Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 02-13-2010, 10:39 AM

On the last page of his "Sickness unto Death," (1849) the 19th century Danish Philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, says this:

Quote:

The last form of offense is that about which we are speaking in this chapter, the positive form. It declares that Christianity is a falsehood and a lie, it denies Christ (that He existed and that He is what He claimed to be) either docetically or rationalistically, so that Christ either does not become a particular man except apparently, or He becomes only a particular man, so that He either becomes docetically, poetry and mythology which make no claim to reality, or rationalistically, a reality which makes no claim to be divine. In this denial of Christ as the paradox there is naturally implied the denial of everything Christian: sin, the forgiveness of sins, etc.

I think that it is interesting that Kierkegaard is creating two categories, the "docetic" where Christ is just poetry and mythology as having "no claim to reality" and the "rationalist" which sees Christ as just a man (not a God).

We often hear it charged against mythicists that no ancient people raised the claim that Jesus did not exist. Yet, here is a 19th century philosopher, quite uninfluenced by modern mythicist debates, someone who may be regarded as an acute critic and scholar of Christianity and he is associating and equating the mythicist position with the Second century docetist position.

By naming the positon of a poetical or mythological Christ as "Docetical" is he not refuting the idea that no ancients considered Christ as mythological?

It seems to me that we should consider the docetists as holding a mythological position by the mid-second century. Thus we have a mythological (docetist - Christ as God) and rationalistic (ebonist -Christ as man) position by the mid second century. We can say that this probably synthesizes into the combined orthdox (Christ as God-man) position in the late 2nd century.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

ApostateAbe · 02-13-2010, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

On the last page of his "Sickness unto Death," (1849) the 19th century Danish Philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, says this:

Quote:

The last form of offense is that about which we are speaking in this chapter, the positive form. It declares that Christianity is a falsehood and a lie, it denies Christ (that He existed and that He is what He claimed to be) either docetically or rationalistically, so that Christ either does not become a particular man except apparently, or He becomes only a particular man, so that He either becomes docetically, poetry and mythology which make no claim to reality, or rationalistically, a reality which makes no claim to be divine. In this denial of Christ as the paradox there is naturally implied the denial of everything Christian: sin, the forgiveness of sins, etc.

I think that it is interesting that Kierkegaard is creating two categories, the "docetic" where Christ is just poetry and mythology as having "no claim to reality" and the "rationalist" which sees Christ as just a man (not a God).

We often hear it charged against mythicists that no ancient people raised the claim that Jesus did not exist. Yet, here is a 19th century philosopher, quite uninfluenced by modern mythicist debates, someone who may be regarded as an acute critic and scholar of Christianity and he is associating and equating the mythicist position with the Second century docetist position.

By naming the positon of a poetical or mythological Christ as "Docetical" is he not refuting the idea that no ancients considered Christ as mythological?

It seems to me that we should consider the docetists as holding a mythological position by the mid-second century. Thus we have a mythological (docetist - Christ as God) and rationalistic (ebonist -Christ as man) position by the mid second century. We can say that this probably synthesizes into the combined orthdox (Christ as God-man) position in the late 2nd century.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Your proposal is that the orthodox view is a combination of the Christ-as-God and Christ-as-man doctrines. I find it more likely that the truth is the reverse--that both Ebionism and docetism were offshoots of the proto-orthodox doctrine--and not just because I accept the mainstream secular dating and interpretations of the earliest Christian documents. In the ancient world, it simply didn't make sense for someone to be both God and man, and it made even less sense for God to die. The Ebionites resolved this problem by claiming that Jesus was not God. The docetists resolved this problem by claiming that Jesus was not human (he only seemed human). Both groups were regarded as heretics by the proto-orthodox Christians, and our knowledge of them comes only from their criticisms. Religions evolve according to what is easiest to make people believe, the pattern of the evolution of Christianity has been in favor of progress toward rational explanations rather than away from it, and, if you combine the two heretical doctrines, you get a much greater apologetic problem than you had before. So it is unlikely that proto-orthodoxy emerged from a compromise of both. On the other hand, a doctrine with both elements did become predominant.

Chili · 02-13-2010, 12:13 PM

The 2 sides have been since the day that Jesus said: "if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood you have no life in you,"

We can say that the parting of those in John 6:66 was the beginning of the 'rationalist movement,' not so much in that they were 'unbelievers' but that now they were poised against the truth exposed.

aa5874 · 02-13-2010, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

On the last page of his "Sickness unto Death," (1849) the 19th century Danish Philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, says this:

Quote:

The last form of offense is that about which we are speaking in this chapter, the positive form. It declares that Christianity is a falsehood and a lie, it denies Christ (that He existed and that He is what He claimed to be) either docetically or rationalistically, so that Christ either does not become a particular man except apparently, or He becomes only a particular man, so that He either becomes docetically, poetry and mythology which make no claim to reality, or rationalistically, a reality which makes no claim to be divine. In this denial of Christ as the paradox there is naturally implied the denial of everything Christian: sin, the forgiveness of sins, etc.

I think that it is interesting that Kierkegaard is creating two categories, the "docetic" where Christ is just poetry and mythology as having "no claim to reality" and the "rationalist" which sees Christ as just a man (not a God).

We often hear it charged against mythicists that no ancient people raised the claim that Jesus did not exist. Yet, here is a 19th century philosopher, quite uninfluenced by modern mythicist debates, someone who may be regarded as an acute critic and scholar of Christianity and he is associating and equating the mythicist position with the Second century docetist position.

By naming the positon of a poetical or mythological Christ as "Docetical" is he not refuting the idea that no ancients considered Christ as mythological?

It seems to me that we should consider the docetists as holding a mythological position by the mid-second century. Thus we have a mythological (docetist - Christ as God) and rationalistic (ebonist -Christ as man) position by the mid second century. We can say that this probably synthesizes into the combined orthdox (Christ as God-man) position in the late 2nd century.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about the use of "mythological" and "historical".

"Mythological" simply refers to a non-human entity and "historical" refers to a wholly human entity.

It is very obvious that billions of people believe non-human entities exist and that these non-human entiies have attributes and characteristics, and even the image of men.

An MJ does not deny the belief Jesus existed only that Jesus existed or was believed to have existed as a God.

So whether you are a Jesus believer or an atheist and believe Jesus existed as a God or some part there of, you are supporting the MJ.

If you believe Jesus was wholly a man, WHETHER atheist or Christian, then you are HJ.

Now, the Ebionites were MJ. Their Jesus Christ had two complete entities in ONE. The Ebionite CHRIST was a God and the Ebionite Jesus was a man.

Christ as a God entered Jesus as a man. Hence the Ebionite Jesus Christ, the man/God.

This a writer called Irenaeus about the Ebionites in Against Heresies 1.XXVI

Quote:

1. Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated(8) in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all.

He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men.

Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles.

But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates......

So, in effect, the Ebionite Jesus just merely supplied a human body for Christ the God.

Virtually all the information about Jesus Christ supports MJ, that is Jesus Christ was either known, believed or was intended to be believed and woshiped as a God.

Chili · 02-14-2010, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Virtually all the information about Jesus Christ supports MJ, that is Jesus Christ was either known, believed or was intended to be believed and woshiped as a God.

Not sure if 'worship' is even a good idea if it creates distance between the two instead of intimacy. I would argue that to be "one [of mind] with Christ" is to get to know the depth, width and breadth of the Lord your God and there we must come to know the ever-so-personal womb-of-God (Mary we call her) who never was banned from Eden and therefore is already prior to us by nature (reign of God in our midst).

arnoldo · 02-14-2010, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Virtually all the information about Jesus Christ supports MJ, that is Jesus Christ was either known, believed or was intended to be believed and woshiped as a God.

Not sure if 'worship' is even a good idea if it creates distance between the two instead of intimacy. I would argue that to be "one [of mind] with Christ" is to get to know the depth, width and breadth of the Lord your God and there we must come to know the ever-so-personal womb-of-God (Mary we call her) who never was banned from Eden and therefore is already prior to us by nature (reign of God in our midst).

Also, the information supports a supernatural entity(SJ), rather than a mythical one (MJ). See 1 John 4

Quote:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

Chili · 02-14-2010, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

[Also, the information supports a supernatural entity(SJ), rather than a mythical one (MJ). See 1 John 4

Quote:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

I have no problem with that because the event is real and available to all humans to whom the 'human condition' is no more than just a condition. Many people 'latch onto some truth' wherefore then the bible does testify to them (their eyes have been opened somewhat) with the danger being that 'the more one has been given to see the greater this liability will be' and that is where false teachers will be able to 'lord it over' the pupil in the pew (and with thundering James and John on board he may even get his own spectacle show in TV).

This then is why Jesus in Luke first showed his wounds before he send them away to make sure that they have come full circle first in this 'natural' event. To be sure, if the 'super natural' is still part of the preachers life he has no choice but send them astray and if there in no 'super' left in his life he will probably just stay home and let the people figure it out for themselves.

Curiously but not surprising to me, Erickson wrote a book on that way back when and concluded that he found this 'spiritual [or yellow] maturity' all over the world except in what he called "Christianity."

arnoldo · 02-14-2010, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about the use of "mythological" and "historical".

"Mythological" simply refers to a non-human entity and "historical" refers to a wholly human entity.

It is very obvious that billions of people believe non-human entities exist and that these non-human entiies have attributes and characteristics, and even the image of men.

An MJ does not deny the belief Jesus existed only that Jesus existed or was believed to have existed as a God.

So whether you are a Jesus believer or an atheist and believe Jesus existed as a God or some part there of, you are supporting the MJ.

If you believe Jesus was wholly a man, WHETHER atheist or Christian, then you are HJ.

Now, the Ebionites were MJ. Their Jesus Christ had two complete entities in ONE. The Ebionite CHRIST was a God and the Ebionite Jesus was a man.

Ok, so according to your definition the Ebionite Christ was mythical while the Ebionite Jesus was historical, i.e, a man, correct?

Chili · 02-14-2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about the use of "mythological" and "historical".

"Mythological" simply refers to a non-human entity and "historical" refers to a wholly human entity.

It is very obvious that billions of people believe non-human entities exist and that these non-human entiies have attributes and characteristics, and even the image of men.

An MJ does not deny the belief Jesus existed only that Jesus existed or was believed to have existed as a God.

So whether you are a Jesus believer or an atheist and believe Jesus existed as a God or some part there of, you are supporting the MJ.

If you believe Jesus was wholly a man, WHETHER atheist or Christian, then you are HJ.

Now, the Ebionites were MJ. Their Jesus Christ had two complete entities in ONE. The Ebionite CHRIST was a God and the Ebionite Jesus was a man.

Ok, so according to your definition the Ebionite Christ was mythical while the Ebionite Jesus was historical, i.e, a man, correct?

Christ is never historic for he is the essence of man in Christendom.

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

02-13-2010, 12:13 PM	#3
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	The 2 sides have been since the day that Jesus said: "if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood you have no life in you," We can say that the parting of those in John 6:66 was the beginning of the 'rationalist movement,' not so much in that they were 'unbelievers' but that now they were poised against the truth exposed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.