Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 07-11-2002, 06:54 AM

I like to play the devil's advocate here, because apparently lots of atheists frankly don't like to think real hard for themselves (apathetic agnosticism is the easy way to make oneself feel better like Toto talked about).

Deep or not, most of us are tactful enough to avoid blanket insults.

That said, I still think Jesus mythicism is abolutely for the brain dead.

First insults, now repeating yourself.

In my opinion, even if you are "agnostic" about the HJ, you probably have leanings one way or the other. Of course no one can ever know anything about the past for sure, but the evidence that *is* there seems to be for the existence of an HJ and probably for many of the things that he did (including supposed miracles).

Thanks for your opinion. Let us know when you have something to say that is not an insult, something you've already said, or an assertion based on nothing at all.

Vorkosigan

Darkside_Spirit · 07-11-2002, 08:34 AM

Far too many insults and arbitrary statements in this thread. This is a good topic for civilised discussion, and it's a shame to waste it with statements such as "mythicism is for the brain dead".

As for NT inaccuracies, try the following:

30 pieces of silver paid to Judas. Considering there were no "pieces of silver" used at the time (there were mixed brass/copper and gold/silver coins), this event seems to have been manufactured simply to fit Old Testament prophecies.

Herod's killing of the infants. This is a case of the "argument from silence". Many historians--Josephus for example--meticulously recorded Herod's abuses. None of them make any mention of this one.

The Nativity census. There is no record of the Romans requiring huge numbers of people to travel vast distances, simply in order to sign a tax form. Moreover, if Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6 CE) then he could not have been born during the reign of Herod (finished 4 BC).

CX · 07-11-2002, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:
Was Paul talking about different "Christs"? Sure. Different "*Jesus* Christs"? Obviously not.

I disagree. I don't think Paul is talking about other messianic claimants, I think he is talking about his opponents who have a different interpretation of his Jesus' message.

Gooch's dad · 07-11-2002, 08:42 AM

I agree with Darkside_Spirit, especially the last point. The nativity stories are obvious fabrications.

Another big one, which IMO completely discredits the author of the gospel of Matthew, is the story of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on TWO donkeys. The author misread the OT prophecy completely, and invented a story involving Jesus riding an donkey and a foal at the same time.

To me, this shows beyond much doubt that the writer of Matthew was writing to fit to prophecy, rather than describing actual events.

Tristan Scott · 07-11-2002, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Another big one, which IMO completely discredits the author of the gospel of Matthew...

Discredits, but maybe not completely discredits, as it appears that the author of Matthew was probably using other older material, like Mark, to put his Gospel together.

King Arthur · 07-11-2002, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Deep or not, most of us are tactful enough to avoid blanket insults.

Minus you of course.

Come on, man! I've seen some of *your* "sensitive" posts when theists are around! Don't gimme that crap!

Insults are great! They challenge others to think harder about their positions. It sure seems to have boiled your blood! If you make a mistake and I call you on it with an insult, then I bet you won't make the same mistake twice! Unless you're stupid, of course...

I don't care if you believe me or not, it's what I think. Should it matter to you so much? Perhaps people here just want to beat other people over the head with their own arguments and get mad when it doesn't work.

Quote:

First insults, now repeating yourself.

Intentionally. I wanted to make sure you heard me if you missed it the first time.

Jesus mythicism is stupid and only for the brain dead.

Quote:

Thanks for your opinion. Let us know when you have something to say that is not an insult, something you've already said, or an assertion based on nothing at all.

I say things with substance all the time, Vorkosigan, unlike the drivel you put forth like the crap about transliteration and translation you so confidently put forth. What the frick was that? You really thought you were gonna impress me, didn't you?

Ah well! Don't take any of this to heart (i.e. don't be overly sensitive)! I'm just a loud mouth and love to give people a hard time. But I still think Jesus mythicism is stupid.

Vorkosigan · 07-11-2002, 06:51 PM

Artie, I don't slam my fellow atheists, and certainly not in a community where I'm a newbie, as you are.

I say things with substance all the time, Vorkosigan, unlike the drivel you put forth like the crap about transliteration and translation you so confidently put forth. What the frick was that? You really thought you were gonna impress me, didn't you?

Despite my major error, the point remains, Art, whether the literal translation was the proper way to translate the passage. You also ignored Thompson's points about the issue of just what the word "House" meant the way it is used at the time.

Ah well! Don't take any of this to heart (i.e. don't be overly sensitive)!

I've been a teacher for 15 years. If there's anything I've learned, it's not to take what children say to heart, and to expect that I will make errors.

I'm just a loud mouth and love to give people a hard time. But I still think Jesus mythicism is stupid.

After the hundredth time, we get the idea. But instead of simply making meatless assertions, why don't you put up something more in-depth? Since Doherty is perhaps makes perhaps the most in-depth case, maybe you could take him on.

In any case, why does mythicism bother you so much? It's common position in the study of many other religious founder figures, where it is not considered "stupid" or "brain-dead."

Vorkosigan

King Arthur · 07-11-2002, 07:16 PM

Now you're cookin' Vork!

First, the Hebrew word "BYT" does not mean anything but "house", so the scholar you mention doesn't know what he's talking about.

Second, any other myticisms bug me too! Look at me after all, I'm King Arthur! I think he existed! I think Robin Hood existed! Whether every story that was told about them was exact, I think that there are some pretty substantial nuggets of truth behind them.

I also happen to think Mohammad existed, but I think he was just a person. I don't think, like some do about Jesus, that there were a bunch of little Mohammads running around and that the Koran could have been written by any one of them.

Finally, I won't waste my time with the likes of a pseudo-scholar like Doherty. If real scholars don't see the point, then neither do I.

Vinnie · 07-11-2002, 08:08 PM

""""""Artie, I don't slam my fellow atheists, and certainly not in a community where I'm a newbie, as you are."""""""

Not to side-track this discussion: but are you implying its okay to slam non-fellow atheists? Likewise, is it okay for Christians to slam non-fellow Christians? And being in a place longer gives a person more of a right to slam others by default?

Vinnie

Vinnie · 07-11-2002, 08:55 PM

Just for clarification: Why I consider HJ agnosticism (depending on how its defined) as a respectable position:

The Real Jesus (pp. 85-86), Luke Timothy Johnson:

Quote:

Yet they continue to develop images of Jesus that are remarkably diverse if not mutually incompatible. Recent years have seen the presentation of Jesus as eschatological prophet, as violent revolutionary, as member of the Qumran sect, as proto-Pharisee, as gay magician, as charismatic renewer, as mystic teacher, as Cynic sage. The combination of inflated claims and conflicting results should alone alert serious historians to a fundamental problem."

Jesus: The Life of a Jewish Mediterranean Peasant (prologue pp. xxvii-viii), John Dominic Crossan):

Quote:

Historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke. There were always historians who said it could not be done because of historical problems. There were always theologians who said it should not be done because of theological objections. And there were always scholars who said the former when they meant the latter. Those, however were negative indignities. What is happening now is a rather positive one. It is the number of competent and even eminent scholars producing pictures of Jesus at wide variance with one another.

One example will suffice to illustrate the present problem. Daniel J. Harrington . . . gives [in a published address] "a short description of seven different images of Jesus that have been proposed by scholars in recent years, the differences relating to different Jewish backgrounds against which they have chosen to locate their image of the historial Jesus". There is Jesus as a political revolutionary by S. G. F. Brandon (1967), as a magician by Morton Smith (1978), as a Galilean charismatic by Geza Vermes (1981, 1984), as a Galilean rabbi by Bruce Chilton (1984), as A Hillelite or proto-Pharisee by Harvey Falk (1985), as an Esseneby Harvey Falk (1985), and as an eschatological prophet by E.P. Sanders (1985)

Not everyone in that list has the same persuasive potential, but the plurality is enough to underline the problem. Even under the discipline of attempting to envision Jesus against his own most proper Jewish background, it seems we can have as many pictures as there are exegetes. Several of those works, and others that could easily be added, for example, Borg (1984) or Horsley (1987), contain elements and insights that must surely be retained in any future synthesis. But that stunning diversity is an academic embarrassment. Its impossible to avoid the suspicioin that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography.

JDC goes on to state his observation that "The problem of multiple and discordant conclusions forces us back to questions of theory and method. . . . This book had to raise most seriously the problem of methodology and then follow most stringently whatever theoretical method was chosen."

Vinnie

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

07-11-2002, 06:54 AM	#31
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I like to play the devil's advocate here, because apparently lots of atheists frankly don't like to think real hard for themselves (apathetic agnosticism is the easy way to make oneself feel better like Toto talked about). Deep or not, most of us are tactful enough to avoid blanket insults. That said, I still think Jesus mythicism is abolutely for the brain dead. First insults, now repeating yourself. In my opinion, even if you are "agnostic" about the HJ, you probably have leanings one way or the other. Of course no one can ever know anything about the past for sure, but the evidence that is there seems to be for the existence of an HJ and probably for many of the things that he did (including supposed miracles). Thanks for your opinion. Let us know when you have something to say that is not an insult, something you've already said, or an assertion based on nothing at all. Vorkosigan

07-11-2002, 08:34 AM	#32
Darkside_Spirit Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 33	Far too many insults and arbitrary statements in this thread. This is a good topic for civilised discussion, and it's a shame to waste it with statements such as "mythicism is for the brain dead". As for NT inaccuracies, try the following: 30 pieces of silver paid to Judas. Considering there were no "pieces of silver" used at the time (there were mixed brass/copper and gold/silver coins), this event seems to have been manufactured simply to fit Old Testament prophecies. Herod's killing of the infants. This is a case of the "argument from silence". Many historians--Josephus for example--meticulously recorded Herod's abuses. None of them make any mention of this one. The Nativity census. There is no record of the Romans requiring huge numbers of people to travel vast distances, simply in order to sign a tax form. Moreover, if Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6 CE) then he could not have been born during the reign of Herod (finished 4 BC).

07-11-2002, 08:42 AM	#34
Gooch's dad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison WI USA Posts: 3,508	I agree with Darkside_Spirit, especially the last point. The nativity stories are obvious fabrications. Another big one, which IMO completely discredits the author of the gospel of Matthew, is the story of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on TWO donkeys. The author misread the OT prophecy completely, and invented a story involving Jesus riding an donkey and a foal at the same time. To me, this shows beyond much doubt that the writer of Matthew was writing to fit to prophecy, rather than describing actual events.

07-11-2002, 06:51 PM	#37
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Artie, I don't slam my fellow atheists, and certainly not in a community where I'm a newbie, as you are. I say things with substance all the time, Vorkosigan, unlike the drivel you put forth like the crap about transliteration and translation you so confidently put forth. What the frick was that? You really thought you were gonna impress me, didn't you? Despite my major error, the point remains, Art, whether the literal translation was the proper way to translate the passage. You also ignored Thompson's points about the issue of just what the word "House" meant the way it is used at the time. Ah well! Don't take any of this to heart (i.e. don't be overly sensitive)! I've been a teacher for 15 years. If there's anything I've learned, it's not to take what children say to heart, and to expect that I will make errors. I'm just a loud mouth and love to give people a hard time. But I still think Jesus mythicism is stupid. After the hundredth time, we get the idea. But instead of simply making meatless assertions, why don't you put up something more in-depth? Since Doherty is perhaps makes perhaps the most in-depth case, maybe you could take him on. In any case, why does mythicism bother you so much? It's common position in the study of many other religious founder figures, where it is not considered "stupid" or "brain-dead." Vorkosigan

07-11-2002, 07:16 PM	#38
King Arthur Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camelot Posts: 290	Now you're cookin' Vork! First, the Hebrew word "BYT" does not mean anything but "house", so the scholar you mention doesn't know what he's talking about. Second, any other myticisms bug me too! Look at me after all, I'm King Arthur! I think he existed! I think Robin Hood existed! Whether every story that was told about them was exact, I think that there are some pretty substantial nuggets of truth behind them. I also happen to think Mohammad existed, but I think he was just a person. I don't think, like some do about Jesus, that there were a bunch of little Mohammads running around and that the Koran could have been written by any one of them. Finally, I won't waste my time with the likes of a pseudo-scholar like Doherty. If real scholars don't see the point, then neither do I.

07-11-2002, 08:08 PM	#39
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	""""""Artie, I don't slam my fellow atheists, and certainly not in a community where I'm a newbie, as you are.""""""" Not to side-track this discussion: but are you implying its okay to slam non-fellow atheists? Likewise, is it okay for Christians to slam non-fellow Christians? And being in a place longer gives a person more of a right to slam others by default? Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.