Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2014, 07:47 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(21-01-2014 07:12 PM)Chippy Wrote:  So you've assumed that no one in the entire history of NT studies has noticed this and you are the first person to notice? That this was also the subject of a bestselling book is also something that you appear oblivious to.

Do you live in a hole?
What's with the unwarranted hostility, Chippy? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
21-01-2014, 09:18 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2014 09:23 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus myth
(21-01-2014 07:44 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(20-01-2014 04:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I was offered a publishing contract, even though I didn't apply for it, and I turned it down. I didn't want to be told what to do when and how.

Can you expound on this for me, and why you are under the impression publishers tell you what to do, when and how? How could a legitimate publisher offer you a contract when you didn't even solicit them? I find not only that hard to believe, but that you turned down a chance to have your work legitimately edited and published for real revenue.

As for me, to answer your question, I deal in non-fiction.

Hi Willhopp, I became friends with an author, and I sent him a chapter of my book roughly 2 years ago. Next thing I know, "dangerous little books" offered to publish my book for me (http://dangerouslittlebooks.com). The terms weren't very attractive, and I do could see very little they were going to do for me apart from take most of the profits if I happen to sell a few!

I admit I don't know a lot about the publishing world. A number of years ago I read many articles. I realised how insignificant I was, because I've never published anything before and I don't have any formal qualifications in the area I'm writing about. I got the impression there are thousands of "Mark Fulton's" out there, and I'd be lucky if a publishing company even bothered to read my script. I realised no one was going to commit any significant resources to getting publicity for an unknown author, so if I was going to have any chance of making an impact I'd have to do all the work myself.

Sometimes it was said that a second book is where you might make a splash. I don't have a second book about religion in me, because I've said all I want to say in the first and I've got better things to do than spend another seven years doing the research for another one.

So I just decided to have a go myself. I sent the definitive version of the book off to Amazon last weekend. I'm getting them to make a trailer video for the book. I'm also seriously upgrading my website and have made some youtube videos (not out yet). Not enough hours in the day!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
21-01-2014, 09:39 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(21-01-2014 06:51 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  I just ordered
Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman s Did Jesus Exist? Paperback
by Richard Carrier (Author) , Ph.D. (Author) , D.M. Murdock (Author) , Earl Doherty (Author) , René Salm (Author) , David Fitzgerald (Author) , Frank R. Zindler (Author, Editor) , Robert M. Price (Author, Editor)

for my Kindle.
It looks to be a very interesting book!
From Amazon
Quote: When New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman published DID JESUS EXIST? THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR JESUS OF NAZARETH, he not only attempted to prove the historical reality of a man called *Jesus of Nazareth*, he sharply criticized scholars who have sought to develop a new paradigm in the study of Christian origins scholars who have claimed that Jesus was a mythical, not historical, figure, and that the traditional, Jesus-centered paradigm for studying the origins of Christianity must be replaced by an actual science of Christian origins. In the present volume, some of those scholars respond to Ehrman s treatment of their research and findings, showing how he has either ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented their arguments. They present evidence that *Jesus of Nazareth* was no more historical than Osiris or Thor. Several contributors question not only the historicity of *Jesus of NAZARETH,* they present evidence that the site of present-day Nazareth was not inhabited at the time Jesus and his family should have been living there.

Yes. I really like Bart, Richard, Earl and R Price in particular.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
21-01-2014, 09:58 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Thanks for the explanation Mark.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
21-01-2014, 10:14 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Jesus mythicism is probably the easiest counter-apologetic for atheists to use.
Well, maybe the second easiest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 10:34 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(19-01-2014 11:10 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Mythic parts were added to real figures in history (the virgin births of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan), and likewise 'real' histories were added to entirely mythic figures (in a process called euhemerization). The presence of mythic elements and allegory alone are not enough to call it on one side of the coin or the other.

I understand that, but this isn't a mythical laquer. In the parable of the fig tree, it's Jesus playing the main character in a story that is *not* myth, but parable - an allegorical story that both the authors and the original audience *knew* was not historical in any sense, but instead has a deeper meaning. This is quite a bit different from the typical magical window dressing common to add to the memories of historical figures of the day.

It brings plausibility, to the argument that Jesus was originally nothing more than a character in such parables, with historicism being layerd on later. And this isn't the only example. The story of Jesus driving the posessed pigs into the sea, has been shown to also be an allegorical story with a hidden political message. Surely, the 40 days tempted in the desert was never intended as real either.

There may be other examples of this sort of thing, where a historical character is placed into an allegorical story with hidden meaning, but if so, was it the norm in this time period? I don't think it was.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 10:43 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(19-01-2014 11:38 PM)Chippy Wrote:  EK beat me to the point. I suggest you read what you can find with Google on the Melanesian cargo cults that sprang up during WWII. The cult of John Frum is instructive in that it shows how even a humble US troop can become a god. Oral traditions are especially vulnerable to this sort of deification because there is no basis for accurate comparison in the tellling of the myth at each generation. Small errors will accumulate and once an elder commits to some hyperbole it becomes a new part of the oral tradition.

Does John show up in stories that both the author and the audience know are allegorical and not historical?

I'm talking specifically about Jesus' appearance in *parables* - allegorical stories with a deeper message, that both the author and initiates knew had no literal or historical basis. If someone knows of this happening to others of Jesus period, I'd like to know about it.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 10:49 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(21-01-2014 10:34 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(19-01-2014 11:10 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Mythic parts were added to real figures in history (the virgin births of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan), and likewise 'real' histories were added to entirely mythic figures (in a process called euhemerization). The presence of mythic elements and allegory alone are not enough to call it on one side of the coin or the other.

I understand that, but this isn't a mythical laquer. In the parable of the fig tree, it's Jesus playing the main character in a story that is *not* myth, but parable - an allegorical story that both the authors and the original audience *knew* was not historical in any sense, but instead has a deeper meaning. This is quite a bit different from the typical magical window dressing common to add to the memories of historical figures of the day.

It brings plausibility, to the argument that Jesus was originally nothing more than a character in such parables, with historicism being layerd on later. And this isn't the only example. The story of Jesus driving the posessed pigs into the sea, has been shown to also be an allegorical story with a hidden political message. Surely, the 40 days tempted in the desert was never intended as real either.

There may be other examples of this sort of thing, where a historical character is placed into an allegorical story with hidden meaning, but if so, was it the norm in this time period? I don't think it was.


Do I think a mythic or allegorical Jesus is the best explanation for huge chunks of evidence? Yes.

Does that negate the possibility that there was some guy that actually existed that served as the basis for a few of the threads that were woven together to form the portrait of Jesus that we now have? No.

To quote Robert M. Price...

"I am not trying to say that there was a single origin of the Christian savior Jesus Christ, and that origin is pure myth; rather, I am saying that there may indeed have been such a myth, and that if so, it eventually flowed together with other Jesus images, some one of which may have been based on a historical Jesus the Nazorean."

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
21-01-2014, 10:55 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(21-01-2014 10:14 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Jesus mythicism is probably the easiest counter-apologetic for atheists to use.
Well, maybe the second easiest.

"Counter-apologetic". As if.

More like "tool to cut through apologetards' bullshit".

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
21-01-2014, 11:31 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(21-01-2014 10:55 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 10:14 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Jesus mythicism is probably the easiest counter-apologetic for atheists to use.
Well, maybe the second easiest.

"Counter-apologetic". As if.

More like "tool to cut through apologetards' bullshit".


Seriously. There is a better word for counter-apologetic, it is facts. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: