Why All Atheist Are Mythicist

Rich_Rodriguez
RRS Academy AdminSuperfan
Rich_Rodriguez's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Why All Atheist Are Mythicist

IN REGARDS TO THE HISTORICITY OF YESHUA BEN YUSEF

 

WHY EVERY ATHEIST IS A MYTHICIST

 

 

    Over the past few hundred years, scholars have been divided on the historicity of the character known as Yeshua ben Yusef aka (Jesus Christ). The division is the result of a tendency to give the gospel accounts more credibility than they deserve.  This subject has been answered at length by Rook on these boards and is not the issue I wish to address at this time. In a way this post is for those, who (like myself) deny the credibility of the accounts attested to in the canonical gospels.

 

The character known as Jesus in the gospels has the following things said about him:

  1. Walked on water
  2. Healed the blind
  3. Raised the dead
  4. Fed 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish
  5. Resurrected from the dead after 3 days, etc…

   

    If you deny this character (as presented above) as having done these things, what are you saying? Are you not denying that literary character’s existence?

One common reply to the argument is:

Though the Jesus attested to in the gospels is myth, he was probably based on a historical personality.

This is nothing more than an argument of faith. It takes faith to believe in a historical Jesus, since we have absolutely no external attestation to his character outside of the gospel tradition. Why the reliance on their having been a historical figure for the basis of the story? Is this not special pleading? – We don’t say things like: “Dionysus was a myth but he was based on a historical Dionysus, or Hercules had to have been based on a historical figure”. This is the equivalent of saying “Yeah I know the Iliad is mythology, but the Cyclops in the story- that guy was real.”

 


Pathofreason
Superfan
Pathofreason's picture
Posts: 320
Joined: 2006-12-23
User is offlineOffline
I agree!

I agree totally man! It is a matter of faith. I have heard some Christians say things like, " Well it says in the bible that Jesus died in Jerusalem, that means that this story has to be true cuz Jerusalem really exists."

I usually reply with well Mt. Olympus is in Greece does that mean Zeus really lives there?

Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com

www.pathofreason.com

Check it out


Raki
Superfan
Raki's picture
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
That's why i don't believe

That's why i don't believe in the existance of the jesus character. If i accept his existence,i should accept Goku's existence as well.

Nero(in response to a Youth pastor) wrote:

You are afraid and should be thus.  We look to eradicate your god from everything but history books.  We bring rationality and clear thought to those who choose lives of ignorance.  We are the blazing, incandescent brand that will leave an "A" so livid, so scarlet on your mind that you will not go an hour without reflecting on reality.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
This is the main reason I

This is the main reason I don't get into mythicist debates. I've never seen a proof of Christianity that could benefit from evidence that a man named Jesus existed.

Yeah, I know that sounds like a crazy thing to say, but look at it this way. If there was a dude named Jesus who lived at or about the time that the gospels say, then what have we proven? Only that the gospel stories have a real person behind them. Christianity falls apart if Jesus was "just a man." So, where's the evidence that he was anything more than a man?

It's still special pleading to argue that because the bible says Jesus performed miracles, that he did. We don't assume that about any other magic in any other ancient books. So what's the justification for believing the bible's account of miracles?

The answer is that with or without a historic Jesus, there's no reason to believe the bible.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Yeah, I

Hambydammit wrote:

Yeah, I know that sounds like a crazy thing to say, but look at it this way. If there was a dude named Jesus who lived at or about the time that the gospels say, then what have we proven? Only that the gospel stories have a real person behind them. 


You couldn't even claim that much. You would only have proven some one named Yeshua was wandering around Palestine at the time the Gospels were supposed to have taken place, which is hardly remarkable considering it was a common name (and still is).


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You couldn't even

Quote:
You couldn't even claim that much. You would only have proven some one named Yeshua was wandering around Palestine at the time the Gospels were supposed to have taken place, which is hardly remarkable considering it was a common name (and still is).

True.

I guess I should have been more clear.  I meant to say "if you uncovered enough historical evidence that there was a person whose life could have been the foundation of the myth."

A good analogy would be King Arthur.  If we found a tomb of someone named Arthur who really was a king, and we found out that he really did have a knight in his service named Lancelot, and there really was a dude named Merlin, that would only prove that those people existed.  There would still be no magic sword, or a watery tart lobbing scimitars at passersby.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Rich_Rodriguez wrote: IN

Rich_Rodriguez wrote:

IN REGARDS TO THE HISTORICITY OF YESHUA BEN YUSEF

 

WHY EVERY ATHEIST IS A MYTHICIST

 

 

    Over the past few hundred years, scholars have been divided on the historicity of the character known as Yeshua ben Yusef aka (Jesus Christ). The division is the result of a tendency to give the gospel accounts more credibility than they deserve.  This subject has been answered at length by Rook on these boards and is not the issue I wish to address at this time. In a way this post is for those, who (like myself) deny the credibility of the accounts attested to in the canonical gospels.

 

The character known as Jesus in the gospels has the following things said about him:

  1. Walked on water
  2. Healed the blind
  3. Raised the dead
  4. Fed 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish
  5. Resurrected from the dead after 3 days, etc…

   

    If you deny this character (as presented above) as having done these things, what are you saying? Are you not denying that literary character’s existence?

One common reply to the argument is:

Though the Jesus attested to in the gospels is myth, he was probably based on a historical personality.

This is nothing more than an argument of faith. It takes faith to believe in a historical Jesus, since we have absolutely no external attestation to his character outside of the gospel tradition. Why the reliance on their having been a historical figure for the basis of the story? Is this not special pleading? – We don’t say things like: “Dionysus was a myth but he was based on a historical Dionysus, or Hercules had to have been based on a historical figure”. This is the equivalent of saying “Yeah I know the Iliad is mythology, but the Cyclops in the story- that guy was real.”

 

First of all, this is not a divided question among historians. The overwhleming majority of scholars accept that Jesus was a historical figure. Lets see who Rook listed on these threads as people agreeing with the mythicist position: Richard Carrier (historian), Robert Price (expert in Biblical studies), Sam Harris (philosophy major/ atheist author), Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist). So, we have one historian, a scientist, and a philosopher. Price doesn't really count because you can't be a complete mythicist and be a member of the Jesus Seminar. So...yeah....not a whole lot of division.

So, what you are saying is that because there are myths surrounding Jesus, I have to reject his existence completely. Based on this logic, you have to deny the existence of Paul of Tarsus. I'm sure you know that Paul performs miracles in the book of Acts. However, in all his letters, Paul never claims to be able to perform any miracles. A book written decades after his death claims that Paul could do miraculous things. So, its clear that later authors can attach myths to the life of a real person.

So, you are left with a decision, reject Paul's existence (of whom we have several letters written by the man himself), or rethink your defense of Jesus Mythicism.

In reality, Jesus was a historical figure. I have another thread on this forum proving the existence of Jesus as a historical person. Check it out. Hint: To disprove my hypothesis you have to prove that Thomas and Q were not written off each other. (Language and textual experts have determined for decades that they were written independently). So, if you can't do that, then you should seriously consider dropping the mythicist position. Don't worry, you can still be an atheist while rejecting Mythicism. I was for a time!

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

...There would still be no magic sword, or a watery tart moistened bink lobbing scimitars at passersby.

 

FIFY. The watery tart didn't lob scimitars, she threw swords. There's a difference. 

 

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Freethinkaluva
Freethinkaluva's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2006-06-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos "In reality, Jesus

Christos "In reality, Jesus was a historical figure. I have another thread on this forum proving the existence of Jesus as a historical person. Check it out. Hint: To disprove my hypothesis you have to prove that Thomas and Q were not written off each other. (Language and textual experts have determined for decades that they were written independently). So, if you can't do that, then you should seriously consider dropping the mythicist position. Don't worry, you can still be an atheist while rejecting Mythicism. I was for a time!"

- If you're trying to say that because there are SAYINGS there was a person, that's false reasoning. There are hundreds of sayings attributed to many gods, including Zeus, from a wide variety of sources, none of which prove that Zeus was a real person living on Mt. Olympus. Thomas and Q - which itself has not been proved to exist, so one can hardly rely on it as "proof" of Christ's existence - likely represent the rehash of various logia found in other texts, some of which could be shared core texts. Such a development hardly constitutes "proof" of the existence of the person in the gospel story called "Jesus Christ."

Christos "The overwhleming majority of scholars accept that Jesus was a historical figure. Lets see who Rook listed on these threads as people agreeing with the mythicist position: Richard Carrier (historian), Robert Price (expert in Biblical studies), Sam Harris (philosophy major/ atheist author), Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist). So, we have one historian, a scientist, and a philosopher."

The "overwhelming" argument is a logical fallacy, as is appeal to authority. Still, the issue is simple: There is no credible, valid scientific evidence for the existence of the character called "Jesus Christ" in the gospel story, and the best evidence points to said character being as mythical as Hercules.

As far as Carrier, Price, Harris and Dawkins go, these are excellent people that have done a lot for atheism. Rook only listed these probably because they are the top of the chain so to speak at this time.

From my view, I see a glaring omittion. One who has done as much, if not more, for the Jesus myth position as anyone, is Acharya. What she has to offer goes beyond what atheism alone can give. Theists are used to believing in something...you can't just take that away and not replace it with something - like replacing a bad habit with a good habit.

She explains that there is no reason to believe in a historical Jesus but goes further to explain how we got here. The origins of our religious beliefs stem from astrotheology and mythology that simply evolved over time and eventually got to be taken literally. Which was eventually found to be a great political tool under Constantine etc.

Theists and atheists alike have false assumptions on her work. There's no way to understand our modern religious beliefs unless and until we include mythology and astrotheology into the mix. The evidence for this exists worldwide.

I think she should be included here at RRS as an equal to Carrier, Price, Harris and Dawkins after all, she has something to offer that these guys do not. Dr. Price has written a favorable review of her book "Suns of God" and he's just written the foreword to her new book "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ". Doherty has written a favorable review.  The others haven't actually read her work yet. Maybe they should.

Astrotheology of the Ancients
http://www.truthbeknown.com/astrotheology.html

Check "Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions"
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/index.php?sid=d729a5bf95b57043edea9a31d8472020

"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: FIFY. The watery

Quote:
FIFY. The watery tart didn't lob scimitars, she threw swords. There's a difference.

Very soon, I'm going to stop trying to contribute to this thread.  So far I'm batting a solid .000 on getting my facts straight.

Moistened bint.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: First of

Christos wrote:
First of all, this is not a divided question among historians. The overwhleming majority of scholars accept that Jesus was a historical figure. Lets see who Rook listed on these threads as people agreeing with the mythicist position: Richard Carrier (historian), Robert Price (expert in Biblical studies), Sam Harris (philosophy major/ atheist author), Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist). So, we have one historian, a scientist, and a philosopher. Price doesn't really count because you can't be a complete mythicist and be a member of the Jesus Seminar. So...yeah....not a whole lot of division.
You first state that historians are not divided and then you provide a list of historians that are divided. This is clearly a sign that you are afflicted with a mental handicap of some kind. To emphasize, you say X does not exist and then provide examples of X (which proves X exists).
Until you are able to express yourself coherently it is justifiable to disregard the garbage you post.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: First of

Christos wrote:

First of all, this is not a divided question among historians.

It certainly is. 

Quote:
The overwhleming majority of scholars accept that Jesus was a historical figure.

Don't overstate your case.  It is not an overwhelming majority.  It is a majority, but that doesn't prove a thing.  There is simply not enough of a majority to make it a consensus.  It has not been a consensus for two hundred years.  Even Tillich and Bultmann had their doubts.  Especially when we look at the books written by these scholars. 

This is just a small excerpt from my book on the problems with accepting the fallacious claim that scholarship is "undivided" on the issue of Jesus' historicity.  Keep in mind that this is copyrighted and not to be reprinted by anybody without my direct permission.


John Dominic Crossan is a man of severe intellectual honesty, as far as it goes, and his The Historical Jesus (1992) is certainly a display of his scrupulous scholarship.  For example, the book opens with the words from Morton Smith’s book Jesus the Magician (1978) which paint a very grim picture of the historical Jesus movement as a cumulative whole, and the words of Crossan which follow do not seem to help the scenario.  Indeed, Crossan states that the “historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke.”  Even still, Crossan makes no attempt, at least immediately, to give us any reason why scholarship should accept the research done in the means of finding the historical Jesus.  He continues by saying, astutely, that there were historians and theologians alike that have suggested that it couldn’t—and shouldn’t—be done, giving the reader the understanding that there were those in the field of history who said that it couldn’t be done because of the historical problems, but really meant they didn’t want it to be done because of the theological problems.[i] 

            This is a serious problem of the quest as well.  Such a claim is accurate, and as was presented earlier, scholarship seems to welcome such a value as to compartmentalize an issue.  That is, when somebody suggests that what they are doing is really for the betterment of historical knowledge, in truth they are merely seeking to benefit their theology.  In this, one should not necessarily find fault in a person tries to validate their beliefs, in fact everyone should do just that, however as stated earlier, such things should never be done at the expense of good scholarship, and evidence or information should never be handled differently as a way to escape the possibility that one could be wrong about those beliefs.  Thankfully, Crossan seems to be one of the few who honestly seems to want to find the truth, although he tends to be naïve at times—of which he is not alone for most of the historical Jesus yoke seem to be just as naïve.  One would be hard-pressed to find somebody who straightaway calls the historical Jesus quest a “stunning embarrassment” and something that brings about “suspicion” from the scholarly community, yet Crossan has the integrity to do so.[ii] 

That is the sad reality, that any attempt to historicize Jesus is in effect looking at one’s own reflection as Witherington put it, and at ones own individual presuppositions.  Perhaps this is why there are so many differing opinions on who Jesus was, and what group or affiliation he belonged to.  Consider the list of scholars who write on the historical Jesus; E. P. Sanders, Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan, Ben Witherington, Paula Fredriksen, Geza Vermes, Burton Mack, Hyam Maccoby, Morton Smith, Bruce Chilton, John Meier, N. T. Wright, S.G.F. Brandon, G.W. Buchanan, John M. Allegro and many others; there are practically just as many claims from the community as to who Jesus was as there are scholars writing on him.  Jesus, according to the questers, was one of the following: An itinerate preacher,[iii] a cynical sage,[iv] the Essene’s righteous rabbi,[v] a Galilean holy man,[vi] a revolutionary leader,[vii] an apocalyptic preacher,[viii] a proto-liberation theologian,[ix] a trance-inducing mental healer,[x] an eschatological prophet,[xi] an occultic magician,[xii] a Pharisee,[xiii] a rabbi who seeks religious-reformation,[xiv] a Galilean charismatic,[xv] a Hillelite,[xvi] an Essene,[xvii] a teacher of wisdom,[xviii] a miracle-working-exorcist prophet[xix] and yes the list goes on.  Somewhere in this mess, some really believe to find the historical Jesus.  Paul Rhodes Eddy sums up the conflicting dramatis personae by saying that the new quest has been “anything but uniform.”[xx]  

It’s just one more oddity to add to the list that scholars seem to know and recognize the fact that there is no agreement, as if it’s okay that this is the case.  Some use it to their advantage, or attempt to, as by pointing out the confusion they can suggest to their readers that they are avoiding whatever methods, or lack of methods, employed by those other scholars.  The just-mentioned Crossan calls to light some of the muddle, but enters the fray anyway, becoming a major player among the rest of the major players, adding one or more additional possible Jesus characters to the ensemble already.  Burton Mack criticizes the historical Jesus quest, calling it “hoopla,” then goes along to present a case for his historical Jesus as a cynic.  This author will add an additional possibility into the mix of them; perhaps Jesus was a Galilean man with a multiple-personality disorder.

[i] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (1992) Pg. xxvii

 

[ii] ------- Pg. xxviii

 

[iii] J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (1992)

 

[iv] J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (1992); Burton Mack, The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic and Legacy (2003), The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (1993), and A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (1988); F.G. Downing, Cynics and Christian Origins (1992); Paul Rhodes Eddy, Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis; Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 115, No. 3. (Autumn, 1996), pp. 449-469.

 

[v] John M. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1992)

 

[vi] Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (1973), The Religion of Jesus the Jew (1993); B. Thiering, Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Unlocking the Secrets of His Life Story (1992).

 

[vii] S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (1967); G.W. Buchanan, Jesus: The King and His Kingdom (1984)

 

[viii] Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code (2004); Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ (1988)

 

[ix] James M. Robinson, The Jesus of Q as Liberation Theologian, paper presented at the Jesus

Seminar, (October 25-27,1991).

 

[x] S. Davies, On the Inductive Discourse of Jesus: The Psychotherapeutic Foundation of Christianity, paper presented at the Jesus Seminar, (October 22-25, 1992) and Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity (1995)

 

 

[xi] E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (1985); John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 2: Mentor, Message and Miracles (1994).

 

[xii] Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (1978)

 

[xiii] Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (2003); Hyam Maccoby, Jesus the Pharisee (2003)

 

[xiv] Richard Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (1987); Marcus Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (2006); Bruce Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus' Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (1984)

 

[xv] Geza Vermes, Jesus in the World of Judaism (1984)

 

[xvi] Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (2003)

 

[xvii] Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (2003); John M. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1992)

 

[xviii] Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith (1995)

 

[xix] Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity (1982)

 

[xx] Paul Rhodes Eddy, Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis; Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 115, No. 3. (Autumn, 1996), pp. 449

 


 

 

Perhaps, Christos, you can enlighten us.  Who was Jesus?  These are just some of the many different "historical Jesus" characters that your 'undivided' scholars have come up with.  So, which was he,or would you like to add another to the list?  Perhaps you need to critically examine the claims.  If Jesus really existed, why all this confusion, why all these problems.  He is supposed to be the greatest man who ever lived, yet we have more evidence for the first ever 'apple-polishing' in history (Samuel Noah Kramer, History Begins at Sumer:Thirty-Nine Firsts in Man's Recorded History) than we do for Jesus.  Part of this problem lies with the complete inconsistancy we have between the only surviving manuscripts that talk about him - the New Testament.

Quote:
Lets see who Rook listed on these threads as people agreeing with the mythicist position: Richard Carrier (historian), Robert Price (expert in Biblical studies), Sam Harris (philosophy major/ atheist author), Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist). So, we have one historian, a scientist, and a philosopher. Price doesn't really count because you can't be a complete mythicist and be a member of the Jesus Seminar. So...yeah....not a whole lot of division.

Lie!  I am calling you on LYING!  Why don't you try again?  IU never ever cited Harris or Dawkins, and I did cite quite a large handful of others.  But because you are either too incompitent to do your own research, or perhaps you're just too lazy, I'll give you a short list of impressive scholars who do doubt the historicity of Jesus (aside from those mentioned above):

J.R. Hoffman

Thomas L. Thompson

John Van Seeters

Philip R. Davies

Niels Peter Lemche

Earl Doherty

G.A. Wells

Alan Dundes

 

All of these names are highly recognized and noteworthy.   

Quote:
So, what you are saying is that because there are myths surrounding Jesus, I have to reject his existence completely.

Way to misrepresent or dodge the point. 

Quote:
Based on this logic, you have to deny the existence of Paul of Tarsus.

Who said Paul was from Tarsus?  Paul certainly never claims that in his Epistles.  That is something Luke made up, and has no basis in history. Your naivety towards this subject is astounding.  Even more so, don't forget we don't have any additional evidence of Paul outside the NT.  And we already know people wrote in the name of Paul frequently, and were effective in doing so - Marcion believed Hebrews was written by him!

Quote:
I'm sure you know that Paul performs miracles in the book of Acts. However, in all his letters, Paul never claims to be able to perform any miracles. A book written decades after his death claims that Paul could do miraculous things. So, its clear that later authors can attach myths to the life of a real person.

Yes, and they can also completely make up people as well.  The Jews were notorious for creating history, and inventing characters, especially using the Torah over and over, recycling tropes.  The Gospels are just recycled tropes.  Consult the following authorities:

Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth ; The Early History of the Israelite People; The Mythic Past; The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives; Niels Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition; Miller-Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah; Phillip Davies, In Search of "Ancient Israel"; Matthews-Benjamin, Old Testament Paralles: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East; James Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement; Giovanni Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel; Myth and History in the Bible; John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History; Gosta Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine; Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (To name a few)

It wasn't only the Jews who did this.  We have hundreds if not thousands of manuscripts from Greeks and Romans who euhemerized mythical figures into historical settings.  Aside from the Aeneid, the Homeric Epics, the poems of Euripides, Astrophanes, and others, we also have Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian mythological characters placed into history as well.  This was commonplace.

 You historicists are all bonkers some time.  You get so caught up in trying to prove your myth, you ignore the obvious theological messages behind the plots.  The plots themselves are literary functions, and help support a constant theme that has existed since the Sumerians - the conquest of life over death.  This theme is continuously echoed in every mythology since their Istar-Tammuz (Kramar, ibid.).  The theological story of the Gospels is brilliant, and gives us incredible insight into not only the theological mindsets of the authors, but how the authors differed in terms of theology (again a reason why such incompatibilities exist in the NT is partly because each Gospel writer had different theologies).     

In trying to historicize these events (and indeed, you can't), you are completely missing the whole point behind them.  When I can go through the whole Gospel of Mark and show you a parallel almost word for word from the OT, that does not bode well for your claim that Jesus was historical. 

I'll tell you what.  Let's JUST take the first chapter of Mark.

 

GOS. ACCORDING TO MARK

OLD TESTAMENT PARALELLS

MEANINGS

& REASONS

CHAPTER 1

 

The Prophecy of John the Baptist, and how he will come before the Lord…

 

Mark 1:1-3, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight—’”

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1

 

Mal. 3:1, “Lo, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me; and suddenly there will come to the temple the Lord whom you seek, and the messenger of the covenant whom you desire.”

Mal. 3:23, “Lo, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the day of the Lord comes…”

Is. 40:3, “A voice cries out; In the desert prepare the way of the Lord! Make straight in the wasteland a highway for our God!”

Ex. 23:20-21, “See, I am sending an angel before you, to guard you on the way and bring you to the place I have prepared.”

CHAPTER 1

 

John is Elijah.  The author of Mark was trying to show through reinterpreting scripture that John was Elijah returned. 

 

Jesus has no virgin birth here, he simply comes out of the wilderness and is baptized.  Why there is no birth narrative is simple, according to the Leviticus 12:1-8, childbirth is unclean. 

John is Baptizing – people are coming to him.  This is significant, it means that the author of Mark was aware that the Jews were participating in baptismal rites.

 

 -- John is wearing camels hair clothing and a leather belt around his waist. (Mark 1:6)

 

He says he is not worthy to untie Jesus’ sandals.

This is similar to Elijah in 2 Kings 1:8, “They answered him, ‘he wore a garment of hair-cloth with a girdle of leather about his loins.’”

The idea again is to paint John the Baptist as Elijah.  Mark is pulling from the Old Testament to create allegory. 

 

John the Baptizer probably is just an allegorical name (?) – maybe from an earlier tradition?

 

By saying this, again showing his obedience and inferiority.  The sandals represent the same sort of practice that was required of Aaron, Moses and Joshua before meeting with God - the removal of the sandals before entering into their presence. 

 

Is. 11:2, “And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.”

Is. 42:1, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.”

Is. 61:1, “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;”

Ps. 2:7, “I will tell you the degree of the Lord, he said to me, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you.”

Ex. 4:22-23, “So you shall say to Pharaoh, Thus says the Lord; Israel is my son, my first born. Hence I tell you, let my son go, that he may serve me.  If you refuse to let him go, I warn you, I will kill your son, your first born.”

The use of Isaiah should now be established, it should be clear that the author of Mark had a copy of scripture, or access to it, in order to produce his manuscript.

 

Jesus was representative of the Israelites, as he is the new Moses, as Moses was representative of Israelites.

The Temptation in the Wilderness – 40 Days

 

Angels ministered to him amongst the temptations, (Mark 1:13)

Ex. 14:19, “Then the angel of God who was going before the host of Israel moved and went behind them, and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them”

Ex. 23:20, “Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared.”

1 Kings 19:4-8, “But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness and came and sat down under a broom tree. And he asked that he might die, saying, "It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life, for I am no better than my fathers." And he lay down and slept under a broom tree. And behold, an angel touched him and said to him, "Arise and eat." And he looked, and behold, there was at his head a cake baked on hot stones and a jar of water. And he ate and drank and lay down again. And the angel of the Lord came again a second time and touched him and said, "Arise and eat, for the journey is too great for you." And he arose and ate and drank, and went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to Horeb, the mount of God.”

This seems to be another theme by which the author of Mark is making the correlation between Jesus and the Old Testament.  Again the allegory here is prevalent and would have been understood by the people reading it.

 

The use of 40 seems to have a strong importance to the scriptures.  Apparently, it rained for 40 days (Gen. 7:4), both Isaac and Esau were 40 when they married (Gen. 25:20; 26:34), The Israelites were in the desert eating manna for 40 years (Ex. 16:35), Moses went up Mt. Sinai for 40 days (Ex. 24:18), Moses wrote down the laws of the covenant for 40 days without food or drink (Ex. 34:28), God sent those that spied 40 years in the wilderness until that generation died off (Num. 32:13), God stated that he had been with the Israelites for their 40 years of wondering and had lacked nothing (Deut. 2:7), God gave the Israelites to the hands of the Philistines for 40 years (Judges 13:1), David reigned 40 years (2 Sam. 5:4; 1 Kings 2:11).

 

The most important incident was Elijah, who went into the wilderness, had angels attend to him, and did so for forty days.

Jesus begins his ministry; calls his first disciples in Mark 1:16-20, “Passing alongside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men." And immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. And immediately he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants and followed him.”

1 Kings 19:19-21, “So he departed from there and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen in front of him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and cast his cloak upon him. And he left the oxen and ran after Elijah and said, "Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you." And he said to him, "Go back again, for what have I done to you?" And he returned from following him and took the yoke of oxen and sacrificed them and boiled their flesh with the yokes of the oxen and gave it to the people, and they ate. Then he arose and went after Elijah and assisted him.”

The recruitment of John and James in Mark is recalling Elijah’s recruitment in 1 Kings of Elisha.  Again, the author of Mark continues to prove no historical knowledge, rather, he continues to play off of old traditions and legends from scripture.

 

This is just from chapter 1.  This is the story in which the opther stories are based on, and build upon, but even they do a very good job of using tropes from the Old Testament.  12 disciples are a literary trope as well - just as Moses chose 12 men to lead the tribes of israel, Jesus too chooses twelve men to lead Israel.  He also calls them in the same way Elijah calls Elisha, and others.  It's fitting in the way of 1 Samuel, when Jesus calls, they answer.  (Here I am, Lord!)  But they are lost, and the authors of the Gospels make the disciples out to be blundering idiots most of the time, and this is done to enhance Jesus as a character, but also make those characters who are special recycled tropes stand out, and seem spectacular.  In every miracle, every healing, every event in the Gospels can be traced back to the Old Testament, literally and allegorically.  

Like I said, in your quest to try to historicize these events you fail to understand the real message behind the Gospels, and the reason they exist.  You take them from meaningful, masterful theological allegory, and turn them into dispicable wastes if paper and make them all out to be horrible historians who lie and add to the text to better an agenda.  IN all reality, I think by trying to historicize the Gospel events, and even jesus, YOU are making the original Christians out to be fools and liars.  I see them for what they were: Hellenized Jews who sought to better their positions by building morale through the written word.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:

Christos wrote:

 

First of all, this is not a divided question among historians. The overwhleming majority of scholars accept that Jesus was a historical figure. Lets see who Rook listed on these threads as people agreeing with the mythicist position: Richard Carrier (historian), Robert Price (expert in Biblical studies), Sam Harris (philosophy major/ atheist author), Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist). So, we have one historian, a scientist, and a philosopher. Price doesn't really count because you can't be a complete mythicist and be a member of the Jesus Seminar. So...yeah....not a whole lot of division.

What matters is the reason why most historians accept a historical Jesus. If they don't have a good grounds for doing so, their belief matters little.

There isn't any evidence of there ever being contemporary accounts for a Jesus, the Christ.

By the way, you misrepresented Rook's case. Every "Rook critic" who comes to this site seems to do the same thing: criticize Rook without actually bothering to read what he actually says.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
This thread title is a

This thread title is a lie. Most, if not all educated atheists I have debated in threads and chat rooms since 02 believe in the historical Jesus. The only exception has been here on this website. Even Anthony Flew, who was considered the worlds foremost philosphical atheist, and the father of the modern atheist movement, believed in the historical Christ before he renounced atheism -- He is now a theist. Most atheists don't know this.

Most atheists here aren't aware of the fact that the mythicist theory has been completely rejected by contemporary scholarship. The only ones pontificating the mythicist lie, are non-historians on the internet. Stop listening to those crackpots, like Carrier, and read a book by a REAL historian.

JAROSLAV PELIKAN (2006)

 Was considered the worlds foremost expert on Christian history and the development of doctrine. He received 42 honary doctorates, awards and honors from Bill Clinton, the Library of Congress, and the U. S. Government. He also received the JOHN W. KLUGE prize. This is the equivalent of the Nobel Prize awarded to the Humanities.

Read his five-volume set, "THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION".

Also, read "THE BAKER ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS," by Norman Geisler. It refutes everysingle atheist argument ever leveled against Christian theism.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
This thread title is a

This thread title is a lie. Most, if not all educated atheists I have debated in threads and chat rooms since 02 believe in the historical Jesus. The only exception has been here on this website.

We'll see.

Even Anthony Flew, who was considered the worlds foremost philosphical atheist, and the father of the modern atheist movement, believed in the historical Christ before he renounced atheism -- He is now a theist. Most atheists don't know this.

He's not a Christian now, though. Most people who drop his name pretend not to know this. 

Most atheists here aren't aware of the fact that the mythicist theory has been completely rejected by contemporary scholarship. The only ones pontificating the mythicist lie, are non-historians on the internet. Stop listening to those crackpots, like Carrier, and read a book by a REAL historian.

JAROSLAV PELIKAN (2006)

You continue with an appeal from authority. Rook's book will be up for scrutiny when it's released, so deal with the specific claims in it then. Or follow whatever middlebrow arbiter I know you will.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon is just dodging

Apotheon is just dodging because he is simply not well read enough to keep up with me.  When theists like him can't keep up, all they can do is make baseless assertions and pretend to know what they are talking about.  He doesn't realize we're not as gullible as he is, and will not succumb to the pseudo-intellectualism he hopes to be taken as knowledge.  Nice try.  But if you can't handle the heat...you know the rest.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Freethinkaluva
Freethinkaluva's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2006-06-10
User is offlineOffline
magilum "Most, if not all

magilum "Most, if not all educated atheists I have debated in threads and chat rooms since 02 believe in the historical Jesus."

- Anyone believing in a historical Jesus must do so not because of the evidence but despite the lack of evidence for Jesus.

"Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it."
~ C. Dennis McKinsey  

Apotheon "Most atheists here aren't aware of the fact that the mythicist theory has been completely rejected by contemporary scholarship. The only ones pontificating the mythicist lie, are non-historians on the internet. Stop listening to those crackpots, like Carrier, and read a book by a REAL historian."

Utter bullshit!

I am tired of people claiming to be experts on the Jesus myth while in reality, they know NOTHING about it - they know nothing about the history of it at all. Despite the lies the Jesus myth has been around even from the very beginning of the Christian era.

"...Contrary to popular belief, the idea that Jesus Christ is a mythical character is not new: In fact, the questioning and doubting of the gospel tale started at the beginning of the Christian era and has been continued by thousands, if not millions, since then. The historicization and carnalization of the Christ character was fought by the Docetic Gnostics, and the disbelief was addressed by early orthodox Christians as well, including the writers of the canonical epistles of John. Indeed, 1 John 4 condemns as "antichrists" those "spirits" who do not confess that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh," as does 2 John 7, which says:

    "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Many, says 2 John, have contested the historicity of Jesus Christ, even by his day. Obviously, therefore, this dissension began with the dawn of the Christianity..."
http://www.truthbeknown.com/cutner.htm

Anyone who is serious about the Jesus myth position needs to read the work of Acharya ESPECIALLY "Suns of God" and her new book "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" where she sets aside astrotheology and mythology focusing on the Gospels. Maintaining an almost all Christian bibliography admitting in their own words that when it comes to Jesus, they've got nothing. The foreword is by Dr. Robert Price.

"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Freethinkaluva,  While I

Freethinkaluva,

 While I appreciate your zeal, please understand that anybody who is serious about Jesus mythicism needs to read more than Acharya.  In fact, I think they should skip ALL books dealing with mythicism, and first read the Bible cover to cover, and then study Koine and Coptic, and then read several hundred books on the social-cultural period from the dawning of the Hellenistic Age through the Council of Nicea (a good 600 year period), andafter they do this, they need to finger through the hundreds of literary works including pseudopigrapha and apocrypha, religious texts, poetry, inscriptions and dedications of multiple types of cultures, and then AFTER they gain all this knowledge, and have read all these things, then, they should perhaps consider the works of the Mythicists like Price, Carrier and Acharya (although, I really disagree with a lot of what Acharya says).  

Serious students need to do serious research.  Taking a shortcut i.e. reading mythicist books alone will not give them any more advanced knowledge or education, it will only give them a broad understanding, and to this day nobody - NOBODY - has written a definitive work on the mythicist case.  That is what I am doing.  So you get all of this information, and not just the arguments.  But it should never end just there, and nor should it start there.  It needs to start with educating yourself on the sociology of the time period, and build up from there.   

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Anthony Mallare
Anthony Mallare's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-10-19
User is offlineOffline
I believe that Britney

I believe that Britney Spears exists as a person but I don't believe she can sing, dance or act, despite thousands of people who claim in person and in print that she can do these things.

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Well that is because of the

Well that is because of the tomes of evidence you have for her existence (maybe you even have a ticket stub or two from a live concert, maybe not).  But even still this is irrelevant.

 I'm not even saying it's necessarily wrong for people to believe Jesus was a real person.  Because it was antiquity, we don't have any way of verifying to any absolute degree, anything related to naturalistic events.  (We can rule out supernaturalism based on its irrelevancy and its lack of evidence even in todays age)  It is actually okay to assume the existence of a historical person even when there is very little evidence.  And perhaps if, as Richard Carrier might say, there were only ten very odd things amiss with Jesus, I would probably still consider him to have lived.  It's when you start getting into the hundreds of problems with accepting the existence of a historical Jesus where one should start doubting.  

The evidence I have given above is sufficient for one to start seriously questioning the existence of a historical Jesus.  I will use another example, let's look at Job.  Job was written by an anonymous author, the dating is speculative (as is all dating concerning the Bible). But Job certainly was not a historical person, he was a literary invention specifically made to run through a series of theological points.  (Here is a question you all might be interested in pondering:  The character if Job obviously believed in God...but do you think the author of Job did?)    

The same is true for the Gospels.  Anyway, I've really made my case above.  I think people should start considering what I've said, before continuing to make comments that seem off base, or are too grandiose to claim in the first place. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Freethinkaluva
Freethinkaluva's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2006-06-10
User is offlineOffline
Rook, you may have missed my point

Rook, you may have missed my point there. I never thought in a million years that anybody would take what I said to mean, only read Acharya. Interestingly enough, she does actually cover most of what you mentioned plus more. She has certainly performed a lot of very serious investigations. I don't follow when you say "short cut" because that is not in any way what Acharya does.

My point was that it is sad that so many here dismiss her and her work based on straw man fallacies, ad homs, false assumptions and lies when she actually has so much to offer what you've got going here. It seems to be a monumental disservice to the cause.

BTW, You've never actually read any of her work have you. She is certainly one of the best mythicists around.

In "Who Was Jesus?: Fingerprints of The Christ" Acharya sets aside mythology, astrotheology to specifically deal with the Gospels where Acharya shares commentary by various Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars. WWJ, comprises of 168 books and articles most of which are again, from conservative and respected sources, and many of them are Christian, dating back to the earliest times through to today.

A comment I found in Who Was Jesus:

"...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."
~ John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew," vol. II, 5.

* Dr. Meier is a Catholic University New Testament professor, ex-Catholic priest and monsignor

"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
That is a problem,

That is a problem, Freethinkaluva.  Astrotheology is her ONLY explanation for the myths of the BIble - but they are false.  The explanation is bunk.  And her books are short cuts.  I'm not a fan, and I'll never be a fan until she presents a better position for mythicism.  So far, you have claimed a lot and proved nothing.  You are simply peddling a book of pseudotruths.  You need to stop.  You don't know what real historical research entails, you just think you do.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Freethinkaluva
Freethinkaluva's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2006-06-10
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: That is

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
That is a problem, Freethinkaluva. Astrotheology is her ONLY explanation for the myths of the BIble - but they are false. The explanation is bunk. And her books are short cuts. I'm not a fan, and I'll never be a fan until she presents a better position for mythicism. So far, you have claimed a lot and proved nothing. You are simply peddling a book of pseudotruths. You need to stop. You don't know what real historical research entails, you just think you do.

You said something similar to me in the other thread. You missed my point. I'm not in competition with you. Nor am I in a race to see who is more arrogant or who has the bigger ego. You win as I'm not interested. I'm simply trying to help your cause for "The Jesus Mythicist Campaign" which I think is a great Idea.

I'm merely pointing out that Acharya has plenty to offer. I think it's a disservice to the cause to purposely leave her out due to your own biases, fallacies, ad homs and false assumptions. You could allow others make that decision for themselves instead of trying to make that decision for them - which is exactly what theists do. It's sad and I thought you'd want to know.

I've yet to see anyone here who has made disparaging remarks about her work actually read her work. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

You've already admitted that you haven't read "Suns of God" and I  doubt you really read Christ Con either beyond online articles or skimming through.

You haven't disproven any of her astrotheological aspects and she has demonstrated in SoG where her info comes from. You say it's false and bunk but admit you haven't actually read it. 

She has the approval of Price and Doherty and many other scholars much better at this than you are - not trying to piss you off just being honest. I'm not fighting against you here. I see that you're making a monumental mistake and thought you'd want to know. Clearly you're not interested, you'd rather travel down that road towards bias and bigotry and expect others to follow you. I'm just saying that Acharya has a lot to offer even if you don't agree with everything and once you get passed all of the mainstream "accepted" academia in about 20 years, you'll realize Acharya actually knew what she was talking about. Again, I thought you'd just want to know. Your loss.

Cheers 

"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Freethinkaluva

Freethinkaluva wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
That is a problem, Freethinkaluva. Astrotheology is her ONLY explanation for the myths of the BIble - but they are false. The explanation is bunk. And her books are short cuts. I'm not a fan, and I'll never be a fan until she presents a better position for mythicism. So far, you have claimed a lot and proved nothing. You are simply peddling a book of pseudotruths. You need to stop. You don't know what real historical research entails, you just think you do.

You said something similar to me in the other thread. You missed my point. I'm not in competition with you. Nor am I in a race to see who is more arrogant or who has the bigger ego. You win as I'm not interested. I'm simply trying to help your cause for "The Jesus Mythicist Campaign" which I think is a great Idea.

 

Good, but you're not helping. You're promoting the same horrible scholarship this campaign was started to remove from mythicism. 

Quote:
I'm merely pointing out that Acharya has plenty to offer. I think it's a disservice to the cause to purposely leave her out due to your own biases, fallacies, ad homs and false assumptions.

Because you know nothing about me, nor do you seem to have any clue what you're talking about, I'll let this slide. 

Quote:
You could allow others make that decision for themselves instead of trying to make that decision for them - which is exactly what theists do. It's sad and I thought you'd want to know.

 

Says the Acharaya S Parrot.

Quote:
I've yet to see anyone here who has made disparaging remarks about her work actually read her work. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

Price was NOT a fan of her earlier books, he criticized them harshly.  Wake the fuck up dude.  Carrier certainly doesn't support her, and he is a historian - Price is a theologian.  And Price has been wrong on more then one thing.  He also promotes Frank Zindler, and although Frank and I are friends and colleagues, not everything Frank says is accurate either.  You have this obsession with trying to prove Acharaya right - I'm telling you, she isn't.  And I have read more then you realize on this subject - that is why I'm being peer reviewed, and makes me wonder why Acharaya was not.

Quote:
You've already admitted that you haven't read "Suns of God" and I doubt you really read Christ Con either beyond online articles or skimming through.

Even if I hadn't, the outlines are enough to show she is clueless. 

Quote:
You haven't disproven any of her astrotheological aspects and she has demonstrated in SoG where her info comes from.

That is because she hasn't done enough to provide evidence her position is accurate.  She is sloppy.  She might well be right - but she doesn't go about it correctly.  If you had any sense of scholarship and what it means to Peer Review, perhaps you'd get with the program.

Quote:
You say it's false and bunk but admit you haven't actually read it.

No, I admit I didn't read her new book, which to me sounds like nothing but quotes from authors, while she plugs her astrotheology hype - which is nothing but sensationalism. 

Quote:
She has the approval of Price and Doherty and many other scholars much better at this than you are

First, Doherty is NOT a scholar.  He admits this.  He wrote books, yes, and they are excellent.  But they are not foolproof, and certainly not at all 100% correct.  He makes some errors, and is humble and honest enough to admit that he had, in fact, made some grievous claims.  Although he majored in classical studies, he doesn't work in the field, and for a long time he hadn't.  That isn't to say his work is not valuable - it is.  

Second, Price and I are aslo friends.  But Price makes some claims I have a hard time swallowing.  For example, the dating of Pauls Epistles is beyond fringe.  The top two textual critics who ever lived, Bart Ehrman and the late Bruce Metzger both adequately dated the epistles to the time of the first century.  Price is an advocate of the Dutch Radicals, like Van Manen and Thomas Whitaker, both of whom were great for their day, but who represent a position and time in redaktiongeschichte long since put down by new discoveries, translations, and manuscripts.  Their work is outdated by decades.

What makes them "better" at this then me?  You don't even know me.  You walk into this message board, and tote opinions of a person who I am familiar with, and their positions on astrotheology, which has absolutely no solid foundation, and you think you know it all.  Then you claim that Price and Doherty are better then I am.  Says who?  Price is, certainly, more experienced.  And I would consider him a mighty scholar, but he is a theologian, not a historian.  And as I've said, there are things I very strongly disagree with concerning Price's views.  

And as stated before, Price has criticized Acharaya for a long time, and the only reason he has really supported her is because he was the one who straightened her out (in a sense of steering her in the right direction)!  I've read his review of her book, and know her downsides.  She's a sloppy scholar.  

I have two scholars actively engaged in peer reviewing my book, and three others who I could call on for peer review as well.  It's also being peer reviewed by the editor of the Copenhagen Monograph Series.  Acharaya S cannot make that same claim.     

Quote:
- not trying to piss you off just being honest.

You're not pissing me off for dissenting.  I'm not mad at all.  You are just showing your ignorance, and I'm finer with that.  No skin off my back. 

Quote:
I'm not fighting against you here.

No, you may not think so.  But this is the sort of scholarship and ignorance I am trying to combat.  So like it or not, you're an "enemy" in my eyes.  You're who I am trying to stand against.  You are going about mythicist research completely the wrong way, and you don't even get that. 

Quote:
I see that you're making a monumental mistake and thought you'd want to know.

Let's not have a "who screwed up more" contest.  Believe me, you don't want that. 

Quote:
Clearly you're not interested, you'd rather travel down that road towards bias and bigotry and expect others to follow you.

Clearly you have no concept with who you are talking too.  Again, anybody who reads this, who has listened to me for five minutes, would disagree with you. 

Quote:
I'm just saying that Acharya has a lot to offer even if you don't agree with everything and once you get passed all of the mainstream "accepted" academia in about 20 years, you'll realize Acharya actually knew what she was talking about. Again, I thought you'd just want to know. Your loss.

You don't even know what Mainstream Academia is.  You are completely clueless, and you're lecturing somebody who actually does know what it is and is a part of the process.  I'll admit, you have some balls, but you seem to be missing the the most vital organ, or maybe you're just not using it.  Get with the program, you are making yourself look silly, and nobody else who has ever met me would agree with any of your conclusions here.  

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:

Apotheon wrote:

This thread title is a lie. Most, if not all educated atheists I have debated in threads and chat rooms since 02 believe in the historical Jesus. The only exception has been here on this website. Even Anthony Flew, who was considered the worlds foremost philosphical atheist, and the father of the modern atheist movement, believed in the historical Christ before he renounced atheism -- He is now a theist. Most atheists don't know this.

False. He announced that he was a deist, not a theist. You're wrong. Again. As usual.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html

You tend to claim that others are ignorant when the evidence points towards your own ignorance. 

Quote:

Most atheists here aren't aware of the fact that the mythicist theory has been completely rejected by contemporary scholarship.

Again, this is false. It has not been 'completely rejected' by contemporary scholarship. It's just that most CHRISTIAN scholars tend to accept an actual jesus. What a shock! A christian accepting that there was a christ. Ever bother to think through how stupid that point actually sounds?

What matters is whether they have a good argument to bolster their belief. They do not. Stop arguing to numbers, the fact that a billion muslims believe in Allah means nothing to you, the fact that Christian scholars accept an actual jesus based on bad reasoning means nothing to us. 

You tend to assert things out of ignorance. You oughta stop that. For your own sake. It makes you look ridiculous. Next you'll be telling us that there's actually a burden of evidence of the mythicist when all mythicism requires is a valid argument from silence.

No, you won't make that stupid of a mistake, wil you? No, come on... 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Freethinkaluva

Freethinkaluva wrote:
magilum "Most, if not all educated atheists I have debated in threads and chat rooms since 02 believe in the historical Jesus."

- Anyone believing in a historical Jesus must do so not because of the evidence but despite the lack of evidence for Jesus.

"Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it."
~ C. Dennis McKinsey

Apotheon "Most atheists here aren't aware of the fact that the mythicist theory has been completely rejected by contemporary scholarship. The only ones pontificating the mythicist lie, are non-historians on the internet. Stop listening to those crackpots, like Carrier, and read a book by a REAL historian."

Utter bullshit!

I am tired of people claiming to be experts on the Jesus myth while in reality, they know NOTHING about it - they know nothing about the history of it at all.

 

You know nothing about it at all, and it shows. The fact that the argument is not new is not important and is not news to us.

Whether the argument is old or not is not a valid counter argument, it's the fallacy of appealing to antiquity, Argumentum ad antiquitatem. This is the fallacy of asserting that something is wrong simply because it's old.

What actually matters is the present state of the argument, in short: is it a good one? And it remains true that there is NO evidence of there ever being any contemporary accounts of an actual Jesus.

So please stop wasting the board's time with inept argument.

Quote:


Anyone who is serious about the Jesus myth position needs to read the work of Acharya ESPECIALLY "Suns of God" and her new book "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" where she sets aside astrotheology and mythology focusing on the Gospels. Maintaining an almost all Christian bibliography admitting in their own words that when it comes to Jesus, they've got nothing. The foreword is by Dr. Robert Price.

You've got it so backwards it's hilarious. Mythicist don't have to have 'anything' in the first place, they merely have to show that christians have nothing!  And there is NO evidence of there ever being any contemporary accounts of a jesus. The burden of proof is on the christian; he mythicist merely needs to demonstrate what already is known: no actual evidence for there being any contemporary accounts of jesus.

Stop embarrassing yourself with these miserably inept arguments... you can't even work out where the burden of evidence lies, and this just proves how ignorant you are.

No evidence of there being any contemporary evidence/no provenance, no case.

The only one who needs to read here is you. Stop making yourself look ridiculous.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus

Mythicism relies on a valid argument from silence. When a claim is of an exceptional or extraordinary nature, yet is made in the absence of any evidence, the claim is likely to be false. Claiming to have flown over NYC at lunchtime, yet being unable to provide any evidence, would lead to people rejecting the claim.

(I await you telling me that all arguments from silence are invalid, this will complete your trifecta of ignorance.)

How to make an Argument from Silence

According to Gilbert Garraghan (A Guide to Historical Method, 1946, p. 149)

To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer[s] whose silence is invoked would certainly have known about it; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.

In addition, the historian Richard Carrier suggests two additional criteria to strengthen an argument from silence:

1) Whether or not it is common for men to create similar myths.

It is prima facie true that this is the case. History is replete not only with 'god' claims, but with claims for messiah status.

2) The claim is of an extraordinary nature, it violates what we already know of nature.

(Important note: this is not to rule out extraordinary claims, a priori.)

 

The mythicist argument meets all four criteria.

Also see:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html#General

Carrier writes:
There are two ways to "prove" ahistoricity:

(1) If you can demonstrate that there is both (a) insufficient evidence to believe x and (b) sufficient evidence to disbelieve x, then it is reasonable to disbelieve x. This is the "Argument from Silence."

(2) If you can demonstrate that all the evidence can be far better accounted for by a theory (y) other than historicity (theory x), then it is reasonable to believe y and, consequently, to disbelieve x. This is the "Argument to the Best Explanation."

For more on evidential arguments from silence: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/methodology/outline/silence.html

 

Again, each of your posts points to our basic ignorance on these matters. You come here to announce blatant errors, or things we already knew well before you stumbled onto our boards. Stop making an ass of yourself.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Freethinkaluva
Freethinkaluva's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2006-06-10
User is offlineOffline
Gotchya todangst, Thanks

Gotchya todangst,

Thanks for that bit of info!  I appreciate that. (Just so we're square, I was already fully aware)

Now, for the record, have you actually read any of Acharya's books - *NOT* online articles which do not contain all of the details? Especially "Suns of God" and or her new book "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ"?

"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm