Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-09-2011, 02:31 PM

There is actually an intelligent comment on the issue from a standard biblioblogger:

Comment on James McGrath

Quote:

Again, my poor brain may just be inadequate, but the fact that early Christian writers pulled texts from the Hebrew scriptures to create flesh on a very bare biographical skeleton seems to be pretty indisputable. The issue is whether they created the skeleton as well. That the New Testament writers tore texts out of context, with complete disregard for our current standards of textual criticism, seems a complete no-brainer. Exegesis ain't what it used to be, thankfully. But how exactly does that create difficulties for the mythicist position? The birth narratives, the passion narratives, the miracle stories... which parts are immune from a little (or a lot) of Hebrew Bible oil pastel overlay? If we scraped away the pastel work would we find a beautiful original sketch underneath, some childish scribble, or just a blank canvas?

Less compelling (at least to me) is Doherty's argument that (again quoting James) "Jesus was initially understood as a purely celestial figure believed to have done battle with heavenly powers—and to have been crucified and buried somewhere other than on Earth." But, to give the man his due, he does make an interesting case, 'selectively critical' or not.

This is a comment on McGrath's article "Fringe view: The world of Jesus mythicism" in Christian Century (which century was that?) McGrath suffers from Mythicist Derangement Syndrome, so there is nothing much worth while in his article other than that it provoked the comment above.

Juststeve · 11-09-2011, 04:14 PM

And happily there is the erudite Toto to debunk McGrath. We are so blessed.

Steve

aa5874 · 11-09-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

.... McGrath suffers from Mythicist Derangement Syndrome, so there is nothing much worth while in his article other than that it provoked the comment above.

To say that McGrath suffers from Mythicist Derangement Syndrome does not help the MJ argument at all.

You need to IDENTIFY blatant errors in McGrath's article and publicly SHRED his arguments to bits if you can.

Toto · 11-09-2011, 05:37 PM

McGrath hasn't make any serious arguments to debunk. He just relies on his conventional wisdom and name calling.

If you think there is a serious argument there, please list it.

aa5874 · 11-09-2011, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

McGrath hasn't make any serious arguments to debunk. He just relies on his conventional wisdom and name calling.

If you think there is a serious argument there, please list it.

Well, why post his useless arguments on BC&H?

If you are NOT going to debunk him then what is the point?

Now, it is your thread. You must know why you started it.

I want to see you DEBUNK McGrath if you can.

Who knows--McGrath might just demolish your arguments.

mountainman · 11-09-2011, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

McGrath hasn't make any serious arguments to debunk. He just relies on his conventional wisdom and name calling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I want to see you DEBUNK McGrath if you can.

McGrath seeks refuge in the hypothetical positive historicity of Jesus.

Quote:

If you think there is a serious argument there, please list it.

The mythicists seek refuge in the hypothetical negative historicity of Jesus,
while the agnostics seek refuge at the zero point, neither history nor myth.

Positive and Negative Historicity Spectrum of Jesus

+100 = Jesus was historical and God of the Universe inside Hubble linmit

+50 = Jesus was an important historical religious leader

+25 = Jesus was an oscure historical itinerant guru

+5 = Jesus cannot be reconstructed but he existed in history.

HJ
================================================== ===
ZERO = The agnostic fence upon which to balance .....
================================================== ===
MJ

-5 = Jesus cannot be reconstructed but he did not exist in history.

-25 = Jesus was not historical but a vision of "Paul" embellished by scribes

-50 = Jesus was not historical but was formed by the misappropriation of various extant legends, astrotheology and people.

-90 = Jesus was not historical, but was piously forged for political purposes

judge · 11-09-2011, 09:39 PM

There seems to be some good stuff in that article, thanks Toto.

Quote:

One of the poignant ironies about mythicism is its popularity among those who style themselves as freethinkers.

Yes it's very ironic I think.

Quote:

It is easy—and to a certain extent appropriate—to dismiss mythicists and their pseudohistorical methods and claims. But there is a lesson to be learned from them. All people are prone to being deceived—and to deceiving themselves.

Very true.

Quote:

Did the historical Jesus exist? His*torical study can only say "probably," but in this instance it says it with a high degree of confidence. Mythicists are never able to come up with a scenario in which it is probable that one or more Jews invented a figure that they claimed to be the anointed one, the descendant of David who would restore the kingdom of his ancestor; that, furthermore, they invented the claim that this figure had been crucified by enemy powers; and that they proceeded to try to persuade their fellow Jews to believe their message about this Messianic figure, so at odds with Jewish expectations.

A very good point.

Toto · 11-09-2011, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

There seems to be some good stuff in that article, thanks Toto.

Quote:

One of the poignant ironies about mythicism is its popularity among those who style themselves as freethinkers.

Yes it's very ironic I think.

No - this is part of McGrath's Mythicism Derangement Syndrome. He had decided that mythicism is like creationism, and nothing will shake him.

Quote:

But there is a lesson to be learned from them. All people are prone to being deceived—and to deceiving themselves.

Very true.

But McGrath needs to apply it to himself.

Quote:

Did the historical Jesus exist? Historical study can only say "probably," but in this instance it says it with a high degree of confidence. Mythicists are never able to come up with a scenario in which it is probable that one or more Jews invented a figure that they claimed to be the anointed one, the descendant of David who would restore the kingdom of his ancestor; that, furthermore, they invented the claim that this figure had been crucified by enemy powers; and that they proceeded to try to persuade their fellow Jews to believe their message about this Messianic figure, so at odds with Jewish expectations.

A very good point.

It's a complete misstatement of the case for mythicism, which is why it doesn't appear to be probable. Mythicists do not think that Jesus was invented in that way.

mountainman · 11-10-2011, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by James McGrath

Did the historical Jesus exist? Historical study can only say "probably," but in this instance it says it with a high degree of confidence. Mythicists are never able to come up with a scenario in which it is probable that one or more Jews invented a figure ....

Romans not Jews invented a Greek Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by James McGrath

... that they claimed to be the anointed one, the descendant of David who would restore the kingdom of his ancestor; that, furthermore, they invented the claim that this figure had been crucified by enemy powers; and that they proceeded to try to persuade their fellow Jews to believe their message about this Messianic figure, so at odds with Jewish expectations.

A very good point.

Its a strawman masquerading as a very hypothetical point.

James McGrath sells Christian Insurance.
Buy now and get a free bible.

How about the comment at the end of the blog .....

Quote:

I think it is about time that secular New Testament scholars correct the Jesus minimalists and defend good history in the face of ideology.

abe

:rolling:

Stringbean · 11-10-2011, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Romans not Jews invented a Greek Jesus.

Its a strawman masquerading as a very hypothetical point.

James McGrath sells Christian Insurance.
Buy now and get a free bible.

How about the comment at the end of the blog .....

Quote:

I think it is about time that secular New Testament scholars correct the Jesus minimalists and defend good history in the face of ideology.

abe

:rolling:

Quote:

James McGrath sells Christian Insurance.

You got it.

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

11-09-2011, 04:14 PM	#2
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	And happily there is the erudite Toto to debunk McGrath. We are so blessed. Steve

11-09-2011, 05:37 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	McGrath hasn't make any serious arguments to debunk. He just relies on his conventional wisdom and name calling. If you think there is a serious argument there, please list it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.