Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 12-25-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I have a question - I have always assumed that mythicists are essentially saying that there was no Jesus (i.e. that he is a 'myth' like Hercules) or that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus. Why identify the tradition as 'mythicist,' 'mythical'' or as 'mythicism'? Wouldn't 'hoax' be more impropriate? There are myths about king Minos and he was loosely based on a historical person. So too Theseus etc. I never understood why the equation with 'myth' here if you want to say there never was a historical Jesus.

If you say 'beauty myth' or the 'myth' that money brings happiness yoiu aren't really saying that there isn't such a thing as beauty or that money doesn't bring happiness (it certainly does). You are simply saying that there are limits to the power of beauty and money.

I have never understood the choice of terminology. The 'historical Jesus' position isn't entirely accurate either. Various religious traditions emphasize a divinity to Jesus which can't be construed as 'factual' in the mundane sense.

I think the whole categorization is as bad as Irenaeus's list of heresies and sects. Why not change the categories.

But myth is real in the beauty of truth with truth being the divinity of Jesus apart from history that so can be part of us in the present. To try and confirm the historic event is to remove beauty from myth at best and make us Jesus worshipers at worst.

Chili · 12-25-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But who cares? The angel that led the ancient Israelites out of Egypt might have been an embellishment but something about the flight from Egypt MUST be true

Or what Marcion believed about his God might have been false but Marcion probably existed.

But with Jesus everything is probably myth, even the the supposed trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

But who cares. It was the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost that was on trial.

The Romans NAILED the Ghost of God to a cross.

The Romans could DESTROY anything then.

Of course the flight out of Egypt was true but parting the water was wrong in that we must learn to walk on top of the water before we get in the promised land and not part the waters to get there since only bread from heaven will sustain us there instead of second hand bible passages that will soon be stale and continue to bring evening each day again and again.

And no, the offspring of the HG was not on trial but the Jewish sin nature of Joseph was.

spamandham · 12-25-2010, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It might be more accurate to say that this is when the Jewish religious New Year is celebrated (Rosh haShonah is the start of the secular year) and Passover.

The coincidence that the crossing should have occurred at this time is curious - but would anyone really claim that it didn't happen?

Anyone? Sure. Assuming it happened at all, I would claim there is a 1/365 chance it happened on that day. Therefor, the better explanation is that that day was more likely picked for story telling reasons rather than to preserve an accurate historical record.

aa5874 · 12-25-2010, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are for you for real? You make me LAUGH.

A "conspiracy theory" is NOT an agreement to commit a crime.

You must look up the meaning of "conspiracy theory" NOT just "conspiracy".

Now, clean yourself up, and say exactly what "CONSPIRACY theory" means.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

What a pity you can't actually understand simple English.

Here is what YOUR OWN cite says :

"it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning."

See?

A conspiracy theory refers to a secret plot - an agreement to commit some crime or evil act.

But my argument about Jesus has NOTHING to do with a secret plot at all !

I do NOT say there was any agreement, secret plot, or conspiracy.

If only you could grasp simple points like this, maybe people wouldn't ridicule you.

K.

You are EXTREMELY BLATANT.

You EXPOSE yourself.

Quote:

....."it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning."...

Do you see "FRINGE THEORY"?

I hope you clean yourself up.

Now, look up the meaning of "SECRET PLOT" and tell me if it is a crime to have a "secret plot" to catch a CRIMINAL.

Dave31 · 04-19-2011, 08:51 AM

Here is a response by Acharya S to professional historian Dr. Chris Forbes and his critique of Zeitgeist part 1. It's relevant to the case for mythicism, which Dr. Forbes seems to know nothing about.

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'

Dave31 · 06-21-2011, 02:37 PM

Give this blog a good going over. It's too long to post the whole thing here.

Quote:

Does Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians reveal a 'historical' Jesus?

"The following represents a question and my response originally posted as comments on my Amazon review of Earl Doherty's Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, a book making the case that the letters of St. Paul in the New Testament reveal no knowledge of a "historical" Jesus of Nazareth. The questioner asked me about 1 Corinthians 11:24-5, as "proof" that Paul did know a historical Jesus: ......"

What are your thoughts on the blog?

Dave31 · 06-29-2011, 09:16 AM

Here's a recent radio/podcast from CFI's Point of Inquiry interview of Acharya S with host Dr. Robert Price

Here's the blog describing the subjects being discussed.

Dave31 · 09-25-2011, 12:24 PM

DVD: Great Minds of Our Time: D.M. Murdock

It's highly relevant to the case for mythicism. So, I'd like to hear what others think of it.

Stringbean · 09-25-2011, 12:44 PM

I really like her work. I have two of her books and one of the e-books.

GakuseiDon · 09-25-2011, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

I really like her work. I have two of her books and one of the e-books.

Which mythicist argument do you find the more persuasive between Acharya S's and Doherty's?

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

04-19-2011, 08:51 AM	#425
Dave31 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 425	Here is a response by Acharya S to professional historian Dr. Chris Forbes and his critique of Zeitgeist part 1. It's relevant to the case for mythicism, which Dr. Forbes seems to know nothing about. Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'

06-29-2011, 09:16 AM	#427
Dave31 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 425	Here's a recent radio/podcast from CFI's Point of Inquiry interview of Acharya S with host Dr. Robert Price Here's the blog describing the subjects being discussed.

09-25-2011, 12:24 PM	#428
Dave31 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 425	DVD: Great Minds of Our Time: D.M. Murdock It's highly relevant to the case for mythicism. So, I'd like to hear what others think of it.

09-25-2011, 12:44 PM	#429
Stringbean Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Southern United States Posts: 149	I really like her work. I have two of her books and one of the e-books.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.