Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#61  Postby proudfootz » Nov 08, 2015 12:04 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Shrunk wrote:So is the evidence in favour of an historical Jesus so strong that someone holding the contrary position can justifiably be called a "denialist"? (If you want my opinion, I'm the commentator named "lutesuite" on Sandwalk.)


Some background on the use of the term "[holocaust] denialist".
http://vridar.org/2010/06/16/christ-myt ... st-denial/

Presents quotes from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christ_my ... e_comments


The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust.
Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 32


Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus. Today innumerable websites carry the same message... Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio.
Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, pp. 8 & 23–24


A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998, p. 168


In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today -- is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?
Bart D. Ehrman, "Did Jesus Exist?", Huffington Post, March 30, 2012


It's a shame to see presumably intelligent people making such remarks.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10915

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#62  Postby Leucius Charinus » Nov 11, 2015 9:05 am

proudfootz wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:Presents quotes from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christ_my ... e_comments


In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today -- is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?
Bart D. Ehrman, "Did Jesus Exist?", Huffington Post, March 30, 2012


It's a shame to see presumably intelligent people making such remarks.


Another shame is the historical truth that they pass over in their haste for rhetoric against the heretic. For example, at the very top of the list (of things passed over), is the historical evidence that the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church - during antiquity and the middle ages (setting aside today) was UTTERLY CORRUPT.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 838

Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#63  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 11, 2015 9:23 am

Ooooh. A large and powerful organization was corrupt! Who would even have suspected?!?!?

No, this is not about proving that a large and powerful organization was corrupt. It's about claiming that students of ancient history can figure something out. And this is the result. Excuse me while I bask in the illumination. Charge me for my tan.

It's not that these tidbits are not interesting, but they won't convince anyone who has an argument to the contrary, which is why such arguments are fundamentally non-scientific. Note that I'm not saying all arguments should be scientific, but some arguments do bang on for awhile.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29233
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#64  Postby Leucius Charinus » Nov 12, 2015 2:18 am

Cito di Pense wrote:Ooooh. A large and powerful organization was corrupt!


No. Utterly corrupt.


Who would even have suspected?!?!?



Everyone? Maybe not.


No, this is not about proving that a large and powerful organization was corrupt.


There is sufficient evidence already to establish that the church organisation of antiquity and the middle ages was utterly corrupt. It's just that the church organisation of the 21st century does not teach its students about its own depraved history. The Bishop Jack Spong thread highlighted that Spong has received 16 death threats in his career, all by Christians who thought their history could not be as bad as Spong describes.


It's about claiming that students of ancient history can figure something out.


In time they will follow the money and the political corruption and not the forged church dogma, all the way back to its original source.

And this is the result. Excuse me while I bask in the illumination. Charge me for my tan.


Flames are free for anyone who thinks they can defend the historical record of the church organisation against the charges of being utterly corrupt.


It's not that these tidbits are not interesting, but they won't convince anyone who has an argument to the contrary,


To the contrary? Anyone is free to argue that the church organisation was not an utterly corrupt industry and business during antiquity and the middle ages. But I have not seen too many explicit arguments like that made in any forum. It is usually IMPLIED. And it is not supported by the historical evidence.


... which is why such arguments are fundamentally non-scientific. Note that I'm not saying all arguments should be scientific, but some arguments do bang on for awhile.


The argument does not require science. It's simple logic. Any given historical source may be forged or corrupt. In the case of the historical literary sources preserved by the church industry since antiquity, they are more likely to be forged or corrupted, because the entire organisation was utterly corrupt (from the beginning).

These historical arguments are rarely either made or defended by the same biblical scholars who call jesus mythicism "denialism", but I believe that this argument is both valid and appropriate for the field of history and discussion.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 838

Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#65  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 12, 2015 6:26 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:
It's not that these tidbits are not interesting, but they won't convince anyone who has an argument to the contrary,


To the contrary? Anyone is free to argue that the church organisation was not an utterly corrupt industry and business during antiquity and the middle ages. But I have not seen too many explicit arguments like that made in any forum. It is usually IMPLIED. And it is not supported by the historical evidence.


... which is why such arguments are fundamentally non-scientific. Note that I'm not saying all arguments should be scientific, but some arguments do bang on for awhile.


The argument does not require science. It's simple logic. Any given historical source may be forged or corrupt. In the case of the historical literary sources preserved by the church industry since antiquity, they are more likely to be forged or corrupted, because the entire organisation was utterly corrupt (from the beginning).

These historical arguments are rarely either made or defended by the same biblical scholars who call jesus mythicism "denialism", but I believe that this argument is both valid and appropriate for the field of history and discussion.


Indeed, but it is only one of a number of scams that humans run on each other. The fact that this one is so successful is not a product of how clever it is, but of how deeply gullible its victims are.

You justify your enterprise by saying you're trying to help people. Instead of trying to apply Bayesian analysis to a bunch of missing data, you were better off trying to understand the mechanism of indoctrination. This works statistically, not victimising adults through corruption, but victimizing children via the vain wish of their parents for immortality. It's not just the dumbest of the dumb who are victimised by the scam.

It's true that a scam which victimises people's infantile wishes is corrupt, but that's not really saying much. Saying that it's utterly corrupt is just self-righteous rhetoric. By the same token, for example, gambling casinos are 'utterly' corrupt. Another moralistic crusade is always right around the corner, and you know where the idea of moralistic crusades originates.

By all means study this and discuss it as politics and entertainment, but don't purport it to me as a serious academic inquiry. The people who defend religion mainly do so because they accept that it's morally reprehensible to obstruct a fool from relieving himself of his money. Religious institutions are now so wealthy, they don't need people in the pews in order to continue enriching themselves. All they have to do is place their money in sound investments, such as real estate.

Let me know when you figure out a way to persuade governments to levy taxes on their religious institutions. Documenting the history of church corruption in abstruse 'academic' detail is not the shortcut to this, although it will be a fine addition to the literature on the history of corruption in human society.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29233
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#66  Postby proudfootz » Nov 12, 2015 11:15 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
It's not that these tidbits are not interesting, but they won't convince anyone who has an argument to the contrary,


To the contrary? Anyone is free to argue that the church organisation was not an utterly corrupt industry and business during antiquity and the middle ages. But I have not seen too many explicit arguments like that made in any forum. It is usually IMPLIED. And it is not supported by the historical evidence.


... which is why such arguments are fundamentally non-scientific. Note that I'm not saying all arguments should be scientific, but some arguments do bang on for awhile.


The argument does not require science. It's simple logic. Any given historical source may be forged or corrupt. In the case of the historical literary sources preserved by the church industry since antiquity, they are more likely to be forged or corrupted, because the entire organisation was utterly corrupt (from the beginning).

These historical arguments are rarely either made or defended by the same biblical scholars who call jesus mythicism "denialism", but I believe that this argument is both valid and appropriate for the field of history and discussion.


Indeed, but it is only one of a number of scams that humans run on each other. The fact that this one is so successful is not a product of how clever it is, but of how deeply gullible its victims are.

You justify your enterprise by saying you're trying to help people. Instead of trying to apply Bayesian analysis to a bunch of missing data, you were better off trying to understand the mechanism of indoctrination. This works statistically, not victimising adults through corruption, but victimizing children via the vain wish of their parents for immortality. It's not just the dumbest of the dumb who are victimised by the scam.

It's true that a scam which victimises people's infantile wishes is corrupt, but that's not really saying much. Saying that it's utterly corrupt is just self-righteous rhetoric. By the same token, for example, gambling casinos are 'utterly' corrupt. Another moralistic crusade is always right around the corner, and you know where the idea of moralistic crusades originates.

By all means study this and discuss it as politics and entertainment, but don't purport it to me as a serious academic inquiry. The people who defend religion mainly do so because they accept that it's morally reprehensible to obstruct a fool from relieving himself of his money. Religious institutions are now so wealthy, they don't need people in the pews in order to continue enriching themselves. All they have to do is place their money in sound investments, such as real estate.

Let me know when you figure out a way to persuade governments to levy taxes on their religious institutions. Documenting the history of church corruption in abstruse 'academic' detail is not the shortcut to this, although it will be a fine addition to the literature on the history of corruption in human society.


Just to remark on the bolded bit:

It seems to me the application of Bayesian analysis to a theory might be a good way to draw attention to the serious lack of data and highlight the silliness of adherents who claim the issue is settled to the point that their conclusions are unquestionable.

For me the entertainment value is in how the debate is conducted.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10915

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#67  Postby Rumraket » Nov 12, 2015 3:03 pm

The question is so amazingly boring. I bought Carrier's first book 'Proving History', but couldn't finish it despite three attempts to read it through. Not because Carrier is a bad writer, but fuck me the entire subject of Jesus historicity is vomit inducingly stale and uninteresting.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13206
Age: 39

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#68  Postby dogsgod » Nov 12, 2015 6:06 pm

Rumraket wrote:The question is so amazingly boring. I bought Carrier's first book 'Proving History', but couldn't finish it despite three attempts to read it through. Not because Carrier is a bad writer, but fuck me the entire subject of Jesus historicity is vomit inducingly stale and uninteresting.



So true, but the reaction by people that can't bear the thought of a non-existent historical Jesus is another story.
dogsgod
 
Posts: 1994

Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#69  Postby proudfootz » Nov 13, 2015 3:48 am

dogsgod wrote:
Rumraket wrote:The question is so amazingly boring. I bought Carrier's first book 'Proving History', but couldn't finish it despite three attempts to read it through. Not because Carrier is a bad writer, but fuck me the entire subject of Jesus historicity is vomit inducingly stale and uninteresting.



So true, but the reaction by people that can't bear the thought of a non-existent historical Jesus is another story.


Yes, that's where the story is - those who feel civilization stands or falls on Jesus. :thumbup:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10915

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#70  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 13, 2015 7:36 am

Who knows what their motivations are? If someone identifies with a particular idea (and usually not just one), that's just what people do. I'm only raining on this parade because it looks like a bunch of people pretending to know a lot more than they really know. Talking about 'probability' in a context where it is manifestly not applicable is a dead giveaway. People who don't really understand how probability works might fancy that concept as easily as somebody else fancies the idea of a historical Jesus.

Probability is deceptively difficult. It's so easy to marshal the concepts of additivity, independence, normalization and so on using toy examples like flipping coins, drawing cards, playing the lotto, and so on, until suddenly someone is banging on about the probability that a historical hypothesis is accurate. Since every religion has to have a foundation, founders of religions are made, not born.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29233
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#71  Postby Leucius Charinus » Nov 13, 2015 1:23 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:Probability is deceptively difficult.


Heads Jesus existed. Tails he didn't.

Biblical Historians use a double headed coin.



Since every religion has to have a foundation, founders of religions are made, not born.


"He was made out of nothing existing". [Arius of Alexandria to the Nicene Council]
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 838

Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#72  Postby Leucius Charinus » Nov 14, 2015 12:48 pm

RealityRules wrote:It's almost a formal fallacy or a combination of formal fallacies (most fallacies are informal) -

    the *drawing an affirmative conclusion from negative premises fallacy*
or
    an existential fallacy

It's
    1. an 'accent fallacy' (ambiguity of accent) - a subtle shift in the meaning or intention of an argument by changing the emphasis (accent, tone) of certain words, phrases, or statements.
and
    2. ad lapidem fallacy (throw stones) - dismissing an argument as absurd or false without demonstrating it is false, often with ridicule (or in a bullying manner).
as well as

    Shifting the burden of proof
.




I stumbled across this book in the archives today.

https://archive.org/stream/HistoriansFa ... t_djvu.txt

"Historians Fallacies Toward A Logic Of Historical Thought"
by David Hackett Fischer

In the preface he provides the following description of the logic of historical thought ....

    The logic of historical thought is not a formal logic of deductive inference.
    It is not a symmetrical structure of Aristotelian syllogisms, or Ramean dialectics, or Boolean equations.
    Nor is it precisely an inductive logic, like that of Mill or Keynes or Carnap.
    It consists neither in inductive reasoning from the particular to the general,
    nor in deductive reasoning from the general to the particular.
    Instead, it is a process of adductive reasoning in the simple sense of adducing answers
    to specific questions, so that a satisfactory explanatory "fit" is obtained.
    The answers may be general or particular, as the questions may require.
    History is, in short, a problem-solving discipline.

    A historian is someone (anyone) who asks an open-ended question about past events and answers it
    with selected facts which are arranged in the form of an explanatory paradigm.

    These questions and answers are fitted to each other by a complex process of mutual adjustment.
    The resultant explanatory paradigm may take many different forms: a statistical generalization,
    or a narrative, or a causal model, or a motivational model, or a collectivized
    group-composition model, or maybe an analogy.
    Most commonly it consists not in any one of these components but in a combination of them.
    Always, it is articulated in the form of a reasoned argument.


The fallacies listed in the index are very numerous. Here is just the summarised fallacies by type in the contents.

I wouldn't be surprised that this statement in the OP - made by people supposedly writing in academic literature related to history - has a great many more fallacies associated with it that what RR has listed above.


    CONTENTS ....

    PART I INQUIRY

    Chapter I Fallacies of Question-Framing 3
    Chapter II Fallacies of Factual Verification 40
    Chapter III Fallacies of Factual Significance 64


    PART II EXPLANATION

    Chapter IV Fallacies of Generalization 103
    Chapter V Fallacies of Narration 131
    Chapter VI Fallacies of Causation 164
    Chapter VII Fallacies of Motivation 187
    Chapter VIII Fallacies of Composition 216
    Chapter IX Fallacies of False Analogy 243


    PART III ARGUMENT

    Chapter X Fallacies of Semantical Distortion 263
    Chapter XI Fallacies of Substantive Distraction 282

    Conclusion 307
    Index 319
    Index of Fallacies 337

That Jesus mythicism is "denialism" is one clear example of the many historical fallacies promulgated by Biblical Historians
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 838

Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#73  Postby Byron » Nov 28, 2015 2:43 pm

Rumraket wrote:The question is so amazingly boring. I bought Carrier's first book 'Proving History', but couldn't finish it despite three attempts to read it through. Not because Carrier is a bad writer, but fuck me the entire subject of Jesus historicity is vomit inducingly stale and uninteresting.

Agreed, but since the rejection of Jesus' existence is also a rejection of the academic method, I'm glad there's people with the will to keep fighting it (since I can find no way to engage with mythicists and their "agnostic" fellow-travelers -- they won't even offer an alternative methodology they want followed -- I've long given up).
I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
Kirk, Enterprise

Ms. Lovelace © Ms. Padua, resident of 2D Goggles
User avatar
Byron
 
Posts: 12881
Male

Country: Albion
Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#74  Postby proudfootz » Nov 29, 2015 11:51 am

Byron wrote:
Rumraket wrote:The question is so amazingly boring. I bought Carrier's first book 'Proving History', but couldn't finish it despite three attempts to read it through. Not because Carrier is a bad writer, but fuck me the entire subject of Jesus historicity is vomit inducingly stale and uninteresting.

Agreed, but since the rejection of Jesus' existence is also a rejection of the academic method, I'm glad there's people with the will to keep fighting it (since I can find no way to engage with mythicists and their "agnostic" fellow-travelers -- they won't even offer an alternative methodology they want followed -- I've long given up).


Patently false.

Work such as that by Dr Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster are peer reviewed. That hardly constitutes a rejection of 'the academic method'.

Indeed, Dr Carrier has written extensively on his methodology, but apparently some are too smug to be bothered reading about it even when they have been informed such detailed explanations have been published.

It seems some 'Jesus historicists' are content to remain ignorant. :coffee:

Perhaps it is these people who should be called 'denialists' when they confidently pronounce such falsehoods that fly in the face of known facts.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10915

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#75  Postby Byron » Nov 29, 2015 8:44 pm

Carrier had an article about Jesus' brother James published in a peer-reviewed journal; If he's also had an article defending mythicism published, it's progress. Where is it?

If mythicists are also adopting Carrier's Bayes' method, it's also progress. Took 'em long enough to conjure up a method, and begs the question, if they're driven by critical thinking, why'd they wait on Carrier?
I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
Kirk, Enterprise

Ms. Lovelace © Ms. Padua, resident of 2D Goggles
User avatar
Byron
 
Posts: 12881
Male

Country: Albion
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#76  Postby Leucius Charinus » Nov 30, 2015 3:24 am

Byron wrote: ...... since the rejection of Jesus' existence is also a rejection of the academic method ....


You do not seem to be aware that the acceptance of Jesus' existence has for at least a century been bolstered by a series of core criteria which are totally unsupported by the historical method. Many biblical historians and academics have used things like Criterion of embarrassment, Criterion of dissimilarity, Criterion of multiple attestation.

These criteria are not used by historians outside of the "Jesus Industry".

As a result, the academic method to which you refer above, is seriously flawed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion ... arrassment
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 838

Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#77  Postby proudfootz » Nov 30, 2015 7:44 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Byron wrote: ...... since the rejection of Jesus' existence is also a rejection of the academic method ....


You do not seem to be aware that the acceptance of Jesus' existence has for at least a century been bolstered by a series of core criteria which are totally unsupported by the historical method. Many biblical historians and academics have used things like Criterion of embarrassment, Criterion of dissimilarity, Criterion of multiple attestation.

These criteria are not used by historians outside of the "Jesus Industry".

As a result, the academic method to which you refer above, is seriously flawed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion ... arrassment


Scholars have been exploring the hypothesis that Jesus was a purely literary character for a couple of hundred years.

It's a tough sell in an industry dominated by believers in woo.

Hector Avalos has written a book all about it.

What a refreshing book! Professor Avalos questions the utility and advisability of continuing to keep the superannuated field of Biblical Studies alive in its present form: as a species of apologetics on behalf of Christianity, whether in its evangelical/apologist form or its academic/ecumenical/liberal form. Avalos urges that, minus the arbitrary partisanship for the Bible that Christian allegiance brings, there is no particular reason to keep the patient on the respirator. The period of productive scholarship (which “happened” to coincide with the shattering of the Bible’s credibility) ended a century (or even two centuries) ago. The alien, immoral, and irrelevant character of the Bible has been evident long enough for us to realize it cannot and should not be accorded status as the moral authority we have made it. What we clearly ought to do is to place the book on the shelf and devote the huge amount of resources and energy now directed to Biblical Studies to other fields of research more likely to benefit a starving and oppressed humanity. There remains a task for biblical scholars in the meantime, namely to reverse the course of mainstream (in-the-pocket-of –religion) scholarship. Whereas every issue of the JBL, every meeting of the SBL, is devoted to hiding the ancient offensiveness of the Bible, scholars ought henceforth to highlight and accentuate these features of scripture so as to dissuade the masses who still mistakenly look to the book as an authority. The discerning reader of Avalos will understand that he does not mean to vilify the Bible, only to destroy it as an idol. No one would attack the morals of the Iliad and the Odyssey unless some fanatics started litigating to have Homer made the basis of our laws and morals, as people do with the Bible.

Avalos argues in considerable detail that Biblical Studies pretty much finished its job long ago. He shows how Biblical Archaeology, once, in Albright’s day, thought to vindicate Bible accuracy, actually turns out to deprive the Bible stories of any hint of historical accuracy. Avalos is always imaginative and shows how, if one resists the conclusions of the so-called Minimalists (who are unsure even of the existence of David and Solomon), one might as well maintain the fact-character of the King Arthur legends. Similarly, he shows that any apologist who argues for a historical resurrection of Jesus had better make room in his pantheon for the Virgin Mary (the apparitions, that is), too, since the same arguments “prove” both...

Historical Jesus studies come in for Avalos’s righteous wrath, too. Has there been any advancement beyond Schweitzer? Or rather a shocking retreat, a cringing away from his insight that Jesus scholars cannot help using “Jesus” as a ventriloquist dummy for their own wise views? In a few brief strokes, Avalos lays bare criteria new and old for determining what Jesus “really” said. It can only be the will to believe that has scaled over the eyes of so-called critics who, e.g., discovering that a “tradition” that Jesus said something is attested in two sources, vote it “red,” oblivious of what ought to be obvious: groundless rumors may have any number of attestations that are “independent” in the trivial sense that one is not a direct copy of the other.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... os_end.htm


You might as well wonder why the good people at the Discovery Institute don't accept the theory of evolution.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10915

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#78  Postby RealityRules » Nov 30, 2015 9:23 am

Byron wrote:
... since the rejection of Jesus' existence is also a rejection of the academic method, I'm glad there's people with the will to keep fighting it (since I can find no way to engage with mythicists and their "agnostic" fellow-travelers -- they won't even offer an alternative methodology they want followed -- I've long given up).

That's a series of non-sequiturs: premises that don't relate to each other.


Re -
" ..people with the will to keep fighting *it* .."

- People with the will to keep fighting *what* ? -

  • the academic method?
  • rejection of the academic method?
  • Jesus' existence?
  • rejection of Jesus' existence?


" ..I'm glad there's people with the will to keep fighting "it" since I can find no way to engage with mythicists and their "agnostic" fellow-travelers" ...

lol
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2867

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#79  Postby RealityRules » Nov 30, 2015 9:31 am

Byron wrote:
-- they won't even offer an alternative methodology they want followed --

There is no 'alternative methodology' - Jesus mythicism is the proposition that the Jesus character in the NT narrative is a the result of cumulative elaboration.

There is no suitable evidence for the alternative proposition -

    [that there was an actual Jesus person on which the Jesus character in the NT narrative was based on].


The likely reason you've "'long given up" is the lack of a suitable evidence for an actual Jesus person.

.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2867

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Is Jesus mythicism "denialism"?

#80  Postby Clive Durdle » Nov 30, 2015 12:20 pm

I propose pearlism - searching for historical cores, nice coherent just so tales.
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4850

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest