Steven Carr

I think this forum does not allow the abuse that MJ people are routinely subjected to on RD.net.

Deprived of the ability to use abuse here, HJ people are forced to rely on arguments like Mara bar Serapion confirms the existence of Jesus without ever mentioning his name.

ApostateAbe

I thought you might have been on to something, but then I remembered that MJ advocates would be more likely to use personal attacks and week arguments. That seems to have been the pattern, anyway, not that HJ advocates are boy scouts, mind you, but there must be a better explanation. My main arguments have been the mentions of James, the failed apocalyptic prophecies of Jesus, the accurate sociological details of Palestine, and the cult patterns. I never heard of Mara bar Serapion until I read the book by Van Voorst.

Steven Carr

James, the brother of the Lord.

Guess what. Van Voorst never explains why Luke/Acts, James, Jude have no knowledge of this James having any relationship to Jesus at all. Nor who the 'brothers in Christ' were that Paul mentions as a special group in Philippians.

Accurate sociological details of Palestine? Pharisees making 3 day field trips to see if people were gathering corn in the Sabbath in Galilee?

Cult patterns? Paul explaining how the cult could obtain access to the body of its founder by taking part in ritualistic meals, where the body of the founder appeared?

ApostateAbe

I don't want to get into more prolonged arguments with you about those things. I was only giving you my perspective. What you mentioned about Pharisees making 3 day field trips to see if people were gathering corn on the Sabbath in Galilee--could you please direct me to that passage? I would like to look it up and learn more.

neilgodfrey

?? where do you get this from? Have you read Wells, Doherty, Price, Drews, other "JM'ers"? Can you point to any personal attacks in their or other JM arguments?

It is standard for anyone who has a minority position to be extra polite simply to get a hearing. It is those at the top who can afford to dismiss and ridicule. Those at the bottom or minority position have to work harder in every which way over the long haul to be taken seriously.

Go back and have a look at the posts between Doherty and others when the JM position was first raised on Crosstalk2 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/) -- do a count of the posts "with attitude" and those without, and then compare their positions on the argument. You will see my point demonstrated easily.

People arguing for a "JM" position do not necessarily have little horns in their heads.

ApostateAbe

I believe you. I didn't have in mind the central leaders of the MJ position--I had in mind the advocates who believe and follow the ideas. It is not like hostility is woven into the theories. I just have a theory about who tends to believe them. It is a sociological thing.

youngalexander

I was involved in an extensive discussion at RD re Rook of RRS fame. Even became a member of RRS and managed (narrowly) to avoid being banned. I recall that Rook certainly did not aid the MJ cause at RD as a number of others duly joined RRS and were banned for the mildest of disagreements with the sed Rook. RRS was then a charmingly fascist group. After the fun, I rapidly grew bored with RRS but have stayed at DK.

Different strokes for dif folks. DK does not have the interest nor knowledge that BC&H does re - BC&H. Mention HJ/MJ and hostility arises. This is not altogether uncommon in atheist/skeptical circles in my experience.

Try the following experiment (irrespective of your position):
Amongst your non DB atheist friends, in a social engagement, casually introduce the subject of the
'Possability of Jesus not being a historical person'
your will of course encounter disbelief, but in addition, most likely hostility to the notion.

It is afterall very familiar to us. Totally alien to others.
We do not like the unfamiliar - unless of course we are perverse, like a skeptic!

ApostateAbe

I bring up the subject when I speak with atheists I know personally, and I think just about all of the atheists I have known face-to-face (who are not active against religion and don't spend much time on the Internet) have seen the idea that Jesus never existed as alien and weird. They have only as much opposition to it as any other idea they have never heard in their lives.

EDIT: What is DK? Some kind of forum? Too many abbreviations.

maryhelena

Yes, I have often heard the charge that mythicists have an anti-Christian agenda - but you know what - such a charge is pretty much like the charge against heretics in the middle ages - that they were against the authority of the Church. Sure, today, the burning at the stake is not kosher - but attributing bad motivation to the mythicists does betray the very same attitude and lack of tolerance.

Perhaps there are some in the mythicist camp who have an axe to grind with Christianity - and take up the mythicist position with that motivation i.e. they learn something about it and think it a useful arrow to add to their bow.

However, I think one should be careful not to use the exceptions as somehow contaminating all mythicists. After all, motivation is a very personal thing...Remember, Luther - and those words attributed to him; "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise".

Or, consider these words from the Catholic theologian, Hans Kung - from his book "The Church".

I am sure there are many atheists who are mythicists that would concur with that view - once 'society' is inserted in place of 'church'.


Perhaps there is something in Kung's words that could be useful to all sides in this debate over the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth - but, methinks, from what I have observed, that it is those who uphold a historical Jesus of Nazareth that have most to loose - and are thus more likely to impute negative motivation to the other side.

Steven Carr

The most vociferous historicist on RD.Net is Tim O'Neill, who warns repeatedly that claiming that Jesus did not exist is a bad tactic when talking to Christians and for this reason atheists should never say that Jesus did not exist.