invigorated that pride in African identity). Now, whoever that person would be who came up with a 'spiritual' appreciation of Mandela' role, that person would not be revered; changing direction, changing focus, is going to cause problems with the ‘loyal’ Mandela crowd. However, slowly, as the years go by (and there is no way to date Paul from his letters...) and the memory of the historical Mandela gets dimmer - the new insight into a deeper appreciation of Mandela’s ‘spiritual’ significance becomes the idea that has greater force. Thus the new ‘spiritual’ appreciation of Mandela gets the same accolades as does the historical Mandela - a ‘spiritual saviour’ figure - as the historical Mandela was viewed as a secular/political ‘saviour’ figure for South Africa. Obviously, again with time, the ‘spiritual saviour’ concept gains it’s own embellishments etc - as the historical, secular/political, inspirational figure for the ‘spiritual saviour’ construct fades into the historical past.

Is there a historical counterpart to a futuristic Mandela myth? Consider the historical figure of Philip the Tetrarch and Caesarea Philippi. Consider this history in the context of the gospel mythological Jesus storyline.

Quote:

CAESAREA PHILIPPI: BANIAS, THE LOST CITY OF PAN: John Francis Wilson.

CAESAREA PHILIPPI: BANIAS, THE LOST CITY OF PAN: (or via: amazon.co.uk)

paged 78

<snip.
It is noteworthy that a significant block of material from the Synoptic Gospels seems to have the region (not necessarily the city) of Caesarea Philippi, the territory Josephus calls ‘the district of Paneas’, as its backdrop. The Synoptic materials in question include the account of Jesus’s Admission of Messiahship, the Transfiguration, and the healing of the demon-possessed boy. All are found in each of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and thus would ordinarily be understood to have Mark as their source (if the commonly held theory of the priority of Mark is accepted). There is reason to believe that the geographical setting of the stories comes from even earlier sources, however. Mark derives the geographical references he sometimes supplies to his accounts from earlier sources, most likely themselves originating with the communities mentioned. Their witness to the existence of these communities is therefore very strong. This is particularly true of materials sometimes identified as belonging to ‘Ur-Markus’, as the materials centred in Caesarea Philippi are. The interesting conclusion which may be drawn is that the cycle of Jesus-stories associated with the region of Caesarea Philippi is not only extremely early, but that it originated with equally early Christian (or more precisely, Jewish-Christian) communities in the region. This would place Christianity in the Banias district in its most primitive Jewish-Christian form, probably before the conversion of Paul......
<snip>

Page 83

Some New Testament scholars have noticed that the canonical Gospel of Matthew has a ‘northern Galilean/southern Syrian’ point of view and have concluded that the community from which the gospel arose should be located ‘somewhere along the border region between lower Galilee and Syria’. Banias seems the most likely candidate, in terms of both location and theological milieu. An example of this ‘northern Galilean/southern Syrian’ perspective is found in Matthew 4:15. Building on the language of Isaiah 9:1, Matthew describes Jesus’s use of the ‘Way of the Sea’ (the Damascus–Tyre road that passes through Banias) as a fulfilment of ancient prophecy. The effect of this use of Isaiah is to centre Jesus’s ministry precisely in an area bordered on the south by Capernaum (with its sister communities Bethsaida and Chorazim) and the lake, and on the north by Tyre and Sidon – in short, the territories of Philip the Tetrarch.

Page 23

Philip died in the city of Julias in the fall of 33AD, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, and the thirty-seventh year of his own......... Josephus says that his body was ‘carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand’ and that he was ‘buried with great pomp’. It is usually presumed that this monument was located in Bethsaida-Julias, but excavations there show the place to be very modest at best, and besides, Philip’s capital and home were at Banias. It seems more reasonable to understand Josephus to mean that a sad procession carried the remains of this successful ruler, respected by both the Romans and his own subjects, northward along the banks of the nascent Jordan’s cool waters to the springs of Banias. There, somewhere, he was laid to rest.

(and of course, Paul has his vision/conversion experience on the road to Damascus - a road that runs through the area of Casearea Philippi....)

Consider also this account of the life of Jesus from an old history book:

Quote:

'Israelite and Judean History', (Hayes and Miller, 1977 pages 641, 642).

"Jesus was probably born in or near Nazareth...Nothing firm can be said of him until he was about thirty....To present the shape of the career of Jesus is a matter of forming the most probable hypothesis to cover those facts which can be reasonably entertained after radical synoptic criticism. It seems that Jesus believed himself entrusted by God with the reformation of his people for the task of converting the world, that he believed it necessary to win back those who lived among Gentiles in the north in his own Galilee, in southern Syria, in the Decapolis, and in the territory of Philip. He ranged widely over these areas from a headquarters at Capernaum on the north side of the Lake of Galilee,.....His morality was traditional but his intellectual grasp of its basis was original unconventional. More articulate than other Galilean religious figures, he had the extra-ordinary gift both for the poetic expression of his interpretation of his nation's wisdom and for facing men and women with their own crises. Supremely in history his impact challenged both humble individuals and well established authority, the latter disturbed....by his apparent willingness to associate with Rome and its agents."

After considering the above arguments can you really, with a straight face, continue to contend that the “simplest" model of all is that all of the New Testament is completely true”. There are other probabilities - probabilities that do not requires us to suspend our critical facilities.

Chaucer · 07-06-2010, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

And, here is a point to illustrate the necessity to supply details for your own theory: for an elaborate myth like we see in the earliest Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the result of developing gradually over time. Therefore, it is necessary to ask: who may have been the person who first came up with the idea of Jesus and the elaborate story surrounding him? Whoever he or she is, would we not expect him or her to be revered by the cult as the revelator, much like L. Ron Hubbard? If the under-emphasis of Jesus' family is a problem, then is it not an equal problem in your model? Well, maybe it would be a problem if you had a model. If you don't have an alternative explanation, then the objection sort of rings hollow.

<SNIP> can you really, with a straight face, continue to contend that the “simplest" model of all is that all of the New Testament is completely true”.

Excuse me: There are a number of posters here who know quite well that Ap.Abe does NOT contend that all of the New Testament is completely true. That would make him a traditional Christian. And Ap.Abe is plainly NOT a traditional Christian. He has made that crystal clear in his OPs here --

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=285667

-- and here

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=280864

-- and here --

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=276859

-- Please, do you want to consider withdrawing what you've said here? Otherwise -- whether intentionally or not -- you have written here a seriously misleading statement. Is there still any reason for you to stand by it, please? I don't see one.

Thank you,

Chaucer

aa5874 · 07-06-2010, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...Not so, re the originator of the Jesus myth idea to be revered. Ideas are ten a penny. If all this was is a battle of ideas - then nothing but pure luck would be the winner! Ideas, to have any relevance, need to have a foot in reality, some connection with real stuff instead of flights of pure fancy.

So, how would you determine the lucky winner? Any ideas?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

As regards the myth theory itself: It is a weak point for any mythicist theory to uphold the idea that it was all mythical, or that it was all visionary experience - ideas unrelated to any reality. If, as Paul says, there were others prior to his time, then Paul’ role, even as an inventor of the spiritual Jesus storyboard, would not be a role that would warrant any undue reverence of him. Paul, or whoever, even though his intentions are ‘good’, would not necessarily be viewed, by those prior to him, as being ‘good’ ie heretic, betrayer, would be the kind of opinion that would also arise. Paul would be viewed as a source of contention rather than a unifying source meriting reverence.

Why are you following the Pauline story line in the Epistles? How can you accept the Pauline story line with a straight face?

There are other possibilities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Consider Nelson Mandela: a man revered in his own life, and in the early days of his release from prison was even referred to as ‘Africa’s Messiah’.

How can you compare Nelson Mandela to Jesus of the NT who was born of a virgin without human father, was God, equal to God, the Creator of heaven and earth and died and was resurrected for the SINS of All mankind?

Nelson Mandela is alive to day and it is known that he is living throughout the world not only by his immediate family and members of his political party. Secular historians and Mandela's acquaintances will write about Mandela with far more veracity than the fiction writers called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Imagine now, if you will, upon the death of Mandela. His memory will be revered etc . But someone comes along with a new idea - after all Africa is in much the same dire straits; poverty, malnutrition etc. So maybe the real significance of Mandela is not what he did or did not do in any material sense - but in what he achieved ‘spiritually’ ie he awakened an African Renaissance; an uplifting sense of African pride and identity....

But, you DON'T have to make your imagination run wild. There are models that can be used such as Ghandi of India and Martin Luther King Jr of the USA.

There is no historical data that shows that Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr were worshiped as Gods by family members and close acquaintances after they died.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Is there a historical counterpart to a futuristic Mandela myth? Consider the historical figure of Philip the Tetrarch and Caesarea Philippi. Consider this history in the context of the gospel mythological Jesus storyline.

Why do you believe what you have imagined? You have already imagined your own history and have even found a source to support your invented future.

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2010, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

<SNIP> can you really, with a straight face, continue to contend that the “simplest" model of all is that all of the New Testament is completely true”.

Excuse me: There are a number of posters here who know quite well that Ap.Abe does NOT contend that all of the New Testament is completely true. That would make him a traditional Christian. And Ap.Abe is plainly NOT a traditional Christian. He has made that crystal clear in his OPs here --

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=285667

-- and here

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=280864

-- and here --

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=276859

-- Please, do you want to consider withdrawing what you've said here? Otherwise -- whether intentionally or not -- you have written here a seriously misleading statement. Is there still any reason for you to stand by it, please? I don't see one.

Thank you,

Chaucer

There is no need for maryhelena to apologize. She seemed to grasp my meaning sufficiently, in my opinion, and made no inaccurate accusation. I claimed that the "simplest" model is that all of the New Testament is completely true, in the context of saying that the perceived advantage of simplicity is not necessarily an advantage when you ignore the evidence and problems. If you think she may have misunderstood my meaning, then it is necessary only to clarify, not accuse.

Chaucer · 07-06-2010, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Excuse me: There are a number of posters here who know quite well that Ap.Abe does NOT contend that all of the New Testament is completely true. That would make him a traditional Christian. And Ap.Abe is plainly NOT a traditional Christian. He has made that crystal clear in his OPs here --

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=285667

-- and here

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=280864

-- and here --

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=276859

-- Please, do you want to consider withdrawing what you've said here? Otherwise -- whether intentionally or not -- you have written here a seriously misleading statement. Is there still any reason for you to stand by it, please? I don't see one.

Thank you,

Chaucer

There is no need for maryhelena to apologize. She seemed to grasp my meaning sufficiently, in my opinion, and made no inaccurate accusation. I claimed that the "simplest" model is that all of the New Testament is completely true, in the context of saying that the perceived advantage of simplicity is not necessarily an advantage when you ignore the evidence and problems. If you think she may have misunderstood my meaning, then it is necessary only to clarify, not accuse.

Fair enough. I do not specifically claim that MaryHelena made a willful lie, and your clarification of what you said -- in this context -- is welcome. I did sense -- perhaps wrongly? -- that MaryHelena was being careless at worst. And that seemed unfortunate.

I have been burned on this in the past, you see, so maybe I'm too ready to buck at examples like this today: But since I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every time that I've seen a mythicist call a self-evident skeptic a traditional Christian merely because that skeptic is not a mythicist, any imputations made today of traditional Christianity against any clearly self-avowed skeptic who merely happens to be an HJ-er consequently makes me see red. Calling such skeptics traditional Christians instead is certainly a despicable tactic sometimes adopted by some mythicists of my experience, although less in evidence, I note, in recent months than it once was on various boards. I still find it an infuriating tactic, though. And when a clear imputation of that kind is aimed at a clearly self-avowed skeptic today, I'm still ready to call out the liar who attempts that tactic. And I also stand ready to notify moderators of such dishonest posts in the future.

Chaucer

maryhelena · 07-06-2010, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Excuse me: There are a number of posters here who know quite well that Ap.Abe does NOT contend that all of the New Testament is completely true. That would make him a traditional Christian. And Ap.Abe is plainly NOT a traditional Christian. He has made that crystal clear in his OPs here --

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=285667

-- and here

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=280864

-- and here --

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=276859

-- Please, do you want to consider withdrawing what you've said here? Otherwise -- whether intentionally or not -- you have written here a seriously misleading statement. Is there still any reason for you to stand by it, please? I don't see one.

Thank you,

Chaucer

There is no need for maryhelena to apologize. She seemed to grasp my meaning sufficiently, in my opinion, and made no inaccurate accusation. I claimed that the "simplest" model is that all of the New Testament is completely true, in the context of saying that the perceived advantage of simplicity is not necessarily an advantage when you ignore the evidence and problems. If you think she may have misunderstood my meaning, then it is necessary only to clarify, not accuse.

Abe - my knight in shining armor - :clapping::notworthy::wave::thumbs:

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2010, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

When we start to apply the details, then maybe it no longer makes sense. Or maybe it does. We simply don't know how competitive it is until we supply an equal level of detail for each model.

This is putting the cart before the horse. We are collectively still in the data gathering / observation phase. Without some major new finds or analytical techniques though, I think we will not progress beyond this stage.

OK, I don't know what it may take to progress from the data gathering / observation phase to the next phase (the debate phase?). The way I see it, there are no phases, and anyone can lay claim to the most probable explanation for the data regardless of how much or how little of the data is gathered. Certainly, if you want to step in and lay claim to the best explanation, then I think it is a little weird to also claim that we are still in the data gathering / observation phase.

This was your post that led into the discussion that we are having:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Well, wouldn't you normally expect that that is the sensible way to go about it? Finding the best explanation for the earliest variations of Christianity? That would necessarily entail an explanation for the belief in the crucifixion. You seem to think it is about theology, but the act of crucifixion is very much a common historical phenomenon in the Roman empire, and it seems somewhat out of place in a theological construct. I know that the mythicists have earnestly tried to explain it in terms of theology, and for good reason. It is hard to compete with the standard explanation for Christianity's focus on crucifixion--Jesus really was crucified.

Which came first, the crucifixion or the atonement by sacrifice? It's can work either way, but a historical crucifixion is more strained.

If there was a historical crucifixion, then we can see how this would have been interpreted after the fact as a sacrifice. Although implausible, it's not impossible. But this is ad hoc. It's an unlikely explanation invented to maintain the mere possibility of a historical Jesus. Why is it unlikely? ...because cults founded by personality figures only rarely outlive their founder, and for such a cult to outlive a founder convicted and executed by Rome in a society dominated by authoritarian thinking and worship of the powerful borders on the absurd. We also have the problem that there is no body and no tomb of Jesus. How could it possibly have been lost given an uninterrupted line of Jesus worshipers as historicism requires? Instead, we have a resurrection story that quite conveniently explains away why no-one knows where the tomb is. And what happened to Jesus' family? They just fall off the map. This is also implausible. If we look to modern cult dynamics as an indicator, we see that family members of the cult leader tend to hold high rank in the cult. Aside from Moon himself, the key leaders of the Moonies are all direct family members - his wife, his children, etc. The same holds true the lunatics at Westboro, and numerous other modern cults. So you have several implausibilities all rollwed into one: a cult outliving it's humiliated executed leader, the missing tomb, and the cult leader's family just disappearing from history. Any one of these is sufficient to call the hypothesis into serious question, and combined they are a death punch. Yet HJers just ignore all this as if it were no big deal.

So what about the opposite idea...that the crucifixion came 2nd.

If there was no historical crucifixion, it's also easy to see how it would have been fabricated by a culture obsessed with sacrifices. The concept of atonement by sacrifice is universal in the ancient world, including pre-Christian Judaism. Further, the Jewish scriptures depict two different messiahs, one that is the triumphant savior of Israel, and one that is the suffering servant. At a time when expectations of the triumphant savior resulted in the destruction of the temple and even of Jerusalem itself, it's easy to see how a shift in focus to the other messiah could take root as a backlash, and once it had taken root it's easy to see how an origin story would be created and back dated to a symbolic 40 years prior to the fall of the temple, just as a bogus birth story and fake geneaology was backdated a necessary 30 years prior to that. Is this implausible? Not at all. Does it account for all the evidence? Yes.

Do you still wish to claim that "a historical crucifixion is more strained"? If so, then we are not in the data gathering / observation phase, or else it doesn't matter, or maybe I have you wrong and I don't know what you mean by that.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.