Ted Hoffman

I know of websites and discussion forums like crosstalk.2XTalk, JesusMysteries · Was Jesus an Historical Figure?
Ebla's New Testament & Early Christianity (which I quit recently), HistoricalJesus101@yahoogroups.com and so on and so forth. Of course, they all attempt to be as scholarly as possible, with xtalk having the best from scholarship.

I have not been aware of a campaign to consciously weed out mythicist ideas or ideas that challenge historicity of certain events or characters in the gospels as I have experienced in the recent past. Am I behind news? Has it already been decided by scholarship that the existence of Jesus is secure and not open to question?

Other than falling out with the moderator at ebla, I noticed that Kirby changed his erstwhile www.didjesusexist.com (a resource website which has the banner: "Presenting the best in research from all points of view") to a more 'neutral' http://www.christianorigins.com/ (anything there?). Now, at ebla, if you want to discuss Jesus mythicism, you start a new thread. You however don't have to start a new thread if you are discussing a HJ.

For example if someone argues in an OP that since Mark 15:21 mentions Simon, Father of Alexander and Rufus, then Mark must be dated c.60 CE because Alexander and Rufus must have been known known to the readers of Mark's Gospel, and you counter this by stating that there is no reason to believe that simply because people are mentioned in the text, the readers must therefore know them. You cite unknown deus ex machina characters like Joseph of Arimathea and nonexistent places like Golgotha, then you reference Bruno Bauer's contention as mentioned by Robert Price (Incredible Shrinking Son of Man) who writes that "Bruno Bauer believed Mark had invented Jesus, just as Mark Twain created Huck Finn" p.30. Sit back for 30 minutes and watch the events unfold.

Your post is deleted promptly. The moderator then explains in red that "you are not to derail threads to push mythicist views unless that thread is specifically about mythicism". You are also made to entertain dark thoughts about the future of your membership in that forum.

Is the christ myth hypothesis losing favour on the internet? Is the question of the existence of a HJ being given a backseat? Or is it the case that any forum that allows free expression of Jesus Mythicism automatically alienates itself from scholarship?

Is it the case that HJ internet posters need an avenue to express themselves without being overwhelmed, outnumbered, outargued and outwitted (like it happened in the recent Temple Ruckus thread) by perceived christ mythers ?

Have their resultant 'internet diaspora' actually created a homeless lot who need sanctuary from mythicist ideas? Have they become a cluster seeking a safe enclave for them to accrete together and find solace without having their ideas constantly unseated and overturned?

I think its quite clear that we have runaway mods (for lack of a better term) who have left IIDB and joined (and moderated) other forums elsewhere. We also have members shuttling from one forum to another. It has recently become clear to me that some (members) regard other forums as 'home' where when a mythicist shows up, they treat the perceived mythicist with hostility like an unwelcome guest yet at IIDB we discuss with these same people congenially.

Some territorial aggressiveness is evident when you see how the iron fangs and steel claws are bared to Jesus Mythers or perceived mythicist ideas. Tongues are stuck out at mythers, moderators are summoned to beat them to shape and the door is flung open. Few times, I have felt betrayed that people with whom we hold related discussions here on a level playing ground elsewhere call moderators to 'tame' me for example - something they have never done here. These same people are quick to blow whistles when they detect any mythicist whiff.

I know they are reading this post and we know each other, so lets be open about whats going on here (which, to tell you the truth, I have no idea).

What I don't understand is: what is wrong with this forum? the members (debating skills plus level of knowledge)? the moderators? Why do some people keep claiming that this forum promotes Jesus mythicism while that is not the case? AFAIK, I am one of the few avowed mythicists here (besides Iaison). Many are agnostic but leaning towards mythicism. And we also have a good number of HJ proponents.

One poster here, after being outgunned in a thread, recently posted: "I'd suggest a thread at ebla rather than here".

Speaking for myself, I love IIDB BC & H forum because it allows free expression of ideas and because there is no censorship of ideas. I like the laid back, unafraid approach (Heck, Vork can even say, "lets derail this thread"). And there is no clampdown on 'troubled threads'. We don't have HJ proponents having their posts deleted here and they keep coming back even though they claim elsewhere that BC & H is a fallen forum.

But why delete mythicist posts elsewhere (especially people who are given a free reign here)? Why frustrate the free expression of mythicist ideas?

Why does vinnie, for example, like it when mythicist ideas are 'limited'? Is that intolerant stance the way of rationalism?

And like I posted at ebla:
Your comments on these issues please.

lulay

it never ceases to amaze me how people will get clung to this trip of 'did Jesus exist or not' trip

when it is completely obvious that the christian myth is a Judeaic-Hellenized plagarisim on the ancinet ever dying ever regenerating god-men of earth religious paganism. the MAJOR difference being that where 'Jesus' predecessors were 'regenerating' with 'historical' Jesus we got memed the dogma that he goes to 'eternal' life with his 'Father' and that through belief in this dogma we TOO can get brownie points and follow him to heaven, and then of course ther's the 'ascension' and 'transfiguration' of bodies and Earth

why these peopole still waste their energy on trying to work out if Jesus was real or not is to me a mysteious waste of their time and effort. For what is the essential thing to realize is that real mythology isn't and was never inTENDEd to be understood historically. it means N O W. now you me her him having direct exPERIENCE Of the 'god'....the original idea was the god--the ever dying ever living, regenerating god is Nature. and when you eat the sacrament which is an hallucinogen you directly feel this mystery, and are 'reborn'. YOU are the goddess/god

Rick Sumner

It's a question, as I've noted, of employing a working hypothesis. I cannot, of course, speak for everyone on the Ebla board, but I can speak for myself when I note that I've grown weary of the same debates again, and again, and again. I wasn't convinced last time someone cited Doherty's reading of kata sarka in the light of C K Barrett, I'm not going to be persuaded this time. Or the next. Or the time after that. It's not as though the arguments for either side have changed, only the phrasing has.

Much the way I imagine many here would be frustrated if every time they cited Q they were drawn to a "Does Q exist" topic, I find it frustrating for every debate to become a question of historicity. I enjoy debating topics such as whether or not Jesus was apocalyptic, whether or not John's baptism was for the remission of sins, the relationship between Jesus and Pharisaism, and so on. I enjoy topics where I can employ a hypothesis I'm persuaded is correct. Again, this is standard scholarly method. You don't rebut Kloppenborg's stratification of Q by arguing whether or not Q exists, for example. They are separate issues.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

Since metadiscussions of Jesus Mythicism are clearly off-topic, I am going to have to lock this thread. Only discussions of Jesus Mythicism are permitted.

:rolling:

Vinnie

You were clearly on a mythicist track in that thread. The Huck Finn comment alone is evidence enough. I also completely eradicated your viewpoint.

Think of it like this. On my own forum I had a science board once. There was one rule though, no young earth creationism was allowed. I feel the same way about mythicism. Its not productive and doesn't deserve the attention it receives here. It would only side-track a forum from productive discussions.

Unfortunately, Ebla didn't totally ban mythicism. They still do allow it, just not for it to hijack threads into that issue.

And this has nothing to do with protectionism from Jesus mythicism any more than my science ban on creationism was aimed at hiding from the dreaded shrinking sun or paluxy man-prints arguments.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Quick wit. The humour is just too rich. :rolling:

Ted Hoffman

Rick,Your reasoning is clear. But the fact that you are unconvinced by an argument offers you no right to muzzle anyone who wants to repeat it.

That is the point. And that is the only point.

You have made up your mind, fine, but that does not mean everyone else who hasn't made up their mind is not qualified to speak. Ignore them, or explicitly state in your forum rules that "x,y and z are not open for discussion because in your infinite wisdom and infallibility, you have decided that, above other men, you have it right and everyone who disagrees has it wrong"

Its all about being clear. You will not find me complaining about christian sites or sites like tektonics because I clearly know where they stand on issues. Its just that I thought Ebla was open, just like IIDB.

Do you realize how selfish and self-serving this is? Do you honestly expect everyones reality to be shaped by what you "enjoy"?

Our strength lies not in having the same ideas and opinions but by having different ideas - this is what Paul Feyerabend called The Conquest of Abundance. Sameness is stultifying. Difference creates synergy. We sharpen each other.

We all do. We all do Rick. But 'persuaded is correct' doesnt mean 'is correct'. Thats why theories are supposed to be tentative. You should know that Frazer's ideas, Cumonts ideas, the JEPD hypothesis etc, were once thought to be correct. They were later proved wrong.

No idea can be written in stone. And if scientific ideas, which are based on empirical evidence, are to be regarded as tentative awaiting falsification, what about a subjective field of enquiry like the one we are engaged in?

True but that analogy doesn't fit. Q by definition is hypothetical so arguing about its existence is useless. Jesus is not hypothetical by definition.

Vinnie,
I was responding to the argument that Simon is historical. What the mod did, is disallow me from posting because I am a mythicist, not because I was on a mythicist track. You yourself attacked my mythicist position (which was not the subject) instead of addressing my arguments.

And this is easy to illustrate.

If Crossan posted on a thread talking about whether Peter denied Jesus, and he posted saying the twelve are not historical - would you claim he is on a mythicist track? No. Why? because he is not a mythicist. But if it was me, the reverse would be the case.

So, you are all jittery around perceived mythicists. Getting all paranoid and asking the mod to use a big stick on them. Its an irrational way of handling things.

This is irrelevant and has no bearing on why my post was deleted.

This is ok in principle - especially if you indicate explicitly that "no young earth creationism is allowed".

You cant be comparing the YEC to Jesus Mythicism now can you? After all, you were handed a free copy of Doherty's book a year ago and was incapable of refuting it. At best, you should shut up.

If you tell me to refute YEC, I can do so in ten minutes straight.

Unfortulately?!!!

This is BS. You, like the mod at Ebla, continue to confuse questions of the historicity of people and events in the bible as mythicism.

Its your fears playing out and you are deluding yourself that you have scholarship on your side. If you are secure in your positions, there is no need to seek safe havens for them like a mother hen protecting her eggs from being broken. There would also be no need for the close-minded arrogance you exhibit when you claim there are ideas you have ruled out. Like they say, only a fool doesn't change his mind. Inherent in that proverb is the idea that one who is wise always entertains the possibility that they could be wrong about something. But you are not willing to accept the idea that maybe a HJ never existed are you?

Science never banned creationism. It simply picked evolution the way I picked mythicism and you picked a HJ and others have picked agnosticism.

Creationism demonstrably failed from the epistemological to the philosophical level. It couldn't help cure diseases, explain biological functions or help us build machines. However, it found a safe haven in church/religion. The same way you and like-minded individuals have found a place you can call home elsewhere.

Rick Sumner

If I own a forum, I can make it to discuss the nature of the aardvark's mating habits, and mandate that all discussion be carried out in Swahili, if I like. Of course it gives the moderators and administrator's that right.

Spare me the ad hominems, they're uncalled for. And nobody suggested that you weren't qualified to speak, what was suggested is that given threads, on a given forum, were not the place to discuss given issues. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. You wouldn't go to X-Talk and discuss Josh McDowell's apologetics either, even though they are discussed here. Different fora, different discussions.

This is another ad hominem, and it has nothing to do with being "selfish" and "self-serving." Clearly I'm not the only one who feels this way, or there wouldn't be any discussion on the forum.

Nobody said it did. That's why I called it my "working hypothesis" rather than a "proven fact."

None of these were "proved"(sic) wrong. They just aren't as accepted as they once were, in the light of new studies, with the exception of the DH, which I believe still enjoys majority acceptance. I haven't done enough research into the matter to tender my own opinion.

That a theory is "tentative" does not mean it cannot be employed as a working hypothesis. That theories are sometimes wrong is irrelevant to that.

You have a place to challenge the nature of the working hypothesis. Right here. Those employing that hypothesis have a place for discussion where that hypothesis is accepted. Ebla. What exactly is the problem with this?

Q itself isn't hypothetical, it either existed or it didn't. Period. There is no third option--either Matthew and Luke used a common source, or they didn't. It's a true dichotomy. The *theories* of Q are what are hypothetical, and you don't challenge a reconstruction of Q (such as Kloppenborg's stratification), by arguing against the existence of Q in the first place--they're entirely different issues.

In similar fashion, you don't argue against a reconstruction of the life of Jesus by arguing that Jesus didn't exist. They're separate issues.

You asked (with a characteristically Aliet-esque poisoned well), why people wanted a forum where Mythicist discussion was curbed. I answered. The end.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

Indeed. In similar fashion, you don't argue against a reconstruction of how God created Adam by arguing that God doesn't exist. They're separate issues.

You provided defective explanations. The beginning.

In any case, how many forums on the internet do you visit and in how many of them do you keep getting pelted by mythicist arguments?

I think the artificial nuisance value you attach to mythicist position is overblown and the nervousness and aggravation mythicists evoke in you and like-minded eliminativists borders on the pathological since you, someone who fronts himself as rational, is clearly becoming intolerant of differing viewpoints.

Don't let HJ hypothesis do this to you. Especially after you have agreed that your hypothesis is not necessarily correct.

This admission places your 'working hypothesis' [which we evidently dont share] at the same level as the mythicist case.

So why condemn the mythicist case if you simply picked a hypothesis because you like it?

Sounds like an emotional issue to me.

Rick Sumner

You're right, you don't. Are you aware of any such discussions?

I'm not about to indulge your pouting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my explanations. I don't discuss mythicism because it bores me, and the polemic frustrates me. I enjoy Ebla because it provides a forum where I don't have to deal with that. This can't be "defective," it's wholly subjective. It's akin to telling me that my favorite color is a "defective" choice.

You don't discuss reconstructions on the Jesus Mysteries list, you don't discuss inerrancy on X-Talk, and you don't discuss mythicism on most forums on Ebla. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of these. That all three are discussed here does not mean that all three should be discussed everywhere.

At the moment? Only two. This one and Ebla. This one, of course, being the only one where I keep getting pelted by mythicist arguments.

I think this is nothing but an ad hominem, and that you are using this thread as naught but a venue to vent frustration. This is wholly inappropriate. Let me know when you can carry on in a more productive manner.

Exactly.

Regards,
Rick Sumner