Wow.

I thought we were going to have a debate about the existence of Jesus.

How on earth could Nomad's discussion of, for example, Josephus' references (or lack thereof) to a historical Jesus be beside the point?

I had assumed that a theory which asserted that Jesus was entirely a mythical creation of early Christianity would somehow be dependent on the premise that Jesus never existed (much less a Jesus, as attested to by Josephus, that was reported to have performed miracles, was charged by Jewish officials, and then put to death by Pontias Pilate). Earl. D. seems to be suggesting otherwise. But, how is this possible?

If Josephus is referring to Jesus (and his brother, miracles, charge by Jewish officials, and execution by Pilate), doesn't that completely sink Earl D.'s theory? And if not, shouldn't he have to explain why not?

That was a very sad display indeed from the champion Christ-myther.

He writes:

Obviously, if Nomad's presentation arguing for an historical Jesus is sound, it refutes Earl's "mythicist case" (even IF Paul is talking about a Platonic entity)!

Overall, I think the best way to proceed in a debate seeking to answer the question "Did Jesus exist?" IS to swipe Earl's Pauline quibbles aside because they are extremely greasy (especialy with his B.S. translations that even other Christ-mythers regard as utter bunk on the JesusMysteries list). If you don't like what it says, claim its an interpolation. If you can't do that, claim Paul's speaking of events that took place in a Platonic realm. But of course, this can be said about ANYTHING. Jesus ate a hot dog with relish? Oh, that was in the Platonic heavens where the bull of Mithraism was slaughtered.

Nomad's quotes from John were entirely relevant and Earl D. seems to have missed the point - the fact that Jesus and His ministry were seen as a mystery from eternity past and that he was premundane in Paul in NO WAY necessitates that he was not an actual person who walked the earth (and in fact, is perfectly understandable given Paul's theological contemplation of His deity and His rejection for the most part by the Jews). Earl might as well have argued that Paul's Jesus is not human because He's divine.

SecWebLurker




[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited May 15, 2001).]

Layman: Wow. I thought we were going to have a debate about the existence of Jesus.

ChristianSkeptic: Hello Layman. I enjoy reading your posts in this forum.

It appears that Earl does not want to debate anymore because the debate has exposed his pet theory to be weak at best and irrational at worst. The bottom line I think is that Brian, by exposing Earl’s belief has hurt Earl’s feelings-those darn Christians.

The question for us is should a Christian apologize when the non-believer’s feelings are hurt?

Let's not get too silly here. The problem seems to be simply one of different expectations for the debate and this is largely my fault since I didn't work out these expectations more clearly in advance. We will hopefully work out a solution by email and the debate can continue amiably.

I will be happy to see the discussion continue PG, but I'm skeptical of any discussion of either the Jesus-Myth theory or the existence of Jesus which would foreclose discussions on topics like Josephus's references.

I agree with you Layman, and I don't wish to speculate further about what the differences in expectations for the debate are until I receive responses from Earl and Brian (Nomad) through email and we clear this up. However, I think the confusion is over what form the debate is to take, not over what exact issues will be discussed. Josephus will certainly be covered, and Earl discusses it quite a bit in his book and his website.

Okay. I trust you guys to act in good-faith on such matters.