Chaucer

A number of posters here have remarked that it is possible for someone to adopt a mythicist position on Jesus's historicity or lack thereof, and to do so for non-emotional reasons. Is it also possible to take a historicist position for non-emotional reasons as well? And the other side of that coin is, Is it also possible to take a mythicist position for emotional reasons?

Thank you,

Chaucer

ApostateAbe

Maybe you really mean irrational motivations, because I think emotional motivations are only a subset of irrational motivations for belief, which includes prejudices that follow from one's general paradigm, one's values, one's habitual patterns of thinking, one's ignorance, or one's stubbornness.

I don't think it is useful to ask if such a thing is possible. I hope that we all are very clear on the reality that almost anything is possible. A more useful way to think is in terms of the tendencies.

How do the historicists tend to think that may explain their beliefs if those beliefs are not rational? I think that may be why historicists are occasionally accused of having hidden sympathies for the Christian religion, and the leading critical scholars are accused of being in bed with the Christian establishment. If it is not a rational conclusion, then how else would you explain the beliefs?

And, of course mythicists are accused of taking their anti-religious prejudices too far at the expense of reason. It is insulting, but, yeah, that is what I really think, and you may remember my thread on the subject in the Abrahamic Religions, which I still update.

Relationship between opposition to Christianity and advocacy of mythical-Jesus theory

I think that way about mythicists largely because I, in turn, can't explain why otherwise-reasonable people would take the positions associated with mythicists that seem so ludicrous.

Toto

Of course.

What's the point of asking?

The evidence for any event 2000 years ago is equivocal at best. The historicist case rests on texts that everyone admits could be forged or fictional.

It is possible for a rational person to evaluate this mess of "evidence" and conjecture and come to a variety of conclusions, for non emotional reasons.

And that is all that this forum is concerned about.

People can be swayed by all sorts of emotions and develop unreasonable attachments to theories, but that is outside the scope of this forum.

Shall I just close this thread?

Roger Pearse

Unemotionally, of course.

avi

Morning, Toto. Please do not close it.
I have learned something already, just from glancing at the link provided by A.Abe.
I don't recall having seen that thread, and I guess it was moved into a different category.
From that link:

Do you mean to write that there is a distinction between belief in the mythical nature of some figure, and his/her fictional character?

I had always thought that a myth about anything represented a story that was not true, i.e. fiction. Are you suggesting that a myth can represent substance?

In the case of Constantine and Eusebius, what do we know with certainty? Is it fiction, or truth, that Emperor Constantine ordered Bishop Eusebius to

--copy 50 bibles?
--rewrite the historical narrative of his life?
--adopt an anti-Arius perspective, even though both of them originally held such positions?

Can there be mythical elements associated with historical facts? I think so. Perhaps it wasn't 50 bibles, maybe it was only ten.

The real question is this: how can we expose, for all to see, the actual condition of Christianity in the decades prior to Constantine's arrival on the scene...

, and for emotional reasons.

I don't think we ought to view the process of thinking, performed by animals, including humans, as similar to that of machine learning, either on or off, right or wrong, plus or minus....

Human thought is influenced by emotion, by hormones, by accidents, by diet, by the weather, and by circadian rhythms. Here's a simple illustration: One is reading a fascinating thread on this forum, when suddenly the perception of a full bladder intrudes, and the thought process is interrupted to address a more pressing need.

So, yes, beliefs about anything can be influenced not only by evidence, but also by prejudice, experience, desire, or other subjective factors.

avi

Huon

... and the emotional bias of Mr A is not the same as the emotional bias of Ms B ... so, we can eliminate some biases.

Solo

Yes it is possible to take a historicist position for other reasons, e.g. financial ones.

Don't ask the mythicists that; you'll get them ticked off and they will try to close the thread

Jiri

bacht

Right, believing in miracles and demons and resurrection and Jewish saviors and Armageddon are all perfectly reasonable...

Huon

Simple emotional bias ...

Toto

There is a difference between the idea that Christianity started with the worship of a spiritual being who was later historicised and the idea that Christianity was based on a deliberate fiction.

What does this have to do with Christian origins?
Is there any evidence that Constantine ordered Eusebius to rewrite the historical narrative of Jesus' life?

What does this have to do with Christian origins?

That depends on what you think the actual condition of Christianity was.