What I mean is... To say jesus is mythical isn't making a claim as such, it's just saying HJ has not met its burden of proof. And I don't mean declaring that it definitely is mythical; just that if something isn't demonstrably real, we have no reason to assume it's anything but fiction.

---

Right, well yeah. You can just pick any random jesus back then and it's "based on" them as much as any other jesus. But if you can't attribute a single word or action to them, in what way is it based on them? That's my problem

---

I mean, Harry potter may be "based on" a real Harry, but what does that mean? Does it make Harry potter any more real if so?

---

Sorry for the confusion dystopia, I really appreciate the feedback and upon re reading my blog I can see definite bits I could improve. Sorry I was confused, I can see your concerns now. I hope to improve it soon.

Cheers!

---

Maybe mythicist is the wrong term for my position. I may be getting confused. I'll think it over! Maybe thats making a separate claim... OK that may be a bad idea then! I'll think about it!

Watchamadoodle and dystopia:

I want to apologize if I've been rude or dismissive, I got all worked up about the subject matter and I was posting too quickly without thinking it through. You've both raised excellent points, and I should have thought about them properly before coming in like a steamroller!

So I'm very sorry for how I came across. I must learn to calm myself down and take a breath when I get like that! Thanks much to both of you for your input about HJ and my blog. You've given me things to think about on both counts, and I'll read it all through again later and work out my thoughts.

I better take a break for now! I get kind of worked up, in an excited way, it's silly I know... Most of my life is fighting the urge to kill myself, so I feel numb and that life is nothing but a grind. So when I get involved in such interesting subject matter, sometimes I feel a rush and it gets the better of me.

(February 26, 2015 at 11:17 am)robvalue Wrote: What I mean is... To say jesus is mythical isn't making a claim as such, it's just saying HJ has not met its burden of proof.

What is its "burden of proof" here? How would it meet this, exactly? What evidence, of the kind that we could expect for an early first century Jewish preacher, would be sufficient to meet this burden of proof, in your opinion?

Quote: And I don't mean declaring that it definitely is mythical; just that if something isn't demonstrably real, we have no reason to assume it's anything but fiction.

See my questions above about what could be "demonstrable" here.

Hey rob you didn't offend me, don't take it personally, I was just trying to help you out. One of the best things we can do in our lives is learning, and many times it's useful to hear other people's opinion.

In your topic of "What atheism is not" I would add something related to Satan and the devil since many people think we worship satan, eat babies, etc.

@TimOneill, I was hoping you might visit this forum. I learned a lot from your visit to ex-Christian.net a few months ago.


What's your best guess about the historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity? Here is a link listing various theories for convenience:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Also, do you have an opinion of this book or author ("Jewish Gospels" by Boyarin)? I find the idea that Christianity existed before Jesus very interesting, but I prefer investing my limited brain-power on reputable books.
https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2012/03/0...sh-gospel/

(February 26, 2015 at 9:24 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: @TimOneill, I was hoping you might visit this forum. I learned a lot from your visit to ex-Christian.net a few months ago.

Thanks. The Mods on that forum decided that the ex-Christians there were delicate little flowers who couldn't be challenged to rethink whatever ideas they had arrived at to replace their former faith, however whacky. I got tired of being scolded simply for asking supposed rationalists to actually think critically about their ideas. In fact, I have contributed to Christian forums less wrapped in cotton wool than that place. Let's hope discussion on this forum can be more robust.

Quote:What's your best guess about the historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity? Here is a link listing various theories for convenience:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

I'm convinced that the Apocalyptic Prophet interpretation makes the most sense by far. It's the most parsimonious read of the evidence and the least driven by other, modern ideological agendas. It's also the majority position of critical scholars, especially non-Christian scholars but also including some Christian ones, e.g. Dale Allison, whose work on this subject is excellent.

The divisions in that list are fairly artificial though. Very little of what Vermes said is in any way incompatible with the apocalyptic prophet idea. Vermes put his emphasis on other aspects of Jesus' Jewish context and its reflection in what is reported about him, but he agreed that Jesus' message had a profound and important eschatological (ie "the end is nigh!") element. I don't agree with Crossan et al and the "Jesus Seminar" guys on Jesus as a kind of hippy "sage" (or "Jesus of California" as a mate of mine calls that school), but some of what they say is valid and is also compatible with Jesus as an apocalyptic. Ditto for Horsley and Jesus as a prophet of social change. These are not mutually exclusive positions.

But I reject the Jesus of Faith of Christian conservatives like Wright. And the Jesus Myth fringe is also weak and usually ideologically driven.

Quote:Also, do you have an opinion of this book or author ("Jewish Gospels" by Boyarin)? I find the idea that Christianity existed before Jesus very interesting, but I prefer investing my limited brain-power on reputable books.
https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2012/03/0...sh-gospel/

I haven't read it, but other scholars of Second Temple Judaism find it pretty unimpressive. See this critical review by Jewish Studies scholar Peter Schäfer for details.

(February 26, 2015 at 11:17 am)robvalue Wrote: What I mean is... To say jesus is mythical isn't making a claim as such, it's just saying HJ has not met its burden of proof. And I don't mean declaring that it definitely is mythical; just that if something isn't demonstrably real, we have no reason to assume it's anything but fiction.

Burden of proof is not a rule of logic, it's a rule of debating and arguing etiquette.
If you mean "improbable claims" have the burden of proof then you beg the question because that's the point at issue. When you're dealing with ancient history things are going to get iffy anyway. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem .

(February 26, 2015 at 11:17 am)robvalue Wrote: Right, well yeah. You can just pick any random jesus back then and it's "based on" them as much as any other jesus. But if you can't attribute a single word or action to them, in what way is it based on them? That's my problem

---

I mean, Harry potter may be "based on" a real Harry, but what does that mean? Does it make Harry potter any more real if so?

I asked Richard Carrier that on his blog, basically that I don't even understand the question "was Jesus a person" for precisely the reasons you bring up. And his response was basically, yes, that is exactly the problem you have when attacking the historicity question, and that he deals with it in his essays on the topic.I should try to find the linky...

(February 27, 2015 at 4:26 am)Alex K Wrote: I asked Richard Carrier that on his blog, basically that I don't even understand the question "was Jesus a person" for precisely the reasons you bring up. And his response was basically, yes, that is exactly the problem you have when attacking the historicity question, and that he deals with it in his essays on the topic.I should try to find the linky...

You seriously don't understand the question? People attribute quotes and ideas to Einstein all the time. In fact, "Einstein" has become a kind of cultural shorthand for "a wise, urbane and tolerant smart person", with stories and memes about "him" that are often contradictory and a few actually impossible. So if I ask "is the Einstein I keep seeing referred to on the internet based on a historical person?" you genuinely don't understand what I'm asking?

(February 26, 2015 at 10:28 am)robvalue Wrote: 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 agree that being so certain about Jesus' existence is absurd. I personally think, though, that given what information we have about him, Jesus is more likely to have existed at one point than not existed at all. The criteria of theological awkwardness given a mythical Jesus seem to point in that direction.