Why the Certainty on the Part of Mythicists?

[Robert Tulip]

Eco is a relativist. Perhaps Eco is wrong. Plato refuted relativism. Aristotle defined as insane the belief that contradictory propositions can both be true.

If you believe that passion for truth is insane then you have no basis to participate in scholarly conversation and learning.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

This seems almost as though mythicists are not totally wrong and delueded when they explain that early Christianity was fuelled by visions of Jesus in Heaven, creative interpretation of scripture and prophetic oracles.

The thing that seems most odd to me about their resistance to this idea is that a great deal of Christian canon and theology is derived from the putative visionary experiences of Paul. If Paul can know only a mystical Jesus, then why can't Cephas and James? After all, Paul himself draws no distinction between the nature of Jesus' appearances to himself and to the others before him, nor does he ever mention a secondary ascension after the resurrection.

A secondary ascension? Could you elaborate?

I just mean that Paul does not have an ascension after the resurrection. He just has a resurrection followed by "appearances." This probably means that for Paul, the resurrection and ascension were the same thing. Paul was describing an apotheosis. Jesus was raised to Heaven after the crucifixion, then started making appearances. The interlude of a physical resurrection before the ascension was added later (probably to combat Docetic beliefs). Paul knew only of an ascension (and a spiritual one at that).

[MrMacSon]

I think the proposal for a 2nd coming is tied to the proposal there was or would be a resurrection.

[maryhelena]

Eco is a relativist. Perhaps Eco is wrong. Plato refuted relativism. Aristotle defined as insane the belief that contradictory propositions can both be true.

If you believe that passion for truth is insane then you have no basis to participate in scholarly conversation and learning.

And that is probably the best argument for the very position you are endeavoring to negate! The "insane passion for truth" is not the search for 'truth', the search for knowledge, but the insane passion that one thinks that one can find and capture 'truth'. It's the belief that one has found 'the truth' that has fueled inquisitions and heresy hunts. And now......you desire to exclude someone from a discussion because they have a different view on 'truth' than you have......

Learning is not about 'truth' - learning is about stuff; it is about discovering facts, evidence, explanation and knowledge. 'Truth' is not a concrete commodity that can be held in ones hand or an intellectual idea in ones head. It's illusive, just when one thinks one has caught it - it slips so casually from ones hands as though it finds no comfort in the safe and secure - it is always approaching but never arrives - its a journey never a destination. The pursuit of 'truth' has mesmerized man since time immemorial - it's 'music' a haunting melody of man's unquenchable thirst for certainty.

Yes, Robert - laughter is the best response to those who believe that 'truth' can be captured....Laugh at 'truth's intransigence, laugh at the game it is playing - and laugh at oneself for ones past seriousness in thinking it could be caught. Enthusiasm for 'truth', that perhaps fired one at the start of ones journey, should, as the years pass, bring not despair but joy. Contentment that one has heard its 'music' and knows well the beauty - and the dangers - of it's mesmerizing dance.

Well now - methinks that's enough philosophizing for one morning....

[ficino]

Where's Bakhtin when we need him?

[Robert Tulip]

Eco is a relativist. Perhaps Eco is wrong. Plato refuted relativism. Aristotle defined as insane the belief that contradictory propositions can both be true. If you believe that passion for truth is insane then you have no basis to participate in scholarly conversation and learning.

And that is probably the best argument for the very position you are endeavoring to negate!

Maryhelena, I read debates that you had with Earl Doherty, I think at the now censored Free Thought and Rationalism Discussion Board. I always agreed with everything Earl said, and with his frustration at your approach. This comment of yours is a good example of a meaningless statement. Insanity is a highly charged accusation you bring from Eco. Much in Aristotle can of course be rejected, but not his basic idea that rationality is sane while irrationality is insane. There are some necessary assumptions for orderly dialogue, and this is one, simple enough to be considered tautological.

The "insane passion for truth" is not the search for 'truth', the search for knowledge, but the insane passion that one thinks that one can find and capture 'truth'. It's the belief that one has found 'the truth' that has fueled inquisitions and heresy hunts.

You are jumping between search and certainty in a way that belittles any claim of holding true knowledge.

Recall, this discussion of truth began with your apparent view that the myth of the gospels is as true as scientific astronomy, exhibited in your statement that "Paul has his celestial JC story. The gospels have their JC set within a historical context. Both sides upholding a 'truth', i.e. a valid position. There need not be any conflict between them." If Paul's celestial picture is compatible with reason, while the Gospels are fictional, there is indeed "conflict between them".

And now......you desire to exclude someone from a discussion because they have a different view on 'truth' than you have......

I don't want to exclude you, but I get bored by people who uphold irrational views. My point was that scholarly conversation requires some basic common ground regarding reason and sanity. As a general point, people who are insane are not scholarly. I welcome conversation with anyone who keeps to logical orderly methods. You may think there is no such thing as sanity, but that is a view that might be difficult to defend coherently. People are entitled to their own opinions, if not their own facts.

Beyond that basic principle of the desirability of logical standards in discussion, I do argue that my opinions are true. If you can convince me my views are not true, I will change them. Epistemological relativism is not logically coherent. There is a dialogue by Plato called Protagoras which refutes relativism by logic. I appreciate that people find it hard to understand the difference between epistemological relativism (bad) and cultural relativism (good). It is important to have respect for diverse views, but it is difficult to respect people who wilfully promote falsehoods.

Learning is not about 'truth' - learning is about stuff; it is about discovering facts, evidence, explanation and knowledge. 'Truth' is not a concrete commodity that can be held in ones hand or an intellectual idea in ones head.

You are welcome to your personal metaphysical opinions about the nature of truth, but just because people have falsely claimed that lies are truth does not mean truth does not exist.

It's illusive

Nice neologism of elusive illusion.

, just when one thinks one has caught it - it slips so casually from ones hands as though it finds no comfort in the safe and secure - it is always approaching but never arrives - its a journey never a destination. The pursuit of 'truth' has mesmerized man since time immemorial - it's 'music' a haunting melody of man's unquenchable thirst for certainty.

Just because people don't know everything does not at all imply anything about the epistemic status of what they do know. People have a lot of absolutely true knowledge.

Yes, Robert - laughter is the best response to those who believe that 'truth' can be captured....Laugh at 'truth's intransigence, laugh at the game it is playing - and laugh at oneself for ones past seriousness in thinking it could be caught. Enthusiasm for 'truth', that perhaps fired one at the start of ones journey, should, as the years pass, bring not despair but joy. Contentment that one has heard its 'music' and knows well the beauty - and the dangers - of it's mesmerizing dance. Well now - methinks that's enough philosophizing for one morning....

Your 'laughter' easily appears as derision and mockery. Just because conventional theology of the 'I am the way the truth and the life' type has been dogmatic and exclusionary does not at all mean the concept of truth lacks objective content and universality.

[maryhelena]

Where's Bakhtin when we need him?

Maybe having a good laugh at those who think they have found the 'truth'........

[maryhelena]

Eco is a relativist. Perhaps Eco is wrong. Plato refuted relativism. Aristotle defined as insane the belief that contradictory propositions can both be true. If you believe that passion for truth is insane then you have no basis to participate in scholarly conversation and learning.

And that is probably the best argument for the very position you are endeavoring to negate!

Maryhelena, I read debates that you had with Earl Doherty, I think at the now censored Free Thought and Rationalism Discussion Board. I always agreed with everything Earl said, and with his frustration at your approach.

Wow - one man's frustration level speaks only about that man - it says nothing about the value, or devalue, of his opponents arguments. Be frustrated by all means, Robert - but your frustration says more about you than it does about the merit of anything that I write. And anyway, why bring Doherty into this - what is this - some sort of brothers in arms against those who seek to offer a different approach to the issues that present themselves regarding the NT story. ...

[DCHindley]

The problem is even more astounding when you realize that Hurtado actually believes that early Christians experienced "visions of Jesus in Heaven" because Jesus really was in heaven and revealing himself in all his glory to the saints, and early Christian "creative interpretation of scripture and prophetic oracles" was because God had intentionally created all those obtuse scriptural narratives and oracles as clues for them to pick up on for their edification.

DCH

Professor Larry Hurtado has an excellent article explaining that early Christian interest in Jesus was fuelled by visions of Jesus in Heaven, creative interpretation of scripture and prophetic oracles.

http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/ ... d-worship/

This seems almost as though mythicists are not totally wrong and delueded when they explain that early Christianity was fuelled by visions of Jesus in Heaven, creative interpretation of scripture and prophetic oracles.

I've posted a few times on Larry's mythicist views on Vridar. What adds to the humour of it all is the way these intellectual giants debate the burning issues that beset the earliest Christians. Did Christianity start with the resurrection or only after Jesus had ascended and been glorified in heaven. That, and how many angels can fit on a pin-head, and should they crack open their boiled eggs at the big or little end.

Where does the money come from to keep these bozos on professor pay-scales?

[Blood]

The problem is even more astounding when you realize that Hurtado actually believes that early Christians experienced "visions of Jesus in Heaven" because Jesus really was in heaven and revealing himself in all his glory to the saints, and early Christian "creative interpretation of scripture and prophetic oracles" was because God had intentionally created all those obtuse scriptural narratives and oracles as clues for them to pick up on for their edification.

And these are the scholars we're supposed to take seriously?