Clivedurdle

As I wrote that earlier - deliberately provocatively and rhetorically, using the good ol slippery slope concept, I wish to apologise if it is an ad hom.

But how is a question an attack or an ad hom?

As that discussion has evolved it matters decisively which HJ we are talking about, a minimalist or a maximalist.

And my conclusion is that anyone proposing anything supernatural or miraculous AT ALL is by definition not an atheist. So virgin birth and resurrection etc are out.

I also started that thread using the common law balance of probabilities as against criminal law beyond reasonable doubt. And on balance of probabilities the most HJ we have is a cynic preacher who got crucified.

But this minimalist figure has been transformed into the only begotten son of god, saviour of the universe! This sheer weight of myth and theology by itself makes this look very much like all the other gods, but arguably the son of the super dooper omnimax one in contrast to a common or garden daughter of Zeus!

Is Jesus the gigantosaurus of gods?

To conclude, if anyone is arguing for an HJ they must be clear which one!

Xians do see acceptance of an HJ as the first step towards our salvation - I must return to the question of someone's credal position here. It cannot but bias how they interpret matters!

No Robots

I think I understand your point. You are saying that in a dialogue between a Christian and an atheist, the Christian will ask, "Do you believe that Jesus lived?" If the atheist answers, "Yes", then the Christian can start probing the atheist's christology, looking for defects. This is a tricky situation. I would suggest that many atheists are mythicists precisely to avoid getting into it at all. This may work well with the average Christian, who doesn't really have the knowledge to adequately debate the question. But when confronted with someone better informed, the mythicist case gets a hard time. I would suggest that atheists abandon mythicism and instead concentrate on coming up with a christology that Christians cannot refute. This is hard work, but much of it has already been done.

jakejonesiv

If I wanted to slight to Michael Servetus, I could never have come up with such an faintly perceptible, indistinct, and almost incomprehesible way to do it. No, if I were to comment negatively about Michael Servetus (whom I had not thought about in over five years), I would say he used poor judgement, when fleeing for his life from the Catholics, to seek refuge in a Protestand stronghold (Genneva) and then label John Calvin as Simon Magus, and an imposter.

Michael Servetus was not executed because he thought Jesus was a historical figure. The Calvinists of Geneva that had him burned at the stake would not disagree.

The argument was over differing views of Christology and Theology.

I am not a Unitarian, so please correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that Unitarians have shifted further and further toward a mythical interpretaion of Jesus. Oh sure, they say there might be some historical guy, but anything said about him is mythical, or just as well be. Remember, I said, some and pretty close in my post above.

But the point remains; the label of Christian can be retained as a self designation by those who doubt HJ. Many of the Dutch Radicals were ministers in the Dutch Reformed Church.

Jake Jones IV

openlyatheist

In sales it's called the foot-in-the-door technique. Call toll free for this amazing offer, there's no obligation, keep this free gift as our way of saying thank you! No, we're not trying to take your money, don't be silly!

The purpose of the technique is to get you to accept one simple proposition, then build upon that proposition. Every time one idea is accepted another one is spoon fed to you. That's exactly how Scientology works.

It's no different whether it be Mormons, Scientologists, or Christian evangelists. It's all about roping you into a conversation that starts out with "Come join our study group," and leads to "Bow down before us/God/L. Ron Hubbard."


I have come to the conclusion that the very reason Jesus has outlived the pagan gods of his birth era is precisely due to the mundane elements woven into his biography. No one takes Zues seriously as a god anymore. No one speaks of Heracles' battles with monsters and cyclopses.

But a man who was the son of a carpenter, who preached in the street, associated with the poor and destitute and was finally executed by Roman bureaucracy? That's nothing like the fabulous adventures of the gods of Rome. It sounds positively feasible. It's far easier to imagine this fellow. It is no wonder to me that most people entertain the existence of this fellow long before the question of proof is even addressed. Hell, most people believe in Jesus just because his statue is up in front at church.

Free toaster anyone?

jakejonesiv

Not if IIDB is any evidence.

You need to do your own research. Why don't you come up with something mythicists can't refute? Please list your #1 reason right here.

Jake Jones IV

No Robots

At his trial, Michael Servetus was condemned on two counts, for spreading and preaching Nontrinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism (infant baptism).

Wikipedia

Servetus was one of the first in modern times to suggest that to understand Christ we must begin with the man:

In investigating the holy mysteries of the divine Triad, I have thought that one ought to start from the man; for I see most men approaching their lofty speculation about the Word without having any fundamental understanding of CHRIST, and they attach little or no importance to the man, and give the true CHRIST quite over to oblivion. But I shall endeavor to recall to their memories who the CHRIST is. However, what and how much importance is to be attached to CHRIST, the Church shall decide.
Seeing that the pronoun indicates a man, whom they call the human nature, I shall admit these three things: first, this man is JESUS CHRIST; second, he is the Son of God; third, he is God.

Translated by WILBUR, E.M. The two treatises of Servetus on the Trinity. London: Harvard University Press, 1932, p. 6 (available here)

I am afraid you will have to provide evidence indicating the drift of Unitarians toward mythicism before I will think of your claim any more than I do of Bush's "coalition of the willing".

I don't think that that is true.

Please provide evidence that the Dutch Radicals did not believe in a historical Jesus.

No Robots

That is precisely what I do mean: mythicism is under attack in several threads here, including this one.


I have frequently provided a link to what I consider is a source of persuasive arguments against mythicism, but I have yet to interest anyone in an extended discussion of this text. There seems to be a very strong resistance on the part of mythicists to do any close reading of documents which oppose their position.

On the question of what I consider the best argument for Christ's historicity, I would have to say that the sheer impact of Christ's personality on the world is proof positive of its reality.

Diogenes the Cynic

Talk about circular. You're assuming that Christianity represents any historical figure's actual personality.

Can you provide any provable example's of "Christ's personality" having any impact on the world? In order to do this, you will not only have to prove HJ existed, you'll have to show that we have some reliable way of discovering what his personality was like.

Toto

Well put. That is exactly how Bill Bright's cult works.

I think that Chris Weimer is being too defensive. I don't know of anyone who claims that you can't believe in some version of a historical Jesus and still be an atheist. I think that some arguments for the existence of Jesus are favored by Christians who feel the need to prove a historical Jesus, but that doesn't mean that the arguments are necessarily wrong, or that an atheist couldn't agree (although I might still claim that most of those arguments are bogus.)

In fact, I think you can argue that the historical Jesus is more of an atheist creation than a Christian one. Catholic commentator Charlotte Allen argues as much in her book The Human Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk), where she traces the effort to construct a merely human Jesus to various Deists and freethinkers, and condemns the effort as Protestant heresy or worse.

No Robots

I don't think I'm being circular. We are trying to find the cause of an effect, to find what caused the entire phenomenon we call Christianity. If you proceed from the Christianity of today back to the past in an attempt to construct a causal chain, you come to what? I am contending that the only cause that makes any sense is a man of astounding abilities. No other cause can explain the phenomenon. As Nietzsche puts it:

When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a Jew, crucified two thousand years ago-- Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All-Too-Human, 1878

Yes, it is possible, in fact it is certain, because it is this Jew.

As for a reliable depiction of this personality, I would suggest this.