Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Antipope Innocent II · 11-02-2007, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

Don't be ridiculous - I haven't "retracted" anything. Clearly what I said was blatantly facetious. Do you understand what that word means? The point I was making is still clear. To most people anyway.

Really? What "most people" have told you that they're fine with you putting words in my mouth?

Probably about as fine as I am with "retracted".

Quote:

And why on Earth are these many and varied "HJ" Jesuses more acceptable than a non-existent/MJ Jesus? All of them are equally unacceptable to conventional Christianity and conventional Christianity is equally irrelevant to the various kinds of Jesus being discussed in academia. Your idea that there is somehow more "invested" in a HJ than a MJ Jesus is total and complete crap. Both are equally unacceptable to Christianity and that doesn't matter the slightest bit since conventional Christianity has zero influence on academia anyway (ask an apologist). The only reason the MJ Jesus isn't acceptable is its proponents are so bizarre, amateurish, contrived, blundering and/or unprofessional. And ultimately utterly unconvincing.

Who the hell cares about this "Jesus", apart from Christians? These are the same scholars who are happy to consider a Jewish rabbi Jesus, an apocalyptic loon Jesus, a wandering cynic Jesus or a exorcist magician Jesus. We're talking about post-Christian, agnostic, atheist or Jewish scholars. Why the hell would they have any more of a problem with an non-existent, entirely mythic Jesus?

Unless, of course, the arguments for such a being were contrived and unconvincing crap.

Think about it. Ponder why non-Christian, agnostic, Jewish and atheist scholars consider the 'Jesus Myth" thesis to be utter bollocks. It sure as hell ain't because of any vast affection for or attachment to the Jesus of Christianity, now is it?

Getting the picture?

I'm afraid the main picture I am getting is that you are angry. "Total and complete crap, who the hell, why the hell, what on Earth, wicked, evil, fanatics, zealots, blunderers!" Are you angry, or are you just Australian?

Largely Australian (and far from "angry"), though one who is still struggling manfully to understand how a mythic Jesus can be more than a threat than any other non-Christian Jesus. Can you explain this or are you now ready to concede that this "they are suppressing the poor MJers" argument just doesn't make sense?

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-02-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

As far as William Wrede, you are quite correct, he does not belong on the list. While he challenged certain aspects of the historicity of the Gospel Christ, he did believe in an historical Christ so I will take him off my list. Besides, he is a nineteenth century author, and I am restricting my lists to 20th century authors so that one cannot say that the Jesus Myth position was only held by 19th century writers.

The bad news is that I have found three more names to replace him, R.G. Price has recently written a book called "Jesus, A Very Jewish Myth" so he goes on my list. Livio C. Stecchini and Jan Sammer put forward the idea that Jesus comes from a play by the Roman writer Seneca. Their inclusion brings to 48 the number of writers in the past century who have supposed the Jesus character in the gospels to be entirely or mostly a myth. Here are the updated lists:

First List: Those with good academic credentials (although possibly not from relevant fields) who take the Jesus Myth position seriously:

1) Wells, 2) Price, 3) 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

A few questions, Jay.

1. If you now acknowledege that Wrede is not a Jesus mythicist, as he most definitely was not, why did you originally claim he was?

2. Why do you say that Wrede is a 19th century scholar? His book Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (which, it seems clear, you have not read, but nevertheless judged, presumably only on the basis of its title, to be advocating the non existence of an HJ) was published in Germany in 1901 and in English in 1971, his book on Paul (Paulus) in 1904 (revised edition in 1907) and his work on 2 Thessalonians (Die Echtheit des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefes untersucht (The Authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians investigated) in 1903 -- i.e. in the 20th century.

3. Why do you include Hal Childs in your list of MJers? He does not deny the existence of Jesus? Nor, to my knowledge does he deny that Jesus was crucified by Pilate.

4. Why Onfray? Do you know for a fact that he denies the existence of an HJ?

5. Why do you persist in including Mack in your list? He, too, does not deny the existence of Jesus, let alone that Jesus started some sort of movement in Palestine in the first century?

6. Why do you include Wise in your list? Do you know for a fact that he denies the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Or is this just presumption on your part?

7. What specifically are R.G. Price's "good academic credentials", especially in the fields of second Temple Judaism and Rabbinics?

8. Why does his work, which is published through a vanity press and shows little to no signs of (a) direct familiarity with Jewish scholarship on first century Judaism or Jewish scholarship on the HJ or Hebrew or Greek or (b) of having been vetted by anyone with familiarity with these fields of study, seem to you to be one that shows Price has good academic credentials?

9. What specificcally are Jan Sammer's "good academic credentials"? Do you know?

10. Have you read what Sammer has to say about the HJ? Or are you just presuming from what he says about Mark's gospel that he doesn't believe in an HJ?

11. Would you consider anyone who is a Velikovskian to be someone who should be trusted when it comes to making claims about ancient history?

12. How are you generating your list of "Those with good academic credentials ... who take the Jesus Myth position seriously"? Is it primarily by doing a google search to find books about Jesus that have something like the word "myth" within them? Or is it some other way?

Jeffrey Gibson

No Robots · 11-02-2007, 02:43 PM

He's back, baby.

Toto · 11-02-2007, 02:58 PM

What I like about Philosopher Jay is he thinks way outside the box. But I am having trouble following this list.

I should note that

William_Wrede (10 May 1859 – 23 Nov 1906) lived most of his life in the 19th century, and I don't see the problem with referring to him as a 19th century scholar. The first decade of the 20th century is ofter seen as an extension of the 19th century.

R.G. Price is our own Malachi151, and lacks ancient languages and a relevant degree, although I thnk he has some academic credentials.

Antipope Innocent II · 11-02-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What I like about Philosopher Jay is he thinks way outside the box. But I am having trouble following this list.

I'm beginning to strongly suspect he's cribbed most of this list from somewhere and didn't bother to check who was on it and whether they actually are Mythicists. Thus he's now been caught citing several people who clearly are not Mythicists at all.

Perhaps it's time he came clean and revealed where he got this information from. Because while he continues to make out he's read all these writers and that they are all Mythicists he's going to continue to wear quite a bit of egg on his face.

Magdlyn · 11-02-2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

Largely Australian (and far from "angry"), though one who is still struggling manfully

Ah, Australian man... manfully manning along...

Quote:

to understand how a mythic Jesus can be more than a threat than any other non-Christian Jesus. Can you explain this or are you now ready to concede that this "they are suppressing the poor MJers" argument just doesn't make sense?

Nope. Sorry. I'll have to leave you with my viewpoints last expressed in agreement with gurugeorge.

And I didn't say "poor MJers!" Again with putting words in my mouth. It's really quite irritating. I'm afraid your "manful" insulting writing style lessens the impact of your information and opinions.

Antipope Innocent II · 11-02-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Nope. Sorry. I'll have to leave you with my viewpoints last expressed in agreement with gurugeorge.

gurugeorge didn't explain how these non-Christian Jesuses are somehow more acceptable than a non-existent Jesus. He just said they were. That's not much of an argument. Can you do better?

Quote:

And I didn't say "poor MJers!" Again with putting words in my mouth. It's really quite irritating. I'm afraid your "manful" insulting writing style lessens the impact of your information and opinions.

Now you're just getting whiny. Get over yourself, please.

Magdlyn · 11-02-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Dionysus was regarded as one of the two (along with Hercules) archetypal deified humans. He was thought to have been born to a woman named Semele and to have operated in Thebes, Greece.

Whom do you have in mind as ancients who did not regard Dionysus as a real live human being (so much so that the real live humanity of Jesus would constitute a claim to fame over and against Dionysus)?

Technically, that is correct. (Unless you believe Persephone was his mum.) And of course, there was the birth from Zeus' testicles thing (born again!), or the eating of all of him but his heart... and all the nutty stories.

Jesus was depicted as having lived recently, like just last week! Just a hometown boy.

But, you're right. Jesus does have a lot in common with Dionysus. I know. Let's work on finding the HD!

Quote:

(I believe your statement is difficult with regard to Attis and Adonis, too, but I wish to stick to Dionysus because I know more about him than about the other two.)

Ben.

Adonis was Tammuz of Canaan, who was called Lord (Adonai).

Attis' birth was a bit complicated.

Roger Pearse · 11-02-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

But, you're right. Jesus does have a lot in common with Dionysus. I know. Let's work on finding the HD!

Adonis was Tammuz of Canaan, who was called Lord (Adonai).

Attis' birth was a bit complicated.

Lots of assertions in there! I think that I would like to see some ancient sources for them. After all anyone can post anything online!

I always get nervous when people use 'is' in this sort of way. "Adonis is Tammuz"... well, thinking literally, is not would seem more accurate.

I imagine what is intended is that there is some connection, similarity, or derivation between the two. (Is Frazer's corn-king lurking in the shrubbery?) We probably need to specify what, and how we know.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-02-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

*Chuckle* Okay - list the professional ancient historians from accredited institutions who subscribe to the "Jesus Myth" idea.

Since one ancient historian is worth a hundred biblical scholars
why dont we just start with Michael Grant (who probably would
have prefered the "Jesus Fiction" idea)

Probably??? I take it you haven't read his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels?

JG

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

11-02-2007, 02:43 PM	#93
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	He's back, baby.

11-02-2007, 02:58 PM	#94
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	What I like about Philosopher Jay is he thinks way outside the box. But I am having trouble following this list. I should note that William_Wrede (10 May 1859 – 23 Nov 1906) lived most of his life in the 19th century, and I don't see the problem with referring to him as a 19th century scholar. The first decade of the 20th century is ofter seen as an extension of the 19th century. R.G. Price is our own Malachi151, and lacks ancient languages and a relevant degree, although I thnk he has some academic credentials.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.