Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Viklund · 06-27-2011, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

“In fact, I've been toying with the idea of offering to organize a 'collective' e-(book?)response directly to Ehrman's upcoming book, which could involve a number of contributions, including from more than one person on this board whom I have respect for. In the public eye it may be time to supplement the writings of the handful of today's acknowledged mythicists with a broader picture of the 'mythicist community' whose academic venue is the Internet”

I think that’s a splendid idea! I for one could contribute to this project if you think I have anything to offer. Perhaps I could help to strengthen the case against the non-Christian witnesses; among others from my extensive treatise “The Jesus Passages in Josephus” which I have made a rough translation of into English at http://tinyurl.com/66yjxkd . I could also help with other non-Christian Testimonies like the ones by Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Thallus, Phlegon and so on – all can be reached from “The table of contents” at http://tinyurl.com/6larmvc – yet they are mostly dealt with in Swedish. But of course there is a lot of expertise in this area. The important thing is to gather the troops and get it done.

radius · 06-27-2011, 03:47 PM

Ehrman gave an interview not long ago about mythicism - perhaps the format let him down, but all he did was express incredulity and say things like 'we might as well say Alexander didn't exist' and 'no serious scholar...'.

In more reflective mode he places a lot of emphasis on Paul. He assumes that teachings ascribed to ho kurios are those of a historical Jesus, and backreads Judas into Jesus' "betrayal". He sees the stauron as definitively Roman.

More disconcerting is his assertion that early Christians would have had Jesus come from somewhere like Bethlehem to fulfil a prophecy and "wouldn't have made up the idea that he came from a little one horse town like Nazareth". Ignoring the fact that Jesus was said to come from Nazareth precisely so that a prophecy might be fulfilled.

ApostateAbe · 06-27-2011, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radius

Ehrman gave an interview not long ago about mythicism - perhaps the format let him down, but all he did was express incredulity and say things like 'we might as well say Alexander didn't exist' and 'no serious scholar...'.

In more reflective mode he places a lot of emphasis on Paul. He assumes that teachings ascribed to ho kurios are those of a historical Jesus, and backreads Judas into Jesus' "betrayal". He sees the stauron as definitively Roman.

More disconcerting is his assertion that early Christians would have had Jesus come from somewhere like Bethlehem to fulfil a prophecy and "wouldn't have made up the idea that he came from a little one horse town like Nazareth". Ignoring the fact that Jesus was said to come from Nazareth precisely so that a prophecy might be fulfilled.

There is nothing in the Old Testament about Nazareth, nor is Nazareth referred to in any other ancient textual sources. The gospel of Matthew is really the only ancient source (Christian or non-Christian) that claims or shows any evidence that any prophecy had anything to do with Nazareth. No other messianic claimants ever thought anything of Nazareth, and the gospel of John, in fact, reflects common derision of Nazareth ("Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"). If there was such a prophecy, then it would seem to conflict with known prophecy that the messiah should be from the town of Bethlehem (as Christians interpreted it). The best explanation is that there really was no prophecy about Nazareth. The community of Matthew, not specifying any prophet, simply made it up. It really does show an interest in having Jesus fulfill prophecy, and his hometown of Nazareth was an inconvenient fact.

judge · 06-27-2011, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Earl's scholarly credentials are adequate. He reads Greek. His theory is not absurd on its face, .

Merely stating that its is not is meaningless Toto.As you dont want this thread cluttered I'll start another explaining why earls theory is absurd.
ab·surd/əbˈsərd/Adjective
1. (of an idea or suggestion) Wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

As its is Wildly unreasonable and illogical rational people should reject it.

jgoodguy · 06-27-2011, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I'd be very interested in hearing earl explain this. Earl can you explain why no one is fit to peer review your work?

Did I say that?

But to address judge's interpretation of what I said, mainstream scholarship has shown itself incapable ("unfit" if you like) of 'peer reviewing' any work on mythicism, not just mine, because it is highly prejudiced against the subject and closed-minded to a fanatical degree while essentially ignorant on the arguments in mythicism's favor. It has made up its mind a priori. (Actually, one can't say "made up its mind" because that implies an initial consideration of the various options.) All that is in direct opposition to the principles of honest scholarship in any field which would claim any degree of "critical" or "scientific" basis, or indeed any claim to be "scholarship".

Given that there are all sorts of religious, social and philosophical movements in human history the existence of whose traditionally reputed founders has become highly questionable or outright rejected, the question of the existence of Jesus is hardly to be considered impossible, absurd, or worthy of disdain without investigation, especially in the face of the extensive problems and weaknesses of the case for his existence and the reliability of the Gospels as history. And yet we have this rabid knee-jerk condemnation and dismissal of Jesus mythicism by collective New Testament scholarship (supported by camp followers like judge and Abe and numerous others of indeterminate motivation and expertise we've all had contact with). That in itself discredits any claims to honesty and integrity on the part of traditional academia and reveals it to be nothing more than pseudo-scholarship. It would make peer review impossible and a farce.

Fine with me.

Tacitus and Pliny (almost the only) evidence for an historical Jesus, according to Ehrman? Can't wait to take that on. In fact, I've been toying with the idea of offering to organize a 'collective' e-(book?)response directly to Ehrman's upcoming book, which could involve a number of contributions, including from more than one person on this board whom I have respect for. In the public eye it may be time to supplement the writings of the handful of today's acknowledged mythicists with a broader picture of the 'mythicist community' whose academic venue is the Internet. We have no need to associate ourselves with "peers" in established academia or to seek their approval, since the latter have discredited themselves and abdicated scholarly responsibility by their disgracefully intolerant dogmatism in regard to a persistent theory in their own discipline (almost two centuries old) which has every reason to be taken seriously.

We may be able to thank Bart Ehrman for offering himself as a sacrificial lamb.

Earl Doherty

Of course, it might be best to wait for the lamb to be served before commenting on how good a dish it is.

judge · 06-27-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Getting back to the topic at hand...

So i take it you now are admitting you are unable to back up your previous assertion with evidence? despite saying...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Ask me for something concrete and I will happy to comply.

I pointed out that mythicist deas like earls were suspiciously absent from the entire corpus of early Christianity. You then asserted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

It's present throughout the entire corpus of early Christianity,

You cannt back up your claim with evidence, and it therefore has no place in rationalism.

ApostateAbe · 06-27-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Of course, it might be best to wait for the lamb to be served before commenting on how good a dish it is.

N/A

aa5874 · 06-27-2011, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

[
There is nothing in the Old Testament about Nazareth, nor is Nazareth referred to in any other ancient textual sources. The gospel of Matthew is really the only ancient source (Christian or non-Christian) that claims or shows any evidence that any prophecy had anything to do with Nazareth. No other messianic claimants ever thought anything of Nazareth, and the gospel of John, in fact, reflects common derision of Nazareth ("Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"). If there was such a prophecy, then it would seem to conflict with known prophecy that the messiah should be from the town of Bethlehem (as Christians interpreted it). The best explanation is that there really was no prophecy about Nazareth. The community of Matthew, not specifying any prophet, simply made it up. It really does show an interest in having Jesus fulfill prophecy, and his hometown of Nazareth was an inconvenient fact.

Again, you are NOT logical. You are not making any sense. KNOWN Falsehoods and Lies in the NT do NOT make the Jesus story credible.

If Jesus was actually KNOWN to have been born in Nazareth then it would have been a KNOWN lie that he was born in Bethlehem as stated in the Gospels

If Jesus was actually born and KNOWN to be born in Nazareth then virtually the entire chapter 2 of gMatthew and chapter 2 of gLuke would have been KNOWN to be false by those who KNEW Jesus was born in Nazareth.

People of Nazareth would most likely known the house or place in Nazareth where Jesus was born.

The story that Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem would have been KNOWN to be false.

If Jesus was born and was KNOWN to be born in Nazareth then the so-called prophecy in Micah 5.2 would NOT have applied Jesus of Nazareth and people of Nazareth would have known Matt. 2.5-6 was false.

Micah 5.2 applies to some-one born in Bethlehem.

The assumption that Jesus was born in Nazareth only suggests that the Gospels are NOT credible or historically reliable and some other source must be used to determine where Jesus was born.

But in any event, Jesus was the Child of a Ghost in the NT and claims that Jesus was born as described in the NT anywhere in the known world is False.

judge · 06-27-2011, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Given that there are all sorts of religious, social and philosophical movements in human history the existence of whose traditionally reputed founders has become highly questionable or outright rejected, the question of the existence of Jesus is hardly to be considered impossible, absurd,

It's not questioning it thats absurd, its your flimsy contived arguments. Don't you even get that basic fact Earl?
If you wish to take this personally thats up to you, but lets not misrepresent things. Its your weak contived arguments.

Quote:

or worthy of disdain without investigation, especially in the face of the extensive problems and weaknesses of the case for his existence and the reliability of the Gospels as history.

Naturally the evidence for a little known apocalyptic preacher in galillee and or Judea in the first part of the 1st century will not have loads of evidence.

Quote:

And yet we have this rabid knee-jerk condemnation and dismissal of Jesus mythicism by collective New Testament scholarship (supported by camp followers like judge and Abe and numerous others of indeterminate motivation and expertise we've all had contact with). That in itself discredits any claims to honesty and integrity on the part of traditional academia and reveals it to be nothing more than pseudo-scholarship. It would make peer review impossible and a farce.

Again the problem is your weak and contrived arguments. They have no place in rationalism

Vorkosigan · 06-27-2011, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Getting back to the topic at hand...

So i take it you now are admitting you are unable to back up your previous assertion with evidence? despite saying...

I pointed out that mythicist deas like earls were suspiciously absent from the entire corpus of early Christianity. You then asserted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

It's present throughout the entire corpus of early Christianity,

You cannt back up your claim with evidence, and it therefore has no place in rationalism.

Judge, I hadn't gotten around to replying to you yet.

As for mythicism being present throghuout early Christianity, Earl has compiled a slew of evidence along with an alternative interpretive framework. See his Jesus Puzzle website.

Vorkosigan

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

06-27-2011, 03:47 PM	#112
radius Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England. Of Ireland. Posts: 23	Ehrman gave an interview not long ago about mythicism - perhaps the format let him down, but all he did was express incredulity and say things like 'we might as well say Alexander didn't exist' and 'no serious scholar...'. In more reflective mode he places a lot of emphasis on Paul. He assumes that teachings ascribed to ho kurios are those of a historical Jesus, and backreads Judas into Jesus' "betrayal". He sees the stauron as definitively Roman. More disconcerting is his assertion that early Christians would have had Jesus come from somewhere like Bethlehem to fulfil a prophecy and "wouldn't have made up the idea that he came from a little one horse town like Nazareth". Ignoring the fact that Jesus was said to come from Nazareth precisely so that a prophecy might be fulfilled.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.