The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith

by Narkissos 75 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  XJW4EVR

  I didn't want to let this comment pass by. I'll ask you the actual question, can you show how many followers of Khmer Rouge, Stalinists, Maoists actually have put in writing that they were committing atrocities because they didn't believe in God? Did Stalin even commit his atrocities BECAUSE he was an atheist or because it suited what he wanted to do? So I guess that's a challenge; prove that atrocities have been committed in the name of Atheism, for the sole reason that the person didn't believe in God. I'm sure people have committed atrocities that were atheists, there's a difference between people doing bad things and happen to be something as opposed to doing bad things BECAUSE of something. I'll await your examples.

  You miss my point. I never said that the atrocities committed by atheists were committed because they were atheists, but rather that the atrocities committed by these atheists were the logical extension of their beliefs, or lack thereof. Therefore no examples are neccessary.

  Oh and one other thing, there is no need to bully me into a response by posting multiple responses. I check threads and respond as I have time. If you wish further dialoge please keep that in mind, or I will not respond to your replies.
• 

  Tuesday

  Oh and one other thing, there is no need to bully me into a response by posting multiple responses. I check threads and respond as I have time. If you wish further dialoge please keep that in mind, or I will not respond to your replies.

  No bullying meant. I'll bear it in mind for future.

  As for my misunderstanding your reply, I still don't see how this is the case, If I'm quoting properly:

  How many followers of the Khmer Rouge, Stalinists, Maoists, and others that followed atheism justified their actions with the idea that there is no God, and because of their atheism?

  You're saying here that:

  the atrocities committed by these atheists were the logical extension of their beliefs, or lack thereof. Therefore no examples are neccessary.

  That seems logically dishonest. I don't see the difference in these two statements and why it doesn't bear proof. If a Christian kills another person because of a "logical extension"of their beliefs or even one step further because of their beliefs more than likely they say it. In fact there are numerous examples of this, people killing for their beliefs in Christianity, Islam and many other beliefs. However if an atheist commits an atrocity I'm supposed to believe that it's the logical extension of their beliefs or lack there of without any examples. I'd say would you grant me the same courtesy of saying Christians kill on the basis of their faith without giving examples but you wouldn't have to there are many examples of this. There's no example of people outwardly saying they're killing people because they believe there's no God or because they believe there's no consequences for their actions. That's why you're saying no examples are neccessary. Stalin killed for political power, Mao killed for...it also looks like political power... and Khmer Rouge killed for...I can't believe it....it looks like political power. Not one of them says that they killed because there's no God, or because they don't value human life because there's no God. The facts are they killed to get in power and killed to remain in power. They kill but keep their atheist motives secret, but Christians kill and let their beliefs known to the world. For some reason that doesn't make sense to me. Please enlighten me as to why Christians who are taught "thou shalt not kill" are so open to speaking their beliefs after breaking one of their own commandments while Atheists who are taught no such thing are strangely mute on the subject. I'd say it's because their lack of faith in God has nothing to do with their motive for murder, but if you have some proof otherwise please do provide it.
• 

  hillary_step

  XJW,

  You miss my point. I never said that the atrocities committed by atheists were committed because they were atheists, but rather that the atrocities committed by these atheists were the logical extension of their beliefs, or lack thereof. Therefore no examples are neccessary.

  On the contrary. How so?

  HS
• 

  hmike

  Narkissos,

  This is very interesting—really—but without anything more convincing, I'm going to stick with treating the Gospels as history, which means regarding Jesus as an actual person who performed great works, who died from crucifixion, who experienced a literal, corporeal resurrection, and passed into that parallel dimension called heaven to his place of honor. I think the texts were written to be historical accounts, and were largely understood that way. The resurrection as a literal event in history served not only as evidence that Jesus was sent by God, but it is the basis for a future hope for Christians, as it gave credence to his claim to be able to restore life to others.

  Considering the Gospels were written so close to the time of the events, considering they were placed in known geographical locations, considering they were heard or read by children and grandchildren of those whose names were mentioned in the accounts, considering that these accounts were written for all kinds of people, including fishermen, farmers, merchants, and others who lived down-to-earth lives, then yes, I would have to regard these as accounts of events that actually occurred. I would rather deal with the problems and inconsistencies as textual than regard them to be the result of literary license.

  Without a historical basis, Christianity becomes purely subjective. If myths and altered accounts promote faith, I have to ask: faith in whom—someone who doesn't exist? Then you have nothing more than a nice philosophy, which can be of value here alright, but says nothing about a future hope, which is clearly part of the NT message.
• 

  Narkissos

  without anything more convincing

  Please keep in mind that the explicit purpose of this thread was not to argue for either option. There are a lot of arguments available for both, as you know.

  , I'm going to stick with treating the Gospels as history, which means regarding Jesus as an actual person who performed great works, who died from crucifixion, who experienced a literal, corporeal resurrection, and passed into that parallel dimension called heaven to his place of honor. I think the texts were written to be historical accounts, and were largely understood that way. The resurrection as a literal event in history served not only as evidence that Jesus was sent by God, but it is the basis for a future hope for Christians, as it gave credence to his claim to be able to restore life to others.

  Considering the Gospels were written so close to the time of the events, considering they were placed in known geographical locations, considering they were heard or read by children and grandchildren of those whose names were mentioned in the accounts, considering that these accounts were written for all kinds of people, including fishermen, farmers, merchants, and others who lived down-to-earth lives, then yes, I would have to regard these as accounts of events that actually occurred. I would rather deal with the problems and inconsistencies as textual than regard them to be the result of literary license.

  Sweet lullaby. Every believer needlessly disturbed should be fast asleep by now.

  Without a historical basis, Christianity becomes purely subjective.

  And inter-subjective, yes. Although its effects would be just as objective.

  If myths and altered accounts promote faith, I have to ask: faith in whom—someone who doesn't exist?

  Maybe. Or perhaps some source of inspiration of myths or historical rewriting, who knows?

  Then you have nothing more than a nice philosophy, which can be of value here alright, but says nothing about a future hope, which is clearly part of the NT message.

  Outgrowing the need (or desire) for future hope is also, I believe, very much a part of the diverse NT "message" (I'm thinking of Johannism in particular).
• 

  slimboyfat

  Do the options exclude each other? Were there not many Jesus-type people of various shades? Whether the gospels writers had their minds fixed on one of them or not in constructing the story they did exist.
• 

  hmike

  Sweet lullaby. Every believer needlessly disturbed should be fast asleep by now.

  I think they've dropped out of this thread. I'm still here though.
• 

  Narkissos

  Do the options exclude each other? Were there not many Jesus-type people of various shades? Whether the gospels writers had their minds fixed on one of them or not in constructing the story they did exist.

  Fully agreed. I deliberately used oversimplistic options in my opening post for the sake of this discussion, but it is clear that no myth or fiction is completely history- or reality-free. At the very least they refer to situations and character types which are grounded in the experience or culture of their authors and hearers/readers.

  Just reading Josephus you meet many 1st-century Palestinian prophets, political activists, miracle-workers, would-be temple cleansers, and crucified people echoing parts of the Gospel stories. It is certainly possible to posit one more between John the Baptist and James the Just, although it is also possible to imagine a fictional portrait made of such historical types, to flesh out the story of a mythical godman. But in both cases you'll have a combination of myth and history.

  The central apory, I feel, for the Christian believer approaching the issue of the "historical Jesus" in a non-dogmatical way lies in the problem of identity. It's looking for someone with the quasi certainty that the best you can find is another. What if that happens? Will that confirm or destroy the "Jesus" of faith? I think a sounder approach starts with realising that the object of Christian faith is not a historical character, before looking for the historical character(s) it might be partly based on. This considerably limits the religious consequences (and interest!) of the historical debate and allows for a more serene assessment of facts (or the lack thereof).
• 

  hmike

  Narkissos,

  Can I go back to your original post?

  In Option #2, would you say that the writers of the Gospels

  (1) mistakenly believed the oral traditions about Jesus to be true when they wrote them down,

  (2) admired Jesus as a good teacher and one who attempted to bring about reform, and believed the resurrection based on a missing body and Paul's claim to have seen the risen Jesus (due to an hallucination during an epileptic seizure or whatever), so they embellished the accounts of the ministry of Jesus (based on myths about god-men) to promote him as Messiah, or

  (3) same as (2) above except that were fully aware that Jesus was dead, and did not intend for their writings to be taken literally, but wanted to inspire the church to follow him in doing good, even if it meant death?

  Or does it matter at all for what you propose?
• 

  Narkissos

  Hello hmike,

  Indeed I don't think it matters much to the hypothetical problem I initially raised, but those are interesting questions nonetheless and they may help clarifying the issue.

  First of all, I believe our four canonical Gospels result from a long and complex development, which must be taken into account.

  Along this development your point # 1 (which I will call hm1) logically gets increasing importance: it is quite likely indeed that "Matthew" and "Luke" trust the "Markan" material they use and modify as basically "historical" -- perhaps not entirely though, because that would raise the question, how did they dare modify it? So at least for them ("John" being still different, because he uses much less Markan material, and because he essentially builds his theological developments on "mythical" stuff -- and perhaps original traditions which we unfortunately cannot compare to any other witness) that would probably rule out hm3.

  This may also have been the case for the extra material they both include (traditionally traced back to the so-called "Q" source, but of course we lack a certain "accurate knowledge" of that source -- GThomas is probably an independent but also indirect witness -- to assess the changes they made into it). And this is true also of possible traditions behind the specific additions each of them made separately. But of course it is not necessary to posit an "oral tradition" behind every addition; literary creativity certainly plays a part at every stage of the process.

  Now for "Mark" and "John" (and "Matthew" from another perspective, because he emphasises the role of Jesus as teacher of the Law rather than as "godman" in the Hellenistic style) hm2 is a possibility. To "Mark" in particular, as he provides the basic narrative Gospel frame (from baptism to the empty tomb, with the possible "historical" grounding of the crucifixion under Pilate), does my initial "choice" (n1 vs. n2) apply.

  Whether "Mark" intended for his story to be "taken literally" or not is still another question. But in any case I am quite sure that neither to him nor to any of the NT writers "it meant death". To all their own faith meant "eternal life" or "resurrection" or "the kingdom of God," at least in a spiritual (but no less real) way, regardless of their views on the historicity of the story they chose to tell (or not, re: Paul) for backing it up.

  Does that help with the issue or confuse it even further?