Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ChuckE99 · 06-25-2008, 12:10 PM

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.

Solitary Man · 06-25-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckE99

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.

ChuckE99 · 06-25-2008, 01:10 PM

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.

Solitary Man · 06-25-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckE99

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.

Clivedurdle · 06-25-2008, 01:49 PM

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?

ChuckE99 · 06-25-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckE99

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.

Solitary Man · 06-25-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckE99

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.

mens_sana · 06-25-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

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.

Malachi151 · 06-25-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

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".

aa5874 · 06-25-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckE99

...... 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.

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

06-25-2008, 12:10 PM	#11
ChuckE99 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Seattle Area Posts: 116	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.

06-25-2008, 01:10 PM	#13
ChuckE99 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Seattle Area Posts: 116	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.

06-25-2008, 01:49 PM	#15
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	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?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.