Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 09-05-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You need a healthy dose of skepticism on the subject. Start by trying to posit the notion that the unhistorical figure, Jesus, may never have existed. If you can disprove the notion, then you have strengthened your understanding.

Look, you could say the same thing about my rejection of the

extraterrestrial hypothesis. The fact is that I have examined the mythicist arguments and found them ridiculous and dangerous.

Can you do a rebuttal of the major points in my argument here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

Quote:

* The Gospel of Mark was the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it
* The Gospel of Mark shows clear signs of being written as an allegorical fiction
* Virtually every detail of the life of Jesus comes from "Old Testament" scriptures
* Some of the details of the life of Jesus are based on mistranslations of the Hebrew scriptures
* Jesus' crucifixion on Passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically
* The Gospels make many claims that are contradicted by the historical record
* The earliest writings about Jesus, from Paul and others, contain no details of his life
* Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person
* There is not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime
* Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea
* All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims
* There is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied) prior to the Gospel stories
* There were many conflicting beliefs about who Jesus Christ was in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, including beliefs that he had never existed on earth "in the flesh"
* The Catholics made purely theological arguments as to why Jesus Christ had to have existed "in the flesh"

Can you either:

A) Argue why even if these points are correct it still doesn't provide an argument against the existence of Jesus

or

B) Dispute the points based on the arguments provided in the link

andrewcriddle · 09-05-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Which specific writers would you have expected to mention Jesus but fail to do so ?

Josephus.

Oh... and Hebrew sources. Mishna or early layers of the talmud.

Hi Spin

good to see you back.

We do have references in Tosefta to early 2nd century disputes between rabbis and followers of Yeshu b Pantera.
In general the early layers of the rabbinic tradition cover events between the 70 CE and 135 CE revolts much more than they do events before 70 CE.

Andrew Criddle

bacht · 09-05-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

There are some very dangerous memes around, and I count mythicism among them, because it creates confusion about Christ, who is at the center of much of the dangerous polemic of our time. We have to get the question of Christ right.

I haven't heard this argument before. I think you're saying that confusion, rather than mythicism, is the danger in this case? Something like "the emperor has no clothes"?

No Robots · 09-05-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I haven't heard this argument before. I think you're saying that confusion, rather than mythicism, is the danger in this case? Something like "the emperor has no clothes"?

What I mean is that mythicism puts forward yet another completely inane picture of Christ, a non-existent Christ to go along with the cynic Christ, the hippy Christ, the god Christ.

bacht · 09-05-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I haven't heard this argument before. I think you're saying that confusion, rather than mythicism, is the danger in this case? Something like "the emperor has no clothes"?

What I mean is that mythicism puts forward yet another completely inane picture of Christ, a non-existent Christ to go along with the cynic Christ, the hippy Christ, the god Christ.

How is "no-Christ" the same as "god-Christ"?

No Robots · 09-05-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

How is "no-Christ" the same as "god-Christ"?

As I said, they are both inane misrepresentations of the subject at hand, ie. of Christ.

bacht · 09-05-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

How is "no-Christ" the same as "god-Christ"?

As I said, they are both inane misrepresentations of the subject at hand, ie. of Christ.

So how do we get the question of Christ right? If mythicists say there was no Christ, that's an answer isn't it?

No Robots · 09-05-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

So how do we get the question of Christ right?

I've been over this with you before. You have to use the tools of literary analysis. You have to understand the context in which the Gospels were created, you have to know what was possible and what was impossible within the prevailing cultural conditions.

Quote:

If mythicists say there was no Christ, that's an answer isn't it?

Yeah, of course. But, imho, it is a shitty, dangerous and ridiculous answer, just as is the traditional Trinitarian view. At least the latter had some small grain of truth at its core; I can see none such within mythicism.

bacht · 09-05-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

So how do we get the question of Christ right?

I've been over this with you before. You have to use the tools of literary analysis. You have to understand the context in which the Gospels were created, you have to know what was possible and what was impossible within the prevailing cultural conditions.

Quote:

If mythicists say there was no Christ, that's an answer isn't it?

Yeah, of course. But, imho, it is a shitty, dangerous and ridiculous answer, just as is the traditional Trinitarian view. At least the latter had some small grain of truth at its core; I can see none such within mythicism.

Okay, sorry to have wasted your time

Malachi151 · 09-05-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

So how do we get the question of Christ right?

I've been over this with you before. You have to use the tools of literary analysis. You have to understand the context in which the Gospels were created, you have to know what was possible and what was impossible within the prevailing cultural conditions.

Exactly, which is why I've addressed that issue completely.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Unless you can argue for why my analysis there is incorrect or irrelevant, then once again we get back to the best argument being that Jesus never existed.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.