Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd? More speculation of Christian interpolation. Despite assertions, there is absolutely no non-biblical reference to Jesus as Saviour. In another thread, you have already conceded that the character in the Gospel may have been based on any number of preaching "Yeshuas".
Not really. Read the next four sentences.
1 edit
Originally posted by David CI said that's a more reasonable position for an atheist (especially one who is virulently anti-Christian) to take than the whole "bunch of Jews sat around a campfire and made Jesus of Nazareth up" conspiracy theory.
And? More speculation of Christian interpolation. Despite assertions, there is absolutely no non-biblical reference to Jesus as Saviour. In another thread, you have already conceded that the character in the Gospel may have been based on any number of preaching "Yeshuas".
EDIT: Apparently most scholars recognising that the other Josephus citation is authentic makes it "more speculation of Christian interpolation" in your book.
You're in the same league as the "Moon Landing Hoax" and "Bush blew up the WTC" guys. Live with it.
So I would posit that we tend to agree that there probably was a preacher living in or around the 1st century who's followers believed him to be the son of God and continued preaching his message after his death, thereby building up the religion of Christianity.
Does this provide any justification for saying that Christianity is more valid than any other religion?
Personally, I think not.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinThe histrocity is simply a required basis for further invesitgation. Were Jesus shown to be myth, no further investigation would be necessary. As He is known to have been an actual person from actual history, verifiable from differing (and sometimes opposing) viewpoints renders consideration of Him at least reasonable.
So I would posit that we tend to agree that there probably was a preacher living in or around the 1st century who's followers believed him to be the son of God and continued preaching his message after his death, thereby building up the religion of Christianity.
Does this provide any justification for saying that Christianity is more valid than any other religion?
Personally, I think not.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinIs there a best????!!!!!
This topic came up on the Evolution thread but has nothing to do with Evolution so I've started a new one.
A bit of the original discussion follows the end of this for context.
Basically, DJ pointed me at Ravi Zacharias for an objective explanation of why Christianity holds more value than any other religions and why it should be believed more than the ...[text shortened]... spelcom.net/epages/rzim.storefront/4522082d00c13a34271d45579e7c0602/Product/View/SBK9
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe only part of this that I would disagree with would be the first sentence—I think that the collection of teachings and stories about the teacher are sufficient to render further consideration reasonable. There is undoubtedly far less adequate historical evidence for Siddhartha Gautama—but the Buddhist doesn’t care: it’s the teachings and the “buddha-nature” that count, not the historicity of the personage.
The histrocity is simply a required basis for further invesitgation. Were Jesus shown to be myth, no further investigation would be necessary. As He is known to have been an actual person from actual history, verifiable from differing (and sometimes opposing) viewpoints renders consideration of Him at least reasonable.
EDIT: The extent to which the historicity of a person named Yeshua is important to the Christian probably depends on one's Christology, and how one interprets soteriology. But that's a whole other extended discussion.
Originally posted by vistesdThe main reason for that assertion is the fact that (unlike other belief systems) Christianity demands the reality of the Christ. Axioms and general proverbs aside, Christianity insists that the gap between God and man can only be bridged by one Person, not by virtue of human effort. That being said, the sayings/teachings of Jesus are rendered impotent without the facts of His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.
The only part of this that I would disagree with would be the first sentence—I think that the collection of teachings and stories about the teacher are sufficient to render further consideration reasonable. There is undoubtedly far less adequate historical evidence for Siddhartha Gautama—but the Buddhist doesn’t care: it’s the teachings and the “buddha-nat ...[text shortened]... hristology, and how one interprets soteriology. But that's a whole other extended discussion.
Just the ideal of such an existence would likely be attractive to some, yet so far removed from the human experience as to render it utopian in nature... were it not for the actuality, no one would believe such a person could exist--- let alone behave in the manner that He did.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerApparently most scholars recognising that the other Josephus citation is authentic makes it "more speculation of Christian "interpolation" in your book.
I said that's a more reasonable position for an atheist (especially one who is virulently anti-Christian) to take than the whole "bunch of Jews sat around a campfire and made Jesus of Nazareth up" conspiracy theory.
EDIT: Apparently most scholars recognising that the other Josephus citation is authentic makes it "more speculation of Christian inter same league as the "Moon Landing Hoax" and "Bush blew up the WTC" guys. Live with it.
Hard at work, I see, denying the obvious. The scholars are stating that the "James, brother of Jesus" may be authentic, but the "him called Christ" is not. The fact that ANY mention of "Jesus as Christ" by Josephus is called in to question should be a red flag for an historian attempting to reconcile the gospels with actual history. Live with it.
You're in the same league as the "Moon Landing Hoax" and "Bush blew up the WTC" guys. Live with it.
To borrow your reply...not quite. Modern conspiracy theories such as those you mention face the additional, essentially insurmountable challenge of instantaneous communication via various mediums. The era that you are attempting to defend is replete with all sorts of "myth as fact" episodes. Unless, as you alluded in a different thread, you feel Krishna is also an historical figure?
I said that's a more reasonable position for an atheist (especially one who is virulently anti-Christian) to take than the whole "bunch of Jews sat around a campfire and made Jesus of Nazareth up" conspiracy theory.
That's not my recollection, but if this is what you're willing to state now, then fine. Unfortunately, the various theories regarding a mythical Jesus are not quite this simple. I understand you feel it isn't worthwhile to pursue the concept, as Freaky has noted...you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Burton L. Mack, in his book The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q, argues that if you look at the earliest layer of the Q document (Q1), you can see that Jesus functioned much in the tradition of a Cynic philosopher, or a wisdom teacher. The counter-cultural and aphoristic sayings of Q1 are much in line with the approach used by the Cynics of that time. It was only later that Jesus was mythologized into Christ and the apocolyptic dimension of christianity was added.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe main reason for that assertion is the fact that (unlike other belief systems) Christianity demands the reality of the Christ.
The main reason for that assertion is the fact that (unlike other belief systems) Christianity demands the reality of the Christ. Axioms and general proverbs aside, Christianity insists that the gap between God and man can only be bridged by one Person, not by virtue of human effort. That being said, the sayings/teachings of Jesus are rendered impotent w ...[text shortened]... ne would believe such a person could exist--- let alone behave in the manner that He did.
All this really says is that for (conventional) Christianity, the historicity of Jesus is important because the Christian demands it... Actually, I think you mean to argue it the other way ‘round: that Jesus historicity and divinity lend greater potency to his teachings. Otherwise, you are arguing from a decided theological/soteriological requirement back into the gospels, etc. This seems to be a common error, forgetting two millennia of theological development. Again, I don’t think this is commonly your error, which is why I suggest that you really mean to argue from evidence for Jesus’ historicity/divinity to the stated differentiation of Christianity from other religions...
Does such a stance, to be intellectually honest, not also demand an affirmation of any and all serious continuing historical investigations, rather than any kind of “holding action” against the same?
EDIT: Basically, for example, one can not simply respond to someone like Burton Mack (as per rwingett's post) by simply saying, "But that would ruin Christianity's salvific message."
Originally posted by rwingettThis is getting to be a pattern with us: I have Mack's book upstairs, but haven't read it yet.
Burton L. Mack, in his book [b]The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q, argues that if you look at the earliest layer of the Q document (Q1), you can see that Jesus functioned much in the tradition of a Cynic philosopher, or a wisdom teacher. The counter-cultural and aphoristic sayings of Q1 are much in line with the approach used by the Cynics of that ti ...[text shortened]... that Jesus was mythologized into Christ and the apocolyptic dimension of christianity was added.[/b]
Well its a "grismal" (gray and dismal) fall day today, good reading weather, so...
Originally posted by David CThe era that you are attempting to defend is replete with all sorts of "myth as fact" episodes.
[b]Apparently most scholars recognising that the other Josephus citation is authentic makes it "more speculation of Christian "interpolation" in your book.
Hard at work, I see, denying the obvious. The scholars are stating that the "James, brother of Jesus" may be authentic, but the "him called Christ" is not. The fact that ANY mention of "Jesus as Ch ...[text shortened]... pt, as Freaky has noted...you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.[/b]
I think the real difficulty lies in a literary tradition that mixes myth and fact—what I call “histo-myth” (or “mythtery,” if you prefer 😉 ). Some people see Pontius Pilate, and say, “See it’s all historical fact.” Others see “virgin birth” and say, “See, it’s all myth.” (Okay, those are probably bad examples—but you get the idea.) It would be like reading a Robert B. Parker mystery novel, and saying that either Spenser is real or Boston does not exist.
With that said, I accept that most historians seem to conclude that Jesus was a real personage (including non-Christians, such as Geza Vermes, an Oxford scholar, dead sea scrolls expert, and a Jew; I think his Jesus the Jew is one of the best of the “historical Jesus” works, partly because he takes a kind of minimalist approach).
Originally posted by vistesdAnother one by Mack that I might also recommend is Who Wrote the New Testament? - The Making of the Christian Myth.
This is getting to be a pattern with us: I have Mack's book upstairs, but haven't read it yet.
Well its a "grismal" (gray and dismal) fall day today, good reading weather, so...
Originally posted by vistesdPer my ususal tack, I am doing a fine job of fouling up a good point. I'll attempt greater clarity speaking this time around.
The main reason for that assertion is the fact that (unlike other belief systems) Christianity demands the reality of the Christ.
All this really says is that for (conventional) Christianity, the historicity of Jesus is important because the Christian demands it... Actually, I think you mean to argue it the other way ‘round: that Jesus historicity a ...[text shortened]... er rwingett's post) by simply saying, "But that would ruin Christianity's salvific message."[/b]
From my perspective, it appears that all religions have at least two key ingredients in common. All of them carry with them proverbs and axioms by which to live, as well as some type of work (demand) upon the adherents in order to gain the stated goal.
Christianity is the only faith system which shares the first while remaining blatantly free of the second. Man is not capable of performing the type of work necessary to gain the approbation of the living God.
That being said, most of the proverbs and axioms attached to any of the faith systems still retain value, even if their system of works is void of validity. The same is not true within Christianity; in fact, the sayings of Jesus become non-sensical as 'words to live by' if He is not a reality.
Please keep in mind that I am operating on an amount sleep normally reserved for college students during final exams and/or victims of torture, so this whole 'clarity speaking' thing may have just blown up in my face. It is in quiet desperation that I hit the "Post" button.