EarlDoherty

At least he doesn't make cryptic comments.

Earl Doherty

outhouse

I'd rather have dinner with Earl


Its my opinion Ben is apologetically influenced away from the reality of history.

outhouse

I dont think you can blame the christian apologist.


My view of mythicist is softer then most because I started my study there. The more non biased scholarships ive studied, well its one thing, but the knowledge ive gained does leave me shaking my head at what some mythicist propose. I honestly think some bring on these sterotypes with no help at all.

It would be great to see ideas generalized together to support the position, instead of a wide deverse field which often includes those less trained then their opponents in traditional scholarships.

Chili

. . . but mythicism is not scholarship and is why I hold that the -ism does not belong.

Both the scholar of passages and history are looking for evidence while ignoring the passages that tells them that their eyes must be opened to understand.

That also means that if their eyes were opened the others would not understand, and so is why those who know do not say because they just won't understand him either . . . or they would not have buried the rich man back then.

MrMacSon

I don't think it's all rhetorical tricks: I think immersion in religious dogma significantly affects rational and critical thinking, including ability to see the points of 'the other'.

And these aspects are related to what Earl said in a later post on this thread -

Robert Tulip

Following up on Stephan's rather salty expression, I personally care a great deal about the material Earl studies, and feel immense gratitude for his clear exposition and analysis. I have read Jesus Neither God Nor Man, and even noticed his cryptic allusion to Pannenberg in the title.

Whether or not Jesus Christ existed as an historical individual is actually a central question for human psychology, politics, philosophy, history, mythology and religion. If, as Earl asserts and I agree, the history of western civilization is built upon the Christ Myth as a big lie, then our philosophical assumptions about the relation between reality and illusion are cast into radical doubt.

But perhaps Stephan is one of those Russian nihilists who contend that nothing really matters (or was that Freddie Mercury?)

I wish the debate could move on from the ignorance of the defenders of obsolete history, for example to ask questions like what the invention of Jesus says about human psychology, and where it leaves big theological concepts such as salvation, hypostasis, grace and heaven. For example, does Earl's proof that Jesus is not man actually also prove Christ is not God, or might a scientific Christology prove robust against the end of literalism?
Does this work point to the emergence of a reformed atheist Christianity, with evidence and logic as its highest values?
Again, I agree with Earl, and may I say, I immensely enjoyed reading JNGNM from cover to cover. As someone somewhere said, something like scales fell from my eyes and I could see again. There is a forensic quality to the book that uses the heuristic of non-existence as a powerful explanatory and organizational tool. As with any paradigm change, the new hypothesis provides predictive insight and renders former views obsolete.And why would you when you have a coherent explanation that covers nearly all the ground? The shame here is that people are hardwired by their religious indoctrination and experiences, to the extent that they cannot assess this material dispassionately. To do so is a rare gift.
I note that this thread contains typical tedious ignorant jibes against Acharya S for her views on African and Mayan myth. Her argument about Pygmies is that their myths contain archetypes which appear in Christianity, and in Mayan myth, suggesting these archetypes are older than is generally imagined, and are somehow at the root of a universal human sense of spirituality. This is perfectly logical and defensible argument, despite what some ignorant apologists may think.

Acharya extends Earl's argument from a narrow focus on the internal logic of the New Testament to the broader story of comparative mythology, exploring how continuity with previous myth provides a compelling explanatory framework for Jesus. Just because writers such as Carrier and Ehrman have personal issues and comprehension problems with this bigger vision does not at all invalidate it.

neilgodfrey

Logical, maybe, but not scientific. If you want to believe in spirits or spiritualism or whatever as a cause of something in history then you have just tossed out the testable secular means of inquiry. You have opted for a more "sophisticated" version of finding God or angels as the causes of things.

If you want to go down the road of archetypes then bring yourself up to speed with modern developments in neurology and psychology. But spiritualism is just a "hip" way of talking about God, deities, supernatural entities or forces "in" or "on" humankind.

This is the same appeal to something "spiritual" or "humanly inexplicable" as those liberal Christians who say that "something" changed the lives of the disciples that we call the "Easter experience" -- not a resurrection, of course, since that's too primitive or crude an idea. But something "spiritual" inside them. The only difference, it seems to me, is that an archetype thesis appealing to spirituality appeals to the same "cause" of Christianity as the liberal Christian, only placing it in a different time, setting and context.

MrMacSon

but Robert wasn't arguing about spirits or spiritualism per se as a cause of something in history. He said

The rest of your post, Neil, also seems to miss the point.

Robert Tulip

Neil, perhaps we have different understandings of the meaning of archetype? I view archetypes, based partly on my limited reading of Carl Jung's use of the concept, as an entirely natural psychological phenomenon, for example the Christ story as containing archetypal motifs of salvation.

The point of archetypes is to understand spirituality within a materialist scientific framework, for example by seeing the spiritual beliefs in religious concepts as serving psychological needs that are deeply hardwired in human anatomy and culture.

My comment about "a universal human sense of spirituality" was meant as purely phenomenological, not as suggesting the existence of spiritual entities. Indeed, the problem of entification seems to me to be at the core of the epistemic debate around the Christ Myth.

In assessing the Christ Myth Hypothesis, we inevitably come up against difficult and obscure material, such as this point you have challenged me here on about archetypes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes says Jungian archetypes are ancient or archaic images that derive from the collective unconscious. Examples given include the persona, the shadow, the anima, the animus, the great mother, the wise old man, the hero, and the self. We might also add the saviour, the cross, the world tree, rebirth and the virgin mother. Exploring how such myths function as archetypes is a legitimate scientific and scholarly question.

One thing I have gained from reading Earl Doherty is a perception that assuming Jesus was real is a major hindrance in understanding the real archetypal function and history of myth. One of my favourite authors on this topic of the psychology of myth is Rollo May, who argues in The Cry for Myth that myths are not simply false claims, but are the stories that give meaning to our lives. Analysing Christ against this problem of meaning helps to show why much of the debate is superficial, because people respond emotionally when their assumptions about frameworks of meaning are challenged. Archetypes are simply the most meaningful myths. It makes sense that the archetypal cosmic skeleton was enfleshed with the man from Nazareth.

On the Pygmy question, I certainly don't wish to derail this thread, I raise this partly to illustrate how simple mockery can prevent constructive dialogue and learning.
Murdock discusses Pygmies here and here, in support of her core argument that ideas within Christianity can be found in pre-Christian religion and mythology in many cultures around the globe dating back to the earliest times. She cautions that critics should read Hallett's work on his life with the Pygmies before jumping to conclusions. If people want to discuss this there is already a thread.

Horatio Parker

Your work is a valuable contribution to the field.

Roo whatever is an anonymous internet dweeb with a grudge and too much time on his hands. For you to engage in tedious and meaningless exchanges with someone like that cheapens you and elevates him.