Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 06-27-2011, 09:46 PM

<edit>

jgoodguy · 06-27-2011, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea7

I am curious as to why this is, especially for scholars who are not Christians. I do not understand why most rational people place their trust in experts of every other field, but this case should be the exception. How often Christians are derided, and rightfully so, for clinging to creationism in the face of Biologists and other scientists who know the truth of evolution?

When mainstream biologists are challenged on the question of evolution, they come up with facts and reasons. There is an entire website, talkreason.org, devoted to factual discussion of the reasons for evolution and the reasons to reject creationism. As more evidence is discovered, the case for evolution is only supported.

In contrast, when those who claim to be experts in the question of the historical Jesus are challenged, they primarily engage in insults, or arguments that are based on unreliable ancient documents.

Quote:

In this case it seems to be a vocal minority, who in some instances lack the credentials of a scholar, yet accuse mainstream scholars of bias and argue dismissing scholars in place of their theory.How does that differ from those who purport ID or creationism?

It differs in every respect.

In fact, the historical Jesus so called experts have more in common with creationists than with scientists who study evolution.

Of course Biology is a real Science and the quest for the Historical/Mythical Jesus is an exercise in literary analysis. If pushed, the quest for both the HJ and JM appears to be like creationism but with even less evidence.

jgoodguy · 06-27-2011, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea7

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...In contrast, when those who claim to be experts in the question of the historical Jesus are challenged, they primarily engage in insults, or arguments that are based on unreliable ancient documents.

There are differences between establishing evidence in the field of history and the physical sciences. Antiquity does not frequently provide physical evidence and so the historical-critical method is applied. I am not referring to people who merely "claim to be experts", but to those who are recognized scholars and would be considered so in a court of law. Establishing any likely fact of history, if it is about any ancient person, is going to be different than establishing the likely fact of gravity or evolution. Gravity and evolution are around us everyday, Socrates and Jesus are not. It is unreasonable to expect the same standards of evidence.

It is unreasonable to expect the same standards of evidence, but it is not reasonable to cling dogmatically to the idea that there was a historical Jesus merely because there is no way to disprove his existence.

Quote:

In fact, the historical Jesus so called experts have more in common with creationists than with scientists who study evolution.

Why do you refer to scholars as "so called experts"?

Most of the scholars who pontificate on the historical Jesus are not experts at history. They are experts at ancient languages, or theology, or documents. Many of them are ministers, or are employed by Christian institutions, or have other constraints. They tend to assume that the existence of a historical Jesus is established, and cannot be questioned.

There is one person with actual training in history, Richard Carrier, who has a PhD in ancient history from Columbia, who is writing a book supporting the mythicist thesis. It should be out within a year, and it should answer your questions.

If you really care about this issue, you can read a lot in the archives here, or on Vridar.

The key question to ask is which flavor of the HJ is held by how many. If we have a minimalist HJ that has minimal effect on orthodox Christianity, then we have a majority in favor of a HJ but the JMers get to define how orthodox Christianity developed. You could have a profusion of HJs such that a generic HJ is the majority view, but there is no consensus on what the HJ was. Again the HJ view prevails, but the JMers get to define how orthodox Christianity developed. In the end the JMers are going to win.

Every new book that is coming out is supposed to be the killer answer and none ever is.

judge · 06-27-2011, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea7

I am curious as to why this is, especially for scholars who are not Christians.

There has never been a rational credible case made that jesus existed anywhere but on earth.
I dont think its so much they reject it, its not relevant.

Quote:

I do not understand why most rational people place their trust in experts of every other field, but this case should be the exception.

The christian religion is awful and I suspect people who arent christians realise this are biased against even an historical jesus who is far removed from the religion.
Its not a rational approach, but hey thats life.

If we treat jesus like any historical figure then we'd say he existed. The bias slips in becuase mythers think we should treat him differently.
Christians think he is different , but, who cares what christians think.

The reports in tacuitus and josephus are of about the magnitude we would expect of someone like jesus.

Steven Carr · 06-27-2011, 10:44 PM

'Why do mainstream scholars reject the Mythical Jesus?'

Because there is prima facie evidence for the existence of somebody called Jesus.

Of course, the search for the Historical Jesus by mainstream scholars has crashed and burned so badly that mainstream scholars now number the failed quests, and write books documenting the various failures to find the Historical Jesus.

I guess this is like the way scientists write books numbering the failed quests to find evidence for evolution.

As far as I can see, mainstream scholars have not even attempted to find evidence for the existence of Judas, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Barabbas, Bartimaeus etc etc.

They must have existed though, because they are in the Bible.

ApostateAbe · 06-27-2011, 10:45 PM

If someone believes that Jesus never existed, then odds are that it has something to do with one's animosity toward Christianity. All you need to do is to search on Google and YouTube, find the mythicist websites and blogs, and you can see how often the promotion of Jesus-myth theory and anti-religiosity overlaps and coincides with each other. For example, you do a search for Jesus never existed on Google, and this is the first thing that comes up:

www.jesus never existed.com

"For all who would struggle against the tragedy of religion"

For anyone who is curious, I have a large thread on the connection between Jesus-mythicism and anti-Christianity/anti-fundamentalist here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=283440

I have used that thread to collect some of the times I have seen mythicism and anti-religiosity promoted in exactly the same contexts, and I have collected very many of them. They are not hard to find. They kinda jump out at you almost everywhere the topic is discussed.

judge · 06-27-2011, 10:47 PM

Why would scholars even concern themselves with a clearly nutty theory?

Bart Ehrman will at least make some money from his e book. :devil1:

Steve Weiss · 06-27-2011, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea7

I am curious as to why this is, especially for scholars who are not Christians. I do not understand why most rational people place their trust in experts of every other field, but this case should be the exception. How often Christians are derided, and rightfully so, for clinging to creationism in the face of Biologists and other scientists who know the truth of evolution? In this case it seems to be a vocal minority, who in some instances lack the credentials of a scholar, yet accuse mainstream scholars of bias and argue dismissing scholars in place of their theory.How does that differ from those who purport ID or creationism?

Well, you are in for a surprise.

The NT Canon itself is the source of the Mythical Jesus, the Jesus of Faith.

It is the very NT where Jesus is described as the Child of a Holy Ghost, the Creator, the Word that was God that walked on water, transfigured, was raised from the dead and ascended in a cloud.

HJ Scholars simply do not accept that the evidence in the NT Canon which suggests that Jesus was just a myth fable that was believed in antiquity.

But, without any credible corroborative source HJ is just an assumption by some Scholars. Even mainstream Scholars admit that the NT is NOT historically reliable.

Correct, and there is an entire huge industry with a vested interest in the conventional assumptions. At what point does myth get accepted as history? When enough people believe in it and develop embelishments layer upor layer until the orginal fiction become institutionalised and no one is left to shout out that the emperor has no clothes. As obvious fiction as the citations that you made are, apologists will dance around them based upon irrational faith and an arbitrary belief in sacred scriptures. It takes real independence of mind to call a spade a spade when nearly everyone classifies myths as historical facts. Could an entire culture be wrong? Most certainly, which alienates the few who recognize it.

aa5874 · 06-27-2011, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

...Of course Biology is a real Science and the quest for the Historical/Mythical Jesus is an exercise in literary analysis. If pushed, the quest for both the HJ and JM has little evidence in support.

You claim is erroneous. The quest for the historical Jesus had nothing to do with any quest for a mythical Jesus.

The quest for historical Jesus was started over 200 years ago by those who did NOT accept the Jesus of the NT, the Jesus of FAITH.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

MJers have NO quest. MJers are simply telling HJers that that there was no Jesus of FACTS just a Jesus of Faith, just Myth Jesus.

The Jesus of FAITH is MYTH JESUS but HJers refuse to accept the written evidence in the NT and are still searching the entire globe for credible historical sources for HJ.

MJers have inherently PREDICTED that HJers will not find any credible sources for HJ and that is the HARSH REALITY.

MJers have inherently PREDICTED that an HJ has no theological value in the NT and had NO influence at all on the cult called Christians and that is the HARSH REALITY.

Only the Jesus of Faith(Myth Jesus) had influence on the cult called Christians. Jesus was ONLY BELIEVED to have existed by Faith but NOT by FACTS.

Toto · 06-27-2011, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... All you need to do is to search on Google and YouTube, find the mythicist websites and blogs, and you can see how often the promotion of Jesus-myth theory and anti-religiosity overlaps and coincides with each other...

If you search for jesus never existed, the first thing you find is a website called jesusneverexisted.com - fancy that.

Quote:

For anyone who is curious, I have a large thread on the connection between Jesus-mythicism and anti-Christianity/anti-fundamentalist here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=283440

And it failed to show a connection.

Quote:

I have used that thread to collect some of the times I have seen mythicism and anti-religiosity promoted in exactly the same contexts, and I have collected very many of them. They are not hard to find. ....

Can you say confirmation bias?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-27-2011, 09:46 PM	#21
judge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bli Bli Posts: 3,135	<edit>

06-27-2011, 10:44 PM	#25
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	'Why do mainstream scholars reject the Mythical Jesus?' Because there is prima facie evidence for the existence of somebody called Jesus. Of course, the search for the Historical Jesus by mainstream scholars has crashed and burned so badly that mainstream scholars now number the failed quests, and write books documenting the various failures to find the Historical Jesus. I guess this is like the way scientists write books numbering the failed quests to find evidence for evolution. As far as I can see, mainstream scholars have not even attempted to find evidence for the existence of Judas, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Barabbas, Bartimaeus etc etc. They must have existed though, because they are in the Bible.

06-27-2011, 10:45 PM	#26
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	If someone believes that Jesus never existed, then odds are that it has something to do with one's animosity toward Christianity. All you need to do is to search on Google and YouTube, find the mythicist websites and blogs, and you can see how often the promotion of Jesus-myth theory and anti-religiosity overlaps and coincides with each other. For example, you do a search for Jesus never existed on Google, and this is the first thing that comes up: www.jesus never existed.com "For all who would struggle against the tragedy of religion" For anyone who is curious, I have a large thread on the connection between Jesus-mythicism and anti-Christianity/anti-fundamentalist here: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=283440 I have used that thread to collect some of the times I have seen mythicism and anti-religiosity promoted in exactly the same contexts, and I have collected very many of them. They are not hard to find. They kinda jump out at you almost everywhere the topic is discussed.

06-27-2011, 10:47 PM	#27
judge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bli Bli Posts: 3,135	Why would scholars even concern themselves with a clearly nutty theory? Bart Ehrman will at least make some money from his e book. :devil1:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.