The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith

by Narkissos 75 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  Re: jaguarbass' comment, actually Jesus' divinity is fully preserved in # 1, which perfectly suits the pedagogical and eclectic use of Redeemer myths in early Christian gnosticism; and one reason for the penultimate remark in my last post was precisely that, in depth (notwithstanding its "orthodox" label),Eastern Christianity (where the pre-Gnostic Johannine writings occupy a central place) has kept much more of a "Gnostic" wayof believing than its Western Latin counterpart, which was more subject to equate historicity and truth. Option # 2 doesn't make this kind of "faith" impossible but complicates it considerably imo.

  DD: I do believe that this passage of 1 Corinthians (which XJW4EVR already referred to) is an early (and fairly exceptional, as far as Pauline literature is concerned) example of the shortsighted, suicidal, ab absurdo rhetorics which (unfortunately imo) became the dominant form in Western < Protestant < Evangelical apologetics: if it is not true as I understand it to be it is worthless. I would personally think that this either/or attitude is an important reason for the rise of anti-religious atheism in the West.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  I would personally think that this either/or attitude is an important reason for the rise of anti-religious atheism in the West.

  It surely doesn't hurt.
• 

  Sad emo

  Well I'm going to buck the trend and go for option #1!!

  I don't know whether I choose this because of my theology education. I'll try to explain - I'm quite comfortable with the idea that the contents of the OT historical books contain similarities and relation to older myths and rituals (eg the origins of the passover meal, and marching round Jericho).

  Now the important bit - myths are not always 'just' stories, they can also have the same essential truths attached to and running through them, to me that's what matters, not HOW it is revealed but WHAT is revealed as the ESSENTIAL truth. To me this would not discount my belief in a divine creator whose presence I have also 'experienced' in my own life - and has spoken consistently throughout history (via mythology, if you like)

  I suppose option 2 could be a possibility under this premise too, but I'm more comfortable with #1 because it has parallels with other mythologies whereas a real Jesus without parallels would strangely seem less believable! Oh what a contradiction lol!
• 

  quietlyleaving

  If I were a christian I'd go for option 1 too.

  A slightly unrelated question occurred to me regarding the idea of resurrection. I was fascinated to discover that the Romans enacted resurrection myths in the arena during their gladitorial games - Caesar was represented as granting life to victors. As prisoners they were seen as dead in their underground chambers beneath the arena but when they were brought up into the arena and fought valiantly they were granted life by Caesar. I wonder how much such ideas impacted on Paul's ideas regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
• 

  Deputy Dog

  I would personally think that this either/or attitude is an important reason for the rise of anti-religious atheism in the West.

  I'm sure it's a factor. Don't you love it when doctrine does its job? It tends to get rid of pretenders.
• 

  Narkissos

  nvr,

  No it doesn't hurt, in fact (to state the obvious) Western atheism was certainly a logical and necessary response to Western religion... but, stepping back, I feel this particular "economy" (or physics?) of ideas (a rather "shallow" religion making the actual happening of certain objective events in a definite, and ever-increasingly remote, part of history the permanent key to people's self-understanding, calling for an antagonistic but equally "shallow" combination of rationalism, materialism and statistics) is not necessarily the only possible nor the best one. It obviously has its technical and economical strengths, but it leaves the individual subject a psychologically groundless "orphan," bound to "function" as a good cog in the machinery or get out of its way. Another debate, but not unrelated imo.

  sad emo, thanks.

  ql, interesting idea. Although crucifixion per se points to another aspect of violence in the Roman world than the games, the latter may have played a part in the wider picture (as the emperor's "triumph" does explicitly in Colossians for instance).
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Why waste time pointing out erroneous beliefs that end lives prematurely?

  Well we should. However, the belief in an afterlife, in itself, is not erroneous.

  How many have justified killing their fellowman because they were convinced that God was on their side and that any life sacrificed in the cause would be rewarded in an afterlife?

  A man convinces himself to kill his fellow, he then concsripts an idea to justify his cause. I think someone upthread has already listed some nontheistic examples.

  Why try to convince people that this life is for living, that it's not just a test or a rehearsal?

  It IS for living, and living it well-as it should be lived. And those most firmly convinced that there is another life and that our actions echo in eternity are the ones that have done the most for others sharing this life with them.

  It's precisely the fact that there is no logical reason to believe in an afterlife that makes it so important to free ourselves from our delusions.

  "Creatures are not born with
  desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage.
   

  You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.

  The need itself is evidence.

  Burn
• 

  Narkissos

  I would personally think that this either/or attitude is an important reason for the rise of anti-religious atheism in the West.

  I'm sure it's a factor. Don't you love it when doctrine does its job? It tends to get rid of pretenders.

  Of pretenders who get conscious and weary of pretending, certainly. Not of those who have made pretending a way of life.
• 

  jwfacts

  I still think that if the average person finds out either that Jesus did not exist, or did but was simply a normal human, the response is the same, seeing a complete lack of relevance of adhering to the Bible as an inspired guide.

  Western atheism was certainly a logical and necessary response to Western religion

  1 or 2 do not necessarily lead to Athiesm. Many people I know start to become spiritually aware within themselves, separating religion from spirituality.
• 

  Undecided

  It would seem to me that if God had anything to do with religion he would make it clear to anyone interested what the real truth was, with some evidence above a book written by men that is contridictory in many ways, that no two religions can agree on completely. I forgot what #1 and #2 was about.

  Ken P.