ApostateAbe

OK, I'll go along, just for my own education. What are those popular myths you propose?

Alethias

Abe, this is similar to the stance that I take in talking to people. I tell them that I haven't seen sufficient evidence to convince me of a mythical Jesus, nor have I seen sufficient evidence to convince me that Jesus was a real person that has had a large body of myth built up around him. Regardless, he is largely mythicized and there is sufficient evidence to support that notion, in my opinion. Most christians that I talk to are stumped at this point and don't know how to answer me.

-----------------------------------------
On a slightly different tack....The discussion of this topic really needs to stay focused on the role of the Mythicization of Jesus in Atheist activism. If the focus shifts to arguing about whether or not Jesus was actually mythical or real, this thread will in fact be moved to Biblical Criticism & History

Alethias, PA&SA Mod

ApostateAbe

I think that is good advice. So do you think that the secular scholarly consensus respects the Jesus-myth theory, or do you just don't know?
Sweet. I ordered the book a minute ago on your recommendation.
I think one can "prove" propositions of early Christianity by quoting Bible verses and stating their contexts. That doesn't require trusting what the Bible verses say. A related set of falsehoods can be deconstructed for what the truth is. You can make sense of a cult by examining the words of the cult leader, for example.

Toto

There are endless threads in BCH relating to this. The scholarly consensus is that you won't get tenure writing about the Jesus Myth theory. Many of the scholars are confessing Christians who affirm that Jesus was human every time they recite the Nicene Creed. Others are Humanists who think that Jesus must have been an important historical figure who changed the world through love and piety. Others just think that there must have been a historical person at the root of Christianity, but there isn't enough evidence to know much about him.

So you could say that there is a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed, but the implications of that statement - that independent scholars have actually examined the question and looked at evidence, and independently concluded that Jesus existed - is absolutely false. It would be more accurate to say that the conventional wisdom is that Jesus existed.

Everyone knows that there are some wackos who claim that Jesus didn't exist. Christians like Chris Price try to get people to lump them all together, to discredit the whole line of inquiry. This is because Campus Crusade for Christ starts out by saying that "scholars agree that Jesus existed" and goes on to recruit young innocents into their cult, and if they didn't have that starting place, then the whole cult might fall apart.

FatherMithras

You completely ignore how fast myths can arise and the research done on the subject. You're trying to apply "common sense" in an area were it simply doesn't work. You're also using an ad hoc explanation to support your idea.


The biggest gripe I have here is that you seem to think the point of the debate is to "take christians down a peg" or "defeat" their position. I only argue out of a sense of intellectual honesty, not because I have some atheist agenda to kill Christianity.

Not if those verses can reputably be shown to have come from early christians. And your reasoning is circular. You say we can tell what the cult leader said by observing his words. This assumes they're his words and that he existed, so we can thus assume he said them.

EXACTLY. This is the biggest issue that needs to be addressed.

dettus

I think it's good to bring up the idea that jesus is more myth than historical. Some people have never even considered it and that the idea is planted in their head is a good thing. Once an idea is planted, it may or may not grow.

And for many people the idea that jesus is mythical doesn't really matter. It's the idea of christianity that compels them moreso than the claims to the supernatural. To them Jesus being the christian hero doesn't diminish the overall positive impact christianity has in their lives.

ApostateAbe

I hope I can help to correct that misunderstanding. The reasonable truth is most important to me as it is to you, or so I would like to think. But I think that very many of the Jesus-mythers are motivated to believe what they do largely because they don't like Christianity. I can remember how appealing it was to me when I first heard it. I offer an alternative, primarily because it is more accurate, secondarily because it does the same damage.
I think you misunderstood. My example ("for example") was not the subject of the debate. I was not referring to Jesus. We really can make sense of a set of falsehoods by deconstructing the context and intent. We find out out who said it, when, where, and then why.
It is claimed to "absolutely false," but I just don't know. How do you judge who is "independent" and who isn't? How do you judge who has looked at the evidence and who hasn't?

FatherMithras

Once again you are not making an argument. Simply asserting. And once again, it's not about "doing damage", though I don't doubt some are in it for that reason alone. The point is to find out the truth, or as close to it as possible. You assert that your view is more accurate, yet you haven't managed to support it. All you've done is asserted he was a cult leader, based on texts we know don't come from the same generation as he lived, or even several generations afterwords. So those cannot be used to support he said anything conclusively.

What you COULD support from the texts, is that he was believed to be the leader of a end times cult. That's all. I agree this is what early Christianity was. However, this doesn't support the existence of the figure at all. "I think he had to exist, because I tink he must be based on a historical figure" is not an argument.

That's easy. Look at the literature. How much of it even asks the question? when it does, does it support his existence? Sometimes, but weakly. Sometimes not. That's how you can see. It's the ONLY way we can see. I agree with you that he was likely based on a real person. But that's just gut feeling, and that means nothing. Logically, I have to say "I can't really say either way. I reserve my judgment until more evidence is shown."

ApostateAbe

FatherMithras, I am giving you the last word.

FatherMithras

That's cool. I just want you to know I have no hard feelings, and have nothing but the utmost respect for ya buddy. Sometimes when I write I can come off harshly, and it honestly isn't my intention. I was a huge fan of your church visiting athevangelism too. Just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't trying to be a dick and don't dislike ya.