geo wrote:I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim absolutely that Jesus was a myth. The argument is that Jesus could have been a myth. We're sort of splitting hairs between Jesus was a myth or was an obscure man on which the Christian myth was later grafted. The problem is that you and Flann believe that Jesus was a god and for that there is only the Bible to fall back on. There's that same circular logic.
Hi Geo. We've been through lots of arguments on previous threads about how the myth thesis is untenable for a wide variety of reasons. Genre, Historical attestation etc.
The obscure man on which Christian myth was later grafted doesn't work either. Even Ehrman recognizes in his "How Jesus became God" book that belief in the divinity of Jesus was very early and not a later legendary development and this is a mainstream scholarly view even among many liberals.
Of course I do rely on the Bible as a revelation from God. At the same time there is plenty of evidence for it's divine origin in the many detailed historically fulfilled prophecies found in it. I know the liberal arguments and their standard tactic of attempting post dating these.
But they cannot do this in many cases such as with Isaiah,Daniel and Jeremiah which plainy predate Christ's coming. Where they do attempt postdating prophecies their arguments fail and I spent some time for example showing the problems with dating Acts and therefore Luke after A.D. 70. Likewise I showed the failure of liberal scholars arguments on the book of Daniel in attempting to date this to the Maccabean period. In fact even if they do this the book still clearly predates Christ so it's just a way of trying to postdate other prophecies in Daniel relating to the four empires, by them.
The thing is that in believing the gospels and trusting in Christ believers do come to have a living relationship with God. I know some people say this is subjective but it is a reality for many.
Likewise God does hear and answer prayer. I gave the example of Hudson Taylor's life a long time ago and the many remarkable answers to prayer he recounts in his autobiography. This was just an example of this.
I find neither astrotheology or Carrier's sub lunar crucifixion and hallucinations theory at all credible but symptomatic of the kind of absurdities that arise when people look for alternatives to the obvious and plain explanations actually given in the N.T.
The argument that miracles must by definition mean that this must be fiction is ultimately grounded in a belief system founded on philosophical naturalism as a worldview.
It seems you hold to this worldview. Everyone is free to believe what they want for better or worse. I do think that when absurd theories are presented as purported explanations for the origins and history of Christianity they are validly subject to legitimate critical scrutiny.
While satire may not be argument it seems that certain theories are almost begging to be satirised. At the same time I don't question that these may be sincerely held views and don't question the intelligence of Robert and other mythicists who hold to these ideas. It does baffle me I must say that they do, but that's the way things are.