FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-03-2007, 04:04 PM   #31
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: France
Posts: 1,831
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
I think the reasonable truth should be the top priority and the front gunner. It is like the only asset that atheist activists have. If we are unreasonable, then we have nothing left. Yeah, I guess the Jesus-doomsday-cult-leader theory is insulting. But I always thought that the Jesus-myth theory was very insulting. The advantage of the former over the latter is that the former is provable by just a small collection of Bible verse.
It is quite unreasonable to think that you can prove something of the kind with the available data. Don't you see that you are blinded by your hate of xianity? Why do you need to insult? Maybe you need to deconvert people? In that case you are like them, same mentality. You think that you hold the "truth".
Johann_Kaspar is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 04:08 PM   #32
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: France
Posts: 1,831
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherMithras View Post
What you COULD support from the texts, is that he was believed to be the leader of a end times cult. That's all. I agree this is what early Christianity was.
How is the weather in Florida after the storm?
Johann_Kaspar is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 04:19 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar View Post
LOL, that doesn't do it.
Please enlighten...
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 04:21 PM   #34
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg View Post
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.
I am sorry, Gregg, I must have seemed much more arrogant than I intended. My apologies.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 04:24 PM   #35
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: France
Posts: 1,831
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Please enlighten...
Sorry, waiting first the reply from Toto. :wave:
Johann_Kaspar is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 04:24 PM   #36
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar View Post
It is quite unreasonable to think that you can prove something of the kind with the available data. Don't you see that you are blinded by your hate of xianity? Why do you need to insult? Maybe you need to deconvert people? In that case you are like them, same mentality. You think that you hold the "truth".
I am at atheist evangelist, and an agenda such as that is a negative influence on my critical thinking. However, I intended a correction of that. And I didn't mean to insult anyone.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 04:45 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

I would argue to you, however, AA, that Jesus as a mere mortal is actually the very least likely and unsupportable scenario. It is the scenario most in line with liberal Enlightenment era de-mythologizing, which performed the same exercise on all manner of mythical stories, from Buddha to King Arthur, but the reality is that when you look at the evidence, the evidence falls along two prominent means of explanation: Either Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and hundreds of prophecies were fulfilled and peculiarities with this story and the historical record are explained by the very nature of his powers and because he wanted it to be that way, or there was no Jesus to begin with, and the ideas about Jesus emerged from existing myths and stories and scriptures, hence the reason his story appears "to have been foretold".

What there is no evidence for, is a real mortal person that has anything to do with th Jesus story. We find tons of evidence in the scriptures and other writings for "Jesus", either these were prophecies that were fulfilled, or these were sources that were plagiarized, take your pick.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 05:04 PM   #38
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
Nope. The Jesus Myth theory started with German scholars
Nope.

Well, at least, can you provide name(s) and dates, please?
I intended to say that it did not start with Kersey Graves. I'm not sure that there is a recognized originator or than an exact date could be put on the theory. Some people claim that the early Docetists believed in a mythical Jesus.

So where do you think that it started and with whom?
Toto is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 06:18 PM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
I intended to say that it did not start with Kersey Graves. I'm not sure that there is a recognized originator or than an exact date could be put on the theory.
Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy", if nothing else, is a good source of early Jesus Myth proponents.

19th C authors like Graves and Remberg worked off earlier writers like Count Volney [1757-1820] and Charles Dupuis [1742–1809]. The 1790s is the earliest that I've been able to find personally.

Here is an interesting passage from Remsberg (1848-1919), in his work "The Christ":
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg09.htm
The conceptions regarding the nature and character of Christ, and the value of the Christian Scriptures as historical evidence, are many, chief of which are the following

1. Orthodox Christians believe that Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth.

2. Conservative Rationalists, like Renan, and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.

3. Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit.

4. Other Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth -- that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity.

The first of these conceptions must be rejected because the existence of such a being is impossible, and because the Bible narratives which support it are incredible. The second cannot be accepted because, outside of these incredible narratives, there is no evidence to confirm it. One of the two last is the only true and rational conception of the Christ.

Jesus Christ is a myth. But what do we understand by the term myth? Falsehood, fable, and myth, are usually considered synonymous terms. But a falsehood, a fable, and a myth, while they may all be fictions and equally untrue, are not the same. A falsehood is the expression of an untruth intended to deceive. A fable is an avowed or implied fiction usually intended to instruct or entertain. A myth is a falsehood, a fable, or an erroneous opinion, which eventually becomes an established belief. While a falsehood and a fable are intentional and immediate expressions of fiction, a myth is, in most cases, an unconscious and gradual development of one...

It is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?...

... [Strauss's view] The foregoing theory, with various modifications, is accepted by a majority of Freethinkers at the present time.
(ETA) I just found this. Remsberg notes that "two notable works controverting the divinity of Christ appeared in the last century, the Leben Jesu of Strauss, and the Vie de Jesus of Renan.":
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/...00.htm#PREFACE
"We must get rid of that Christ, we must get rid of that Christ!" So spake one of the wisest, one of the most lovable of men, Ralph Waldo Emerson. "If I had my way," said Thomas Carlyle, "the world would hear a pretty stern command -- Exit Christ." Since Emerson and Carlyle spoke a revolution has taken place in the thoughts of men. The more enlightened of them are now rid of Christ. From their minds he has made his exit... But priestcraft lives and conjures up the ghost of this dead god to frighten and enslave the masses of mankind. The name of Christ has caused more persecutions, wars, and miseries than any other name has caused. The darkest wrongs are still inspired by it...

Two notable works controverting the divinity of Christ appeared in the last century, the Leben Jesu of Strauss, and the Vie de Jesus of Renan. Strauss in his work, one of the masterpieces of Freethought literature, endeavors to prove, and proves to the satisfaction of a majority of his readers, that Jesus Christ is a historical myth. This work possesses permanent value, but it was written for the scholar and that for the general reader. In the German and Latin versions, and in the admirable English translation of Marian Evans (George Eliot), the citations from the Gospels -- and they are many -- are in Greek...

This volume on "The Christ" was written by one who recognizes in the Jesus of Strauss and Renan a transitional step, but not the ultimate step, between orthodox Christianity and radical Freethought...
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 06:54 PM   #40
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 6,010
Default brought to you by...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy", if nothing else, is a good source of early Jesus Myth proponents.

19th C authors like Graves and Remberg worked off earlier writers like Count Volney [1757-1820] and Charles Dupuis [1742–1809]. The 1790s is the earliest that I've been able to find personally.

Here is an interesting passage from Remsberg (1848-1919), in his work "The Christ":
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg09.htm
The conceptions regarding the nature and character of Christ, and the value of the Christian Scriptures as historical evidence, are many, chief of which are the following

1. Orthodox Christians believe that Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth.

2. Conservative Rationalists, like Renan, and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.

3. Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit.

4. Other Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth -- that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity.

The first of these conceptions must be rejected because the existence of such a being is impossible, and because the Bible narratives which support it are incredible. The second cannot be accepted because, outside of these incredible narratives, there is no evidence to confirm it. One of the two last is the only true and rational conception of the Christ.

Jesus Christ is a myth. But what do we understand by the term myth? Falsehood, fable, and myth, are usually considered synonymous terms. But a falsehood, a fable, and a myth, while they may all be fictions and equally untrue, are not the same. A falsehood is the expression of an untruth intended to deceive. A fable is an avowed or implied fiction usually intended to instruct or entertain. A myth is a falsehood, a fable, or an erroneous opinion, which eventually becomes an established belief. While a falsehood and a fable are intentional and immediate expressions of fiction, a myth is, in most cases, an unconscious and gradual development of one...

It is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?...

... [Strauss's view] The foregoing theory, with various modifications, is accepted by a majority of Freethinkers at the present time.
(ETA) I just found this. Remsberg notes that "two notable works controverting the divinity of Christ appeared in the last century, the Leben Jesu of Strauss, and the Vie de Jesus of Renan.":
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/...00.htm#PREFACE
"We must get rid of that Christ, we must get rid of that Christ!" So spake one of the wisest, one of the most lovable of men, Ralph Waldo Emerson. "If I had my way," said Thomas Carlyle, "the world would hear a pretty stern command -- Exit Christ." Since Emerson and Carlyle spoke a revolution has taken place in the thoughts of men. The more enlightened of them are now rid of Christ. From their minds he has made his exit... But priestcraft lives and conjures up the ghost of this dead god to frighten and enslave the masses of mankind. The name of Christ has caused more persecutions, wars, and miseries than any other name has caused. The darkest wrongs are still inspired by it...

Two notable works controverting the divinity of Christ appeared in the last century, the Leben Jesu of Strauss, and the Vie de Jesus of Renan. Strauss in his work, one of the masterpieces of Freethought literature, endeavors to prove, and proves to the satisfaction of a majority of his readers, that Jesus Christ is a historical myth. This work possesses permanent value, but it was written for the scholar and that for the general reader. In the German and Latin versions, and in the admirable English translation of Marian Evans (George Eliot), the citations from the Gospels -- and they are many -- are in Greek...

This volume on "The Christ" was written by one who recognizes in the Jesus of Strauss and Renan a transitional step, but not the ultimate step, between orthodox Christianity and radical Freethought...
The bible consists of two major parts: the Old and the New Testaments, and the Christian viewpoint, much like the Islamic one, is that the New Testament fulfills and completes the Old Testament. So, if the Old Testament is without any factual and logical basis the subsequent books fall away as resting on quicksand. Now one may choose to believe in burning bushes, Noah's Arc, the myth of Sampson's hair, parting seas, tablets produced by a god, people turning into salt, and a whole host of impossibilities, but that won't make them true . One would have to have a very gullible and uncritical mind to accept such stories, and it doesn't take much scholarship to arrive at a reasonable conclusion about the veracity of such an anonymous work as the Old and New Testaments. It's about time to say, this is nonsense, and get on with real issues.
Steve Weiss is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.