Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 03-29-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I'll take door #2, Jake:

2. the HJ is behind and rationally retracable from the Christ of Scripture

This (or via: amazon.co.uk) is the book that I think does the best job of rationally retracing the authentic man from Scripture.

Hi No Robots,

So you are a follower of Constantin Brunner? Wasn't he a philosopher, rather than a chrsitian? I would put Brunner is category #3. The Jesus he favors is positively different from Jesus as portayed in the scriptures. (But I haven't done any in depth study).

This is quite interesting. Could you give us a description of what HJ was all about from your point of view?

Thanks,
Jake

jakejonesiv · 03-29-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Interesting taxonomy. Let me try something. There are two hypotheses: 1) the scripture Jesus was historical (SHJ), and 2) some other jesus was historical (OHJ).

Then we have:

1) SHJ can be verified.
2) SHJ cannot be verified, but OHJ can, from the bible.
3) SHJ cannot be verified, OHJ cannot be verified from the bible but he can be verified from somewhere else. Ot alternatively, OHJ can in fact be verified from the bible, but he turns out to be substantially different from the SHJ.
4) Neither SHJ not OHJ can be verified from the bible.
5) SHJ can be falsified (and maybe some versions of OHJ can also be falsified).

Some remarks.

3) and 4) are similar, Price just doesn't bother to look outside of the bible (I don't mean this to sound deprecatory).

1) and 5) are obviously the strongest claims (in the sense that they claim the most).

In 2), exactly which part of SHJ constitutes OHJ needs to be specified, but we have a starting point in the bible.

In 3) OHJ needs to be defined more or less from scratch. Even if we take the second interpretation (OHJ from bible, but different than SHJ), we still need to state the differences, which are stated to be major (so calling this a from-scratch-Jesus is not unreasonable). That is of course doable, but it has to be done in such a way that there is some connection between OHJ and SHJ, or at least between OHJ and (the development of) Christianity. Otherwise you are just showing the historicity of some random Jesus.

Impressive analysis! We do need some type of categorization. Most of the discussions on iidb go no where because it is not clear what is being defended or proposed.

Jake Jones

No Robots · 03-29-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

So you are a follower of Constantin Brunner?

Oh, yeah. Big time. I was pretty much your standard atheist. Like you guys, I enjoyed reading the historical Jesus books. I was all about stripping away the mumbo-jumbo. I never doubted Christ's historicity. My dad used to pull that stuff out for shock effect, and so it never had any real hold on me. I always quite liked Jesus, and I wanted to find out if anyone had ever done a good job of presenting him. I used to poke around the university library collection looking for good reads on the subject. I found Brunner's book that way one day. I found it totally convincing. So I started reading up about Brunner. What a story! I also started reading other books by and about Brunner. I was totally astounded by his reach. I found it amazing that he was so little known. Eventually I hooked up with the small group that is the International Constantin Brunner Institute. I went to their annual meeting in The Hague a couple of years ago.

I operate a website devoted to Brunner, where I have some quotations from his book, Our Christ.

Quote:

Wasn't he a philosopher, rather than a chrsitian?

Brunner was known in his day primarily just as a writer. He was certainly never accepted as a philosopher in academe. He wasn't a member of any Christian sect. He called himself an ex-Jew. All-in-all he was an iconoclast who presented a positive route for all other iconoclasts to follow. I tend to think of him as the greatest social scientist.

Quote:

I would put Brunner is category #3. The Jesus he favors is positively different from Jesus as portayed in the scriptures. (But I haven't done any in depth study).

Brunner's main contribution to Christology is that he roots it in its Judaic context and within his own theory of genius.

Quote:

This is quite interesting. Could you give us a description of what HJ was all about from your point of view?

Christ is quite simply a mystic. Over the course of some 500 pages, Brunner elaborates on what mysticism is and in what particular sense it applies to Christ. Ultimately, Brunner provides a Christology tailor-made for us atheists. It simply destroys all the superstitious mumbo-jumbo, allowing the truly great man finally appear.

Roger Pearse · 03-29-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Yes, quite a few, actually. They would include most if not all of the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, for just one collective example.

Would any 3rd century emperors fit this as well? -- I don't know.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle · 03-29-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johno

I understand that no first-hand documentary evidence for the existence of Jesus has been discovered. If this is true is there any other figure generally accepted as being historical whose existence is testified to by no first-hand documentary evidence at all? Or is Jesus unique?

johno

One interesting example of a figure generally accepted as historical is Boadicea the supposed cause and leader of the British revolt against Rome.

IIUC we have no surviving evidence for her existence recorded by anyone who ever met her.

(NB There is ample evidence for the revolt, I'm talking specifically about evidence for the existence of Boadicea herself)

Andrew Criddle

Spenser · 03-29-2006, 12:20 PM

From Wikipedia

Quote:

Tacitus, the most important Roman historian of this period, took a particular interest in Britain as Gnaeus Julius Agricola, his father-in-law and the subject of his first book, served there three times. He was a military tribune under Suetonius Paulinus, which almost certainly gave Tacitus an eyewitness source for Boudica's revolt.

So I guess at best they say that Tacitus should have had a reliable eyewitness source in this event...

jakejonesiv · 03-29-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Oh, yeah. Big time. I was pretty much your standard atheist. Like you guys, I enjoyed reading the historical Jesus books. I was all about stripping away the mumbo-jumbo. I never doubted Christ's historicity. My dad used to pull that stuff out for shock effect, and so it never had any real hold on me. I always quite liked Jesus, and I wanted to find out if anyone had ever done a good job of presenting him. I used to poke around the university library collection looking for good reads on the subject. I found Brunner's book that way one day. I found it totally convincing. So I started reading up about Brunner. What a story! I also started reading other books by and about Brunner. I was totally astounded by his reach. I found it amazing that he was so little known. Eventually I hooked up with the small group that is the International Constantin Brunner Institute. I went to their annual meeting in The Hague a couple of years ago.

I operate a website devoted to Brunner, where I have some quotations from his book, Our Christ.

Brunner was known in his day primarily just as a writer. He was certainly never accepted as a philosopher in academe. He wasn't a member of any Christian sect. He called himself an ex-Jew. All-in-all he was an iconoclast who presented a positive route for all other iconoclasts to follow. I tend to think of him as the greatest social scientist.

Brunner's main contribution to Christology is that he roots it in its Judaic context and within his own theory of genius.

Christ is quite simply a mystic. Over the course of some 500 pages, Brunner elaborates on what mysticism is and in what particular sense it applies to Christ. Ultimately, Brunner provides a Christology tailor-made for us atheists. It simply destroys all the superstitious mumbo-jumbo, allowing the truly great man finally appear.

No Robots,

Thanks for the reply! I understand the points you are trying to make much better with this background. (I wonder how often we talk past each other on this forum becuase we really don't understand the other person's view point?)

I am going to guess that the mystic genius Jesus you discern behind the gospel portrayal is so impressive to you, that it seems likely that only a real person, indeed only a truly great person, could have possessed these characteristics.

Is that right?

Jake

No Robots · 03-29-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I am going to guess that the mystic genius Jesus you discern behind the gospel portrayal is so impressive to you, that it seems likely that only a real person, indeed only a truly great person, could have possessed these characteristics.

Is that right?

Absolutely goddam right!

jakejonesiv · 03-30-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Absolutely goddam right!

What was the most impressive deeds or sayings attibuted to the Historical Jesus by either you or Brunner. What was there about him that made him extra special? Anything unique?

Jake

Doug Shaver · 03-30-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Would any 3rd century emperors fit this as well? -- I don't know.

I'm afraid I don't, either. My personal research hasn't taken me there yet.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.