Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-12-2013, 12:51 PM

Schweitzer says that particular Jesus never existed.

Later in that chapter he says: "The historical foundation of Christianity as built up by rationalistic, by liberal, and by modern theology no longer exists; but that does not mean that Christianity has lost its historical foundation. . . . Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity."

You have made this error before. There is enough misinformation floating around the internet - please do not add to it.

aa5874 · 07-12-2013, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Schweitzer says that particular Jesus never existed.

Later in that chapter he says: "The historical foundation of Christianity as built up by rationalistic, by liberal, and by modern theology no longer exists; but that does not mean that Christianity has lost its historical foundation. . . . Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity."

You have made this error before. There is enough misinformation floating around the internet - please do not add to it.

Please, Toto. You are making fallacious claims. Did I not show what is found in "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" by Albert Schweitzer?

I detest your propaganda.

You are the one who have made claims about Albert Schweitzer and have refused to present your sources.

Albert Schweitzer's Jesus is a spiritual force.

Alkbert Schweitzer's Jesus CANNOT be confirmed by history.

It is in the very same passage that you quoted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Schweitzer thought that the historical Jesus could not be recovered with any certainty, but still believed that the religion started with a person.

Please present your sources for the person who started the "religion".

Is not Schweitzer writing about Jesus of Nazareth?

What other Jesus is in The Quest for the Historical Jesus?.

Albert Schweitzer made references to no other but Jesus of Nazareth throughout The Quest for the Historical Jesus.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

Quote:

He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.

This image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which came to the surface one after another, and in spite of all the artifice, art, artificiality, and violence which was applied to them, refused to be planed down to fit the design on which the Jesus of the theology of the last hundred and thirty years had been constructed, and were no sooner covered over than they appeared again in a new form...

Albert Schweitzer's Jesus is a Jesus of Theology--a Jesus of Faith--a Spiritual Force

You are in error, Toto.

You seem not to understand Schweitzer. There is NO history to Jesus of Nazareth--just a Spiritual force.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

Quote:

Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery[. It is the solid foundation of Christianity.

Albert Schweitzer's Jesus cannot be confirmed by any historical discovery ONLY by Theology.

1. Jesus of Nazareth never had any existence.

2. Jesus of Nazareth is either literary fiction or an eschatological conception.

3. It was a mistake to expect to find an Historical Jesus.

4. The image of the Historical Jesus has fallen to pieces.

MrMacSon · 07-12-2013, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Schweitzer says that particular Jesus never existed.

Later in that chapter he says:

Quote:

"The historical foundation of Christianity as built up by rationalistic, by liberal, and by modern theology no longer exists; but that does not mean that Christianity has lost its historical foundation. . . . Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity."

You have made this error before. There is enough misinformation floating around the internet - please do not add to it.

Huh??!! Of course Christianity has a historical foundation.

It doesn't mean the central character (of the narrative they believe in) is real.

add: I agree that

Quote:

There is NO [objective] history to Jesus of Nazareth - [the character] is just "a Spiritual force".

Toto · 07-12-2013, 02:49 PM

There are people who would like to claim Schweitzer for the mythicist camp, but it just won't wash.

He did believe that there was a historical personage whose spirit or charisma inspired Christianity. He does not think that historical methods can describe this person, but he clearly did not believe that the Christian religion started around a spiritual entity, or that someone invented the character of Jesus out of whole cloth.

You can view him as almost a mythicist, but he never took that last step of saying that there was no Jesus at the origin of Christianity. He only said that various reconstructions of Jesus never existed.

Adam · 07-12-2013, 05:03 PM

Hasn't Joe Wallack recently told us (while putting aa as the first-ever person on this ignore list) that aa has never admitted a mistake? Impressive record, over 18,000 posts with never a mistake!
(If anyone wants to believe that.)

MrMacSon · 07-12-2013, 05:09 PM

I think what Bruce Robertson says here is reasonable -

Quote:

B.A. Robinson, this web site's main author, normally restricts his writing on this web site to the reporting the views of other individuals. However, he occasionally makes an exception. He has a hunch concerning the sources of stories about Jesus that is a heresy when compared to the orthodox position. He suggests that there were many Jewish teachers wandering in Galilee during the interval 20 to 30 CE. One or more may have been named Yeshua (Hebrew for Joshua - a common name). One developed a devoted following of fellow Jews, committed aggravated assault in the Jerusalem temple, and was arrested by the occupying Roman Army. He was crucified as an insurrectionist as one of perhaps ten thousand other Jews who suffered the same fate at the hands of the Roman occupying army during the first century CE.

The beliefs of two or three of these Galilean teachers were subsequently merged and recorded in the early gospels that explained [narrated] the life of a single individual - "Yeshua of Nazareth" - as a single individual:

One was an itinerant Greek cynic philosopher who lived a life of poverty and challenged the public on philosophic, ethical and religious matters. The closest example to a cynic philosopher today would be a combination of stand-up comic and political cartoonist.
A second was a apocalyptic teacher who preached about the imminent end of the world in his immediate future -- much like John the Baptizer.
There might even have been a third teacher who was a follower of Hillel. The latter was a 1st century CE Jewish liberal theologian and one-time president of the Sanhedrin.

There is some evidence of this merging of the stories of separate individuals. The Gospel of Q, appears to be the oldest surviving gospel [??]. It was written in sections over time. The first section describes the sayings of a Greek cynic philosopher; the second section describes sayings of an apocalyptic teacher. Meanwhile, many of Yeshua's teachings, as found in the synoptic Gospels, closely match those of Hillel, except on matters of divorce where Hillel was more liberal.

Between about 40 CE and 100 CE, when the Gospel of Q, the three synoptic canonic Gospels, and the Gospel of Thomas were first written, the teachings of these multiple teachers were merged and attributed to a single individual: "Yeshua of Nazareth". The rest is history.

I stress that these are my personal hunches. They are shared by few if any theologians. They are certainly heretical when compared to modern-day Christian beliefs.

aa5874 · 07-12-2013, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are people who would like to claim Schweitzer for the mythicist camp, but it just won't wash.

He did believe that there was a historical personage whose spirit or charisma inspired Christianity. He does not think that historical methods can describe this person, but he clearly did not believe that the Christian religion started around a spiritual entity, or that someone invented the character of Jesus out of whole cloth.

You can view him as almost a mythicist, but he never took that last step of saying that there was no Jesus at the origin of Christianity. He only said that various reconstructions of Jesus never existed.

Albert Schweitzer did specifically and clearly state and conclude that Jesus of Nazareth never had existence so whether or not he was a mythicist is really irrelevant.

Albert Schweitzer did specifically and clearly state and conclude that Jesus is either literary fiction or an eschatological conception and that it was a mistake to expect to find Jesus as a man.

Why do you not accept what Albert Schweitzer wrote?

There is ONLY Jesus--one of fiction or one of eschatological Fantasy.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

Quote:

Whatever the ultimate solution may be, the historical Jesus of whom the criticism of the future, taking as its starting-point the problems which have been recognised and admitted, will draw the portrait, can never render modern theology the services which it claimed from its own half-historical, half-modern, Jesus.

He will be a Jesus, who was Messiah, and lived as such, either on the ground of a literary fiction of the earliest Evangelist, or on the ground of a purely eschatological Messianic conception.

We are dealing specifically with the conclusion of Schweitzer. The Quest of the Historical Jesus fell to pieces--disintegrated from WITHIN.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

Quote:

This image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which came to the surface one after another, and in spite of all the artifice, art, artificiality, and violence which was applied to them, refused to be planed down to fit the design on which the Jesus of the theology of the last hundred and thirty years had been constructed, and were no sooner covered over than they appeared again in a new form...

Please, read the The Quest of the Historical Jesus.

Albert Schweitzer was On a Quest for Jesus of Nazareth.

The strawman argument that Schweitzer was not a mythicist has no relevance if he believed that Spirits or Gods existed.

Albert Schweitzer's Jesus was a Spiritual force which could not be confirmed by history.

aa5874 · 07-12-2013, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Hasn't Joe Wallack recently told us (while putting aa as the first-ever person on this ignore list) that aa has never admitted a mistake? Impressive record, over 18,000 posts with never a mistake!
(If anyone wants to believe that.)

You believe Joe Wallack? Please, he may have made a mistake.

mountainman · 07-13-2013, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

...

Hasn't Albert Schweitzer covered this ground adequately? Conclusion: No evidence for an historical Jesus.

Schweitzer thought that the historical Jesus could not be recovered with any certainty, but still believed that the religion started with a person.

Or a literary fiction.

Quote:

The mythicist alternative is that the Christian religion started around a spiritual savior, and that a historical persona was constructed and back dated to the time of Pilate by later Christians.

This is far too simplistic and it is far better to state that there exists a spectrum - a range - of mythicist alternatives. For example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spectrum positions 6,7,8

(6) The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on scripture, legends, and the mystical beliefs of existing Jewish cults. There is no human figure at the center of the Gospel stories at all. The Gospels were generally written in the same manner that most scholars claim, during the late 1st century to early 2nd century, but there is no person at the core of them, whether all of the writers themselves knew it or not.

(7) The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on pagan myths about figures such as Dionysus and Mithras. The Gospels were written by directly mixing Jewish and non-Jewish religions and beliefs into stories that borrow from both traditions. The meaning of the Gospels has been largely lost and generally has little to do with Judaism.

(8) Pious Forgery
"The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core. The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and much of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.

Schweitzer's alternative conclusion also included the HJ as a literary fiction. Three types of literary fiction are listed above.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 07-13-2013, 07:08 AM

Actually, Schweitzer is really concluding that the Jesus character is total fiction.

Schweitzer concludes there is only one Jesus--either fiction or an eschatological conception.

An eschatological conception is not an historical account.

Schweitzer's Jesus is total unadulterated fiction-- total unadulterated mythology--total unadulterated theology--a "spiritual force".

It is imperative that we read the earliest story of Jesus in the Canon because it will be seen that the Jesus story had nothing whatsoever to do with universal salvation by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

The Gospel in the earliest Jesus story is that the Kingdom of God was at hand--NOT that Jesus was crucified and resurrected for the sins of all mankind.

See http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit Query&book=34&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Mark 1:1-15

Quote:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.....................14 But after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

15 that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand: Repent and believe in the gospel.

The original "good news" was that the Kingdom of God was at hand but the "Gospel" was changed in the LATER Gospels and Pauline Corpus.

In the earliest gMark it was NOT Good News--it was NOT the Gospel-- that Jesus was crucified.

In the earliest gMark, the crucifixion of Jesus was BAD News for the Jews.

In fact, whether or not Jesus existed, was crucified and resurrected had no real effect on the Gospel--the Good News that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

The Gospel--the Good News of that the Kingdom of God was at hand was directly related to supposed prophecies.

After the Fall of the Temple and the Good News was preached to the whole world the Kingdom of God would arrive.

See http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit Query&book=34&chapter=13&lid=en&side=r&verse=10&zo omSlider=0

Mark 13

Quote:

10 And among all nations shall the gospel first be preached.

The LATER Gospel that Jesus died and was sacrificed for our sins was invented and cannot even be found in Hebrew Scripture.

The original Gospel--the Gospel in the beginning--did NOT require an historical Jesus--it only required an INTERPRETATION of supposed prophecies about the coming of the Kingdom of God.

It would appear that the author of the earliest gMark thought that the Kingdom of God was at hand and wrote about the Good News.

Mark 1

Quote:

.......... Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

15 that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand: Repent and believe in the gospel.

Now, examine gMark 13. We will see the signs when the Kingdom of God will come.

It will be AFTER the Fall of the Temple, after the abomination of desolation in the book of Daniel, AFTER earthquakes, after False Messiahs and many wars.

Mark 13

Quote:

.... when you see these things taking place, know that it is near, at the doors.

The original Gospel was that the Kingdom of God was at hand and had NOTHING whatsoever to do with salvation by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

The earliest Gospel was changed and we have recovered the 12 verses that was added. The commission by the resurrected Jesus was added sometime later and falsely attributed to Mark.

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

07-12-2013, 12:51 PM	#61
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Schweitzer says that particular Jesus never existed. Later in that chapter he says: "The historical foundation of Christianity as built up by rationalistic, by liberal, and by modern theology no longer exists; but that does not mean that Christianity has lost its historical foundation. . . . Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity." You have made this error before. There is enough misinformation floating around the internet - please do not add to it.

07-12-2013, 02:49 PM	#64
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There are people who would like to claim Schweitzer for the mythicist camp, but it just won't wash. He did believe that there was a historical personage whose spirit or charisma inspired Christianity. He does not think that historical methods can describe this person, but he clearly did not believe that the Christian religion started around a spiritual entity, or that someone invented the character of Jesus out of whole cloth. You can view him as almost a mythicist, but he never took that last step of saying that there was no Jesus at the origin of Christianity. He only said that various reconstructions of Jesus never existed.

07-12-2013, 05:03 PM	#65
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Hasn't Joe Wallack recently told us (while putting aa as the first-ever person on this ignore list) that aa has never admitted a mistake? Impressive record, over 18,000 posts with never a mistake! (If anyone wants to believe that.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.