historia wrote:catalyst wrote:
Rather than it be merely a radical theory as you state, don't you think it could well be a rational and logical conclusion they reached when studying and researching information pertaining to Judeo-christianity?
I don't doubt the sincerity of those who believe this mythicist hypothesis. I just find that their arguments are based on a grand number of misconceptions.
Well I don't know what "grand number of misconceptions" to which you refer. Care to share? This enquiring mind wants to know.
Historia wrote:
And that what they are really arguing against is not the historical Jesus, but rather traditional Christian ideas about Jesus.
With due respect to you Historia, when push comes to shove it is the Christian ideology model: the Jesus of Nazareth character, that any research into the supposed actual historisy, behind, is based. I doubt you were referring to a Jesus I personally know who works at the local ALDI supermarket now are you? HIS place in history, albiet recent, whether he is some claimed (or self -professed) messianic figure, or even just the bloke scanning my produce through the register YESTERDAY is well set that YES at least ONE historical Jesus exists in actuality.
It is apparent even by your cited comment from Mr Erhman, that Mr Erhman was referring to the "Jesus of Nazareth" character to even bring the concept of christianity into the equation. It seems a logical conclusion for me at least as that's his reference point. If you DON'T think he is referring to that character, then WHO?
Whilst waiting for your reply on that, I will continue with this.
I also appreciate that at the time of "Jesus of Nazareth's" purported life, also prior to that and after, there are references to MULTIPLE blokes who had jesus as their Moniker, in fact from the research I have done, it seems that "Jesus" (Yeshua) was more a title than a name; a title given to high priests or religious cult leaders; sort of like Caesar was a title and not a name, first name or surname.. Even the NT itself refers to a "rival jesus", one obviously capable of doing the same sort of stuff the "jesus of nazareth" character, or there would be no reason to bring in the concept OF rivalry into it regarding the "other jesus". This is shown in both 2 Corinthians and also in Mark 9, so said moniker is hardly UNIQUE. As such, there could have been a multitude of "religious healers" running around the traps, Jesus as their name or NOT, that resulted in the fanciful melding that became the fictitious character known as "jesus of nazareth"....the one that unfortunately so many people are completely convinced (why I don't understand anymore) was a real person and even see as a "LIVING" god NOW...
The fact could be that these atheists have actually researched perhaps more than the scholars you refer to.
Historia wrote:
I'm always suspicious of any claim that non-experts somehow have better insight or knowledge than experts in any field, or that those experts are merely "blinded" by their "orthodoxy." Creationist make the same retort.
That perhaps has a lot more to do with your bias than anything, Historia. Perhaps you can explain why "X" is deemed an expert in your eyes, but "Y" would be considered non-expert?
Is perhaps an "expert" ONLY someone whose take or spin on an issue, is one YOU personally agree with, so they MUST know their "stuff"?
Perhaps you are of the misconception that I have relied on the writings of Strobel, Wells, Doherty et al to reach the conclusion I have. Just a heads up for you, I have not read ANY of their offerings. Other people's opinions on issues that I am perfectly capable of researching myself don't interest me and as such what they "think" does not come into the equation one iota.
The ONLY writer whose book (and only read one...don't even know the titles of the others) is Dan Barker's: Losing Faith in Faith, whose view BTW as to the historisy of the "Jesus of Nazareth" character, differs to mine and frankly seeking HIS spin on the whole thing was not my reasoning for reading it in the first place or ever.
That said, even though I don't agree with him, maybe you see HIM as a "non-expert" on such matters? Or haven't you read at his works to make....hmm... a "non-expert" judgement on what he has to say?
I would actually be interested to know just how much research you have personally done on this issue of the Jesus of Nazareth character as being an ACTUAL HISTORICAL figure? I would have to guess that for you to make judgements as to what constitutes expertise in the area, vs NON-expertise, you have personally experienced all sides of the equation including: attending theological college or Seminary to SPECIFICALLY "train" to be a Pastor, Minister, Priest; have a broad (or a working) knowledge YOURSELF of Biblical Hebrew, Attic and Koine Greek (at the VERY least) : have travelled to the countries and places mentioned relating to said figure and other biblical figures yourself to see how the "hype" vs the actuality, over all historical references for example, mesh?
Is the above the very least YOU have done, Historia? Again I ask purely because I am trying to gauge what YOU consider to be "expertise" by comparing it to the expertise YOU may or may not have on the issue. I mean merely reading other's works and agreeing with it and taking it on as YOUR OWN, hardly makes one an expert now, does it.
I don't see how it can remind you of the jesus not existing situation.
historia wrote:
They are both, at their heart, conspiracy theories.
How about you pop up the definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theory...you will see that the majority of "stuff" we are fed as the supposed "official" story as to what REALLY <---(sarcasm) went down, is nothing more than just a conspiracy theory YOU believe. Argumentum ad populum doesn't make something TRUE, no matter how much you as a believer of the "official line" want it to be.
I suppose it really comes down to the personality type you are Historia. Some are the type to believe any old "stuff" they are told and opt to believe it....even IF their conscience is "niggling" at them. It is living with a relatively "comfy" lie. It's so much easier to live with isn't it than being accused, or even people have their own "suspicions" that you are nothing more than an "OUT THERE" freak of some stripe or another.
The irony is, the "jesus of nazareth" character IS depicted as an "out there freak", even in the bible: one supposedly against "the system" of the time. It's more than apparent you believe that the "jesus of nazareth" character DID exist in reality and perhaps his alleged "expertise" on stuff is the whole him supposedly "being god" thing. How about this Historia, you have claimed that those NOT believing in this Jesus of Nazareth character, AS an historical JESUS, then please SHOW what research you have done to determine this as frankly, all I have seen you do on this thread to this point, is diss those NOT agreeing with you and NOT showing reasons or examples of what YOU have to offer that could turn this "mythicist " point of view on its head. So, please SHOW this alleged historical accuracy as to an Historial Jesus YOU have uncovered.
I am more than happy to view any information you may have... unless it is "wiki" opinion pieces. I want to know what hard core research YOU personally have done.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply.
Catalyst