Brother Daniel

No one said it came from Paul.

When I used the phrase "Paul's Jesus", I meant the Jesus that Paul believed in. I apologize for not making that clear.

Joe Banks

Okay, creationists and mythicists are bound by their preconceptions and paradigms which need to be stripped away (and I think you are right about that). But that applies to virtually any group anywhere on any subject. Does it apply to HJers? Of course. They too are bound by preconceptions and paradigms some of which preclude their consideration of the myth hypothesis. Either MJers or HJers or both have preconceptions that do not match up with “reality.” But which one? Consensus alone won’t give us the answer, as evidenced by prior consensus for a flat earth, geo-centric universe, etc. What we need are well though out arguments for (or against) that consensus.

When scientists make their case against creationists, they compile clear evidence-based arguments (Talk Origins, NCSE, the excellent testimony at the Dover trial to name but a few). Are there similar cases made by HJers against mythicism? (I ask sincerely, for if there are I’ve not seen them, but maybe I’ve just missed ‘em).

In contrast, the quotes linked to on Bede's Library are just funny. They are dogmatic and dismissive of MJ, but don’t make a good case for why they are so. Chris Price, the compiler of the quotes says he looked into it and “discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.” What kind of argument is that?

These are both good points. It is reasonable, I think, to say that the onus is on those opposed to the consensus. In this case the MJers need to gain traction somehow, probably through academia, before a serious attempt will be made to argue against them (although in the evolution/creationism "debates" the consensus took the onus upon themselves). Perhaps the forthcoming “Jesus Project" will play a role for MJers to publish in a more respectable way.

No analogy is perfect, but some are certainly better than others. It’s easy to find similarities between any two things and its easy to point out flaws in most any analogy. Some pretty big flaws have been pointed out about this analogy, such as the weakness in comparing the amount of data supporting HJ to that supporting evolution. Still, there are some similarities. The second post in the thread covered both pretty well. Personally I think this analogy is sufficiently weak as to lose any usefulness and verges on the argument from bad analogy, a logical fallacy that any one here should want to avoid.

squiz

Well, Robert Price for one. He doesn't promote it, but he also doesn't question the sanity of those on either side.

He said: "Bultmann doubted the sanity of any who would deny a historical Jesus, but even he granted that the figure of Jesus had retreated irretrievably behind the stained-glass barrier of myth and dogma."

Others I am aware of are G.A. Wells, and Robert Eisenman. I am not sure if Frank Zindler is specialist enough to be called a "Scholar", although I am quite impressed with his book about the Sepher Toldoth Yeshu.

Here is a nice quote from Price's "pre-nicene new testament" (p1180 of my edition). "It is finally the theologians' need for Jesus that will secure him as an historical figure".

GakuseiDon

And is there no parallel to the creationist position in this? As I've always said, the "Creationist Analogy" is based on how the fringe position views the mainstream, not on the individual merits of the cases. To return to the OP, just because there are situational differences to the analogy, doesn't mean that there are logical similarities.

GakuseiDon

Sure, but it is how the fringe position views the mainstream that is at the heart of the Creationist Analogy, IMO.

Probably not for many years, but that isn't where the Creationist Analogy holds true. It isn't the merits of the case, it is how the fringe position holds the opinions of the mainstream.

I think mythicists SHOULD present their case to academia. I can see no reason why they don't. They could start with something less controversial, like showing that pagans believed in a "world of myth", or that Tatian originally believed in a Christianity devoid of a historical Jesus.

I agree, the analogy doesn't work on that point. But that doesn't mean the analogy doesn't work on the points in which it is invoked, as you suggest. But at the end of the day, it doesn't drive the argument anywhere.

Toto

"Fringe" is a term of insult. You still haven't explained why this analogy has any value other than acting as an insult.

aa5874

May I remind you that the historical Jesus has not been established to be true, it is only has been believed to be true by some. It is not a co-incidence that many Creationist also believe, through faith, in the historical Jesus.

It is already known that there no credible histoical accounts for Apollo, Zeus, Osiris, Herucles or Vesta although they were worshipped at some time in history, the same is true of Jesus.

HJers, instead of trying to refute Doherty, should immediately try to find some historical source to support their Jesus, urgently. It is now an open secret that none can be found.

Chris Weimer

No, fringe means it's not mainstream, and that's with any field.

aa5874

When was a mythical case presented to 'academia' for Apollo, Zeus, Hercules, Vesta or any other mythical figure? Is it those who propose that a person was a figure of history who have a case to answer which has not been done effectively.

Refutations of the mythical Jesus cannot confirm one of history , just historical support is needed, and this support has not been yet presented to 'academia'.

Toto

Fringe_science