Ben C Smith

Yes, that would be much better. It would not be a strawman.

What Ehrman did worked. The example was about Doherty.

I am sure it is not.

I find myself agreeing with Ehrman a lot. On the seminar, I agree with someone (wish I could remember) who commented that the individual members of the Seminar have done some great work (Crossan is always worth reading, for example, as is Kloppenborg), but collectively they are easy not to take very seriously.

Yes, there are some very fine skeptical minds out there.

That is certainly the truth.

A lame one, I daresay. There are much better mythicist arguments out there than tell me why no one mentioned the virgin birth.

Ben.

aa5874

I agree.

All the Gods of all religions are mythical. There is no reason for Jesus to be different. The Christian God is mythical, his Son must also be.

The authors of Matthew and Luke do not know the genealogy of Jesus. The miracles that were claimed to be done by Jesus cannot be verified. The resurrection of Jesus is contradictory, his ascension appears to be an improbabilty. No Christian can verify with certainty that Jesus lived and is sitting on the right hand of God today.

Jesus is utter fiction, a paper figure, that only belief can bring to life. Without any original biblical documents, no one can even claim that the biblical texts we have are credible . The Christian Bible shows no semblance of reason, but just meaningless words that only the dis-illusioned can appreciate. Trying to decipher the Bible is like trying to re-create a crime scene where there is no evidence.

Solo

And perhaps then it is because there is nothing to decipher in the Bible for an atheist. Just like there is no point imagining a crime scene, if there is no evidence of a crime.

I am reminded of a prominent British psychiatrist who said: 'it is wise to remind ourselves that if a belief is found to be insane, that it is only by another belief.'

Jiri

aa5874

I need and an example of an historic God. I need information from an historian showing that ,indeed, historic Gods was common at one time in history of Mankind. The stories in the Christian Bible reflects the belief in 'spiritual' ghostlike entities that have 'superman' like qualities.

The Christian Bible can not be verified for it's truthfulness, there are no original documents, the miracles of Jesus are unknown outside the bible. No-one can ascertain when, how Jesus was born, the Bible is of no help. All Gods are myths, there is no evidence that the Son of a mythical God can be anything other than a myth.

Ted Hoffman

Peter Drucker talked about pussycat managers: managers who waste valuable time micromanaging and fretting over petty issues. They monitor waves frantically while they should be examining the tide. They get stuck in trenches instead of surveying the landscape.

Now the story is told of one pussycat that went to England.
When the pussycat came back, she was asked: "Pussycat, pussycat, where did you go?" The pussycat answered that she had gone to England. And she was asked, "What did you see in England?".
"I saw a mouse", said the pussycat. "And where was the mouse?", the pussycat was asked.
"The mouse was under the queen's seat" answered the pussycat.

The point is, people went to see the queen. Presumably the pussycat too, but she got preoccupied with a mouse instead of looking at the queen.
Same thing here Jeffrey. You exhibit a pussycat mentality: ignoring the gist of my OP and picking on unimportant, tangential issues.

Pussycat mentality. Now, write that down.

If you were my student, and I was interested in helping you to focus on planks, not splinters, I could have provided you with a whole article that is, say three pages long. Then I would ask you: "What is the authors main point?"

Clivedurdle

Your argument also applies to Mary and Jesus and Hercule's mum who were also described as being real but also actually had no literal time on earth!!

I'm sory, we are looking at myth here. Someone kindly answer me why xianity is the exception?

Alf

Perhaps because there is little substance in what he says when you remove the hand waving and the thunderous anger he professes towards all those who were to disagree with his "truth"?

Alf

Ted Hoffman

Van Voorst states that "we should not expect to find exact historical references in early Christian literature".
He does not define "early". And he does not define "Christian Literature."
We should not not expect historical references from Origen, Ignatius, Irenaeus?

And Why not?

gstafleu

But is what Doherty said really a strawman? Let us consider.

The MJ AFS does not just consist of pointing out Paul's silence, it also, and importantly, consists of arguments why we should expect historical statements in Paul (and other places, for that matter).

To counter that one needs to counter the arguments. As observed, Van Voorst does not do that, he just offers that Paul didn't (set out to) write a historical work. That is not a refutation of the arguments and hence not a refutation of the AFS. However, Van Voorst seems to offer his observation as a refutation. Under what circumstances would his observation indeed be a refutation?

The only circumstance I can think of is if historical facts can in fact be expected only in historical works. Then it is reasonable to say "Paul did not write a historical work, we all know you cannot expect historical facts in a non-historical work, so all your arguments as to why we should expect them are invalid."

In other words, by offering his observation as a (complete?) refutation, Van Voorst does indeed imply that historical facts only appear in historical works. If that is what Doherty was pointing out, he did not set up a straw man.

jakejonesiv

I will suggest that the key to understanding the origins to Christianity lies more in the second century CE, that in the first century CE.

In the second century, the battle was not between Mythical Jesus vs. Historical Jesus. This is a modern construct.

It was between Docetic Jesus (a phantom, an illusion) and
Human/Divine Jesus. A bodiless phantom cannot exist in reality. Likewise, the "the incarnation" is not amenable to historical investigation. It is a myth, a fiction, even if it is deemed to have entered our world. The world of the NT is only the real world superficially; it is a fictional construct in which impossible things are imagined to happen routinely.

The very idea of a "Historical Jesus", a Jesus stripped of all divinity and pre-existence, concieved as mere man whose mission had failed, is an idea that the Church Fathers would have rebelled against with all vigor. This is a conceit of the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" movements. Aren't we on about the third quest now?

The Jesus of the second century Christians, whether proto-orthodox or Marcionite, was not conceived of as a human failure. He pre-existed in heaven in some sense. He ascended as surely as he descended. He rose as surely as he died. He was glorified as surely as he was humbled. This is the language of faith, it is the world of myth. Whether this was deemed to have occured in the heavens or on the surface of the earth, it is a mythical construct. It is over this framework that the alleged deeds of Gospel Jesus are accreted.

Here we meet the real criteria of embarassment; anything that offends the sensibilities (i.e. miracles , the supernatural) of the modern scholar must be wrenched from the text, regardless of the violence done to the stories. If you will forgive an analogy, it is like shattering a vintage Ming Dynasty vase, and trying to put together a coffee cup from the shards.

ymmv.

Jake Jones IV