Awesome, great! Thanks very much

I'm really surprised it doesn't bother more christians that just making a case for Jesus the "random guy wandering around doing nothing special who later got twisted in a superhero" is so damn hard and in controversy. Let alone godpants cross boy.

---

This is weird. It seems to be giving the impression that the burden of proof is on the guy claiming jesus is probably entirely mythical. I think that's backwards. The case is simple: if there is no evidence which does suggest a real historical Jesus beyond reasonable doubt, then it is safe to conclude he is mythical. Asking a mythicist to prove his case is like asking for proof God doesn't exist. What I'm reading here is criticisms of this mythicist's argument, which may well be valid, the guy's argument may not be good; but regardless you need actual evidence to debunk the position. I'm still looking for that! I'll keep reading

In other words, I think the default position is that jesus is as mythical as Harry potter. Why would you start by assuming he is real and working backwards?

Ah...l this is what I'm talking about, they're rattling on about other historical figures and whether we accept them! This is irrelevant! I'm gonna tear some shit up in a minute :p

---

Josephus? Fuck off. I mean really, stick it right up your holy hole.

I'm not talking to anyone in particular here :p

I see no value in anything Josephus wrote, it's just speculation about what people believed. So what? The myth had plenty of time to build by then. I'm getting highly suspicious that these HJ guys have got nothing and are trying to move the burden of proof onto mythicists.

---

The HJ defence seems to amount to, "Haha, mythicists are dumb!"

I'm trying to find more than that, but I feel like I'm already aware of the evidence available. I'm happy to be proved wrong if someone can show me why.

Just wanted to mention that I misspelled his name. "Tim O'Neill" has two L's instead of one L.

The way I see it, the evidence isn't very strong for either viewpoint - mythicist or mootist. I wish there was more evidence.

Right, well yeah!

That's kind of my point. If the HJ crowd don't have convincing evidence, then they lose. It's not up to the mythicists to find "proof of nothing" any more than I need to provide evidence Harry Potter isn't real.

The fact that there just isn't enough evidence isn't an excuse to fill in the blanks, rely on the gospels as credible and just slag off mythicists while claiming an invisible victory.

It's baffling. The HJ seem so confident of themselves, yet they are not backing it up with anything that I can see. It's always the same; "gospels can't all be made up" [yes they can], "Josephus, wah wah..." [bollocks, hearsay about beliefs about hearsay] and "Other historical figures...." [irrelevant]. These are starting to sound like the 3 pillars of apologetics, the arguments for HJ sound eerily familiar to the theist' arguments for godboy jesus and are about as convincing to me.

This is just a weird fascination really. I'm enjoying poking holes in jesus as if he doesn't have enough already. Whoahhhh!

---

Right... so I'm putting my thoughts in order.

I think there is this myth that the bible is special and there must be "some truth" to it, even if you doubt most of it happened. I don't see why the book should be granted such special treatment.

So my question is... why should I assume the bible is anything other than fiction? Why should I take jesus any more seriously than Harry Potter?

The answer seems to be... there isn't enough evidence to say I should, but I really must keep an open mind, because, you know, it's jesus. Why should I keep an open mind? Obviously I'm open to more evidence and arguments, but at the end of the day this is a book, and it has all the hallmarks of fiction. The fact that it has a few historical facts is as relevant as the fact that New York is in the Spiderman comics.

Maybe there is a false dichotomy between mootists and mythicists?

Or maybe this is similar to the question of God's existence. The mythicists are like gnostic atheists. They have a burden of proof - unlike agnostic atheists (IMO).

Well... good point, I guess it's a question of definition.

I'm not claiming that I know jesus is mythical, I'm saying I believe it, and I find it the most likely thing. I don't know Harry Potter isn't real either, but I feel the same level of confidence.

Does that make me a mythicist? Or do I have to claim knowledge? Claiming knowledge seems indefensible.

---

myth-i-cist [mith-uh-sist]

-noun

a person who views various figures of antiquity, including both pagan gods and major biblical characters, as mythical


Doesn't seem like I need to claim knowledge. It's like being a-jesus. I have seen no evidence to suggest that jesus is anything other than myth.

Maybe I'm not using the right term. I just think he's fiction, that's my belief. Does that make me a mythicist? I suppose that's implying an actual link between him and previous myths... I don't know.

I'm an agnostic ajesusist.

Straight from google:

myth

noun
1.
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
"ancient Celtic myths"
synonyms: folk tale, story, folk story, legend, tale, fable, saga, allegory, parable, tradition, lore, folklore; More
2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.

Time to try out this smiley for the first time:

Say what? No one submitted any evidence for a HJ while I was asleep? Still nothing except hearsay?

I honestly would be very interested if anyone knows of evidence for HJ that is not hearsay. Because I am becoming highly suspicious that there isn't any. And if that's true, I have no idea how they can make their case.

Added a new page, "What atheism is not". It is meant to address a lot of the common misunderstandings about atheism.

If I've missed any, please let me know!

Here are some links to Bart Ehrman articles. I only read the first link so far. Here is a quote that summarizes why I tend to believe in a historic Jesus:

Quote:At the same time, it is worthwhile knowing what the experts say — whether talking about the age of our universe (13.8 billion years; but I wouldn’t be able to calculate that myself); about the theory of evolution (Hey, it’s just a *theory*! yes, but so too is the “theory” of gravity!!); about the forgery of the Hitler diaries; or about anything else that involves expertise.

http://ehrmanblog.org/another-take-on-jesus-existence/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07...n-vs-myth/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringou...t-one.html

Here is one thought: If Jesus was a mythical being, shouldn't there be evidence where people hostile to Christianity are arguing with Christian apologists over this point? For example, I think critics of Christianity argued that Jesus was actually a child born out of wedlock instead of a miraculous birth to a virgin.

On the other hand, the Gnostics believed that Jesus was not actually human, was not actually crucified, etc. Maybe they believed that Jesus didn't actually exist in this place of reality? That would be close to the mythicist belief. Sometimes I wonder if Christianity started with the Gnostics and a mystical Jesus.

Thanks for the links

But I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. I don't believe appealing to motives is satisfactory, this was all such a long time ago that to try and "get into the mind" of people at that time is too much of a stretch for me. People have all kind of weird reasons for doing things, and I think that if motives are all HJ has to stand on, then it doesn't stand at all.

I'm not seeing any actual evidence, it seems more just mocking mythicists, making random assertions, assessing Paul's motives! As if Paul has even been established as a real person, and he never met jesus and many of his letters are forgeries. Paul believed in a celestial jesus, the ones referring to the man jesus are likely forgeries. It's likely a different myth woven into the story. Even the die for a lie argument which is bogus. This is logical fallacies all the way through, I could go through and rip it up bit by bit. I really see nothing of substance.

I also don't care about historians opinions if they are not supported, and none of these seem to be, it's hand waving. (I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just not seeing anything new to persuade me there's anything more than inductive guesswork at play).

---

For Ehrman to say he is certain of HJ is absurd. Certain? You have to be kidding me. I don't think there's even a 10% chance of it given the huge lack of evidence. I've read a lot about his book and I'm not impressed, it's full of fallacies. If there is one particular bit of evidence or argument you think I'm overlooking, feel free to point me to it

With regard to your argument, I have no idea what the results of anything would be, but again I don't see motive as enough of a convincer to fill in massive gaps in evidence. Just my opinion

---

Am I being a dick? I really don't mean to be.

I just find these scholars are not backing up their HJ claims, regardless of what mythicists say.