ApostateAbe

And thank you. I think I recognize your username from somewhere else. CARM? ChristianForums.com?

fleetmouse

Yeah I used to post on Carm. I remember when it didn't suck, before the big Matt Slick pogroms that sent it into decline.

ApostateAbe

I think that's about the same time I left CARM. I usually leave Christian forums because they ban my IP , but they didn't ban me, and CARM was surprisingly tolerant of anti-religious messages. I think Matt Slick learned his lesson. Atheists pretty much own every Christian forum on the web that doesn't have heavy-handed moderation.

The Internet is the effective medium of a new social movement of anti-religiosity, spear-headed by atheists, and I have been in it for a decade, but lately my rhetorical battles have been with atheists, not with Christians, and this thread is an example of that. I wish this model of the historical Jesus would be as commonly accepted among anti-religious activists as it is among scholars. You are right, it is an effective anti-apologetic weapon, and that isn't even the best thing about it. The best thing about it is that it is the most probable model of the beginning of Christianity. Here is a strange thing: Several times, I have seen Christians change their minds on the web in favor of the non-existence of God, and I have NOT seen atheists change their minds in favor of the historical existence of Jesus. That may because atheists tend to be less reasonable than I initially thought, or it may be just because I argue more abrasively against atheists than I do Christians.

fleetmouse

Well it's like Fox - if you're wrong the only way you can "win" is by controlling the situation - shout them down, cut off their mics, bait and taunt, etc.

I've met my share of reasonable Christians and unreasonable atheists.

The thing about Jesus mythicism is it takes on a superfluous burden - trying to demonstrate that Jesus was myth and not man. The apocalyptic prophet scenario uses the Christian's own belief that Jesus was a real man who walked the earth, against Christianity itself, using its own scriptures to boot.

I get the impression, and this is flamebait and I apologize in advance, that some of the mythers (probably not the ones actually doing primary research and writing) want to believe Jesus was a myth out of a kind of insecurity - that the less "real" the narrative is, the better.

Toto

No, Abe, it's because of the quality of the evidence. The evidence for a historical Jesus is pathetic.

Yes, a historical crazy Jesus is a great anti-Christian argument. It's too bad that the evidence for it is so poor.

Yes, you should apologize. That's the silliest argument I've seen so far.

The gospel narratives are completely unreal - full of supernatural events and magical powers. That's why people like them, and why they are so powerful.

ApostateAbe

fleetmouse, I forgot to welcome you to the BC&H forum of IIDB (now FRDB). Welcome.

outhouse

not silly at all.

unreal? they wrote mythically as they always had.


and your wrong again, that is not why people like "them" most people havnt even read the damn book. most people go to church to feel good. not study.

they were born into it, and the magic is not why it has what you call power




the power comes from a epic tale of a man who gave himself and died standing up for what he believed so that everyone could have redemption in their afterlife.

fleetmouse

One thing I've learned in 10+ years of reading and participating in exchanges between Christians and non-Christians is that the best approach is Judo. Use their own assumptions against them. Was there a man named Jesus, and did he say things that are faithfully recorded in the Gospels? Fine, we can work with that.

Arguing that there was no man behind the myths is irrelevant, and adds to your burden - it's like taking on the challenge of showing that Russell's teapot isn't there, and worse, unlike the teapot, there's nothing extraordinary about the claim that a man lived, said some stuff and died. No extraordinary evidence need be mustered as evidence that there was some guy two millennia ago.

Using the failed prophecy argument, we don't even have to take up the challenge of showing that the miracles and resurrection never happened. That follows from the evidence that Jesus was merely a man, a failed prophet, essentially no different from loons like Marshall Applewhite. Would you waste time arguing that Marshall Applewhite never existed, or that he didn't heal the blind? No, of course not. (I hope)

fleetmouse

Thanks! It's nice to post here amongst fellow atheists and agnostics for a change, secure in the knowledge that I won't get banned for quoting or linking to inconvenient truths.

aa5874

You seem not to be familiar with the ancient writings from those of the Jesus cult.

The ancient Jesus cult ARGUED that Jesus was FATHERED by a God and/or His Holy Ghost.

Jesus cult writers DENIED that Jesus was human with a Human father.

Examine "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to a Jesus cult writer called Tertullian.

On the Flesh of Christ 18 Who told you Jesus was a man with a human father?? It is NOT in the Bible and was NOT even argued by the Church.

Where do you get your "evidence" that Jesus was human with a human father??

Where??? Which book??? When was it written???