Steven Carr

And creationists cannot point to the undoubted successes mythicists can point to.

Even today, we can see religions based on totally mythical founders.

Meanwhile, historicists claim that the first mention of their Lord doing something is either being the rock that accompanied the Israelites in the desert, or passing on revelations about how to conjure up his body in a ritual cultic meal.

And that therefore their Lord is nothing like the maitreya

maryhelena

Another great contribution to the debate by Neil Godfrey.


http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/02/...ate/#more-5321



Wow - that is one great question from Neil - re whether the Christian idea is big and strong enough to survive the loss of a historical Jesus.

So there we have the whole issue in a nutshell. Is the Christian 'idea' really an 'idea' about a historical Jesus - or is the Christian 'idea' more credible than that assumption. And if so - then having a historical Jesus is neither here nor there - an add-on that can be discarded when its outdated baggage becomes just too heavy to be worth the bother of repairing its ever widening holes...

GakuseiDon

Haven't we already reached that point? In fact, we reached it a long long time ago. I think that is what Schweitzer was saying. The Christ we believe in is a theological construct, not a historical one. The Quests for a historical Jesus was about trying to find the historical part of the theological construct. If no historical core can be found, I can't see what difference that would make.

maryhelena

Then perhaps James McGrath might make better use of his time if he would stop throwing slurs at the mythicist idea - and start preparing the average Christian for the huge disappointment that might well be coming their way
- and at the same time, drop a note to his fellow academics that the time is over for publishing more historical Jesus books....

Come on GDon - if Christian theologians/clergy believe they can get by without a historical Jesus - please also drop them a note and ask them to tell the good news to their parishioners this coming Sunday...

Sure, intellectually, theologically, philosophically, all this is a walk in the park - but there are a lot of believers out there who are emotionally attacked to the gentle Jesus idea - do you really think there would be no backlash were they to suddenly have to give up their comfort blanket....

maryhelena

Well, what can one say....has the debate just hit a new low.....

Toto

GDon's challenge to BRING IT ON has been split off here, since it is not strictly about the ongoing debate in the blogosphere.

Toto

This is why I have tried to keep the creationist analogy out of this forum. It just poisons the discourse. The analogy actually started with Christian evangelicals who tried to use it as a sort of verbal judo, as if the only reason to believe in evolution is some arbitrary consensus among scientists. The ironies abound - these same evangelicals may be creationists themselves, or happy to make common cause with creationists. And none of them are actually historians or understand the basis of historical investigation.

I am waiting for Richard Carrier's book to come out, not because I think he has the absolute truth, but because I think that his work will at least clarify the issues.

mountainman

If a Scotland Yard Inspector was not able to find any evidence of a person's body in a law case involving that person then what case can be made at all in terms of the legalities of the history of that person's body? The possibility then arises that there may be some sort of scam going on, and it would be up to that Inspector to investigate this possibility. As I see it, such is the position of the Mythicists, and such a position is simply common sense and logical, despite any assertions to the contrary. Evidence (or its lack) is critical to the case of both the prosecution and defence.

Zaphod

Well, I am sure you speak for at least one or two percent of practicing Christians in the world.:constern01:

BTW, I read "theological construct" as "a pack of lies". But if this means that you seem to be coming around about it, sincere kudos on that.

My question is why does it take people so long to come to the realization that if the keystone events of Christianity itself are nothing but a pack of theological constructs, why in the world, in the absence of any persuasive evidence of historicity, should we not assume the same to true about the man himself?

What in this whole twisted tale can be reliably ascertained to be true?

aa5874

And even the theological constructs were derived from mis-interpreted passages and false prophecies found in Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint.

The time and manner of birth of Jesus had nothing to do with copulation but mis-interpretation of dreams and visions.

It is the interpreters who have the ability to shift forward or retard his advent not the cohabitors. Some interpreters of false prophecies may still be waiting for the opportune time to make a Virgin deliver a Fable.