Jehanne

Well, consider this statement from one of the leading historians of Jesus from the 20th-century, the late Robert Funk, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar:

"As a historian I do not know for certain that Jesus really existed, that he is anything more than the figment of some overactive imaginations....In my view, there is nothing about Jesus of Nazareth that we can know beyond any possible doubt. In the mortal life we have there are only probabilities. And the Jesus that scholars have isolated in the ancient gospels, gospels that are bloated with the will to believe, may turn out to be only another image that merely reflects our deepest longings." Robert W. Funk, Jesus Seminar Founder and Co-Chair. (From The Fourth R, January-February 1995.)

Link is here:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/postscpt.htm

As for the professional astronomers who respond to Flat-Earthers and the like, I will have to look further. I know that Carl Sagan included arguments for and against the Ptolemaic system in his courses, so I am assuming that it is out there somewhere. And, I know that some Catholic extremists hold to the Geocentric view of the Cosmos (see the website of "Catholic Apologetics International" for one such freak's views), and I have read rebuttals of those. Honestly, I do not have the time to research this, but I will gladly retract my statements if you cannot find support for them, but please look first.

jgibson000

Doesn't Carrier give them? And what about the discussions with Earl on the old Crosstalk?

And if you come back that are not by professionals and therefore don't count -- that there really aren't any discussions by professionals, whose fault is that?

Have MJers actually seriously tried to get their arguments out before the professionals? Have they ever submitted papar proposals to professional societies or to the major and indexed journals? Participated at conferences? Have they published their ideas anywhere except in vanity presses or on the Internet?

Flat-earthism is not a serious modern belief, but you do find at least one A claim of a different catergory, and a poor analogy, don't you think? He is a dedicated fringe watcher, and the case is presented through appeals to "science". You also find at least several modern scientists debunking claims about finding Noah's ark and UFOs and alien abductions. Does that mean the claims should be taken seriously, let alone that they have any degree of merit?

Why should there be?

Leaving aside the issues of whether the criteria is used here to determine what "works" and what doesn't are adequate, and whether or not those who say something has "not worked" should be listened to or that their judgemnt is anything one needs to take seriously, the question that should be put to your claim is "So what?".

There are any number (if not the majority) of mythicist and non historical Jesus cites that keep rehashing the outworn carards about Christianity being primarily derived from "mystery religions" and Jesus being only Mithras or some other alleged dying and rising god in disguise, and which make the most outlandish claims about what the mysteries were all about.

You seem to be proposing the idea that the paucity of a case is not only detremined but proven by what appears, and what its defenders do, on the internet.

If so, then we have to junk the no Jesus case as well, since what its defenders do, and what appears with respect to it, on internet cites is mostly recycled garbage.

Jeffrey GIbson

No Robots

Dr. Gibson:

It sure is great having you around.

Toto

You were the one who said that there were "responses, albeit occasion[al] ones, to the MJers from professionals in Biblical studies." I'm only asking where to find these. Doherty has complained about a lack of response.

I think you misunderstand my point. We have a number of Christian apologists who come here and claim that Jesus Mythicism is on a par with creationism or some other discredited pseudoscience. My point was that real scientists do take the time to debunk pseudoscience with arguments that at least take the believers seriously enough to address them with facts. The claims may not be taken seriously, but the adherents are treated as intelligent observers. However, the response to JM has been scorn and ridicule, not a careful factual rebuttal. For those of us who like to think of ourselves as open minded and willing to consider the evidence, this gives a bad impression.

No Robots

There is truth in this. I know that I feel much more strongly about mythicism than I do about, say, belief in UFOs, even though I view them both as dangerous superstitions. I think that the reason mythicism elicits such strong negative reaction is that it touches directly on critical issues in human science, which is itself inherently contentious. Additionally, there is a kind of callowness that accompanies much of the mythicist argument. This is perhaps defensiveness, but it comes across as cocksure. It's kind of fun to be around, actually; but it does need to be challenged.

aa5874

Your statement is purely speculative. It is has no objectivity and is not based on any facts. Again, I ask for extra-biblical evidence to support the historicity of Jesus.

Every religion or opinion of any matter may elicit strong negative reaction from those of the opposite religion or viewpoint. You need to support your views with facts.

jgibson000

And I told you.

He got plenty of it on the old Crosstalk. Problem was, if I read that correspondence correctly, is that he didn't like what he got and seemed to be working (as he also seems to be doing now) from the criterion that "response" means praise of what he has to say. But to complain that he didn't get much or any, let alone anything of substance or that did not actually engage, or engage withour prior bias, with what he had to say, is disingenious -- and, more importantly, it overlooks the fact that it's his fault that he doesn't, since he doesn't (refuses?) to do the things that he should be doing -- and that he's been advised to do -- to get the response he desires. In this, he is just like a certain resident of Toronto whom we all know.

And you have a lot of ex fundies and axe grinding atheists and ultracrepidarians who do the same thing (if not worse) -- and, I'd say, with a great deal more frequency -- to those who here or elsewhere dare to think it reasonable to accept an HJ.

Oh please. If you actually look at what I and most others who have actually taken the time to respond to Earl and to Ted H and engage with what they have said have written, you'll see that careful factual rebuttals and close linguistic examination of their claims (when, as opposed to characterizing the tone and the substance of what we write, they are actually are making any) is exactly what's we've been producing here (along with calls that we receive it in return to what we've noted).

Most of the scorn and ridicule that appears here comes from those who have been responding to us. Take almost any of today's responses from MJers such as Jake Jones and Joe Wallach, and even Earl himself (in his attempt at satire), or yesterday from Clive, for example.

Jeffrey Gibson

Jehanne

I take it that you believe that JC was a historical person. How would you respond to Robert Funk's quote above? If the quote is authentic (and, I have no reason to doubt it), how was Dr. Funk mistaken? What is the most compelling piece of evidence, in your opinion, that JC was a real, historical individual? As an atheist, I, frankly, could care less if JC existed or not. The entire question is, for me, a simple historical triviality.

jgibson000

The Funk quotation is taken out of context and it ignores not only the fact that he went on to write a book called Honest to Jesus but that the Jesus Seminar which he established and promoted trielessly (and of which he he was a prominent member) took as an well established and reasonable historical premise that there existed in the first half of first century Palestine a sage and social critic and reformer named Jesus who gave rise to the Gospel tradition that we now find enshrined in the Gospels.

Jeffrey

Jehanne

Perhaps someone could post the Funk quote in its entirety. As for the "Gospel tradition," I find it to be mostly, if not entirely, mythic. Modern scholarship has established that all the Gospels were dependent on Mark, who, of course, came first, but late, decades after the alleged "events." I do not believe that modern Biblical scholarship has caught up with modern psychology and sociology, which have demonstrated time and time again that "social myths" can arise almost overnight and take on a "life of their own." I find it inconceivable that Paul, in the seven or so epistles that have been deemed to have been written by him, would not have more to say about the "historical Jesus" who was ostensibly his "risen Lord" and "savior." They were, after all, practically contemporaries, and if the traditional chronology is to be believed, they were likely born within a decade of each other. Paul should have known more, unless, of course, his "Jesus" was of the "spiritual realm" only. And, if that was the case (and, I believe that it was), what was "spiritual" could, over time, become "physical." And, the rest, as they say, "is history...."