FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-24-2013, 08:43 AM   #31
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
(How the Protestant churches claim authority I don't know, I guess from the revelation of a Luther or Wesley)
Generelly, protestants believe the only authority to be Christ, God, directly from Him to the individual believer (for Luther this entails the sola scriptura principle), therefore no church has any authority at all, whatsoever. Only Christ, God. Therefore anyone can be a priest (except unreliable people of course, such as woman and children, he says, unless it's an emergency!)
Cesc is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 10:11 AM   #32
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
If God didn't save the world through the HJ at some or other point in history, then God didn't save the world. Accordingly that's not Christianity.
The notion of a HJ did not exist before the emergence of the idea probably not more than two centuries ago. I gather you might then run with a notion of a figure perceived to have been part of the mundane world.
Obviously I'm using here the language of Christianity. So perhaps some sort of rephrasing is in order so not to use "HJ" which apparantly can be mistaken for the modern academic (and modern theological) designation. So here we go:

If God didn't save the world at some or other point in history through the death and resurrection of the figure of Jesus Christ then God didn't save the world. Accordingly that's not Christianity.

Now, it goes without saying that if God have raised Jesus from the dead, he must have existed in history, anything else is nonsense. Irregardless of whether one thinks this figure of Jesus was a spiritual being or merely a prophet or teacher or something in between.

This historical figure modern academics can designate as HJ, and Christians call him Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior.
Using the notion of a "historical" anything requires the user to have some notion, no matter how facile, of historiography, which is the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
But defining a Christian starts with somebody who confesses Jesus Christ as his/hers Lord and Savior, and you cannot confess somebody your Lord and Savior whom you think to have never existed, this would of course be nonsense. Therefore, even pr. definition, a Christian perceives Jesus Christ to have been historical.
Fuck no. A christian--at least as we understand the term--perceives Jesus as real or, as I defined it in my previous post, "a figure perceived to have been part of the mundane world". Modern historians and those who polemically use their terminology may call Jesus "historical". Nobody in the ancient world called anyone "historical", because they lacked the philosophy of history that underpins the notion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Quote:
At what point in the evolution of that which became christianity did that become doctrinal?
If you're asking me I'd say that if there were no HJ then thats the big question. How did a myth become "historical"?
And if there were a HJ your question is not applicable.
But your thinking assumed that there was a HJ, ie you were making a substantive claim which you can't justify. If you could provide a dependable way of deciding then you might have something, but we've had three rounds of hopefuls looking for a HJ and failing. We have to accept the possibility that Jesus may not have existed and then stop assuming that he did.

It doesn't matter to a non-christian whether Jesus existed or not, especially as there is no way of verifying that existence and there has been a vested interest by those who maintained the literature from the past in the existence of Jesus. Such an interest interferes with any validation of sources on the subject they maintained. This is a grave epistemological problem: we have no way of knowing about the existence of Jesus. This gives the non-believer a push to not enter into making rash judgments. You don't need to choose whether Jesus existed or not. It's nothing to you, even if he did exist (for he may have).
spin is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 10:15 AM   #33
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post

If God didn't save the world through the HJ at some or other point in history, then God didn't save the world. Accordingly that's not Christianity.
The notion of a HJ did not exist before the emergence of the idea probably not more than two centuries ago. I gather you might then run with a notion of a figure perceived to have been part of the mundane world.

At what point in the evolution of that which became christianity did that become doctrinal?
According to Pagels(which I read from the NY public library so can't cite sorry), apostolic succession was established by the early church to counter Gnostic claims of revelations by Christ.

From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Writing about AD 94, Clement of Rome states that the apostles appointed successors to continue their work where they had planted churches and for these in their turn to do the same because they foresaw the risk of discord. He uses both 'bishop' and 'presbyter' to refer to these men. The interpretation of his writing is disputed, but it is clear that he supports some sort of approved continuation of the apostolic ministry[13] which in its turn was derived from Christ.[1]
Wiki is not a reliable source. I should know: I write for it at times.

The dogma around Clement of Rome is unsubstantiated.

What time frame does Pagels work on for the emergence of apostolic succession and are her ideas correct?
spin is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 10:19 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
(How the Protestant churches claim authority I don't know, I guess from the revelation of a Luther or Wesley)
Generelly, protestants believe the only authority to be Christ, God, directly from Him to the individual believer (for Luther this entails the sola scriptura principle), therefore no church has any authority at all, whatsoever. Only Christ, God. Therefore anyone can be a priest (except unreliable people of course, such as woman and children, he says, unless it's an emergency!)
So mine or anyone's revelations are as good as anything from the Protestant churches, and the Protestant churches would concur?
Horatio Parker is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 10:30 AM   #35
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Obviously I'm using here the language of Christianity. So perhaps some sort of rephrasing is in order so not to use "HJ" which apparantly can be mistaken for the modern academic (and modern theological) designation. So here we go:

If God didn't save the world at some or other point in history through the death and resurrection of the figure of Jesus Christ then God didn't save the world. Accordingly that's not Christianity.
Where you go wrong is in calling Jesus the same as Christ wherein Jesus must die to set Christ free, and later Jesus rose to be one with Christ, or not, as in Matthew and Mark where 'back to Galilee' he goes instead.

In this Christ never was crucified to die, and so, at best, we can be followers of Jesus to die on our own cross be one with Christ as Christian our self.
Quote:

Now, it goes without saying that if God have raised Jesus from the dead, he must have existed in history, anything else is nonsense. Irregardless of whether one thinks this figure of Jesus was a spiritual being or merely a prophet or teacher or something in between.
Except that God does not raise Jesus but religion does simply because those who are destined for hell also are raised to be eternally there, and that is where religion has a copyright on heaven as their claim to fame.
Quote:

This historical figure modern academics can designate as HJ, and Christians call him Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior.
But that is wrong. God saves, Christ is the end and Jesus is the way to that end, with no if's, but's, or maybe's about it.
Quote:

But defining a Christian starts with somebody who confesses Jesus Christ as his/hers Lord and Savior, and you cannot confess somebody your Lord and Savior whom you think to have never existed, this would of course be nonsense. Therefore, even pr. definition, a Christian perceives Jesus Christ to have been historical.
That is correct, and that is what the Inquisitor was all about because to confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior who you think existed is the abomination, and that is precisely that they tried to stamp out like a wild fire on the move inside the Nation wherein they were given the duty to exercise this dominion as they saw fit.

Their reason for this was to remove the historical attachment to the person called Jesus so the believer may encounter the real Jesus in his own life and become a Christian in the same manner as follower of the example he set.
Chili is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 10:31 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post

According to Pagels(which I read from the NY public library so can't cite sorry), apostolic succession was established by the early church to counter Gnostic claims of revelations by Christ.

From Wikipedia:
Wiki is not a reliable source. I should know: I write for it at times.

The dogma around Clement of Rome is unsubstantiated.

What time frame does Pagels work on for the emergence of apostolic succession and are her ideas correct?
I picked the Clement reference because it mentioned Jesus. Much of the entry traces succession only back to the apostles, as if the Wiki editors didn't want to mention Christ too frequently.

Second century is Pagel's time frame, Tertullian came up frequently IIRC.

As to correctness, I admit it didn't occur to me that it was controversial.
Horatio Parker is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 10:35 AM   #37
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
(How the Protestant churches claim authority I don't know, I guess from the revelation of a Luther or Wesley)
Generelly, protestants believe the only authority to be Christ, God, directly from Him to the individual believer (for Luther this entails the sola scriptura principle), therefore no church has any authority at all, whatsoever. Only Christ, God. Therefore anyone can be a priest (except unreliable people of course, such as woman and children, he says, unless it's an emergency!)
So mine or anyone's revelations are as good as anything from the Protestant churches, and the Protestant churches would concur?
That would be number 20.001, I suppose.
Chili is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 11:28 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Let me qualify the definition of a Christian: Someone who confesses the risen Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior.

All I'm saying is, if you remove the HJ, you remove the Jesus Christ who was raised from the dead, and then it's not Christianity. Surely you must agree.
At one time I would've, and most people still think that way.

But after reading about philosophy and psychology I no longer think so.

I think that myths are in a sense living things. I think that our minds are real, and our thoughts are real and collectively the mind and its domain constitutes an alternate(if empirically provisional) reality. There is potential for good here since self examination, reflection, contemplation and so forth are generally good things for people to do.

Problems can occur, though, when thoughts are projected into physical realty ie because I can imagine Hippos dancing on point in tutus I start believing they physically do that.

By keeping Jesus mythical, he stays in the mind where he belongs, and, though not meaning to proselytize here, where he can do the most good and least harm.

It's a paradox, but the most effective way the church marginalizes itself is by insisting on its traditional magical thinking.

It's another paradox that mythicism enables Christianity. IMO.
Horatio Parker is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 11:34 AM   #39
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 322
Default

Spin, do you know what the point is that I've been trying to make?
If you think my point is undermined because I'm using epistemological categories where they dont apply (the term "historical" to ancient Christians), fair enough, then say so. But I'm not sure at all you understand what I'm trying say.

In making my point, it really is quite irrelevant whether we use the modern term "historical" or we say "perceived to have been part of the mundane world"... In this case they both mean the same thing. If a person in the ancient world had eaten a muffin, he would consider that muffin to have been "historical", by which I mean having existed.

My point is pretty clear:
Christians believe the figure of Jesus Christ to have existed at some point in time. Otherwise they are not Christians, but something else.


Whether there de facto was a HJ or not is wholly irrelevant to my point. I'm not assuming here there was or there wasn't.
Cesc is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 11:43 AM   #40
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Generelly, protestants believe the only authority to be Christ, God, directly from Him to the individual believer (for Luther this entails the sola scriptura principle), therefore no church has any authority at all, whatsoever. Only Christ, God. Therefore anyone can be a priest (except unreliable people of course, such as woman and children, he says, unless it's an emergency!)
So mine or anyone's revelations are as good as anything from the Protestant churches, and the Protestant churches would concur?
I don't know what you mean by revelation, but I think that generally Protestantism holds the Bible as the only revelation.
Cesc is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:51 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.