|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Jesus Exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
I've excerpted a concise introduction to Doherty's ideas on the Gospel of Mark.
Some time in the late first century, within a predominantly gentile milieu probably in Syria, some Christian scholar or circle combined the community and founder of Q with the mythical suffering Jesus of the Pauline type of Christ cult. Perhaps his community had a foot in both camps, an expression of classic syncretism. The result was the Gospel of Mark. Its author seems to have worked from oral or incomplete Q traditions, for his Gospel fails to include the great teachings of Jesus and prophetic pronouncements which Matthew and Luke have inherited. What did Mark do? He crafted a ministry which moved from Galilee to Jerusalem, now the site of Jesus' death. He virtually re-invented the Apostles out of early, now-legendary figures in the Christ movement; they served mostly instructional purposes. He brought into the Jesus orbit all the figures and concepts floating about in the Christian air, like Son of God, Messiah, Son of David, the apocalyptic Son of Man. Most important of all, he had to craft the story of Jesus' passion. Some suggest that Mark used an earlier, more primitive fashioning of Jesus' trial and execution, one John later used as well. Others think that all the famous elements of our passion story are purely Markan inventions: the scene in Gethsemane, Judas the betrayer, the denial by Peter, the actual details of Jesus' trial and crucifixion, the story of the empty tomb. Considering that no concrete evidence surfaces in the record of any pre-Markan passion story, the second option is the most likely. We owe the most enduring tale Western culture has produced to the literary genius of Mark. Perhaps some "historicizing" of the spiritual Christ had already taken place in Christian study and preaching activities, before Mark and unrelated to Q. A similar sectarian tendency to create an idealized founding past as seen in Q may have operated in the circles of the cultic Christ. The Proclaimed was evolving into the Proclaimer. Jesus the one being preached became Jesus doing the preaching, and the Gospels ultimately functioned as the "foundation document" of Christianity as a whole. Some initial ideas in this direction, such as the name of Paul's "woman" and the period of Jesus' life, found their way to Ignatius, even without a written Gospel, although this information may have come to him as 'echoes' of the recently written Gospel of Mark. Ignatius and 1 John (probably written in the 90s) show that many were objecting to the new, radical idea that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:1f). And what was the engine of this impulse, the source of the information about the new 'historical' Jesus? We can see it in the Gospels themselves: the Jewish scriptures. ... Did the evangelists see themselves as writing history? Their wholesale practice of altering earlier accounts, rearranging the details of Jesus' ministry, changing the very words of the Lord himself, would suggest otherwise. It is now a maxim that the Gospels are faith documents; the evangelists had no concern for historical research as we know it. Rather, they were engaged in a type of "midrash." Midrash was an ancient Jewish practice of interpreting and enlarging on individual or combinations of passages from the Bible to draw out new meanings and relevance, to get beyond the surface words. One way to do this was to embody them in new stories with present-day contexts. In the minds of the evangelists, the Gospels expounded new spiritual truths through a retelling of scripture. So many New Testament elements are simply a reworking of stories recorded in the Old Testament. Jesus was cast in tales like those of Moses, for example, presenting him as a new Moses for contemporary times. At the same time, in view of Q, it is quite possible that writers like Mark regarded their work as something pointing to actual history, to a figure announced in scriptural precedent. In any event, before long, such Gospels came to be looked upon as purely factual records, by gentiles who did not understand their Jewish roots, and scripture came to be seen as the prophecy of such real "events" rather than their source. http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/partthre.htm
This view is very different from the orthodox picture formulized after Constantine. It may be incorrect in part or entirety but it is looking seriously at the extant literature of the period and trying to resolve real problems. The orthodox solution was apologetics. This is another solution. I find it fascinating but I'm unable to personally verify it. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I brought in the topic of Hinduism from a comment you made I believe in another thread. My point was to ascertain if you believed it possible or not to reject someone's religious beliefs without critizing their character or intelligence. My motive was to get the focus off feeling personally attacked and back to discussing the ideas. I'm not FEELING personally attacked. While I do get carried away in arguments like this, it has nothing to do with PERSONAL feeling of being attacked. But I do maintain that the questioning of Jesus' existence and the veracity of the New Testament writings IS in the nature of things a criticism of the character and intelligence of both the writers of the gospels and the believers in them. There is no VERACITY question involved in the Hindu religion as they don't make factual statements that could be challenged and so bring their character into question. They stay on the level of personal experience and wisdom teachings.
There are rabidly anti Christian atheist. But not all the critics of Christianity are that extreme. Neither Earl Doherty or I are claiming Paul or early Christians lied. The mythicist case, which I don't expect you to accept, it that later Christians living in different times misinterpreted Paul's writings. To claim we are attacking Christian intelligence and character gets this argument totally off track. You are missing the point. The argument itself is an attack on Christian character and intelligence. I forget how we got off on this topic however and am willing to drop it if there is any place to go from here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
If one believes that something is true regardless of the evidence it's hard to have a debate Obviously, Faith thinks she does have evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
its all demonic. But then, nobody would be able to prove it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
You are missing the point. The argument itself is an attack on Christian character and intelligence. But what if the argument is right? If I recall correctly, you argue absolute truth - what if that truth matches the argument in question? Can there be no examination of beliefs and teachings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually Rand, I think that's what we are debating here. I think the debate over the existence of Jesus obviously involves debate over the veracity and/or intention of the gospels. That is correct, and not to recognize or acknowledge that this very enterprise of reinterpreting the gospels is by its nature a criticism of those who believe in the veracity and/or intention of the gospels is a very odd denial. Considering that on other threads no holds are barred in denouncing and denigrating Christian "fundies" very odd indeed. This scholarly approach is merely the intellectual version of fundie-bashing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There is absolutely no problem here related to beliefs. For example, I believe that Jesus was real and did in fact live.
But that has nothing to do with the thread. What we are discussing here is any potential evidence for a historical Jesus. The Bible is evidence. But it's also only one piece. What would be needed to move Jesus from belief to fact would be some other evidence, particularly something that could be independantly confirmed. But even if it were possible to established Jesus as fact, it would have no meaning in relation to Jesus, in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Even if Jesus could be positively proven to exist as a real, historical character, it would have no effect on Christianity. That would still depend on Belief, just as it does now. The search for a historic Jesus is great. It may just actually find evidence that he did exist. It's impossible to prove that he did not exist. And regardless, it has no bearing on the theology of Christianity, so why not welcome the search? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
its all demonic. Especially Christianity. (I'm sick of all of these silly double-standard assertions with no basis, explanation, evidence, or iota of understanding.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Faith writes: Of course they have no problem.(seeing Jesus as another incarnation) They already have multiple deities, avatars and incarnations of God, no problem adding another one. The Roman Empire didn't have any problem adding another deity either, and would have been happy to incorporate the Christian God, but the Christians' refusal to acknowledge their multiple gods got them thrown to the lions. Christianity makes a claim to exclusive truth. It's not popular, the religions of the multiple gods are so much more... "tolerant" ... but it is the truth. I agree with you, Faith...but most people who are freethinkersa and who reject Christ as God incarnate will rant and rail against such talk! It IS a spiritual war, and the fact that we can't prove it does not matter. It is Gods battle, and He told us that they would persecute us as they did Him! Indeed, Jesus DID and DOES exist, and no amount of blather will erase this profound fact! YES I am making a positive truth claim...(deal with it!) This message has been edited by Phat, 01-07-2006 10:45 PM For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Oh, I thought you were saying that she were telling Faith she was being offensive in order to show her that she was wrong in taking offense at you guys rejecting Christian testimony.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This view is very different from the orthodox picture formulized after Constantine. It's not only very different from the orthodox picture formulated after Constantine but before Constantine and in the gospels themselves and in every bit of the history of the church. We have New Testament fragments from the 2nd century, well before Constantine. This Doherty guy isn't worth a second thought, so please explain why you are taking him seriously? Just READ this excerpt you have linked. It's nothing but bald assertion after bald assertion, all of it revisionist reimagining of the traditional Christian point of view. Where is the "evidence" here, the objective facts that justify this fantasy? This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 12:45 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
The topic is the historicity of Jesus. - The Queen This scholarly approach is merely the intellectual version of fundie-bashing. Well then there is fundie bashing and there is high brow fundie bashing. But what do you call what you fundie's do when you consider non Christians as sinner, demon worshippers, and whatever? It strikes me as being athiest bashing, or Hindu bashing, or Muslim, or Jew bashing. But can't Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and athiest discuss their religions and world views and criticisms of other world views with out it being bashing? And if you answer "yes" how do you see that being accomplished? lfen This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-07-2006 11:54 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
The topic is the historicity of Jesus. - The Queen they would persecute us as they did Him The president of the United States is a Christian. There are churches in most cities of the USA. Here on EvC you Phat are an Admin. I disagree with your religion. And that means you are persecuted by me, us? How precisely are you being persecuted? lfen This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-07-2006 11:53 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
The topic is the historicity of Jesus. - The Queen Ifen, you have a point. Like my quote says, I have no problem with flesh and blood. People are entitled to believe whatever they want. My rant is not directed at people...its directed at the philosophies behind the beliefs and the principalities in control of these philosophies. Christianity is a narrow and exclusive truth claim. It is not always popular...and I am in one of those conservative moods right now---I mean no offense toward anyone personally.
--Apostle Paul, under the unction of the Holy Spirit This message has been edited by Phat, 01-07-2006 10:54 PM This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-07-2006 11:54 PM For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes it is a spiritual war, Phat, yes, and what's our job? Simply to declare the truth whether anybody believes it or not. They are free to believe whatever they like, but we can't let their false statements about Christ stand unchallenged.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 01:16 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024