1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Jesus myth theory on CNN Internet news

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Agnostic75, Apr 8, 2012.

  1. Agnostic75

    Agnostic75 New Member

    Messages:
    4,407
  2. CynthiaCypher

    CynthiaCypher New Member

    Messages:
    6,610
  3. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Messages:
    26,772

    a little boring since you were banned twice at the other forum?? :D


    miss the myther game???


    there has always been a minority voice, its just its turn to embarrass itself again :facepalm:
     
  4. Copernicus

    Copernicus Godless Hierophant

    Messages:
    4,421
    I thought that the CNN article was a pretty good summary of the debate from both sides. A historical Jesus may well have existed, but there does not appear to be a lot of evidence one way or the other. Both sides argue over the credibility of those few morsels and try to build coherent cases for their positions. Personally, I find the side challenging their credibility to be more convincing, but the weight of published scholarly opinion gives the benefit of the doubt to the other side. In the end, it isn't really important whether we are talking about a myth or a legend. The story built up around the character is so entangled with falsehoods and fantasies that it is almost impossible to judge whether it is worth debating the issue.
     
  5. Caladan

    Caladan Agnostic Pantheist Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    14,986
    As far as I see it there are no 'two sides' in this case. It's not like the majority of scholars deny that there are mythical elements in the gospels, the only difference is that there is a fringe group, none scholarly at large, which blows it out of proportion in order to get impressionable buyers.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2012
  6. CynthiaCypher

    CynthiaCypher New Member

    Messages:
    6,610
    You would think Ehrman's new book would finally settle it.


    Bart D. Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist?
     
  7. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Messages:
    26,772

    he has the mythers in a uproar right now LOL


    every other thread is about him and Doherty is chimming in
     
  8. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Messages:
    26,772

    I have never seen such a bunch of knuckle heads, If hey took even a half way approach to reason and logic, they "could" gain some credibility.

    At this point though they have some whacked out ideas, and for the most part uneducated on the scholarships methods involved to interpret history.

    many of the more educated ones have great knowledge in history but they make these weird left turns that go off on their own whacky opinion's with no historical basis.



    Biggest mistake I see is the better ones use the early church fathers to try and remove historicty, while not understanding the fathers only relied on what was written about BJ.
     
  9. Student of X

    Student of X Paradigm Shifter

    Messages:
    1,207
    The problem is too many dumbasses who think myth=lie.
     
    Mestemia likes this.
  10. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Messages:
    9,822
    It won't really settle anything though. He is repeating a lot of what other scholars have. Most Jesus-mythers don't even understand what myth means or are so engraved in their ideas that they will blindly follow their idea regardless.
     
  11. Copernicus

    Copernicus Godless Hierophant

    Messages:
    4,421
    No. It will be just another book in the never-ending battle that summarizes one point of view. I have a lot of respect for Ehrman, having read some of his other books, but I don't find him especially illuminating on this issue. Much of his argument is buried in biased rhetoric. For example, take a look at the first sentence from the blog link that you posted. It begins with the ad hominem innuendo that anyone who would deny the historicity of Jesus is essentially equivalent to a holocaust denier or birther:

    There are wackos on both sides of the argument, but that isn't the point. There are also arguments that ought to be looked at and debated dispassionately. Attacking the character of those who believe one way or the other is not the best way to start out the discussion. I thought that the CNN article cited in the OP was actually pretty good at laying out the basic arguments from both sides. There is no solid evidence that Jesus existed. Everyone admits that much. But there are interesting points to be made on both sides. Calling people on one side of the argument a bunch of kooks does not really help the level of discourse.
     
  12. Caladan

    Caladan Agnostic Pantheist Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    14,986
    Again, I don't think this is a case of having 'two sides' at all. there is general scholarship, and there is a fringe group with lesser or non existent scholarship which plays on this 'mythical' sensationalism. no scholar denies that there are mythical elements in the gospels, but they don't try to turn it into a best selling spiritual quest for the god-man prototype.
    Personally, I think that atheists of all people should see through this.
     
  13. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Messages:
    26,772
    there is no solid evidence for much of antiquity that is not questioned at all.

    what we have as Caladan has pointed out is a small minority of what I find to be uneducated bafoons. They have Price and thast about it and his work I think I can bust.



    nope I dont buy it

    everyone understands there is plenty of evidence and it could be stronger, but it doesnt need to be solid.

    The mythers have even less evidence that sits upon something I would not label as ground, while the historicty of histrorical jesus/HJ is more on the plus side of the equation.


    really it does fit "kooks" the shoe is on.


    Im involved in the myther forums and I know what many are claiming, they are all weak. Even a few authors are weak. Doherty is off on a weird tangent but his work is still respected. Price uis highly educated amnd has sound work, but provides a weaker case then mainstream scholarships.


    the average myther in teh forums trips all over theirselves




    This is where I respect Richard Carrier, he is not a myther and he plays 50/50 and rides the middle of the fence, his new book offers a good insight to the proccess of developing historicty. I wont spoil it ;)
     
  14. CynthiaCypher

    CynthiaCypher New Member

    Messages:
    6,610
     
  15. Copernicus

    Copernicus Godless Hierophant

    Messages:
    4,421
    Again, I find ad hominem attacks like this as useful as ad hominem attacks usually are. They are intended to suppress debate, not resolve it. As for there being no solid evidence for much of antiquity, that depends on how you define "antiquity". There is solid evidence for a lot of what we find in history books. The historicity of Jesus needs to be judged on the merits of the arguments made in its favor.

    Perhaps we have differing opinions on what "solid evidence" means. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is all textual. If solid evidence existed, then this question would not produce the level of controversy that it does. Nobody has trouble proving that the Holocaust occurred or that Obama is an American-born Christian, despite the notoriety of the deniers. The evidence for Jesus is far more difficult to verify.

    OK, but you just said that you didn't buy my claim that there was no solid evidence. Now you seem to agree with me.

    That just restates the opinion of people who believe in historicity. Those who oppose it argue that the evidence on the other side--that the myth/legend could have arisen by syncretism of popular myths or that Paul was the progenitor--is better than that on the side of historicity. For me, the most convincing piece of evidence is Paul's reference to James, the alleged "brother" of Jesus. I don't like Carrier's argument that all Christians called themselves "brothers", but it is conceivable that even his textual "evidence" had no basis in reality. We don't know whether Paul was reporting an accurate memory or a false memory. We don't know a great deal about the context in which he wrote. People today repeat hearsay as if it were fact, so I don't see why we should put such trust in a handful of texts that were written two millennia ago without some reasonable historical corroborating evidence.

    The more you repeat arguments of this sort, the more you give the impression that this kind of thinking is what has convinced you. It doesn't convince me.

    Have I disagreed with this? I think that both sides of the argument have a fairly weak case, although the mythers do have a fairly convincing case that much of what was written about Jesus in Christian texts was hokum. Ehrman has been in the forefront of those making that case.

    As do the average anti-mythers. I don't see much profit in this line of ad hominem disparagement. It convinces nobody but the already-convinced.

    I like Carrier, too, but I thought that he was a myther. That is, he believes that Jesus likely was not a single historical figure. He used to believe in historicity, but Doherty convinced him otherwise. I haven't read his book, though.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2012
  16. Copernicus

    Copernicus Godless Hierophant

    Messages:
    4,421
    Then we have very different ideas of what an ad hominem argument is. The first paragraph in Ehrman's blog likens mythers to Holocaust deniers and birthers. Even if they are the loons that he claims, that is not a reason to reject their arguments. Even child-rapists can sometimes make coherent arguments. Ehrman does have a case to make against the myther arguments, but he wraps it up in too much effort spent disparaging those he disagrees with. By the time you get to the real argument, he has softened you up to disbelieve them. That is a poisoning-the-well form of argument.

    Again, if you lead off with an ad hominem argument, then that suggests that you find the character of people you disagree with to be the strongest reason for rejecting their argument. Not a good sign.
     
  17. Quagmire

    Quagmire Imaginary talking monkey Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    42,752
    I'm scratching my head as to how Freke (or anybody) could consider a a depiction on a 3rd Century amulet proof against the existence of someone who is supposed to have lived in the first century.

    If the amulet were from the 3rd Century BCE, that would be something, but really, any of us could sit down right now and come up with some kind of a depiction of the crucifixion and and write "Bob the tree trimmer having a bad day".
     
    Gjallarhorn likes this.
  18. CynthiaCypher

    CynthiaCypher New Member

    Messages:
    6,610
    Crossan uses the same argument as Ehrman. The mythers base their beliefs solely on their emotion. They just don't like Christianity so they choose to believe that Jesus doesn't exist despite the evidence.
     
  19. Copernicus

    Copernicus Godless Hierophant

    Messages:
    4,421
    Quite possibly, both sides have people who base their arguments on emotion. I still think that the only way to judge the debate is to move away from examining the emotional states or characters of people who make the arguments. There are reasonable, intelligent people who find the arguments against historicity to be more reasonable than those in favor of it and vice versa.
     
  20. CynthiaCypher

    CynthiaCypher New Member

    Messages:
    6,610
    Name ten serious scholars who do.

    And for eveyones amusement I give you this:


    [youtube]hnybQxIgfPw[/youtube]
    Did Jesus Exist? - YouTube

    I can hardly wait when Ehrman debates a myther to promote his book. It is going to happen.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted