Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 09-24-2010, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Poor Steve. He didn't seem comfortable defending the HJ position, but didn't seem to have another perspective to work from. He may represent the majority of people out there, the target market for the Dan Browns of the world.

I think that's a bit unfair on Steve, I think he's a rational guy - it's just that, well, what do you expect when you come in all guns blazing, virtually calling everyone a moron who explores certain non-mainstream ideas?

Well, maybe he didn't realize there were so many anti-HJ people here. But really, this is the 21st C, what's so bizarre about questioning Christianity from first principles? Scholars started doing this a couple of centuries ago.

There are lots of ex-Christians here, it's not like we don't know the tradition from the inside. If this were a Muslim or Hindu forum I might understand the hostility of people supporting the orthodox story.

bacht · 09-24-2010, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Contemporary Christian vocation or ethics are beyond the scope of this sub-forum.

What is being discussed is the Christian response to mythicism. I believe this to be a very serious challenge to Christianity. And I don't think that established scholarship is at all well-equipped to deal with it. In this, I am in agreement with the mythicists. However, I do believe that there is a more than adequate response available to Christians. This response, however, means jettisoning much of the standard Christian interpretation. Traditionalist Christians are thus in a bad spot: they must either abandon Christ to the mythicists, or abandon their own traditional understanding of Christ. For atheists, however, the prospects are bright. They can have the completely human Christ. They just have to reject mythicism outright. By doing so, it is the atheists who become the vanguard of the New Christianity. I do not think that established scholarship will ever go down this road, however. Scholars will either join the flailing defence of traditionalism, or ally themselves with the mythicists. So, what is needed is a guerrilla approach to the New Christianity. Let our rallying cry be, "Back to the catacombs!"

Whatever. I don't come here to discuss the present state of Christianity, there are other places for that. There doesn't seem to be any immediate danger of the MJ position becoming mainstream so it's a moot point.

No Robots · 09-24-2010, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

There doesn't seem to be any immediate danger of the MJ position becoming mainstream so it's a moot point.

I think you're being a little pessimistic here. You have Carrier, Doherty and Price. Hoffmann is leaning your way. And it looks like Arnal is wavering. Dawkins has raised the issue. It sure looks to me like this is fast becoming an important cultural discussion.

Toto · 09-24-2010, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Since a free exchange of ideas is not permitted on this issue I am withdrawing from this conversation as of now. If any of you want more details, ask the censor.

Steve

If your only idea is that other posters are morons, this is not the board for you.

Best of luck in your future endeavors.

bacht · 09-24-2010, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

There doesn't seem to be any immediate danger of the MJ position becoming mainstream so it's a moot point.

I think you're being a little pessimistic here. You have Carrier, Doherty and Price. Hoffmann is leaning your way. And it looks like Arnal is wavering. Dawkins has raised the issue. It sure looks to me like this is fast becoming an important cultural discussion.

When I see it on "Jeopardy" I'll believe it. The chattering classes seem to agree with Juststeve that there MUST have been some guy behind the story.

No Robots · 09-24-2010, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

When I see it on "Jeopardy" I'll believe it. The chattering classes seem to agree with Juststeve that there MUST have been some guy behind the story.

I was listening the other day to a radio interview with Philip Pullman (available here). The interviewer asked him if he thought Christ had really lived. Pullman responded that he had no doubt, and mentioned Josephus. So, it looks to me like the question is indeed seeping into newsrooms.

aa5874 · 09-24-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

When I see it on "Jeopardy" I'll believe it. The chattering classes seem to agree with Juststeve that there MUST have been some guy behind the story.

I was listening the other day to a radio interview with Philip Pullman (available here). The interviewer asked him if he thought Christ had really lived. Pullman responded that he had no doubt, and mentioned Josephus. So, it looks to me like the question is indeed seeping into newsrooms.

But, this board is not about BELIEF. It is about PRESENTING the written EVIDENCE from antiquity, to support your belief.

It is ALREADY known that BILLIONS of people BELIEVE Jesus of the NT did exist and lived in Nazareth as a God/man.

It is also ALREADY known that NONE of the Billions have any EXTERNAL corroborative source of antiquity for their belief about Jesus.

In "De Principiis", Origen a supposed BELIEVER documented the problems among BELIEVERS regarding the nature of Jesus around 1800 years ago.

Read the PREFACE to "De Principiis"

Quote:

2. Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit.......

Please continue The Preface to "De Principiis" 4

Quote:

.... Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things—

"For by Him were all things made" — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was..../

In "On the Flesh of Christ", Tertullian a supposed BELIEVER documented problems faced among Believers about the Nature of Jesus around 1800 years ago.

Quote:

...Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed.

It is His flesh that is in question.

Its verity and quality are the points in dispute.

Did it ever exist?

Whence was it derived? And of what kind was it?

It was BELIEVERS, CHRISTIANS, who claimed Jesus was NOT a man at all around 1800 years ago.

And NO supposed contemporary of Jesus documented that they ACTUALLY saw Jesus alive. None.

And 1800 years later the written evidence from antiquity for a man called Jesus of Nazareth CANNOT be found anywhere.

All we have, or hear of, is BELIEF.

Let's all read what Philip Pullman BELIEVE or wrote from the link provided.

Quote:

... "Professor Hawking's new book hasn't been the only one to cause religious controversy this year. Phillip Pullman's latest book, "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ" proved contentious as well.

In it, Mr. Pullman -- who is an atheist -- presents his own version of the story of the Son of God, through the eyes of two protagonists --- twin brothers Jesus and Christ"....

He believes Jesus and Christ were TWIN BROTHERS.

Both of them lived in the CITY of NAZARETH?

Nowhere does the author of gMathhew claimed he wrote history.

Nowhere does the author of gMatthew claim he was an eyewitness to any event in his story.

Nowhere do prophets write that Jesus would have existed and lived in a CITY called Nazareth.

Everywhere there is known FICTION in gMatthew.

Why is gMatthew called "Good News"?

Why do people BELIEVE gMatthew's Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, did exist and did live in a CITY of Nazareth?

Who else lived in a CITY called Nazareth?

This board is NOT about BELIEF but the written evidence from antiquity.

gMatthew's Jesus could NOT have lived in a CITY called Nazareth since ONE or BOTH did not exist as DESCRIBED in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c70 CE based on the written evidence, the written statements, from antiquity.

No Robots · 09-24-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, this board is not about BELIEF. It is about PRESENTING the written EVIDENCE from antiquity, to support your belief.

Fair enough. But haven't all parties had ample opportunity to present their arguments? Perhaps it is time now to discuss how we should act on our positions. It seems to me that that is the problem with mythicism, that it is confined to argument, and cannot generate from within itself a programme of action. It is a doctrine of inaction, of spiritual paralysis. In this way, it duplicates the freezing power of traditional religion, restricting the free activity of the Christ-inspired conscience.

spin · 09-24-2010, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

haven't all parties had ample opportunity to present their arguments?

I don't think so. There have been 1800 years of apologetics to support one basic position in discussion here, from a position which has basically been institutional for all that time. The infidel position is not anywhere as organized, nor has it had even a tenth of the time to formulate its ideas. There is still scope for the development of further arguments. The more scales you remove from your eyes, the more you can see.

spin

spamandham · 09-24-2010, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Fair enough. But haven't all parties had ample opportunity to present their arguments? Perhaps it is time now to discuss how we should act on our positions. It seems to me that that is the problem with mythicism, that it is confined to argument, and cannot generate from within itself a programme of action. It is a doctrine of inaction, of spiritual paralysis. In this way, it duplicates the freezing power of traditional religion, restricting the free activity of the Christ-inspired conscience.

I don't know about you, but I'm interested in Christian history for the sake of that knowledge alone. I'm fascinated by it because of my own background.

For that reason, I want the best explanation of what really happened. If mythicism allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the history of Christianity, then my interests are served. If the day comes that I see mythicism as a hindrance to that objective, I'll drop it like a hot potato just like I dropped historicism when my perception of its complexity got too high.

I could care less about "christ-inspired consciousness" and similar mumbo jumbo. It's just history man.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.