So I just started reading The God Delusion..

[Storm]

Very little factual evidence... at least what I'm aware of. I don't reject the idea that he's historical, I just have no particular reason to accept it.

OK.

At this point, I'm not sure any more.

LOL! At this point, all I'm saying is "Christ never existed!" strikes me an extraordinary claim, and I find it unconvincing. All the talk about status quo was just me trying to explain that position (which is barely a claim at all), not any attempt to prove Christ's historicity.

By the same token, there have been Christian groups just as old as the Unitarians that believe that Christ was fully divine and not human at all. As long as Christianity has existed, there have been people who would vehemently deny the claim that there was ever a historical person named Jesus (or Yeshua, or whatever) upon which the mythic Christ story was hung.

Are you sure? I'm not prepared to say you're wrong, but it's always been my impression that it's a relatively new phenomenon. Can you cite any specific examples?

 

[Smoke]

I think that although the docetists focused on Jesus as divine that does not mean that deny he ever walked the earth.

No, they didn't deny the historicity of Jesus; they just thought he was divine and not really human.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that although the docetists focused on Jesus as divine that does not mean that deny he ever walked the earth.

No, but it works against the idea that he was some sort of rebellious itinerant rabbi who had a bunch of myths hung on him. At the other end of the spectrum, you have people who accept Jesus' historicity but not his divinity. Pick any aspect or characteristic of Jesus, and you can find someone who disputed it even beginning with the early church.

LOL! At this point, all I'm saying is "Christ never existed!" strikes me an extraordinary claim, and I find it unconvincing. All the talk about status quo was just me trying to explain that position (which is barely a claim at all), not any attempt to prove Christ's historicity.

My position is that a claim should be supported on its merits; I don't necessarily view the fact that a belief has been long-held to be support if that's all it's got going for it.

As for Christ's historicity, I think that virtually all the parts of the Christ story that form the basis for Christianity are mythic. Was this body of myth formed around the kernel of a real person? In my mind, the question's largely irrelevant: as I've said before, I think it's like arguing whether there's a real stone in your stone soup.

I don't think that the Christ that Paul talks about in his epistles seems to be especially based on a real, living person. Whether the Gospels were a later "fleshing out" of Paul's mythic Christ or whether Paul and the Gospel writers drew from the same earlier, fact-based source in some way... I don't know.

Are you sure? I'm not prepared to say you're wrong, but it's always been my impression that it's a relatively new phenomenon. Can you cite any specific examples?

I was mainly thinking of Docetism, as lunamoth mentioned (thanks, BTW - I couldn't remember the name).

I also have a vague recollection of some other early Christian groups having an allegorical understanding of the Gospel story... but that might be my brain playing tricks on me.

 

[Storm]

No, but it works against the idea that he was some sort of rebellious itinerant rabbi who had a bunch of myths hung on him. At the other end of the spectrum, you have people who accept Jesus' historicity but not his divinity. Pick any aspect or characteristic of Jesus, and you can find someone who disputed it even beginning with the early church.

Why? If, as Luna says, they believe He walked the earth, doesn't that acknowledge a historical figure?

I was mainly thinking of Docetism, as lunamoth mentioned (thanks, BTW - I couldn't remember the name).

I don't think I've ever heard of them.

I also have a vague recollection of some other early Christian groups having an allegorical understanding of the Gospel story... but that might be my brain playing tricks on me.

The Jesus Mysteries claims this for the Gnostics, but that goes against some other stuff I've heard.

I don't know, the whole "Jesus never existed!" thing strikes me the same as "Shakespeare didn't wirte those plays!" It's cool to think about, and it gets you lots of attention, but does the claim itself have merit? Not much.

 

[Willamena]

Why? If, as Luna says, they believe He walked the earth, doesn't that acknowledge a historical figure?

Not if "the earth" is taken non-literally as representative of the known world (as opposed to the "spirit" world heaven).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why? If, as Luna says, they believe He walked the earth, doesn't that acknowledge a historical figure?

But in what sense?

It denies the real, mortal man at the core of the belief that most attempts to find a historicity for Jesus assume, I think.

The Jesus Mysteries claims this for the Gnostics, but that goes against some other stuff I've heard.

Yeah, like I said, it was a vague recollection. I'm not sure if it's based in fact.

I don't know, the whole "Jesus never existed!" thing strikes me the same as "Shakespeare didn't wirte those plays!" It's cool to think about, and it gets you lots of attention, but does the claim itself have merit? Not much.

I don't think that's a good analogy. To me, I think it quite reasonable to conclude that the myths that form the core of Christianity arose from previous, very old myths, so to use your metaphor for a moment, when it comes to Jesus, it's not like asking whether Shakespeare wrote his own plays; it's like asking whether "William Shakespeare" was a pen name that someone just came up with, or whether there actually was a person with that name (or something close to it) living in Stratford at the right time and maybe doing some sort of writing, the question of whether he actually wrote the plays (even if he did exist) having been previously resolved with a resounding "no".

And as a claim, I think "Jesus never existed" is more on par with "Homer never existed", which I believe is considered as a plausible possibility based on the facts at hand (or lack thereof).

 

[lunamoth]

I don't think there are very many scholars who doubt that Jesus was a real historical figure.

They just disagree on how important that is related to the religion which grew up around him.

 

[Storm]

This is what I'm saying.

 

[logician]

I don't think there are very many scholars who doubt that Jesus was a real historical figure.

They just disagree on how important that is related to the religion which grew up around him.

What Jesus, the one of the bible, which has zero historical evidence backing up its stories? Or some other Jesus, bearing little resemblance to the biblical one?

 

[challupa]

I promised some here that I would let you know what the book the Dawkins Delusion was about. So I have started a thread called that if you are interested.

 

[StudentOfGod]

I'm halfway through the God Delusion right now (which I'm reading in concurrently with the Bible and the Torah... which perhaps might not be the best idea). I think that Dawkins has some valid arguments, and I am particularly in agreement with his 'crane vs. skyhook' postulate in defense of natural evolution. That being said, his argument against irreducible complexity might not necessarily cover himself in the assertion that a designer must necessarily be more complex than the designed, since that argument only works when slotted into the paradigm of natural evolution, which God might reside outside of. So basically, there's still some wiggle room. I'm not saying Dawkins is wrong, just that he's not necessarily right, and I still retain an open mind as to the existence of God.

Either way, it's very well written and entertaining and after a long day at work, that's probably more important to me then any of the arguments contained within it.

 

[challupa]

I'm halfway through the God Delusion right now (which I'm reading in concurrently with the Bible and the Torah... which perhaps might not be the best idea). I think that Dawkins has some valid arguments, and I am particularly in agreement with his 'crane vs. skyhook' postulate in defense of natural evolution. That being said, his argument against irreducible complexity might not necessarily cover himself in the assertion that a designer must necessarily be more complex than the designed, since that argument only works when slotted into the paradigm of natural evolution, which God might reside outside of. So basically, there's still some wiggle room. I'm not saying Dawkins is wrong, just that he's not necessarily right, and I still retain an open mind as to the existence of God.

Either way, it's very well written and entertaining and after a long day at work, that's probably more important to me then any of the arguments contained within it.

Yes I agree with your comments. He can't explain the unexplainable though. I think what he tries to get across though is that he is at least honest saying he doesn't know and most religions are not quite that honest (bit of an understatement). I believe he is feeding the ID crowd and they love him. But the other side of that, Those who do not believe the ID crowd and liking what Dawkins has to say so I they are helping each other!

If you're reading the Bible and Torah along with Dawkins, I can understand how he might be a more entertaining read LOL. You've got some heavy reading in store for you.

I started a thread regarding the rebuttal book called "The Dawkins Delusion" if you want to check that out.