Rick Sumner

I can only assume you were directing this at me. What axe in particular do you think I'm grinding?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Part of Doherty's case is that the earliest Church fathers were part of the "Church of the Mythical Christ," and it wasn't until later that that became the orthodoxy we would begin to recognize.

If Doherty's reading of the second century church holds, then your returned argument from silence doesn't work. We shouldn't expect them to mention it.

That said, the second century apologists are, IMO, the weakest portion of his case, to the point that his reading stretches credibility.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ktotwf

Why?

andrewcriddle

Since we are discussing (once again) Minucius Felix it may be worth linking to my old thread now in the archives Date of Minucius Felix.

It presents arguments, (of varying strength), that independent of whether Minucius Felix used Tertullian or vice-versa, it is unlikely that the Octavius is earlier than the very late 2nd century CE, after the death of Marcus Aurelius.

Andrew Criddle

2-J

Personally I believe there is value in pointing out there is little certainty in this area.

One of the reasons why books about the mythicist case are so valuable is that they present a plausible alternative to the historicist case.

If we have a very hard time (or impossible time) preferring one over the other after both cases are considered, we have still learnt something.

GakuseiDon

I look at Earl's use of Second Century apologists on two pages of my website here (note: I'm nothing more than an interested amateur on the topic of early Christianity, with a special interest in Second Century writings):
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...ndC_Review.htm

Earl was kind enough to respond on his website -- links can be found at the top of my pages.

As an aside: If anyone wants to know how the Romans felt about the Christians in the Second/Third Centuries, make yourself a strong cup of coffee, sit down and read Caecilius's rant against Christianity in the first 13 chapters of Minucius Felix's "Octavius". It is absolutely brilliant.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../octavius.html

Caecilius (a pagan) is stung when Octavius (a Christian) makes a sarcastic remark about the Roman gods, and so he unloads on Octavius.

aa5874

There has been no case presented for the HJ to date, a propasal that Jesus was human is not a case, it is simply a claim.

To present a case for historicity, evidence or information of historicity must be presented for Jesus and there is none.

Even Christians like Marcion claimed Jesus was a Phantom when he was in Capernaum.


This lack of historical evidence or information is the backbone of the MJer's case.

badger3k

How is mystical/allegorical/spiritual (whatever the first and last mean) and not mythical? If it is not real, what is left but myth? Are we using the same terminology?

badger3k

I thought it refers more to Roger Pearse, especially the "All the Best" which comes off like the "I'll pray for you" (translation, FOAD), although I can't say for sure.

lpetrich

First, Earl Doherty, I'd like give my apprec

I don't quite follow the arguments here.

(On buying Earl Doherty's new book...)
Why do you think that "no sensible educated person" believes in Jesus mythicism?

I think that it's also setting the record straight and trying to work out what had happened.

So we are supposed to be hedonists?

What's wrong with a search for truth and knowledge?

What do you mean by "a Jesus in whom we don't believe"? What false notions of Jesus historicism do you think that he believes in?

Imagine that you could go back in a time machine and watch ca. 30-33 CE Palestine. Would you expect to meet Jesus Christ face to face? What would he be like?

So if you would want to select one full-length "radical" book to read, would that book be Earl Doherty's?