Radorth

Re Scombrid

Never had that happen. I must not have much faith. I have awakened in the middle of the night and found myself speaking in tongues, as if it were the most natural thing for a Christian to do. My friend in the bunk below had exactly the same experience, and all we could do the next day was praise God and grin at each other.

Re: Ip, (who is apparently thinks he's talking to a crowd of his fans, referring to me as "he" and "Radorth")

I've read enough to know that for two people on the same side, Carrier felt compelled to criticize Doherty's "scholarship."

You know there were many apostates and heretics in the first century after Christ, and you know not even Marcion denied an HJ, and very few even denied the resurrection. You're just begging the question or you'd be quoting them. Yeah I know. "We had that but the Christians burned it all." (Christian plot # 48)

I believe Muhammed told them that, yes. I doubt he did in fact because he admitted he at first thought he was hearing from demons, which is what I suspect. No NT figure ever confused demons with the angel Gabriel.

No kiddin.'

Why don't you ask me sometime. I bark but I don't bite.

But you'd never believe that, would you Ip?

Yes he could have been to one degree or another, (depending on what assumptions you make) and that's what makes Durant and Schonfield's "swoon" arguments so much less cynical and more compelling. They don't have to convince anybody of the greatest cover-up in recorded history. They recognize the extraordinary detail of the Gospels appears in no other fraudulent work- including negative details which inventors would have left out. And these skeptics knew liars or lunatics would never have risked or carried on as the Gospel writers did to get out a lie.

The "sincerely mistaken" option and "swoon theory" taken together seem semi-rational, but then you still have to make a lot of unprovable assumptions, and you still have to accuse them of lying in several places- i'e. an angel saying "he is risen" etc.

Which doubtless saves wear and tear on the brain, but of course one single reference to an earthly Jesus wipes out that theory. But do tell us again. How is it Paul could say "....James, the Lord's brother" when he NEVER once used the phrase concerning any other particular person?

Rad

orac

This sounds suspiciously like "you're calling all those people liars? that's mean! therefore you're wrong!"

I'm quite happy to say that many millions of people have attributed real events to an unreal god, because no god actually caused the events in question. If someone has to take me to court over it, I'll be happy to convert as soon as they show why God can heal their cold, but has absolutely no luck at all with amuptated limbs.

Oddly, I'm perfectly happy to admit that I used to believe God gave a person the ability to read my mind - it's quite odd how I can now see how similar that event was to the typical cold reading practised by all sort sof supposed psychics.

Did I somehow just slander myself? Should I sue myself for everything I own, and if so do I need two lawyers?

Incidentally, noone has had an after death experience and lived to tell about it. After death means you're not alive any more. The best you can come up with is almost-but-not-quite-dead experiences, and that's not the same thing.

lpetrich

Scombrid: Glossalalia, pareidolia, and a smattering of self delusion is all that is necessary for this proof. If you believe hard enough, that burnt toast will start to look like an image of Jesus

Never had that happen. I must not have much faith. I have awakened in the middle of the night and found myself speaking in tongues, as if it were the most natural thing for a Christian to do.

Glossolalia, by any other name, is still glossolalia.

LP on Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier: And as to "agreeing on almost nothing", this makes me wonder if Radorth has really read what these gentlemen had written.

I've read enough to know that for two people on the same side, Carrier felt compelled to criticize Doherty's "scholarship."

Which goes to show that Radorth has either not read RC's commons on ED very carefully, or else has misrepresented what he had read. RC is actually in broad agreement with ED, it's details that he quibbles over.

Mohammed allegedly getting the Koran from the angel Gabriel...

I believe Muhammed told them that, yes. I doubt he did in fact because he admitted he at first thought he was hearing from demons, which is what I suspect. No NT figure ever confused demons with the angel Gabriel.

Hmmm... demons... notice how sure Radorth is that the revelations of other religions come from demons and the like.

Jesus Christ could have been honestly mistaken.

But you'd never believe that, would you Ip?

Yes, I could believe that.

(Durant and Schoenfeld) They don't have to convince anybody of the greatest cover-up in recorded history.

A bigger coverup than Watergate? Radorth amazes me with his illogic.

They recognize the extraordinary detail of the Gospels appears in no other fraudulent work- including negative details which inventors would have left out.

Whatever those negative details might be.

And I suggest that Radorth check out the "extraordinary detail" of the Book of Mormon, LRH's Dianetics, etc.

And these skeptics knew liars or lunatics would never have risked or carried on as the Gospel writers did to get out a lie.

People have been willing to give their lives for all sorts of weird causes.

How is it Paul could say "....James, the Lord's brother" when he NEVER once used the phrase concerning any other particular person?

He could have used that as some special honorific title.

lpetrich

Orac, it was Radorth, not me, who had made that comment.

And Radorth's rejection of religions other than his implies that he believes that the religious experiences of their followers are either hallucinations or lies.

Consider what he believes about the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan's belief that the goddess Namagiri would whisper mathematical formulas into his ears. He has shown nothing but contempt for that belief.

Lobstrosity

What is it he finds so hard to believe about that?

lpetrich

Radorth in a bunk bed? With someone like him in the other bed? This makes me wonder about that incident, since bunk beds are not very common.

Radorth

Care to back that assertion up with a quote?

I didn't think so.

Oh yes. We're talking hundreds of Christians here who never got caught, and kept covering up, burning, lying and redacting for 300 years.

Durant gave a long list of details and evidence of authenticity, while calling your objections minutiae, a well chosen term I think. Would you care to respond to his points?

You have to assert and impugn their motives before making such simplistic comparisons I think. Their examples still shine, unlike Muhammed's violent apostles and converts.

I have to wonder how inane you think readers are here. That's only one of many references to an earthly Jesus in the NT. JM'er's have to blow off Acts completely, declare forgeries elsewhere, and torture even the most obvious references to an HJ in Paul's writings. Yep, you pretty much have to call them liars and/or lunatics when you take the JM approach. The entire book of Acts is a long lie written after the fact according to you, even though you have absolutely no proof of that. There is no "sincere mistake" there, right? Or would you have us believe that the early Christians were sincerely mistaken, but the later ones just made up lies because the "sincerely mistaken" ones were unconvincing?

JM'er logic most entertaining to read, I must admit.

Rad

lpetrich

(Radorth on mathematician Ramanujan and the goddess Namagiri...)
He has shown nothing but contempt for that belief.

Radorth:
Care to back that assertion up with a quote?

If iidb's search function was enabled, I'd do EXACTLY that.

Oh yes. We're talking hundreds of Christians here who never got caught, and kept covering up, burning, lying and redacting for 300 years.

However they are supposed to do that. And I think that that's a misunderstanding of the Jesus-myth hypothesis.

Originally, he was a sort-of god, but he gradually got reinterpreted as human, or at least half-human.

Durant gave a long list of details and evidence of authenticity, while calling your objections minutiae, a well chosen term I think.

Will Durant died 22 years ago, so he is in no position to read my arguments.

Would you care to respond to his points?

Sure. Give them.

People have been willing to give their lives for all sorts of weird causes.

You have to assert and impugn their motives before making such simplistic comparisons I think. Their examples still shine, unlike Muhammed's violent apostles and converts.

That's totally beside the point. You were the one who was implying that willingness to die for a cause indicates how worthy that cause is.

(Snipped: Radorth's moaning and groaning and carrying on about what liars I think the NT writers had been...)

No different from the authors of the Koran or any other religious literature that Radorth rejects.

And I wonder why Radorth gets so emotional about the Jesus-myth hypothesis.

Radorth

The usual smoke and mirrors, except this:

I believe you've seen this before but OK, here you go

DURANT ON HIGHER CRITICISM

"The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance....In the enthusiasm of it's discoveries, the (HC) has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe, that by them a hundred ancient worthies... would fade into legend... they record many incidents which inventors would have concealed- the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after his arrest, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness....no one who reads these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle more incredible tha any recorded in the Gospels." (Caesar and Christ, chapt 26, P557)

Rad

lpetrich

Radorth:
DURANT ON HIGHER CRITICISM

The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance....

I would not call the contradictions in the resurrection accounts "minutiae". For more, see Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

Or the discrepancies between the Gospel of John and the other Gospels "minutiae" either.

In the enthusiasm of it's discoveries, the (HC) has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe, that by them a hundred ancient worthies... would fade into legend...

I don't see how that is supposed to be the case.

they record many incidents which inventors would have concealed- the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after his arrest,

This reminds me of a criticism of the Mark-Homer theory, the theory that Mark modeled his Gospel after Homer's epics. It is that making JC's apostles cowardly was done for dramatic effect without reference to Homer. But the authors of the Odyssey may have made Odysseus's men cowardly for that reason.

I'm reminded of the computer games "Myth: The Fallen Lords" and "Myth II: Soulblighter", in which the civilians are whimpering cowards. "Please please please please please don't eat me! I've got a wife! And kids! Millions of kids!"

the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee,

Which chapter and verse? Seems like he's sulking or something. Or that could be some Gospel author's point that some people were unworthy of having miracles worked for them.

the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness....no one who reads these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them.

Those sorts of comments could have been done for dramatic effect, to make JC seem more human, the way that Nikos Kazantzakis had done in The Last Temptation of Christ.

Which is contrary to the premise that Jesus Christ had been God, because he would then have been omnipotent and omniscient. He would never have had doubts about who he was or what his mission was, and he would have known in complete detail what was to happen.

That a few simple men should in one generation so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle more incredible tha any recorded in the Gospels.

"What country bumpkins they were!"

Actually, I fail to see what is so lofty or original about JC's teachings. The reconstructed "Q" Gospel contains many parallels to Cynic teaching, and I fail to see what is so lofty about his anti-Pharisee vituperation.

And this reminds me of the Koran's challenge to come up with another chapter (sura) like its existing ones:

And if you are in doubt
as to which We have revealed to Our servant,
then produce a sura like it,
and call on your helper, besides Allah,
if you are truthful.
(2:23)