Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2014, 01:42 AM
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.

But he might be out fishing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 08:02 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(21-01-2014 09:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(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

Yes. I really like Bart, Richard, Earl and R Price in particular.

Richard, Earl, R. Price and the other authors really take Bart Ehrman to task. It's odd, because even though Ehrman is an atheist, he is defending a historical (albeit, human) Jesus, and doing it poorly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 08:56 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(22-01-2014 08:02 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Richard, Earl, R. Price and the other authors really take Bart Ehrman to task. It's odd, because even though Ehrman is an atheist, he is defending a historical (albeit, human) Jesus, and doing it poorly.

What does being an atheist have to do with it? You say it as if he should be slanted rather than objective, which he is. I would take his resume over the other guys every day and twice on Sunday. That doesn't mean I'm convinced he's right, I just trust his research and expertise more.

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
22-01-2014, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 08:17 PM by anonymous66.)
RE: Jesus myth
(22-01-2014 08:56 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 08:02 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Richard, Earl, R. Price and the other authors really take Bart Ehrman to task. It's odd, because even though Ehrman is an atheist, he is defending a historical (albeit, human) Jesus, and doing it poorly.

What does being an atheist have to do with it? You say it as if he should be slanted rather than objective, which he is. I would take his resume over the other guys every day and twice on Sunday. That doesn't mean I'm convinced he's right, I just trust his research and expertise more.

I just think it's amusing that an atheist's books on the historicity of Jesus are popular. And, I'm wondering if he's defending a historical Jesus, just so he can continue his popularity.
As far as your respect for Ehrman... you should really read this book. Ehrman's faults are clearly laid bare. I just started reading the book, but here are a few of the most memorable problems that have already been pointed out.
1.
Quote:The Priapus Bronze: In response to D.M. Murdock’s claim that there is a statue of a penis-nosed cockerel (which she says is a “symbol of St. Peter”) in the Vatican museum, Ehrman says that “there is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else except in books like this, which love to make things up” (p. 24).
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026 Ehrman claims that a bronze, rooster-headed bust with a phallus for a beak was made up by Acharya S (D.M. Murdock), when in reality the bust is (or was) in the Vatican museum and is well documented. Also note that Acharya never says that it is a symbol of St. Peter, only that it is a rooster or cock. http://freethoughtnation.com/the-phallic...e-vatican/

2.
Quote:The “No Records” Debacle: Ehrman declares (again with that same suicidally hyperbolic certitude) that “we simply don’t have birth notices, trial records, death certificates—or other kinds of records that one has today” (p. 29). Although his conclusion is correct (we should not expect to have any such records for Jesus or early Christianity), his premise is false. In fact, I cannot believe he said this. How can he not know that we have thousands of these kinds of records? Yes, predominantly from the sands of Egypt, but even in some cases beyond. I have literally held some of these documents in my very hands. More importantly, we also have such documents quoted or cited in books whose texts have survived. For instance, Suetonius references birth records for Caligula, and in fact his discussion of the sources on this subject is an example I have used of precisely the kind of historical research that is conspicuously lacking in any Christian literature before the third century (see Not the Impossible Faith, pp. 182-87).
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

3.
Quote:That Dying-and-Rising God Thing: Case in point. Regarding the claim that Osiris “returned to life on earth by being raised from the dead,” Ehrman insists that in fact “no ancient source says any such thing about Osiris (or about the other gods)” (p. 26). He relies solely on Jonathan Z. Smith, and fails to check whether anything Smith says is even correct. If Ehrman had acted like a real scholar and actually gone to the sources, and read more widely in the scholarship (instead of incompetently reading just one author–the kind of hack mistake we would expect from an incompetent myther), he would have discovered that almost everything Smith claims about this is false. In fact, Plutarch attests that Osiris was believed to have died and been returned to life (literally: he uses the words anabiôsis and paliggenesis, which are very specific on this point, see my discussion in The Empty Tomb, pp. 154-55), and that in the public myths he did indeed return to earth in his resurrected body (Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 19.358b).
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

The authors of Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman s Did Jesus Exist? are doing an excellent job of pointing out Ehrman's shoddy research methods, flaws in logic, and poor arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 10:02 AM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 10:08 AM by Free.)
RE: Jesus myth
(22-01-2014 08:02 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 09:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yes. I really like Bart, Richard, Earl and R Price in particular.

Richard, Earl, R. Price and the other authors really take Bart Ehrman to task. It's odd, because even though Ehrman is an atheist, he is defending a historical (albeit, human) Jesus, and doing it poorly.

On the contrary, Bart is doing is defense fantastically. Earl Doherty is a total fucking idiot. I faced him down myself at http://www.infidels.org a few years ago in a debate and it got so bad for him that the moderators banned me despite me not breaking any rules, nor was I not courteous. It was obvious they felt so sorry for him all because he was a "published writer" of The Jesus Puzzle, a fucking joke in the scholarship world.

I am an atheist, and it's not so much as defending the historicity of Jesus that motivates me, but instead it's all about approximating the truth using all available evidence, proper reasoning and logical processes.

Seriously, the fucking arguments some of you people make to dispute historicity are infantile at best, illogical, unreasonable, unsupported, and easily qualify as nothing more than the musings of the intellectually deprived.

A total fucking insult to practical reasoning, and like Chippy said, you need to be exposed for it and harshly.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free's post
22-01-2014, 10:09 AM
RE: Jesus myth
Oh fuck, not another Carrier v. Ehrman shitstorm... Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
22-01-2014, 10:15 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(22-01-2014 10:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh fuck, not another Carrier v. Ehrman shitstorm... Dodgy

Carrier has no fucking hope. He's an internet junkie looking for some kind of notoriety with his mythicism bullshit, which has already been effectively refuted numerous times by the vast majority of world scholars.

In fact I am going to call Bart right now and see what I can do to help. I have an "inside line." Smile

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
22-01-2014, 10:15 AM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 10:44 AM by anonymous66.)
RE: Jesus myth
(22-01-2014 10:02 AM)Free Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 08:02 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Richard, Earl, R. Price and the other authors really take Bart Ehrman to task. It's odd, because even though Ehrman is an atheist, he is defending a historical (albeit, human) Jesus, and doing it poorly.

On the contrary, Bart is doing is defense fantastically. Earl Doherty is a total fucking idiot. I faced him down myself at http://www.infidels.org a few years ago in a debate and it got so bad for him that the moderators banned me despite me not breaking any rules, nor was I not courteous. It was obvious they felt so sorry for him all because he was a "published writer" of The Jesus Puzzle, a fucking joke in the scholarship world.

I am an atheist, and it's not so much as defending the historicity of Jesus that motivates me, but instead it's all about approximating the truth using all available evidence, proper reasoning and logical processes.

Seriously, the fucking arguments some of you people make to dispute historicity are infantile at best, illogical, unreasonable, unsupported, and easily qualify as nothing more than the musings of the intellectually deprived.

A total fucking insult to practical reasoning, and like Chippy said, you need to be exposed for it and harshly.

Well then. What do you think are the strongest arguments for a historical Jesus? I may have to read Bart's book (I have listened to many of his youtube videos), just to give him a fair shake, but so far, I'm not impressed with the arguments for a historical Jesus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 10:16 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(22-01-2014 10:15 AM)Free Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 10:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh fuck, not another Carrier v. Ehrman shitstorm... Dodgy

Carrier has no fucking hope. He's an internet junkie looking for some kind of notoriety with his mythicism bullshit, which has already been effectively refuted numerous times by the vast majority of world scholars.

Sources?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 10:26 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(19-01-2014 11:38 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(19-01-2014 10:55 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Here's my perspective on Jesus' historicity, for what it's worth (not much). Which is simpler? Jesus was an actual man of history, of whom very little is actually known, because every aspect of his history is wrapped up in symbolism and myth, or is it simpler to presume that all he ever was, was symbolism and myth? I'm just not impressed by snippets of text here and there that strongly imply he was real. There are obvious motives for people to have written that.

I think the thing that probably made my subconscious shift gears on this, was the day I was reading and researching the story of the parable of the fig tree. This story clearly makes no sense at all if the author of it thought Jesus was a real person of history. But it makes a *lot* of symbolic sense. So here we have Jesus, supposedly a real person of history, placed in an obvious symbolic parable by the very authors who are the primary source of Jesus' material.

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.

It's interesting you mentioned the "Cargo Cults" from sociological stance they are probably our closest link to how all religions were begun. Times when social stresses were extremely high people are the most suggestible.

Like in the bible with the whole "manna from heaven" ...Who knows what it was originally was, but the story as retold by each generation inflated it. Today, we'd dismiss it as urban legend. Like the guy who woke up to find lipstick on his mirror saying welcome to aids.

I absolutely love the way people assume the ancients had no reason to inflate stories -- when of course they did. They did it for the same reason people do today, to make themselves feel important.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: