I found a big ol' fat lie again in there! (page 18)

Narkissos

Nice post Rod P. It was worth waiting...

I tend to agree that the question whether there was a "historical Jesus" is undecidable. Which means that we have to cope with several, more or less likely, yet possible historical paradigms for the rise of Christianity. However the theological consequences of such a situation are important: and they all boil down to what Bultmann (who believed in a historical Jesus but thought very little could be known about him) meant when he pointed out that the historical Jesus is not the object of the Christian faith. Leaving aside Bultmann's existential (Heideggerian) interpretation of it, the Christ myth is what matters to the Christian religion, and whether there is a historical individual behind it becomes quite secondary from a theological standpoint -- except from a fundamentalistic perspective of course.

I also deeply agree with your "network" approach of knowledge. But I tend to think that this approach has already led us past the need for a "centre" (as in your wheel comparison). Unless perhaps if this centre is thought of as negative (as the void in the middle of the wheel in Tao te King) -- and still I feel that imagining it as central is somewhat misleading. The relative intersections of "meaning" resulting from our encounters on the (worldwide) web do not connect us to a centre; everyone of us projects his/her threads from his/her individual connection with reality, on the periphery of the web; and the web of logos itself measures over against the wider potential infinity of the unsaid and unthought: "the light shines in the darkness."

LittleToe

Didier:
I disagree with Bultmann's analysis, as here presented.

The Christian "myth" is, indeed, prima facto. However, without an object for belief it becomes moot. The "religion" would have no basis for ritual and would fall into a merely philosophical construct that proved insufficient for "worship" to occur.

Hence, while I accept that the historical Christ may be secondary, he remains quite essential. Therefore I don't believe there is any way to simply "wish him away", howevermuch some might desire this.

Narkissos

Ross,

You would more likely agree with Bultmann's view that the Christ myth rests, not on what (was) the historical Jesus was, but on the nude fact that (dass) he lived and died.

I think this view, however, is subject to many criticisms: (1) from a biblical standpoint, it makes sense mostly if not only of Pauline / Protestant Christianity: what matters is an event (Christ came and died) rather than a person (whoever Jesus was or whatever he taught doesn't matter; btw one might ponder on the overtones of the resultant dismissal of any "Jewish Jesus" in the contemporary context of Nazi Germany); (2) from a philosophical standpoint, this implies some kind of belief in "pure existence" as distinct from any "essence" or quiddity, resulting from a simplification of Heidegger's existentialism; very few people would buy into that nowadays.

The Christian "myth" is, indeed, prima facto. However, without an object for belief it becomes moot. The "religion" would have no basis for ritual and would fall into a merely philosophical construct that proved insufficient for "worship" to occur.

Here I would disagree with both you and Bultmann. To me the myth itself is the object of belief and the basis for ritual. In the Hellenistic mystery cults the saviour (e.g. Osiris, Attis or Dionysos) is seldom thought of as a historical person. If the Christian mystery is connected with a historical person one has to explain how this person grew into a "god," playing a role which was usually filled by mythical characters.

To put it more simply: I do believe that a fictional character can "change lives" and become the object of a cult.

LittleToe

Didier:Philosophiically I agree with what you're saying.

All I'm suggesting is that the very essence of "belief" requires that the individual lived, if only in the imagination of the believer.

Narkissos

Ross,

the very essence of "belief" requires that the individual lived, if only in the imagination of the believer.

This is a central question to me: I would suggest that a slightly different sort of "belief" is compatible with, and perhaps requires, some awareness of fiction.

Now awareness of fiction depends on cultural and educational factors; maybe it was never so low (or so rare) as in the European middle ages (except possibly in current American fundamentalism), still I think at least those who made up the stories or wrote the books (about the lives and miracles of saints, for instance) were aware of fiction; yet they didn't want to deceive, but to upbuild, and in their minds fictional creation was entirely compatible with belief -- even though they knew most people would take their stories as real.

I think the same is true of Bible and Gospel stories -- only I suspect in the context of Jewish and Hellenistic culture a comparatively larger group of people (certainly not all) would understand a fiction as fiction.

LittleToe

...and yet they would retain the "awe" of the subject matter, allowing "faith" to move mountains.

I don't see how "heart worship" can be achieved without "belief", even if the subject is fiction.
It's in the essence of believing that the state is acheived.

gumby

All I know LT.......is I wish the Lord would do to me....whatever he did to you to make you believe he really existed. Has he ever told you what it is about me he don't like? You can PM me if it's embarrasin And oh....about that seam in a man dinger...........I'm still workin on it, but theres so much to know, I ain't done yet.

Rod,

If Jesus Christ was really real, then we would have to interpret matters with respect to James and Paul quite differently than if Jesus Christ was simply some made up myth from a later age. If the latter is true, then I would take your point, Narkissos, that

Paul may have just developed his version of the story of that Galilean rabbi who was crucifed a few decades ago. Of course, he then had to invent the story of his own miraculous encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, to authenticate his own "Apostleship".

Paul believed in a mythical Jesus as is testified by the fact that he never once made mention of any events that the gospels contain with regards to a historical Jesus. In all of Pauls efforts to Christianize the non believing Jews and Gentile greeks.....don't you think he would have used argumentation revolving around the literal miracles Jesus presumably performed along with eyewitness testimony of others that could have traveled along with him? Surely Paul could have dragged along with him in his ministry at least one feable sane bastard who could have backed up Pauls words by his eyewitness confirmations.

Paul could have at least talked to the Mormons in his area who could have traced Jesus linage history and connected him to real people for proof..........sheeesh!

Gumby

Rod P

Gumby,

Paul could have at least talked to the Mormons in his area who could have traced Jesus linage history and connected him to real people for proof..........sheeesh!

So what are you getting at now, Gumby? Are you telling me that the geneologies of Joseph and Mary as contained in the Gospels are all made up fictional characters too?

I can't wait to see the day when Jesus Christ meets you on your way to L.A. and asks you "Gumby, Gumby, wherefore art thou persecuting me so much?" Maybe you would turn into one of the greatest preachers of the 21st century. Then I would have the last laugh, telling everyone how you made up your new religion with this miracle story of yours.

By the way Reverend Gumby, I enjoyed your sermon on the Noah story. However, I was a little light on your contribution box. Catch you next time.

to Narkissos:

I would be the first one to recognize the limitations of the wheel analogy. When I said that all paths lead to the centre of the wheel, I was not suggesting what one would find when you arrived at the "Centre". In fact, we are not really "arriving" anywhere. Perhaps it is all a Void in the final analysis.

I took a little tour of Tao te King, as its been a while since I looked at it. Here are a few excerpts (from one translation):

1 Darkness within darkness. The gate of all mystery. (Referring to the Tao)

4 The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used but never filled.

5 Hold fast to the center.

11 Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub, It is the center hole that makes it useful.

16 Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature.

21 The Tao is elusive and intangible.

Oh, it is intangible and elusive, and yet within is image.

Oh, it is elusive and intangible, and yet within is form.

Oh, it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence.

32 Tao in the world is like a river flowing home to the sea.

32 Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion (re: Bultman)

Rod P.

LittleToe

Gumby:

All I know LT.......is I wish the Lord would do to me....whatever he did to you to make you believe he really existed. Has he ever told you what it is about me he don't like?

I've never asked.
Do you want me too
Can ya take it, big boy?

Poztate

I can't wait to see the day when Jesus Christ meets you on your way to L.A. and asks you "Gumby, Gumby, wherefore art thou persecuting me so much?"

Shit...Jesus is going to be in LA...Nobody told me that. I could have caught him on the late show when I went to Disneyland.

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

Share this