Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 11-03-2009, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

The problem for the Mythical Jesus advocate is to have an MJ that is more probable and less complex than the minimalist HJ.

That's not really a problem: the simplest explanation is that "Jesus" was an entity seen in visionary experience (the reverse of lucid dreaming: i.e. dreaming while awake).

People have visions all the time; most religions start this way (e.g. consider the multitude of "shamanisms", "nature worship" religions and "ancestor worship" religions; then "biggies" like Islam, Vajrayana Buddhism, Celestial Masters Daoism). AFAICS visionary experience is by far the most common type of origin for religions, following this basic pattern: deity gives person message, person promulgates deity's message.

And not just religions, but even some ancient philosophies (e.g. Parmenides).

In fact, to my mind, this sort of explanation is far more probably correct than the contorted explanation that some person existed who was impressive enough to be (relatively) immediately deified, but not impressive enough for anyone to remember anything about him.

No progress will really be made on this matter academically until this sinks in - but it will take a few more years of cognitive scientific investigations for it to really sink in with academia. (I'm thinking of the kind of stuff Thomas Metzinger and Susan Blackmore do.)

The historical Jesus is dead in the water.

There is no support in antiquity for a human Jesus. The NT and Church writings support a God/man, which in turn support MYTHOLOGY.

MJers have ALL that is needed. They have the NT, the Church writings, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny and other writings.

HJers have NOTHING. It is all over for HJ.

Vincent Guilbaud · 11-05-2009, 06:56 PM

The Jesus Project has been a failure.
It seems the theory of the MJ is still too much in advance for its time to allow this kind of approach.

Luckily, Doherty's new book is here.

ApostateAbe · 11-06-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Guilbaud

The Jesus Project has been a failure.
It seems the theory of the MJ is still too much in advance for its time to allow this kind of approach.

Luckily, Doherty's new book is here.

I think it is best for MJ advocates to face the reality that their theory is on the fringe, has been on the fringe for over a hundred years, and it will probably remain on the fringe until they find new compelling evidence that will be bring qualified critical scholars on their side, not just anti-religious activists.

Solo · 11-06-2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Guilbaud

The Jesus Project has been a failure.
It seems the theory of the MJ is still too much in advance for its time to allow this kind of approach.

Luckily, Doherty's new book is here.

I think it is best for MJ advocates to face the reality that their theory is on the fringe, has been on the fringe for over a hundred years, and it will probably remain on the fringe until they find new compelling evidence that will be bring qualified critical scholars on their side, not just anti-religious activists.

Actually, it's worse than that: hundred years ago
the Dutch radicals begat their second generation, Arthur Drews was considered a threat enough for Schweitzer to take a long look at him, German Marxists developed their own mythical Jesus lore after Bauer and Engels. Then there was the rising rising-god school of Frazier and Robinson, and in the US the popular W.B.Smith.

Who is there now ? Earl and Acharya and Robert Price egging the two on. The long list probably includes Richard Carrier, but over the last two years I have grown pessimistic about his contribution coming any time soon. There is just no market for No Jesus these days, with Nazis and bolsheviks gone and mainstream academia hanging on corporate sponsors for dear life. Richard is looking for a job - that's certainly what I would do first, in preference to flogging far-out theories.

Few people these days remember where the ideas of feminism first originated. It was a guy by the name of Charles Fourier, with St-Simon the greatest of French utopian socialist thinkers. He died penniless, of starvation, waiting for money from sponsors in a rented room in Paris in 1837.

Jiri

bacht · 11-06-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think it is best for MJ advocates to face the reality that their theory is on the fringe, has been on the fringe for over a hundred years, and it will probably remain on the fringe until they find new compelling evidence that will be bring qualified critical scholars on their side, not just anti-religious activists.

Actually, it's worse than that: hundred years ago
the Dutch radicals begat their second generation, Arthur Drews was considered a threat enough for Schweitzer to take a long look at him, German Marxists developed their own mythical Jesus lore after Bauer and Engels. Then there was the rising rising-god school of Frazier and Robinson, and in the US the popular W.B.Smith.

Who is there now ? Earl and Acharya and Robert Price egging the two on. The long list probably includes Richard Carrier, but over the last two years I have grown pessimistic about his contribution coming any time soon. There is just no market for No Jesus these days, with Nazis and bolsheviks gone and mainstream academia hanging on corporate sponsors for dear life. Richard is looking for a job - that's certainly what I would do first, in preference to flogging far-out theories.

Few people these days remember where the ideas of feminism first originated. It was a guy by the name of Charles Fourier, with St-Simon the greatest of French utopian socialist thinkers. He died penniless, of starvation, waiting for money from sponsors in a rented room in Paris in 1837.

Jiri

Maybe 20th C fundamentalism will prove to have been the last gasp of biblical literalism, the flare of the candle before being extinguished.

aa5874 · 11-06-2009, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Guilbaud

The Jesus Project has been a failure.
It seems the theory of the MJ is still too much in advance for its time to allow this kind of approach.

Luckily, Doherty's new book is here.

I think it is best for MJ advocates to face the reality that their theory is on the fringe, has been on the fringe for over a hundred years, and it will probably remain on the fringe until they find new compelling evidence that will be bring qualified critical scholars on their side, not just anti-religious activists.

Are you joking?

Do you want more compelling evidence than the NT and Church writings including Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Mark 16.6, John 1.1-4, Acts 1.9, Romans 1.9, 1 Corinthians 15.4-8, Galatians 1.1, Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius?

Up to now you cannot present one compelling evidence for the HJ.

On this board, you may find that the HJ IS FRINGE.

It will probably remain so forever.

What would you call an entity presented as the Holy Ghost of God, who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven?

A MYTH.

Vincent Guilbaud · 11-06-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

it will probably remain on the fringe until they find new compelling evidence that will be bring qualified critical scholars on their side, not just anti-religious activists

Sure ApostateAbe, the only reason one can think there was no HJ is because he's anti-religious.

But what kind of 'compelling evidence' could change anything?

1 - Find an original 'Testimonium Flavianum' without any trace of Jesus?

2 - Find Q without any saying assigned to Jesus?
(although Jesus appears only once in Q1)

3 - Find a lost letter of Paul saying his heavenly Christ is only revelation?
(although it's exactly what Paul already says many times)

Well, on these three cases, the MJ has many more arguments than the HJ.

So, For Biblical scholars and Zeus theologians,
it is not a question of Evidence but of blindness.
Plus, for most of them, they have too much to lose.

ApostateAbe · 11-06-2009, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Guilbaud

Quote:

it will probably remain on the fringe until they find new compelling evidence that will be bring qualified critical scholars on their side, not just anti-religious activists

Sure ApostateAbe, the only reason one can think there was no HJ is because he's anti-religious.

But what kind of 'compelling evidence' could change anything?

1 - Find an original 'Testimonium Flavianum' without any trace of Jesus?

2 - Find Q without any saying assigned to Jesus?
(although Jesus appears only once in Q1)

3 - Find a lost letter of Paul saying his heavenly Christ is only revelation?
(although it's exactly what Paul already says many times)

Well, on these three cases, the MJ has many more arguments than the HJ.

So, For Biblical scholars and Zeus theologians,
it is not a question of Evidence but of blindness.
Plus, for most of them, they have too much to lose.

I am thinking maybe a lost scroll dated to 100 BC that contains a character very close to the gospel character of Jesus. Or a Christian apologetic document that contains a rebuttal of critics in the first or second century who said that Jesus didn't exist. Or a letter from Paul accusing Peter of having never met Jesus. I know those kinds of things are unlikely, but that is what would count as evidence. Currently, we have a set of synoptic gospels dating to the first century that list the associations of Jesus, with the social and political environment of the gospels corroborated by Philo and Josephus, and we have those associations of Jesus corroborated by the first-century writings of Paul. That is solid evidence that Jesus was a human being--certainly in large part a myth, but not just a myth. The MJ theory needs comparable evidence on its side.

aa5874 · 11-06-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... Currently, we have a set of synoptic gospels dating to the first century that list the associations of Jesus, with the social and political environment of the gospels corroborated by Philo and Josephus, and we have those associations of Jesus corroborated by the first-century writings of Paul. That is solid evidence that Jesus was a human being--certainly in large part a myth, but not just a myth. The MJ theory needs comparable evidence on its side.

1. There is nothing in Philo about Jesus of the NT.Not one single thing.

2. There is nothing but forgeries in Josephus about Jesus, and even the forged passage described Jesus as an unknown entity who was raised from the dead after the third day.

3. There is no solid evidence that Jesus was just a man.

4. MJers have Marcion who claimed Jesus was a Phantom.

5. MJers have Paul who claimed he was not the Apostle of a man or of men. Paul's Jesus was not a man or of men.

4. There is good solid evidence or information that the authors of the NT and the Church writers believed Jesus was a God who existed before the world was created, who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

It is all over for the HJ.

Vincent Guilbaud · 11-06-2009, 07:47 PM

Asking for the type of 'evidence' required by scholars to dare to question the basis of this legend,
ApostateAbe answered:

1 - I am thinking maybe a lost scroll dated to 100 BC that contains a character very close to the gospel character of Jesus.

2 - Or a Christian apologetic document that contains a rebuttal of critics in the first or second century who said that Jesus didn't exist.

3 - Or a letter from Paul accusing Peter of having never met Jesus.

My answers:

1 - Esseniens had their teacher of righteous who might have been taken for the founder of the sect.
But the world is full of new fictional stories every day which have no antecedent.

2 - There is no rebuttal on anything against Moses, Abraham, Noah ...
Attis, Adonis, Mithra, Osiris, Demeter, Dionysos ...
Hercules, Theseus, Romulus, Oedipus,
Tom Sawyer, Jean Valjean,
or Peter Pan, James Bond, Spider Man, Superman, Batman.

3 - But if Jesus was a mythical character, and all Christian knew it very well,
it would look stupid for someone to 'accuse him to not have met Jesus'.
They could only accuse him to not have received the lord, or heard him, or had vision of him.

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

11-05-2009, 06:56 PM	#32
Vincent Guilbaud Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Cary, NC, USA Posts: 42	The Jesus Project has been a failure. It seems the theory of the MJ is still too much in advance for its time to allow this kind of approach. Luckily, Doherty's new book is here.

11-06-2009, 07:47 PM	#40
Vincent Guilbaud Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Cary, NC, USA Posts: 42	Asking for the type of 'evidence' required by scholars to dare to question the basis of this legend, ApostateAbe answered: 1 - I am thinking maybe a lost scroll dated to 100 BC that contains a character very close to the gospel character of Jesus. 2 - Or a Christian apologetic document that contains a rebuttal of critics in the first or second century who said that Jesus didn't exist. 3 - Or a letter from Paul accusing Peter of having never met Jesus. My answers: 1 - Esseniens had their teacher of righteous who might have been taken for the founder of the sect. But the world is full of new fictional stories every day which have no antecedent. 2 - There is no rebuttal on anything against Moses, Abraham, Noah ... Attis, Adonis, Mithra, Osiris, Demeter, Dionysos ... Hercules, Theseus, Romulus, Oedipus, Tom Sawyer, Jean Valjean, or Peter Pan, James Bond, Spider Man, Superman, Batman. 3 - But if Jesus was a mythical character, and all Christian knew it very well, it would look stupid for someone to 'accuse him to not have met Jesus'. They could only accuse him to not have received the lord, or heard him, or had vision of him.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.