maryhelena

New blog post by R. Joseph Hoffmann

mountainman

From the article ....

maryhelena

So, the deeper the NT scholars dig for a historical Jesus the deeper the hole they dig for themselves....Since christian theology is based upon a human sacrifice, it has thus created its own vulnerability - and when its assumptions re a historical Jesus can't be historical verified - down must come its theological speculations...

mountainman

Sui generis

The similarity between Christianity and Islam is that they were both originated within centralised military state religious cults that featured the process of "canonization" of a "Holy Writ" and which were undertaken by supremely victorious military commanders. This similarity is also shared with the Zoroastrian centralised state religion of Sassanid Persia which was created by the supreme military warlord Ardashir, and based on the canonization of the "Holy Writ" of the Avesta. All these "Book Religions" were enforced by the swords of military supremacists --- with extreme vigor. Satirists who wrote against the religious revolutions were executed. Orthodoxy was established by the supreme power of the respective warlords. What sort of bullshit are these guys likely to have fabricated in an epoch when less than 5% of the populace could read or write? Why anyone believe these publications is related to the gross social conditioning and oppression by the perpetutors of these three centralised state religious cults for many many centuries.


And up --- to compensate for this sorry state of affairs --- must come integrous and revisionist theories of ancient history which attempt to explain the evidence and the appearance of the "new and strange" imperial state cult in the archaeological and the manuscript record.

Diocletian? Cabbages?

maryhelena

In The Jesus Legend, Wells says:

The Jesus Legend (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Neither fundamentalist christianity nor a fundamentalist mythicist position(ie a mythicism that rejects any historical individual relevant to early or pre-christian history) is able to provide a forward movement in our understanding of christian origins. Well's theory, although one might fault it in places, is fundamentally about seeing a fusing of two strands - a historical strand regarding a human figure and a spiritual strand re a cosmic christ figure. Apples and Oranges, two completely different figures. In other words - history plus an interpretation, an evaluation, a spiritualizing of that history.
The Jesus figure being the construct developed from the interpretation of history. To equate the construct with actual history is to endeavor to turn apples into oranges...

Jesus is the salvation figure - from start to end. From Paul to the gospels, or from the gospels to Paul. No human, however great and inspiring, can carry that load. However, a human figure can throw light upon that road to 'salvation', throw light upon how to live life in the here and now.

Its not a case of either or - historicity or mythicism. It is a case of finding the core component in both positions - and finding a way to accommodate these basic core premises in such a way that these core premises are not violated. Yes, the Jesus figure is a construct, a myth, a symbol etc - but that core mythicist position does not negate the possibility, the plausibility, that an historical individual was relevant to early or pre-christian history.

(A Jesus without his box of tricks - either relying on apocalyptic interpretations, or relying on words of wisdom, is a figure that cannot be historically established - ever. Such a Jesus is useless as a christian salvation figure - and useless as a historical marker in searching for the origins of early or pre-christian history.)

Solo

You have misread Hoffmann's argument. He refutes both the historicist and the mythicist positions as lacking substance. Jesus, as the more insightful writers here will acknoweldge, is an 'emotional' issue.

Jiri

maryhelena

Hoffman goes on to say:

Sure, he questions both the historicists and the mythicists positions - as I have inferred in my previous posts. However, it is christian scholarship, which Hoffmann's following comment relates to, that *first* rocked the boat, that *first* started digging holes....and it was christian scholarship digging for the assumed historical Jesus to which I made my remarks above.

Solo

You made your remarks above to christian theology... based upon a human sacrifice, ...which in your opinion created its own vulnerability. Kindly assure yourself that Hoffmann's essay has nothing to offer on that score. In contrast, he states that critical "Christian scholarship" (in which he includes the secular examination of the NT texts) has undermined the extravagant early doctrine of X-ity, by exposing the incredibility of the divine and the uncertainty of the human. He finds no parallel to this academic fifth column in Islam.

Jiri

maryhelena

Hoffmann's full quote


"the extravagance of early doctrine"


Ephesians 5:2
and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Romans 3:24-26

24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Colossians 1:20
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Giving up a historical Jesus is, for many believers, giving up on that human sacrifice to god - it means giving up on a theological assumption that is itself 'grounded' in the assumed historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, Christianity has placed itself, unlike Islam, in a most vulnerable position - a vulnerable position that its scholars are continually exposing...

But you know what - Christianity has not been called the 'mother of heretics' for nothing - thus, it has always contained an inherent 'fifth column' - an ability to self-destruct - but a destructive ability that is counterbalanced with an ability for self-renewal...

aa5874

But, an agnostic basic premise is that the mythicist and the historicist are wrong.

Or an agnostic is putting forward the notion that whatever he does not know about Jesus cannot be and will not be known by any other person.

Now, it must be noted that in any formal debate about any matter that an agnostic side is NOT included in the debate.

An agnostic on any matter does NOT know or is likely NOT to ever know anything about any matter.

Now, in any formal debate the weakness of one's argument tends to augment the other, so the weakness of the historicist arguments tend to augment the arguments of the mythicist.

The ABUNDANCE of EVIDENCE is in favor of the mythicist.

After all the Church writers and the authors of the NT, apologetic sources, did write that JESUS was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, Creator of heaven and earth who walked on water, was transfigured, raised from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

No serious Agnostic can claim to have NO knowledge of the NT Canon and the Church writings.

The information about JESUS has been recorded and TRANSLATED into hundreds of languages and KNOWN possible through the entire earth and the message is the same.

JESUS was the offspring of the Holy Ghost the Creator of heaven and earth.

This is the EVIDENCE provided for the MYTHICIST by the APOLOGETIC sources of antiquity.

JESUS was a MYTH unless you have NO knowledge of myths.