Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

Bunyip · Sep 10, 2014

Legion

Not interested in the ************.

I started a thread to discuss your specific claim, go to it if you are also willing to put yer money where your big mouth is.

Defend your claim, or shut up.

I'll quote you making tbe specific claim I am questioning of you can't remember.

LegionOnomaMoi · Sep 10, 2014

Bunyip said:
I can and will back my claims, you can not.

REALLY!!!?

Bunyip said:
The most striking characteristic of any discussion on the 'myth theory' is that the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is so scant that there is little the proponant of the myth theory need contest or refute.

Back this up.

Bunyip said:
CORRECT. The difference is that in all other fields of history you do not see the inference to the best explanation constantly mistaken for proof.

Back this up. By that I mean back up both that we find this in historical Jesus research and not elsewhere.

Bunyip said:
What historical core? There is hardly a shred of evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is wishful thinking. You keep demanding a better explanation of the data - well the best explanation of the data is that it is insufficient to establish the historicity ofJesus.

Back this up.

Bunyip said:
Of course historians doubt his existence, there is barely a shred of evidence for the life of Jesus.

Back this up. Cite some historical research that indicates what "historians" do or don't doubt.

Bunyip said:
I don't beleive there is any 'radical credulity' in the scholarship over Socrates, there is next to no evidence. If you imagine that these 'radically credulous' scholars exist - why are there no articles that make the sort of silly claims about Socrates that we see in regard to Jesus?

Back this up. I already have backed up my views, but as you seem incapable of doing anything other than asserting things like:

Bunyip said:
Well my field is history.

but incapable of demonstrating the faintest familiarity with historical research, once again I ask that you support your claims without appealing to consensus (that you ignore when it suits you), me, or to your own claims. If your field is history, demonstrate that you know as much as an amateur does of the field, as so far you haven't.

LegionOnomaMoi · Sep 10, 2014

Bunyip said:
Defend your claim, or shut up.

I've defended every claim I've made. Your inability to realize that we have great evidence that Caesar was historical and that we have better evidence when it comes to modern history are not incompatible claims is just...well, a new way you can make believe your "field" is "history" while failing utterly to actually cite any research or demonstrate you have any relevant knowledge.

I've cited sources, made arguments based on sources, and addressed both historical Jesus research in particular and research on ancient history in general. You've already demonstrated your inability to back your claims. Now, you've just indicated you aren't even capable of understanding the logic relating the propositions of an argument, informal or no.

Go back to "whinging" about ad hominem attacks while having elsewhere played the victim.

Here's your responses to another:

Bunyip said:
That is just a particularly childish ad hominem attack. Why not respond with a reasoned argument instead of the schoolyard taunts?

Bunyip said:
Why not take your own advice? Rather than posting gibberish.

Or at the very least make some kind of rational argument.

Bunyip said:
My comment was pertinent and relevant, repeat the same mantra as often as you wish - it is a shamefully poor substitute for a rational response.

Here's your response to me citing sources to back my claims:

Bunyip said:
Sheesh buddy - you could whine at an Olympic level. Those two wiki pages adequately explain the two simple concepts you are clearly not familiar with, and which are relevant to this case. Stop complaining and educate yourself. And I beg you, stop posting long lists of utterly irrelevant references.

Wow mate, you sure are a gasbag. A rambling blowhard - if you really do teach, I pity your poor students. Cut out all the whining, irrelevant references and citations and just rrad what I am saying more carefully.

maxfreakout · Sep 10, 2014

Bunyip said:
Max

All of your schoolyard insults are nothing to me -do you want the quote?

Calling me names is easy, I can and will back my claims, you can not.

Ok i will try again to explain this simple point about the meaning of mythicism, since you still havent understood it

You are obsessed with this idea of Jesus being "partially" real, and partially mythic, and i am trying to explain to you why that is a logical error, since the issue of historicism vs mythicism is all-or-nothing. Jesus must be entirely historical, or else entirely mythical, there are no other possibilities. If you understood the debate, you would have already realised this and it wouldnt be necessary to spend 10 pages trying to explain it.

Key point to grasp - the concept of "partly true, partly myth" could apply to a story but it cannot apply to a person. This is because stories can be divided into parts, but people cannot be divided into parts.

This concept of partial mythicism could apply to a story because parts of the story could describe real life events while part of the story could be made up. Many people believe this about Jesus, for example the scholar Ehrman, as an atheist, holds that the supernatural elements of theJesus stories such as the virgin birth and the ressurection are not literally true, whereas certain other elements such as the crucifixion and last supper are literally true.

However the concept of partial mythicism that you keep referring back to cannot apply to a person (such as Jesus) because that is a logical category error. As i have stated repeatedly in the last 10 pages, a person cannot be less than fully real (or more than fully unreal). The only possible options are that a person (such as Jesus, or a generalised 'person x') is fully real or else fully unreal. So Jesus can either be fully real, or fully unreal, but nothing else.

Take yourself for example, are you (1)fully real, (2)fully unreal, or (3)partially real and partially unreal? - Obviously, you are (1)fully real, and option (3) is not conceivably possible.

The debate about historicism versus mythicism is about whether Jesus existed or not, it is not about whether some aspects of the Jesus stories are not literally true. Mythicists are people (such as Doherty and Carrier) who do not believe that the historical Jesus ever existed.

idav · Sep 10, 2014

maxfreakout said:
You are obsessed with this idea of Jesus being "partially" real, and partially mythic, and i am trying to explain to you why that is a logical error, since the issue of historicism vs mythicism is all-or-nothing. Jesus must be entirely historical, or else entirely mythical, there are no other possibilities. If you understood the debate, you would have already realised this and it wouldnt be necessary to spend 10 pages trying to explain it.

The other option instead of myth is Legend. Jesus is a legend.

Facts are distorted or exaggerated. Some fiction.
Legend vs Myth - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

outhouse · Sep 10, 2014

idav said:
The other option instead of myth is Legend. Jesus is a legend.

he is both.

Sapiens · Sep 10, 2014

As I posted in a similar thread:

Let's attempt to look at this rationally for a moment:

1. There are a large number of myths predating Jesus that are remarkably similar, even down to rather fine detail, to the Jesus story.

2. It is accepted that these stories are decedent, one from the other, through time, something that is made easier to accept by none of these older belief systems currently having a significant number of surviving adherents.

3. Where it not for all the Christians currently running about there would be no "Christ Myth" discussion, it would be a moot point. No one much cares about the historicity of Osiris or Hercules, etc., or if these legends have a basis in a real person or series of events.

4. I can not see why an atheist or non-Christian would care (beyond a simply academic interest) if the Jesus story had a basis in some desert sage, was descendent from similar earlier tales, or was made up out of the whole cloth, it just makes no difference.

outhouse · Sep 10, 2014

Sapiens said:
1. There are a large number of myths predating Jesus that are remarkably similar, even down to rather fine detail, to the Jesus story.

.

Sources please

idav · Sep 10, 2014

outhouse said:
he is both.

Jesus isn't the sort of myth that is like a talking donkey. A real human being that isn't a myth to which people attributed miraculous feats. Jesus became the stuff of legends, likely a historical person which we have plenty of fictions about.

Sapiens · Sep 10, 2014

outhouse said:
Sources please

Here's a partial list, off the top of my head, of myths and legends with one or more elements that bear some remarkable similarities to the Jesus tale, you'll know most, others you can look up rendering sources and outside "authorities" unnecessary: Asklepios, Apollonius, Dionysus,Hercules, Osiris, Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Buddha, Adonis, Alexander of Abonuteichos, Attis, Baal, Balder, Chu Chulainn, Dazhdbog, Deva Tat, Hesus, Prometheus, Romulus, Salivahana, Serapis, Tammuz, Zamloxis, and Zoroaster.

Bunyip · Sep 10, 2014

LegionOnomaMoi said:
REALLY!!!?

Back this up.

Back this up. By that I mean back up both that we find this in historical Jesus research and not elsewhere.

Come back when you sober up mate, you are not making sense. You make a claim, and then forget what you said whenever asked to defend it.

Back this up.

Back this up. Cite some historical research that indicates what "historians" do or don't doubt.

Back this up. I already have backed up my views, but as you seem incapable of doing anything other than asserting things like:

but incapable of demonstrating the faintest familiarity with historical research, once again I ask that you support your claims without appealing to consensus (that you ignore when it suits you), me, or to your own claims. If your field is history, demonstrate that you know as much as an amateur does of the field, as so far you haven't.

Bunyip · Sep 10, 2014

maxfreakout said:
Ok i will try again to explain this simple point about the meaning of mythicism, since you still havent understood it

You are obsessed with this idea of Jesus being "partially" real, and partially mythic, and i am trying to explain to you why that is a logical error, since the issue of historicism vs mythicism is all-or-nothing. Jesus must be entirely historical, or else entirely mythical, there are no other possibilities. If you understood the debate, you would have already realised this and it wouldnt be necessary to spend 10 pages trying to explain it.

Key point to grasp - the concept of "partly true, partly myth" could apply to a story but it cannot apply to a person. This is because stories can be divided into parts, but people cannot be divided into parts.

LOL Ummmm......how would that be 'dividing a person into parts', just because their story is part truth and part myth?

Did that actually make sense to you?

This concept of partial mythicism could apply to a story because parts of the story could describe real life events while part of the story could be made up. Many people believe this about Jesus, for example the scholar Ehrman, as an atheist, holds that the supernatural elements of theJesus stories such as the virgin birth and the ressurection are not literally true, whereas certain other elements such as the crucifixion and last supper are literally true.

However the concept of partial mythicism that you keep referring back to cannot apply to a person (such as Jesus) because that is a logical category error. As i have stated repeatedly in the last 10 pages, a person cannot be less than fully real (or more than fully unreal). The only possible options are that a person (such as Jesus, or a generalised 'person x') is fully real or else fully unreal. So Jesus can either be fully real, or fully unreal, but nothing else.

"A person can not be less than fully real"..........

Thanks for that mate, I laughed so hard I spilled my coffee. Dumbest comment in history. I LOVE that you think you are making sense.

Take yourself for example, are you (1)fully real, (2)fully unreal, or (3)partially real and partially unreal? - Obviously, you are (1)fully real, and option (3) is not conceivably possible.

The debate about historicism versus mythicism is about whether Jesus existed or not, it is not about whether some aspects of the Jesus stories are not literally true. Mythicists are people (such as Doherty and Carrier) who do not believe that the historical Jesus ever existed.

Jesus can be part truth and part myth - how your hilarious idea about "a person can not be less than fully real" made sense to you, one can only imagine.

Bunyip · Sep 10, 2014

Legion and Max

There is barely any evidence for a historical Jesus, the rest is just blow.

Tilting at strawmen will never magically manifest the evidence you need.

Evidence of Jesus, contemporary with Jesus includes;

1. Paul's testimony of James, who may have been a brother of Jesus.

2. So far that's it.

It is not enough, and the lie that the historicity of Jesus is better established than almost any other figure in ancient history - no matter how desperately you repeat or promote it does not add to the list of evidence above.

For Caeser there is a far greater body of evidence - but he is not the exception, he is one of hundreds for whom we have better evidence than Jesus.

Repeating a silly, desperate lie and attacking any who question it gets you nowhere. You are claiming historicity for a man who you can not even establish the most basic details about - birth date and place would be a good start.

You both endless whinge about how bad my understanding is - because you have nothing else. For all of the times Legion, you have attacked me for making appeals to authority - the entire argument for the historicity of Jesus is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

Saying that "The majority of scholars agree that the historicity of Jesus is better established that that for just about any other figure in ancient history."

IS AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, and worse than that - neither of you have even attempted to validate it with evidence.

s2a · Sep 11, 2014

maxfreakout said:
This ^ entire reply to me is meaingless waffle, you are incompetent to even address what have said

Brilliant riposte!

I now have to cogitate upon this as either the reply of a "I Know you are, but what am I" from a 7 year old...or...English is just a passing interest of language studies for you whilst focusing upon the rigors of teaching children how to finger paint pretty pictures.

NO doubt you will earn that Major soon...

(Just so you know. Pretending to be *stupid* is no release from a practiced performance of "stupidity", especially amongst a fairly assembled jury of peers that know better. Just a fair warning...).

Going "La-La-LA" with your ears covered, pretending you don't "understand", does not help your case.

Bunyip · Sep 11, 2014

The topic:

Other than an appeal to authority and ad hominem attacks against any who doubt it, what is the case for the historicity of Jesus?

As to contemporary evidence, I beleive we have already identified Paul's reference to a James that may well have been the brother of Jesus.

Rather than accusations that anyone is denying anything - could anybody please identify any other contemporary sources?

My position is that the claim that the historicity of Jesus has been established to the satisfaction of the majority of scholars is false, and so I would love to get past the appeal and onto the evidence.

As to the qualititive measure of the historicity of Jesus as opposed to others, how about a comparison of the primary evidence for Julius Caeser with that for Jesus? I would happily consider substituting a number of other ancient personages (in order to challenge the claim that there is more evidence for the historicity of Jesus than there is for just about any other figure in the ancient world.)

Now I do not deny any of the evidence, I do not deny that evidence for the hostoricity of Jesus does exist - wuat I am challenging is what I believe to be grossly overstated claims.

maxfreakout · Sep 11, 2014

Bunyip said:
Jesus can be part truth and part myth - how your hilarious idea about "a person can not be less than fully real" made sense to you, one can only imagine.

i give up, you are too stupid to understand, carry on "debating" a subject you dont even understand, but not with me....

Jesus cannot be less than fully real, and no writer has ever made such an absurd, logically self-defeating claim. You have no idea what you are talking about, so you are expressing a claim that nobody else shares with you (ie fantasyland)

Bunyip · Sep 11, 2014

maxfreakout said:
i give up, you are too stupid to understand, carry on "debating" a subject you dont even understand, but not with me....

Jesus cannot be less than fully real, and no writer has ever made such an absurd, logically self-defeating claim. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Please Max, take a breath and a reality check. I never made any such claim. Nobody has. You are attacking a claim nobody has made and calling me stupid on the basis of a claim neither myself nor anyone else here has made.

No writer is making that claim - it is (as you say a really silly claim). What I am asking you is how did you figure that believing Jesus may be part myth and part historical reality is equivalent to claming that he was not fully real?

What is your logical process there?

That Jesus may have been drawn in part from one or more real historical figures and in part myth is a perfectly rational position - you dismiss it by equating it to an absurd position (that Jesus isless than fully real).

I am asking you how you get from;

1. Jesus is most likely drawn from a combination of myth and truth.

to

2. Jesus was not fully real.

How can equating 1 and 2 make sense? Lots of the characters in history books are combinations of a little truth, a little fact and a lot of time. Saying that Jesus is part myth part truth is not saying that any not fully real person ever existed - that is why I keep asking you how that made sense to you.

You gave two possible positions here:

1. That Jesus was a historical character.
2. That Jesus was 100% mythological (although you keep denying giving that definition)

I responded by pointing out that you have a false dichotomy - there are many other possibilities. Please explain what it is ypu are finding so difficult to understand about such a simple correction? You dismiss it as ludicrous and fling a lot of insults - but you have not given any rational argument for WHY it is not a false dichotomy. The only argument you seem able to offer to attack any claim I have made is to simply turn it into a different claim and attack that
instead.

Try to refute any claim I make WITHOUT CHANGING THE CLAIM I MADE.

It clearly has not occured to you that if you have to change my claim to attack it, then you have failed.

maxfreakout · Sep 11, 2014

Bunyip said:
how did you figure that believing Jesus may be part myth and part historical reality is equivalent to claming that he was not fully real?

Jesus is part myth and part real
= Jesus isnt fully myth, and isnt fully real

These two claims are precisely equivalent to each other. Saying that Jesus is "part real" as you clearly have here, is no different to saying that Jesus is "less than fully real". Then you make meaningless references to percentages, such as "100% myth"

Now do you understand? So you are claiming that Jesus is less than fully real, whilst at the same time you acknowledge that this is a stupid claim which nobody else holds. You are directly contradicting yourself.

maxfreakout · Sep 11, 2014

Bunyip said:
Lots of the characters in history books are combinations of a little truth, a little untruth

I corrected your typo, so i am replying to this ^, and not to what you said.

You need to realise that (as i already explained earlier, here we go again) this ^ is a logical category error. There is a distinction between PEOPLE and STORIES

STORIES can be partly true, partly myth, but PEOPLE (like Jesus) cannot be. The mythicist vs historicist debate is about the PERSON Jesus, it is not about the STORIES. Therefore the only possible positions are that Jesus was either fully real, or fully unreal, there are no other options.

Do you understand that? im taking it slowly with you as you have sub-normal intelligence.

To illustrate this simple point, take yourself for example, are you (1)fully real, (2)fully unreal, or (3)partially real and partially unreal? - Obviously, you are (1)fully real, and option (3) is not conceivably possible. The same logic applies to Jesus.

Bunyip · Sep 11, 2014

maxfreakout said:
Jesus is part myth and part real
= Jesus isnt fully myth, and isnt fully real

These two claims are precisely equivalent to each other. Saying that Jesus is "part real" as you clearly have here, is no different to saying that Jesus is "less than fully real". Then you make meaningless references to percentages, such as "100% myth"

Max, I was quoting YOU. You gave that definition. You have chastised me several times for making references to percentages - but I was quoting YOU Max. You are the one who made references to percentages.

Now do you understand? So you are claiming that Jesus is less than fully real, whilst at the same time you acknowledge that this is a stupid claim which nobody else holds. You are directly contradicting yourself.

Nobody is claiming that Jesus was not fully real - read more carefully.

I am claiming that Jesus is most likely drawn from a little truth and a little myth. I ask again SEE IF YOU CAN REFUTE ANY CLAIM I HAVE MADE WITHOUT CHANGING IT. If it makes no difference - why do you do it? If your version is the same as mine, why change it?

Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

pro scapegoat

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Being

Atheistically

Polymathematician

Atheistically

Being

Polymathematician

pro scapegoat

pro scapegoat

pro scapegoat

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

pro scapegoat

Active Member

pro scapegoat

Active Member

Active Member

pro scapegoat