mountainman

Its not thinking - rather its unthinking reflexive apologetics.

Roger Pearse

I'm not an academic, tho.

I don't get emotionally involved with the stuff I read online, so I reason that there is no reason not to wish them well. If they are so enraged by this, or by my arguments, that they start shouting abuse hysterically (as rather a lot of people do), well, that isn't my problem is it?

The wilfully dishonest are best ignored; everyone else is just misinformed or having a bad day. Let's be kind to each other, as far as possible, hmm?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

But, after reading Minucius Felix's Octavius is extremely clear and virtually certain that there were "Christians" who did not believe in the JESUS of the NT.

Octavius converted Caecilius to Christianity and NEVER made one single reference to Jesus, There is nothing about the crucifixion of Jesus, the suffering of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus for salvation from sin.

Octavius appeared only to believe in ONE GOD and is a Christian only through his belief in God alone.

Octavius went into great details about about other Gods yet did not provide not even a word about Jesus.

Minucius Felix's Octavius has concretised the theory that the name Christian may not be related to nor have any bearing on Jesus as seen in the writings of Justin Martyr, Theophilus and Athenagoras, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny.

Jesus of the NT did not have to exist nor even believed to exist for there to have been people called Christians.


Once Caecilius is documented to have become a Christian without ever hearing that Jesus suffered, died, and resurrected to save him from sin only that he must believe in God, then claiming that there were early Christians does not inherently imply that they were Jesus believers or followers, the Christians may have been followers of Simon the magician or just God alone.

The evidence for the Fabled Myth is far stronger than evidence for historicity, even the so-called contemporaries of Jesus claimed that he TRULY did resurrect and ascended with named witnesses and vehemently denied that he was just a man.

Doug Shaver

What part of "no sensible educated person" was supposed to suggest to me it that it was not intended as a universal negative?

Roger Pearse

Someone is desperate for a fight, it seems!

spamandham

'Myth' usually implies a traditional story that has evolved over time. IMHO, that is not Paul's Jesus at all. Paul's Jesus seems to me not to be a myth at all, but the personification of an allegory representing the death of messianic dreams and the resurrection in it's place of 'true judaism', which is all about your inner life (to Paul). Paul uses this interchangeably with a 'real' spiritual being at times, and a mystical inner Christ concept at other times, and possibly even with a real Jesus at times, though I personally think that aspect is a later addition.

show_no_mercy

It's kinda hard to ignore Christians.

Toto

Please STOP this exchange of group insults, passive-aggressive taunting or other sneers.

Thank you.

EarlDoherty

..."seem pretty certain"??? And on this basis Roger declares my arguments on Minucius Felix's date has collapsed? He might as well say that since almost all NT scholars "seem pretty certain" that Jesus existed, my entire case for Jesus mythicism has collapsed. Should I even be responding to this sort of thing?

Nor does he seem very certain about exactly what those French philological arguments are, otherwise he should at least present or summarize some of them. So he is declaring my collapse on the basis of rumor? Wishful thinking? Or he simply trusts their word on it, perhaps.

Roger is also very trustingly putting all his eggs in the one basket, declaring that no other eggs in other baskets I've presented are even worth looking at. Sampling those might in fact cause him to question his certainty, or the certainty of his sources, in his preferred basket.

I've said it before and will say it again. I do not accept challenges that do not meet the burden of the challenge. If someone declares me wrong or an argument of mine invalid, it has to be on some substantive grounds, and those grounds need to be presented. I don't accept, "Well, you ought to know what they are." This simply indicates that the dissenter is not conversant with the counter-arguments he thinks he is appealing to, and thus there is nothing to answer. I don't do that myself, and I don't expect my dissenters to do it either.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

The first part of this would be impossible to answer because you do not tell me what specific discussion or article(s) you are talking about.

As for that relating to the content of the new book, naturally it is going to contain material resulting from work some of which has been discussed on IIDB in the intervening years. And I have even put up, as some of you know, a couple of articles on the website which have been labelled as preliminary work on material which was due to be put into the new book, though some of that preliminary work has since been recast. If you want a percentage, I would say that for those who have read The Jesus Puzzle and who are or were regular posters on this Forum, especially in the period around 2005-6, roughtly half of the new book's content will probably be familiar. Not much I can do about that.

And yes, it does deal with and attempt to respond to criticisms or doubts that have been expressed along the way. Anything else would be irresponsible. But there is also a good deal of material which is not a result of having been raised before.

And since I doubt that you would be all that receptive to the new half, I would suggest that you are probably right in thinking to save your $40. But I find it a bit strange that you seem to be saying that you have no interest in learning of my responses to arguments that have been raised against me in the past. After all, if rejection of my case is based on those arguments, wouldn't it be of primary concern to see how I handle and perhaps dispose of such arguments?

Earl Doherty