Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 10-30-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Is this what MJ vs HJ comes down to for you, Toto? The good fight against Christianity? No wonder mythicists are continually going on about "apologists say this" and "apologists say that". This isn't about scholarship at all, then, for those mythicists.

I think the question of the historicity of Jesus is just as relevant as asking about Moses or Mohammed. These are people who changed history, or at least their followers did.

I have my own reasons for pursuing the mythicist perspective. There are many Christians in my family, some Evangelical. I myself went through this phase as a young man. Exploring this tradition is a way to understand myself.

I have no problems at all with people pursuing the idea of Jesus mythicism. If you want to pursue mythicism, then more power to you.

But, other than state "Doherty may well be right", have YOU pursued mythicism? Have you built on his theory? Helped to make his theory stronger? Reviewed Doherty to see whether a "fleshly Christ crucified in a spiritual realm" fit into the worldview of the people in Paul's time?

What I am questioning is this unstated theme among mythicists that those supporting a historical Jesus -- either atheist or Christian -- somehow fear that the mythicists are correct, and that there is a phantom war being carried out by historicists against mythicism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Skeptics see a world full of naive faith in foolish things. The point of rationality and logic is to rise above ignorance and prejudice. Yes, atheists might be prejudiced against apologists, just as socialists might be prejudiced against free market capitalists. This isn't news.

It isn't prejudice that I'm concerned about. On questions of faith and belief, you might want to argue against apologists. But why in God's name are mythicists concerned about what apologists say on the question of a historical Jesus?

aa5874 · 10-30-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

It seems to me that one of the reasons for renewed interest in mythicism is that people are trying to deal with the sick mind-rape inflicted on them by evangelicals. I think that recovery from this is very much like recovery from rape:

You are the victim. You did nothing wrong.
What you experienced was violence, not sex (Christ). There is nothing wrong with liking sex (Christ).

Do you think only evangelicals are sick? The records do not reflect such a scenario.

GakuseiDon · 10-30-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

"Motivated to debunk Christianity"???

I was repeating the words of thedistillers. I'm not sure what the questions marks are all about.

Yes, you are right. I thought they were your words. Apologies about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

As I have tried to explain before, the good fight against the evils that Christianity has done is better served with a historical Jesus. If there were any reason to believe in this individual, I would welcome it.

The reason I go on about apologists is that their arguments have polluted the air space. There is a constant repetition of arguments that have some superficial sound of rationality, without any real analysis.

IIRC a few years back there was a thread on about using "apologist" as a pejorative term. IIUC an "apologist" is someone who makes a defense of their faith. On questions of faith (like Jesus as son of God), then it is right to see what apologists are arguing. But if mythicists want to argue on a historical Jesus, should they care what apologists say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The mills of academia grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. I see no reason to assume that the field of historical Jesus studies has reached a final conclusion.

Do you think that academia is trying to keep mythicism out of the field of historical Jesus studies, for any reason OTHER than they think it is an unproven fringe idea?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You are arguing against yourself here. If academia is about the search for truth, are mythicists to be blamed for not yet having found the right strategy to get their point across? Doherty may have been naive in thinking that the power of his ideas and research alone would prevail.

Doherty is waiting for the scholars to come to HIM. And then he complains that his ideas aren't being taken seriously by scholars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

It's simple: no mythicist has raised this to academia in the last 30 years as far as I've heard. For all the claims of "bias", etc, it's as simple as that. If any serious historian has heard of it at all, it would as one of a number of fringe theories. But as you hear some mythicists tell it, historians are being cowed by Christians to ignore it, or they are scared that the theory may somehow be true. Meanwhile, academic papers questioning conventional Christian beliefs get published all the time.

30 years is not very long for this subject matter. In another generation, the reconstructed historical Jesus may be viewed as one of those 20th century fads that didn't pan out.

And, as I have tried to explain, this is not strictly a Christian opposition to the JM hypothesis. There are lots of humanists who want to believe that there was a self-sacrificing man who changed history through the power of unconditional love. It's a really powerful myth.

What should the strategy of the mythicist be?

spamandham · 10-30-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

It seems to me that one of the reasons for renewed interest in mythicism is that people are trying to deal with the sick mind-rape inflicted on them by evangelicals.

Possibly, but I think it has more to do with criticism against the Jesus Seminar, particularly the criticism that all the seminar accomplished was to create a Jesus in line with the preconceptions of the members.

...it left a lot of people thinking, "That's it?! Gee, if that's all they could come up with, maybe he was a myth. Why didn't they consider that?"

No Robots · 10-30-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I no longer believe in ghosts or miracles or life after death, how could the NT speak to me? Is there a kingdom of heaven in this life?

Just ignore all the supernatural stuff and concentrate on what is said about the kingdom of heaven. It is definitely something in this life:

And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come? he answered them, and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

--Lk 17:20-21

No Robots · 10-30-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Possibly, but I think it has more to do with criticism against the Jesus Seminar, particularly the criticism that all the seminar accomplished was to create a Jesus in line with the preconceptions of the members.

...it left a lot of people thinking, "That's it?! Gee, if that's all they could come up with, maybe he was a myth. Why didn't they consider that?"

The JS seemed like thin gruel to me, like most writing on the subject. It just strengthened my resolve to find something meaty.

aa5874 · 10-30-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I no longer believe in ghosts or miracles or life after death, how could the NT speak to me? Is there a kingdom of heaven in this life?

Just ignore all the supernatural stuff and concentrate on what is said about the kingdom of heaven. It is definitely something in this life:

And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come? he answered them, and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

--Lk 17:20-21

Why do you think an unknown author who wrote about a character as the son of the God of the Jews who probably did not say or do anything, as written. should be regarded as writing things that people should concentrate on?

Now, if you concentrate, the author of Luke, it would appear, has no idea what or where the kingdom of heaven is.

Toto · 10-30-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
What I am questioning is this unstated theme among mythicists that those supporting a historical Jesus -- either atheist or Christian -- somehow fear that the mythicists are correct, and that there is a phantom war being carried out by historicists against mythicism.

If it is unstated, perhaps it is your projection? Mythicists have a variety of more nuanced reasons for the failure of historicists to embrace mythicism.

Quote:

It isn't prejudice that I'm concerned about. On questions of faith and belief, you might want to argue against apologists. But why in God's name are mythicists concerned about what apologists say on the question of a historical Jesus?

Wouldn't you be concerned about false propaganda taking in your friends and loved ones and turning them into cult members?

Toto · 10-30-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

Do you think that academia is trying to keep mythicism out of the field of historical Jesus studies, for any reason OTHER than they think it is an unproven fringe idea?

I think that some academics probably think that it is a fringe idea and they would lose face with their colleagues if they embraced it. (Which is why we keeping getting that Christian drumbeat about how mythicists are so fringe.) The only academic that I talked to had a very emotional reaction against the whole idea of mythicism, because he thought there must have be some unhealthy motive behind it. (He was something of a humanist, so I don't think he had a confessional interest.) Others have other reasons - some are Christians who can't imagine that Jesus didn't exist.

Otherwise I would prefer not to speculate about motives. I think that inertia is a big factor.

Quote:

Doherty is waiting for the scholars to come to HIM. And then he complains that his ideas aren't being taken seriously by scholars.

I guess he didn't go to the right cocktail parties.

Quote:

... What should the strategy of the mythicist be?

Patience. Time is on the side of mythicism.

teamonger · 10-30-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

No, I haven't looked at recent fundie recruiting materials. But such materials didn't used to start out with "Jesus existed", they used to start out with "do you feel hopeless?", "can you trust the Bible?" etc. Perhaps they now start out with the historicity claim because the myth debate is becoming better known among them?

Starting the debate from there gives them a firm footing which they don't deserve. Jesus existed, so what? Lots of brave people existed who were put down for having new ideas. But we don't make a god out of Gandhi.
t

What do you mean by "Jesus existed, so what?" You seem not to realise that the existence of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity. Christians must pre-suppose Jesus existed in some form, whether all God, God/man or all man, they just must believe regardless of lack of evidence that Jesus was on earth during the reign of Tiberius.

The most terrifying words to a christian are the words "Jesus of the NT did NOT ever exist."

No, the existence of the mere human is not the foundation for traditional Christianity. The real foundation is the supernatural stuff. "Jesus was just a man" is the real fear. To say Jesus was more than a mere man is an extraordinary claim. To say he was a charismatic cult leader is not.
t

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.