ApostateAbe

Seems to be a pretty good point, I didn't think of that.
The Ascension of Isaiah was written late in the second century, so it seems to have much less priority than gMark in determining the meaning of Paul, especially if, as Wells thinks, gMark was based on the model of Paul.

neilgodfrey

Paul and other early Christian writings do describe the demons ignorantly killing Christ. But then if Mark is the first to create what became the canonical narrative, then he runs into a problem with this earlier concept. He has to explain the role of human agencies.

So the ignorance motif is transferred from the demons to the newly introduced human actors.

And how and by whom are humans ever influenced and ruled? By the demons, of course. Jesus is depicted as the potential liberator of humans from their demon rulers, and the demons are "demonized" as the knowing powers behind their ignorant human pawns.

Solo

I think you have that right. I grew up in communist Czechoslovakia where Jesus was Myth and that was the law. While at university I tried to challenge the Communist Party dogma in a philosophy seminar, not because I was religious, but because I was curious. Actually, I was a good commie atheist student, just as a senior in a Jesuit college would be most likely be growing up a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic. I co-existed with my mom's Catholic beliefs and she gave up on proselytizing me because I just had no interest in her Jesus at all. But my father and I actually hated when she became devotional, because it was a sure-as-hell sign that she wanted to be sick and suffering and a martyr to some obscure cause. For my dad that meant no sex, for me no TLC. So, my Oedipus was partly to the father in heaven, and his derelict son to whom my mom clinged when she had the blues. When I was nineteen, in one of our discussions I told her I considered Jesus, a false promise of salvation to the humourless. (it's actually much funnier in Czech I am told....pochybený slib spásy predevším lidem beze smyslu pro humor)

But as I said, I became curious. What ignited my curiosity was a remarkable film by an Italian communist by the name of Pier Paolo Pasolini. When I saw his Il vangelo secondo Matteo (Gospel According to Matthew) I was instantly converted - not to Christianity, mind you, but to Pasolini's ethos of seeing Christianity not as an ideological rival but a part of what our civilization is made of. It was a remarkable vision transcending silly cliches and worn out dogmas - the Church's and the Party's.

So, when a while later I was spoon fed the final word on JC by dialectical materialism in my philosophy class, I had a dissenting point of view which earned me a pohovor (an interview) with the dean - essentially an attempt to bring back a stray bolshevik sheep by barking at it. Luckily for me, the dean himself was inclined to communist reformism (this was 1967, the year that brought in Dubcek as a party leader and Zdenek Mlynar as his chief ideologue, the latter a roommate at the Moscow Party Cadres School to a Stavropol party boss by the name of Gorbachev) so my deviationism was classed as harmless: The bulletin said something to the effect that comrade S. would not be fooled by superstitious nonsense; he simply keeps his mind open as every smart svazák (young communist) should.

The thing to understand about any kind of metaphysical belief - religious or not - is that if it appears stupid it is only to another belief. Therefore, generally speaking, beliefs that see other beliefs as stupid, do not promise to be all that bright themselves.

Jiri

ApostateAbe

I am so glad you wrote that. I had no idea that the non-existence of Jesus was a communist party position. I thought it was just a thing that atheists in the free world prefer to believe because they like it so much. I did read in the book by Van Voorst that Friedrich Engels was a student of Bruno Bauer, the man who popularized the mythical Jesus.

Sometimes, when I claim that the mythical Jesus position is motivated primarily by opposition to Christianity, Toto thinks I am wrong and claims that the historical Jesus models can be just as appealing to anti-religious sentiments. And it leaves me puzzled, because to me it seems as plain as day that anti-religious activists and ideologues believe the mythical Jesus position because they really want it to be true.

And, for sure, I haven't avoided the fallacy of thinking that very many beliefs and ways of thinking are just plain nuts. I thought it was just an inevitable conclusion from a realistic and reasonable paradigm.

What opinions about Jesus did you have that challenged the educational masters in Czechoslovakia?

neilgodfrey

Has anyone here raised historical-nonhistorical Jesus discussions on the Richard Dawkins site? I have heard that there, among the Brights there, that the mythicist position is considered contemptible nonsense, akin to flat-earth arguments.

Some of the most vocal opponents of Doherty are fellow atheists.

The real world is not divided into black and white.

Rick Sumner

Quite the arrogant statement from someone who is clearly citing Doherty. Unless you'd care to elaborate on what other wealth of research you have done on the matter.

Surely you don't mean to suggest that simply presenting such a minority view negates the claim? The general statement was accurate. It's intentions couldn't have been much more obvious. Some critics go as early as 60--or even earlier. I'm not going to suggest that that negates a standard date of c. 70 CE either.

Then by all means engage it. It may not be a problem too. How about you put your money where your mouth is, and we see what *you* can argue?

Mason on Luke aside, are you aware of any reason to assume that any other author listed had read Josephus. I'll welcome your input.

I'm not interested in possibilities, or vague hand-waving. Let's see an argument.

I have. If you want to repeat what he says on either, I'll cheerily engage them. The fact that he's had to elaborate on many of these issues beyond his book and beyond his website is probably a pretty good indicator that they don't answer them as decisively as you think they do.

After all, if he'd made his case, and found no substantiative response, it's difficult to explain why he felt the need to quadruple the size in the second edition.

maryhelena

Yes, been there done that......Over there a 'Jesus Myther' gets put in the same camp with Creationists and Holocaust Deniers i.e. 'Jesus Mythers' are 'dumb atheists'.

Oh, and keep a look out for an upcoming atheist website - the url is already registered to an atheist who is on a mission - jesusmythbusters.com

ApostateAbe

Wow, I had no idea. I thought that this forum sort of represented the more reasonable slice of atheist activists on the Internet, Jesus-mythers though we tend to be, and I thought I had a pretty good idea about what atheists elsewhere on the Internet tend to believe when the topic of Jesus comes up (I see a lot of the more preposterous Acharya-S-like theories). I wouldn't have predicted that there was a population of atheists that sees JM position the way you say that RichardDawkins.net does. I didn't hang around that forum long enough.

Steven Carr

So Pilate was 'the ruler of this age' was he? Quite a grandiose title for a procurator of a small Roman province. Especially one who was no longer in power after 36 AD.

Or perhaps Paul meant that the Jews were rulers of this age? Or perhaps not.


Hebrews talks a lot about the current High Priests.

Without ever explaining how the earthly High Priests had conspired to have the True High Priest killed by the Romans.

The author claims the High Priests of the time of Jesus were appointed by God. 'He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness.'

I suppose 'subject to weakness' is a euphemism for conspiring with Pilate to have the Son of God killed.

ApostateAbe

To follow up, I found the thread at RichardDawkins.net where the guy wants to make a website for jesusmythbusters.com.

Standard Jesus Myther Arguments

Then he follows up the topic by going to another interesting forum and says, "From the Dawkins forum, where this idea has been warmly received (my, how things have changed over there)."

There is a thread series at RichardDawkins.net of the topic, "Did Jesus Exist?" that has thousands of posts and goes back three years, and, yep, sentiments against the MJ position get more hostile with time. If things somehow changed for the better against the MJ position, that is great, and I would love to know how this forum has NOT changed, if there is a reason beyond random luck. Sounds like an idea for a sociology project.