Clivedurdle

On the time frame, if we are discussing a sect of diaspora gnostic jews we can go back a hundreed years before the alleged time of jesus. Ellegard I think is persuasive on this.

The Bishop

Toto, you accused McDuffie of being inflammatory, then you retracted that and said that you just felt that he was being unintentionally inflammatory.

Now, based on information derived from McDuffie's own post, you are being inflammatory and ad hominem.

Now, in response to your post in response to me.
Well, I've never read Eusebius. But the question was about acceptance of scholastic authority. The claim was that HJ'ers did nothing but accept the normal understanding of the Church's history.

Strangely enough, what I'm describing is the arguments against a historical Jesus that I have actually encountered here on II. Not the arguments advanced by Doherty, which I haven't particularly noticed being used. I'm not describing good arguments for the MJ, I'm describing the bad ones.

But that's not the point of this thread, now, is it? Every single thread could descend into a HJ/MJ battle. That was not the intention of the OP.

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: Doherty!:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Not here on II, obviously, but MJ is still a minority position. Only last week BBC Four put on a documentary asking the question Did Jesus Die?, which included contributions from John Dominic Crossan amongst others. It described in detail the problems in the Gospels with regard to the Resurrection (and even more so with the Ascension). It raised the possibility that Jesus never died on the cross, that he had had a relationship with Mary Magdalene, that he had travelled to "Southern France" (they didn't call it Transalpine Gaul once, which was rather annoying) or alternatively that he had travelled to India in his youth and been trained up as a Buddhist, and had returned there after the crucifixion, dying in Kashmir at the age of 80. Much to my surprise the only theory not mentioned once was the concept that he never lived as a human being on Earth. Doherty's work is all very well, but if he's still the only scholar to have advanced this theory with any substantial backing evidence, and that it hasn't yet been taken up and extended by other reputable scholars, then it's still not that fair to chastise me for not having read him. Particularly when I was in the process of acknowledging that I might change my mind.


Also, it looks rather like you went off on one before reading all of my post. If I was on a tirade (which I deny) it was one about irrational arguments being used by fellow skeptics and atheists. If those arguments are found within Doherty, perhaps I will have found the answers that Carrier failed to, but I'm not prejudicing Doherty. I'm talking about arguments I've found here.

Greetings, Iasion, it's Silas from sciforums
But as you'll see below, I wasn't "making a false claim" or trying to be inflammatory. I was describing a community which - apart from the MJ issue - I am a member of. I might suggest you look up "invariably" in the dictionary.... However, that said, apologies if I have misrepresented anyone.

Tut tut, Iasion, no quoting out of context now. Let's try again:

Tharmas

Peter Kirby is of course correct. I am describing the "turning point" that struck me intuitively and forcefully, and the working hypothesis that followed. It does come down to little more than warring intuitions.

While I ain't married to it I find it attractive for its explanatory robustness in an area where there isn’t a lot of hard data and we are necessarily forced back on intuition.

The perception is that the New Testament, and particularly the Gospels, make more sense when viewed as a yoking together of various pre-existing independent but parallel rabbinic traditions.

By the way I’m not claiming any originality here, either. That perception I found in Burton Mack’s textual analysis.

Doug Shaver

I don't see how that answers my question. Here it is again: How did Christians in ca. 50 CE understand it, and how do we know that?

Clivedurdle

Or a set of stamps, football cards or similar? I'll swap you a Heavenly Christ for a Japanese Buddha!

We have what this and which that magazines, why not a Which God magazine, showing price performance etc!

Toto

Bishop - after this, I am withdrawing from this thread until there is actually something to discuss. You can find a lot of bad arguments for a MJ, but I object to saying that all arguments for a MJ are illogical and uninformed. That's why I keep bringing up Doherty, because he has put together the most coherent case. But you can also read Robert Price (although he is not explicitly a mythicist, he does demolish the case for the historical Jesus.) If the BBC is going to give air time to the people who think Jesus is buried in India, I don't think they can qualify as an arbiter of scholarly credibility.

Perhaps we are all a little touchy, even if we aren't on medication. We have had Christian apologists who come here and insult mythicism, and the mythicists take offense, but the Christians also go into high dander if someone says something that could be interpreted to mean that Chistians are not very smart or well read. And we have seen atheists who believe in a historical Jesus go on tirades when someone intimates that the historical Jesus is part of the Christian package.

So go ahead, read Doherty, then read Robert Price's Incredible Shinking Son of Man and Jay Raskin's Evolution of Christs and Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk). There's no sense in deifying Azimov or treating his writings as holy scripture.

The Bishop

I knew this was coming. This is, I'm afraid, what I have now come to expect here, and from a moderator, yet. Sadly, I joined II in the hope of finding a somewhat higher standard of discourse, at least amongst rationalists. And it's Asimov, but you knew that already.

I was saying what made me angry, Toto. I didn't mean all MJ arguments were irrational. It's the irrational/illogical/fallacious ones I find that I do find quite annoying. As is denigrating one of the best, and certainly the most prolific, promoters of rationality and skeptical thinking, in modern science popularisation.

I'll make do with jesuspuzzle.org, thank you. I get enough books on BH&C as it is.

Incidentally, not only did I not say anything about "all MJ arguments", but the word "uninformed" never issued from my keyboard.

If people are touchy, maybe it's because someone claims to be pulling back from a discussion, and refers to how touchy people are, but at the same time misrepresent what was said by a (relatively new) user, and pour scorn on someone they happen to admire. That appears to be pouring petrol on the flames as you duck out of the burning building.

Toto

Sorry, I wrote in haste. I don't know why you think what I said was so terrible. I also admire Asimov, but I think that his views on the Bible were a product of his time, and are a bit dated.

I agree that what that person said years ago was not right, and did not intend to justify it.

Yes, there are irrational mythicists, but there are many more irrational historicists with much more political power. Why concentrate on irrational mythicists? You are not the only atheist historicist here who seems to get more upset over the sins of mythicists than other sins.

I am really sorry if I misrepresented you. I did not have the time to go through everything you have written to check my recollections. And I was not trying to further inflame things - I meant no scorn to you or Asimov. That was based on a misunderstanding.

Didymus

So do you consider yourself a mythicist or a historicist?

On the one hand, I'm persuaded by Doherty when he says that Paul couldn't have thought of Jesus as a man who lived in recent history. (This is where an Argument from Silence meets an Argument from Incredulity. And yes, there is a place in this world for both.)

But it seems like the historicists think that all MJ'ers think Paul's silences on the human Jesus are explained by the "third heaven" hypothesis, i.e., that Paul thought of Jesus as having existed, not on earth, but in a spiritual domain. But I consider myself a mythicist, and I think Paul's Jesus is way too "human" to support the third heaven hypothesis. Paul's Jesus, after all, was a Jew; he was born of a woman; he had a body; he ate food; he conducted rituals; he was betrayed by his enemies; he was crucified; he was buried. For someone who never came to earth, those are distinctly earthly characteristics and activities. So I'm inclined to think that Paul thought of Jesus as an obscure, previously unrecognized messiah who was crucified by someone (Antiochus?) at some time in the vague and misty past.

The gospel Jesus is a different story entirely. HJ'ers insist that gospel Jesus was based on a real man with a biography similar to the synoptics, less the miraculous parts. MJ'ers (including myself) don't seem to have a coherent theory of the origins of the gospels, but seem to agree only on non-historicity, supported by historical inaccuracies, gospel reconstructions of OT passages and (sometimes farfetched) links with mystery religions. I suspect there's a large dose of "Johnny Appleseed" folklore in the mix too, that some of the Jesus pericopes and sayings are based on legends about real ascetics who really did wander Syria, Egpyt and Palestine preaching Cynic ideas confuted with Hebrew messianism and Kingdom of God eschatology.

If there were many Jesuses, would they qualify as a historical Jesus? Would an imaginary Jesus-like figure with a fundamentally different biography - e.g., born in Alexandria, no Jerusalem preaching, no Trial before the Sanhedrin - qualify as a historical Jesus? Does my belief that the gospel Jesus was based on real earthly human beings - some of whom might actually have been named Jesus - make me an HJ'er?

When I look at the totality of what I believe, I think Jesus NT is a mythical figure, but when I read the HJ critiques of MJ theory, it seems like my acknowledgement of any historical person (or persons!) at the root of the NT Jesus qualifies me as believer in a historical Jesus.

(Burton Mack isn't discussed as a mythicist, yet I can't seem to find the place where he acknowledges that the gospel Jesus really existed.)

Before I can discuss my "turning point," will somebody tell me which cell I belong in?

Didymus

Iasion

Greetings,

Welcome to IIDB (I did welcome you before, perhaps you missed it :-)


Pardon?
You claimed MJers are "invariably atheists."

But,
I pointed out that I am an MJer and not an atheist, and there are others here with similar views (AFAIR.)

That shows that MJers are NOT invariably atheists.

Why?

We know what invariably means - it means without exception.

Your claim that all MJers are atheists, without exception, is false.


Iasion