Juststeve

blastula:

I assume nothing. I simply observe that there is no evidence from antiquity that anyone ever argued the myther position. If you have contrary evidence feel free to bring it forth. Prove me wrong.

Steve

Juststeve

Toto:

I do not consider you an opponent, just someone with a contrary view.

Steve

Juststeve

Toto:

As to Freke and Gandy, Docetists to my understanding thought Jesus had no human body but only appeared to. That is a far cry from claiming that Jesus was fictional. The appearance of a Human body was to facilitate Jesus’ earthly career in which he interacted with folks here on earth and even appeared to be crucified. Do Freke and Gandy really claim those as mythers? Do you think they should?

Steve

blastula

No, you're arguing more than that, that MJ is false.

You assume plenty and are multiplying assumptions about why some early centuries people believed and said what they did. You're simply asserting your dogma.

Toto

They do, and it's been a while since I read the book, but IIRC they make a somewhat reasonable case for their point of view. They are not saying that Jesus was fictional in the modern sense, but that he was regarded as a spiritual principle that one discovered inside oneself. There was no attempt to deceive; the gnostics wanted to find a higher truth than mere materialist reality.

Freke and Gandy are New Age neo-gnostics, and they tend to idolize the gnostics.

Juststeve

Toto:

Would you agree that mythers say Jesus was mythical in the modern sense?

Steve

jgoodguy

The argument that the silence of any reference to a myther sect is significant is interesting. However it is an argument from silence and needs much more work before it can be entered into evidence.

dog-on

People say the same about angels. Perhaps we should be looking for the historical Gabriel as well...

Toto

I don't know what this means. Seriously.

ApostateAbe

Atheos, I finally replied to your set of points. There are a lot of issues here, and I would be glad to talk about them some more. Many of the issues deserve their own threads. Let me know what you are interested in, and I can arrange that.
It is not always appropriate to infer from this or that passage that something is embarrassing, if all we have to make that judgment are our own models of Christianity. We can conclude embarrassment when the textual evidence very directly infers it. I talked about Matthew 3:13-14 and John 1:30-33, which are very strong indicators that embarrassment was present, but nearly every other element of the baptism accounts also elegantly fits into that theory of embarrassment. It makes perfect sense, given the apparent presence of the cult of John the Baptist that rivaled the Christians, as we know by reading Josephus. The explanation fits the evidence with high probability, and, though some disagree, I am of the opinion that we need to take probability seriously.
The evidence that I most prefer are the synoptic gospels and the letters of Paul. They are the earliest evidence, and, by making the best sense of them, we find a historical Jesus. Tacitus and Josephus also contribute, but relatively little, in comparison. They would be depending on myths propagated by Christians, the same as the Christians of their time. The main reason that their writings count for something is that they were both living in a social environment much closer to the time and place of Jesus. Josephus wrote from a Jewish perspective, and Tacitus wrote from a Roman perspective, and they had a much greater familiarity with their own societies and religions than we have in retrospect. Both of those authors apparently concluded that Jesus was an actual human being. Josephus concluded that he was the brother of James and not the messiah, and Tacitus concluded that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

To see the strength of this argument, imagine that, 2000 years from now, historians are trying to make sense of whether or not Joseph Smith existed, and they have only the book of Mormon, a few 20th century Mormon writings about Joseph Smith, and a non-Mormon in the 20th century who wrote that Joseph Smith was a con artist. They would use such evidence to contribute to their conclusion that Joseph Smith was an actual human being, despite the extraordinary claims believed by Mormons about Joseph Smith. It is not a perfect analogy--maybe ancient critics were much more credulous about myths than modern critics--but it illustrates the principle that people living close to the time contribute to our understanding of the issues in that time.
You are right that Paul never says anything about the virgin birth, Joseph, Mary and Judas. However, he does speak of Jesus being born of a woman, born under the law, descended from David, having brothers, having a brother named James, getting crucified by the rulers of this age, and Paul's speaks about and having arguments with "reputed pillars" of the church named Cephas, James and John, corresponding to the names of the core disciples of Jesus, and he writes that Jesus appeared to these people after the resurrection.

All of these things are contained in the undisputed letters of Paul. Since many Jesus-birthers tend to believe or suspect that Paul believed in an only spiritual or explicitly-fictional Jesus, they have explanations for each of these passages, the same as anyone can have exegetical explanations for anything. Seldom do their claims have probability.

If the Jesus-birthers were to claim merely that Paul does not place as much focus on the human aspect of Jesus, preferring instead to focus on the divine aspect, then the Jesus-birthers would be correct, and it is an essential point--Paul often talks about Jesus, but in only a handful of times, and always to talk about the theological aspects of Jesus rather than the human aspect. There is no need to propose a bizarre explanation for this, because Paul's apostolic authority was completely rooted in his claimed experience of Jesus as a spiritual being. His rivals--Peter, James and John--were direct disciples of Jesus. On any religious matter that has anything to do with Jesus the human being, his rivals would have the authority and the upper hand. Therefore, Paul focused on the spiritual aspect of Jesus instead of the human aspect. It is an explanation that explains all of Paul's writing, not just most of Paul's writing and needing ad hoc explanations for the remainder of it.
I think everyone has biases, and those of us in the atheist community tend to be unfortunately delusional about our own slant in favor of ideas that undercut the authority of the Christian religion. You can see it all over the Internet--Jesus-birthers who claim that Jesus was a copy and paste from the myths of Mithra, Krishna, Horus, and so on. That belief is not present in this forum, where arguments most clearly demonstrate that such ideas are merely modern myths, but you can see it in two amateur Jesus-birther documentaries, other YouTube videos, blogs, Jesus-birther websites, anti-Christianity websites, and even the official websites of the prominent atheist organizations. There is only one thing that explains the strong presence of that belief among anti-religious activists--wishful thinking. It appeals to all of us, and everyone is a victim of confirmation bias, not just the people we disagree with.
I think that the mythical character of Jesus shared some of the qualities of other mythical figures, such resurrection, being the Son of God, and having miraculous powers. I don't think the evidence suggests that the myth began that way, nor do I think that they myth was "nebulous at first." The gospels show a chronological progression, from more human and less divine to less human and more divine. The gospels of Mark and Q, the earliest gospels, show very much a human Jesus. In Mark, Jesus is more of an emotional, misunderstood, and capricious person, things that we more expect of a human being, and says the things expected of a doomsday cult leader. In Q, Jesus also says the things most expected of a doomsday cult leader (i.e. "Let the dead bury their own dead"). You can read the approximate probable contents of the gospel of Q here. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus' apocalypticism is somewhat spiritualized. For example, Jesus says that "the kingdom of God is within you," and Jesus is not an emotional wreck at his crucifixion--he is willing and expectant. And, of course, Jesus is portrayed as conceived being the Son of God. In John, Jesus is the most divine of all, on the same level as God.

The point is the seeming chronological progression from human to divine. In the earliest evidence, that is when Jesus is more human than ever.
I think this is a good point, and it needs an answer. The answer is found in the nature of what the earliest religion of Christianity really was. Christianity was a doomsday cult. They had no need for relics. They had no need for monuments. They had no need for traditional pilgrimages. All of them believed that the apocalypse was very close at hand--everything would be destroyed, and a new kingdom of God would be established. See my thread, The failed prophecies of the historical Jesus . Even into the second century, Christians maintained the belief in the imminent doomsday. 2 Peter 3:3-9 says,

First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’

[...]

But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

This is a passage written to apologetically defend Christians from "scoffers" who point out that the original listeners and the generation of Jesus are long dead, but the world hasn't changed so much. The author pretends to be writing a prophecy of Peter about the "last days," but, really, the second-century author was writing about his own time.