GakuseiDon

Interesting, but not very convincing. Still, I enjoy that type of speculation!

Koyaanisqatsi, perhaps you should change your handle to "Tomus Clancius".

Doctor X

Vinnie:

Oh yeah! Well MY scholars can beat up YOUR scholars . . . and YOUR scholar's mothers wear army boots!!

Anyways, to avoid creating a semantics hijack, just a few things:

I would counter that these are not only not established "facts," but "the majority" do not consider them "facts" as in something you can actually prove. This was my point. I consider it "clear" because it is "clear" that one cannot, now, prove even the reasonable assumptions you mentioned as examples. I wanted to stress the critical difference between a "reasonable assumption or hypothesis" and an established fact.

Also, MY scholars are not "fringe" scholars . . . so there! PBBPPPPPTTTT!!!!

Finally, Asha'man expresses my opinion more eloquently in his first reply.


Mike(ALT):

Tells Seed to direct the Guests to calmly move away from the speaker and seek shelter in the estate as the four Mullahs approach the speaker from behind to "discuss" Haddith with him. . . .

Aside from the fact you just offended the Muslim community, your belief requires a belief in Satan--an Incarnation of Evil--who may or may not be portrayed by David Warner. This sends your discussion right out of here and into another forum.

Nevertheless, recogize that a Muslim could easily state--with equal justification--that Muhammad corrected the misconceptions propagated by Junior . . . who was inspired by Satan.

This is not biblical criticism but polemic, frankly.

What were they? If I am allowed to tease Vinnie a bit, his scholars--who are nerds and still get beaten up for their milk money--cannot actually decide "what" Junior taught. [He is trying to repeat a charge that some scholars make about the Jesus Seminar--some whom are members, and some who left--in his characteristically unamusing fashion.--Ed.]

So suddenly "render unto Caesar" is not supportive? Indeed, asigning blame to "the Jews" apologizes for the Romans--quite supportive.

Much of the rest of your paragraph depends completely on whether or not certain parts of "the story" depicted in the Synoptics and Jn are historical.

Right, I would contend you are wrong in trying to set aside the development of Christianity from the development of other religions. Thus, this charge:

applies quite well to Christianity . . . and Judiasm . . . and Islam. . . .

Regarding the "historical Junior"--we are left with the semantics Vinnie, I and others have circled about. If you trust that Galatians is legitimate, you have a brother. Some argue that Galatians is not talking about an actual brother, but I am not convinced of that currently.

Vinnie's scholars who never got dates for their respective proms and were picked last in dodge-ball, argue for "reasonable speculations." Posters here, including myself, have made the same arguments. For example, it is reasonable that since an execution is a smear on a character, it is "reasonable" that writers would not invent an execution, though they may wish to recast it in a more positive light. That does not prove he was executed.

My serious semantical debate with Vinnie is that one cannot go from reasonable to established based on the evidence we have.

Next, there are some nasty things attributed to Junior in the texts. I feel some of them are polemical and from the writer--such as the severe exclusions in Mk and Jn. Of course . . . I could be wrong . . . the "real" Junior may have been this exclusionary. My point with that is "how do you decide?"

I am afraid most--and this includes scholars in both Vinnie and my "side"--support details that support the conception of Junior they want, and diminish those that they do not want--and this can apply to a mythicist, incidentally.

There are motivations for creating some of the details you mention. Now, what you get out of a text is what you get out of a text. In some cases, it may not be in the text. In others, it may be there, but simply understand the uncertainty. Then understand why others do not worship it.

--J.D.

Amos

Oh, for sure and the rise and decline of a civilization will testify to the wisdom if its leadership.

The Jews are no real authority or they would have suspended all judgement on the matter. The only thing they can say is that it was not their messiah and in this they are correct.

If, as you say, the NT was a fraud so is the OT a fraud because the only messiah we need is to become one of our own. Both Jews and Catholics can achieve this and that is why the Jews are waiting for the first coming and the Catholics are waiting for the second coming. If and if ever when "he comes" in the life of a Jew that particular Jew will no longer be a Jew and if he comes in the life of a Catholic that particular Catholic will no longer be a Catholic.

Both religions are the same in this respect with the only difference that Catholics recognize Christ-hood as the end Catholicism while Jews deny this option or they would have followed the example set by Jesus-the-Jew (I realize here that that is not possible or they would be Catholic instead of Jew).

Vinnie

When I say facts I mean exactly that, historical facts. Those are not the same thing as scientific laws. That should go without saying.

The fact that there is little or less agreement on what Jesus taught does not mean there is less agreement on the crucifixion of Jesus or the fact that he had a brother named James or a follower named Peter or that he came from Galilee. You are confusing details. Scholars disagree on the mission and message of Jesus. There are some basics however, that no one disputes.

That is why the argument from diversity is completely bankrupt! There is diversity here, large amounts. But most of my statements about Jesus are general. Have you ever seen me conducted a full scale argument in regards to Jesus exact mission and exactly what he said and did? No. You won't any time soon either. Certain generalities can be known, however.

I would argue for a few certain events (baptism, crucifixion by Pilate, Jesus conducted a minsitry to Jews) etc. But I never try a detailed reconstruction of Jesus like you see from a lot of scholars.

Vinnie

Koyaanisqatsi

Ahhh, dear Amos. Always arguing post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I guess it just doesn't enter into your considerations that when a group creates a myth, the myth does not then create the group, eh? It's good work if you can get it, but tragically ludicrous, unfortunately.

Messiahs don't exist outside of the minds of those who fabricate them. Consider then the minds who originally fabricated these myths and why they did it. Nomadic slaves who were oppressed for thousands of years; treated like animals--like property--yet, among them, artists with an intellectual capacity far in excess of most of the elite who brutallized them.

A leit motif of humanity, unfortunately. Desperate times call for desperate dreams and the only way dreams can live is through art; in this case (as with all religions) the art of mythology. What's truly tragic, however, is when subsequent generations--through corruption, manipulation or even more desperate times--forget the art of interpretation.

You seem to be able to keep part of that art alive in your rather unique interpretations, which is why I always enjoy your posts. The only problem is, you're not a true artist yourself and therefore only look from the outside in. A sculpture is indeed infused with life, but only metaphorically. All great sculptors know that what they shape in their hands--what others marvel at and revere as "masterpieces"--are nothing more than blobs of clay. Indeed, that's why they shape them into masterpieces; precisely because all they truly are, are blobs of clay.

Ever play the game "Telephone" as a child? It's where a group of kids sit in a circle and one child whispers something in the ear of his or her companion, who, in turn, whispers what he or she heard into the ear of their companion and so on around the circle. You know what always happens, often within minutes, let alone decades? What was first whispered bears almost no resemblance at all to what is finally whispered back to the originator of the game.

I once met a professor--a linguist--who had reverse translated "sin" back through the ages/languages all the way back to the aramaic as dilligently and carefully as he could and then he took that and translated it directly to English. You know what "to sin" then translated as? "To miss the center of a target."

The author of Genesis knew he wasn't writing down any kind of factual account of actual human history and his followers most likely knew that, as well. But you start that kind of "Telephone" and thousands of years later you'll get clueless, desperate men thinking that the "ancients" had all the answers, because, surprise, surprise, they weren't all drooling idiots "back then." Unfortunately, however, history never seems to record that the majority of humanity were all drooling idiots and that only the unique among them stood out.

Somehow, though, the drooling idiots who deified those unique individuals tend to keep the "telephone" game going long after the lesson of the game has been presented for all to learn. Being drooling idiots, of course, they aren't capable of learning anything about the nature of the game, so the game continues.

C'est la vie.

Answerer

Yeah right, but before they were 'supported', those who practised Arian Christianity were more than often being viewed as barbarians. The reason that Romans 'supported' it in the fourth century was because they feared the strength of the 'barbarians' at that time, not because they enjoyed its doctrine and even see it as very useful in a political sense. Thats why Catholic mass conversion plan began among the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, and Vandals not long after western Romam Empire's inevitable collapse.

I think its obvious to why Arian is better than Catholics, at least it rejects Jesus divinity and the doctrine of Trinity, which gave untold power to the Roman Emperors and then the popes following the Empire's fall.

Vorkosigan

Tolkien used a bunch of pre-existing material to write The Lord of the Rings. Idiotically, since we know pre-existing means historical content true, critics insist it's fiction.

Michener used a bunch of pre-existing material write Centennial. Incredibly, people insist on believing it is fiction despite the well-known historical principle that if material pre-exists an author's use of it, it must be real historical material.

H. Beam Piper incorporated much material from military history into his science fiction. This must mean that the Space Vikings really exist.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Savior cults are quite common in depressed, colonized, marginalized areas; see, for example, Chinese folk religious movements of the second and third century, which gave rise to the whole complex of modern Christianity, including savior figures, a madonna and child, a pope, heaven, hell, a devil, and a triune god. A good comparison for 1st century Palestine in context with Roman domination is the colonial experiences of native peoples under European domination during the 19th and 20th century. James was just one of three people in history who saw himself as the brother of Jesus; Nxele and Hong Hsiu-chuan of the Taipings are others.

Some salvation movements you should look into are the Taipings and Nxele, to start off with.

here is a a page on Nxele. The Xhosa, a cattle rearing culture whose economy and social and political life centered around cattle, eventually killed all their cattle in an attempt to get rid of the whites. Thousands starved to death.

Another interesting parallel is Wovoka, the Paiute messiah. All three of this crowd were influenced by Christianity. For Hong see Jonathon Spence's Gods' Chinese Son.

In the context of colonial domination there is nothing particularly interesting about the development of savior cults, or of cults period. They are one of many inevitable reactions to foreign domination, which boil down to (1) cooperation (2) resign acceptance and covert rebellion (3)open rebellion (4) faith in heavenly intervention. Africa generated dozens of cults, savior cults, magical cults, magical figures etc, just like Judea did (remember the Egyptian who was going to knock down the walls of Jerusalem?)

Hope this helps.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

Out of interest, how many of those saviour cults were based on figures that had supposedly lived in the recent past, but in fact hadn't been historical at all?

My guess is that the overwhelming number of those cults were centered around actual living people.

Vorkosigan

Of course. But the way that Doherty and other mythicists see it, the historicization of Jesus the mythical savior was a gradual process that took place over a century after Christianity came into being, and related to later theological and political struggles. How all this came about we will never know, since the early Christians were enthusiastic forgers, fakers, and editors of the Living Word. The "actual living person" at the center of the movement was probably James the Brother of Jesus, for whom the world came into being, and who led a cult of worshippers of Jesus, just as the "actual living person" at the center of the Taipings was Hong Xiu-quan, the Brother of Jesus, who led a cult of worshippers of Jesus.

That Jesus lived "in the recent past" was a later backreading into history by the nascent orthodox crowd.

Vorkosigan