FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-25-2008, 12:10 PM   #11
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 116
Default

However "he" came about, it was a friggin' master-stroke, wasn't it? Never mind the "fully human, fully god" stuff, or the "spirit on earth" interpretations. The common man related to Jesus, the common man/god, and didn't sweat the details like the church fathers did. In the end, there was this "dude" (as Homer Simpson might say) that went around healing folks and spreading the news that God loved them, and then was tortured and killed for no good reason, and then stuffed it back in the face of "the man" by coming back to life and saving the whole world. Never mind that it never really happened, or that he never really existed, or that the resulting dogma is an amalgam of Jewish apocalyptism, Platonism and earlier Christ/Son of God cults. The "dude" made it all work on a personal level. When all is said and done, it's a ripping good story.
ChuckE99 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 12:50 PM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ירושלים
Posts: 1,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckE99 View Post
Never mind that it never really happened, or that he never really existed, or that the resulting dogma is an amalgam of Jewish apocalyptism, Platonism and earlier Christ/Son of God cults. The "dude" made it all work on a personal level. When all is said and done, it's a ripping good story.
You were on the right track until you bought into the Jesus myth garbage.
Solitary Man is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 01:10 PM   #13
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 116
Default

Yeah, I buy into the Jesus as Myth garbage, as you call it. I'm not saying you couldn't locate a living human circa 1 A.D. to tie the Q sayings to, but his name wasn't necessarily "Jesus" and he certainly didn't live the life described in GMark.
ChuckE99 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 01:14 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ירושלים
Posts: 1,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckE99 View Post
Yeah, I buy into the Jesus as Myth garbage, as you call it. I'm not saying you couldn't locate a living human circa 1 A.D. to tie the Q sayings to, but his name wasn't necessarily "Jesus" and he certainly didn't live the life described in GMark.
Nah, excuse Q for a moment, but he was most likely Jesus (what evidence is there to point otherwise?) and he was crucified by Pilate (as all the ancient sources attest). Son of God? Nah.
Solitary Man is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 01:49 PM   #15
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

But why go to all the trouble - and it was a lot of trouble - to write that very intricate story GMark about an ordinary bloke who Pilate deaded?

And your comment about Paul and gnostics doesn't make sense. Have you read Pagels, the Gnostic Paul?
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 02:26 PM   #16
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solitary Man View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckE99 View Post
Yeah, I buy into the Jesus as Myth garbage, as you call it. I'm not saying you couldn't locate a living human circa 1 A.D. to tie the Q sayings to, but his name wasn't necessarily "Jesus" and he certainly didn't live the life described in GMark.
Nah, excuse Q for a moment, but he was most likely Jesus (what evidence is there to point otherwise?) and he was crucified by Pilate (as all the ancient sources attest). Son of God? Nah.
So much of GMark is made up (midrash) especially the Passion, that I would err on the side of calling it all fiction before I'd be comfortable calling it mostly fiction with some nonfiction. You ask for evidence to point otherwise, and I ask for evidence that points "wise". The gospels are suspect. The Josephus passage is suspect. Everything about the historicity of Jesus is suspect except the unwavering circular belief of many scholars that he had to exist because so many scholars think he did.
ChuckE99 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 04:23 PM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ירושלים
Posts: 1,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckE99 View Post
So much of GMark is made up (midrash) especially the Passion, that I would err on the side of calling it all fiction before I'd be comfortable calling it mostly fiction with some nonfiction.
Do you also discount Julius Caesar's assassination because Shakespeare fictionalized it? Because there's no difference. Furthermore, where in the scriptures is the Messiah supposed to come from Nazareth, or be crucified?

Quote:
You ask for evidence to point otherwise, and I ask for evidence that points "wise".
This doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
The gospels are suspect. The Josephus passage is suspect. Everything about the historicity of Jesus is suspect except the unwavering circular belief of many scholars that he had to exist because so many scholars think he did.
You can "suspect" anything you'd like - that doesn't mean that there's anything to the allegations.
Solitary Man is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 05:28 PM   #18
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 1/2 mile west of the Rio sin Grande
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
A standard interpretation is that the proto-orthodox needed to establish a line of authority from the founding figure down to their own church hierarchy. The Gnostics taught that authority came from their internal Christ or from revelation; the proto-orthodox wanted authority to come from the church, so they had to invent the apostolic succession, and may also have invented the founding figure himself.

Ultimately, the proto-orthodox version of authority won out over the Gnostics in building a mass organization.

This makes as much sense as anything.
Pardon, this doesn't explain why the proto-orthodox "needed" a human. An "apparition can pass on authority just as handily () as a physical person.

By the way, I fully agree that "apostolic succession" was crucial in establishing the authority of (whoever) was running the institution. Yet the Gnostics claimed their own apostolic authority. So, by itself, that doesn't resolve the problem.
mens_sana is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 05:33 PM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jules? View Post
A simple question for MJers; why did the early church manifest such a human Jesus?

aims, reasons, politics and would a platonic Jesus been more intelectually acceptable.

So why a man, man?
I cover this in my article on MJ:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

Quote:
The belief in a literal "human" Jesus most likely emerged as eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the "flesh" and "blood" of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure.
See also:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#14

Quote:
Though there was dispute about the nature of Jesus during the first few centuries of Christianity, the Catholics and those of similar views did defend the belief that Jesus Christ had existed on earth "in the flesh", so surely they produced some meaningful evidence to support their beliefs right? Wrong. The defenses of the belief that Jesus had existed "in the flesh" were all made on theological grounds and through the use of scriptures.

The humanity of Jesus Christ was basically defended on two grounds:

* Suffering and a flesh and blood sacrifice were required to create a new covenant
* The resurrection of a flesh and blood Jesus proved that resurrection of the flesh was possible

These are the two main reasons why apologists argued that Jesus had to have existed "in the flesh".
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 08:53 PM   #20
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckE99 View Post
...... When all is said and done, it's a ripping good story.
It was Constantine that SAVED the followers of Jesus of Nazareth with their Jesus story.

Trypho, in the middle of the 2nd century, called the vigin birth Jesus story a "monstrous phenomena", and foolishness like Greek myths

It was a poltician that saved the Christianity. The story wasn't really good.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:41 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.