History trumps Theology

[allegoria]

Seriously though, history is important not just for people today but also for the gospel writers. It is history that has the potential to throw its light upon the gospel Jesus story. All theology can do is lead the way to an intellectual graveyard.

If we understand religion as a foundational social technology, where the stories and symbols and rituals change human behavior and are in fact the exclusive point of the religion, then the literal history does not matter for any spiritual purpose. It is of some interest to see how the religion developed for an anthropologist or historian, but there’s not going to be any important “history” to be discovered for the practicing Christian. The Christ that a Christian worships is the Christ that he learns socially, or in rare cases from self-study, but he’s “historical” only insofar as stories utilize history as a foreground. See how the renaissance painters of Europe depicted the Biblical scenes as occurring in their own day, their own ethnicity, their own fashion. Same with the early Japanese artists. The “real history” is only a distraction here.

It is actually the theologian who comes in to rejuvenate the religious symbols. Consider the apostle who wrote this decidedly non-literal passage:

[1 Peter 3] For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water

There is no interest in history here. Christ’s act, real or imagined, though played out on a historical foreground is symbolically writ large. Noah is reinterpreted symbolically and numerologically. This is common among the early church fathers too, who are much more interested in understanding things allegorically than literally. And even the act of understanding something allegorically flies in the face of literal historical interest. Did God commit historical acts precisely so that they can be debated and reinterpreted by a theologian? Why not just explain the real meaning originally? Rather, the historical act is itself a symbol to draw people in, and then is understood allegorically for lessons depending on spiritual maturity.

[maryhelena]

If there's an intellectual graveyard, then there is also a history of it, and all theology is also part of history.

Indeed, there is a history of theology.... A written history or archaeological finds deemed to relate to theological ideas and practice. Scott Atran does good work "In God's We Trust."

But theological words and artifacts are not history as it relates to actual human experience in a social and political environment. Intellectual history testifies both to the power of human imagination as well as our intellect's ability to lead us astray.

In contrast, history deals with what is known about our human past. It strives for evidence, for facts about the past.

Thus, two aspects of the human experience. One aspect seeks to deal with our actual physical reality. The other seeks to find meaning or understanding of our human nature. We reach for the stars... but it's our two feet on terra firma that allows us to do so. Physical reality is primary, intellectual evolution.... Including theology... is a byproduct and cannot trump, cannot override that reality. We cannot think ourselves well, we cannot escape our deathbed

Theology should not be mistaken for religion. Theology is as able to build castles in the sky as a child builds sand castles on the beach. The child knows the tide will come and demolish his castle, he knows he can't save it. Theology, on the other hand, is immune to reality... It's castles live on until they succume to their own internal weakness. Like stars in the night sky, the castles of theology collapse into a black hole.

So - by all means take a theological approach to the gospel Jesus story... But that approach does not trump an historical approach to that story.

[dbz]

The core of the gospel Jesus story. - a Roman execution of a King of the Jews - the fundamental historical Christian claim...
[...]
A sacrifice of a human man nailed to a cross is an abomination... to believe gospel writers, Jewish writers, were proposing that such an antihumanitarian event had salvation value is doing them a great disservice.

• The fundamental historical Christian claim ... A sacrifice of a human man nailed to a cross... [on Earth?]

Ah, interesting, GDon in the other thread, in answer to my question if his inspirational man was crucified said..... "not necessarily"....

• Per Ehrman we know an inspirational man was crucified!

"Ehrman: Evidence For Crucifixion". YouTube. Godless Engineer. Sep 14, 2023.

[StephenGoranson]

Is anyone here actually arguing that Christianity has nothing to do with history?

[maryhelena]

Seriously though, history is important not just for people today but also for the gospel writers. It is history that has the potential to throw its light upon the gospel Jesus story. All theology can do is lead the way to an intellectual graveyard.

If we understand religion as a foundational social technology, where the stories and symbols and rituals change human behavior and are in fact the exclusive point of the religion, then the literal history does not matter for any spiritual purpose. It is of some interest to see how the religion developed for an anthropologist or historian, but there’s not going to be any important “history” to be discovered for the practicing Christian. The Christ that a Christian worships is the Christ that he learns socially, or in rare cases from self-study, but he’s “historical” only insofar as stories utilize history as a foreground. See how the renaissance painters of Europe depicted the Biblical scenes as occurring in their own day, their own ethnicity, their own fashion. Same with the early Japanese artists. The “real history” is only a distraction here.

It is actually the theologian who comes in to rejuvenate the religious symbols. Consider the apostle who wrote this decidedly non-literal passage:

[1 Peter 3] For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water

There is no interest in history here. Christ’s act, real or imagined, though played out on a historical foreground is symbolically writ large. Noah is reinterpreted symbolically and numerologically. This is common among the early church fathers too, who are much more interested in understanding things allegorically than literally. And even the act of understanding something allegorically flies in the face of literal historical interest. Did God commit historical acts precisely so that they can be debated and reinterpreted by a theologian? Why not just explain the real meaning originally? Rather, the historical act is itself a symbol to draw people in, and then is understood allegorically for lessons depending on spiritual maturity.

The historical act ? What historical act are you referring to ?

[maryhelena]

Is anyone here actually arguing that Christianity has nothing to do with history?

Not me.....

[Peter Kirby]

If there's an intellectual graveyard, then there is also a history of it, and all theology is also part of history.

Indeed, there is a history of theology.... A written history or archaeological finds deemed to relate to theological ideas and practice. Scott Atran does good work "In God's We Trust."

But theological words and artifacts are not history as it relates to actual human experience in a social and political environment. Intellectual history testifies both to the power of human imagination as well as our intellect's ability to lead us astray.

In contrast, history deals with what is known about our human past. It strives for evidence, for facts about the past.

Thus, two aspects of the human experience. One aspect seeks to deal with our actual physical reality. The other seeks to find meaning or understanding of our human nature. We reach for the stars... but it's our two feet on terra firma that allows us to do so. Physical reality is primary, intellectual evolution.... Including theology... is a byproduct and cannot trump, cannot override that reality. We cannot think ourselves well, we cannot escape our deathbed

Theology should not be mistaken for religion. Theology is as able to build castles in the sky as a child builds sand castles on the beach. The child knows the tide will come and demolish his castle, he knows he can't save it. Theology, on the other hand, is immune to reality... It's castles live on until they succume to their own internal weakness. Like stars in the night sky, the castles of theology collapse into a black hole.

So - by all means take a theological approach to the gospel Jesus story... But that approach does not trump an historical approach to that story.

If only it were as simple as coming up with a slogan like 'x trumps y' as if that gives us knowledge of anything.

[dbz]

Is anyone here actually arguing that Christianity has nothing to do with history?

Per miminal mythicism, first century novel Christianity, initially has only a few valid claims per the lens of modern history.

[Charles Wilson]

If there's an intellectual graveyard, then there is also a history of it, and all theology is also part of history.

So I invite maryhelena to sing a Duet with me entitled, "Who were the Hasmoneans?"

CW

[maryhelena]

If there's an intellectual graveyard, then there is also a history of it, and all theology is also part of history.

Indeed, there is a history of theology.... A written history or archaeological finds deemed to relate to theological ideas and practice. Scott Atran does good work "In God's We Trust."

But theological words and artifacts are not history as it relates to actual human experience in a social and political environment. Intellectual history testifies both to the power of human imagination as well as our intellect's ability to lead us astray.

In contrast, history deals with what is known about our human past. It strives for evidence, for facts about the past.

Thus, two aspects of the human experience. One aspect seeks to deal with our actual physical reality. The other seeks to find meaning or understanding of our human nature. We reach for the stars... but it's our two feet on terra firma that allows us to do so. Physical reality is primary, intellectual evolution.... Including theology... is a byproduct and cannot trump, cannot override that reality. We cannot think ourselves well, we cannot escape our deathbed

Theology should not be mistaken for religion. Theology is as able to build castles in the sky as a child builds sand castles on the beach. The child knows the tide will come and demolish his castle, he knows he can't save it. Theology, on the other hand, is immune to reality... It's castles live on until they succume to their own internal weakness. Like stars in the night sky, the castles of theology collapse into a black hole.

So - by all means take a theological approach to the gospel Jesus story... But that approach does not trump an historical approach to that story.

If only it were as simple as coming up with a slogan like 'x trumps y' as if that gives us knowledge of anything.

Ah, but slogans have their own power to concentrate the minds of the consumer. History trumps Theology....might even raise a debate that the issue needs attending.


The Power of Slogans: Crafting Memorable Messages That Resonate

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/power-sl ... r-cardillo