Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 05-24-2013, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Guys be patient with me now. The following is not a derail.

the reason that the HJ version got adopted by Constantine
was that it worked most effective to get loyal supporters.

Same consideration that the Fundamentalists in US took
when they created Fundamentalism and which we now see
as the dominating way to be religious in US and which has
political similar movements both in Jewish such fundamentalism
and Islamist such fundamentalism. They may be only some 10 to 20 %
in actual numbers but they drive the moderates to keep a low profile.

It is the same social mechanism that makes Equity Feminist giving in
to Radical Feminism which also is fundamentalistic and literal and also
the Atheist Plus movement that also is using the same "You are either with us
or against us" tactics of shunning those that not 100% agree to the dogmas.

and that is what did happen way back in time. Only those that believed
in the HJ survived the fight for whom to support politically.

Most likely for that is how most people function. Even atheists.
The majority of activist atheists prefer a God that is a real supernatural God
and each time one give them an imaginary fictional god that only exist as ideas
then they bark loud and say that is a false god that makes one atheist and not a believer.

exact same mechanism. To want something that really exist and not just a myth

But Jesus is real as catalist only that they call insurrectionist between hu-man and man, wherein he takes the human condition of Joseph wherein only Joseph is Adamic (or earthly) as second nature to the man he really is.

The cross that Jesus carried to die on is the sum total of Joseph's sins that so is Joseph's world only as opposite to heaven as man under God.

If you think metamorphosis here it is easy to see that the Gospels take place in the cocoon stage of life wherein Joseph was the fat worm who's sins were scarlet with purple to be transformed into whiter than snow, and for this only but no-less Jesus as second Adam is needed to get this job done, to end with the crucifixion presenting only the 'fat Jew' that Joseph was as sinner that made him look purple in the advent of his life.

So there is no need to put a purple cloak on him if the cross was his own, and was his own to carry and die on to set the man free that he really was.

That Jesus went up into the clouds does not send him to heaven because Christ remained down below now in heaven to stay.

To see him as raised into heaven would be much like alcohol going up into the clouds to crash in the next rain over Egypt to make them like drunken sailors all over again . . . as outsider to Christ in the wake of the event, and those would be called Jesus worshipers today.

Chili · 05-24-2013, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Personally, I agree that many of the ethical, "humanistic" ideals of the Jesus of the gospels are worth striving for. And I know there are a million different Christianities, some emphazising Jesus' ethical teachings, some the salvation aspect, some the eschatological aspect, etc. But a Christianity with a MJ is not a Christianity. It may be a philosophy based on Christianity or a religion based on it, but it can never be Christianity. You cant have a Christian faith without HJ, then it simply isn't Christian.

You are absolutely right and that is why it is called anti-christ by those in the know.

What you are saying is that the -ism should not be part of the movement wherein the HJ via faith in the heart comes home to roost on the seeker himself, which is something a MJ never could as 'not real' from the start.

Clivedurdle · 05-24-2013, 06:59 AM

I think xianity has always been mythical. A chimera fully god fully man and its earlier formulations is by definition mythical. The Historical Jesus can be dated to later in the Enlightenment, possibly around Hume debunking miracles, and is a category mistake by rationalists attempting to rationalise the Gospel stories as historically based when they are literature. As I understand it, no xian believes in a historical Jesus.

Clivedurdle · 05-24-2013, 07:07 AM

I would argue further that we probably have more evidence of the mythical nature of this religion than we realise, in the architecture.

Quote:

These buildings enabled very different styles of worship to the old temple really private sacrificial ways or the very specialist rituals in a cave of the secret cults.

I propose theology follows architecture and technology.

The basilica enabled a large group to witness and participate in the sacrifice, which was formalised, no longer a large bull pouring its blood over a priest standing underneath it, done in the privacy of the temple, or the private ceremonies of the priests within the veil of Judaism. This is to do with the ability to build large wide spans, instead of the crowded columns of the classic temples.

The adaptation of public court buildings is of note, we are looking at the democratisation of religion - the Greek idea of the polis getting out of the rain and the sun into a large building against the Persian, tyrannical ways of the supreme leader and the one true god who of course the Persian Christ has access to (Cyrus and Darius).

As with all syncretism, bits of the old are dragged along, especially facing East - why should not everyone experience the transformational experience of the dawn going into the caves at the end of an all night oriental ritual (See Gore Vidal Julian for a description of this).

More and more people leads to issues of crowding, so both aisles and domes are used to solve this.

These buildings are so wonderful they develop rituals over a life - the baptistry to welcome the new members, the main church to enact a new very ritualised ceremony with only wafers and wine.

The towers as at Pisa are developed to create the stairway to heaven.

The gospel stories I propose follows the architecture, the story of the Jesus being born, living and dying actually are formalising of these changes in thinking and technologies.

I would carefully check the writings we have to see if any references to structures, institutional or physical, might betray the real date of something.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=325044

Chili · 05-24-2013, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I think xianity has always been mythical. A chimera fully god fully man and its earlier formulations is by definition mythical. The Historical Jesus can be dated to later in the Enlightenment, possibly around Hume debunking miracles, and is a category mistake by rationalists attempting to rationalise the Gospel stories as historically based when they are literature. As I understand it, no xian believes in a historical Jesus.

I did my BA as a mature student when I was 40 and came across the Age of Enlightenment that was like a witch-hunt for me as compared with the Russian and English literature greats.

The bible is very beautiful book, but proceed with caution is a good measure to add.

Cesc · 05-24-2013, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

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.

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.

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.

stephan huller · 05-24-2013, 07:48 AM

FWIW I like to turn it around and ask 'what would have happened if the Qumran expectations of a divine visitation would actually have been realized?' Would we expect to see a cult of 'God the visitor' or 'God the ξένος' stable over time? I don't think so. The reason for this is that within Christianity there were so many 'spiritual' or 'prophetic' movements (the hallucinating masses) required for sustaining and even creating the idea of a fulfilled visitation in the first place that the conditions which led to the 'realization' necessarily would also lead to its corruption and replacement with something which could eventually appeal to the more sober minded in the general population - i.e. Polycarp. The lure of 'winning' was too difficult to resist manufacturing a formula which turned everything upside down.

Cesc · 05-24-2013, 07:51 AM

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.

Btw, I'm using some forum-app rather than a computer, so I'm not sure the quotations are working properly!

Horatio Parker · 05-24-2013, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Guys be patient with me now. The following is not a derail.

the reason that the HJ version got adopted by Constantine
was that it worked most effective to get loyal supporters.

Jesus appointed Peter and Peter chose the bishops who chose the other clergy etc establishing a link from the clergy to God himself. Therefore, to be Officially Saved, you have to be saved by an Authorized Representative, and only an Authorized Rep could declare you Saved. HJ is essential then to the authority of the church. (How the Protestant churches claim authority I don't know, I guess from the revelation of a Luther or Wesley)

Quote:

exact same mechanism. To want something that really exist and not just a myth

The problem with that approach is that it externalizes God. God is perceived with the mind. That requires the mind and its thoughts to be considered real, and therefore not trivial or inconsequential. Not everyone(no one actually) has access to an empirical man-god, but everyone has a mind.

Horatio Parker · 05-24-2013, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

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]

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

05-24-2013, 06:59 AM	#23
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I think xianity has always been mythical. A chimera fully god fully man and its earlier formulations is by definition mythical. The Historical Jesus can be dated to later in the Enlightenment, possibly around Hume debunking miracles, and is a category mistake by rationalists attempting to rationalise the Gospel stories as historically based when they are literature. As I understand it, no xian believes in a historical Jesus.

05-24-2013, 07:48 AM	#27
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	FWIW I like to turn it around and ask 'what would have happened if the Qumran expectations of a divine visitation would actually have been realized?' Would we expect to see a cult of 'God the visitor' or 'God the ξένος' stable over time? I don't think so. The reason for this is that within Christianity there were so many 'spiritual' or 'prophetic' movements (the hallucinating masses) required for sustaining and even creating the idea of a fulfilled visitation in the first place that the conditions which led to the 'realization' necessarily would also lead to its corruption and replacement with something which could eventually appeal to the more sober minded in the general population - i.e. Polycarp. The lure of 'winning' was too difficult to resist manufacturing a formula which turned everything upside down.

05-24-2013, 07:51 AM	#28
Cesc Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 322	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. Btw, I'm using some forum-app rather than a computer, so I'm not sure the quotations are working properly!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.