In total there are 68 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 67 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes) Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am
tat tvam asi wrote:So let's have it Doulos. Enough stalling. Why don't you interpret the Bible literally starting with Genesis 1 and see where it leads us.
What did you just ask Robert?
Doulos wrote:Possible, but do you have any evidence to support this theory?
Good question, but let's consider your own evidence for your own assertions before we move on to others...
Tat, others have demonstrated patience when people have IRL issues that take precedence.
I would suggest that you follow the example of people where they are demonstrating intellectual courtesy.
Ok, take your time Doulos. But keep in mind that it's a bit premature for you to carry on about evidence like you've been doing before first establishing the evidence behind what you're trying to push.
You know most Christians are atheists when it comes to everyone else's Gods and beliefs. They lack belief in these Gods. And they can assert themselves as great skeptics when it comes to considering thoughts and ideas which conflict or counter Christianity. But when it comes to their own pet beliefs they will suddenly drop all such skepticism, logic, and reason. You seem to be in this general category Doulos.
I'll make the point very short for you. At the very minimum you can at best consider yourself equal to me, or Robert, or youkrst if indeed you are correct about our display of "weak" evidence. You're not above or beyond the "mythicists" by any means, just in case you may have thought that at first glance. You do not have superior "evidence" to speak of. And in fact the closer we analyze your literalist approach to the Bible the less likely it will seem when standing along side of much more rational explanations for Biblical origins and evolution thereof and you will gradually take the lower hand in this scenario.
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sorry for reproducing such a long passage, and an Amazon review at that. But some of these reviews are pretty good, at least from where I stand, and this writer has credibility. Murphy makes some very good points. I wonder what Robert, tat, and others who accept the label mythicist think of it. What I don't see in this is what I've primarily objected to in Robert's postings: that the Gospels are conscious fictions whose intent is not to establish any bona fides for a historical Jesus, but rather to carry an astrotheological message to those few able to understand it, under the cloak of a literal tale; that the writers don't even intend that we believe what they've written about the life of a man; that the enmity between Jews and Christians is not definitively prefigured in the Gospels and thus is not evidence of the Gospels' historical context.
I think, by the way, that if we want to go to motives on Ehrman's part for presenting a perhaps sloppy defense of the historical Jesus, it's unnecessary to call him a closet believer. He would have plenty of motive in the fact that to declare Jesus mythological cancels out all of his previous work, which ferrets out historical errors but is still firmly based in history.
"It is amazing to me that Ehrman could write a book about mythicism and not begin with Justin Martyr or with the scores of ancient passages, both in defense and critique of Christianity, that commented on the similarities between Jesus and pagan deities. Although Ehrman maintains that Jesus' crucifixion was totally different (because his followers believed it really happened in the flesh) it is equally likely that the early Church's insistence on the fleshly Jesus was the only way to distinguish him from earlier god-men who had done nearly all of the same amazing things. This includes dying and coming back to life; Ehrman tries unsuccessfully here to show that none of the other pagan gods died and came back, while Jesus "really did" - yet it's obvious he's talking about the mythology of Jesus and doesn't believe in a "real resurrection". Yes, some Christians believed that Jesus had come back to life in the flesh and this idea was in stark contrast to the more ordinary contemporary beliefs; but the idea can already be found in Egyptian cults (hence mummies); and moreover the "fact" of Jesus' physical resurrection was the most hotly debated topic within early Christian communities, with many believers refusing to accept the "disgusting" doctrine of resurrection of the flesh. Ehrman later makes clear that just because those other groups claimed that Jesus didn't come in a real body, but only in a spiritual body, that doesn't mean they didn't think he was historical - he really and recently came down and interacted with humanity. But how is this non-physical divine presence distinct from the hundreds of other divinities equally believed to be present in the ancient world?
Ehrman slanders all mythicists as being atheists with an axe to grind against Christianity, when in truth any one of the ancient passages noting Jesus' similarities to older traditions, or simply the early controversy over Jesus' resurrection in the flesh, should be more than enough to establish safe grounds for further research into such parallels and ask why exactly Jesus is different - as Celsus asked in the 2nd century:
"Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God."
Interestingly, Ehrman also openly acknowledges the paganism in Christianity, and even begins his lectures by pointing out the similarities between Jesus and Apollonius. For Ehrman, however, none of that stuff, which he alleges was added later, can tell us anything about the historical Jesus. Ehrman's "real Jesus" was a historical Jewish rebel who didn't intend to found a movement, probably didn't do anything supernatural or miraculous, probably never said or did 90% of the things written in the gospels, and didn't claim to be God. He was just a man, who like Harold Camping believed in the immanent end of the world. "Jesus was mistaken about that," Ehrman says concluding, "He was mistaken about a lot of things. People don't want to hear that, but it's true. Jesus was a man of his own time. And just as all men and women of their own time are wrong about so many things, so too was Jesus."
But is this failed prophet really Jesus Christ? In other words, is "Jesus Christ" the thing that is left over when you remove ALL of the mythology and paganism that became embedded in Christian tradition?
According to Ehrman "The fact that Jesus was cast in the mold of pagan divine men does indeed create a difficult situation for historians who want to get beyond the idiom of the stories to the historical reality that lies behind them. But the mere fact that the idiom is being used does not mean that there is no reality there. The question of whether Jesus is portrayed as a Jewish prophet or as a pagan divine man is completely independent of the question of whether he existed."
This is slippery territory. For me, the mythicist position is simply that the Jesus Christ of Christian faith and tradition, the personality presented in biblical texts, immortalized in western memory and depictions, and championed by Christian followers, is almost entirely based on literature and mythology rather than history. I don't think Ehrman would disagree with me here. Although I don't deny that there may still be a historical figure tenuously hidden behind this tradition, his last name was not "Christ" and his first name was only possibly some translation of "Jesus"; moreover, he's not at all interesting to me. Although I can't prove he wasn't there, I can develop a theory of how Christianity came to be without him, since all of the material and elements of Christian literature, ritual and dogma were already present in the environment and already coming together in cross-cultural synthesis.
Ehrman and I disagree fundamentally about the definition of Jesus; my Jesus is the one found in the Bible, proclaimed by Christian faith. My Jesus is mythical. Ehrman's Jesus is a totally dissimilar, academic hypothesis - a shadowy figure at best. Even (or especially!) if Ehrman's Jesus did exist, mine (and the biblical Jesus) certainly did not.
Ehrman displays the fanatical testimony of Ignatius, who states in "the most emphatic terms possible" that Jesus REALLY lived, died and resurrected, and continues: "From these quotations it is crystal clear what Ignatius thought of the real existence of Jesus. He was fully human; he was really born; he was really baptized; he was really crucified." But it is equally obvious that Ignatius formed his passionate beliefs in response to other Christian communities who taught that Jesus came only in semblance, but denied him a real, physical body. These other communities were as early or earlier than any that we have testimonies of. Moreover those communities who taught Jesus came back in the flesh did so primarily because they believed that they, too, would be resurrected in the flesh - a later idea that they recognized to be directly in opposition to Paul's teachings:
"Among the other [truths] proclaimed by the apostle, there is also this one, "That flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. This is [the passage] which is adduced by all the heretics in support of their folly, with an attempt to annoy us, and to point out that the handiwork of God is not saved." (Irenaeus Against Heresies)
Why is Ignatius' belief the right one? Shouldn't the other communities be investigated as well?
It is apparent and unfortunate that Ehrman obviously believes the mythicist position to have so little merit that it is not worthy of a real dialogue - his rebuttal of mythicism is an attack on already-decade-old materials of Price and Freke, which while good were meant to be popular and totalizing introductions. If he was earnest he would seek out the most salient and rewarding aspects of contemporary mythicist research. In particular, the point Christianity comes closest to paganism is in the deliberately crafted cult of Sarapis - for which we have a great many precise details, records, and testimonies, and which was viewed almost interchangeably with Christianity when it arose.
"In Egypt those who worship Sarapis are Christians and those who call themselves Christ's bishops (`overseers') are addicted to Sarapis. Jewish rabbis, Samaritans and Christian priests in Egypt become astrologers and soothsayers. The visiting archbishop is obliged to worship Sarapis by some and by others Christ. (Witt 235 (Athan. Vit anton. 90: FRA 561, 24)"
"In the Egypt of the time of the emperor Hadrian those who called themselves bishops of Christ are recorded to have devoted their souls to Sarapis. The link between the two faiths was the gospel of salvation. (Witt 54, phlegon, Epist. Ap. Vopisc, (Saturnin.), 8: FRA 280, 15)"
The truth is that Freke and Price only scratched the surface of this topic and, while their individual research can be criticized, Christians (and the biblical-scholar-apologists who defend them) can't begin to explain away the vast, rich and profound wealth of material and evidence that indicates Christianity was a Jewish-Pagan synthesis of a variety of spiritual traditions that had for centuries been merging together through the syncretic influences (both deliberate and accidental) of the Greek and Roman Empires.
Ehrman argues with righteousness and exasperation rather than with evidence or independent (fresh) research. Rather than respond to the serious and fascinating challenges raised by mythicist authors, Ehrman simply selects a handful of research errors to spotlight, letting those mistakes imply that the authors are not credible and the rest of the evidence cannot be trusted (a common trick of Christian apologetics).
Erhman also uses the tired argument that, if we needed hard proof for the existence of Jesus, we'd need the same amount of hard proof for every other historical figure. Ehrman arrives at this conclusion because he's able to completely compartmentalize and separate the potential historical Jesus from the proclaimed Jesus of faith:
"We are not asking whether Jesus really did miracles and, if so, why they (and he) are not mentioned by pagan sources. We are asking whether Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. Only after establishing that he did exist can we go on to ask if he did miracles. If we decide that he did, only then can we revisit the question of why no one, in that case, mentions him."
This is fine for Ehrman, as an academic historian, but in the real world Jesus' story is wrapped up in and nearly indistinguishable from mythology. Some of the most salient and universally recognized images of Jesus story (virgin birth, healing miracles, walking on water, water into wine) are most likely fully mythological - not only because they are fantastic beyond belief, but also because they parallel earlier stories and were probably assimilated into the Christian tradition. Hence, Jesus is emphatically UNLIKE nearly all other historical personages, and looking into the "historical" Jesus must begin by acknowledging this heavy layer of mythology and working to identify and remove it. At the same time, that these apparently mythological features of Jesus' life are not merely literary embellishes, but actual recorded history that really happened as proof of Jesus' divine origin, is a stance supported and loudly proclaimed by hundreds of millions of people on earth today. These issues make the biblical scholar who ignores the mythology, the miraculous, and the supernatural aspects of Jesus to focus on the mundane, totally ordinary 1st century Jew that he could have been, seem like an ivory tower ostrich with his head in the sand.
The heart of Ehrman's claim is that, since the idea of resurrection was not the pagan concept but the Jewish one (because, presumably, Jews didn't mingle with pagans or practice idolatry, a dubious claim) AND since Jews had no expectation of a crucified savior and in fact could scarcely imagine such a crazy idea, AND because they nevertheless DID come up with that idea, it can ONLY have been because Jesus, their hero-messiah figure, was actually crucified. This shows a marked unfamiliarity with the rampant and common practice of cultural-religious communication and cross-influence that was taking place in the melting pot of the Greek and Roman Empires.
The main point of this book is to sloppily introduce and reject the idea that Christ was mythological, without really going into any of the relevant evidence. Jesus existed, because Bart Erhman says so, and he knows better, because he's a REAL scholar. If you're looking to actually learn something about Christian history or the Bible, then Ehrman has produced much better books. According to Bart's research, Jesus existed as a real person - therefore everyone who thinks that he didn't are morons and hateful atheists, who believe in a mythical Jesus merely out of anti-religious sentiment but have absolutely no support for their claims.
But there is so much more material that Ehrman's position ignores. It IS possible to recreate a history of Christianity which did not depend on a historical founder, and there is plenty of evidence with which to do so. Although it cannot prove that a historical founder of some kind did not exist, and although Ehrman's views of a a historical Jesus may be true as well, exploring this vast and rich area of comparative mythology which biblical scholars ignore or criticize, is vital not only to understanding world religion and literature, but also for understanding how ideas grow, change and influence the civilizations which believe in them."
DEREK MURPHYJesus Potter Harry Christ: What JK Rowling's literary pastiche reveals about the construction of the Christian epic
Dwill wrote:I think, by the way, that if we want to go to motives on Ehrman's part for presenting a perhaps sloppy defense of the historical Jesus, it's unnecessary to call him a closet believer.
I agree on that point. I don't think "Errormans" a closet believer because he's clearly in the evemerist position slot as concerns Jesus. There's been some speculation going around about him being a closet believer but it's more or less done in sarcasm for the most part. The reason is because Ehrman's so-called evidence amount to little more than "faith" in parts of what this story suggests about Jesus. Ehrman has "faith" in the historicity of Jesus as an evemerist scholar, as opposed to having "faith" in the historicity and divinity of Jesus like he did when he was a believer scholar.
Once again, great review. Thanks for posting it here.
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tat tvam asi wrote:Ok, take your time Doulos. But keep in mind that it's a bit premature for you to carry on about evidence like you've been doing before first establishing the evidence behind what you're trying to push.
You know most Christians are atheists when it comes to everyone else's Gods and beliefs. They lack belief in these Gods. And they can assert themselves as great skeptics when it comes to considering thoughts and ideas which conflict or counter Christianity. But when it comes to their own pet beliefs they will suddenly drop all such skepticism, logic, and reason. You seem to be in this general category Doulos.
I'll make the point very short for you. At the very minimum you can at best consider yourself equal to me, or Robert, or youkrst if indeed you are correct about our display of "weak" evidence. You're not above or beyond the "mythicists" by any means, just in case you may have thought that at first glance. You do not have superior "evidence" to speak of. And in fact the closer we analyze your literalist approach to the Bible the less likely it will seem when standing along side of much more rational explanations for Biblical origins and evolution thereof and you will gradually take the lower hand in this scenario.
I'm sorry Tat, but I don't consider you, or Youkryst or Robert my 'equals!'
As a follower of Jesus Christ, I am to view you all as better than myself.
"...humility consider others better than yourselves."
(Philippians 2:3)
I will admit that this is an area of my psyche that I continually struggle with, but being Christian does not make me super-human.
This does not mean I have to agree with your views or logic, but it does mean that in addressing you I should not just look to my own interests, but also to yours.
As I've said though, I am far from perfect at that, so if I slip in showing you love, please point it out to me and you will have my heartfelt apologies.
DWill wrote:I think, by the way, that if we want to go to motives on Ehrman's part for presenting a perhaps sloppy defense of the historical Jesus, it's unnecessary to call him a closet believer. He would have plenty of motive in the fact that to declare Jesus mythological cancels out all of his previous work, which ferrets out historical errors but is still firmly based in history.
Good points DWill. I hadn't thought of the mythicist effects on Ehrman's own line of inquiry.
I'm a bit too tired to do justice to the rest of your post at present though, so I'll address it when I'm more rested... zzzzzzzzzzz
DWill wrote:He would have plenty of motive in the fact that to declare Jesus mythological cancels out all of his previous work, which ferrets out historical errors but is still firmly based in history.
yes, i think that is why so many people recoil from the obvious and elegant solution that is mythicism. having bought into a con most will stick with it. they are invested.
but "mythicism" cancels out a whole chunk of stuff
does your literal interpretation conflict with science, not if you realise it's a myth
does your literal interpretation take a lot of energy defending, not if it's an allegory
does your literal interpretation cause cognitive dissonance, not if its a literary representation
when i first saw that the entire jesus story was allegory i was so relieved
i got to keep all the excellent metaphor and jettison all the poisonous crap
i got to have a conversation with someone without that annoying thought in the back of my head whispering "they have not accepted christ as their saviour they are going to a lost eternity""you better convince them fast"
literalism results in mental illness
understanding it's all allegory solves all the problems
Mr Erickson65 wrote:I am in the mythicst camp for the simple reason the letter J does not exist in the Hebrew alphabet, no Jew has ever been named Jesus.
I do believe that a God realized being/man was teaching hence the Sermon of Mount precepts. However, if Satan was going to hide anywhere and fool people it would be on the cross.
You have to ask yourself why they would persecute the Gnostics including the French ones who called themselves Cathars.
When they lived their lives in accordance with the precepts dictated by Christ during the sermon on the Mount.
And Roman Christian orthodoxy engaged in the Crusades, had the inquisitions, burned Bruno at the stake and hung Tyndale. Clearly they were out to suppress information, whilst the Gnostics were all for giving people knowledge.
``All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself.'' Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), Vol. I
You are entirely correct that 'Jesus' was not his actual name. It is however the English version of that name.
I'm not sure why that would make you a mythicist though, so please explain.
youkrst wrote:
i got to have a conversation with someone without that annoying thought in the back of my head whispering "they have not accepted christ as their saviour they are going to a lost eternity""you better convince them fast"
That thought would only be there if there was certainty of beliefs, and love for the life of the other person.
