Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 01-05-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analyst

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

We may be misunderstanding each other, but I still think you may be confusing the claim that the Gospels were primarily intended for use in worship and evangelism, with the claim that their original hearers were not expected/intended to regard the narratives as literally true.

I believe both were quite possible. Scientology is a classic example of 'secret knowledge' as a means to draw in recruits and extract money from them. They start with free 'analysis', then move to a pay for play 'lessons'.

This would seem similar to the idea behind Manichaeism, or indeed gnosticism. The latter drew on the pagan idea that a philosopher would earn his living from paying pupils. But the early Christians had a different approach, and part of their reply to the claims of the gnostics that their teaching was based on what the apostles preached in secret was to point out that the apostles preached in public, that secret teaching was not part of the deal, and that these apostles founded the churches that still held the same teaching. Whether this is correct or not, it makes the point that people like Irenaeus did NOT think secret teaching was part of the deal. On the whole the early Christians disclaim the idea of secrecy; Tertullian refers to their scriptures, "which we do not conceal and which many chances place in the hands of our enemies" (from memory).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Analyst · 01-05-2009, 09:02 AM

Except that the gospels contain all sorts of comments about things that "some understand but others don't", "through a glass, darkly" etc.

There's a long discussion on Are the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) historical? (you'll have to wade through it for a while).

bacht · 01-05-2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffery Jay Lowder

“… independent confirmation is not necessary to establish the mere existence of the Jesus of the New Testament. There simply is nothing epistemically improbable about the mere existence of a man named Jesus. (Just because Jesus existed does not mean that he was born of a virgin, that he rose from the dead, etc.) Although a discussion of the New Testament evidence is beyond the scope of this paper, I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament "the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material,"[19] we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed.”

According to euhemerism (Euhemerus 4C BC) gods were ancient kings and heroes, worshiped after their deaths. However Euhemerism has been discredited because most characters in fictional stories are not based on any real character – they are simply made up. Most characters in urban legends who are not otherwise famous characters, are not based on any real character – they are simply made up. Research into legends and fairy tales have found little evidence that the characters in legends and fairy tales are based on real people. While it is true that historically famous people are sometimes mythicized, it is very common for mythical characters to just be made up.

We do not know of any case ever where an ordinary person has been mythicized. In view of all the mythology that we know, it is ludicrous to think that Jesus was an ordinary man who was mythicized.

The Jesus biography as it stands is unbelievable.

Either an historical man was mythicized [HJ], or a mythical being was historicized [MJ]. Both processes imply pious fraud.

aa5874 · 01-05-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

The Jesus biography as it stands is unbelievable.

Either an historical man was mythicized [HJ], or a mythical being was historicized [MJ]. Both processes imply pious fraud.

The former is inexplicable since Jesus believers do not deify, worship or asked mere men to forgive their sins and give them eternal life.

The latter, a God was believed to be on earth, and was historicised, is more palatable.

Doug Shaver · 01-06-2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The latter, a God was believed to be on earth, and was historicised, is more palatable.

You mean it's more likely to be true because you like it better?

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

01-05-2009, 09:02 AM	#92
Analyst Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: PNW USA Posts: 216	Except that the gospels contain all sorts of comments about things that "some understand but others don't", "through a glass, darkly" etc. There's a long discussion on Are the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) historical? (you'll have to wade through it for a while).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.