For the No-Jesus Camp

stamenflicker said:
... I'm trying to make the case that the bulk of Christian theology, true or not, was established by the turn of the century, countering the notion that the Bible was written over the course of 1,000 years as purported here.
Click to expand...
Attempt to make whatever case you wish, but do not pretend to make it based on textual criticism when, with the exception of scraps such as P46 and P52, there is no Antre-Nicene text to analyze.

As for your suggestion that Christology was essentially established by 100 CE, might I suggest that you first study up on
  • Gnosticism
  • Marcionism
  • Arianism
  • Origenism
  • Manichaeism
  • Docetism
  • Donatism
  • Eunomianism
  • Nestorianism
  • Pelagianism
for a start. What you call Christianity is precisely the interpolated and harmonized outcome of vicious doctrinal struggles as preserved by the victors.
 
The Psalm is Messianic?? What craziness is that - you're 750 years too early for messiahship. I've already explained how Mark is entirely consistent with a fabrication - if the goal was to make the conquered Jews see the "truth" of Jesus.

Gregor,

I continually ignore you because I don't care for your tone. But the above statement is difficult to ignore. Messianic passages have a rich history in the Jewish tradition, and yes this passage was considered prophetic, even Messianic, in some Jewish circles as early as the pre-exilic period. Arguments arose even during the Masoretic period of 1000-500 BC about the text. Some felt like it referred to Esther, others a Messianic figure yet to come. Granted, Messianic history in Judaism is complex, often conflicting, but to place your claim in context, I'd say maybe 300 years too early. Either way, the fact that it was interpreted as Messianic at any point is reason enough for me to have included it in what I typed.

Bodily resurrection is the bedrock of the Christian faith. You have the gall to come here and argue historicity (and inerrancy, to a degree), and call bodily resurrection meaningless?

Bodily resurrection is not the bedrock of the Christian faith. I'm not a literalist. Nor am I a inerrancy nut. I believe both testaments are fallible. This post is about fabrication claims, and things embedded in the text that should be considered before jumping that gun.

Flick
 
As for your suggestion that Christology was essentially established by 100 CE, might I suggest that you first study up on

RD,

What you neglect to consider is that all of these interpretations of the event, theological formations, or what have you are based on the same story. If you want to argue that Christian theology is in constant flux, have at it. God knows Jerry Falwell and I are at opposite extremes. But to argue that the story was re-written, re-fabricated, and adjusted to fit theology is just not the case. There are minor exceptions I'll admit. But the bulk of the story, the event, or the fabrication was set prior to 100AD. I'd bet it was even set by the end of Paul's ministry. That's been my only point from the start.

Flick
 
stamenflicker said:
What you neglect to consider is that all of these interpretations of the event, theological formations, or what have you are based on the same story.
Click to expand...
You don't say! What story and what does this have to do with textual criticism? Please let me know if and when you intend to answer the 7 questions raised above. I'm beginning to believe that you are simply incapable of either focus or intellectual honesty.
 
stamenflicker said:
Bodily resurrection is not the bedrock of the Christian faith. I'm not a literalist. Nor am I a inerrancy nut. I believe both testaments are fallible.

Flick [/B]
Click to expand...

What would you consider to be the bedrock of Chrisitian faith?
 
stamenflicker said:

Bodily resurrection is not the bedrock of the Christian faith. I'm not a literalist. Nor am I a inerrancy nut. I believe both testaments are fallible. This post is about fabrication claims, and things embedded in the text that should be considered before jumping that gun.

Flick
Click to expand...

It is a good thing not to believe in literalism or inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible is the word of man.

You may believe in God - or not; or believe in Jesus - or not; or believe that the Bible was inspired by God - or not. But do not doubt that the Bible was created by the actions of hundreds, if not thousands, of men.

For what it's worth: I personally believe that the Bible, as a historical document, establishes the case for the existence of a man named Jesus.
 
What you call Christianity is precisely the interpolated and harmonized outcome of vicious doctrinal struggles as preserved by the victors.

Nope. What I call Christianity is deeply embedded in the writings of the apostle Paul which history has demonstrated to have been written BEFORE any of these theological debates. The outcome did not go the victors. The outcome returned to the core fundamentals preached by the first generation of Christians...

How did I miss that one? I don't think RD is around anymore.

Flick
 
stamenflicker said:
What I call Christianity is deeply embedded in the writings of the apostle Paul which history has demonstrated to have been written BEFORE any of these theological debates. The outcome did not go the victors. The outcome returned to the core fundamentals preached by the first generation of Christians...

Flick
Click to expand...

Your implication is that the Pauline letters are more fundamental to your beliefs than the Gospels. Or did I misread this?

Certainly, the ultimately selected Gospels (being Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) represented the results of debates within the early church - a church which you - as a non-Catholic (my assumption, correct me if it is wrong) - do not subscribe to.

In other words, the final New Testament was a synthesis of many works written over three or four generations beginning with Paul. And the selection process was substantially controlled by the early Roman Catholic Church.

So I can agree that the Pauline letters were relatively untouched by the heavy editorial hand of the early church, but that sorta leaves you out in left field (theologically speaking).
 
stamenflicker said:
Loki,

Thanks for actually reading what I posted instead and responding instead of jumping off track.

The martyrs you refer to are not the 'fabricators'. Assuming it's all a big lie, there would have been only a very small number (less than 10?) who knew the truth.

Perhaps... say Jesus and his merry men. Even if only a handful of the disciples new the truth of fabrication. Here are the counter points:

First, we have the problem of Paul. Paul never saw Jesus, never met him in person. Paul wrote about 1/2 of the NT a few years after the crucifixion and is responsible for a large portion of Christain theological construction. Paul was beaten and jailed, and eventually according to tradition, beheaded. Beheading aside, we know he spent a lot of time in jail. Paul is not only believing the previous fabrications, he is extending the fabrications with a new theology he says he has received divinely from the orignial fabricator. What's the odds of two fabricators within 50 years of each other willing to die for the same fabricated theme? Also Paul admits that his own hands are bloody in that he participated in the killing of Christians before conversion-- evidence that indeed there was killing taking place soon after the crucifixion.

Second regarding Paul, we see him fighting with one of the first fabricators in Antioch (Peter) about whether or not the orgininal fabricator (Jesus) meant for his fabrications to extend to non-Jews. So if all this has been fabrication, we have several players extending approximately 25-50 years after Jesus' death.

Third, we have to assume the fabricator (Jesus) never wrote anything down, or that the true fabricators lived in 100AD and thought to themselves they needed to create a religion. That's very problematic in two ways. If if the former is true, then he had a lot of trust in word of mouth. If you are going to create a religion, you'd think you'd need to write something down. Unless of course the Jesus himself had no idea what was to later be fabricated. If the latter statement is true, why create a religion about a guy that lived several years ago and was crucified? The fabricators could go to any point in history and write about any figure, or not create a human figure at all.
Click to expand...


What you are saying is music to my ears!!!:D :D
 
In other words, the final New Testament was a synthesis of many works written over three or four generations beginning with Paul. And the selection process was substantially controlled by the early Roman Catholic Church.

Sure thing about the NT, though the core tenants of it (the story, likely oral tradition) seem to have affected Paul in a profound manner and were likely in place before he began writing, perhaps even in rough draft forms, though that is speculation. After all, Paul was converted to "something."

What matters to me is that this guy decided to put his ladder on the Jesus wall based solely on the narrative of what he had heard (and experienced en route to Damacus), historical figure or not. He was clearly intelligent, so we can hardly consider him a fool. Obviously he wasn't hurting too bad for cash because he held such a high status in religious/educated circles, so the idea of Paul as charlatin seems far-fetched too. This "Christ" clearly meant something too him at an ideological level, and the details were mostly irrelevant. I mostly share his views.

Flick
 
Flick,

I know we've probably covered this ground in other threads, but don't even non-literalists generally take the view that bodily resurrection is absolutely key to Christian soteriology? Wouldn't Paul have thought so?

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules reknit,
the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

(John Updike, "Seven Stanzas at Easter")
 
Flick,

Like ceo_esq, I'm curious to know what sense of the word "christian" is implied by someone who's prepared to pass on the resurrection. Doesn't that sort of leave :

1. There is a god. He's probably quite nice.
2. He doesn't interfere in earthly affairs (anymore).
3. When we die, he sorts us into "good" and "bad", ("so be good for goodness sake...")

What else is left if Jesus is an optional extra?
 
And if SFlick or Ruby base their entire reason for believing because Paul, who could have chosen not to follow Jesus, decided to follow him because: (i) Paul heard a few interesting stories, (ii) Paul claimed to hear a voice, and (iii) Paul was willing to die for his belief - you've got a BIG problem.

May I offer exhibit A: Heaven's Gate

I doubt you guys are going to buy black nikes now.
 
Gregor said:
May I offer exhibit A: Heaven's Gate

I doubt you guys are going to buy black nikes now.
Click to expand...
I might buy the shoes, but I'd stop short of cutting off my nads.
 
Loki said:
Flick,

Like ceo_esq, I'm curious to know what sense of the word "christian" is implied by someone who's prepared to pass on the resurrection. Doesn't that sort of leave :

1. There is a god. He's probably quite nice.
2. He doesn't interfere in earthly affairs (anymore).
3. When we die, he sorts us into "good" and "bad", ("so be good for goodness sake...")

What else is left if Jesus is an optional extra?
Click to expand...

Back before I found other paths I was a Jesus freak, raised in the cult of Christ Science and gentled by the Jesus people.
I felt at the time that the resurection of the body of Christ was the church and that the kingdom of heaven was meant as a metaphor for bringing the beauty of an open heart into the world. Jesus never meant that people would live after death, he used the garden analogy instead.
I thought at the time that resurection meant that a follower of Jesus would be so instructed by the teachings that they would live life as Jesus taught. I also faulted the disciples for not being able to preform miracles.
Needless to say I had many entertaining arguements with people.

My two cents: fortunatley I found a way to walk in beauty that does not involve the Xian church, my path is even crazier now!

Peace
dancing david
 
Like ceo_esq, I'm curious to know what sense of the word "christian" is implied by someone who's prepared to pass on the resurrection.

I believe the resurrection. I just don't see it as a necessary belief. the apostle Paul would for sure disagree with me on that one:

"If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and we are to pitied above all men."

I suppose I just disagree with him.

Flick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom