Toto

Abe - as far as atheist evangelism goes, the most presentable position is that Jesus was an obscure Jewish prophet, and that evil people distorted his message - especially the Emperor Constantine, who made Christianity an official religion of the Roman Empire. That's the position that most non-religious people have taken on the issue. The Jesus Myth thesis is too complicated to use in debates.

But keep an open mind on the issue if you care about historical accuracy.

hallq

Abe, I agree with you as to who Jesus really was, but deciding what position to take on this is a matter of what the evidence indicates, and the question belongs in BC&H.

On the other hand, when it comes to debates there's something to be said for not getting to wrapped up in the question--not changing your position for the debate, just emphasizing that it doesn't matter too much so long as there's insufficient evidence to support the traditional Christian claims about Jesus. That is the kind of position that can be promoted in PA&SA.

Majestyk

I agree. Jesus was not a myth. He was a con-man who founded the most succesful faith-healing scam in history.

Brian63

After Alethias's prior mod message, this thread is still 90% BC&H and only 10% PA&SA. We are moving it to BC&H. Users are welcome to start another thread with a similar theme, but to remain in PA&SA it really has to focus on that.

Brian
PA&SA mod

Gregg

Well, gee, I'm sorry, Abe. I'm not an "activist" and I'm not out to "damage" Christianity. I subscribe to the Jesus-myth thesis as advanced by Earl Doherty because I think it's a powerful case that's both supported by and explains the available evidence, not because I want to throw a monkey wrench in the works of Christianity.

I do not find Earl's arguments "convoluted" at all. I think they are very simple and straightforward, and he even provides a "Jesus Myth Thesis for Dummies" for the intellectually challenged. The arguments are only "complicated" for those who have difficulty holding two or more pieces of evidence or lines of thought in their heads at one time and seeing how they fit together.

Your argument is basically, "We shouldn't pursue this Jesus Myth thing because it makes us look like bitter, cynical, radical atheists who are out to destroy Christianity, and we need to be more subtle." Well, there are many Christians and theists who think that the theory of evolution is nothing more than an atheist plot to destroy faith in God. Would you suggest that we stop teaching evolution and find something more "middle ground" and palatable for theists?

Again, sorry. My interest is not in devising subtle "stealth attacks" and "Trojan horses" with which to attack and undermine Christianity. I'm just interested in following the evidence wherever it may lead.

Clivedurdle

And I must agree. Our "tactics" to spread rational thinking - atheism may be a bi - product, have to be based on honesty.

And the reality is that it is more than probable that Jesus is a Hercules clone. Therefore that should be stated everywhere.

I see it like global warming - the mythicist case is like the percentage five years back - more than likely. Give it a while and we will be getting the 90% figure for climate change stated yesterday.

Johann_Kaspar

Nope.

Well, at least, can you provide name(s) and dates, please?

Malachi151

Bruno Bauer 19th c, Arthur Drews, early 20th c....

Johann_Kaspar

1) Argumentum ad populum. Who cares? Respected by whom? Any "scholar" can do only like anyone, scholar or not: guess work, imaginative theories...
2) By thinking that "he" was a "cult leader" you show that you are thinking exactly as the xians. "Failed", you must be kidding, aren't you?
3) "Greater damage"?????? What a foolish comment, wish or I don't know what. If this is your aim at starting stupid theories, you are pitiful.

Johann_Kaspar

LOL, that doesn't do it.