No Robots

On the application of a phenomenological approach, or on the conclusions I draw therefrom?

Solo

There is a certain character type called "believer" and it does not matter whether that person is a theist or atheist. Andre Malraux recounted how, during a study session of the Socialist International in 1920, someone objected that some "perils" will not disappear even under socialism, and gave as an example, traffic accidents. The speaker was cut short: "under socialism there will be no traffic accidents because public transportation will be planned". That's an example of a statement made by a believer.

Jiri

rlogan

I'd have to say frankly it is not a language issue at all, but I understand what you are saying - and you do have it right.

"Historicists" deny the miracles and are therefore hypocrites to pretend that they have some fundamentally different position from "mythicists". All of us are mythicists with the exception of the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid spook worshippers.

This hypocrisy is pretty glaring insomuch as almost everything of meaning to Christianity is myth - starting with the whole "god on earth/forgive us for our sins with the crucifiction/coming back to life and victory over death" hogwash.

So this leaves the "historicist" with almost nothing of substance to base his "history" on. Not much more than the supposition that there was once upon a time a preacher.

From there, the "prove the negative" strategy is used on any opposition: Prove that there was no preacher once upon a time that ultimately inspired Christianity.

mountainman

I disagree strongly. IMO the Jesus Myth hypothesis
was hatched in the fourth century by Julian, and within
40 years of Nicaea, when the Jesus History hypothesis
was hatched by Constantine, via his minister of
propaganda Eusebius:

"It is, I think, expedient
to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced
that the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men
composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth."


Flavius Claudius Julianus (331-363 CE)
Against the Galilaeans

The key IMO is a relational vs hierarchical appreciation
of the histriology of the pre-Nicaean epoch.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown
Eusebian Fiction Postulate

RAFH

I've been in another thread similar in subject. I am told Historical Jesus has been established. 100 years ago. Mythical Jesus is cast down, invalidated, 100 years ago. The Authorities of History have declared it, there shall be no questions on this issue, no inquiry into it. It is settled, 100 years ago. And if you don't believe it, why doesn't anybody publish papers on it?

Well, gstafleu, I think you posit a very good reason why, nobody wants to believe all of Western Civilization has been living a huge myth, the willing victims of the greatest hoax in history. Nobody wants to be the one that tears it all down. And nobody is going to let it happen, not on their watch.

Really, the only people that could investigate the matter fairly and without such bias would be somebody entirely out of the culture and with no 'ax to grind'. Which pretty much eliminates everyone. Anybody I would consider unbiased would automatically be considered biased by the xians. For them, not believing is an indication of mental illness. Admittedly, for me, its the believing that is.

In any case, the burden of proof lies with author of the positive claim. I would provide the support for my position but since it consists primarily of the lack of evidence, its difficult to reference. I suppose I could cite every person who didn't write something about Jesus, name every archeaological site that hasn't yielded artifacts, every city that doesn't boast contemporary statuary and friezes, each library that doesn't have the Gospel according to Jesus or his memoirs or his letters or his carvings, or his collection of folk songs but it does get rather tedious. But there's all those sites that haven't been found yet and who knows what's in the Vatican museum or some forgotten warehouse of the US military.

Why not submit the evidence, as is required in any inquiry, for the existence of some disputed subject. Unfortunately, the facts of the matter are people don't write contemporary comments questioning the existence of people who aren't there.

So, put up the evidence for Historical Jesus. My evidence is the noted lack of such. The lack that is admitted by everyone, lay and authority alike. Why the uniformity of opinion? Because there isn't any. But, please, prove me wrong.

GakuseiDon

A "myth" in what context? If the mainstream are actually not arguing for a gospel Jesus, why not? Doesn't this affect the point underlying your OP -- that Christian scholars ("probably a majority") are unable to look past their faith?

And to re-ask my earlier question: What should Jesus Myth proponents do to get the mainstream to look at mythicism?

Malachi151

I think that the key here is independent peer reviewed articles that make the case, one at a time, that each of the so-called "non-Christian" evidences for Jesus do not support such a claim.

To me, these so-called non-Christian evidences are the biggest initial obstacle to overcome. I think that each of the top 5 or 6 references that are used as "evidence for Jesus" can easily be shown not to be such. The thing is that they have to be debunked and accepted as debunked.

1) Testimonium Flavianum - Later forgery
2) "Jesus, called the Christ, brother of James" - Interpolation
3) Tacitus on Chritus - Authentic, but info comes from Christians and/or popular knowledge, doesn't establish anything
4) Letter from Pliny the Younger - Doesn't establish anything about Jesus at all, just attests to Christians and their beliefs
5) Seutonius "Chrestus" - Irrelevant, could be talking about anyone, and nothing about it makes sense if applied to Jesus

All of the other references clearly are based on Christian claims. There is not one single independent attestation to Jesus. The Jesus brother of James quote and the Tacitus quote look like the best possibilities, but the Tacitus quote is obviously based on Christian testimony, it practically says so itself, and the Josephus "brother of James" quote is clearly not talking about the Jesus of the gospels.

There isn't anything else to pin a historical Jesus on. The Jesus of the gospels is obviously pure fiction, constructed from copying and pasting together odds and ends from the Hebrew scriptures.

coloradoatheist

I brought this question up with other atheists the other why and the question is why. Specifically why did at least 4 or 5 people go to the lengthy means of writing the stories and Paul with either spending time traveling for several years or at least lying about it. The answer was well stories get made up all the time so we have precedent. And your story Malachi was Molly Pitcher however it would have been retold and spread as encouragement to soldiers fighting. However with this story we have a lot of people involved who went to great lengths to prove that it was true. So I think the hurdle to overcome is why.

the only why I've heard was the Flavious theory with the Piso family doing it to control the masses.


Mike

Malachi151

This is no obstacle at all. There were literally thousands of such religions. Why did they all do these very same things?

Why was John the Baptist doing his gig?

Why were there 600 mystery religions in Rome?

Why did the Greeks and Romans build huge temples to the gods?

Look at Apollonius of Tyana, look at Pythagoras, look at the Buddhist missionaries who came all the way from India to Egypt and Syria. I mean, this type of stuff just went on, and it wasn't unique to the Christians.

Some things that were unique, that influenced this were:

1) The Jewish tradition of writing and treatment of texts as sacred.
2) The struggle in Judea and the destruction of Judea in 70 CE, which precipitated a lot of this.
3) These ideas were not new at all, they had been a part of Jewish religion for hundreds of years. The idea of a Messiah was pre-figured in Jewish theology, and the whole story of his life was already written.

aa5874

I am of the opinion the Jesus Myth hypothesis was hatched long before Julian, but because of his poltical power, his writings may have been left, while others were burnt.

The words 'mainstream'and 'most scholars' are of little importance to me. If we look at history, we have Copernicus and Galileo, who were not 'mainstream' and like 'most scholars', yet their research in astronmy have completely revolutionised our view of our universe.

There are more than 4 billion people who claim to believe that Gods exist, but I would accept the opposite view of a single person, once the 4 billion cannot demonstrate that their Gods exist.

I have read thousands of posts on the IIDB, and those who claim to be representative of the 4 billion believers cannot give a single shred of evidence to support the existence of their Gods or their Sons. These believers and HJers only claim probabilties, as if without evidence only their specific plausibility could have occured.

I have been a juror in court proceedings, and I know the difference between probability and evidence. A person may be gulty of a crime only if evidence is presented.

The Christian Bible is an incredible book. Astronomers, archaeologists, physicist, evolutionist, biologists, and every scientific field have shown, without doubt, that it does not reflect reality. Yet some ,without even confirming the authenticity of the Gospels, claim that the name Jesus Christ refers to a specific person that lived at a specific time, when in fact the Gospels does not resovle such a specificity.

It is evident, and just a matter of time, before 'mainstream and 'most scholars' will be shown to be in error with regards to the historicity of Jesus. I have observed that any view that is based on Biblical text, is usually erroneous. Gallileo is my witness.