Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 10-27-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

In my case the hard-wiring takes the form of a holy desire to shove the rough end of a pineapple up the backside of anyone who makes money off a religion but considers believing in it for the punters.

Step forward, Archbishop, Dr Crossan, and bend over.

I trust no-one will dare suggest, intolerantly, that this is wrong...?

What really annoys me is when people distort the honest quest for truth and the study of these fascinating texts and period of history into some sort of devotional exercise. The knee-jerk dismissal of non-believing scholars' arguments as coming from people who "hate Christianity" really irritates me too.

But this sort of venom shocked and amazed me. Crossan actually resigned his priesthood and works as an academic. In what way is he making money off religion? Does the study of the religion that has shaped our society in so many ways belong exlusively to believers?

In my case, however, I don't feel any urge to consummate this annoyance with any sort of violent act. :devil1:

Pah! Another hypocrite. You *have* to feel the urge to inflict actual violence. Anyone who doesn't has clearly been got at by the Christians.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Antipope Innocent II · 10-27-2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

List 25 scholars of Shakespeare and analyse who they say he was and what they say he was saying in his works and you'll get 25 different Shakespeares as well. Big deal - scholars tend to disagree.

What they don't disagree on in the case of Jesus is that the guy existed. You can count the number of actual professional academics who give the "Jesus Myth" idea any credence on the fingers of one hand.

The point of the works of Shakespeare is not the man himself (whoever he really was), but the works themselves. This is no analogy at all.

Like just about any analogy, it's not a direct correspondence in every particular. Like just about any analogy, it corresponds on the relevant points. Talk to one Shakespeare scholar and they'll tell you he was a gay misogynist. Talk to another and he was a guy with a deep understanding of non-white colonised disenfranchised people. Talk to a third and he was a crypto-Catholic. It's as hard to find two scholars who are studying the same Shakespeare as it is to do the same with Jesus. Does that mean Shakespeare never existed?

Quote:

What do you mean exactly when you say that they all agree that "the guy" existed. Which "guy"? The full Jesus of the gospels? All I see is a lot of different "guys" being talked about.

"Which guy?" is precisely the point. The fact remains that as much as they differ on who and what he was, they agree he existed. Outside of the weird little bubble of this board, the idea that he didn't is generally regarded as absurd. A few people here need to stick their heads out of this bubble a bit more often.

Jedi Mind Trick · 10-27-2007, 06:53 PM

Robert Eisenman.

Toto · 10-27-2007, 07:13 PM

Eisenman as far as I know has tended to be sympathetic to mythicism. But that is based on an off hand comment I read some time ago.

Zeichman · 10-27-2007, 09:45 PM

I'm going to put you on the spot Toto and ask if you know the reference. This would double the NT/Christian Origins scholars who find the thesis plausible, if true. If not, whatever. I'm just curious.

squiz · 10-28-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

The point of the works of Shakespeare is not the man himself (whoever he really was), but the works themselves. This is no analogy at all.

Like just about any analogy, it's not a direct correspondence in every particular. Like just about any analogy, it corresponds on the relevant points. Talk to one Shakespeare scholar and they'll tell you he was a gay misogynist. Talk to another and he was a guy with a deep understanding of non-white colonised disenfranchised people. Talk to a third and he was a crypto-Catholic. It's as hard to find two scholars who are studying the same Shakespeare as it is to do the same with Jesus. Does that mean Shakespeare never existed?

There must have been a person or persons who wrote the plays. In this sense it is a bad analogy. Whether that person was actually Shakespeare from Stratford, is actually disputed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakesp...rship_question. Maybe it is not such a bad analogy after all?

Antipope Innocent II · 10-28-2007, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

There must have been a person or persons who wrote the plays. In this sense it is a bad analogy.

No, that's just one aspect which is not analogous. Few analogous situations are absolutely identical. The analogy in this case lies largely in the fact that Shakespeare scholars differ widely on who this Shakespeare guy was and what he was saying. A wide variety of scholarly views is simply the nature of scholarship.

It would be a lot more suspicious if Jesus scholars all agreed on everything. That would be downright weird. As it happens they agree on very little except that he existed. And they generally leave the idea that he didn't exist to internet amateurs and self-published non-professional theorists.

Quote:

Whether that person was actually Shakespeare from Stratford, is actually disputed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakesp...rship_question. Maybe it is not such a bad analogy after all?

[/QUOTE]

Another thing that makes that analogous is that the professional scholars are agreed that William Shakespeare was the author of the plays - the theorists who argue otherwise are, again, internet kooks and amateur theorists.

youngalexander · 10-28-2007, 03:51 AM

most physicists

Ray Moscow · 10-28-2007, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quoting

Can somebody list some non-christian scholars who believe Jesus existed. I know a few like Gerd Ludeman, John Crossan, Bart Ehrman and James Tabor.

I think most biblical scholars think an HJ is likely. It's easier to list those who don't.

Clivedurdle · 10-28-2007, 04:28 AM

Is there a category of closet or unconscious non existers?

Pagels and Spong come to mind - out of habit and academic tradition they have not yet said hang on a minute.

Possibly Schweizer and Bultman? - a myth is someone else's story.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-27-2007, 06:53 PM	#23
Jedi Mind Trick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianaplolis Posts: 4,998	Robert Eisenman.

10-27-2007, 07:13 PM	#24
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Eisenman as far as I know has tended to be sympathetic to mythicism. But that is based on an off hand comment I read some time ago.

10-27-2007, 09:45 PM	#25
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	I'm going to put you on the spot Toto and ask if you know the reference. This would double the NT/Christian Origins scholars who find the thesis plausible, if true. If not, whatever. I'm just curious.

10-28-2007, 03:51 AM	#28
youngalexander Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mornington Peninsula Posts: 1,306	most physicists

10-28-2007, 04:28 AM	#30
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is there a category of closet or unconscious non existers? Pagels and Spong come to mind - out of habit and academic tradition they have not yet said hang on a minute. Possibly Schweizer and Bultman? - a myth is someone else's story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.