Blog: Is Jesus a Myth?

 
Bongobongo Smith
 
Avatar
 
 
Bongobongo Smith
Total Posts:  322
Joined  17-04-2008
 
 
 
11 August 2009 13:49
 
Bad_Conduct - 11 June 2009 08:55 PM

Yeah.

I still don’t believe in human evolution, no matter where animals came from.

And I still think most of the fossiles on record are inaccurate from age.


CLICK


.

 
 
queefsr4quitters
 
Avatar
 
 
queefsr4quitters
Total Posts:  33
Joined  14-10-2007
 
 
 
11 August 2009 17:01
 
queefsr4quitters - 11 August 2009 03:29 PM

What is the mythicist argument against the “Criterion of Dissimilarity?”


For those unfamiliar to it, here is Bart Ehrman in Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) describing the criterion and giving examples:

“How might we account for traditions of Jesus that clearly do not fit with a “Christian” agenda, that is, that do not promote the views and persectives of the people telling the stories? Traditions like that would not have been made up by the Christian storytellers, and so they are quite likely to be historically accurate. This is sometimes, confusingly, called the “criterion of dissmiliarity.” Any tradition of Jesus that is dissimilar to what the early Christians would have likely wanted to say about him is more likely authentic. Take the two previous examples. You can see why Christians might want to say that Jesus came from Bethlehem: that was where the son of David was to come from (Micah 5:2). But who would make up a story that the Savior came from Nazareth, a little one-horse town that no one had ever heard of? This tradition does not advance any Christian agenda. Somewhat ironically, then, it is probably historically accurate. Or take John the Baptist. In Mark, our earliest account, John baptizes Jesus. Would Christians have made this up? Remember, in the early Christian tradition it was believed that the person who was spiritually superior baptized the one who was spiritually inferior. Would a Christian make up the idea that Jesus was baptized by, and therefore inferior to, someone else? Moreover, John was baptizing “for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4). Would someone want to claim that Jesus needed to be forgiven for his sins? It seems unlikely. Conclusion? Jesus probably really did associate with John the Baptist at the beginning of his ministry, and probably was baptized by him.

I’m bumping this to the sixth page so it is not missed. I’m genuinely curious as to what the argument against it is. I’m unconvinced that Jesus existed, but I think this argument is fairly decent.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Dave31
Total Posts:  87
Joined  21-12-2007
 
 
 
14 August 2009 08:33
 

The argument put forth by Ehrman is simply taking the stance of the Evemerist Position -

“Evemerism represents the perspective that many of the gods and goddesses of antiquity had been real people, such as kings, queens and other heroes and legendary figures, to whose biographies were later added extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes.”
- “Christ in Egypt’ page 11

Notice how nobody can provide credible evidence or even valid corroborating evidence for the biblical characters and stories? The NT writers simply used the OT as a blueprint to write future “prophecy.” Horus was baptized by Anup which is detailed in a chapter titled “Anup the Baptizer” in the book “Christ in Egypt.” Ehrman’s argument may sound convincing until one actually looks at the details.

What is a Mythicist?
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html

The History of Mythicism
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicism.html

The blog: What is a mythicist?
http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-is-mythicist.html

 
queefsr4quitters
 
Avatar
 
 
queefsr4quitters
Total Posts:  33
Joined  14-10-2007
 
 
 
14 August 2009 17:27
 
Dave31 - 14 August 2009 12:33 PM

The argument put forth by Ehrman is simply taking the stance of the Evemerist Position -

“Evemerism represents the perspective that many of the gods and goddesses of antiquity had been real people, such as kings, queens and other heroes and legendary figures, to whose biographies were later added extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes.”
- “Christ in Egypt’ page 11

Notice how nobody can provide credible evidence or even valid corroborating evidence for the biblical characters and stories? The NT writers simply used the OT as a blueprint to write future “prophecy.” Horus was baptized by Anup which is detailed in a chapter titled “Anup the Baptizer” in the book “Christ in Egypt.” Ehrman’s argument may sound convincing until one actually looks at the details.

What is a Mythicist?
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html

The History of Mythicism
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicism.html

The blog: What is a mythicist?
http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-is-mythicist.html

It’s not quite the Evemerist Position. Ehrman, by the way, is only explaining what the Criterion of Dissimilarity is; it’s accepted by most scholars as a useful tool to gather historicity and is taught in secular universities without a Chrisitian agenda. Moreover, Ehrman (and possibly the majority of biblical scholars) wouldn’t disagree with you that a large porition of the Gospels have passages to try to fulfill prophecies and so forth. It is precisely why the Criterion of Dissimilarity is employed; it’s used to look for material which wouldn’t make sense for early Christians to push forward and yet these stories, pericopes, etc. are there. They cut against the grain of Christian agenda. I’m not saying it demonstrably shows that therefore Jesus existed, but it does leave us with the question of where these stories came from which ran counter to what early Christians would want to say about him.

[ Edited: 14 August 2009 17:44 by queefsr4quitters]
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Dave31
Total Posts:  87
Joined  21-12-2007
 
 
 
14 August 2009 18:27
 

So then why is Ehrman’s explanation of “Criterion of Dissimilarity” wrong on every point he brought up? It just smells like special pleading to me. Or is he not aware that there is no credible evidence for Nazareth, King David or John the Baptist? And, in this comment, he doesn’t mention the fact that there’s no mention of all four gospels until the late 2nd century.

By the comment provided it does appear that while Ehrman may not believe as he used to when he was a Christian, he does come off as believing in a historical Jesus - which would be taking the Evemerist Position.

It just doesn’t appear that Ehrman is very knowledgeable of the mythicist case. As is the situation with so many who claim to debunk it - they always misrepresent it because they don’t seem to know much about it.

[ Edited: 14 August 2009 18:53 by Dave31]
 
 
Avatar
 
 
PickSimple
Total Posts:  2
Joined  20-01-2008
 
 
 
17 November 2009 15:59
 

Galatians 1:11-12 (Paul)

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

FYI
Seems Paul has zero credibility. He states quite clearly it all comes from his head and NOT reality.

 
Occam's Razor
 
Avatar
 
 
Occam's Razor
Total Posts:  414
Joined  01-02-2006
 
 
 
30 December 2009 16:41
 
Bad_Conduct - 08 June 2009 10:41 PM

...it would be difficult to invent someone that was killed by the Roman empire.

The Roman Empire killed pretty much everyone. That was sort of their thing.

 
 
Frently Frent
 
Avatar
 
 
Frently Frent
Total Posts:  5
Joined  06-10-2010
 
 
 
06 October 2010 08:31
 
 
Hilary Chaney
 
Avatar
 
 
Hilary Chaney
Total Posts:  1
Joined  12-11-2010
 
 
 
13 November 2010 06:46
 

I’ve just started blogging about my own manic break and hospitalization. It’s about recovery and treatment, but more importantly about discovery of a new post-religion faith where there is no hell, no original sin, there is no more Christian God because you are God, and heaven on earth is real, radiant and right around the corner. A wild and triumphant ride. http://graduatingfromgod.blogspot.com/

 
 
Avatar
 
 
pabloj
Total Posts:  7
Joined  24-04-2011
 
 
 
24 April 2011 14:24
 

I’m Christian, I believe in the religion. The philosophy is so strong concerning human good and evil, resurrection and redemption. Jesus is such a powerful figure in the world if you look at his representation. If you include Islam, he’s the most represented single figure on earth. A lot of reasons to believe, but the main one is some hope in the face of all the human evil going on in the world extending down to one’s personal life in terms of broken dreams, lack of decent relationships. Just the things you expect out of life, but end up falling flat. I guess the reason to believe is IDEALISM.

 
teosocrates
 
Avatar
 
 
teosocrates
Total Posts:  2
Joined  26-04-2011
 
 
 
26 April 2011 00:56
 

This is an old thread but for what it’s worth I thought I’d share this:

http://www.jesuspotterharrychrist.com

Argues both Jesus and Harry Potter are equally fictional, has been getting good reviews from Atheist bloggers.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
26 April 2011 04:09
 
pabloj - 24 April 2011 06:24 PM

I’m Christian, I believe in the religion. The philosophy is so strong concerning human good and evil, resurrection and redemption. Jesus is such a powerful figure in the world if you look at his representation. If you include Islam, he’s the most represented single figure on earth. A lot of reasons to believe, but the main one is some hope in the face of all the human evil going on in the world extending down to one’s personal life in terms of broken dreams, lack of decent relationships. Just the things you expect out of life, but end up falling flat. I guess the reason to believe is IDEALISM.


All that depends entirely upon the given believer.

And that should tell you something.

 
 
Ecurb Noselrub
 
Avatar
 
 
Ecurb Noselrub
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
26 April 2011 19:44
 
SkepticX - 26 April 2011 08:09 AM
pabloj - 24 April 2011 06:24 PM

I’m Christian, I believe in the religion. The philosophy is so strong concerning human good and evil, resurrection and redemption. Jesus is such a powerful figure in the world if you look at his representation. If you include Islam, he’s the most represented single figure on earth. A lot of reasons to believe, but the main one is some hope in the face of all the human evil going on in the world extending down to one’s personal life in terms of broken dreams, lack of decent relationships. Just the things you expect out of life, but end up falling flat. I guess the reason to believe is IDEALISM.


All that depends entirely upon the given believer.

And that should tell you something.

The reason to believe is personal experience. And that should tell you something.  If X has experienced Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the only reason for you to reject X’s testimony about that experience is because you have decided, a priori, to reject anything related to religious faith.  You don’t know whether or not God exists, or whether Jesus is/was real, so the proper attitude for you to take in the interim is “I don’t know, let’s see.”  Instead, you immediately label anyone with faith as “religiostupidified”, and assume that they have a poor epistemology and are lacking in mental discipline, honesty and humility.  Yet you know nothing of that person’s experience.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
27 April 2011 06:33
 
Ecurb Noselrub - 26 April 2011 11:44 PM

The reason to believe is personal experience. And that should tell you something.  If X has experienced Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the only reason for you to reject X’s testimony about that experience is because you have decided, a priori, to reject anything related to religious faith.  You don’t know whether or not God exists, or whether Jesus is/was real, so the proper attitude for you to take in the interim is “I don’t know, let’s see.”  Instead, you immediately label anyone with faith as “religiostupidified”, and assume that they have a poor epistemology and are lacking in mental discipline, honesty and humility.  Yet you know nothing of that person’s experience.


Aside from the egocentric bullshit apologetics that don’t apply to many believers and wouldn’t fool your average 12 year old (if not for the effects of the Kool-Aid that is), I agree ...

The nature of a given believer’s belief depends a great deal upon his or her intellectual integrity/how seriously he or she takes honesty.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
pabloj
Total Posts:  7
Joined  24-04-2011
 
 
 
27 April 2011 09:47
 
SkepticX - 27 April 2011 10:33 AM

The reason to believe is personal experience.

That’s right. My personal experience in a nutshell is that I was going through a very hard time in my life, the hardest ever, close to death. I went to church and had a “personal experience”.  But that’s not the end of the story because then you find out about all the corruption going on in the Christian church. Corruption going up to the sky.

So back to the original topic of Jesus being a myth. I don’t think so, because he has a strength and power that some contrived figure couldn’t have.

In another thread someone is comparing Harry Potter to Jesus. I really don’t think I could have gone to a Harry Potter convention and had a “personal experience”. But maybe people do, but they’re probably a little ‘fruity’ too.