Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 11-13-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The material existence of Jesus only became an issue for Christians after the Enlightenment, when the prevalent worldview started to reject spirits.

All Christians of all times have positively affirmed that Christ is fully a man. Where they disagree is on the question of whether he is also a god.

This is flat out wrong.

See Justin...

aa5874 · 11-13-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I have come to the conclusion I have about sociology and the JM position because of my own experience (I very quickly embraced it), seeing the enthusiasm of the advocates, and seeing several ex-Christians claim that they lost their religion because of the JM theories, especially the ones that claim that the myth developed from and was shared with a bunch of other god-men.

Well, I came from a family of Protestants, mostly mainline with some evangelicals, and no-one ever mentioned the idea that Jesus wasn't really a man. I went to university and took a couple of courses in the Religious Studies department, including a "Historical Jesus" semester, and no-one there ever mentioned the MJ idea (no mention of Wells or similar "eccentrics"). I never heard the idea from anyone in my life until I stumbled onto Doherty's website a couple of years ago (though I have encountered various theories about who the "real" Jesus was).

Everyone seems to want to believe that this guy really existed. I don't identify with atheists as a group, but I agree with their skeptical attitude. I don't know that even the majority of atheists deny that Jesus walked this earth.

If you're serious about social science then you must acknowledge that people have a great capacity to believe in unreal things. I don't see why Jesus is any different from believing in Atlantis or UFOs or Loch Ness monsters or a countless multitude of urban myths, old wives' tales and fantasies.

And from since the 2nd century Marcion propagated that Jesus was a Phantom and his followers used to laugh at those who believed in the GOD/MAN.

As early as the century, it was regarded as true that Jesus was indeed a Phantom.

Justin Martyr's First Apology 58.

Quote:

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us, though they have no proof of what they say, but are carried away irrationally as lambs by a wolf, and become the prey of atheistical doctrines, and of devils.

The God/man Jesus was laughable as early as the 2nd century.

ApostateAbe · 11-13-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Cool. I recently learned about Earl Doherty's view of early Christianity, because he is one of the more "respected" of the JM advocates, and his theory surprised me because of how absurd it seemed. He thinks that the earliest Christians knew and believed that Jesus was only a myth, which if true ought to be very clear from records of theological debates and arguments in early Christian writings.

So what should we make about the silence about these 'theological debates and arguments' that you would expect on Doherty's theory?

Should we expect Christians to claim that they were not following cleverly invented stories when they told others about Jesus?

Christians often wrote to each other, as exampled by the letters of Paul, and the religious divisions are clearly reflected in them. Early Christians also very often wrote rebuttals to their critics, explicitly as with Celsus and Porphyry, or implicitly as with 2 Peter 3:3-8 (defense for the lapsed deadline of the apocalyptic prophecies of Jesus). We may see reflections of Doherty's proposed division in either category. But we seemingly don't, though we have a large collection of early Christian writings filled with Christian doctrine, debate and apologetics.

ApostateAbe · 11-13-2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I have come to the conclusion I have about sociology and the JM position because of my own experience (I very quickly embraced it), seeing the enthusiasm of the advocates, and seeing several ex-Christians claim that they lost their religion because of the JM theories, especially the ones that claim that the myth developed from and was shared with a bunch of other god-men.

Well, I came from a family of Protestants, mostly mainline with some evangelicals, and no-one ever mentioned the idea that Jesus wasn't really a man. I went to university and took a couple of courses in the Religious Studies department, including a "Historical Jesus" semester, and no-one there ever mentioned the MJ idea (no mention of Wells or similar "eccentrics"). I never heard the idea from anyone in my life until I stumbled onto Doherty's website a couple of years ago (though I have encountered various theories about who the "real" Jesus was).

Everyone seems to want to believe that this guy really existed. I don't identify with atheists as a group, but I agree with their skeptical attitude. I don't know that even the majority of atheists deny that Jesus walked this earth.

If you're serious about social science then you must acknowledge that people have a great capacity to believe in unreal things. I don't see why Jesus is any different from believing in Atlantis or UFOs or Loch Ness monsters or a countless multitude of urban myths, old wives' tales and fantasies.

Yes, and atheists tend to be the sort of people who DON'T believe in unreal things. They tend to be the realistic sort. I didn't mean to claim that most atheists believe JM, but it does seem to be predominant among atheist activists, or those who want to discourage or lessen religion. To them, the JM position is very appealing, very easy to think about, and it fits their general view of God.

dog-on · 11-13-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Well, I came from a family of Protestants, mostly mainline with some evangelicals, and no-one ever mentioned the idea that Jesus wasn't really a man. I went to university and took a couple of courses in the Religious Studies department, including a "Historical Jesus" semester, and no-one there ever mentioned the MJ idea (no mention of Wells or similar "eccentrics"). I never heard the idea from anyone in my life until I stumbled onto Doherty's website a couple of years ago (though I have encountered various theories about who the "real" Jesus was).

Everyone seems to want to believe that this guy really existed. I don't identify with atheists as a group, but I agree with their skeptical attitude. I don't know that even the majority of atheists deny that Jesus walked this earth.

If you're serious about social science then you must acknowledge that people have a great capacity to believe in unreal things. I don't see why Jesus is any different from believing in Atlantis or UFOs or Loch Ness monsters or a countless multitude of urban myths, old wives' tales and fantasies.

Yes, and atheists tend to be the sort of people who DON'T believe in unreal things. They tend to be the realistic sort. I didn't mean to claim that most atheists believe JM, but it does seem to be predominant among atheist activists, or those who want to discourage or lessen religion. To them, the JM position is very appealing, very easy to think about, and it fits their general view of God.

or it simply fits the evidence better than the alternatives.

ApostateAbe · 11-13-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yes, and atheists tend to be the sort of people who DON'T believe in unreal things. They tend to be the realistic sort. I didn't mean to claim that most atheists believe JM, but it does seem to be predominant among atheist activists, or those who want to discourage or lessen religion. To them, the JM position is very appealing, very easy to think about, and it fits their general view of God.

or it simply fits the evidence better than the alternatives.

And that is what I would normally expect. Atheists, including atheist activists, almost always side with the consensus of the secular intellectuals, because the consensus of secular intellectuals is typically what is most reasonable. Not so for the study of early Christianity. The secular scholars have one viewpoint, and the atheist activists have another--and the atheist activists tend to believe that either the secular scholars are on their side, or that the MJ theory is new and pioneering, or that the secular scholars are tainted by Christian influence. I have studied the evidence, and the evidence is conclusively on the side of HJ, evidence for which MJ seemingly provides only unlikely, ad hoc and inconsistent explanations, the same as any unlikely fringe theory in any field.

show_no_mercy · 11-13-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

or it simply fits the evidence better than the alternatives.

And that is what I would normally expect. Atheists, including atheist activists, almost always side with the consensus of the secular intellectuals, because the consensus of secular intellectuals is typically what is most reasonable. Not so for the study of early Christianity. The secular scholars have one viewpoint,

List some secular scholars of early Christianity besides Erhman...

dog-on · 11-13-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

or it simply fits the evidence better than the alternatives.

And that is what I would normally expect. Atheists, including atheist activists, almost always side with the consensus of the secular intellectuals, because the consensus of secular intellectuals is typically what is most reasonable. Not so for the study of early Christianity. The secular scholars have one viewpoint, and the atheist activists have another--and the atheist activists tend to believe that either the secular scholars are on their side, or that the MJ theory is new and pioneering, or that the secular scholars are tainted by Christian influence. I have studied the evidence, and the evidence is conclusively on the side of HJ, evidence for which MJ seemingly provides only unlikely, ad hoc and inconsistent explanations, the same as any unlikely fringe theory in any field.

It really is not new. See Bruno Bauer.

ApostateAbe · 11-13-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

And that is what I would normally expect. Atheists, including atheist activists, almost always side with the consensus of the secular intellectuals, because the consensus of secular intellectuals is typically what is most reasonable. Not so for the study of early Christianity. The secular scholars have one viewpoint,

List some secular scholars of early Christianity besides Erhman...

Paula Fredriksen
Gerd Lüdemann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders
Burton Mack
Andries G. van Aarde
Valerie A. Abrahamsen
Martin L. Appelt
Karen Armstrong
William E. Arnal
Richard L. Arthur
Harold W. Attridge
Robert Bater
Joseph Bessler
Edward F. Beutner
Anthony Blasi
Marcus Borg
Willi Braun
James R. Butts
Marvin F. Cain
Ron Cameron
Bruce D. Chilton
Kathleen E. Corley
Wendy J. Cotter
John Dominic Crossan
Don Cupitt
Jon Daniels
Jean Jacques D'Aoust
Jon F. Dechow
Arthur J. Dewey
Joanna Dewey
John Dillenberger
William Doty
Darrell J. Doughty
Dennis C. Duling
Rubén René Dupertuis
Susan M. Elliott
Robert T. Fortna
Robert M. Fowler
Robert W. Funk
David Galston
Lloyd Geering
Jennifer Glancy
James Goss
Heinz Guenther
Sakari Hakkinen
Maurice Hamington
Walter Harrelson
Stephen L. Harris
Charles W. Hedrick
James D. Hester
C. M. Kempton Hewitt
Jack A. Hill
Julian V. Hills
Richard Holloway
Roy W. Hoover
Benjamin J. Hubbard
Michael L. Humphries
Margaret D. Hutaff
Glenna S. Jackson
Arland Jacobson
Clayton N. Jefford
Gregory C. Jenks
Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre
Bob Jones
F. Stanley Jones
Larry Kalajainen
Perry V. Kea
John C. Kelly
William Doane Kelly
Chan-Hie Kim
Karen L. King
John S. Kloppenborg
Ron Large
Paul Alan Laughlin
Nigel Leaves
Margaret E. Lee
Nina E. Livesey
Davidson Loehr
Sanford Lowe
John Lown
Gerd Luedemann
Shelly Matthews
Dennis R. MacDonald
Brian Rice McCarthy
Lane C. McGaughy
Edward J. McMahon II
Francis Macnab
Loren Mack-Fisher
Daniel Marguerat
Marvin W. Meyer
Darren J. N. Middleton
J. Ramsey Michaels
William R. Millar
L. Bruce Miller
Robert J. Miller
Robert L'H. Miller
Milton C. Moreland
Winsome Munro
Culver H. Nelson
Rod Parrott
Stephen J. Patterson
Todd Penner
Richard I. Pervo
Thomas E. Phillips
Robert M. Price
Anne Primavesi
Jonathan L. Reed
Howard Rice
Vernon K. Robbins
James M. Robinson
Stan Rummel
Marianne Sawicki
Daryl D. Schmidt
Oswald Schrag
Bernard Brandon Scott
Andrew D. Scrimgeour
Philip Sellew
Chris Shea
Thomas Sheehan
Lou H. Silberman
Daniel A. Smith
Dennis E. Smith
Mahlon H. Smith
Graydon Snyder
John Shelby Spong
John Staten
Michael G. Steinhauser
Roy SteinhoffSmith
Robert F. Stoops, Jr.
Johann Strijdom
Jon Sveinbjornsson
Jarmo Tarkki
W. Barnes Tatum
Hal Taussig
Barbara Thiering
Joseph B. Tyson
Leif E. Vaage
James Veitch
Paul Verhoeven
Wesley Hiram Wachob
William O. Walker
Donna Wallace
Robert L. Webb
Theodore J. Weeden, Sr.
James E. West
John L. White
L. Michael White
Patricia Williams
Walter Wink

ApostateAbe · 11-13-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

And that is what I would normally expect. Atheists, including atheist activists, almost always side with the consensus of the secular intellectuals, because the consensus of secular intellectuals is typically what is most reasonable. Not so for the study of early Christianity. The secular scholars have one viewpoint, and the atheist activists have another--and the atheist activists tend to believe that either the secular scholars are on their side, or that the MJ theory is new and pioneering, or that the secular scholars are tainted by Christian influence. I have studied the evidence, and the evidence is conclusively on the side of HJ, evidence for which MJ seemingly provides only unlikely, ad hoc and inconsistent explanations, the same as any unlikely fringe theory in any field.

It really is not new. See Bruno Bauer.

Yeah, I know.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.