If Xristanity is BS What's the Degree for BS Expertise?

[Stephan Huller]

I sometimes wonder when people cite their qualifications or the qualifications of others whether any of this is really relevant. If I was hiring a new chef qualifications might matter because food is a real thing. If I was hiring a new professor of English, qualifications might matter because English is a real thing. But the stumbling block with skepticism is that early Christianity presents a 'real thing' which = the historical of the Church which is, by almost universal acknowledgement 'bullshit' to some degree. I mean to accept the sources you'd have to acknowledge an angel inseminating a woman with 'God' and then a man who is God going to school and teaching and then ultimately willing himself to die on the Cross and be resurrected to save humanity.

I don't know that just reading all that his been written hitherto qualifies someone to be an authority on early Christianity because I am not sure that any of this is real or that early Christianity as presented by the earliest witnesses is a 'real thing.'

I think the history of early Christian literature is a subject which can be taught in the schools, like early Spanish literature, early Greek literature, early Jewish literature. But beyond that it's just a guessing game which NO ONE has better or worse qualifications with which to pontificate 'authoritatively.'

The greatest evil that has been perpetrated in the history of Christianity is Protestantism. Because now you have all these 'Christians' (allegedly) who think that you can get 'history' by just subtracting the 'superstitious' 'God element' from early Christianity. Go to a Greek Orthodox service, go to a Roman Catholic service, go to an Egyptian Coptic service, go to a Syrian Orthodox service if you want a glimpse of 'real Christianity' - the Christianity that has been passed down through the ages - and try to make sense or a 'real thing' out of THAT. You can't. Because it is irrational.

All attempts to define 'the historical Jesus' develop from Protestantism which is a false premise because Protestantism is not an ancient tradition. Protestantism is not a legitimate Christian belief system. It's a false reconstitution of a mystical tradition developed to 'assist' the development of historicism and a 'common sense' Christianity for the emerging middle class in European society. It's garbage and all attempts at historicism are garbage. Garbage in, garbage out. It's just the next step to atheism.

As such any development from this false construct is necessarily false. No one is really an expert on early Christianity. It's a religion that can't be rationalized. It was never intended that way. Anyone and everyone has equal authority to make up shit and let the people decide. All 'serious scholarship' develops from a false interpretation of Christianity - a heresy from the Reformation period - and which is of no serious value to understand the origins of the tradition.

[MrMacSon]

.
It has been hard to discern early Christianity and it's development, b/c the history has been fogged by theology and special-pleading to ignore actual history and to favor theology; and to suppress investigation and questioning.

The greatest evil that has been perpetrated in the history of Christianity is Protestantism. Because now you have all these 'Christians' (allegedly) who think that you can get 'history' by just subtracting the 'superstitious' 'God element' from early Christianity.

Protestantism is one aspect, but the other is relaxing blasphemy laws in Europe, starting with the Dutch; hence the ability of the Dutch Radicals to function as they did, and to publish & give public lectures on their investigations and thoughts. Then the same with German philosophy, & theological investigation & discussions.

Even the Christians conflate the Reformation with the Enlightenment, and claim Christianity per se gave us modern secular thought. It is possible the discussions around Protestantism v Catholicism fascilitated some open discussion, but other things were happening too - increasing travel, increasing science; increasing wider education, etc

[John T]

@MrMacSon,

Do you believe in space aliens?
Do you have a lucky charm/number?

John T

[perseusomega9]

I'm not so sure you can discount Protestantism that easily. Sure it doesn't have the traditions of those ancient churches you mentioned, but weren't there always heretical and schismatic groups hanging around the fringes of the church(es) through history? And don't the protestant churches find support in scripture, because of the fact that so much NT scripture is polemics against various heresies in the church(es)? Can you really not see the resurgence of Montanism and other early charismatics that the pastorals tried so hard to suppress in the Pentecostal churches? Or the pre-election divine sparks of the gnostics in the Calvinist offshoots?

[steve43]

I don't mind wild religious theories, but those who espouse them should at least have a grounding in history. It hurts to see people dismiss Josephus entirely, and pick and chose what they want to believe out of a great historian like Tacitus, all to prove some exotic point. And these are Scholars?!!

In any field of investigation, first you learn the basics, and then, from that platform, you can spin off into whatever area you want.

I recommend Hagan for melding in the accepted Roman historians (including and especially Josephus) into what facts can be gleaned from the New Testament, and without a theological ax to grind.

[perseusomega9]

Hey guys, did you know steve really likes Hagan's thesis? Who knew?

[steve43]

its history, dude. And I see precious little of it in the most of the sources quoted here.

[perseusomega9]

I get the sense that you say history the way republicans say rape.

[Leucius Charinus]

All 'serious scholarship' develops from a false interpretation of Christianity - a heresy from the Reformation period - and which is of no serious value to understand the origins of the tradition.

Heresy and BS are a lot older than the Reformation. All 'serious scholarship' descends from an apostolic lineage of Heresiology and a great deal of (blind) faith in the manuscript evidence. This 'serious scholarship' AM refers to as that of the "insiders". Whatever AM means by calling biblical scholars the "insiders" I have no idea.


IDK.

[Leucius Charinus]

I don't mind wild religious theories, but those who espouse them should at least have a grounding in history.

The way I see it is that the field of "Biblical History" is a highly specialized subset, but nevertheless a subset, of the greater field of ancient history. So IMO you are right in that aspect - a mandatory grounding in history is a pre-requisite for such theorists. The more the better.