archibald wrote:It's ok. We already have enough, um, 'proofs' ...

Yep.

Lets go to the bottom line -

[Marcion] thus orchestrated a rupture that he relocated a century into the past, carefully keeping his narrative free of contemporaneous references.

This now historiographically constructed collective, this genealogy of Christ’s apostles, had no basis in any historical reality

... the new gospels gave rise to no text-based communities ... Beyond [these] group[s] and the intellectual conversation circles ... “God’s people’s assembly” (ekklēsia) had no institutional basis: no one precisely knew where Peter and Paul had died, to say nothing of where their graves might be ...

..Christianity had thus been invented historiographically by means of the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles complemented by collections of letters. There was as yet no actual community.

Rüpke, Jörg (2018) Pantheon: A New History of Roman Religion (pp. 355-358). Princeton University Press.

I'm not sure that particular fringe theory is the bottom line. My guess is that you haven't hit rock bottom yet. But keep digging into the pudding I guess. I'm sure you'll get there spooner or later. And consider changing your username maybe.

archibald wrote:In any case, you need to keep up with new developments. The matter was settled once and for all last year, with the publication of this proof:



I'm surprised that someone hasn't already pointed this book out to us.

I know robert M Price as an expert on Cthulhu mythos literature, his prefacing such a book implies it's a work of sheer fiction.

Svartalf wrote:I know robert M Price as an expert on Cthulhu mythos literature, his prefacing such a book implies it's a work of sheer fiction.

I wouldn't say that. Fanbirds of fringe filosofising flock together, that's all. Yay.

RObert M Price is not a fringe fanbird, he certainly is a fan of certain things, but he's a serious scholar... in his field, his writing a forreword for a serious book totally out of that field is not typical of him, and tends to make me not take said book seriously, as it assimilates the contents to what he's an expert at.

archibald wrote:I can't have a nice day. How am I going to have a nice day after that? I'm going to have to spend the rest of the week fortifying my house, stockpiling food and digging an underground shelter. I must admit, I had no idea that not believing Jesus existed was that serious a threat. Eek.

It's true - not believing in The Real JesusTM is a sign of irreversible decadence - like giving women the vote, teaching blacks to read, and people eating too many soy products.

Svartalf wrote:RObert M Price is not a fringe fanbird, he certainly is a fan of certain things, but he's a serious scholar... in his field, his writing a forreword for a serious book totally out of that field is not typical of him, and tends to make me not take said book seriously, as it assimilates the contents to what he's an expert at.

I've seen him in an extended debate. To me he comes across as someone overly swayed by speculative possibilities, which then, to him, may slide (it seemed to me), without due warrant, into probabilities. I'd call him 'imaginative'.

He also was not as in command of the facts as his co-debater on that occasion, who happened to be Bart Ehrman, who, whatever you think of him (and I'm not saying I agree with him on everything) at least knows his onions pretty well, imo. I'd call him 'more rationally skeptical', to be honest. Though I suspect that he is, nonetheless, a bit too sure that Jesus did exist.

In any case, Jesus Mythicism is fringe, so R M Price would arguably qualify as a fringe fanbird just on those grounds alone.

But, sorry, I'm not clear on why, for you, a foreword by R M Price, would mean taking the book less seriously? Not that I'm inclined to take it seriously, obviously. I'm not.

archibald wrote:

Svartalf wrote:RObert M Price is not a fringe fanbird, he certainly is a fan of certain things, but he's a serious scholar... in his field, his writing a forreword for a serious book totally out of that field is not typical of him, and tends to make me not take said book seriously, as it assimilates the contents to what he's an expert at.

I've seen him in an extended debate. To me he comes across as someone overly swayed by speculative possibilities, which then, to him, may slide (it seemed to me), without due warrant, into probabilities. I'd call him 'imaginative'.

He also was not as in command of the facts as his co-debater on that occasion, who happened to be Bart Ehrman, who, whatever you think of him (and I'm not saying I agree with him on everything) at least knows his onions pretty well, imo. I'd call him 'more rationally skeptical', to be honest. Though I suspect that he is, nonetheless, a bit too sure that Jesus did exist.

In any case, Jesus Mythicism is fringe, so R M Price would arguably qualify as a fringe fanbird just on those grounds alone.

But, sorry, I'm not clear on why, for you, a foreword by R M Price, would mean taking the book less seriously? Not that I'm inclined to take it seriously, obviously. I'm not.

Atheism is 'fringe' too, so I'm guessing you're equally dismissive of that?

proudfootz wrote:Atheism is 'fringe' too, so I'm guessing you're equally dismissive of that?

No. I think the case for there being no god is really strong. The case or cases (since there are many varieties) for there never having been a 1st C Judean Jesus is, quite honestly, very poor, at least in comparison the the 'existed' alternative(s), imo.

There just isn't a good, strong narrative case which explains everything or stacks up better overall in terms of him not existing. Garbage like that patently daft thing about Trypho is typical of the dreadful quality of stuff that apparently passes muster as 'evidence' for mythicists. Ditto Doherty's 'outer space Jesus' rubbish.

archibald wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Atheism is 'fringe' too, so I'm guessing you're equally dismissive of that?

No. I think the case for there being no god is really strong. The case or cases (since there are many varieties) for there never having been a Jesus is, quite honestly, very poor, at least in comparison the the 'existed' alternative(s), imo.

Well, there we go, then. It's nice to see it pointed out that the "Mythical Jesus" hypothesis boils down to that old filosofeezer conundrum about proving that X does not exist. They usually try the proof by induction, but sadly, their cases aren't enumerable. The way things are going, they're not even countable, which may be why so many folks discount them. Why, not very many posts ago, we were revisiting the old idea that many 'mythical figures', such as William Tell, were likely modeled on a person or set of persons who were flesh-and-blood folks. I mean, they looked, acted, talked and smelled just like people. What makes Jesus seem so mythical to some people was that nobody ever wrote about the way Jesus smelled, like, after a hard day of preaching.

archibald wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Atheism is 'fringe' too, so I'm guessing you're equally dismissive of that?

No. I think the case for there being no god is really strong. The case or cases (since there are many varieties) for there never having been a 1st C Judean Jesus is, quite honestly, very poor, at least in comparison the the 'existed' alternative(s), imo.

There just isn't a good, strong narrative case which explains everything or stacks up better overall in terms of him not existing. Garbage like that patently daft thing about Trypho is typical of the dreadful quality of stuff that apparently passes muster as 'evidence' for mythicists. Ditto Doherty's 'outer space Jesus' rubbish.

So you are willing to subscribe to a fringe belief when the majority opinion seems to you to be inadequate.

Good to know that you aren't trying to use 'fringe belief' as some kind of insult to people who hold 'fringe beliefs' as you do.

I haven't the slightest clue what you're on about.

In short, the Jesus myth explanations are not imo weak because they are fringe but because they are comparatively poor.

Maybe that's what you did mean.

Svartalf wrote:RObert M Price is not a fringe fanbird, he certainly is a fan of certain things, but he's a serious scholar ... in his field, his writing a forreword for a serious book totally out of that field is not typical of him, and tends to make me not take said book seriously, as it assimilates the contents to what he's an expert at.

The middle of that middle commentary doesn't match the beginning or the end ..

archibald wrote:
I've seen him in an extended debate. To me he comes across as someone overly swayed by speculative possibilities, which then, to him, may slide (it seemed to me), without due warrant, into probabilities. I'd call him 'imaginative'.

He also was not as in command of the facts as his co-debater on that occasion, who happened to be Bart Ehrman, who, whatever you think of him (and I'm not saying I agree with him on everything) at least knows his onions pretty well, imo. I'd call him 'more rationally skeptical', to be honest. Though I suspect that he is, nonetheless, a bit too sure that Jesus did exist.

In any case, Jesus Mythicism is fringe, so R M Price would arguably qualify as a fringe fanbird just on those grounds alone.

But, sorry, I'm not clear on why, for you, a foreword by R M Price, would mean taking the book less seriously? Not that I'm inclined to take it seriously, obviously. I'm not.

I think that's fair. Bob seems to be a gentle soul and was apparently getting over a serious illness when he had that debate. It was pretty clear that Ehrman had not bothered to read or understand previous Bob's work and just wrote him off, rudely.

Bob has been prepared to take people on though, with -

'The Case Against the Case for Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel', 2010.

and perhaps to get back at Ehrman, -

'Bart Ehrman Interrupted: How One Radical New Testament Scholar Understands Another', 2018.

Robert M P deserves credit for works like this too -

'The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts', 2006,

"In this monumental work, Professor Price offers an inclusive New Testament canon with twenty-seven additional sacred books from the first three centuries of Christianity, including a few of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi writings. Price also reconstructs the Gospel of Marcion and the lost Gospel according to the Hebrews. Here, for the first time, is a canon representing all major factions of the early church."

archibald wrote:I haven't the slightest clue what you're on about.

In short, the Jesus myth explanations are not imo weak because they are fringe but because they are comparatively poor.

Maybe that's what you did mean.

I totally get that you haven't a clue.

I just have to wonder why you apply the term 'fringe fanbird' to Price when you are yourself a 'fringe fanbird'?

Fringe fanbirds of a feather should flock together, right?

Cito di Pense wrote:What makes Jesus seem so mythical to some people was that nobody ever wrote about the way Jesus smelled, like, after a hard day of preaching.

Yes, that is an oddity. Some call it the 'deafening silence' in John Chapter 12, just before verse 3, where Mary, sister (possibly) of Martha (I think they may have been Jesus' backing singers) washed his feet with nard (ancient version of scented carbolic soap, I think) and dried them with her hair.

Whatever about the omission, it's definitely the most erotic verse in the NT by a head, imo.

ETA: no jokes about Jesus getting a nard on.

proudfootz wrote:I totally get that you haven't a clue.

I just have to wonder why you apply the term 'fringe fanbird' to R G Price when you are yourself a 'fringe fanbird'?

Fringe fanbirds of a feather should flock together, right?

Yeah. That must be it.

archibald wrote:I haven't the slightest clue what you're on about.

In short, the Jesus myth explanations are not imo weak because they are fringe but because they are comparatively poor.

Maybe that's what you did mean.

The problem you appear to be suffering from is that the burden of proof is on the Real JesusTM freaks, and not on those of us who find their drivelings unpersuasive.

No one need have any argument or theory to dismiss their nonsense. They fail. Story. End of.

proudfootz wrote:The problem you appear to be suffering from is that the burden of proof is on the Real JesusTM freaks, and not on those of us who find their drivelings unpersuasive.

What the fuck, seriously, has proof, one way or the other, got to do with it?

Please don't answer. You're starting to give me a headache. Do Trypho again. At least it's more entertaining.

archibald wrote:

proudfootz wrote:The problem you appear to be suffering from is that the burden of proof is on the Real JesusTM freaks, and not on those of us who find their drivelings unpersuasive.

What the fuck, seriously, has proof, one way or the other, got to do with it?

Please don't answer. You're starting to give me a headache. Do Trypho again. At least it's more entertaining.

You seem to keep demanding evidence from so-called 'mythicists' and I'm just pointing out you're barking up the wrong tree.

It's the Real Jesus fanboys who need to come up with something to support their positive claims and not the skeptics.

If thinking about this gives you a headache, perhaps you should avoid discussions about things that require evidence and proofs?

RealityRules wrote:[Bob has been prepared to take people on though, with -

'The Case Against the Case for Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel', 2010.

and perhaps to get back at Ehrman, -

'Bart Ehrman Interrupted: How One Radical New Testament Scholar Understands Another', 2018.

Robert M P deserves credit for works like this too -

'The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts', 2006,

"In this monumental work, Professor Price offers an inclusive New Testament canon with twenty-seven additional sacred books from the first three centuries of Christianity, including a few of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi writings. Price also reconstructs the Gospel of Marcion and the lost Gospel according to the Hebrews. Here, for the first time, is a canon representing all major factions of the early church."

Thanks. I'm not by any means saying R M Price is an idiot or unqualified, just that I think (ie imo) he's gone out on a limb when it comes to Jesus' existence (possibly in some ways, it seems, a bit like that Rupke guy you cited). I'll try to read those later, though to be honest I'm simultaneously trying not to get sucked into this thread (again). For one thing, I'd arguably be morally obliged to tell my addiction therapy counsellor that I've fallen off the wagon, and she might not be best pleased, and lately I've been trying to lure her into washing my feet with nard and drying them with her hair, and don't want to spoil my chances.