ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags historical jesus , jesus

Reply
Old Yesterday, 10:02 PM   #2161
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,478
The numerous cults of Christians today are perfect examples to show that the start of a Christian cult does not require an historical Jesus Christ ONLY belief in the stories about a supernatural character.

No Christian today has seen Jesus of Nazareth but they believe the Bible stories that he was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, that he and the Devil were together in Jerusalem, that he walked on water, transfigured in the presence of the resurrected Moses and Elijah, that he himself was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven in a cloud.

Christians require belief -not history.

This is precisely what appears to have happened since at least the 2nd century. People fabricated a supernatural character and those who BELIEVED the stories were called Christians.

Aristides will say exactly that in his apology.

People who believe stories of Jesus, the son of God and a Virgin, were called Christians.

Aristides Apology
Quote:
Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.
It is fully evident the start of a Christian cult does not require a human Jesus just belief in the supernatural.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:18 PM   #2162
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,000
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
It doesn't matter if King David was real or not the point is Christians and Jews BELIEVED he was real AND human. So "seed of David" = human.

People can see for themselves from such posts the standard of argument being trotted out here for a HJ. What we have above is the claim that Jesus was real because quote "Christinas believed he was real".

So if you believe something, that makes it real!! Well what an amazing new discovery!
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:08 PM   #2163
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,341
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
People can see for themselves from such posts the standard of argument being trotted out here for a HJ. What we have above is the claim that Jesus was real because quote "Christinas believed he was real".

So if you believe something, that makes it real!! Well what an amazing new discovery!
People reading along know very well that that was not the argument being put forth. They can see the dishonesty in your post.

Do you ever wonder why you have to rely on such shoddy tactics to defend your position?
Brainache is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:14 AM   #2164
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,116
On the question of biases affecting the conclusion around the HJ/MJ divide:

The consensus built up by Christian scholars within academia around dates, times, meaning, interpolations and provenances of texts is largely agreed to by secular and non-Christian scholarship within academia. And leading mythicists like Dr Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty generally agree with nearly all that, with obvious exceptions to readings of certain passages.

Where you are biased and right, obviously the bias is not too relevant in explaining why you are right.

The issue for the HJ/MJ debate is that: there is no case for a HJ within academia. No-one has proposed such a case as far as I know. Dr Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" is the closest thing to that, and it isn't part of formal academia. Dr Carrier's "On the historicity of Jesus: Why we might have reason to doubt" is probably the closest thing we have on either side of the debate in the last hundred years. Before that, we had "The Historicity of Jesus: an Estimate of the Negative Argument" by Shirley Jackson Case in 1911 which examined mythicist ideas of that time.

Doherty used to say that "academia has circled the wagons against the mythicist theory because they were scared of the strength of the mythicist case". But the truth is that academia barely knows the mythicist theory exists. It simply isn't on its radar at the moment. The best known mythicist theory publicly is the astrotheology rubbish proposed by Acharya S and popularised by the Zeitgeist movie. And it's nonsense.

So there is no HJ case that has been made, but there should be. There have been at least three "Quests for the Historical Jesus", but they all started from the assumption that a HJ simply existed. I think the assumption is based on sound reasons, but that's neither here nor there. The assumption still needs to be firmly grounded within academia. As far as I know, that is not yet the case.

The published mythicists are their own worst enemy when it comes to promoting mythicism. With the exception of Dr Carrier, they don't debate each other on their often conflicting theories. To his credit, Carrier went to town on Acharya S's nonsense and the nonsense of other mythicists. Doherty famously complained about this. He said that mythicists shouldn't criticise each other, surely the most anti-academic thing he might have said. Doherty's and Dr RM Price's qualified support of Acharya S's work is baffling.

It's said there was no Christian orthodoxy when it came to the texts until Marcion forced it on them in the Second Century CE. Perhaps mythicists will force academia to examine the HJ case seriously for once. In fact, I think that it is actually starting to happen.

But when it comes to the idea that it is biases that stops 'HJ' scholars seeing a non-earthly Jesus in the text, it is no more true than it is bias that stops them thinking that Jesus was a Martian or had two heads. If you tell any scholar that they don't consider the idea that early Christians thought that God kept a Cosmic Sperm Bank with David's seed in it due to their biases, they will wonder what the heck you are talking about. It's not bias that stops them accepting that idea, it is that "seed of David" has an established meaning with many precedents. It's an assumption, but one based on good reasons.

Could they still be wrong? Sure. Bring on the evidence. But show that they are wrong first, before declaring 'bias'. And that's true on either side of the HJ/MJ debate. Show us that someone is wrong before trying to work out WHY they are wrong, i.e. due to biases.

/rant

Last edited by GDon; Today at 12:29 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:22 AM   #2165
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,059
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
That doesn't surprise me at all. The gospels were all written decades after the supposed Jesus lived. So these communities are popping up and saying, the guy was just here, and here are the stories.
But there is plenty of evidence for the relatively sudden beginning of the X’tian religion in that the Jesus story arose within mere decades around the time he was claimed to have lived, which speaks to it being based in an actual person. This as opposed to the evolution of the pagan gods, whose origins were grounded in animism and can be traced back many centuries.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.