Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-20-2010, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pullman's Jesus

"Lord, if I thought you were listening, I'd pray for this above all: that my church set up in your name should remain poor, and powerless, and modest. That it should wield no authority except that of love. That it should never cast anyone out. That it should own no property and make no laws. That is should not condemn, but only forgive. That it should be not like a palace with marble walls and polished floors, and guards standing at the door, but like a tree with its roots deep in the soil, that shelters every kind of bird and beast and gives blossom in the spring and shade in hot sun and fruit in the season, and in time gives up its good sound wood for the carpenter; but that sheds many thousands of seeds so that new trees can grow in its place. Does the tree say to the sparrow 'Get out, you don't belong here?' Does the tree say to the hungry man 'This fruit is not for you?' Does the tree test the loyalty of the beasts before it allows them into the shade?"

That's sweet, and touching. And unrealistic, like all socialist visions.

And this is Jesus according to gMark.

Mr 6:11 -

Quote:

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

maryhelena · 05-22-2010, 12:00 AM

I've not read Pullman's Jesus book - nor seen it in the local shops - but here is a youtube video of Pullman defending his right to use the 'shocking' title of the book...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature

jgreen44 · 05-23-2010, 03:48 AM

From the Gospel of Abe...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

As a teenager, Jesus became a devoted follower of a charismatic apocalyptic preacher called John the Baptist (Mark 1:9). John attempted to stay out of the way of Herod and the ruling Roman prefect, so he preferred the countryside, baptizing people in the Jordan River to cleanse and purify them from unclean sin of the bodies and souls of his followers, who believed that God would soon bring justice on their oppressive authorities (Josephus AJ 18.5). John saw the charm, devotion and talent of the young Jesus and took him under his wing, and John became a mentor and teacher of Jesus, teaching him about Jewish laws, history, prophecies, and the apocalyptic future.

If Jesus of Nazareth was really a close associate of John the Baptist or, in fact, had anything to do with John the Baptist then how is it that in the Book of Acts approximately 12 disciples of John the Baptist knew nothing of Jesus or the Holy Spirit (which allegedly descended upon Jesus during his baptism at the hands of John)?

Acts 19:1-7 (New International Version)

Acts 19
Paul in Ephesus
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.

4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[b] the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

aa5874 · 05-23-2010, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

From the Gospel of Abe...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

As a teenager, Jesus became a devoted follower of a charismatic apocalyptic preacher called John the Baptist (Mark 1:9). John attempted to stay out of the way of Herod and the ruling Roman prefect, so he preferred the countryside, baptizing people in the Jordan River to cleanse and purify them from unclean sin of the bodies and souls of his followers, who believed that God would soon bring justice on their oppressive authorities (Josephus AJ 18.5). John saw the charm, devotion and talent of the young Jesus and took him under his wing, and John became a mentor and teacher of Jesus, teaching him about Jewish laws, history, prophecies, and the apocalyptic future.

If Jesus of Nazareth was really a close associate of John the Baptist or, in fact, had anything to do with John the Baptist then how is it that in the Book of Acts approximately 12 disciples of John the Baptist knew nothing of Jesus or the Holy Spirit (which allegedly descended upon Jesus during his baptism at the hands of John)?

Acts 19:1-7 (New International Version)

Acts 19
Paul in Ephesus
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.

4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[b] the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

You have isolated a MOST PROFOUND FLAW in the Jesus story.

The authors of the JESUS story FORGOT to BAPTISE JOHN the baptist with the HOLY GHOST.

PhilosopherJay · 05-23-2010, 08:17 AM

Hi Joan of Bark,

Regarding your question on why do so many atheist scholars believe in an historical Jesus. I am not sure that it is so many, at least not so many who have written on the question.

I haven't updated or published my list of scholars/writers who believed totally or primarily in a mythological Jesus in a while. Here it is.

Quote:

1) G.A. Wells, 2) Robert M. Price, 3) Thomas Thompson, 4) Timothy Freke, 5) Peter Gandy, 6) Herman Detering, 7) Alvar Ellegard, 8) Darrell Doughty, 9) Frank Zindler, 10) Michael Turton, 11) Luigi Cascioli, 12) Michel Onfray, 13) Francesco Carotta, 14) Tom Harpur, 15) Hal Childs, 16), Herbert Cutner, 17) Michael O. Wise, 18) Burton Mack, 19) Jan Sammer, 20) Arthur M. Rothstein, 21) Michael Martin, 22) Herman Detering, 23) Alan Dundes, 24) Earl Doherty, 25) Richard Carrier, 26) Archaya S./ D.M. Murdoch, 27) Joseph Atwill, 28) Ken Humphreys, 29) Harold Liedner, 30) Zane Winter, 31) Gary Courtney, 32) Michael Hoffman, 33) Max Rieser, 34) R.G. Price, 35) Lawrence E. Dalton, 36) Shirley Strutton Dalton, 37) Brian Flemming 38) Georg Morris Cohen Brandes, 39) John (J.M.) Robertson 40) Bertrand Russell, 41) Joseph McCabe, 42) Livio C. Stecchini, 43) Thomas Whittaker, 44) John E. Remsburg, 45) Arthur Drews, 46) P. L. Couchoud, 47) John Allegro, 48) van den Bergh van Eysinga, 49) Robert Taylor, 50) Joseph Wheless, 51) Peter Jensen, 52) Gordon Rylands, 53) Guy Fau, 54) Mangasar Mugurditch Mangasarian, 55) Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 56) John E. Remsburg, 57) Marshall J. Gauvin, 58) J.G. Jackson, 59) William Benjamin Smith, 60) Cita Rom Goel, 61) Salomon Reinach 62) Albert Bayet 63) M.F.A. Aulard, 64) Prosper Alfaric, 65) J.P.J. Bolland, 66) Yosef ben-Jochannan, 67) Max Riese, 68) David Hernandez, 69) Paulo Roberto Candido dos Santos, 70) Christopher Hitchens, 71) Jay Raskin

If any body has more names of writers/scholars, please feel free to add.

While the dominant paradigm has been challenged, it remains intact and is quite attractive. We like to believe in self-identical things and we like to believe that a man makes his own character and life. That a man could be a composite composition actually frustrates the capitalist ideology that human beings are self made individuals and not social relationships.

I don't think very many atheists bother to investigate the scholarship, but most simply accept the dominant paradigm, which is plausible enough.

Only those with a special interest in mythology or literature I suspect really even see the problem.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

"Proof" is used in the legal system. Evidence is used in court trials to prove guilt or innocence.

But in the legal system the context must be considered. It is always prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The proof is never considered absolute. The provision for doubt is always present.

All that those quotes from the gospels indicate is that some aspects of Jesus character were considered supernatural.

And I'll ask you a question I've asked before but you haven't answered: why do so many scholars -- even atheist scholars -- believe in a HJ?

Chaucer · 05-24-2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Quote:

1) G.A. Wells, 2) Robert M. Price, 3) Thomas Thompson, 4) Timothy Freke, 5) Peter Gandy, 6) Herman Detering, 7) Alvar Ellegard, 8) Darrell Doughty, 9) Frank Zindler, 10) Michael Turton, 11) Luigi Cascioli, 12) Michel Onfray, 13) Francesco Carotta, 14) Tom Harpur, 15) Hal Childs, 16), Herbert Cutner, 17) Michael O. Wise, 18) Burton Mack, 19) Jan Sammer, 20) Arthur M. Rothstein, 21) Michael Martin, 22) Herman Detering, 23) Alan Dundes, 24) Earl Doherty, 25) Richard Carrier, 26) Archaya S./ D.M. Murdoch, 27) Joseph Atwill, 28) Ken Humphreys, 29) Harold Liedner, 30) Zane Winter, 31) Gary Courtney, 32) Michael Hoffman, 33) Max Rieser, 34) R.G. Price, 35) Lawrence E. Dalton, 36) Shirley Strutton Dalton, 37) Brian Flemming 38) Georg Morris Cohen Brandes, 39) John (J.M.) Robertson 40) Bertrand Russell, 41) Joseph McCabe, 42) Livio C. Stecchini, 43) Thomas Whittaker, 44) John E. Remsburg, 45) Arthur Drews, 46) P. L. Couchoud, 47) John Allegro, 48) van den Bergh van Eysinga, 49) Robert Taylor, 50) Joseph Wheless, 51) Peter Jensen, 52) Gordon Rylands, 53) Guy Fau, 54) Mangasar Mugurditch Mangasarian, 55) Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 56) John E. Remsburg, 57) Marshall J. Gauvin, 58) J.G. Jackson, 59) William Benjamin Smith, 60) Cita Rom Goel, 61) Salomon Reinach 62) Albert Bayet 63) M.F.A. Aulard, 64) Prosper Alfaric, 65) J.P.J. Bolland, 66) Yosef ben-Jochannan, 67) Max Riese, 68) David Hernandez, 69) Paulo Roberto Candido dos Santos, 70) Christopher Hitchens, 71) Jay Raskin

This list is in error. Christopher Hitchens is not a thoroughgoing mythicist. He qualifies that considerably at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjcWkhqScBI

Check out this video at 2:44 - 5:18.

Chaucer

Toto · 05-24-2010, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

.... Christopher Hitchens is not a thoroughgoing mythicist. He qualifies that considerably at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjcWkhqScBI

Check out this video at 2:44 - 5:18.

Chaucer

Hitchens says there that there might have been some deluded person at the core of the myth (based on some unpersuasive arguments) so that he is not going to label those who believe in the historical Jesus as insane. There might have been something going on there.

But it doesn't sound as if he agrees with those who believe in the historical Jesus.

Chaucer · 05-24-2010, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

.... Christopher Hitchens is not a thoroughgoing mythicist. He qualifies that considerably at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjcWkhqScBI

Check out this video at 2:44 - 5:18.

Chaucer

Hitchens says there that there might have been some deluded person at the core of the myth (based on some unpersuasive arguments) so that he is not going to label those who believe in the historical Jesus as insane. There might have been something going on there.

But it doesn't sound as if he agrees with those who believe in the historical Jesus.

Excuse me: It sounds as if Hitchens is _not_ among those who, either totally or primarily, believes in a purely mythological Jesus only. Yet that is what Phil. Jay was trying to claim. This YouTube video shows up that claim as erroneous.

If it's time for anyone to now address that claim here, then it's time to hear from Phil. Jay himself.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

Toto · 05-24-2010, 06:18 PM

The youtube video appears to be a summary of, or reading from, chapter 8, titled The "New" Testament Exceeds the Evil of the "Old" One, of God is not Great (or via: amazon.co.uk), most of which can be previewed on Amazon.

It might be more accurate to classify Hitchens as an a-historicist. He is not a historian or a Biblical scholar, and I don't know that he has ever offered an opinion on Christian origins.

PhilosopherJay · 05-24-2010, 10:11 PM

Hi Chaucer,

Actually, it was viewing this clip that made me put Hitchens on the list in the first place.

Hitchens says, "On the historicity point, there are only two reasons I think to suppose that there may have been the figure of some kind of deluded rabbi, a presence at that time."

If I said that there were only two reason to suppose that Robin Hood may have existed, I would not be saying that I believe Robin Hood existed. I would be saying that there were merely some reasons to believe it.

After giving the first reason about the confusion of the nativity at Bethlehem and Nazareth, he says, "…Yes, there may have been a charismatic deluded individual wandering around at that time."

Again, he is simply granting the possibility that some character may have inspired the gospels in some way.

His second reason is the use of women as witnesses at the tomb.

After this, he says in a rather confused impromptu fashion:

Quote:

Its impressive to me that the evidence is so thin and is so hysterical and is so feeble and is so obviously, strenuously cobbled together, because it suggests that something was going on, some character, I therefore do not want to therefore profane those who think that no…there must have been something and say that no, there must have been something. This is not at all … {gabbled}fabrication, but it is a very human and very intelligible, and very pitiable, I think practice of fraud.

The position seems to be that he thinks there is some slight evidence for the existence of some kind of Jesus character, but the vast majority of the text is fraudulent. It is based on this that I would put him in the camp of those who see Jesus as primarily mythological.

I think that there is some evidence that an actual historical character was the basis for the Heracles/Hercules character, some traveling strong man who impressed his listeners with his tales of killing animals and monsters. However, I would still classify Heracles as a mythological character.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hitchens says there that there might have been some deluded person at the core of the myth (based on some unpersuasive arguments) so that he is not going to label those who believe in the historical Jesus as insane. There might have been something going on there.

But it doesn't sound as if he agrees with those who believe in the historical Jesus.

Excuse me: It sounds as if Hitchens is _not_ among those who, either totally or primarily, believes in a purely mythological Jesus only. Yet that is what Phil. Jay was trying to claim. This YouTube video shows up that claim as erroneous.

If it's time for anyone to now address that claim here, then it's time to hear from Phil. Jay himself.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

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

05-22-2010, 12:00 AM	#42
maryhelena Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England Posts: 2,527	I've not read Pullman's Jesus book - nor seen it in the local shops - but here is a youtube video of Pullman defending his right to use the 'shocking' title of the book... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature

05-24-2010, 06:18 PM	#49
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The youtube video appears to be a summary of, or reading from, chapter 8, titled The "New" Testament Exceeds the Evil of the "Old" One, of God is not Great (or via: amazon.co.uk), most of which can be previewed on Amazon. It might be more accurate to classify Hitchens as an a-historicist. He is not a historian or a Biblical scholar, and I don't know that he has ever offered an opinion on Christian origins.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.