How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity??

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity??

Post by DCHindley »

Well,

Now that I have made myself aware that R G Price is not the same as R M Price, and that his interest is in macroeconomics and tax policy, the article seems to be a modernized update to the proposals regarding development of early Christianity made by early Marxists (not Communists) like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and related theories by Albert Kalthoff and Bruno Bauer.

DCH
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity??

Post by outhouse »

Peter Kirby wrote: Anyone else read this?

.

He sure writes a lot of rhetoric trying to persuade the reader of his thinking and methodology.

He believes he has a point. I think a large amount of intellect Is missing here.
But the analysis of Mark merely proves that the Gospel of Mark is not historically true, it doesn't prove that Jesus never existed. What proves that Jesus never existed is the fact that every other account of a real life Jesus is shown to be dependent on the Markan story.


This statement in itself is just not a well thought sentence that is logical or one with any reason.

I also think it shows severe ignorance in how ancient authors wrote during this time period.

Really to many mistakes to even begin to address.


There is some good information and he makes some good points. But his hypothesis is just terrible.
A small messianic cult (one of many) arose in Jerusalem and the surrounding area that worshiped a heavenly messiah named Jesus some time in the early 1st century

Were Jewish Messiahs heavenly, or earthly?

Does Paul make references to an earthly jesus being crucified and being Killed?

Why kill someone in heaven, when to get to heaven one already has to have died?


The problem I have here is not the actual statement itself, its the details missing that explain it fully.

Most of this whole article remains the same way. It is all built on half truths.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity??

Post by outhouse »

Huon wrote:Marcionism
Nestorianism
Docetism
Apollinarism
Arianism
Catholicism of Nicaea

All these varieties of Christianity have different "définitions" of JC. What is the good one?
None are.

They were all mythological based, and rhetorically described using allegory and metaphor and mythology.


The problem arises when one forgets all people wrote like this when describing mythology and theology.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8023
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity??

Post by Peter Kirby »

DCHindley wrote:Well,

Now that I have made myself aware that R G Price is not the same as R M Price, and that his interest is in macroeconomics and tax policy, the article seems to be a modernized update to the proposals regarding development of early Christianity made by early Marxists (not Communists) like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and related theories by Albert Kalthoff and Bruno Bauer.

DCH
May be overthinking it. The clearest connection that I can draw is to Doherty, whose arguments are plagiarized regarding 1 Cor 11.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity??

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Also an earlier thread on this: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1152



LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity??

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Peter Kirby wrote:http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... _jesus.htm

Anyone else read this?

It kind of reminds me of Muller's website, but on opposite day... and actually quite bad (not just middling with some bright spots).

No I was not particularly impressed.
It is interesting to compare your article "The Best Case for Jesus" with the article by R.G. Price.

I'd say your article is methodologically clearly better, your conclusions more carefully, your thinking is more self-critical. If I had to write an article and to argue in favor of the historicity of Jesus I would do it like you (basically and without your qualities). In contrast to your judgement about Price ("high school") I would label your work as careful and sophisticated.

On the other hand: If I had to argue against the historicity of Jesus I would do it with arguments also used by R.G. Price. I think that he is often on the right tracks.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8023
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity??

Post by Peter Kirby »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I'd say your article is methodologically clearly better, your conclusions more carefully, your thinking is more self-critical. If I had to write an article and to argue in favor of the historicity of Jesus I would do it like you (basically and without your qualities).
Thanks!! :D
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:On the other hand: If I had to argue against the historicity of Jesus I would do it with arguments also used by R.G. Price. I think that he is often on the right tracks.
I do agree about that. Some of these virtues present arrive here in this essay at second hand, though, through the comments of others (not cited).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity??

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote:May be overthinking it. The clearest connection that I can draw is to Doherty, whose arguments are plagiarized regarding 1 Cor 11.
Out of curiosity, how do you know that the author has plagiarized arguments by Doherty in particular? Did Doherty add something to the discussion of 1 Corinthians 11 (and I presume you mean the passage with the eucharistic words from that chapter, since that seems to be the only discussion on that link that I can find from 1 Corinthians 11) that other mythicists before him, like Wells, lacked? Or is it simply that the author appears to know Doherty in other respects? (I admit I have not read the whole page.)

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8023
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity??

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:May be overthinking it. The clearest connection that I can draw is to Doherty, whose arguments are plagiarized regarding 1 Cor 11.
Out of curiosity, how do you know that the author has plagiarized arguments by Doherty in particular? Did Doherty add something to the discussion of 1 Corinthians 11 (and I presume you mean the passage with the eucharistic words from that chapter, since that seems to be the only discussion on that link that I can find from 1 Corinthians 11) that other mythicists before him, like Wells, lacked? Or is it simply that the author appears to know Doherty in other respects? (I admit I have not read the whole page.)

Ben.
The particular invocation of Romans 8:32 and the emphasis on receiving "from the Lord" as an indication of "revelation" were most striking. The two treatments in general run in parallel and treat a similar list of issues, although R. G. Price has his own spin on things and contradicts Doherty in places. There are only so many ways you can go with these questions within the bounds of credibility, but it is still very hard to imagine that R. G. Price came to enunciate exactly and only these considerations on his own.

It's been a while since I read Wells. I do remember that he took exception to the translation "betrayed," but I don't know whether he invoked Romans 8:32 as the chief example against that translation or spoke much on the idea of "revelation" in the phrase "from the Lord." In any case, Doherty is more accessible these days, even if there are multiple places from which these arguments could have been derived.

All Doherty quotes from http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm
R. G. Price wrote:A precise understanding of the wording here is critical. The first issue is the phrase "For I received from the Lord," which is an indicator of "revelation". That doesn't mean that Paul couldn't have received this information from some other oral tradition or from James or Peter, etc., and then here be passing it off as something that was known originally only to him, but the claim that he makes here is basically that this is information that is unique to him, which he received from "divine revelation", which would mean his imagination.
Earl Doherty wrote:When we balance 1 Corinthians 15:3 with Galatians 1:11-12, and take into account the picture Paul presents throughout his letters, we arrive at a compelling picture of an apostolic movement operating solely on divine inspiration. In such a context, Paul’s use of the verb paralambano can well mean “received through revelation.”
R. G. Price wrote:That this would in fact be the case is uncertain, because this type of ritual is exactly what one would expect to be the basis of an emerging cult, and thus it would not be unusual for a ritual such as this to be one of the first emerging parts of a tradition, around which other religious elements and imagery would coalesce, meaning that it would not be surprising, even if Jesus never really existed, if something like this ritual were not one of the first and oldest elements of the cult, existing even before Paul.
Earl Doherty wrote:Such a meal signified the union of the initiates with the god of the cult’s worship, and a sharing in his nature and saving act—usually an overcoming of death in some way. We know of myths that were attached to such cultic meals. The Sabazius cult observed a communal supper which symbolized the heavenly banquet of the blessed which the initiates could look forward to after death. The cult of Mithras had an origin myth which explained where its sacred meal had come from. After Mithras had slain the bull (the ‘salvific act’ in Mithraism), he and the sun god Helios sealed a covenant by dining together on loaves of bread—some say on the meat of the bull himself—and drinking from cups which contained water and wine mixed. The goddess Isis was looked upon as having personally established the mystery rites associated with her, and this included a sacred meal. None of these gods and their activities were regarded as based in identifiable history.
R.G. Price wrote:The second issue here is the word "betrayed". The word "betrayed" ties in to the narrative that we find in the Gospels, but more importantly it would seem to indicate some type of interaction that makes little sense outside of the Gospel narrative. However, "betrayed" is not actually an accurate translation here. Most English translations use the word "betrayed" in line 23 because of the fact that this word ties the passage back to the Gospel narrative, but a more accurate translation would be "delivered up", and this point is important, because Paul used the phrase "delivered up" in another instance to describe the act of God sacrificing his own son in Romans 8. [immediately quotes and bolds Romans 8:32]
Earl Doherty wrote:Translators have a tendency to use the terms “arrested” or “betrayed” (the latter alluding to Judas) in rendering “paradidomi” in this part of the verse. This, I would suggest, is governed by Gospel preconceptions. The verb means, in its basic sense, to “hand over” or “deliver up” and is a technical term in the context of justice or martyrdom. In the Gospel story it can take on the meaning of arrest or betrayal (as in Mark 14:21), but in Paul there is no need to see it this way. He uses the same verb in Romans 8:32: “He (God) did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.”
R. G. Price wrote:Also, if Paul were discussing a real event that took place during Passover it seems that he would have mentioned Passover here instead of simply saying "on the night".
Earl Doherty wrote:As for the ‘narrative’ elements in verse 23 (“on the night of his arrest/betrayal”), there is nothing to prevent mythical stories from being set “at night,” especially ones involving death and sacrifice. And if the Corinthian Supper is observed after sundown (Paul does not specify), the origin myth would likely be placed at a corresponding time. But since so much of early Christian belief comes from scripture, it would not be surprising if this feature were dependent on Paul’s study of the writings. Unfortunately, he does not enlighten us, though 1 Corinthians 5:7 does link Christ’s sacrifice with Passover, whose meal is celebrated after dark.
In his other articles, Doherty is mentioned positively more frequently than anyone else:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... llowup.htm
Doherty - 6 times
Drews - 3 times
Remsberg - 2 times
Price - 2 times
Freke and Gandy - 1 time
Wells - 1 time
POCM.info - 1 time

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm
Doherty - 4 times
Wells - 1 time

The Wells reference is to an online article, not a book. All the references to Wells are in a list with others.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_ ... liest.html

Doherty is sometimes cited explicitly, e.g.: "Earl Doherty states that many New Testament scholars, including S. G. F. Brandon, C. K. Barrett, Jean Hering, Paula Fredriksen, S. D. F. Salmond, all interpret Paul's passage in 1 Corinthians 2 as referring to spiritual archons, not earthly ones."

Here is how Wells treats the 1 Cor 11 passage in his online article:
1. Translations represent Paul as speaking of the night when Jesus 'was betrayed' (1 Cor. 11:23), as if he were alluding to Judas, when the Greek has, not 'was betrayed' but 'was delivered'. Schmithals comments (in chapter 16 of his The Theology of the First Christians, a 1997 English translation, published in America, from the German of 1994) that 'Paul did not have in mind the betrayal by Judas at all, but rather was reaching back to the early Christian confessional tradition according to which God himself' -- the passive voice of 'was delivered' implies, as so often in the Old Testament and in early Christian literature, that God was the agent, while obviating any need to mention him directly -- "delivered" Jesus into the darkness of human guilt and of death (cf. Isa.53:6; Rom.4:25: 8:32; Gal.2:20)'
This features only one of the aspects of the passage that Doherty discusses, and that in a different way, with a different translation, and without the same emphasis laid particularly on Rom 8:32.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity??

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote:It's been a while since I read Wells. I do remember that he took exception to the translation "betrayed," but I don't know whether he invoked Romans 8:32 as the chief example against that translation....
Romans 8.32 was one of several that Wells liked to refer to. The Jesus Legend, pages 35-36:

To render it as 'betrayed' or even as 'arrested' (NEB) is to interpret him from the gospels. Mack, with many other commentators, observes that Paul is referring not to a betrayal, but to the martyr's fate, and that he nowhere mentions a third party involved in the 'handing over', the subjects of the verb being either Jesus himself (Galatians 1:4 and 2:20, Jesus "gave himself for our sins", "gave himself up for me"), or God (explicitly in Romans 8:32, "He spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all"; and understood as the subject of the passive in Romans 4:25, "He was delivered up for our trespasses").

...or spoke much on the idea of "revelation" in the phrase "from the Lord."
Wells not infrequently went on at some length about words of the Lord in early Christian worship, unsurprisingly mining 1 Corinthians in particular; as for relating that to the eucharistic passage, here is The Jesus Legend, page 33:

The most striking instance of words of the Lord recorded by Paul is provided by Jesus's eucharistic words ("this is my body", and so forth). Paul expressly says that they came to him through a personal revelation from the (risen) Christ: he "received" them "of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:23).

In any case, Doherty is more accessible these days, even if there are multiple places from which these arguments could have been derived.
That seems to be very true. A shame, really. Not that Doherty is accessible, mind you, but that Wells seems to be so much less so.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply