aa5874

The christian Marcion had proposed that Jesus was just a God, the son of a God, and only appeared to be human, that is Jesus, having no earthly parents, came from heaven directly to earth during the reign of Tiberius as a supernatural being.

No Robots

Nope, none at all. But that doesn't stop some people from looking for a smoking gun that will prove that the orthodox did know that Christ was a myth, and that they concealed all evidence of the fact.

teamonger

Not sure I get your meaning. Refuting Christianity was precisely Arnheim's intent. I'm not saying that apologists claim Jesus was merely human. But if they are allowed to dwell on that topic, they're being let off the hook.

For their faith, apologists need no preconditions of any kind, you know that.

The only reason apologists repeat arguments for historicity is because silly atheists keep trying to deny them. When they can thus argue, they do not appear as the lame apologists they are, they start to appear rational. Ugh! Don't let it happen!
t

No Robots

I think you have to recognize that you are in a two-front war; and that your enemies, the apologists and the mythicists, greatly prefer each other to you. The apologists were really defeated centuries ago, but the kind of distorted thinking that they thrived on is migrating from religion into pseudo-scientific scholasticism. Mythicism is the pointy end of this movement. It makes a great show of its anti-religion, but never closely examines all that it borrows from it.

teamonger

The idea that Paul's letters were "fleshed out" by Mark is your assumption, precisely what's being debated here. You have no evidence showing Mark to be a complete fabricator.

Mark material was used by other gospel writers, but they also shared Q material. John was largely independent of the other three. Then there were non-canonical gospels such as the Gospel of the Hebrews, Thomas, others. All of these independent traditions attest that Jesus was a real person who had numerous followers. It baffles me why anyone would want to doubt it.
t

No Robots

The religious took he whom they despised as a man and made him into a god. The mythicists try to make this inconvenient individual into a pure fiction. Both these responses are perfectly understandable, however misguided. Of the two, though, I would count the second as the worst, by a long shot.

Toto

You were the one who brought up the topic of atheism vs. the historical Jesus. I was just pointing out the lack of connection.

Have you looked at Campus Crusade for Christ's recruiting materials? They start out by claiming that all serious historians agree that Jesus existed. Then they work from there to construct a falacious proof that Jesus not only existed, but that there is evidence he rose from the dead, and what if it's true?

I don't think that they start with the historical Jesus just because some atheist somewhere denied that Jesus ever existed. I think that they are trying to use the generally accepted secular idea of a historical Jesus just to get their foot in the door and recruit students into their cult.

And I think that the mythical Jesus is more popular with neo-Gnostics, such as Freke and Gandy, than with hard core atheists.

You will find most of the anti-apologetics in the Infidels Library is based on the idea of a historical Jesus (most likely a deranged apocalyptic cult leader.) In a lot of ways, this historical Jesus is a better choice for combatting Christianity. But sometimes the evidence just doesn't support what is politically convenient.

teamonger

Hmm, I don't see where Lüdemann addresses the historical Jesus question directly. He seems to warn that Luke's theology is of paramount importance in evaluating Luke-Acts. I have no doubt about that. Is there a specific passage you wanted me to see?

At a conference last year in Davis, I happened to sit next to Lüdemann during a talk about Islam and skepticism/something-or-other. The speaker droned on and on, and I started to nod off. When I glanced over at Lüdemann, I saw that he had indeed nodded off completely, so I didn't feel so bad ...
t

teamonger

Well, in his letters Paul does know a few things about a guy who he thought was descended of David, who had brothers, who lifted a cup at a supper, who was betrayed, crucified, etc. Wouldn't it make sense that he would have learned at least some things from believers who were around before him?

Who were those pillars then, if not followers of the historical Jesus? Where is the evidence that they were simply re-invented as such?
t

thedistillers

After all those discussions, I'm not sure what evidence Jesus Mythers want. If Jesus was indeed just a deranged apocalyptic cult leader, then why exactly should we expect more (or better) evidence than what we have? What kind of evidence should historians expect?