Grog

You misunderstood how the word "strange" is being used in this context. Strange means "new," something we hadn't thought of before. There is nothing inherently strange about the contention that Christianity evolved out a mixture of hellenistic judaism beliefs. The strange part is the contention that goes against what we've all been taught since we were babes: that Jesus Christ lived and died 2000 years ago. Nearly everyone, atheist, christian, and jew, has learned this...it is part of our culture, something that most of us have at some point in our lives taken for granted. So it seems strange to say "well, Jesus may never have existed at all." For some that is too strange to be considered seriously. Shelling's point is that if you view it as strange (which you clearly do as evidenced by the very post I respond to), you are not capable of seriously considering it. Note that the "strange" in Shelling's statement is actual the truth, what actually happened.

Most of the work I have seen from you actually falls clearly into a case of looking for signal in the noise that confirms your bias...a bias that is built on an inability to seriously consider a contingency that you consider strange.

That's the whole point I was trying to make.

aa5874

What you claim is really not logical at all.

The Quest for an HJ does not require any argument at all from MJers.

HJers are ARGUING AGAINST the BIBLE.

It is the Christian Bible that INITIATED the Quest AFTER HJers acknowledge that Bible Jesus is a Jesus of FAITH [a Myth ]

The very Bible tells us that Jesus was NOT human and did NOT have a human father.

MJers have nothing to invent.

It is documented and was publicly circulated in the Roman Empire for hundreds of years that Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost.

It is documented and was publicly circulated in the Roman Empire for hundreds of years that Jesus was the Logos God the Creator and that Jesus made the heaven and earth.

It is documented and Publicly circulated in the Roman Empire that Jesus Walked on the Sea Water and did instantly Transfigure.

Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Eusebius and others all claimed or implied Jesus had NO human father, was the Son of God or born of a Ghost.

Jesus of the NT is a Jesus of Faith--the Quest for an Historical Jesus is completely futile and has been a total failure more than once.

The NT is a compilation of Mythology, Propaganda, implausibilities, forgeries or falsely attributed writings.

The third Quest has now failed with "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

TedM

MJers deny that Mary was his mother aa. That's the difference with MJers and most HJrs. Of course MJers have something to invent: The replacement of Mary his human mother with NO human mother. Your focus on the human father is very distracting and unnecessary for an intelligent exchange on this subject. Your arguments would sound a lot better if you would stop bringing up the 'no human father' nonsense. EVERYONE ALREADY GETS IT: both MJers and HJrs. The things is you seem to be the about the only one that doesn't realize that that's not the issue here.

If you don't understand what I am saying, I suggest re-reading the above paragraph multiple times every day, and then think about what it means, until you do. If you reply with another one of your long lists of whatever instead of interacting with my point regarding Mary, that will once again prove that you really don't understand what this paragraph means and I will not respond as I need to not waste time.

You forgot to include "historical places, events, and persons, corroborated by multiple authors" in your list. That's what gives the HJrs argument potential credibility, but which you have decided to discount. It's amazing that you find ANY historical document to have ANY credibility at all, because your criteria is so strict the truth is that probably NO historical document -- including your fav Justin -- would pass the tests you require for credibility. As such, I don't see how you can conclude that anybody or anything ever existed 2000 years ago. It seems you should just go ahead and proclaim that nothing existed as claimed in writings. You could compile some more great lists as support, I'm sure..

aa5874

You do not understand what "invented" means. It is people who make false statements who are the inventors in the Canon.

People who expose fallacies in the Canon are not inventors.

It is completely reasonable and logical that the conception of Jesus in the Canon is a product of Mythology.

You must have forgotten that Superman lived and worked in America after he left Krypton.

You must have forgotten that Romulus founded the City of Rome and that he resurrected and appeared to Proculus before he ascended to heaven.

You must have forgotten that Devil was with Jesus on the Pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem.

You must have forgotten that the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to Mary in Galilee.

You must have forgotten that the Holy Ghost came down from heaven into a house in Jerusalem and filled the disciples with power.

You must have forgotten that fiction stories can be set in locations that exist.

You must have forgotten that Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the Same.

Please read the CREED of the Jesus cult of Christians.

ApostateAbe

Thanks, for the clarification. I get it. I believe the reason the mythicist proposition seems unfamiliar is because it really is unusual, not just because we aren't accustomed to thinking about it. Probability has very much to do with what is usual and what is unusual. If it is unusual, most of the time it would also be unfamiliar, so we are not entirely wrong to reject propositions that are unfamiliar, though of course unfamiliar things do sometimes prove true. It just takes an extra-strong argument.

When I was new to the Jesus debates after rejecting Christianity, I accepted mythicism immediately. So it is not something I rejected for its unfamiliarity. On the contrary, I loved innovative ideas that provided better explanations. That was why I abandoned Christianity in favor of atheism. Mythicism would seem to follow from a skeptical perspective of the Bible, because the only evidence we have of Jesus is as a miracle-worker. At first, I believed the claims of Acharya S. It wasn't long before I abandoned that author, after getting trounced in a debate with a liberal Christian. Then I came across the writings of Earl Doherty and his "Jesus Puzzle" website, noticed the popularity of it, and I tentatively accepted his position, though I remained confused at specifically what the the theory entailed (still do, actually).

Then I saw an argument that Jesus was a doomsday cult leader, who believed the end of the world was right around the next corner, and the argument followed very strongly from the earliest gospels themselves. Then for the first time it made a heckuva lot of sense, and I wondered why so many atheists didn't already accept it. Somebody on this board told me that it was already a common scholarly hypothesis, and he directed me to a book on the topic by Bart Ehrman.

It was a Eureka moment for me. It is the most popular theory of Jesus among secular scholars. At one time, it was a strange idea among scholars, but they accepted it after Albert Schweitzer made a case for it a hundred years ago.

Why isn't it the most popular theory of Jesus among atheists? It seems to be because atheists tend to treat the Bible much more "skeptically" than other ancient documents. Instead of picking the good cherries out of it, as they would for the writings of Plutarch or Josephus or Herodotus or any biased account they would like to make historical sense of, they would rather throw out the whole basket and believe the Bible to be maximally false. For example, the gospels claimed Jesus was God, God is and was nothing but myth, therefore Jesus is and was nothing but myth, so the thinking goes. It is a perspective that you can see in this very thread. But, unfortunately, it is not the most reasonable way to think, despite its popularity among reasonable people.

aa5874

The Quest for an Historical Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with MJers

HJers are ARGUING against the Bible for hundreds of years and have now resorted to a strawman argument against MJers.

The Quest for an Historical Jesus is an admittance that the Jesus of the Christian Canon is a figure of Faith.

HJers have also gone back to rely on the very source for the Jesus of Faith in their attempt to historicise the Bible which they have already rejected.

The Quest for an Historical Jesus has been a failure and No Jesus of Nazareth has been found outside of the Canon and Apologetics.

1. Non-apologetics wrote NOTHING of Nazareth.

2. Non-apologetics wrote nothing of Jesus of Nazareth.

TedM

I'm not going to debate your frivolous arguments aa. You didn't respond to my point about Mary. People that say Jesus had no human mother are inventing their own replacement -- ie Jesus never lived on this earth but was totally 'invented'. That evidence doens't exist in antiquity. No groups of antiquity are recorded to have said Jesus never lived on this earth. People that say Jesus had a human mother are basing that on lots of evidence that says he lived. They didn't invent that. The evidence exists in antiqutity that says he lived on earth. To require that the mythology of Holy Ghost birth negates the fact that he was claimed to have walked the earth in history -- in the likeness of a real human being, is being incredibly pedantic and it keeps you from being able to engage in more critical thinking. As I said, your requirements for antiquity are such that you should just proclaim that nothing ever existed 2000 years ago. Your cherry picking to accept some things (like your fav Justin), and reject nearly everything else (except when it helps your case) is apparently directed by will and faith instead of reason.

You haven't tried hard enough to understand what I wrote, and it is obvious that you have hardened your heart and closed your mind to rational thinking on the subject. Like an alcoholic, the thoughts you repeat become your truth, regardless of reality. Take care.

aa5874

Something is radically wrong with you. Whenever I address your post you openly deny that I did while you show the actual response. You must have forgotten that other people can read what I post and that they are recorded.

Again, I RESPOND to your post.

It is the authors of the Gospels and Apologetic writers of the Jesus cult who INVENTED or promoted the story that Jesus was born AFTER his mother was made PREGNANT by a Ghost.

1. Matthew 1:18 CEB2. Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians 183. Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ I have RESPONDED to your post. Jesus of the NT cannot be considered a human being when it was argued that he had NO human father.

Please explain how Jesus could have a human mother WITHOUT a human father.

Frankly, you come across as a Sunday School Teacher or an evangelist for the Jesus cult. You argue that Jesus existed as a human being without addressing the fact that it was claimed Jesus had NO human father.

It is unheard of in the history of mankind that there were actual human beings on earth who had no human fathers. Only Mythology entertain such notion.

It was the very Romans who regarded Mythology as history who accepted the Myth that Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Holy Ghost.

TedM

And I'm telling you that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the HJ argument.

That's ridiculous. He OF COURSE can be considered a human being by current HRrs regardless of what others thought of his father in that past, and regardless of what others think of his father in the present. This is ESPECIALLY when they thought (and still think) that he had a human mother. I'm holding my tongue here because this is something a 10 year old should be able to comprehend, but you repeatedly, month after month, annoying post after annoying post seem to have no ability to perceive this simple idea.


I DONT HAVE TO. NO HJr HAS TO. WHY? Because it is not required that he REALLY didn't have a human father. HJrs consider that to be a 'myth', but that does not require that Mary too was a myth. I can't believe I'm having to spell this out to you.

Grog

Ted,

I confess to being confused. While I do agree that aa's style of argumentation is not always effective (but I have learned a lot from him), it appears you are arguing that it is possible that the human Jesus had a human mother, but no human father.

What is your source that he had a human mother named Mary, by the way?