Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 05-13-2011, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Unlike the Gospel Jesus folks or the various theist based creationists , the HJers do not depend on supernatural devices. They do require a buy in via methodologies that a HJ existed and can be determined by textual analysis of the gospels applying naturalistic assumptions. Without that buy in there is no evidence to analyze. OTOH you have to buy in to that evidence exists in order to analyze the JM side and apply a different set of methodologies.

The rise of the orthodox view is simply that the Bishop of Rome, an orthodox advocate, was needed as a political ally in a civil war. Without that they would be just one of competing flavors of a minority religion.

There is a good case to be made that the orthodox also succeeded because of better organization, the better organization was hierarchical in nature, the hierarchy needed credibility, Apostolic succession provided that credibility and a HJ is needed for Apostolic succession. That leaves the question did the orthodox make a historical tradition where one did not exist or use an existing historical tradition.

Well, we have to assume that the original christians believed something. Whether it was an apocalyptic saviour or simply a charismatic teacher, there was some kind of impetus for the original movement. "Finding" Christ in the (Greek) scriptures seems as plausible to me as the resurrection of a Jewish nobody.

A disinterested look at the early centuries reveals mythmaking generated by apologists and apocrypal writers. The Jesus story clearly was attractive to socially marginal gnostics. Proto-catholics apparently co-opted history as their big weapon against them, along with practical organizational strategies. The result was a system that was ready for the Greco-Roman mainstream.

jgoodguy · 05-13-2011, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Unlike the Gospel Jesus folks or the various theist based creationists , the HJers do not depend on supernatural devices. They do require a buy in via methodologies that a HJ existed and can be determined by textual analysis of the gospels applying naturalistic assumptions. Without that buy in there is no evidence to analyze. OTOH you have to buy in to that evidence exists in order to analyze the JM side and apply a different set of methodologies.

The rise of the orthodox view is simply that the Bishop of Rome, an orthodox advocate, was needed as a political ally in a civil war. Without that they would be just one of competing flavors of a minority religion.

There is a good case to be made that the orthodox also succeeded because of better organization, the better organization was hierarchical in nature, the hierarchy needed credibility, Apostolic succession provided that credibility and a HJ is needed for Apostolic succession. That leaves the question did the orthodox make a historical tradition where one did not exist or use an existing historical tradition.

Well, we have to assume that the original christians believed something. Whether it was an apocalyptic saviour or simply a charismatic teacher, there was some kind of impetus for the original movement. "Finding" Christ in the (Greek) scriptures seems as plausible to me as the resurrection of a Jewish nobody.

A disinterested look at the early centuries reveals mythmaking generated by apologists and apocrypal writers. The Jesus story clearly was attractive to socially marginal gnostics. Proto-catholics apparently co-opted history as their big weapon against them, along with practical organizational strategies. The result was a system that was ready for the Greco-Roman mainstream.

IHMO
There was a Jewish Christian sect similar to Ebionites in Jerusalem. Paul cooped the Jesus 'brand' to use for his ministry to the gentiles. He then 'made stuff up' but retained some of the Jesus from the Jerusalem group for credibility. Now we have Paul's writings and none of the Jerusalem's group. Finding the 'Jesus' of the original Jerusalem group is impossible. (consider as an analogy the problem of the reconstruction of a Louis Vuitton purse from a counterfeit 2000 years from now) We can try to construct the religious thought of the time to analyze the 'made stuff up' part.

Organization was the proto-orthodox(catholic)'s big weapon. It gave them continuity, finance, teachers, points of contact and other advantages over ad hoc groups. Was Apostolic Succession also necessary? With a good organization it is not necessary. It was part of the theology of the winning group for whatever reason and gave the proto-orthodox a competitive advantage over 'made stuff up' ad hoc groups.

Without the political and religious issues, finding the origins of the 'Christ' myth would be merely textual/literary analysis. On the latter, I am reminded of a story from the 1960s about a applicant for a high school teaching position who was turned down for a position because her literary analysis of a living author was wrong. She sent her analysis to the author who confirmed that she was correct. The employer was unimpressed, but future applicants analyzed dead authors.

bacht · 05-13-2011, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Without the political and religious issues, finding the origins of the 'Christ' myth would be merely textual/literary analysis.

Yes and no. As with the Old Testament, the reconstruction of Christian history using only Christian texts is challenging, to say the least.

We do know that Hellenism had an impact on Jewish thought, especially in Alexandria. Jewish ideas were disseminated in the eastern Mediterranean via the Septuagint and other Greek texts. At the same time there were schisms over the authority of the temple priesthood, and ramped up apocalyptic speculation (eg Enoch & Daniel).

The tension between more exclusive versus more inclusive Judaism played out until the bar-Kochba revolt. The Pharisaic rabbis maintained an ethnic/nationalist focus, while the post-apostolic Christians pursued a Torah-free universalist agenda that became Catholicism.

jgoodguy · 05-13-2011, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Without the political and religious issues, finding the origins of the 'Christ' myth would be merely textual/literary analysis.

Yes and no. As with the Old Testament, the reconstruction of Christian history using only Christian texts is challenging, to say the least.

We do know that Hellenism had an impact on Jewish thought, especially in Alexandria. Jewish ideas were disseminated in the eastern Mediterranean via the Septuagint and other Greek texts. At the same time there were schisms over the authority of the temple priesthood, and ramped up apocalyptic speculation (eg Enoch & Daniel).

The tension between more exclusive versus more inclusive Judaism played out until the bar-Kochba revolt. The Pharisaic rabbis maintained an ethnic/nationalist focus, while the post-apostolic Christians pursued a Torah-free universalist agenda that became Catholicism.

I agree. My intention was that 'analysis' included what you expanded on. Plus toss in sociology and history as well.

bacht · 05-13-2011, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Yes and no. As with the Old Testament, the reconstruction of Christian history using only Christian texts is challenging, to say the least.

We do know that Hellenism had an impact on Jewish thought, especially in Alexandria. Jewish ideas were disseminated in the eastern Mediterranean via the Septuagint and other Greek texts. At the same time there were schisms over the authority of the temple priesthood, and ramped up apocalyptic speculation (eg Enoch & Daniel).

The tension between more exclusive versus more inclusive Judaism played out until the bar-Kochba revolt. The Pharisaic rabbis maintained an ethnic/nationalist focus, while the post-apostolic Christians pursued a Torah-free universalist agenda that became Catholicism.

I agree. My intention was that 'analysis' included what you expanded on. Plus toss in sociology and history as well.

it's all good

blastula · 05-14-2011, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

There are some similarities.
Both make pretty lame attempts to explain away evidence they dont like, and neither appear in peer reviewed journals.

McGrath also makes lame attempts to explain away evidence that he does not like, and has self published his books.

Who gives a toss about McGrath though? Not me.

Quote:

I have pointed out that people who believe in a historical Jesus are more like creationists than are mythicists, but they don't appreciate the comparison.

Possibly they were upset (if your imaginings were true) by your equating your opinions with facts though.
You claim you "pointed something out" but in this instance your "pointing something out" is merely stating your opinion, not pointing out facts or anything. You have an opinon that people who believe jebus was historical are more like creationists than mythers are.
Yet instead of outlining an opinion, you (rather pompously it seems) "point this out to people". then you seem to imagine they are upset by some facts.

But you seem confused as then you seem to eqaute this with making a comparison also.

Were you pointing out facts making a comparison or stating an opinion?

He was probably doing the same as you were doing when you said,

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

There are some similarities.
Both make pretty lame attempts to explain away evidence they dont like,

blastula · 05-14-2011, 05:39 AM

This is how serious bible scholars think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrath

So what options are there besides Doherty's, which posits that Paul and the churches to which he wrote did not focus on a Jesus who was thought to have lived a human life in human history? First and foremost, it must be said once again that the most fundamental consideration is one that Doherty is either deliberately downplaying or has altogether failed to grasp. Paul's letters were written to Christians, and if there was any teaching that allegedly came from Jesus that was passed on to Christians, we would expect it to be presented to Christians in the process of persuading them to believe in Jesus, and in introducing them to the faith once they came to believe. We should not expect such things to be the major focus in letters, which seem for the most part to have been written in response to unexpected issues and questions for which answers were not readily available in the teaching of Jesus.

Brilliant! Today's Christians must be doing it wrong when they repetitively ad nauseum keep preaching in church and reading at home to each other all those irrelevant Jesus stories. They were already persuaded once, no need to repeat any of it again, especially when trying to instruct your parishioners on religious matters. Jesus stories and sayings should never be used in sermons because they serve no purpose other than initial persuasion.

What a fucking fraud.

andrewcriddle · 05-14-2011, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

This is how serious bible scholars think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrath

So what options are there besides Doherty's, which posits that Paul and the churches to which he wrote did not focus on a Jesus who was thought to have lived a human life in human history? First and foremost, it must be said once again that the most fundamental consideration is one that Doherty is either deliberately downplaying or has altogether failed to grasp. Paul's letters were written to Christians, and if there was any teaching that allegedly came from Jesus that was passed on to Christians, we would expect it to be presented to Christians in the process of persuading them to believe in Jesus, and in introducing them to the faith once they came to believe. We should not expect such things to be the major focus in letters, which seem for the most part to have been written in response to unexpected issues and questions for which answers were not readily available in the teaching of Jesus.

Brilliant! Today's Christians must be doing it wrong when they repetitively ad nauseum keep preaching in church and reading at home to each other all those irrelevant Jesus stories. They were already persuaded once, no need to repeat any of it again, especially when trying to instruct your parishioners on religious matters. Jesus stories and sayings should never be used in sermons because they serve no purpose other than initial persuasion.

The point that James McGrath is making is that Paul's letters were not sermons. Paul's actual sermons would probably have had a different emphasis than his letters.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 05-14-2011, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

This is how serious bible scholars think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrath

So what options are there besides Doherty's, which posits that Paul and the churches to which he wrote did not focus on a Jesus who was thought to have lived a human life in human history? First and foremost, it must be said once again that the most fundamental consideration is one that Doherty is either deliberately downplaying or has altogether failed to grasp. Paul's letters were written to Christians, and if there was any teaching that allegedly came from Jesus that was passed on to Christians, we would expect it to be presented to Christians in the process of persuading them to believe in Jesus, and in introducing them to the faith once they came to believe. We should not expect such things to be the major focus in letters, which seem for the most part to have been written in response to unexpected issues and questions for which answers were not readily available in the teaching of Jesus.

Brilliant! Today's Christians must be doing it wrong when they repetitively ad nauseum keep preaching in church and reading at home to each other all those irrelevant Jesus stories. They were already persuaded once, no need to repeat any of it again, especially when trying to instruct your parishioners on religious matters. Jesus stories and sayings should never be used in sermons because they serve no purpose other than initial persuasion.

What a fucking fraud.

It should also be noted that McGrath is incorrect in his description of the conversion process, according to all of the research conducted by sociologists. New converts are attracted to a religion for social for psychological reasons, and only then start to learn the reasons for their beliefs.

Toto · 05-14-2011, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The point that James McGrath is making is that Paul's letters were not sermons. Paul's actual sermons would probably have had a different emphasis than his letters.

Andrew Criddle

Is this actually a valid point or just a rationalization? Paul's letters are more like sermons than occasional communications about the weather and how's the family doing.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.