Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[Secular Elf]

Wow, you've got it in for us huh? It seems you are the one with the emotional attachment to be honest. Why is it so upsetting if we aren't convinced by the evidence that you accept?

That is a good question.  This is not his first thread that deals with this topic:

A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...

The arguments are pretty much the same, over and over again.  I guess he figures that doing the same thing again will give him a different result than it did before.

I am late to this thread, and I have noticed this pattern with the OP too.  He reiterates the same point over and over.  It is a    What is the saying?  Oh yes, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results = the definition of insanity.

[TheMessiah]

That is a good question.  This is not his first thread that deals with this topic:

A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...

The arguments are pretty much the same, over and over again.  I guess he figures that doing the same thing again will give him a different result than it did before.

I am late to this thread, and I have noticed this pattern with the OP too.  He reiterates the same point over and over.  It is a    What is the saying?  Oh yes, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results = the definition of insanity.

This is a strawman --- I am reiterating the same point (in this thread) because I am met with the same response in regards to what is considered evidence/why the source is supposedly not reliable. The argument in this OP was a more comprehensive and substantiated data-base, hence your premise is incorrect.

Either way, as I said on the previous page - I am done with this topic.

[Secular Elf]

Sure, NP.  Lets just recap.  

The mythicist position is not, directly, a position on the existence of magic or miracles.  Magic and miracles do not make or break the mythicist position.

The mythicist position is not that -there couldn't have been- a man named yeshua.

The mythicist position is simple, the jesus that we have handed to us, the jesus of our cultural and literary inheritance, is mythical, is legendary.  That -no man- need be the kernel of that jesus, and that there is no man which can be extracted from the body of that jesus. That the "historical jesus" of the experts is an "any-man", and thus, effectively...... no man in particular or at all.

The Mythicist Position as explained by D.M. Murdock, aka "Acharya S.": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63BNKhGAVRQ

---

They also assert the existence of "jesus the man".  So regardless of divinity......

That's not what early xtians thought of them.  Caused a shitstorm of controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

Exactly.  Early Christianity, from its very beginning, was not a monolith of belief and dogma.  Right out of the gate this Christian believed one thing about who Jesus was and the other Christian another.  Again, from my own treatise about Early Christianity's history:

III. Christology of the Jewish Christians


The ancient Christological view of Jesus among Early Christians was certainly as varied as, and even more complex than, what today’s views of Jesus are. This is ever more evident among the very first Christians—the Jewish Christians of which there were three main groups: Nazarenes, Elkasites, and Ebionites.

The Nazarenes believed that Jesus was the Messiah that all Jews had been looking for. In the Jewish context, a messiah (Hebrew: mashiach, “anointed one”) is a king or High Priest traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil. He was never considered by Jews to be God or a pre-existent divine being or Son of God. In its native Jewish context, the messiah was meant to be a future Jewish king from the royal Davidic line, who will be anointed with holy anointing oil, to be the king of God’s kingdom and rule the Jewish people during a Messianic Age. Belief in the eventual coming of a future messiah is a fundamental part of Judaism even today.

The Elkasites believed that Jesus was a simple prophet who had been born before many times and would be born again frequently in the future. This belief in reincarnation indicates that the Elkasites were evolving towards a Gnostic direction.

The Ebionites regarded Jesus as the Messiah but did not consider him divine. They also zealously followed the Law of Moses and revered Jerusalem as the holiest city. They restricted table fellowship only to Gentiles who converted to Judaism.


IV. Christology of Gentile Christians

As Christianity spread among the Gentile population this diversity of opinion of who Jesus was became even more complex. The three most prominent of these views within Early Christianity were Gnosticism, Adoptionism, and Docetism.

Gnosticism was a religious expression that originated from Greek philosophy. Gnostics viewed the material world with suspicion. It was considered as being evil or as being a prison. This evil world or prison was created by a spirit that was either a fallen being or an evil one. The god of the material world was called a demiurge. Gnostics called the demiurge by many different names, depending on the group or sect. Gnosticism came in two varieties, the older Pagan one and the newer Christian Gnosticism (basically Christianity influenced by Gnosticism), and there were Judaic Gnostics as well, such as the Sethians. Whether Pagan, Judaic, or Christian, all Gnostics believed that one can liberate one’s soul from the material world through secret knowledge, or gnosis. So Gnostic Christians regarded the God of the Hebrew Bible (Torah) as the demiurge and identified Jesus as the Savior spirit sent from the true God from the realm of light into the material world to liberate the souls trapped there. Of the Early Christians whose theology was markedly gnostic in flavor were such groups as the Ebionites, Cerdonians, Colorbasians, Naassenes, Ophites, and Simonians, among a few others.

Many other Early Christians regarded Jesus in the light of Adoptionism, that is, that Jesus was born human but only became divine by God adopting him at his baptism. The Ebionites, even though they were gnostic in their cosmic view, were the first to hold the adoptionist position regarding Jesus’ divinity.

Still other Early Christians saw Jesus in a totally different way, called Docetism (Greek, “illusionary,” “phantom”). In this view it is claimed that Jesus’ was pure spirit and incorporeal, therefore his physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion, because he could not physically die. This view was a prominent feature among dualistic gnostic Christians.

Lastly, there were a group of Christians who are called by theological historian Bart D. Ehrman “proto-orthodox.” The Proto-orthodox Christians held to the view that Jesus was the son of God and therefore was divine in nature in both spirit and body, inseparable, which was a theology in its essence Pauline Christianity. These Proto-orthodox Christians held their view as being the one and only correct view, therefore they further saw themselves as the only Christians who were true of faith, and regarded other Christians with other positions of Jesus’ divinity with suspicion and distrust. The Proto-orthodox Christians would eventually, by the 4th Century CE, have greater influence over the formation of the New Testament canon and evolve into Orthodox Christianity.

[Pyrrho]

That is a good question.  This is not his first thread that deals with this topic:

A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...

The arguments are pretty much the same, over and over again.  I guess he figures that doing the same thing again will give him a different result than it did before.

I am late to this thread, and I have noticed this pattern with the OP too.  He reiterates the same point over and over.  It is a    What is the saying?  Oh yes, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results = the definition of insanity.

Yes.  But recognizing a pattern does nothing to prevent it from occurring again.  I expect another thread on the subject of whether there was a historical Jesus or not within a few months of this one being abandoned.  And I expect the arguments to be pretty much the same. It is not as if it is likely that anyone is going to dig up a new document in the next couple of months.

[TheMessiah]

I am late to this thread, and I have noticed this pattern with the OP too.  He reiterates the same point over and over.  It is a    What is the saying?  Oh yes, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results = the definition of insanity.

Yes.  But recognizing a pattern does nothing to prevent it from occurring again.  I expect another thread on the subject of whether there was a historical Jesus or not within a few months of this one being abandoned.  And I expect the arguments to be pretty much the same. It is not as if it is likely that anyone is going to dig up a new document in the next couple of months.

This is ironic coming from a user who accused me of being a misogynist several times without a shred of proof, proving yourself not to be very ''skeptical'' as you claim, solely based on the fact that I did not like Feminism. I smell a hypocrite...

[Pyrrho]

Yes.  But recognizing a pattern does nothing to prevent it from occurring again.  I expect another thread on the subject of whether there was a historical Jesus or not within a few months of this one being abandoned.  And I expect the arguments to be pretty much the same. It is not as if it is likely that anyone is going to dig up a new document in the next couple of months.

This is ironic coming from a user who accused me of being a misogynist several times without a shred of proof, proving yourself not to be very ''skeptical'' as you claim, solely based on the fact that I did not like Feminism. I smell a hypocrite...

You must be a glutton for punishment, if you will pardon the homely old saying:

I suppose, just like calling someone a misogynist over and over again would have a different result.

You seem to be confused about the quote function.  My post in which I stated that you are a misogynist was quoted over and over again.  That was not me writing it over and over, that was people using the quote function.  You might want to read up on how message boards like this one function.

You also are confused about the purpose of the post.  It was a response to someone else, not to you.  I did not expect to convince you of anything with it.

You might also want to work on your skills with links, as yours does not take one to any particular post of mine, but to page 14 of a thread.

You really are exposing yourself to ridicule with the things you state.  Of course I do not expect you to stop doing that.

Are you incapable of learning anything?  Did you not look at the links before, and see that my post was quoted over and over, and I did not post it over and over?  Are you really that clueless?

[TheMessiah]

This is ironic coming from a user who accused me of being a misogynist several times without a shred of proof, proving yourself not to be very ''skeptical'' as you claim, solely based on the fact that I did not like Feminism. I smell a hypocrite...

You must be a glutton for punishment, if you will pardon the homely old saying:

You seem to be confused about the quote function.  My post in which I stated that you are a misogynist was quoted over and over again.  That was not me writing it over and over, that was people using the quote function.  You might want to read up on how message boards like this one function.

You also are confused about the purpose of the post.  It was a response to someone else, not to you.  I did not expect to convince you of anything with it.

You might also want to work on your skills with links, as yours does not take one to any particular post of mine, but to page 14 of a thread.

You really are exposing yourself to ridicule with the things you state.  Of course I do not expect you to stop doing that.

Are you incapable of learning anything?  Did you not look at the links before, and see that my post was quoted over and over, and I did not post it over and over?  Are you really that clueless?

You have berated me for repeating something despite you ignoring my questions of why you libelled me on another thread.

Edit - Are you incapable of reading what you had liked? Or simply incapable of remembering? You had given thanks for previous comments which had thrown the same libelious claims, hence the point stands. You giving thanks to several libellious comments and then failing to provide a reasonable explanation to as the rationale behind the libel.

[Cyberman]

For a charge of libel to be upheld, the comments have to be untrue. Can you support that?

[TheMessiah]

For a charge of libel to be upheld, the comments have to be untrue. Can you support that?

Nobody's being charged over a forum; to put it more lightly than libel (which in itself, has significant connotations); lies. Certainly not accusations which are skeptical.

The burden of proof is on the accuser to substantiate his claim; it is upon him or her to prove why I am a misogynist, which by definition means someone who hates women.

[Cyberman]

Then replace charge with accusation if you like. Can you support it?