mountainman

Well I provided a recently published author who has drawn comparisons between Jesus and the Graeco-Roman healing god Ascelpius, who has a great abundance of evidence in the archaeological and literary record for the entire period of "Early Christian Origins".

Are you slandering this author's followers as being representative of the "ugly face of athiest rhetoric about history"? Or are you targetting only those other authors who's followers draw comparisons between Jesus and Horus, or Mithra, or a specific set of gods such as Grave's list? Or was this thread about youtube reviews or your personal experience with a pastor's wife?

What do you have to say about interpretation of John, where the term "is come in the flesh" is perceived as synonymous with the idea that "Jesus was historical"? Obviously, the "deceivers" did not believe that Jesus was historical, and these people were contemporaries of the author of "John". If they did not believe in the HJ, then did they believe in the MJ? i.e. someone made up a story (a myth) which was not historically true.

The ugly public face of Apologetic HJ rhetoric about history: HJ bullshit

Obviously you think that the Jesus Myth (MJ) hypotheses and theories are deceiptful.
I'd like you to answer these two simple questions, based on 2Jo 1:7 above - in your opinion

(a) is it logical and/or justifiable to categorize and label as a deceiver any person who refuses to confess that Jesus was an historical figure, and

(b) is this refusal to acknowledge the HJ hypothesis as being true necessarily an example of antichristian thinking?

ApostateAbe

I don't know anything about the author you are referring to, and I have nothing against him. My contempt is directed specifically at the very many people online who pass on the lists of god-men and the list of characteristics they share with Jesus, in a game of telephone traceable to Kersey Graves of the 19th century, without citing primary evidence nor qualified scholars.
Yes, the way I look at the history behind those passages in 1 John and 2 John is that they are 2nd century passages meant to combat docetism, which as you know is the belief that Jesus merely seemed human but was actually no part human and all part God. Docetism was a belief that arose after the belief that Jesus was God, in order to resolve the theological trouble that Jesus could be human and God at the same time (gods and men were thought to be mutually exclusive). Since the docetic belief was that Jesus seemed human, it doesn't seem to give any advantage to anyone's theory that Jesus was merely myth. You disagree, of course, and I would love it if we could talk about it in a new thread. Go ahead and start a thread about docetism. This isn't the thread for it.
No. The passage was referring to docetists, not mythicists, though the author would likely have much stronger words for mythicists.
Jesus-mythers are not the sort of people that the author of 2 John would have in mind, but he would probably affirm that judgment if he knew about such people. I don't think that should matter. I don't decide what to believe based on what Biblical authors would like me to believe, and neither should you.

AdamWho

Just popping in to ask a question about this line:
So how is an argument that Christ is a mythical figure which shares many parallels with other mythical figure "anti-religious"? The argument is either supported or not, it isn't "anti-religious".

Besides, I know lots of Christians who believe this.

ApostateAbe

Yes, CCC is not inherently anti-religious, nor is any other model of reality. The way I see it, a judgment of whether or not a theory is anti-religious depends on how often it is used to rhetorically attack religion. To a small extent, the theory of evolution is anti-religious, though it is also a very good scientific explanation and it is used much more often for science and education. CCC, in contrast, is almost exclusively anti-religious, seen only when accompanied with rhetoric against Christianity, and the spread of such ideas are motivated primarily by anti-religious belief and sentiment. I would love to meet those Christians who believe CCC. I think mountainman may be the only such Christian I know, if he counts.

AdamWho

Religion is a lot broader than the issue if Christ is a mythical figure or not... or even if Christianity is true or not.

My parents believe in the CCC and they are regular church go-ers. They see the "lesson" as more important then the man. They see patterns in other "Christs" as an indication that it is more valid not less. (much like flood stories around the world). It seems that some non-evangelical churches have been moving towards the view that it doesn't really matter if a HJ existed or not.

Steve Weiss

Since there is no comprehensible definition of a deity, religion is an irrelevance. As to the existence of an historical "human" Jesus, let us first outline the necessary and sufficient contextual evidence that would be required to substantiate the claim of his "human" existence. I contend that by any reasonable standard the "evidence" falls far short of satisfying the necessary requirements.

ApostateAbe

Thanks for letting me know that, because it is interesting. I have come across viewpoints like that, but they were in books written around a hundred years ago--CCC was promoted by such Christian authors putting a positive spin on it--and it didn't cross my mind that such a Christian perspective could be around today. It makes at least some sense and has an appealing universalist flavor. If such beliefs are found in so many religions all over the world, then it must be in large part truth, or so the thinking goes.

ApostateAbe

OK, so you seem to think there should be a standard of evidence that a historical claim (like a human Jesus) must meet before the claim should be accepted. I have a different perspective, and I think it best matches the general practice of history. The claims that are accepted are merely the claims that fit the evidence the best, surpassing all competing explanations of the same evidence. There is no autonomous set of requirements, no metaphorical "bar," that is independent of all of the explanations on the table, nor should there be. The "bar" for any explanation put on the table needs to only score higher than the highest-scoring competing explanation that is also on the table. Not that there is a scoring system that assigns absolute numerical values--the better methodologies require subjective judgments--but there are nevertheless rigorous sets of criteria used to judge the hypotheses, varying from one historian to the next. The methodology that I prefer, and it is seemingly the most well-established in historicism, is the "Argument to the Best Explanation," by C. Behan McCullagh. It is on Wikipedia, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...st_explanation

The topic of this thread is something completely different, by the way, but I am OK talking about it with you. Maybe a new thread would be better, if you care to start one.

Bullmoose Too

Well alot of Christians view Jesus as God. It has been sometime since I watched the movie so maybe somebody knows if Jesus equals god in this flick?

I have heard some negative criticism of Zeitgiest from atheists. I think the Atheist Experience wrote a negative review and refuted several of its bullshit claims. Not sure.

Toto

Tom Harpur is the latest Christian mythicist. He thinks that Christianity derives from Egyptian religion, and Jesus was a copy of Horus. He's still a Christian. (search this forum for "Harpur.")