coloradoatheist

Yes and no because this was written by the controlling party to get the people in line and almost every generation of people has had a John the Baptist with the end of the world and these were prominent. However we have multiple people buying the storying and making sure the details were corrected. So somebody was a good salesman and made up a story and had to convince multiple people to make up a detailed life of a make up person. Most of the legends had someone that was behind the story that were then exaggerated and that's the default position unless it can be proved otherwise.

Mike

mountainman

Myth is not the correct terminolgy.
The correct terminology is fiction,
and there was a time when He was not
refers to the time before Constantine had
the fiction implemented at Nicaea.

So Arius has the precedence, not Julian.

...[trimmed]...
The christian bible was first bound by Constantine.
It was bound chronologically before any late fourth
century canons. It was bound circa 327-330 CE.

Correct.


Best wishes,



Pete

yalla

I strongly suspect fear is a factor at least for some.
I was reading Mike Goulder's book on ''Matthew'' a few years ago and noted how he was sceptical or dismissive of major orthodox claims re the validity of certain [alleged] oral traditions etc..
I got the impression he was sailing close to the edge of becoming a dis- believer.
Some time afterwards I learned he had left the faith, had taken the final step away.
If a believing mainstream scholar follows the logic and evidence too far s/he can be faced with what I believe is called "a crisis of faith".
So they [subconciously?] pull back when the fear factor gives the warning that down that path lies danger.
Dom Crossan describes one such in one of his books, I forget which.
He was asked a question he couldn't answer by a buyer at a book signing.
He pondered for some time and then found "the answer" [something to do with the Didache IIRC].
And that satisfied him.
He was "safe'.
I can't recall the exact emotions and thoughts he describes, the above is at least partly my explanation or rationalisation if you prefer.
Bishop Spong has some interesting thoughts on the loss of faith scenario.
He admires Goulder and has an HJ version far from orthodox, but maintains his faith.
A lifetime of belief is hard to deny.
So for some it's easier to deny the alternative by simply dismissing any non-HJ line out of hand as unworthy of attention or consideration.
It's safer.
cheers
yalla

Amaleq13

Carotta, Doherty, paranoia and the mainstream

Should they read another thread you started?

Getting new ideas accepted by scholars - how is it done?

GakuseiDon

So, if someone believed that the TF had a core genuine to Josephus, that the James passage wasn't an interpolation, and that popular knowledge about Christ being crucified by Pilate dated to around 110 CE were all meaningful, then that person would be on good grounds to believe that there probably was a historical Jesus?

If someone has examined the evidence and had come to a conclusion based on that examination, then I don't think that their belief can be put down to cultural inertia or "going with the flow" as some have suggested. OTOH, I agree that that might be a good place for mythicists to start -- knocking down those bricks that historicists use to build their conclusions. (I distinguish here those amateurs who claim to have disproven something (like myself) with those people who have genuine expertise in the area)

Malachi151

Actually modern scholarship is showing the opposite, that most of the supposed founders of religions never existed.

Moses - Never existed.
Zoroaster - Never existed.
Buddha - Never existed.
Confucius - Possibly never existed.
Romulus - Never existed.
Orpheus - Never existed.
Homer - Never existed.

Etc..

GakuseiDon

Thanks Amaleq!

Malachi151

I have an idea for how to get this issue addressed by the "mainstream".

We have to put together a made for TV special on the subject and get the History Channel, TLC, Discovery Channel, or PBS to play it.

Given the way that these channels (not PBS so much) have gone down hill over the past 10 years this may not be easy, but its not impossible I don't think either, especially with the proper presentation.

Right now the mainstream can ignore it because its not in anyone's face. If you get it really out there, beyond books that only interested people buy or hip Brian Flemming movies, and actually get a scholarly presentation on TV, I think that would have an impact.

Hell, even if we could get something played on BBC or some other British network that would be an option to get things kicked off.

First we need to at least convince more atheists though. Right now Dawkins and Harris are running around saying that "Jesus was a good person and an inspirational teacher"

The Bishop

The mainstream ignores the Jesus Myth arguments because all those arguments too closely resembly conspiracy theory arguments to be taken seriously.

There is no hard evidence, only "look at this! And this! And this!" emphasis on supposed anomalies, and a theory which can only derive from twisting the meaning of what was evidently meant.

One other main characteristic of the conspiracy theory aspect of MJ theories is that absolutely everything that could be pointed to against the MJ theory is regarded as an "interpolation". And every single person who studies the New Testament and doesn't jump straight to the conclusion that Jesus was entirely mythical is accused of being a Christian. Gerard's characterisation of mainstream NT scholarship was very wide of the mark in my opinion, not least because my opinion comes from an atheist position.

I came to IIDB because I wanted to celebrate rationality, and what I've found here is dogmatism - a devotion to requiring "hard" evidence for Jesus while promoting a theory that actually has no positive evidence whatsoever, and the wholesale rejection of any and all "Christian" documents - dogmatism, then, that is no more acceptable than the doctrines of the Virgin Birth or the Bodily Resurrection (to say nothing of Creation) of the Fundamentalists. And it leaves me heartbroken for all intellectual endeavour.

Gooch's dad

Like hyperbole much? In another thread, you claimed that there were guys all over the place claiming to be messiahs. Another poster mentioned two, and asked you who the others were. I don't recall a response from you. Hmmm.

Now you're claiming that there were thousands of religions like the one that Paul was writing about. Where is your evidence to support this claim?

And...

Back that one up. I'm especially interesting in this "modern scholarship" that shows that the man Gautama Siddhartha, later called the Buddha, never existed.

I call BS. Back it up or retract. This is three claims that I'm betting you can't back up with solid scholarly evidence. And do you wonder why you don't have academic credibility?