Yes, hence the comparison with creationism, which also attacks the academy, not for scientific reasons, but ideological ones. Of course, it's possible that some mythicists are not motivated by anti-Christian sentiment, but it's striking how many seem to exude it. I think Tim O'Neill refers to it as a historical illiteracy among some atheists, (but not all). But then historical illiteracy is probably very wide-spread.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
Yes, hence the comparison with creationism, which also attacks the academy, not for scientific reasons, but ideological ones. Of course, it's possible that some mythicists are not motivated by anti-Christian sentiment, but it's striking how many seem to exude it. I think Tim O'Neill refers to it as a historical illiteracy among some atheists, (but not all). But then historical illiteracy is probably very wide-spread.
Isn't this one of the pro-HJ arguments often made? I mean, that if early Christianity was founded on a celestial or purely spiritual Jesus, then anti-Christians would have pointed out that any later claim to human identity was historically out of step, and after the fact? I don't think such a criticism has been found.
The matter has been settled. There is a consensus.
A consensus is an agreement among all--those for or against an historical Jesus.
The consensus among all parties is that there is very little or no external non-apologetic evidence for an HJ of Nazareth.
Bart Ehrman did not even use the TF to argue for his Jesus of Nazareth--Ehrman used the Bible--an admitted source of mythology, fiction, implausibility and historical problems
The HJ argument will always be extremely weak because outside the Bible and Apologetics Only the Forgeries in Josephus mentioned the Resurrected Jesus--a resurrected being is a Myth.
By the way, there is NO apostle known as the Lord's brother in all the Gospels and Acts.
Galatians 1.18-19 is a late invention written after Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 and after all the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.
It is so amusing that HJers claim Jesus was hardly known but yet claim Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, in Josephus' Antiquities 20.9.1.
If Jesus was a Zealot, or just an Apocalyptic preacher then he could NOT be Jesus the Messiah in Antiquities of Jews 20.9.1.
Plus, James in AJ 20.9.1 is not called an apostle.
Last edited:
Incidentally, these posts often seem to revolve around the question of evidence, but another aspect of historical method which doesn't seem to get mentioned much is the 'argument to the best explanation'.
This is rather different from the argument to evidence, since now we are considering things like plausibility, the least amount of ad hoc stuff, explanatory scope, and the fit to evidence.
Thus, in relation to the HJ arguments, one form of the argument to best explanation is based on parsimony - that HJ is the simplest explanation of all the material. Mythicism often seems to become very complicated. Of course, complications do not entail falsity, but may infringe parsimony.
This is rather different from the argument to evidence, since now we are considering things like plausibility, the least amount of ad hoc stuff, explanatory scope, and the fit to evidence.
Thus, in relation to the HJ arguments, one form of the argument to best explanation is based on parsimony - that HJ is the simplest explanation of all the material. Mythicism often seems to become very complicated. Of course, complications do not entail falsity, but may infringe parsimony.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I've posted that several times in various threads but all the HJers tell me that I am full of hubris by telling me that I am rejecting the Historical Consensus and ignoring the evidence. When I then ask for the evidence out come the accusations of Evolution denier, holocaust denier and truther.
Then comes dejudge and all other discourse is drowned out.
Last edited:
Your statement makes very little sense because authors of the NT themselves claimed Jesus walked on the sea for miles, was born of a Ghost, was the Logos, God Creator, who transfigured, resurrected and ascended.
Jesus of the NT was not a human being. This is so blatantly obvious.
You have no idea that Mythological figures were believed to have human characteristics.
Again, please get familiar with Plutarch's Romulus. Romulus the Myth founder of Rome was born of a woman, had a human brother and when he died day was turned into night, he resurrected and then ascended.
It is most laughable that some who have very limited or no knowledge of the myth fables of the Jews, Romans and Greek think that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history because he appeared to have flesh.
Marcion's Son of God came down directly from heaven into Galilee and appeared to have Flesh just like Jesus in gMark.
It is taught in the Gospel, according to Aristides, that Jesus was God who came down from heaven.
Last edited:
Yep.
What you say is simply erroneous.
The very simplest explanation is that Jesus was as described in the NT--A MYTH-born of a Ghost and a Virgin, God Creator, that walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.
Arguing that Jesus was a myth does not require any changes, omission or addition to the stories at all.
In order to argue Jesus was a figure of history one has to ignore or reject virtually all the evidence that Jesus was a myth.
dejudge wrote:
In order to argue Jesus was a figure of history one has to ignore or reject virtually all the evidence that Jesus was a myth.
This is what I find odd about some of the mythicist arguments, since there is no contradiction in Jesus being both human and acquiring legendary accretions.
Thus, one does not have to 'reject all the evidence that Jesus was a myth', if one argues that a human being acquired this legendary status.
I'm not actually sure what mythicists mean by 'myth', in any case, since I would say that things like walking on water are legendary rather than mythic.
In order to argue Jesus was a figure of history one has to ignore or reject virtually all the evidence that Jesus was a myth.
This is what I find odd about some of the mythicist arguments, since there is no contradiction in Jesus being both human and acquiring legendary accretions.
Thus, one does not have to 'reject all the evidence that Jesus was a myth', if one argues that a human being acquired this legendary status.
I'm not actually sure what mythicists mean by 'myth', in any case, since I would say that things like walking on water are legendary rather than mythic.
For the record: although these people whom you have named have reacted to the atrocity through increased hostility to religion, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens did not become mythicists. They are and were not. Harris responded to the atrocity by, as far as I can see, calling for the application of torture to undefined but large groups of people, and by exaggerated hostility to Islam and its adherents. I find his work now so very unpleasant to read, that I avoid him. Hitchens' work God Is Not Great is so full of factual and other errors and infelicities as to suggest he had been on the booze when composing it. Dawkins I like and admire.
No I was not mistaken, as you probably must know "mysticism" was a spelling corrector typo. - it should have said "mythicism" ... and you know perfectly well that is a derogatory term, and intentionally so. People here have repeatedly asked you and others stop using those terms mythicism, mythers and mythicists etc., especially to those of us who have repeatedly stressed that we are not claiming Jesus was definitely mythical (he may have been, or might not have been ... but it's a question of evidence).
I have shown you that it is an accepted term, which I have always used, without any intention of disparaging anyone at all. I can't understand your objections, and so I feel under no obligation to accommodate them. In using the expression, accompanied by references to the published authors, it is quite evident that the author of the wiki article I cited has in no way departed from the courtesy appropriate to the discussion of this topic: which, by the way, I commend to you as an example to emulate.
You statement is completely erroneous. You aware of Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ" where it is questioned whether or not Jesus had real flesh.
Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ
Please, stop spreading erroneous information. You are aware that the nature of Jesus was disputed since at least the 2nd century.
Belz...
Fiend God
Who cares ? No one here is trying to establish a biblical Jesus.
Belz...
Fiend God
Your statement is most laughable. Bart Ehrman's Jesus of Nazareth is DIRECTLY from the Bible.
Bart Ehrman claims Galatians 18-19 is evidence for his Jesus of Nazareth.
Bart Ehrman claims the Bible contains independent evidence for Jesus of Nazareth like the baptism and crucifixion in the Gospels.
Bible Jesus is the historical Jesus according to Bart Ehrman just that most of the stories were embellished.
What is this "internal evidence" in Paul’s letters which shows some of them to have definitely(?) been written at an early date circa. 55-60AD?
What is that evidence please?
I came here to expose the myth called the historical Jesus of Nazareth which was always based on a failure of facts and logic from the very start as declared by Carrier on his review of Bart Ehrman "Did Jesus Exist?".
People here who argue for an historical Jesus show an extreme limited knowledge of the writings of antiquity.
Last edited:
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
dejudge: I've asked you this already, without getting a meaningful reply. I'll try this one more time:
Assuming Jesus was completely made up and assuming that the entire corpus of Pauline letters was written after CE 180 and was in fact based on the Gospel of Luke, why and how did nascent Christianity get its Jewish connection? It would seem odd for the Christians Pliny the younger was writing about ca. CE 120 to have eventually gone out of their way to identify their Christ with a Jewish figure. If, on the other hand, you see Christianity as beginning from a Jewish base, how and when do you see it developing into something else?
Assuming Jesus was completely made up and assuming that the entire corpus of Pauline letters was written after CE 180 and was in fact based on the Gospel of Luke, why and how did nascent Christianity get its Jewish connection? It would seem odd for the Christians Pliny the younger was writing about ca. CE 120 to have eventually gone out of their way to identify their Christ with a Jewish figure. If, on the other hand, you see Christianity as beginning from a Jewish base, how and when do you see it developing into something else?
Have you or have you not seen people in these recent HJ threads, numerous times objecting to this constant description of people here as mythers and mythicists?
Have you or have you not seen people here repeatedly say they feel that is clearly being used as a term of abuse?
Have you or have you not seen the people you are referring to here as "mythicists", repeatedly saying that they are not proposing any particular myth theory?
You can call people whatever you like within the forum rules. But if you have read any of these HJ threads, then the answer to the above questions is that you know full well that sceptics here have repeatedly objected to those terms as (a)obvious and quite deliberate terms of abuse, and (b)misapplied terms anyway (since few if any of us here are proposing a myth theory of Jesus … most of us are just asking for any evidence of Jesus as a real person).
So please do not refer to me as a "myther or mythicist or whatever". Because I am not claiming Jesus was a myth. I am just asking anyone here what genuine credible evidence there is of Jesus as a living human person.
- Status