Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 12-23-2003, 06:34 AM

Hi everybody. I want to poll to see where the numbers fall on the various schools represented here with respect to belief in what Jesus is/was. But I want help in constructing the poll so most everyone is happy with the categories. I propose the following categories, and will explain them as I see them:

Category #1: Literalist

Category #2: Historical Jesus

Category #3: Myth

Category #4: Complete Fabrication

Category #5: Composite

The literalist view is self explanatory - Birth, miracles, resurrection, etc.

The Historical Jesus view is necessarily broad, but it is that the preacher named Jesus from Galilee had a ministry following "largely" along the lines of the gospels, although not exactly so, and that he was crucified in the reign of pilate.

The Myth school I think is not exclusively represented by Doherty, but is along the lines that there was no physical Jesus at the alleged time frame of the Gospels. Rather, a mythical "Christ" movement or movements arose in this time that were subsequently congealed via the gospel accounts after the ministry took hold. This view accepts there was a physical Paul, Peter and others who took the early ministry to both Jews and Gentiles.

The "complete fabrication" school is that not only was there no Jesus, but there were no "first-order disciples" like Paul or Peter, and no bonafide epistles or gospels. Basically the greatest deception of all time.

The shameless rlogan brashly proposes the "composite school" in which there is not just one, but many candidate "Jesus" characters, some of them not even named Jesus. The candidates may go as far back as the "Righteous Teacher". There was not only someone crucified, but more than one were either crucified or stoned. Enough so anyway that the theme of "rebel prophet murdered by authorities" just needs some old testament garb to make him satisfactory for use in the eschatology of the late first century. The difference between the myth school and the composite school is that (a) the founder has no credentials. (b) there is somewhat of a merger between the HJ and myth schools with this difference: it is a composite character and not one HJ, and the "christ" movement plays off this historic theme as opposed to beginning with a completely mythical Christ.

I'm happy to modify these, and also to drop one. Add more. Whatever. I haven't even convinced myself of my own school of thought.

spin · 12-23-2003, 06:48 AM

You might like to add another category for those who are agnostic over the matter. It's not a school, but a position which I'm sure a number of people hold.

spin

rlogan · 12-23-2003, 07:07 AM

That's a very good point spin.

So I think I should say Agnostic or undecided as a catagory and clarify further that they don't adhere to any particular school.

There are "HJ" adherents who are not Christians per se and that would not make them "agnostics" with respect to the poll. They're HJ in that case.

godfry n. glad · 12-23-2003, 07:53 AM

Agreed... Agnostic needs inclusion.

I would say it would be for those who don't hold any one of the particular viewpoints you've outlined, and suspect that there may be no way to determine definitively which, if any, of the postulations about Jesus is correct, due largely to a lack of adequate evidence.

That said, I'd be in the agnostic, leaning toward mythic, but willing to allow that there _may_ have been some germinal figure.
With Wells and Mack. I'd guess that there were early apostolic figures, but suspect that the personalities we now ascribe to them could well be later constructs. Much of what is ascribed to Paul is suspect, as well.

godfry

Amaleq13 · 12-23-2003, 07:59 AM

rlogan,

At the risk of being accused of watching too many episodes of Trading Spaces

, from a purely aesthetic perspective I think the list should read:

Category #1: Literalist

Category #2: Historical Jesus

Category #3: Composite

Category #4: Myth

Category #5: Complete Fabrication

That gives more of a sense of the spectrum of beliefs with the extremes at either end.

While I enjoy trying to defend the "Myth" position best, I would have to admit that I probably belong to the Composite group.

godfry n. glad · 12-23-2003, 08:02 AM

Also...

You may want to include a "Accreted Legends Fabrication"... To allow for a accretion and coalescence of stories, legends and faith tales dealing with a salvific figure and then be refined throught the struggles of interpretation and emergence of "orthodoxy".

Just because the founding take may be a fabrication, doesn't mean it needs to be some kind of conspiracy. Perfectly well meaning people can do all sorts of things in defence of their zealotry....and believe it...the NT, as the product of attempts to cull or sublimate variant viewpoints, has been dabbled with since the parts were all separate gospels or tractates of the nascent church. Then they have been redacted to better fit emerging and more defined and refined dogma.

Alternatively, you could call it the "Tinkered Damn."

godfry

Llyricist · 12-23-2003, 08:08 AM

How about a Myth/Composite Position??

That is, it started as the mythical Christ ala Doherty, but the gospel accounts used real people as "inspiration" for their composite historicisation.

Actually it's a point that I've seen largely ignored, that even totally fictional characters tend to be based on people in the author's experience.

That being said, I'm an HJ agnostic myself

rlogan · 12-23-2003, 08:13 AM

OK Gang - here's the revised list so far, with one more question:

Category #1: Literalist

Category #2: Historical Jesus

Category #3: Composite

Category #4: Myth

Category #5: Complete Fabrication

Category #6: Not an adherent to any particular "school"

godfry - that is an interesting point about "accreted legends fabrication". I guess it is a composite of myths whereas I imbued the "fabrication" with conspiritorial overtones.

I could combine those two into one category, or I could separate them in order to make the express point about conspiracy. If I separated them I would put "accreted legends" before "Conspiritorial Fabrication".

Thank you everyone for helping.

godfry n. glad · 12-23-2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
OK Gang - here's the revised list so far, with one more question:

Category #1: Literalist

Category #2: Historical Jesus

Category #3: Composite

Category #4: Myth

Category #5: Complete Fabrication

Category #6: Not an adherent to any particular "school"

godfry - that is an interesting point about "accreted legends fabrication". I guess it is a composite of myths whereas I imbued the "fabrication" with conspiritorial overtones.

I could combine those two into one category, or I could separate them in order to make the express point about conspiracy. If I separated them I would put "accreted legends" before "Conspiritorial Fabrication".

Thank you everyone for helping.

Yep... I'd wedge it in between "Myth" and "Complete Fabrication".

Also, in my book, "Agnostic" is different than "Undecided", which is how I interpret your #6. I've even been known to self-reference myself as a "militant agnostic" on this topic, which means, "I don't know, and NEITHER do you!"

godfry

rlogan · 12-23-2003, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Llyricist
How about a Myth/Composite Position??

That is, it started as the mythical Christ ala Doherty, but the gospel accounts used real people as "inspiration" for their composite historicisation.

Actually it's a point that I've seen largely ignored, that even totally fictional characters tend to be based on people in the author's experience.

That being said, I'm an HJ agnostic myself

That too is an interesting point. Let me speak to the founder of the composite school and see if he thinks that actually is another perspective in the composite school approach.

OK, I spoke with him. He says go for it.

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

12-23-2003, 06:34 AM	#1
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Questions for Jesus Poll - HJ/Myth/etc Hi everybody. I want to poll to see where the numbers fall on the various schools represented here with respect to belief in what Jesus is/was. But I want help in constructing the poll so most everyone is happy with the categories. I propose the following categories, and will explain them as I see them: Category #1: Literalist Category #2: Historical Jesus Category #3: Myth Category #4: Complete Fabrication Category #5: Composite The literalist view is self explanatory - Birth, miracles, resurrection, etc. The Historical Jesus view is necessarily broad, but it is that the preacher named Jesus from Galilee had a ministry following "largely" along the lines of the gospels, although not exactly so, and that he was crucified in the reign of pilate. The Myth school I think is not exclusively represented by Doherty, but is along the lines that there was no physical Jesus at the alleged time frame of the Gospels. Rather, a mythical "Christ" movement or movements arose in this time that were subsequently congealed via the gospel accounts after the ministry took hold. This view accepts there was a physical Paul, Peter and others who took the early ministry to both Jews and Gentiles. The "complete fabrication" school is that not only was there no Jesus, but there were no "first-order disciples" like Paul or Peter, and no bonafide epistles or gospels. Basically the greatest deception of all time. The shameless rlogan brashly proposes the "composite school" in which there is not just one, but many candidate "Jesus" characters, some of them not even named Jesus. The candidates may go as far back as the "Righteous Teacher". There was not only someone crucified, but more than one were either crucified or stoned. Enough so anyway that the theme of "rebel prophet murdered by authorities" just needs some old testament garb to make him satisfactory for use in the eschatology of the late first century. The difference between the myth school and the composite school is that (a) the founder has no credentials. (b) there is somewhat of a merger between the HJ and myth schools with this difference: it is a composite character and not one HJ, and the "christ" movement plays off this historic theme as opposed to beginning with a completely mythical Christ. I'm happy to modify these, and also to drop one. Add more. Whatever. I haven't even convinced myself of my own school of thought.

12-23-2003, 06:48 AM	#2
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Re: Questions for Jesus Poll - HJ/Myth/etc You might like to add another category for those who are agnostic over the matter. It's not a school, but a position which I'm sure a number of people hold. spin

12-23-2003, 07:07 AM	#3
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	That's a very good point spin. So I think I should say Agnostic or undecided as a catagory and clarify further that they don't adhere to any particular school. There are "HJ" adherents who are not Christians per se and that would not make them "agnostics" with respect to the poll. They're HJ in that case.

12-23-2003, 07:53 AM	#4
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Agreed... Agnostic needs inclusion. I would say it would be for those who don't hold any one of the particular viewpoints you've outlined, and suspect that there may be no way to determine definitively which, if any, of the postulations about Jesus is correct, due largely to a lack of adequate evidence. That said, I'd be in the agnostic, leaning toward mythic, but willing to allow that there _may_ have been some germinal figure. With Wells and Mack. I'd guess that there were early apostolic figures, but suspect that the personalities we now ascribe to them could well be later constructs. Much of what is ascribed to Paul is suspect, as well. godfry

12-23-2003, 07:59 AM	#5
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	rlogan, At the risk of being accused of watching too many episodes of Trading Spaces, from a purely aesthetic perspective I think the list should read: Category #1: Literalist Category #2: Historical Jesus Category #3: Composite Category #4: Myth Category #5: Complete Fabrication That gives more of a sense of the spectrum of beliefs with the extremes at either end. While I enjoy trying to defend the "Myth" position best, I would have to admit that I probably belong to the Composite group.

12-23-2003, 08:02 AM	#6
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Also... You may want to include a "Accreted Legends Fabrication"... To allow for a accretion and coalescence of stories, legends and faith tales dealing with a salvific figure and then be refined throught the struggles of interpretation and emergence of "orthodoxy". Just because the founding take may be a fabrication, doesn't mean it needs to be some kind of conspiracy. Perfectly well meaning people can do all sorts of things in defence of their zealotry....and believe it...the NT, as the product of attempts to cull or sublimate variant viewpoints, has been dabbled with since the parts were all separate gospels or tractates of the nascent church. Then they have been redacted to better fit emerging and more defined and refined dogma. Alternatively, you could call it the "Tinkered Damn." godfry

12-23-2003, 08:08 AM	#7
Llyricist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Fort Lauderale, FL Posts: 5,390	How about a Myth/Composite Position?? That is, it started as the mythical Christ ala Doherty, but the gospel accounts used real people as "inspiration" for their composite historicisation. Actually it's a point that I've seen largely ignored, that even totally fictional characters tend to be based on people in the author's experience. That being said, I'm an HJ agnostic myself

12-23-2003, 08:13 AM	#8
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	OK Gang - here's the revised list so far, with one more question: Category #1: Literalist Category #2: Historical Jesus Category #3: Composite Category #4: Myth Category #5: Complete Fabrication Category #6: Not an adherent to any particular "school" godfry - that is an interesting point about "accreted legends fabrication". I guess it is a composite of myths whereas I imbued the "fabrication" with conspiritorial overtones. I could combine those two into one category, or I could separate them in order to make the express point about conspiracy. If I separated them I would put "accreted legends" before "Conspiritorial Fabrication". Thank you everyone for helping.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.