Noah's Ark

[Obliquinaut]

Does this Egyptian school believe Jesus never existed, or only that His divinity is a myth?

"Jesus as myth" doesn't give enough information.

I believe it works on a variety of levels: that Jesus didn't actually exist. There are some variants that indicate Jesus is a later creation of worshippers using a variety of older ideas or religious myths recast to make a new "savior".

There's a concept that Justin Martyr (2nd Century CE) and a few others coined called "Diabolical Mimicry" to explain why some found the parallels between the story of Jesus and a few earlier pagan faiths. I believe if I recall Justin Martyr's reasoning it was such that the devil forecast Jesus arrival so he planted various pagan religions that would bear resemblances to the Christ story in order to lead people to error in thinking that the Jesus story was just a repackaging of these older pagan stories. (you can read more about Justin Martyr and his writings here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Justin Martyr)

 

[Obliquinaut]

I knew intuitively that lying, stealing, committing adultery, conspiracy, dishonoring parents, was wrong before I ever opened a bible. The rest I confirmed as I went along (and still confirmin").

Indeed. Most humans are able to arrive at a very workable set of ethics and morality even in the absence of a holy book or God. Which is why it is so annoying to many atheists to hear that we can't possibly have morals because we don't believe in God.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm not particularly convinced but only because I really don't follow it that much. I've read more than just Wikipedia and will likely spend some time reading more on this topic. I'm willing to go with the majority consensus opinion, so long as it seems reasonable. And since I'm not a Christology scholar I'm open to reading more.

There are all sorts of people writing about the historical Jesus. Most of them just take his historicity for granted, and don't bother to argue against the Jesus myth-ers, because they are not taken seriously in academia. However, somebody who does tackle them head on is Bart Ehrman.

 

[Obliquinaut]

There are all sorts of people writing about the historical Jesus. Most of them just take his historicity for granted, and don't bother to argue against the Jesus myth-ers, because they are not taken seriously in academia. However, somebody who does tackle them head on is Bart Ehrman.

I've read a couple of Ehrman books. He is a compelling writer. I liked his stuff.

 

[AV1611VET]

And how many times do you need to be told that various hypotheses have been eliminated and the one that still exists is the collision model?

As many times as I have to tell you they have a new one.

Do they put these hypotheses out to the public just for show?

If the collision model is so strong that any new hypothesis is automatically discarded, why advertise it to us?

Is it just to give it some post-mortem dignity or something?

Should we be mourning for those hypotheses?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is interesting I suppose. I am fascinated to learn that the majority of these scholars now take the historicity of Jesus to be accurate. As such I'm willing to change my view. Not sure why this is so problematic for you.

I'm open to considering.

I'm not particularly convinced but only because I really don't follow it that much.

Okay, chief, thank you.

I'm sorry, but I stopped right there.

You changed your mind ... good for you.

I don't need six paragraphs detailing what you went through.

I'm proud of you. Let's leave it at that, eh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As many times as I have to tell you they have a new one.

Do they put these hypotheses out to the public just for show?

If the collision model is so strong that any new hypothesis is automatically discarded, why advertise it to us?

Is it just to give it some post-mortem dignity or something?

Should we be mourning for those hypotheses?

What are you complaining about now? The scientific method is an open process. In the real world we have to figure out the answers to problems ourselves. This same sort of searching for correct answers is repeated in all of the sciences. Why do you focus on so few and complain when you won't let yourself understand?

 

[AV1611VET]

Most of them just take his historicity for granted, and don't bother to argue against the Jesus myth-ers, because they are not taken seriously in academia.

Are you kidding me?

Did you not read what I have been posting from Wikipedia?

Here it is again:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,

Evidently they took it seriously enough to corroborate and come to consensus of opinion.

I'd say a lot of work went into that decision.

And you just handwave it away as 'not taken seriously in academia'?

LOL

 

[AV1611VET]

What are you complaining about now?

Can you tell me what year this theory was ... as you put it ... "eliminated"?

Earth Had Two Moons

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you kidding me?

Did you not read what I have been posting from Wikipedia?

Here it is again:


Evidently they took it seriously enough to corroborate and come to consensus of opinion.

I'd say a lot of work went into that decision.

And you just handwave it away as 'not taken seriously in academia'?

LOL

Did you ever stop to think that the number of "Jesus as myth" believers was very very small? And in academia there is no penalty for having the wrong answer if one gets convinced that he is wrong. We would constantly be losing very good academics if that was the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you tell me what year this theory was ... as you put it ... "eliminated"?

Earth Had Two Moons

That is a hypothesis and is very new. It is not a theory. It has not even been accepted by any large number as far as I know.


Why do you keep grasping at straw? The answer won't be found there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you ever stop to think that the number of "Jesus as myth" believers was very very small?

To be honest, I didn't know there were any still around.

I always thought those kind of people investigated before they communicated, but I guess not.

 

[lesliedellow]

Are you kidding me?

Did you not read what I have been posting from Wikipedia?

Here it is again:


Evidently they took it seriously enough to corroborate and come to consensus of opinion.

There was no grand committee meeting called to settle the question. It was a consensus which emerged over time.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is a hypothesis and is very new. It is not a theory.

So until then, the collision theory is BMOC ... is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying the collision theory is the OMOC?

 

[AV1611VET]

There was no grand committee meeting called to settle the question. It was a consensus which emerged over time.

Ah ... the silent minority ... got it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And yet they will quote the Bible elsewhere to say that "they are without excuse". One cannot have it both ways.

...sure they can have it both ways, once one understands that there is a difference between the nature of General Revelation and Special Revelation.

This is interesting I suppose. I am fascinated to learn that the majority of these scholars now take the historicity of Jesus to be accurate. As such I'm willing to change my view. Not sure why this is so problematic for you.

I'm open to considering.

I'm not particularly convinced but only because I really don't follow it that much. I've read more than just Wikipedia and will likely spend some time reading more on this topic. I'm willing to go with the majority consensus opinion, so long as it seems reasonable. And since I'm not a Christology scholar I'm open to reading more.

If I were debating against a person who had ZERO understanding of say, Global Climate Change, I would make the argument that barring any actual knowledge or understanding of the technical topic one would be wisest to go with the consensus of the professionals in that area.

And you'd be wise to do so when considering science in general. But in philosophy and theology (and maybe even sometimes in science), the one you'd want to likely listen to is the one who has the best explanation, that is the one who incorporates the most factors, data, or addresses the most questions and brings the most coherent understanding to our view.

As such in this case I'm going with what I read which questions the reality of Christ (or rather the lack of contemporary documentary evidence) which seems reasonable. But if the consensus is such that it is largely agreed among professional scholars in this area then I'm more than happy to read that information and until that time I will gladly default to their consensus. It would be irrational for me to do otherwise.

One's level of rationality, and the criteria on which it is supposedly demonstrated, is always up for debate. [And not that I'm up for debating it at the moment, but it is something that is always present for us to consider--the means as well as the ends.]

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be honest, I didn't know there were any still around.

I always thought those kind of people investigated before they communicated, but I guess not.

Sure there are still a few. Some of them are even serious academicians. Richard Carrier is a fairly big name in that area. He lectures on the topic:

Richard Carrier - Wikipedia

I am sure that I could find some YouTube talks of his. To me the subject does not matter that much so I have not investigated either side too much and as a result I tend to ignore the matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

...sure they can have it both ways, once one understands that there is a difference between the nature of General Revelation and Special Revelation.

Yes, Christians can make up all sorts of nonsense to support their beliefs. That does not make them right.

You still can't have it both ways.

 

[lesliedellow]

Ah ... the silent minority ... got it.

What are you babbling about? To the extent that "Jesus never existed" was ever part of the academic mainstream, it died the death in the 1930s.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, Christians can make up all sorts of nonsense to support their beliefs. That does not make them right.

You still can't have it both ways.

You can if the concepts are qualified as they should be, and as they can be understood to be by those who care enough to understand. But......I do understand your annoyance and being told you "have no excuse." I personally do think non-believers have some margin for excuse. I even think Paul the Apostle would agree, even though he is the one who wrote "they are without excuse!"

Just something to think about, Subduction Zone. I know that theology isn't your cup of tea, so I don't blame you if it gets a bit frustrating to hear Christians say this, that and the other.

But, they can have it both ways, especially when you might see that we're not really dealing with an 'excluded middle.'