Roman cult

He's been dead almost 2000 years. It's time to abandon the cult of emperor Titus. https://www.librarything.com/work/19393702/book/249633080

I'm interested in Richard Carrier's recent book Jesus from Outer Space debunking the Historical Pinocchio.

>1 zangasta:
I don't think most Christians' belief is tethered to a historical/empirical version of Jesus. Faith, as commonly understood/practiced, seems fairly nebulous; more of a rote recitation of dogma than a serious examination of moral discourse.

Au contraire I think most contemporary Christians are more shocked by the denial that the gospel Jesus was a historical man, than by the denial that he was a god. Certainly all mainstream and Evangelical Christian theologies take an "incarnate" Jesus in our empirical world as an essential point of belief.

>3 mikevail: What paradoxosalpha wrote, and: are you saying that the cult of Titus was a ...moral discourse?

Also: I think most christians want someone who walked and talked and miracled and suffered (though not fucked). They want someone at whose feet they can grovel or through whose hands (or hems) they can gain power, etc.

Anyway, the book by Valliant and Fahy actually skirts the issue of historicity of the "Jesus", focusing on who wrote the stories and letters and for what purpose.

>6 zangasta: focusing on who wrote the stories and letters and for what purpose.

Which is exactly what mainstream biblical exegesis does. The majority of the world's Christians are not US evangelical biblical literalists.

Belief in a "historical Jesus" is in no way exclusive to evangelical biblical literalists, either in the US or elsewhere. Hell, it's common to most secular people who've never studied the issue nor been given any reason to question evident popular consensus.

Nor can "mainstream biblical exegetes" be assumed to disinterestedly evaluate historical evidence of scriptural motives.

Then it's not clear to me exactly what the OP is claiming. If it is that there never was a human being called Jesus who was an itinerant Jewish preacher and who was executed, then I would suggest that there is at least as much evidence that someone like that walked the earth as that he didn't. If it is that the narratives about Jesus that we have and that form the basis for the Christian Church was created by the writers of the New Testament, and subsequently by those who came after them who chose which documents should form part of it and which should be omitted, then few exegetes would disagree with that. As >6 zangasta: says, the book "actually skirts the issue of historicity of the 'Jesus', focusing on who wrote the stories and letters and for what purpose."

I don't think the OP is trying to contest the authenticity of any texts or the historicity of Jesus. I believe what the OP is actually claiming is that the New Testament (and early institutional christian moral discourse?) was heavily influenced by the interests of the ruling elite of the Roman Empire.

That there existed in the classical Levant a tendency for messianic religious swells to surge into militant insurrection, and the early christian moral doctrine was influenced by an elite Roman desire to instead redirect this messianic tendency in a more pacifist and non-confrontational direction which would allow the constituted power of empire to be retained in a central hierarchical apparatus.

The putatively historical elements of the gospel Jesus are either literary impositions or common to an indiscriminate range of aspiring religious teachers and reformers of that time and place. For a Hebrew Messiah (i.e. anointed king), he also demonstrates a surprising ability to emulate Dionysos and Socrates.

There were many historical Jesuses (the name being ordinary and widespread before the first century), but none of them had uniquely to do with the Gospel documents or organized Roman religion, which had motives lying elsewhere.

Carrier's effort is to demonstrate that the original Christians didn't view Jesus as a historical figure either.

Having looked at the publisher's website and also learned that the author is engaged with the Ayn Rand school of thought, my questions are: what qualifications does James Valliant have in this area, and why should I pay any attention to what he has to say?

>5 zangasta:
No my point is more simple. In my experience, most people's faith is the result of childhood indoctrination filtered through the persistant realities of modern society. It's a vague sense of "something" that people never think about unless you ask them. They'll tell you historical Jesus exists but they don't want to argue about because they don't want to spend anytime thinking about. So, referring back to your original post, rhe cult is dying by attrition and apathy.