Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

[Doulos]

^The jury's still out on whether they even crucified Jesus in the first place.

But according to the story line 'they' apparently did, though. John 10:30 "I and the father are one," is a metaphor for the mystery of mere existence. And that metaphor is the blasphemy charge that the crucifixion hinges upon within the context of the gospel tale.

The juries not out Tat.

Each person simply has the privilege of deciding what they believe to be trustworthy.

[tat tvam asi]

The juries not out Tat.

Really?

Each person simply has the privilege of deciding what they believe to be trustworthy.

So, then we're back to square one again - the jury is still out in many peoples individual cases.

This is hardly settled.

Was he crucified on a Roman cross, impaled on a torture stake, hung by the neck from a tree, not even historical in the first place?

These are all up in the air, uncertain at best. That is the only truth of the matter at this point in time. You can by faith commit to one of the many variations, but that faith is by no means driven by historical certainty. If crucified on a Roman cross then why so long for the iconography to appear giving rise to certain Christian sects rejecting the cross as a pagan corruption altogether? What about the Talmud placing him as a blaspheming sorcerer around 100 BCE and tying into the amalgamation angle? This is anything but cut and dry. And that's the only truth about it. Anything less than the uncertain angle that it really is parts ways with reality and is essentially a dishonest presentation. That's what we protest against. People ought to be well aware of the truth of the matter.

[youkrst]

The silliness comes when people think the Bible is a metaphor for a love without action.

that is certainly NOT what i think Doulos

Each person simply has the privilege of deciding what they believe to be trustworthy.

rubbish, that misses the point entirely

literalism is a pit the unwary often fall into and some of them died trying to get out.

others were and are being killed by those demented enough to enjoy their literalism.

reminds me of the George Harrison lyric

I don't know how you were diverted
You were perverted too
I don't know how you were inverted
No one alerted you

i'm just glad someone alerted me in time. (thankyou jesus )

[tat tvam asi]

So I guess the foot washing tale as a means of promoting a belief of this certain religious sect in humility and becoming a servant to your fellow man is lost on you Doulos.

None of this requires an historical founder in the least. The myth could have just as well been written in such a way so as to make the hero show a sense of servitude. And I'm guessing that that's what they had in mind when constructing the myth.

And so what if some kid get's a good feeling out of it 2,000 years later for whatever the reason? Isn't that precisely what the mythological motif is designed to do along this line of reasoning?

How about the crucifixion too? It's clearly designed to tug at people heart strings, and it does. But what does that prove aside from a sign of intentional mythological construction on the part of the writers to achieve emotions that they wanted to achieve through their mythologizing?

[youkrst]

...and youkrst, my apologies for mocking your metaphor example.

that's ok Doulos

Mark 3:29
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

[Robert Tulip]

About the only thing in the New Testament that can't be read as allegory is the statement at Luke 3:1 "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene"

In this one phrase "that can't be read as allegory" may be the crux of the matter. There is no clear limit to what can be read as allegory, in whatever it might be that we're reading. Matters of appropriateness, provenance, and literary genre assume a very important role here.

There actually are clear boundaries between allegory and fact. Take the example recently discussed of Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana. Youkrst discusses it as allegory for higher consciousness while Doulos seemed to argue it was a real event. The big problem for the literal interpretation is that it describes a physically impossible miracle. It could not have actually happened. No one can turn water into wine except as a conjuring trick.

So, to explain it we have to look at the possible provenance of the story. The literal view is that reality is not as we see through science, but is infused by the presence of a miraculous interventionist God, and the parabolic meaning is that we will be saved when God is revealed and the world is transformed in the twinkling of an eye to a new heaven and earth. With due respect to the heritage of this belief, it is scientifically obtuse, meriting only polite scorn. The glorious dead will not rise from their graves, virgins do not give birth to men, loaves and fishes will not miraculously multiply, and people will not work out how to turn water into wine except through scientifically explicable methods.

The allegorical view is that the Gospel writers had an agenda to transform society to a new framework that would be physically possible, building on the rich heritage of mystery religion. They saw that ordinary society could not comprehend this vision, so explained it metaphorically, through miracles such as this one of turning water to wine. Youkrst is correct to see this vision as allegory, pointing towards the need for a higher consciousness.

This whole topic of Biblical literalism is corrupted by the assumption of traditional theology that the interventionist model is physically possible. Science gives us no grounds to support this idea, so honest analysis should start from a scientific base to explain the mysterious tales.

The reason I tended to agree with the late ant (since incorporated by dulous) on the matter of credentials is that judgment needs to be informed by a deep knowledge of the period and of sources in the original languages, all best assured by the granting of academic degrees.

(I hope you are exaggerating about ant’s tardiness.)

The problem with academic training is that it is somewhat similar to the training of a fruit tree, pruning off the parts that aren’t wanted and bending the branches to suit the grower. Academic theology is grounded in the assumption of the literal Jesus. Anyone who questions this assumption finds themselves the object of fury from the pious. Many scholars, for example in archaeology, can see that theology is corrupt, but they do not wish to incur the wrath of believers so they remain silent on these topics. So the use of credentials as a mark of authority in theology is worthless, because to get credentials you have to toe the line, accepting conventional opinion, allowing yourself to be trained like a plum tree that the church can pluck to serve its own interests.

Otherwise, it all begins to sound like deconstructionism.

Yes. Deconstruction is a school of philosophy which argues that conventional opinion is constructed on the basis of false assumptions. Mythicism is a deconstructive method, because it argues that Christianity is based on the false assumption of the historical Jesus. This opens interesting cultural politics, because deconstructionism as a school of thought is associated with cultural relativism, the false idea that all opinions are equally valid. But the source thinkers, such as Nietzsche and Heidegger, are actually very rigorous.

For example Heidegger deconstructed the idea from Descartes that philosophy can be grounded in the axiom ‘I think therefore I am’. Heidegger’s deconstruction involved the logical argument that fundamental ontology should start from assuming the existence of the world, and that Descartes’ method led to the modern scientific individualism which isolates subject from object, leading to an inability to see the philosophical centrality of phenomena such as care and moods.

A similar deconstruction of Christianity can show the ethical failings of belief in the historical Jesus, bound up with its false ontology of an interventionist God. This false ontology blinds Christians to the real ethical message in the Bible, one of transformative liberation through love. The great irony is that Jesus himself was a deconstructionist, as depicted in the Bible, castigating the disciples and the scribes and Pharisees for their blindness and deafness. His point was that they were blind and deaf to the symbolic allegory in the Gospel message.

Whereas most would say that two or more levels of reading are possible, you, Robert, are saying that really only one is--the symbolical. The literal level is a sham, a stepping stone for the masses to the real matter of the story.

When the literal is impossible, we have to look deeper for the real meaning. Miracles are not possible. There is no evidence for a Historical Jesus. We have to reconstruct the message into something that makes sense. There is a whole dimension of cosmic meaning that has been systematically suppressed by Christianity. Exploring this cosmic dimension is the basis for a new paradigm in which the real meaning of the Gospels becomes apparent.

That the story "took on a life of its own" must mean that the writers failed completely in their design. I don't agree that they had such a design, of course. That isn't to say that every piece was meant to appeal to literal understanding; there was a degree of sophistication at work that lent variety to the levels of significance. It's basic multi-level interpretation that the Catholic Church has taught for centuries.

As I mentioned before, the Professor of Theology at Princeton University, Dr Elaine Pagels, presented a line of argument in her early book The Gnostic Paul that fully supports the hypothesis of a clash in the early church between Gnostic initiates and Orthodox outsiders. The outsiders won by political force of numbers, not by quality of argument.

The Roman Empire was a time of massive violent conflict and upheaval. The Orthodox message was seen as a convenient glue for imperial stability and doctrinal unity. Anything that clashed with this social glue had to be suppressed. This political situation evolved from an intra-church debate in which orthodox bishops such as Irenaeus and Hippolytus saw the destruction of heresy as essential for church growth among the broader general public. They totally opposed the Gnostic doctrine of salvation through knowledge with their simple doctrine of salvation by belief. As such, they rejected any allegorical interpretation of Scripture in favour of a harsh dogmatic literalism.

This is a story of politics and psychology, how an enlightened few can be overwhelmed by an ignorant majority. The majority Christian view had the advantage of being able to define rituals and beliefs and structures that met popular emotional needs. All the enlightened could do was ensure that their views were retained in the canonical texts in coded form, hidden from view to prevent their complete suppression, awaiting a time when freedom of analysis would be able to deconstruct these events to get at the underlying truth.

[Doulos]

The juries not out Tat.

Really?

Each person simply has the privilege of deciding what they believe to be trustworthy.

So, then we're back to square one again - the jury is still out in many peoples individual cases.

This is hardly settled.

Was he crucified on a Roman cross, impaled on a torture stake, hung by the neck from a tree, not even historical in the first place?

These are all up in the air, uncertain at best. That is the only truth of the matter at this point in time. You can by faith commit to one of the many variations, but that faith is by no means driven by historical certainty. If crucified on a Roman cross then why so long for the iconography to appear giving rise to certain Christian sects rejecting the cross as a pagan corruption altogether? What about the Talmud placing him as a blaspheming sorcerer around 100 BCE and tying into the amalgamation angle? This is anything but cut and dry. And that's the only truth about it. Anything less than the uncertain angle that it really is parts ways with reality and is essentially a dishonest presentation. That's what we protest against. People ought to be well aware of the truth of the matter.

Go back to your list of people who doubt the historical reality of Jesus. Do you note that there is not a single scholar in the actual field on that list? The very fact that Bart Ehrman supports a historical Jesus is rather telling.

You are correct that some people have doubts and questions. But please note that within the actual field of biblical studies, there is virtually absolute agreement (even amongst non-Christian scholars of whom there are many) that Jesus was a historical reality.

Each person must choose what they themselves believe... that's true of everything. Within academic studies though, the existence of a real historical Jesus is not in doubt however.

[Doulos]

...and youkrst, my apologies for mocking your metaphor example.

that's ok Doulos

Mark 3:29
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Before your eyes get stuck in perpetual wink mode, you may want to read the text more carefully. It's talking about 'blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.' If you believe you are the Holy Ghost, please let me know...

A better text to use would have been:
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Ephesians 4:29)

[Doulos]

So I guess the foot washing tale as a means of promoting a belief of this certain religious sect in humility and becoming a servant to your fellow man is lost on you Doulos.

None of this requires an historical founder in the least. The myth could have just as well been written in such a way so as to make the hero show a sense of servitude. And I'm guessing that that's what they had in mind when constructing the myth.

Could have been.

But it wasn't.

If you're saying that it was a myth, then this would require evidence. Merely saying, "I'm guessing" or "it might have been" is very Ehrmanesque... but isn't the whole point that we should be basing things upon the evidence? Other than conspiracy theories, there is no real evidence for the conjecture. If you have something that you consider 'solid' evidence, I would be happy to talk it through with you.

And so what if some kid get's a good feeling out of it 2,000 years later for whatever the reason? Isn't that precisely what the mythological motif is designed to do along this line of reasoning?

Or maybe the 'feel good feeling' is because truly being loved strikes a chord in our hearts about how we are meant to live.

How about the crucifixion too? It's clearly designed to tug at people heart strings, and it does. But what does that prove aside from a sign of intentional mythological construction on the part of the writers to achieve emotions that they wanted to achieve through their mythologizing?

Wait.

The Romans invented crucifixion to tug at heart strings?
Or Jesus' followers put something they clearly knew was seen as a curse upon Jesus (hanging from a tree is a curse in Judaism)... to tug at heart strings??
Or that having your leader who you say is God killed... is supposed to tug at heart strings???

Do you see my problem with this line of reasoning? If you don't actually think about it, it can kinda sound good. If you really start asking questions about it, it kinda falls apart.

[tat tvam asi]

The Romans invented crucifixion to tug at heart strings?
Or Jesus' followers put something they clearly knew was seen as a curse upon Jesus (hanging from a tree is a curse in Judaism)... to tug at heart strings??
Or that having your leader who you say is God killed... is supposed to tug at heart strings???

The Romans inventing crucifixion has nothing to do with it. The point is that the writers used crucifixion as a way to tug at peoples heart strings by claiming that an innocent man was beaten and killed for their sake. It's supposed by a real tear jerker and that's the way the passion has always been presented to the public. The cursed tree hanging blasphemer is aimed at the very same thing. Here's this innocent man cursed on your behave. That strikes up a lot of emotion. And then from there people can be persuaded in various ways....

Do you see my problem with this line of reasoning? If you don't actually think about it, it can kinda sound good. If you really start asking questions about it, it kinda falls apart.

No, it didn't fall apart and in fact the more you think about it the more clear it becomes actually. This is very telling indeed. We went from Stahrwe, to Ant, to you and seem to be getting much of the same from each. One apologist fades out and another is there promptly to replace him - like the teeth of a white shark.

Interesting.....