Deconstructing Jesus - Robert M. Price...

geetarmoore · 3rd February 2006, 12:29 AM

Thanks to whoever recommended this book to me...

I'm into the second chapter, and I'm finding it a great read!

The transformation of the early Christian church from Gnosticism to Catholic Orthodoxy is a history that until now I've never been exposed too.

I'm really looking forward to the rest of the read, and I think it's going to go fast.. I'm only putting it down to make the occasional forum post

Thanks again!

Rufo · 3rd February 2006, 12:41 AM

Sounds interesting.

In what way was the early christian church gnostic?

slingblade · 3rd February 2006, 12:52 AM

Rufo:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

geetarmoore · 3rd February 2006, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by Rufo

Sounds interesting.

In what way was the early christian church gnostic?

In Any way that you could think.

It seems that every early Christian sect had a different opinion of what Christ was, from a wise man to a not-in-the-flesh spirit.

It wasn't until much later that the Catholic church was able to reign all of these other traditions in under the Orthodox church belief structure.

Rufo · 3rd February 2006, 01:25 AM

Thanks both of you, I didn't know Christian Gnosticism had been so popular.

How did the Catholic church manage to unite these sects? They sure don't do it very well today...

geetarmoore · 3rd February 2006, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by Rufo

Thanks both of you, I didn't know Christian Gnosticism had been so popular.

How did the Catholic church manage to unite these sects? They sure don't do it very well today...

Heavy handed tactics, it looks like....

They created one firm new testament text and sent that out around the land. They also burned all of the Gnostic texts they could get a hold of. The Gnostic texts that we have today were buried before they could be burned, and uncovered in 1945...

Teaching outside of the Orthodox cannon was considered heresy... We can assume what happened to people who did that....

jjramsey · 3rd February 2006, 05:06 AM

Originally Posted by geetarmoore

Thanks to whoever recommended this book to me...

It wasn't exactly a recommendation.

Originally Posted by Rufo

How did the Catholic church manage to unite these sects? They sure don't do it very well today...

From the review of the book:

Quote:

However, some caveats give one pause from adopting Price’s approach wholly. First, there is the problem of the timeframe involved between Jesus and the gospels--can we expect the multiple geneses of Jesus mythologies in the short time between the purported events and our first reports of them? To be sure, the time between Jesus and the New Testament could have produced (and did) a largely fictional story--as Price contends--but could it have produced multiple, independent fabrications from unrelated groups? Evidence from analogous cases from the first century--such as the fantastical stories surrounding Vespasian, or Apollonius of Tyana both of whom apparently really lived--would suggest not.

Price also gives too much credence to the idea that the gospels were written later than is generally supposed (e.g. his contention that Marcion included an earlier version of Luke into his New Testament rather than a redacted version of the canonical Luke). The evidence provided by the last couple of centuries seems too firm to allow this. This resort to late composition also implies sloppiness in the effort to validate the mythological Jesus, for if one posits the conflation of Simon/Peter and the other apostles as independent messiahs into the figure of Jesus based on late composition, one must also address obvious problems, such as how John the Baptist’s story survived relatively intact.

Judging from this, I suspect Price has overstated his case for the Church being quite so fractured.

geetarmoore · 3rd February 2006, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by jjramsey

It wasn't exactly a recommendation.

From the review of the book:

Judging from this, I suspect Price has overstated his case for the Church being quite so fractured.

Oh.. Well, thanks for the tip anyway.

It came the day I was making an Amazon order, and I threw it on.

About overstating, I don't know.. I've ordered a few books on this, and I'll make my own mind up. So far, the case for a historical Christ is looking really weak.

If the fact is that Christ never existed, then the development of the church is really a moot point, but interesting nonetheless.....

3rd February 2006, 12:29 AM	#1
geetarmoore Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Small planet in the milky way. Posts: 280	Deconstructing Jesus - Robert M. Price... Thanks to whoever recommended this book to me... I'm into the second chapter, and I'm finding it a great read! The transformation of the early Christian church from Gnosticism to Catholic Orthodoxy is a history that until now I've never been exposed too. I'm really looking forward to the rest of the read, and I think it's going to go fast.. I'm only putting it down to make the occasional forum post Thanks again!
	__________________ Originally Posted by geetarmoore Quoting yourself in your own sig is just plain wrong! "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing, all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry

3rd February 2006, 12:41 AM	#2
Rufo Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,196	Sounds interesting. In what way was the early christian church gnostic?
Rufo Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,196	__________________ Love is patient, love is kind, says he [Paul] - so is humour too, for it is not offended by that which is ugly and offensive, it seeks out the lost and miserable and shows that they are worth interest - love is not angered, it does not judge - neither does humour - love forgives all - so does humour - love is humble - such is humour too, for humour makes men not consider themselves better than others. - Gustaf Fröding

3rd February 2006, 12:52 AM	#3
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Rufo: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

3rd February 2006, 01:02 AM	#4
geetarmoore Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Small planet in the milky way. Posts: 280	Originally Posted by Rufo Sounds interesting. In what way was the early christian church gnostic? In Any way that you could think. It seems that every early Christian sect had a different opinion of what Christ was, from a wise man to a not-in-the-flesh spirit. It wasn't until much later that the Catholic church was able to reign all of these other traditions in under the Orthodox church belief structure.
	__________________ Originally Posted by geetarmoore Quoting yourself in your own sig is just plain wrong! "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing, all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry

3rd February 2006, 01:25 AM	#5
Rufo Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,196	Thanks both of you, I didn't know Christian Gnosticism had been so popular. How did the Catholic church manage to unite these sects? They sure don't do it very well today...
Rufo Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,196	__________________ Love is patient, love is kind, says he [Paul] - so is humour too, for it is not offended by that which is ugly and offensive, it seeks out the lost and miserable and shows that they are worth interest - love is not angered, it does not judge - neither does humour - love forgives all - so does humour - love is humble - such is humour too, for humour makes men not consider themselves better than others. - Gustaf Fröding

3rd February 2006, 01:36 AM	#6
geetarmoore Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Small planet in the milky way. Posts: 280	Originally Posted by Rufo Thanks both of you, I didn't know Christian Gnosticism had been so popular. How did the Catholic church manage to unite these sects? They sure don't do it very well today... Heavy handed tactics, it looks like.... They created one firm new testament text and sent that out around the land. They also burned all of the Gnostic texts they could get a hold of. The Gnostic texts that we have today were buried before they could be burned, and uncovered in 1945... Teaching outside of the Orthodox cannon was considered heresy... We can assume what happened to people who did that....
	__________________ Originally Posted by geetarmoore Quoting yourself in your own sig is just plain wrong! "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing, all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry

3rd February 2006, 05:06 AM	#7
jjramsey Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,436	Originally Posted by geetarmoore Thanks to whoever recommended this book to me... It wasn't exactly a recommendation. Originally Posted by Rufo How did the Catholic church manage to unite these sects? They sure don't do it very well today... From the review of the book: Quote: However, some caveats give one pause from adopting Price’s approach wholly. First, there is the problem of the timeframe involved between Jesus and the gospels--can we expect the multiple geneses of Jesus mythologies in the short time between the purported events and our first reports of them? To be sure, the time between Jesus and the New Testament could have produced (and did) a largely fictional story--as Price contends--but could it have produced multiple, independent fabrications from unrelated groups? Evidence from analogous cases from the first century--such as the fantastical stories surrounding Vespasian, or Apollonius of Tyana both of whom apparently really lived--would suggest not. Price also gives too much credence to the idea that the gospels were written later than is generally supposed (e.g. his contention that Marcion included an earlier version of Luke into his New Testament rather than a redacted version of the canonical Luke). The evidence provided by the last couple of centuries seems too firm to allow this. This resort to late composition also implies sloppiness in the effort to validate the mythological Jesus, for if one posits the conflation of Simon/Peter and the other apostles as independent messiahs into the figure of Jesus based on late composition, one must also address obvious problems, such as how John the Baptist’s story survived relatively intact. Judging from this, I suspect Price has overstated his case for the Church being quite so fractured.
	__________________ "One criticism I have with freethought publications in the field of religion is that so often they are wrong; they are inaccurate. . . . The point I am trying to make is that to be authentic freethinkers, to be authentic truth seekers, we must draw on the best information available to substantiate our claims." -- Gerald LaRue, Freethinkers United! Conference 1997, Orlando, Florida Last edited by jjramsey; 3rd February 2006 at 05:12 AM.

3rd February 2006, 06:19 AM	#8
geetarmoore Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Small planet in the milky way. Posts: 280	Originally Posted by jjramsey It wasn't exactly a recommendation. From the review of the book: Judging from this, I suspect Price has overstated his case for the Church being quite so fractured. Oh.. Well, thanks for the tip anyway. It came the day I was making an Amazon order, and I threw it on. About overstating, I don't know.. I've ordered a few books on this, and I'll make my own mind up. So far, the case for a historical Christ is looking really weak. If the fact is that Christ never existed, then the development of the church is really a moot point, but interesting nonetheless.....
	__________________ Originally Posted by geetarmoore Quoting yourself in your own sig is just plain wrong! "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing, all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry