EarlOfLade

Well, the problem is that 99% of Christians claim Jesus was a real person and son of God performing miracles.

Not only do they believe it literally, but that is what they tell everyone as if it was yesterday and they themselves nailed him to the cross.

I don't think I have ever met a Christian who tell me the same as you do. Whenever I question the historicity of Jesus they get offended and start huffing and puffing... Not that I don't love that!

Peter Kirby

Why are we even concerned with how the Jesus story came about? You started with an idea that seemed very radical, to throw out the questions of historicity, but end up with a hermeneutic that, like historicism, tries to tie the narratives to some supposed "fact" of the milieu in which it was written. Both historicism and your originism attempt to reconstruct the text's "real basis" in the workings of history.

The alternatives focus on the reading of the text, rather than the imagined entities inspiring the text.

--
Peter Kirby

mountainman

I put it squarely to you that the above is attributable
to a hierarchical historiological tradition in which the
figure of Jesus assumes the apex of the pyramid.

Said tradition is a result of our conditioned evolution.

I was almost sick when I read through the apologetics
and disclaimers that the historian and translator of the
"Meditations of Marcus Aurelius" had to do, in order to
preface this work with the accusations charged against
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus via the Eusebian ecclesiastical
history, which purported a number of persecutions in
his rule (c.160-180 CE).

Honest and genuine historians have had to essentially
themselves become apologetic to an overall and entirely
presumed background tapestry called "the evolution
of the tribe of christians in the pre-nicene epoch".

Nothing can be written about 0-300 it seems without
at some stage, making reference to this "tribe". This
is what I term a hierarchical arrangement, everything
must relate to "the tribe of christians". But why?

The simple answer = It doesn't. It is our own
preconceptions and conditioning that has brought
us to this point.


The way out of said hierarchical tradition is to adopt
a relational historiographic tradition which admits the
textual (and other historical citations) of the "other
tribes" of mankind, other than dwelling exclusively and
in a hierchical dependence, upon the purported "tribe
of christians" and origins.

History is only ever perceived in a relative sense,
conditioned by our agendas. Therefore, for the
moment let all agendas be equal, and examine the
complete set of data for the period in question
that we have at our disposal.

You'll be surprised at the depth of some texts which
are bypassed by the hierarchical highways, because
they do not mention "the tribe of christians".

I think also that you will be surprised at the scale by
which the mainstream historiology is in fact myopic.


Hope this advise is taken with a grain of salt.
And best wishes,



Pete

Doug Shaver

The mere fact that you are convinced of something does not make it blatantly clear to anyone else.

If you don't, then you can ignore any threads devoted to that topic.

There can be no cogent answers to those questions without addressing the issue of Jesus' historicity.

jakejonesiv

Yes, these would be very profitable, along with an emphasis on reader response criticism.

Chasing the Eastern Star: Adventures in Biblical Reader-Response Criticism (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Mark Allan Powell.

Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) Robert Fowler.

Mark As Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk) by David M. Rhoads.

Jake Jones IV

Malachi151

Because in Hellenistic culture virgin births were a symbol of divinity.

Because this was already a major holiday in Rome for the celebration of the birth of the sun god. Its only significant is that ti was already there.

Well, reading the story you see that he doesn't walk on water simply for the sake of walking on water, its just something that happens in the course of other events, which is, shepherding the apostles and "fulfilling" the scripture:

Its likely that the symbol of the cross preceded the idea of crucifixion. Tertuellian gives us some clues:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm

As to why he dies, Hebrews gives us the reason:

Agreed, that's why I advocate giving presentations on this subject. I just gave my 4th presentation on this subject last night to about 45 people (over 200 people in all now), including some graduates in religious studies, and one of them wants me to come give it at the university, though I said I'm not sure since I don't have credentials, but they said that they think it would be okay since the info speaks for itself. I'm also getting ready to start production on a DVD of my presentation as well. I know that I'm not an authority and don't have all the answers, but no one else is doing it, so someone has to.

gstafleu

Well yes, but my point is that, analogous to my Uri Geller story, it is more effective to show them the hows and whys rather than just show them he wasn't historical.

Gerard

gstafleu

Errr, well, I thought that is what you do in science: find the explanations behind the facts. In this case that would be why people developed such a story.

Correct, isn't that what historians do?

Quite so. My point being that the other way is more interesting and more effective in demonstrating what was really going on.

Gerard

gstafleu

Good show Malachi. The kinds of explanations you provided are indeed exactly what I think is useful. And what is more, clearly this can be substantiated by historical research, it isn't just "speculation."

The problem here seems to be that the authorities don't want to do it. With some exceptions. I think Robert Price's books do what is needed, and so does Doherty where he tries to show how things developed.

Gerard

Peter Kirby

Where is Neil Godfrey when you need him? I think he could weigh in appropriately.

In any case, you fail to get it. This is probably my fault for failing to make it clear enough. I'll give it the old college try at explanation.

Sometimes you ask yourself 'how did this text get here?' and you answer 'because of historical facts to which the text relates'. The historicist does not differ in kind from you; both are attempting to answer the question, 'how did this text get here?' The one being unscientific is you if you are ruling out historicism as a matter of course as an answer to your question.

My point is both that you are too radical and not radical enough, "too radical" in that you don't give proper credit to the role historicism plays in the traditional methods of criticism with which you work, and "not radical enough" in that you are still playing with the old methods of historical criticism when approaching the text.

The alternatives focus on reading of the text, rather than imaginings about how it came to be like yours or the historicist's. Do not suppose you are focusing on reading of the text, because you are not. You are using the text as 'source' rather than its own object of study; except instead of using it as a source for facts 'on the ground' (a person really did such), you use it as a source for facts 'in the air' (general ideas of the time).

The alternative is to forego etiology.

--
Peter Kirby