Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-28-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

It baffles me why anyone would want to doubt it.

The religious took he whom they despised as a man and made him into a god. The mythicists try to make this inconvenient individual into a pure fiction. Both these responses are perfectly understandable, however misguided. Of the two, though, I would count the second as the worst, by a long shot.

There is just no evidence to support your statement that there was a man who was despised and then made into a god. Absolutely none.

The NT and the Church writings have no such information.

The Jesus stories in the NT all claim Jesus was a God on earth, sent by the God of the Jews who eventually rose from the dead.

No source external of the NT and Church writings wrote about a man called Jesus who was despised during the governorship of Pilate and made into a god. Absolutely none.

You are just making up stuff and making mis-leading and erroneous statements.

teamonger · 10-28-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Seems to me that you and other mythicists are looking backwards at the problem. You treat the existence of a Jewish cult leader and his followers as an extraordinary claim to be proved. But given there is nothing epistemically improbable about their mere existence, and given the varied multiple accounts about them, appears to me the burden of proof is on you to show why they didn't exist.

Why is it so important to make these people go away in first place? It seems on some level an atheist overreaction: to go from "NT must be all true" to "NT must be all false" appears to be a pendulum swing. Just an opinion.
t

The problem is this:
We start with a Galilean prophet who attracts followers. Then he is executed and allegedly rises from the dead. At this point he is proclaimed to be Son of God & Messiah, and his followers anxiously await his return at the Parousia.

For the next 40-100 years no-one outside of the circle of believers takes any notice of either Christ or his followers. The Second Coming never occurs, and the world continues on as it alway has. By the middle of the 2nd C we have written material about all these points which is contradictory but still conveniently answers all heretical challenges.

- First of all, we are knee-deep here in supernaturalism, mysticism etc: God? has a child by a human woman? who performs miracles? and rises from the dead? to deliver immortality to believers?
- Second, this messiah doesn't seem to resemble the OT models, and in fact is rejected by Judaism and adopted by non-Jews in the 2nd century
- Third, the kingdom of heaven never appears, unless one interprets the Church as its manifestation.
- Fourth, there is no corroboration of any of the early stories other than Catholics insisting that they're true, which means we really don't know what happened.

What we end up with is a salvation movement promising eternal life, mixing pagan and Jewish ideas into a theology that can be institutionalized. It eventually becomes a fundamental European institution, with powers approaching the ancient emperors. The impact of this institution is reason enough to study its development, whether or not one believes the teachings.

Personally I'm interested in de-bunking any superstition, whether it's UFOs or weeping statues. Why should I believe that any of the NT stories really happened? Historians and skeptics are supposed to ask hard questions and demand real evidence. Gullibility is not defensible.

And that's exactly what critical historians like E. P. Sanders do: ask tough questions and sift the evidence to find possible or probable answers, using clearly defined historical criteria.

I'm interested in debunking superstition too. But it's a mistake to a priori decide that all of the accounts about Jesus must be superstition. That's an overreaction. If you want to debunk, focus on the fantastic claims, claims whose weakness can be demonstrated even by the NT evidence itself: the contradictory birth narratives, the invalid use of OT passages, the mistaken end-times thinking of Jesus, the inconsistent resurrection accounts, etc. Make the apologist defend his weakest ground, don't let them pose as historians.
t

Toto · 10-28-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedistillers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But sometimes the evidence just doesn't support what is politically convenient.

After all those discussions, I'm not sure what evidence Jesus Mythers want. If Jesus was indeed just a deranged apocalyptic cult leader, then why exactly should we expect more (or better) evidence than what we have? What kind of evidence should historians expect?

Oh, possibly the sort of evidence that Christians saw fit to forge - letters from Jesus, a mention of that crazy Jesus by Josephus, a marker by his tomb, or writings from his followers that talked about his personal characteristics.

teamonger · 10-28-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Because the Jesus myth posits that all accounts, sayings and doings of the Jesus character are fabrications, including all descriptions of followers, family, interactions with known historical figures, etc. For so many independent sources to fabricate everything of whole cloth would require quite a conspiracy, for which no evidence exists.
t

Do you understand what a myth is? A myth is a story that someone invents, that later on people come to believe to be true.

In regard to christianity, a mythicist (such as Doherty) would argue that Paul's Jesus was a spiritual figure to Paul, rather than a flesh and blood human being. The first Gospel writer came later, when people were starting to misunderstand Paul, and wrote a hero biography because he didn't realize Paul's Jesus wasn't human. From there it just continues.

Where's the conspiracy in this scenario?

To say Paul didn't think Jesus was once a human being requires you to ignore (or explain as interpolations) many statements indicating otherwise.

There's too little time for a whole-cloth fabricated myth. I've stated elsewhere why I think Mark is fairly early. His Jesus declares the end will come before that generation dies off, so it appears Mark believed such people were still living when he wrote. If Mark were writing a hundred years later, his Jesus (who he sets in the time of Pilate) would have obviously been wrong in his end-times prediction.

I just find Mark the imperfect second-hand report far more believable than Mark the whole-cloth fabricator. I don't think he was nearly so clever.

The conspiracy would come from everybody going along with the ruse. The independent Q source, the Johannine tradition, the Ebionites, Nazarenes, the Thomas community, all of whom clearly presume a human Jesus. The Jewish opponents described by Celsus, who never question Jesus' historicity, only his legitimacy.
t
t

teamonger · 10-28-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

For so many independent sources to fabricate everything of whole cloth would require quite a conspiracy, for which no evidence exists.
t

Why?
Why does multiple sources require a conspiracy ?

Do the multiple sources for the myths of Hercules require a "conspiracy" ?

Do the multiple sources for the legend of Luke Skywalker require a "conspiracy" ?

There is simply no reason what-so-ever for a conspiracy, and you have given no reason for it, just repeated your assertion.

Anyway -
we don't have "many independent sources" at all.

Paul
wrote about a divine Iesous Christos - but he gives no historical date/time or place, doesn't mention Mary, Joseph, Pilate etc., fails to mention Jesus' healings or miracles or speeches. No conspiracy required there.

Later,
Mark wrote a book based on Paul's writings - no conspiracy required.

Later still,
others wrote book based on G.Mark - no conspiracy required.

Many then came to believe these books and wrote about Jesus - no conspiracy required.

There simply is not any requirement for a conspiracy.
The Jesus Myth theory is not based on a conspiracy.

And you have not given any reason, or evidence for a conspiracy.

Kapyong

Okay guys, I'm going to drop the "conspiracy" tack... but the straight line summation above fudges over a number of problems.

Paul was writing to people who clearly shared some background knowledge; he and other apostles had visited them before, and established the basics already. So there would be little need to repeat things that were agreed upon earlier. Further, Paul referring to the historical Jesus would do him little good in his doctrinal debates, would just put a finger on his weakness as a second-hand apostle.

Mark wrote a book based on Paul? Really now. You've already said Paul's letters contain little that is in the gospels. So the first gospel must be fabrication in fine detail: inventing followers, family, a baptism, sayings about the imminent end of the world, associations with known historical people such as the Baptist, Pilate, Peter, James, indeed reinventing Paul's associates into people they were not. Did Mark just dream this all up one day?

The other gospels were partly based on Mark, but contained other material such as Q which most scholars think was just as early. So we have to invent a source who came up with all those remarkable graphic parables. But why, when the Galilean preacher fits the bill? Why multiply entities?

t

teamonger · 10-28-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

It baffles me why anyone would want to doubt it.

The religious took he whom they despised as a man and made him into a god. The mythicists try to make this inconvenient individual into a pure fiction. Both these responses are perfectly understandable, however misguided. Of the two, though, I would count the second as the worst, by a long shot.

Well, I would count making a man into a god a far worse mistake. But seen in context, I don't find Jesus an inconvenient individual at all. I see him as a freethinker of his times, a brave but mistaken heretic.
t

aa5874 · 10-28-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

The problem is this:
We start with a Galilean prophet who attracts followers. Then he is executed and allegedly rises from the dead. At this point he is proclaimed to be Son of God & Messiah, and his followers anxiously await his return at the Parousia.

For the next 40-100 years no-one outside of the circle of believers takes any notice of either Christ or his followers. The Second Coming never occurs, and the world continues on as it alway has. By the middle of the 2nd C we have written material about all these points which is contradictory but still conveniently answers all heretical challenges.

- First of all, we are knee-deep here in supernaturalism, mysticism etc: God? has a child by a human woman? who performs miracles? and rises from the dead? to deliver immortality to believers?
- Second, this messiah doesn't seem to resemble the OT models, and in fact is rejected by Judaism and adopted by non-Jews in the 2nd century
- Third, the kingdom of heaven never appears, unless one interprets the Church as its manifestation.
- Fourth, there is no corroboration of any of the early stories other than Catholics insisting that they're true, which means we really don't know what happened.

What we end up with is a salvation movement promising eternal life, mixing pagan and Jewish ideas into a theology that can be institutionalized. It eventually becomes a fundamental European institution, with powers approaching the ancient emperors. The impact of this institution is reason enough to study its development, whether or not one believes the teachings.

Personally I'm interested in de-bunking any superstition, whether it's UFOs or weeping statues. Why should I believe that any of the NT stories really happened? Historians and skeptics are supposed to ask hard questions and demand real evidence. Gullibility is not defensible.

And that's exactly what critical historians like E. P. Sanders do: ask tough questions and sift the evidence to find possible or probable answers, using clearly defined historical criteria.

I'm interested in debunking superstition too. But it's a mistake to a priori decide that all of the accounts about Jesus must be superstition. That's an overreaction. If you want to debunk, focus on the fantastic claims, claims whose weakness can be demonstrated even by the NT evidence itself: the contradictory birth narratives, the invalid use of OT passages, the mistaken end-times thinking of Jesus, the inconsistent resurrection accounts, etc. Make the apologist defend his weakest ground, don't let them pose as historians.
t

So, why is not a mistake to [i]a priori[/b] decide that you know that there are accounts about Jesus that are true or must be true when there is no evidence?

It should be noted that in places where Christianity is the major religion most people from even childhood are taught or are expected to assume or presuppose that the Jesus stories must be true.

Rejection of the pre-suppositions about the Jesus stories in no way aid those who assume that there must be accounts of Jesus that are true because they have no evidence whatsoever to support their presuppositions.

teamonger · 10-28-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Not sure I get your meaning. Refuting Christianity was precisely Arnheim's intent. I'm not saying that apologists claim Jesus was merely human. But if they are allowed to dwell on that topic, they're being let off the hook.

You were the one who brought up the topic of atheism vs. the historical Jesus. I was just pointing out the lack of connection.

Quote:

For their faith, apologists need no preconditions of any kind, you know that.

The only reason apologists repeat arguments for historicity is because silly atheists keep trying to deny them. When they can thus argue, they do not appear as the lame apologists they are, they start to appear rational. Ugh! Don't let it happen!
t

Have you looked at Campus Crusade for Christ's recruiting materials? They start out by claiming that all serious historians agree that Jesus existed. Then they work from there to construct a falacious proof that Jesus not only existed, but that there is evidence he rose from the dead, and what if it's true?

I don't think that they start with the historical Jesus just because some atheist somewhere denied that Jesus ever existed. I think that they are trying to use the generally accepted secular idea of a historical Jesus just to get their foot in the door and recruit students into their cult.

And I think that the mythical Jesus is more popular with neo-Gnostics, such as Freke and Gandy, than with hard core atheists.

You will find most of the anti-apologetics in the Infidels Library is based on the idea of a historical Jesus (most likely a deranged apocalyptic cult leader.) In a lot of ways, this historical Jesus is a better choice for combatting Christianity. But sometimes the evidence just doesn't support what is politically convenient.

No, I haven't looked at recent fundie recruiting materials. But such materials didn't used to start out with "Jesus existed", they used to start out with "do you feel hopeless?", "can you trust the Bible?" etc. Perhaps they now start out with the historicity claim because the myth debate is becoming better known among them?

Starting the debate from there gives them a firm footing which they don't deserve. Jesus existed, so what? Lots of brave people existed who were put down for having new ideas. But we don't make a god out of Gandhi.
t

aa5874 · 10-28-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You were the one who brought up the topic of atheism vs. the historical Jesus. I was just pointing out the lack of connection.

Have you looked at Campus Crusade for Christ's recruiting materials? They start out by claiming that all serious historians agree that Jesus existed. Then they work from there to construct a falacious proof that Jesus not only existed, but that there is evidence he rose from the dead, and what if it's true?

I don't think that they start with the historical Jesus just because some atheist somewhere denied that Jesus ever existed. I think that they are trying to use the generally accepted secular idea of a historical Jesus just to get their foot in the door and recruit students into their cult.

And I think that the mythical Jesus is more popular with neo-Gnostics, such as Freke and Gandy, than with hard core atheists.

You will find most of the anti-apologetics in the Infidels Library is based on the idea of a historical Jesus (most likely a deranged apocalyptic cult leader.) In a lot of ways, this historical Jesus is a better choice for combatting Christianity. But sometimes the evidence just doesn't support what is politically convenient.

No, I haven't looked at recent fundie recruiting materials. But such materials didn't used to start out with "Jesus existed", they used to start out with "do you feel hopeless?", "can you trust the Bible?" etc. Perhaps they now start out with the historicity claim because the myth debate is becoming better known among them?

Starting the debate from there gives them a firm footing which they don't deserve. Jesus existed, so what? Lots of brave people existed who were put down for having new ideas. But we don't make a god out of Gandhi.
t

What do you mean by "Jesus existed, so what?" You seem not to realise that the existence of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity. Christians must pre-suppose Jesus existed in some form, whether all God, God/man or all man, they just must believe regardless of lack of evidence that Jesus was on earth during the reign of Tiberius.

The most terrifying words to a christian are the words "Jesus of the NT did NOT ever exist."

No Robots · 10-28-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

I see him as a freethinker of his times, a brave but mistaken heretic.

Perhaps the mythicists are nearer the mark on this, perhaps they see that to acknowledge the existence of this man is to acknowledge the existence of someone who is something more than a freethinker and a heretic.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.