ApostateAbe

mary, sometimes censorship is necessary for a civil discussion, but not in this case. Those in the HJ camp are constantly accused of being pseudo Christian apologists, and the way I deal with that accusation is to either ignore it or to prepare an effective rebuttal. If the comparison with MJ to creationism did not seem fitting, then maybe it would not seem offensive. GakuseiDon and I are in agreement that the red flags of unlikely fringe theories are seen in MJ as much as in creationism--the focus of possibility rather than probability, the wishful thinking, the contempt for intellectual authorities, the complexity of the subject, the ad hoc explanations posing as solutions--since creationism is a fringe theory that most of us are well-acquainted with, then it is a very useful illustration, and you are the one who will have to adapt to the accusations.

maryhelena

I don't believe what I am reading here - have I died and gone to someplace where rational thought does not exist - am I sleep-walking - am I dreaming - no, its a nightmare....

ApostateAbe

Welcome to hell.

GakuseiDon

Well, one thing that creationists do is not try to defend creationism, but try to pick problems in evolution. They try to AVOID defending creationism, because they reason that if they can find holes in evolution, that counts towards creationism. But you and I know that isn't necessarily true. Would you agree with that? Would you agree that creationists prefer to keep the focus on what they regard as holes in evolution, rather than offer up a positive case of their own?

So: How about a mythicist on this board present the BEST case for mythicism -- so that we can examine it? Is that not reasonable? Neil Godfrey on his blog said he was starting to suspect that James wasn't "serious about understanding the mythicist case". He didn't want him to "embrace rumour or second hand information" about the mythicist case. Well, here is an idea: PRESENT THE DAMN MYTHICIST CASE!

Just (say) pointing to Doherty's book or waiting for Doherty to respond on this forum isn't doing anything except sitting your brain cells on a beach chair and giving them a martini. Let's exercise them. Let's look at the mythicist case, and SEE if Doherty's theory (or whatever the best mythicist case is) holds water. Lay it out, so that no-one is embracing rumour or second hand information. Surely this can only be a good thing?

Certainly there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, but deflection is a creationist tactic. If you want to discuss the mythicist case, let's discuss the mythicist case!

So, who knows what the best mythicist case is? Who wants to lay it out? Anyone? Neil? Toto? Maryhelena?

Steven Carr

If James can't abuse people, he would have to read Doherty's book instead and react to that.

The plan seems to be. First, abuse mythicists as creationists. Secondly, read a mythicist book. Thirdly, pick any nits you can find in it.

You might wonder why the abuse comes before reading the mythicist books.

But many people can call something names without having read it.

Steven Carr

You mean, McGrath has abused mythicism without having seen the DAMN MYTHICIST CASE?

How can that be? Surely McGrath knows what he is talking about? That is the least that could be expected...

The mythicist case....

It is very simple.

There is no evidence for Judas, Barabbas, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Bartimaeus, Simon of Cyrene, Mary Magdalene etc etc.

The Jesus of the Gospels only appears in unsourced anonymous works of as dubious provenance as the conspiracy theories that say a second gunman show JFK, and which also feature people as untraceable as this alleged second gunman.

Therefore, the Jesus of the Gospels is as mythical as the alleged people he allegedly met in these Novels.

The Jesus of the Gospels is as mythical as Popeye, even if historians have found the historical person that Popeye was based on.

maryhelena

Don, re-read, if you have not already done so, this post of mine...

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...3&postcount=35

The mythicist case? Jesus in the gospel storyline is not a historical figure - but I'm pretty sure you know that already...:huh: The claim that Jesus in the gospel story is a historical figure - that position, that assumption - is for those making that claim to substantiate - rather than throwing the ball at the mythicists and saying 'hey, you guys, you do my work for me'...

Turning the tables - making demands, issuing challenges - that type of rhetoric leads to a battlefield - not to a place conducive to a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas.

And, at the end of the day, putting aside all theological notions, the idea that the gospel Jesus is a historical figure is pretty meaningless - it's a position that can never in a million years be proven. It's a position that cannot contribute anything whatsoever to understanding the beginnings of early Christianity. It is to put it bluntly - an absolute waste of time and energy.

And if that is all Christianity ever was - the non-scholarly sayings of an itinerant Galilen preacher who was crucified - someone to whom today's academics would not give the time of day - then heaven help Christianity...

Steven Carr

So McGrath compares his position to evolution, when even his supports point out that 'there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus'.

And this historical Jesus has not yet been found by these numerous Quests for the Historical Jesus....

GakuseiDon

I agree. If I want to claim that Jesus was historical, it is my claim, and the burden is on me to demonstrate it.

But it is hardly "turning the tables" to ask someone who is promoting a mythicist case to take up the burden to provide evidence for it.

Thanks for giving your mythicist case. You refer to "Paul’s Cosmic Christ". But how then do you account for statements in Paul like:

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came (Romans 9:3-5)

[Christ Jesus. . .] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)

In the later, Jesus appears to be a descendent of David, and was only appointed Son of God by his resurrection. These make it sound like Jesus was an earthly person, until God raised him after crucifixion. How could Jesus come from the Israelites if he was a "Cosmic Christ"?

GakuseiDon

Creationists just like to pick, pick, pick and repeat the same objections about evolution again and again... Steve, what is your case for mythicism?