The Lost Number

Jacob Aliet:

Sorry, but apparently you didn't pay close enough attention to what I originally wrote, otherwise you wouldn't have said that.

First, by logical necessity, the Christ mythers believe that basically everything about how Jesus was is a fabrication, since every such word about him operates under and is dependent upon the idea that he existed, in some form or another. Be it Tacitus saying he was crucified, the Talmud claiming he was a sorcerer, the Gospels saying he was the Son of God, Paul saying he was a flesh and blood descendant of David, critics saying he was a lunatic, or whatever, it all assumes Jesus existed. Therefore every single instance of such speech must be fabricated (i.e. lacking truth, lacking accuracy, etc.) according to their logic. I don't even have to point out any examples of this. Logic demands it's true.

Second, there are, of course, still numerous examples. I'll give you some I already listed:
just look at some of the stuff Christ mythers say. Tacitus is a relatively trustworthy historical source...unless we read what he said about Jesus, in which case his writings just "had to be" fabrications. Josephus is a relatively trustworthy historical source...unless we read what he said about Jesus, which, though being interpolated to some extent, must automatically (for no apparent reason) be complete, 100 percent fabrications. The criterion of embarassment is a very reliable concept when applied to history...unless we do that with the story of Jesus being crucified, where it miraculously becomes next to worthless.

No, I believe things that are substantiated and/or make logical sense. A number of things and events described in the Gospel are confirmed from history. And logically, they would have had no good reason to make up certain stories, like Jesus being crucified, and every reason not to.

Thus I believe they are not pure, 100 percent fabrications.

Toto

I don't really want to get into this debate, but I think your statements here are clear error. Josephus is not completely trustworthy. He had his own biases and inconsistancies, and later Christians *did* forge works alleged to be by him. Jesus Mythers do nothing extraordinary when they reject parts of Josephus.

And I searched at one point and was unable to find a single instance of a historian outside of New Testament criticism who uses the "criteria of embarrassment." That criteria was invented to rationalize accepting theology as history. If you try to apply it to other myths, you end up accepting all sorts of nonsense as history.

Vorkosigan

First, by logical necessity, the Christ mythers believe that basically everything about how Jesus was is a fabrication

Obviously this is not the case. For example, in Doherty's view, the gospel elements would indeed be pious fabrications, but the lack of any detail about the alleged earthly life of Jesus throughout the first century writings, and their claims that they discovered Jesus by reading the OT writings allegorically, would not be fabrications in the sense you mean. They would be the truth.

Vorkosigan

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

The Lost Number

The Jesus Mythers reject all of Josephus when it comes to what he wrote about Jesus. We all know that it was interpolated, however it's probable that a core statement about Jesus was there. The Christ mythers, however, reject the entire thing. This is baseless.
"If you try to apply it to other myths"? Who said everything about Jesus was a myth? Did somebody just automatically assume it without any previious justification? Sounds like something a Christ-Myther would do.

Historians frequently use the logic of embarassment criterion. They may not call it that, but it's there. You just don't see it debated much because, usually, the only ones who vocally question it are (ignorant) skeptics with whom Xians and other pro-historical Jesus enthusaists are, obviously, at odds and always arguing with.

Personally, I shudder to even think how butchered a view of history we would have if Christ Mythers "just because it's utterly humiliating to them doesn't mean they would not make it up for no apparent reason" excuses ever became the dominant view in history. I sincerely hope they just stick with only trying to "disprove" a historical Jesus.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: The Lost Number ]</p>

The Lost Number

No, they would actually be clear fabrications "in the sense" that I mean. A fabrication is, among other things, something that simply contains "absence of truth or accuracy". Christ mythers think that even if Tacitus did make his claims about Jesus, and did believe them, he was just repeating a popular, unsubstantiated rumor. Tacitus' belief that his source on Jesus was reliable doesn't matter; it's a fabrication/absent of truth or accuracy, in spite of his belief. Lucian said something about the historical Christ. Christ mythers aren't phased if this is proven beyond rational doubt to be authentic writing, in other words; that Lucian really said these words and believed them. It doesn't matter what he believed - Christ Mythers still say it's a fabrication/absent truth or accuracy. The Christ Myth demands that no real Jesus existed. Miracle working; physically risen; spiritually risen; mortal wise man; simple human cult leader; mythical OT-Prophesied Messiah; alien from outer space; dracula before he went bad; etc., whatever, if it's an opinion of Jesus which makes his actual existence necessary, then, according to Christ-Mythology, it is incorrect as long as the Christ Myth is correct, because such a theory says that no real Jesus ever existed.

Vorkosigan

No, they would actually be clear fabrications "in the sense" that I mean. A fabrication is, among other things, something that simply contains "absence of truth or accuracy". Christ mythers think that even if Tacitus did make his claims about Jesus, and did believe them, he was just repeating a popular, unsubstantiated rumor.

Which Christ Mythers have you read? I don't know any who believe that. Rather, most believe that Tacitus' sources were Christians themselves, rather than a report of Jesus' execution, as some very conservative Christian scholars believe. There is nothing in Jesus Mythism that says Tacitus could not have gotten the information from some kind of official report about Christianity.

Tacitus' belief that his source on Jesus was reliable doesn't matter; it's a fabrication/absent of truth or accuracy, in spite of his belief. Lucian said something about the historical Christ.

Lucian of Samosata? Said nothing about the HJ, was writing later in the second century, 165-175

Christ mythers aren't phased if this is proven beyond rational doubt to be authentic writing, in other words; that Lucian really said these words and believed them.

It IS authentic. He wrote, referring to Christians:

• "These deluded creatures, you see, have persuaded themselves that they are immortal and will live forever, which explains the contempt of death and willing self-sacrifice so common among them. It was impressed on them too by their lawgiver that from the moment they are converted, deny the gods of Greece, worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws, they are all brothers. They take his instructions completely on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods and hold them in common ownership. So any adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who knows the world, has only to get among these simple souls and his fortune is quickly made; he plays with them."

You can see this is much too late to mean anything. It proves that there were Christians in late in the second century who worshipped someone crucified; I doubt anyone disputes that fact.

It doesn't matter what he believed - Christ Mythers still say it's a fabrication/absent truth or accuracy.

I can see you haven't read much on Jesus Mythism. Or on the references to Christianity in the first and second century.

The Christ Myth demands that no real Jesus existed.

This is not correct either, Lost Number. A myther like myself believes that there was a Jesus but the gospels do not reflect the reality of his existence in any way, any more than the Arthur, Roland or Robin Hood legends reflect the reality of the men who inspired them. Like them, the Jesus legend is obviously a composite story. Whoever the real Jesus was, the story of his life is gone.

Miracle working; physically risen; spiritually risen; mortal wise man; simple human cult leader; mythical OT-Prophesied Messiah; alien from outer space; dracula before he went bad; etc., whatever, if it's an opinion of Jesus which makes his actual existence necessary, then, according to Christ-Mythology, it is incorrect as long as the Christ Myth is correct, because such a theory says that no real Jesus ever existed.

It is apparent you haven't read much in this area. Few mythers argue that the passages in Suetonius, Tacitus, Lucian and others are inauthentic (there are a few who argue the Tacitus passage is inauthentic, but nearly all scholars accept it). This is because the myth was already well-established by the second century in the view of all mythers, so any second-century reference is pretty-much worthless.

In any case because you haven't read much myth stuff, you haven't got the idea. It would be helpful if you reviewed the work of a prominent myther (Price, Wells, Doherty, Ellegard, etc) and maybe pointed out where they had erred. Crazed rants may feel good, but the number and quality of replies will reflect the quality of your posts.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

The Lost Number
Vacuous fulminations. You were asked for some evidence, not your faulty reasoning.

These are just appeals.
Provide salient and unequivocal evidence that (a)Jesus Myther(s) discredits an authentic passage with reasons that are baseless and explain why those reasons are baseless.
If you cannot do that, you should explain why you choose to claim that Jesus Mythers just claim that ANYthing about Jesus is fabricated without good reason. Or admit your ignorance on the matter.

I need a name(s)(of a Myther), a passage/ author that (t)he(y) dispute, the reasons they advance for the inauthenticity of the passage, and your refutation (or anyone elses refutations of that passage) that make it clear that the Myther(s) have no sound basis for disputing that passage.

If you cannot do that, you are not qualified to state, whether or not the Jesus Mythers make unsubstantiated claims of fabrication, because in the first place, you cannot substantiate that claim.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Jacob Aliet ]</p>

The Lost Number

Then (according to Christ Myth logic) they were rumors. what Christians were these? He doesn't say. It's extremely unlikely that, if they existed, they were close friends of the original NT authors, or even that community. As a matter of fact, it's unlikely that Tacitus, who clearly wouldn't have been very fond of Christianity, would even trust much of what Christians said to him in the first place, especially about their "savior". This leaves the source of his info, according to Christ mythers, as being...? Rumors, of some sort. At least as far as I can tell. If you have another theory, please present it.
An "official" report on Christianity? An official report from who, the Roman government? Sure it's plausible, but if true, this in and of itself skyrockets the already mile high improbability of Tacitus' unreliability into low earth orbit - now the Christ Myther must explain not only why tacitus was too dumb to discover the obviously innacurate info about Jesus, but why an/other trained, disciplined, highly devoted Roman govt. employee/s couldn't either when making this hypothetical "official report".

True, but I can never predict just what absurd leaps of blind faith Christ Mythers will be willing to make, so...
You doubt anyone disputes that fact!?! The fact that Christians "worshipped someone who was crucified"? Was, as in he had to physically exist for it to happen? Sorry for the semantic obsession but we have to get one thing straight: the Christ Myth is based upon the notion that Jesus didn't exist. If he didn't exist, this means he could not have undergone a crucifixion, which in turn means they definately dispute that fact.
This coming from someone who is unaware of even the foundational teaching of Jesus Mythism.
What? What ever would make you say that?
Then you aren't actually a Jesus Myther, because they believe there was not a real, physical Jesus of any sort. If simply believing that certain Gospel claims about Jesus are fabrications, then most historians, most liberal & moderate Christians, hell, even most people in the world would be Christ Mythers.
You seem cool, but you should research your claims before you make them, especially when telling others to do the same. Really, most people would be, shall we say; much more aggressive and much less polite when presented with the type of claims you have made.

You mentioned the following people: "Price, Wells, Doherty, Ellegard". There are several books written by a person who's last name is "Price", however I'd say the best guess is that you are refering the one titled: "Deconstructing Jesus", by Robert M. Price. Though I have yet to read his book, from neutral reviews it appears that he believes the Gospel Jesus is based on several different religious leaders cobbled together as well as some purely mythical beings, that there is good reason to believe no actual historical Jesus existed, and apparently that historians should be, at best, agnostic about his existence.

George A. Wells doesn't believe in any historical Jesus, either. Neither does Doherty, who is very outspoken about it, and Ellegard's Jesus is so detatched from the concept of a historical Jesus (thinking he came 100 years earlier and preached a different form of Judaism) that he may as well be labelled "mythical". There there are others who believe the same or things very similar, like that joke of a scholar "Acharya S.", or the dynamical & blundering duo Freke and Gandy. It is exceedingly obvious that the Christ Myth is the claim that Jesus did not historically, physically exist.

The Lost Number

First, you have a horrible understanding of logic. I'll go through this very slowly and in a detailed manner, because, no offense, but it looks like that is what I need to do for you to have any considerable chance of understanding it:

1) The religious figure known as "Jesus" was believed to be real, in some form, in other words; to actually have existed, by those who worshipped him, and others who didn't. Practically all significant Christian doctrines later based their belief on this. Their versions of him varied widely, but they believed he existed. As did many non-believers.
2) They all made various claims about Jesus, all believing these claims were true or at least plausible, because he actually existed.
3) Christ Mythers do not in any way, shape or form believe that a real, authentic Jesus actually existed.
4) Therefore, if the Christ Myth is true, every single one of said claims has to be false, because they are claims about a Jesus that existed, and if Jesus did not exist, he could not live up to those claims.
5) Thus, in closing, we see that the Christ Myther cannot believe that any claims about or in any way dependent upon Jesus' existence are true, because they believe he did not exist in any way.

Now do you get it? Have I made it easy enough for you to understand?

Second, that you would display such an astonishing ignorance of Christ-Myth claims to say things like; "where do they dispute this passage that claims Jesus existed? Give me a direct piece of evidence that they do!" (creative quoting of course, but this is the jist of what you said) shows you have failed to conduct even the most rudimentary research on it. You'll probably ignore whatever evidence I give, so I'll give no more than just barely enough. Check this link:
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/historicity.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/historicity.shtml</a>
Look around and you'll see.

Third, as for my dispute with claims of Christ Mythers, again; you'll probably just ignore very extensive writing about my reasons for doing so, and so, again, you'll get just barely enough evidence: Christ Mythers say Jesus' crucifixion was made up. I say it is more rational to believe there was a historical Jesus who was crucified, because the idea of the son of God being a human being who was treated bad, cruficied and died before his ultimate, final act (resurrection) would be an insult to most Jews (whom Christianity was first aimed at), who believed that the Son of God would be far too good a being to endure such humiliation and mistreatment from us inferior humans. If you think they still went ahead and made it up, anyway, then please explain why, by countering the point I made.

They reject all evidence for any kind of real Jesus. If it's from Christian sources, they were automatically making everything about him up, or reiterating such stories. If it is from non-Christian ones, they were just repeating baseless Christian rumors/legends/tall tales, or else their works were interpolated.

Ted Hoffman

The Lost number
3) Christ Mythers do not in any way, shape or form believe that a real, authentic Jesus actually existed.
I believe Vorkosigan hase made it clear that Christ mythers beleive the Jesus of the Gospels DID NOT exist - if there was another Jesus living at that time (circa 3 B.C.E.- 33 C.E.) in Galilee, it is a matter of coincidence and as mythers, we assert that the story of the Jesus in the gospels is NOT about that Jesus but a fully fabricated myth. The motif upon which the Jesus of the gospels is based, is NOT a historical person, but is from syncretization of extant cults and cults who the evangelists were familiar with, together with the OT and midrash.

Indeed, even if we were to allow that the gospels were initially based on a historical person, that person was abandoned by the evangelists once they started writing as they embarked on constructing a mythical god. In that sense, that putative Jesus would have no relationship and no significance at all when examining the Jesus of the Gospels. That means that even if there existed a historical Jesus, he got totally engulfed by the mythical demi-god that the evangelists constructed. And as things stand, we have no established methodology of separating fact from fiction in a quest to establish the historical Jesus.

Remember too, that the Jesus Mythers basis of arguing for the myther figure is the preponderant lack of any mention by other writers and historians about a historical Jesus existing in Palestine or galillee in the first century.

We have only Mark and Josephus (and none of them actually saw Jesus). Josephus has ONLY one controversial passage that could be used to argue for the historicity of Jesus (Antiquities 20).

What is the value of one controversial passage in a MOUNTAIN of silence (from historians and writers) and unabashed myth from the evangelists?

Remember, as atheists, we give as much value to the gospel claims as we would give any other claims from any cult or religion.

Hence the Jesus figure of the gospels being a myth.

4) Therefore, if the Christ Myth is true, every single one of said claims has to be false, because they are claims about a Jesus that existed, and if Jesus did not exist, he could not live up to those claims.
They don't have to be false (in the sense of dishonesty involved) - they could just be incorrect - and they mostly are.

5) Thus, in closing, we see that the Christ Myther cannot believe that any claims about or in any way dependent upon Jesus' existence are true, because they believe he did not exist in any way.

Even if he did exist, he got long buried in the sea of myth and we have NO WAY of getting a glimpse at him. Some scholars, driven by the inertia of their past beliefs, have resorted to embarrasment criterions, creating various pericopes of Jesus etc in an attempt to construct a veritable historical Jesus from the fog of myth, but the pictures they come up with leave more and more questions to be answered.

Now do you get it? Have I made it easy enough for you to understand?
Yes you have and I hope you can see that you are wrong about the Jesus myth position.

Second, that you would display such an astonishing ignorance of Christ-Myth claims to say things like; "where do they dispute this passage that claims Jesus existed? Give me a direct piece of evidence that they do!" (creative quoting of course, but this is the jist of what you said) shows you have failed to conduct even the most rudimentary research on it. You'll probably ignore whatever evidence I give, so I'll give no more than just barely enough. Check this link:
I dont need the link - I could give you more links than you can handle about Jesus myth arguments.

You had made the claim that Jesus mythers just come up with ANY claim of fabrication for ANY "proof" of a historical Jesus. That implied Jesus mythers are a bunch of fundamentalist loonies who wildly conjure up baseless claims of fabrication without good cause.

YOU are YET to demonstrate that. I think its best that you withdraw that statement since its obvious you cannot demonstrate that the claims of fabrication are silly. You have a horrible and deroratory understanding of what positions Jesus Mythers hold and this undermines your ability to evaluate their arguments intelligently.

This is what you said:
Its an apallingly irresponsible statement and its vacuity shows complete lack of thought on your part and a dogmatic stance towards Jesus mythers.
Its clear you cannot back it up so just admit error and lets drop the issue. You have demonstrated that you are aware of the arguments Jesus mythers advance against arguments/evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. However, you have not demonstrated that you understand them and more importantly, you have NOT demonstrated that they are SILLY or baseless or even weak.
Yours is a dogmatic stance over an issue you have no iota of understanding about.

You make general claims, no passages, no authors/scholars and more importantly, you DO NOT demonstrate that the arguments Jesus mythers are advancing for fabrication are weak. This evasive approach betrays your ineptitude over the matter which is really pathetic - considering your patronizing stance and snide remarks.

Its one thing to be against Jesus mythers but its another to demonstrate that their claims for fabrication are baseless. Remember, even a two year old kid can say Jesus mythers make baseless claims of fabrication. Its another ball game to pick one of their argument and lay it to waste. When you can do that and are ready to do that, let me know.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>