Chris Weimer

When did this ever become acceptable?

Or

Seriously folks, when did it become acceptable for this ad hominem attack? It's absolutely disgusting that certain people unable to deal with the evidence have the nerve to accuse someone of closet Christianity simply because they disagree with their assessment.

Earlier, ApostateAbe, our resident atheist evangelist, came in here and supported the HJ theory - is he merely lying to himself when he goes out there and deconverts people? -DM-, the guy in charge of SecWeb feedback, has also supported an historical Jesus too. I suppose he's really fooling everyone, isn't he. Yep, a closet Christian for sure. I guess all I've done to shoot down theism in EoG and support atheist activism and secularisation in PA&SA is merely me trying to hide my Christianity.

So cut out the bullshit already. If you can't deal with the evidence, go home. I'm getting sick and tired of this hypocrisy where someone pretends to be a champion of reason and rational discourse and then turns around to ad hom those who disagree.

Poor form. Poor form. :down:

orangebaw

What's an HJ???

Chris Weimer

Historical Jesus.

orangebaw

I agree with you the guy is talking BS.

Revisionist

That isn't what Hoffman is saying at all. In fact, I would agree with him that you're not an atheist if you are lumped "together ideologically with religious people who are engaging in theology and purport to present them as critical scholars." For example, if someone comes in here claiming to be an atheist and then uses Habermas for a source against the MJ, I wouldn't believe they're really an atheist for a second.

Though I'm not exactly familiar with the context in which that quotation occured. What theologians are you presenting to us as critical scholars, Chris?

Chris Weimer

That's just it - I didn't present any scholars. I've come to my own conclusion about the historicity of Jesus Christ - I don't need someone else giving me my own theories. Furthermore, if by lumping he merely meant that one merely affirms the historicity of Jesus in any form, then I call BS to your statement as well. Heck, you are also lumped together with "ideologically with religious people who are engaging in theology and purport to present them as critical scholars" since, as far as I know, all of you are human. If he meant that I claim that the Jesus as depicted in the gospels is 100% accurate, then I call BS to that too.

Thomas II

The historical Jesus was NOT God.
Believing there was a historical Jesus does not imply belief in God!
I don't discard the possibility of an actual man named Jesus,or something to that effect, who was a Nazorean and a teacher. Period!
No deity involved at all!

CX

I'm sure I don't know. Given how very little the position of atheism actually entails (really only one non-answer to one particular question) I'm not sure how this argument holds. Suffice to say I am an HJ agnostic these days, but I accepted the existence of an HJ long after I became an atheist.

yalla

I started out as a sort of HJer by "buying" the arguments put forward by Crossan in "Life of a Med. Peasant'.
Crossan made sense to me....then. Forgive me, I was young.
Since then I have become aware of the paucity of any evidence to believe in an HJ type fella.
The problem is that once you separate away all the chaff that alleges an HJ the solid stuff that remains [if any] does not, obviously IMO ie for me, leave any fella worthy of supporting the religious claims.
Such an HJ, if real, is largely if not entirely irrelevant to the fella claimed by the gospels et al.

So why bother with this unknown person?

Which leaves only an MJ.

Now Chris, on which side of the narrow line do you place yourself? Seems to be the vague HJ side.
OK but does this not allow a gentle slide towards the gospels fella?
Add one element [he was a teacher or he was possibly crucified etc] and you are within the shadow of the gospels image.
See you [generic] can say "there must have been someone/something to spark it all'' but that is argument from incredibility and can be said of almost anything and thus carries no weight.
Maybe Jesus, son of Damneaus or any one of the many crucified or any of the Stoic/Cynic type wandering preachers can be considered a starting point for an HJ, but really none of these types of fella translates out to a meaningful facsimile of the son of Mary, crucified by Pontius in c 33 etc, etc.
So reject the term.
Really in the dichotomy of HJ versus MJ, if there is no evidence for the former then that leaves the latter only.
Which is where I am at.

Fascinating whodunnit ain't it?
cheers
yalla

Chris Weimer

This conclusion does not follow. Not knowing much about a person does not mean he was first fabricated and then later historicized.

Actually, I do think he was crucified, but you don't need the gospels to tell you that.

Actually, that was never my argument.

You're right. But then again, I'm not arguing for a Jesus son of Mary crucified by Pontius Pilate in 33 CE. I still remain fairly agnostic on when exactly Jesus was crucified and I don't think that Mary was his mother nor Pilate played a large part.

Does it really? What if there is no evidence for the latter - does that posit a former? And seriously, there is evidence for a former. Just go browsing through this forum for all the topics, especially the most recent "Elephant in the room" one.

But most of all - none of that adds up to being a theist, which was the point of this thread.