DWill wrote:I might remind you that a former member liked to say that guild mentality or ideological strait-jacket determined that no skepticism about evolution could exist in university science departments.

Stahrwe is a young earth creationist. You are comparing the evidentiary basis for mythicism to the evidentiary basis for creationism. They are poles apart. Mythicism is a response to detailed study of evidence, while creationism is a denial of evidence.

Evolution has a comprehensive coherent compelling case that underpins all modern biology. By contrast, the Historical Jesus has no evidence, and underpins the sensitive feelings of poor petals who will be upset if they find they have been fed a pack of lies. The 'guild' nature of religious studies is based on the fact that they have church colleagues breathing down their necks who will attack them as kooks if they stray too far from the fold. It is an insult to scientists to compare them to theologians.

Besides, to make your accusation stick you'd need to show that faith plays a central role in the minds of academics in departments of religion. I'm not talking about the departments of Christianity that we find in Bible colleges; I'm talking about actual departments of religion--where the serious scholarship comes from--and which encompass all religions, not just Christianity. There is no pressure in this setting for specialists in Judeo-Christianity to have bona fides regarding faith.

No, faith does not need a central role for religion academics, it just needs to serve as a strong background concern about which fields of study are hot button and which are safe. Faith just needs to influence enough to make academics worry about their ability to publish in reputable journals and build a professional reputation. Internalising these cultural priorities enables self-censorship, and readily leads to acceptance of a prejudicial consensus where all the evidence in the world cannot break through the brick wall.

I am still completely amazed that none of these supposedly professional scholars have had the courtesy to invite DM Murdock or Earl Doherty to debate them in public. There are obviously some weird pathologies and taboos in play. So much safer for the True Believers in the Historical Jesus to hide in coward's castle and throw darts at the kooks without engaging in debate. Ehrman's method is more tirade than debate.

Would you play the "credentialist card" when the focus shifts to climate-change authorities, Robert? Indeed, I think you have.

No, you are mistaken. Climate denialists argue a case that conflicts with clear evidence. It is not their lack of credentials that exposes them as frauds, it is their lack of logic and evidence, and the confluence of their argument with commercial interests. Again, you cannot compare credentials in a real scientific discipline to theology. Credentials in religious studies involve training into conformity, and willingness to respect people who believe absurd fantasies. That is inevitably corrupting even for scholars of integrity. They don't want to upset the old biddies in the pews.

I don't doubt there is some level of political conformity among climate scientists, as they are only human, but theirs is a field where the experts are willing to publicly engage and refute their critics, unlike theology.

What I'm saying is that in any scholarly field there is and must be prescribed training and study. In historical fields this training is just as important as it is in the sciences. This means that the conclusions of someone who has not received this training or acquired this knowledge are not as trustworthy as those of one who has. It doesn't mean that prominent amateurs such as yourself have nothing to contribute by way of probing questions and challenges. It is possible for hidebound opinions to develop in establishment camps. If the certified experts can't answer them, it may be time for a new paradigm.

The problem here is that studies of Jesus Christ do not meet historical standards. For anyone else, we don't say we believe he exists when there is no evidence. Jesus gets a free pass because of the weight of faith. Even archaeologists say they believe in Jesus despite the total lack of evidence. They don't say that about anyone else.

That is what Ehrman is trying to do in his book, prove that in this case the paradigm supporting that Jesus was somehow germinally historical, holds. Your side is convinced that only tradition keeps that view in fashion. Because in general your side doesn't have the knowledge or experience base of the other side, I will say frankly that the odds are against you.

The lopsided nature of the debate is not about knowledge, it is about institutional power and cultural inertia, and refusal to study topics because of what George Orwell called "crimestop". This "germinal" term that you insert regarding the historicity of Jesus is the start of a slippery slope. As soon as you say that Jesus is only the 'germ' of the story of Christ, you are on the path to examining him as a mortal man, with the perfectly plausible idea that perhaps many messianic pretenders contributed to the eventual pastiche. The story of invention is far more coherent than the story of chronicling, and once we exclude the supernatural and miraculous where do we stop?

...I strongly resist the total revisionist view that Jesus was a conscious fiction of people of that era. This is what seems insupportable to me and rather an outrage to history. He was believed to have been real except perhaps by esoteric camps who never win the day. That it was a central authority that pawned off the historical view on the gullible masses is wildly unlikely. The authority probably followed the lead of the masses. That's the best politics.

How I see it is that when the Jews lost the war against Rome in 70 AD, they determined they could not win through force of arms, and so they adapted Paul's cosmic myth of Jesus Christ into a believeable historical tale with the aim of subverting the moral authority and mandate of heaven of the Roman Empire. There is clear motive and opportunity for the Gospel authors to develop a fictional imaginary account of what the Messiah would have done had he in fact existed.

The Romans counter-attacked, and took over the fictional story to revise it in their own interests, turning Jesus into the anodyne moral basis of imperial unity. The story of Jesus subverted pagan culture, but the institutions of empire proved resilient and adaptable until destroyed by the Vandals and Huns.

ant wrote:What is the hard evidence that indicates dying-rising gods like were views that were known in Palestine around the time of the New Testament?

This is a controversial question. One of the most vilified of scholars is Kersey Graves for his book sixteen dying and rising saviours, which is routinely derided as full of speculation. However, it is hard to tell how much Graves' critics are just using him as a whipping boy to bully their flock into avoiding heretical ideas.

Wikipedia discusses the Greek Dionysus - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#P ... ristianity

Greek and other influences were well known in Palestine, in what was a time of significant people movements and resulting syncretism, forming what we call the common era.

Wiki says "Scholars of comparative mythology identify both Dionysus and Jesus with the dying-and-returning god mythological archetype.[7] Other elements, such as the celebration by a ritual meal of bread and wine, also have parallels.[46] Powell, in particular, argues precursors to the Christian notion of transubstantiation can be found in Dionysian religion.[46]

Another parallel can be seen in The Bacchae where Dionysus appears before King Pentheus on charges of claiming divinity which is compared to the New Testament scene of Jesus being interrogated by Pontius Pilate.[45][46][47]

E. Kessler in a symposium Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 17–20 July 2006, states that Dionysian cult had developed into strict monotheism by the 4th century CE; together with Mithraism and other sects the cult formed an instance of "pagan monotheism" in direct competition with Early Christianity during Late Antiquity.[48]"

What is the evidence which proves the people of Palestine worshiped pagan gods who died and rose again?

The critique of Baal, a fertility nature god is a major part of the Bible. This site asserts Baal was a dying and rising God.

Judges 10: 6: And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines, and forsook the LORD, and served not him.
2 Kings 17: 16: And they (Israel) left all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal.

2 Kings 21: 3: For he (Manasseh) built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them.

The ancient near eastern gods were connected with seasonal cycles that occurred yearly. Christ's death and resurrection in comparison was a onetime event. What is the reason given by mythicists for this difference? Why are mythicists comfortable with stretching the comparison to create a parallel?

The 'one time' nature of the death and resurrection of Christ is pure political fantasy. In fact, Easter is an annual ritual going back to time immemorial, celebrating the emergence of new life in spring from the death of the old year winter. The story of Christ simply seeks to incarnate the cyclic fertility myth of death and resurrection in a single unifying historicised story.

Also, Christ's death was seen as an atonement for sins. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING of a sort occurs in ancient near eastern sources. Are mythicists comfortable with this stark contrast? Does it fit neatly into their hypothesis, or is it something that is being explained away to fit their data?

That is a big claim ant. Atonement means becoming at one with God. It is a theme found quite widely in the practice of animal sacrifice. Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of atonement, is established in Leviticus 16:29. But perhaps you are not saying other religions don't have atonement, just that they don't have a sandal wearing bearded godman from Galilee whose mother was a virgin and who was crucified under Pilate so we can go gaga over being washed in the blood of the lamb. You are quite right that nothing of the sort occurs outside the Gospel novels.

Christ's early teachings were not simply about his body being risen from the dead. It was that he experienced a resurrection - which is not the same thing. That ties in more with the jewish notion of resurrection as it relates to apocalypticism. That is a more plausible explanation for Christ's death and resurrection narrative than what mythicists claim. It is the more elegant explanation, based on the evidence. Why lean toward a more convoluted explanation?

Your concept of elegance here is rather obscure. The only elegance in the concept of resurrection is allegorical. Miracles are not elegant, they are imaginary. A seed "dies" when it is buried in the ground and it comes back to life when the green blade rises. Allegory.

If you are looking for elegance, try the utter consistency and beauty of the laws of physics. I still mean to read more about that material on the elegance of mathematics that you mentioned - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreas ... l_Sciences - Now that is elegant.

This is a controversial question. One of the most vilified of scholars is Kersey Graves for his book sixteen dying and rising saviours, which is routinely derided as full of speculation. However, it is hard to tell how much Graves' critics are just using him as a whipping boy to bully their flock into avoiding heretical ideas.

I've read about this.
Graves primary thesis is the following:

"Researches into the oriental history reveal the remarkable fact that stories of incarnate gods answering to and resembling the miraculous character of Jesus Christ have been prevalent in most if not all principal religious heathen nations of antiquity: and accounts and narrations of some of these deific bear such striking resemblance to that of the Christian Savior - not only in their general features but in some cases in the most minute details"

Graves lists 35 divine figures: Chrisna of Hindostan, Budha, Baal, Thammuz, Mithra, Mohamud, Cadmus, etc, etc.

Cadmus, Budha, Mohamud lived remarkably similar lives to Christ? One only has to do a little research to falsify this claim. It's a total stretch job.

Graves sets out to discuss "remarkable parallels" between Christian and Pagan mythical gods throughout his book. What is the documentation evidence for his sensationalist claims, Robert? Graves provides no sources to back his information. What kind of scholarly work is this, Robert? His claims are unsubstantiated.

Wikipedia discusses the Greek Dionysus

Look at the intro regarding Dionysus' birth:

Dionysus had a strange birth that evokes the difficulty in fitting him into the Olympian pantheon. His mother was a mortal woman, Semele, the daughter of king Cadmus of Thebes, and his father was Zeus, the king of the gods. Zeus' wife, Hera, discovered the affair while Semele was pregnant

What are the differences here? Semele had wild sex with a Zeus, Robert. Mary was a virgin that gave birth as a virgin.This is a convenient dismissal of history, yet again by mythicists.

Greek and other influences were well known in Palestine, in what was a time of significant people movements and resulting syncretism, forming what we call the common era.

Where is the evidence for this? Where is the evidence that indicates clearly pagan worship was common in that geograpical area at the time of Christ?

The critique of Baal, a fertility nature god is a major part of the Bible. This site asserts Baal was a dying and rising God.

Tryggve Metinger wrote that the vocabulary of resurrection is used only in one known case: Melqart (Heracles). Also, none of these gods date from anywhere near the OT time.
You should cite a source here, Robert, that clearly indicates people in rural Palistine worshiped a pagan god who died and rose - not a website.
Your biblical references do not indicate dying/rising gods.
Also, when the data is examined about pagan deities without the influence of later Christian views, there remains little if any conideration of them being dying/rising gods.

Mark Smith, a scholar in ancient near east and Hebrew Bible writes that the methodological problem related to dying/rising devine beings is that the data spanning a millinium from a wide range of cultures is crunched together "into a synthesis that never existed'. This is problamatic. Why? Well for starters, these deities all are given the same characteristics without fairly highlighting their differences. We are stereotyping pagan gods when they clearly are not all the same.

The 'one time' nature of the death and resurrection of Christ is pure political fantasy

We are discussing the case for the historical Jesus here, Robert. Any myth developed over the centuries after his life and death does not prove that he never existed as a man.
We can tell stories about the French Revolution that never happened, but we know that it happened. We can tell stories about George Washington cutting down a cherry tree, having wooden teeth, seeing angels at Valley Forge, standing in front of the boat that crossed the Delaware, but that does not mean he did not exist. We can tell stories about the trial of Socrates, which was very political, but that does not mean that he did not exist.

Your concept of elegance here is rather obscure. The only elegance in the concept of resurrection is allegorical. Miracles are not elegant, they are imaginary. A seed "dies" when it is buried in the ground and it comes back to life when the green blade rises. Allegory.

You misundertood me here. I meant the elegant, simplist explanation here is that Jesus was a Jewish apocolypticist, like others of his day. That is easier to digest than wildly putting together dots, historicizing when you need to bolster your claim, and claiming evidence exists without providing said evidence.
The claim of miracles performed by Christ is not at issue here.
I am not going to defend miracles. They are subject to interpretation.

I've never had much concern over this debate, to be honest. If Christ the man did exist, he wouldn't be Christ. He'd be some Joe Schmoe that was overglorified into a man-god. The sources that this overglorification take from are previous myths. You really don't need much exposure to modern day spin-offs to know how integral such recombination is to human storytelling.

If some such Joe-Schmoe truly did exist, and served as the inspiration for the Jesus character, would we be able to claim that Christ did exist as a man? Unless the real Schmoe can walk on water, no. They are two different characters. The fictional one is much different than the real one he is modeled after. It's senseless to claim that Jesus was a real man. It makes more sense to make the claim that Jesus is modeled after a real person(but even then I wouldn't make that claim.

Interbane wrote:I've never had much concern over this debate, to be honest. If Christ the man did exist, he wouldn't be Christ. He'd be some Joe Schmoe that was overglorified into a man-god. The sources that this overglorification take from are previous myths. You really don't need much exposure to modern day spin-offs to know how integral such recombination is to human storytelling.

If some such Joe-Schmoe truly did exist, and served as the inspiration for the Jesus character, would we be able to claim that Christ did exist as a man? Unless the real Schmoe can walk on water, no. They are two different characters. The fictional one is much different than the real one he is modeled after. It's senseless to claim that Jesus was a real man. It makes more sense to make the claim that Jesus is modeled after a real person(but even then I wouldn't make that claim.

Hi there!

How are you able to determine a miracle recorded in history did not happen?

ant wrote: Hi there!

How are you able to determine a miracle recorded in history did not happen?

How do you know that I didn't just conjure up a delicious BBQ sandwich out of mid-air? Simple, you would require extraordinary evidence.

Do you really think the evidence given for these miracles qualifies? If you just have faith that the stories are true, that's fine. But don't pretend it's a reasonable position to take based on the evidence and what we know about how the world works.

Ant, earlier you mentioned elegance (Ockhams R). Using Hume's maxim to "apportion belief to the evidence," we can ask what is more likely. Did Jesus actually perform miracles or were the stories of miracles simply invented to bolster their new God? Obviously the latter is far more likely. A miracle requires extraordinary evidence, and a few religious-motivated testimonials do not constitute evidence at all.

How do you know that I didn't just conjure up a delicious BBQ sandwich out of mid-air? Simple, you would require extraordinary evidence.

Do you really think the evidence given for these miracles qualifies? If you just have faith that the stories are true, that's fine. But don't pretend it's a reasonable position to take based on the evidence and what we know about how the world works.

My question was specific - how are you able to determine a miracle recorded in history did not happen?
Answer - you can't.

A miracle would be a suspension of natural laws as we understand them. It is reasonable to conclude that a suspension of natural laws is a highly improbable occurrence.

We need to distinguish the difference between history and the sciences.
Natural science engages in repeatable experiments to determine the probabilities of future events re-occurring.
Historians examine past events that can not be repeated. Historians can only conclude what probably happened in the past. They are unable to prove what happened in the past. A historian can not prove or disprove a recording of a miracle. They can only state the it is improbable that it occurred.

Any event can be explained in more than one way. An event might be considered miraculous to one person and something else to another. As a practice, the Roman Catholic Church seeks alternative explanations before certifying an event as a miracle.

I can not claim with certainty that miracles can not happen, particularly if I am not present to interpret one as such. Perhaps you are cable of making that claim because your BBQ sandwich has never appeared out of thin air for you to eat. I'll pray that it does one day.
Extra bbq sauce for you?

Did Jesus actually perform miracles or were the stories of miracles simply invented to bolster their new God?

You need to first get the above correct:

The earliest "christians" (followers of Christ) DID NOT believe Christ was "their new God."
That simply is false.

I will stand by my reply to Dexter re your comment on miracles.

ant wrote: My question was specific - how are you able to determine a miracle recorded in history did not happen?
Answer - you can't.

I can not claim with certainty that miracles can not happen, particularly if I am not present to interpret one as such. Perhaps you are cable of making that claim because your BBQ sandwich has never appeared out of thin air for you to eat. I'll pray that it does one day.
Extra bbq sauce for you?

Yes, exactly, it is improbable without extraordinary evidence. But you seem to want to put the burden of proof on the skeptics because they can't deny it with 100% certainty. If so, you should start accepting all claims until you can disprove them, including my magical BBQ sandwich.