Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 06-03-2011, 02:11 PM

I mean Albert Schweitzer. He wrote, in The Quest of the Historical Jesus, translated by John Bowden (or via: amazon.co.uk), 2001, pp. 435-436:

An examination of the claims for and against the historicity of Jesus thus reveals that the difficulties faced by those undertaking to prove that he is not historical, in the fields both of the history of religion and the history of doctrine, and not least in the interpretation of the earliest tradition are far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents. Seen in their totality, they must be considered as having no possible solution. Added to this, all hypotheses which have so far been put forward to the effect that Jesus never lived are in the strangest opposition to each other, both in their method of working and their interpretation of the Gospel reports, and thus merely cancel each other out. Hence we must conclude that the supposition that Jesus did exist is exceedingly likely, whereas its converse is exceedingly unlikely. This does not mean that the latter will not be proposed again from time to time, just as the romantic view of the life of Jesus is also destined for immortality. It is even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with 'theology' and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis.

Fighting words. He writes like James McGrath.

Part of that quote is on Google Books.

bacht · 06-03-2011, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

[Schweitzer] writes like James McGrath.

You flatter McGrath too much

Toto · 06-03-2011, 02:56 PM

"Implausible hypothesis" is pretty mild as derision, compared to what we hear from McGrath and friends.

But it is clear that Schweitzer's Jesus is a religious figure, not primarily historical.

ApostateAbe · 06-03-2011, 03:23 PM

Schweitzer on Jesus-mythicism:

difficulties far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents
have no possible solution
all hypotheses are in the strangest opposition to each other
exceedingly unlikely
analogous to the romantic view of the life of Jesus
dresses itself up with certain scholarly technique
with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people
engages in noisy polemics with 'theology'
reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis as soon as it hazards an attempt to produce real evidence

I am thinking about suggesting to James McGrath that he use all of these insults against the Jesus-minimalists, just to see how many bloggers of Vridar jump down his throat.

Toto · 06-03-2011, 03:37 PM

These are not insults on the level of "birther!"

If McGrath had only used the words in your list, he might have been able to sustain a dialogue, if that was what he wanted.

Toto · 06-03-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Schweitzer on Jesus-mythicism:

difficulties far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents
have no possible solution
all hypotheses are in the strangest opposition to each other
exceedingly unlikely
analogous to the romantic view of the life of Jesus
dresses itself up with certain scholarly technique
with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people
engages in noisy polemics with 'theology'
reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis as soon as it hazards an attempt to produce real evidence

I am thinking about suggesting to James McGrath that he use all of these insults against the Jesus-minimalists, just to see how many bloggers of Vridar jump down his throat.

I don't think you understand how this debate thing goes. These are not personal insults, by and large. If someone says "the Jesus myth hypothesis is unlikely or implausible," the response can be "here are facts and arguments that support the mythicist hypothesis, how do you compare them to the the historicist hypothesis?"

When McGrath says "you're just like a creationist-fringe-birther," the response is going to be along the lines of "your mother wears army boots" and things deteriorate from there.

Kapyong · 06-03-2011, 03:57 PM

Gday,

Will you ever address the answers to this list you post over and over ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul believed that Jesus was born from a woman as the Son of God in a Jewish society - Galatians 4:4-5.

WHO was the woman according to Paul?
Apparently Jerusalem Above, our MOTHER.
No Mary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul believed that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" - Romans 1:3.

A characteristic of a spiritual being that was derived from scripture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul believed that Jesus taught that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel" - 1 Corinthians 9:14, see also Luke 10:7.

Wrong.
The LORD commanded, not Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul believed that Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, gave thanks, broke it, said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me," took the cup, said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me" - 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.

An interpolation; or at best a religious ritual giving access to a God's spiritual body and blood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul believed that Jesus was the sacrificed passover lamb - 1 Corinthians 5:7.

Are you claimning Jesus was actually a lamb?
This is merely a heavenly sacrifice in a spiritual place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul believed that Jesus was crucified by rulers of this age who did not understand that Christians speak God's wisdom - 1 Corinthians 2:7-8.

Spiritual powers in the Air.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul believed that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, was raised on the third day, appeared to Cephas, to the twelve disciples, to five hundred Christians (some of whom have since died), to James, to all of the apostles, and much later to Paul himself - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

VISIONS of a spiritual being who was crucified in heaven - so what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul believed that Jesus commanded that a wife should not separate from her husband and a husband should not divorce his wife - 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, see also Mark 10:11-12.

Wrong.
The LORD commanded, not Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul believed that Jesus had a brother named James - Galatians 1:19, see also Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55.

So?
It's a religious title.
Is the person called "Ahiyah" a real brother of Yahveh?

Kapyong

ApostateAbe · 06-03-2011, 04:14 PM

mg01, please read Kapyong's post carefully and take a lesson from it.

Toto · 06-03-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

mg01, please read Kapyong's post carefully and take a lesson from it.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Abe has been repeating this list, and objections just bounce off him like teflon. The discussion is at an impasse. What is the lesson? Anyone?

discordant · 06-03-2011, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What is the lesson? Anyone?

You can't win a game of tennis with someone who won't pick up their racket?

06-03-2011, 02:11 PM	#31
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	I mean Albert Schweitzer. He wrote, in The Quest of the Historical Jesus, translated by John Bowden (or via: amazon.co.uk), 2001, pp. 435-436: An examination of the claims for and against the historicity of Jesus thus reveals that the difficulties faced by those undertaking to prove that he is not historical, in the fields both of the history of religion and the history of doctrine, and not least in the interpretation of the earliest tradition are far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents. Seen in their totality, they must be considered as having no possible solution. Added to this, all hypotheses which have so far been put forward to the effect that Jesus never lived are in the strangest opposition to each other, both in their method of working and their interpretation of the Gospel reports, and thus merely cancel each other out. Hence we must conclude that the supposition that Jesus did exist is exceedingly likely, whereas its converse is exceedingly unlikely. This does not mean that the latter will not be proposed again from time to time, just as the romantic view of the life of Jesus is also destined for immortality. It is even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with 'theology' and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis. Fighting words. He writes like James McGrath. Part of that quote is on Google Books.

06-03-2011, 03:23 PM	#34
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Schweitzer on Jesus-mythicism: difficulties far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents have no possible solution all hypotheses are in the strangest opposition to each other exceedingly unlikely analogous to the romantic view of the life of Jesus dresses itself up with certain scholarly technique with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people engages in noisy polemics with 'theology' reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis as soon as it hazards an attempt to produce real evidence I am thinking about suggesting to James McGrath that he use all of these insults against the Jesus-minimalists, just to see how many bloggers of Vridar jump down his throat.

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

06-03-2011, 02:56 PM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	"Implausible hypothesis" is pretty mild as derision, compared to what we hear from McGrath and friends. But it is clear that Schweitzer's Jesus is a religious figure, not primarily historical.

06-03-2011, 03:37 PM	#35
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	These are not insults on the level of "birther!" If McGrath had only used the words in your list, he might have been able to sustain a dialogue, if that was what he wanted.

06-03-2011, 04:14 PM	#38
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	mg01, please read Kapyong's post carefully and take a lesson from it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.