Jesus mytherism is a symptom of One-Dimensional Man

Image result for Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Historical site of Jesus' death,burial,and Resurrection.


Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Historicasite
of Jesus' death,burial,and Resurrection.



One dimensional man was Herbert Marcue's concept marking the decline of Western civilization and the ultimate triumph of capitalistic market forces in producing a tantalized system of obedience. It was the ultimate in capitalism  induced false consciousness arresting class struggle. The workers get hooked on false needs, they don't perceive their need to rebel.[1] In the 90s the plucky grad students from UT Dallas produced the academic journal Negations, which sought to update Marcuse into the 90s. Publisher was a J.L.Hinman, Our unique contribution to the subject, the nature of the closed realm of discourage. Everything has to be about consuming and producing,[2]


Fast froward into the current age, the age of the Foux President. Negations was before my days as a Christian apologist (although I was a Christian and had my Masters in theology). As a Christian apologist I have seen and confronted the phenomenon of the Jesus myther. The idea that Jesus was not a man in history but totally myth. For 1900 years Jesus was considered an historical fact, Then in 18th-19th century he was for a sort time seen as mythical by a handful of crack pots whose ideas where smitten. [3] Now that notion has come back to a point that 1 imn 4 Britons thinks Jesus was mythical. [4] Why now? Obviously it's part of the New atheism, but I argued recently on this blog that both fundamentalism (the hard turn right) and atheist fundamentalism (Dawkamentalism) are manifestations of the same collapse of civilization and the filling of the void with ignorance.

One might resist the notion (no pun) that there could be a connection, But let;s consider it. First, we know that the vast majority of historians still believe that Jesus lived as a man in history.

Seldom have recent scholars questioned or denied the historical existence of Jesus.  Of the very few who have done so, G. A. Wells is probably the best known.  In this article, I will outline and then respond to some of his major tenets.Before turning to this topic, I will first note that the vast majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, generally disdain radical theses that question the very existence of Jesus.  For example, theologian Rudolf Bultmann asserted, "By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived." [i]Historian Michael Grant termed the hypothesis that Jesus never lived an "extreme view."  He charges that it transgresses the basics of historiography: "if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."  Grant summarizes, after referring to Wells as an example: "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory."  These positions have been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the critics "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." [ii] [5]
He goes on to say a publisher wanted him to remove a chapter on Wells [famous advocate ofJesu myth theory]  because it was devoid of "serious sophistical content," He quotes Well's assaying: "nearly all commentators who mention the matter at all, [set] aside doubts about Jesus' historicity as ridiculous." [iii]  [6] Even the famous Wells agrees with him that most historians don't accept it, The mythers dismiss that fact by saying they are biased, it's a prejudice. That may well be but the point is it's presumed true by the people who wrote history and the mythers have no positive argument, All of their arguments basically amount to the absence of direct proof rather than any real evidence that Jesus did not exist, That is not enough, 

One fact that puts the British belief into perspective is that the same people in Briton who doubt Jesus' existence also doubt the existence of Winston  Chrichhill. That's right he was Prime Minister within living memory and yet they doubt he existed! Not only him but King Richard he Lionheart and Florence Nightingale. These are people/whose existence is well documented in history,[7] While there may be actual serious thinkers taunting the Jesus myth theory the real popularity seems to be a symptom of ignorance of the times. Likewise these mythers call for historical proof and yet they are not willing to accept the word of historians, They assert that historians believe in Jesus' historicity as the result of bullying from academic figures and tradition,so they are attempting to pschologize a whole academic disciplined they know nothing about and to use their own standards to critique it by,To me that says major crass ignorance.

There is a larger issue of which all of this is just symptom,That is the battered concept of truth and how truth itself has fared. The alt fact syndrome we saw in  the election is just the latest turn in the death of truth. One example is revealed in the use of the encyclopedia. I argue that all standard reference works include Jesus' historicity as a fact, The mythers just roar with   laughter at the idea that one would quote an encyclopedia. I realize that the encyclopedia is not a sophisticated source. I  would never relay on that in a paper for graduate school. Yet it's enough to pose the basic presumption of Jesus' existence until such a time as a myther has an actual positive bit of evidence which they do not have now, They can't understand this concept,

Then in looking for evidence that says encyclopedia is a valid reference work I find quotes that castigate the encyclopedia in favor of Wiki. Witness Racel S. Wexelbaum's 'study"at St. cloud State University. "Findings – Due to their static nature, traditionally published encyclopedias are not always accurate, objective information resources. Intentions of editors and authors also come into question. A researcher may find more value in using encyclopedias as historical documents rather than resources for quick facts."

The word “encyclopedia” comes from a corruption of the Greek phrase enkyklios paideia which literally translates as “complete instruction” or “complete knowledge”. As human knowledge increases and evolves, capturing it between two covers becomes impossible. With advances in communication, travel, and scientific research, expecting encyclopedia entries to persist as authoritative fact becomes laughable. The traditional encyclopedia survives as a reference resource due to criticism of open source Wikipedia by historians and academic librarians. While the structure of Wikipedia allows for infinite updates to our expanding, shifting knowledge base, the traditional encyclopedia has value as a historical document. Any explanation of phenomena bound between two covers (or rendered immutable by copyright and license agreement) provides a snapshot of what we had once perceived as truth [8]
It seems that most of the reasons She gives for the death of encyclopedias the static nature of print, She says traditional works don't include the view point of  LGBT community ,I have a solution, go into a new printing. But no, truth itself is reduced to news feed. The stream of up to the minute data replaces the concept of timeless truth. Lest some argue appeal to authority this is not the informal fallacy of appeal to improper or necessary authority It just betrays ignorance of science and ignorance of epistemology that people don''t;know this. This is quite different Authority proper is always a basis for knowledge even in science.[9] Every academic I know complains about Wikipedia being used by their students as authoritative source when it can be changed overnight by any hacktivist. But Wexelbaum makes that into one of the selling point of Wiki over encyclopedia. Because truth changes in an instant. Truth is no longer a timeless reality but now a ever changing news feed,

The knowledge standard to which the mythers appeal is not one used by historians but is based upon Wikipedia or upon the instant knowledge of streaming data. There's no instant feed Jesus is not on the 6:00 news, therefore he can;t be historical. This ruthless model of knowledge fits the closed realm of discourage in one-dimensional society (1DM) because no truth can be allowed to penetrate the closed realm that centers around consuming and producing,That is all there is  and nothing else can stand as truth.



Sources



[1] Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, 12.

[2] J.L.Hinman, "Manifesto," Negations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Social Criticism. Premier issue (winter, 1996). (accessed 4/23/17) URL:
http://www.datawranglers.com/negations/

[3] Albert Schweitzher, chapter 11 "Bruno Bauer," Question of the Historical Jesus, London:A&C Black Ltd. trans w. Montgomery, First English Edition 1910.First German Edition "Von Reimarus zu Wrede," 1906.159 On line copy on Early Christian Writings, Peter Kirby,
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/chapter11.html
accessed 11/12/13
Table of contents for Online copy:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/

 

[4] BBC News, "Jesus not a Person Many Believe," (31 Oct) 2015 URL: (accessed 4/23/17)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34686993?post_id=10153282380408111_10153282380368111#_=_

[5] Gary R. Habermas, "A Summary Critique Questioning the Existence of Jesus,"   
Originally published in the Christian Research Journal / vol. 22, no. 3, 2000.Habermas cots two sources:
[i].  "The Story of the Synoptic Gospels," Form Criticism, trans. Frederick Grant (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 60.
[ii].  Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1977), 199-200.


[6] Ibid. Habermas cites:
[iii].  Did Jesus Exist?, Revised edition (London: Pemberton, 1978, 1986), 213 (abbreviated in text as DJE). 

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_summarycritique/crj_summarycritique.htm

[7] Telegraph (feb 24,) 2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577511/Winston-Churchill-didnt-really-exist-say-teens.html

[8] Racel S. Wexelbaum, Are Encyclopedias Dead? Evaluating the Usefulness of The Traditional  Reference Work. St. Cloud State University, Paper 26, 2012
http://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=lrs_facpubs
(accessed 4/24/17)

archival address:
Wexelbaum, Rachel S., "Are Encyclopedias Dead? Evaluating the Usefulness of a Traditional Reference Resource" (2012). Library Faculty Publications. Paper 26. http://repository.stcloudstate.edu/lrs_facpubs/26

[9] Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England
Chicago: University Of Chicago Press; 1 edition (November 15, 1995.

Comments

JBsptfn said…
Good points, especially the first paragraph
Unknown said…
What’s most remarkable is the double standard. Mythicists reject the idea that we could possibly know Jesus existed, but when they present their own scenario, it turns out that we actually “know” a great deal.

We “know” that in AD 30 a bunch of people suddenly started believing in an imaginary Jesus. This fictional character was taken remarkably seriously from the moment he was invented. Those who believed in him were determined to tell the world about him and were willing to face persecution and ostracism in the process. Then after a few decades, fans of Jesus got together and said to themselves, “You know this fictional character we’ve been taking so seriously? Well, I think it's time we created a fake biography for him - just in case future historians wonder what all the fuss was about.”

So the fans of Jesus proceeded to rewrite history in order to make it look as if the “fictional” Jesus was an actual person who was active around AD 30. In order to do this, they had to invent a genre of realistic historical fiction that wouldn't actually exist for many centuries. And just as a bonus, they made it look as if Jesus was the greatest moral teacher who ever lived. On top of this, they were able to remove all traces of evidence that might reveal their deception.
Joe Hinman said…
Excellent summary of the illogic of mytherism.
im-skeptical said…
The one-dimensional man was supposed to be about people who were conditioned by the elites to buy into the narrative of unthinking consumerism, and thus act as mindless peons whose purpose in life was to enrich the elites. If you think about it, that description fits pretty well with religion, too. But mytheirsm is the opposite of that. It's all about breaking free from the mindless acceptance of the religious narrative, thinking independently, and actually looking at evidence to draw conclusions that are not pre-ordained by the religious elites.

You see this as illogical, but that is due entirely to your brainwashing. You accept the religious narrative because you have been conditioned to accept it. You can't exercise intellectual independence as long as you are slave to that conditioning. You are truly one-dimensional in your thinking.
Joe Hinman said…
Blogger Joe Hinman said...
Excellent summary of the illogic of mytherism.

10/09/2018 02:03:00 AM Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
The one-dimensional man was supposed to be about people who were conditioned by the elites to buy into the narrative of unthinking consumerism, and thus act as mindless peons whose purpose in life was to enrich the elites.

barely adequate understanding

If you think about it, that description fits pretty well with religion, too.


Not really. Only for the fundamentalist types


But mytheirsm is the opposite of that. It's all about breaking free from the mindless acceptance of the religious narrative, thinking independently, and actually looking at evidence to draw conclusions that are not pre-ordained by the religious elites.


Nonsense mytherism is about not thinking,

You see this as illogical, but that is due entirely to your brainwashing. You accept the religious narrative because you have been conditioned to accept it. You can't exercise intellectual independence as long as you are slave to that conditioning. You are truly one-dimensional in your thinking.



Is that why I was protesting the war in Vietnam in 6th grade? what you doing in 6th grade? probably pecking your nose. I became an atheist and a communist by 10th grade. In red neck Texas in strict church of Christ family I was a communist how do you explain that genus? You believe the bourgeois narrative tenoned because it aggrandizes your intelligence but at the expense of treating everyone who disagrees with you as a two dimensional mouthpiece of the forces you hate,so you have no mature thinking narrative because you are not a thinker, you are an adolescent in rebellion,

My entire life has been a struggle against Norris anti intellectuals like you, \
Joe Hinman said…
that should say narrow minded anti intellectuals not norris anti intellectuals,
You norris!
Joe Hinman said…
aspects he odes;t deal with

"New atheism, but I argued recently on this blog that both fundamentalism (the hard turn right) and atheist fundamentalism (Dawkamentalism) are manifestations of the same collapse of civilization and the filling of the void with ignorance."


"The knowledge standard to which the mythers appeal is not one used by historians but is based upon Wikipedia or upon the instant knowledge of streaming data. There's no instant feed Jesus is not on the 6:00 news, therefore he can;t be historical. This ruthless model of knowledge fits the closed realm of discourage in one-dimensional society (1DM) because no truth can be allowed to penetrate the closed realm that centers around consuming and producing,That is all there is and nothing else can stand as truth."


he can't understand the distinction between fundamentalism, orthodox and liberal theology
im-skeptical said…
You had your period of rebellion, trading one ideology for another. And then the brainwashing kicked in again.
Joe Hinman said…
you don't have the intellectual capacity to consider changing a world view. You don't know what goes into paradigm shit you don't even know what they are. You don't even understand that is what runs science.

You have no concept of any kind of dressmaking process because you are anti-intellectual. You are rioting off what whole life was about because you are not a thinker you don't know what it means to think.
Joe Hinman said…
he has to take the quick easy brush off, His world is disprove. His view says religious people are just brain washed and don't think. I disprove it. I was an atheist. I went through the thinking process with the skeptical mind and still found it right.

He can't face honestly the the logical issues and disprove them,he has to brush it off in a dismissive way because he can;'t cope with the facts.
Unknown said…
It's amazing how powerful the brainwashing is. Even atheist biblical scholars are taken in by it. Only a handful of amateur “geniuses” on the internet are able to see through it.

DM
Joe Hinman said…
pretty funny DM
JBsptfn said…
Joe He can't face honestly the the logical issues and disprove them,he has to brush it off in a dismissive way because he can;'t cope with the facts.

That's why this Jesus Myth garbage persists. People like him have these stupid, cookie-cutter descriptions of Christians (I saw something similar yesterday on another blog) as non-thinking and wanting to stay in the comfort of what they consider false beliefs.
im-skeptical said…
You mean atheists like Bart Ehrman, who is not a mythicist? He says this:

In my view, humanists, agnostics, atheists, mythicists, and anyone else who does not advocate belief in Jesus would be better served to stress that the Jesus of history is not the Jesus of modern Christianity than to insist - wrongly and counterproductively - that Jesus never existed. Jesus did exist. He simply was not the person that most modern believers today think he was. - Bart Ehrman [Did Jesus Exist?]

This is probably close to the consensus view of secular scholars who are not brainwashed by religious ideology. What Ehrman is saying is that it is likely that the legends of Jesus were based on an actual person. But they are still legends. There was no actual person who did the things Christians believe Jesus did. There was no miracle worker. There was no virgin birth. There was no resurrection. That is a Jesus who never existed. And the person who became the basis of these legends would not be recognized as the Jesus of the bible, because that Jesus never existed.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Madison said…
I.M. Skeptical, so when you said that mythicism is about breaking free from the religious narrative, you meant “mythicism” in the sense that even Ehrman would count as a mythicist? In that case you should have made yourself much clearer.

DM
im-skeptical said…
He can't face honestly the the logical issues and disprove them,he has to brush it off in a dismissive way because he can;'t cope with the facts.

- Let's take an honest look at those facts. Ehrman's position isn't substantially different from that of people who call themselves mythicists. If we accept that there was a person who was the basis of the legends, that doesn't change what mythicists are saying. It's like the legend og King Arthur. Was there a person those legends were based on? Probably, yes. But was that person King Arthur? NO. There is no historical evidence that King Arthur ever existed, other than the stories about him - which are legends, not historical fact. As far as I can tell, the most likely historical case is that there was a Roman soldier who was the basis of the legends. His name was nor Arthur, and he was not a king. So can we say that King Arthur existed? It depends on your point of view. You can take the position that there was a person who was the basis of the legend, so he did indeed exist. Or you can take the position that that person was NOT King Arthur, so he didn't exist. Either way, that person, if you could go back to that place in history and meet him in the flesh, he may have been valiant and praiseworthy, but he certainly is not someone you would recognize as the King Arthur depicted in the legendary stories. Legends are not historical reality. They are distortions of the reality, usually grossly exaggerated. They certainly don't provide a basis for historical substantiation.
David Madison said…
So which of the Arthurian romances captures the history and culture of 5th/6th century Britain as well as the Gospels depict first-century Palestine?
im-skeptical said…
So which of the Arthurian romances captures the history and culture of 5th/6th century Britain as well as the Gospels depict first-century Palestine?

- This is where religious ideology supersedes historical reality. You have to learn to separate the legend from the reality. Legends can and do tend to incorporate known realities, and blend them into the narrative. The thing about the Arthur legends, is that if it is true that they were based om a Roman soldier (and there is some evidence to support that), then all the cultural aspects of the legends were adopted at a later time. There were no knights at the time of the Roman occupation. It wasn't even Medieval times.

How is the legend of Jesus any different from that? Who can say that this person lived at any specific time or place? Even if he did live in Nazareth in the first century CE, the cultural aspects of the legend tell us nothing about the truth of those legends. The people who propagated those legends were only describing the culture and places that they knew.
David Madison said…
“all the cultural aspects of the legends were adopted at a later time. There were no knights at the time of the Roman occupation.”

Then it fails as an analogy. You are comparing accounts that fail to depict the culture in which Arthur lived with accounts that do depict the culture in which Jesus lived.
im-skeptical said…
Then it fails as an analogy. You are comparing accounts that fail to depict the culture in which Arthur lived with accounts that do depict the culture in which Jesus lived.

- You completely missed my point. How do you know that your assertions about the life and times of Jesus are true? There is no historical basis for it. You speak with an air of authority about when and where Jesus lived. But that is nothing more than your religious training speaking. That's what the legends say. It's not known historical reality.
David Madison said…
First you talk about mythicism in a way that was bound to be misleading and then you appeal to an obviously flawed analogy. Sorry, IMS, but I think we'll have to leave it there.
im-skeptical said…
It's a shame that DM doesn't want to continue the conversation when confronted by reason.

He says my discussion of mythicism is misleading. But I'm describing what real people think - not about some distorted view that certain Christians have about mythicists. The fact is that there is no clear dividing line between what constitutes a mythicist and what doesn't. Real scholars have differing levels of confidence about whether there was actually a person behind the legend. If your confidence level is 50%, does that mean you're a mythicist or not? Some might say yes, while others say no. The point is, nobody is going around saying that there certainly was no person behind the legend. What real scholars do agree on is that the stories about Jesus are legendary. And that means that a large part of the story is probably not true.

Which brings me to my analogy about King Arthur. I think is is an excellent analogy, because it illustrates just how far from reality a legend can be. If it is the case that this legend was originally based on a Roman soldier, then there is virtually nothing about the legend that reflects historical reality. Not the person, or his accomplishments, not the time, or the place, or the other people depicted in the legend. It's all made up. But still, there can be elements of the legend that are borrowed from somewhere else, and added into the narrative. This all could apply just as well to the legend of Jesus. It might reflect historical reality no better than the tales of King Arthur reflect the reality of a brave Roman soldier. That is to say, the legend doesn't match the reality in ANY significant way. But the legend does incorporate a time, a place, and a culture that was real, even if it's not a fact that Jesus existed in that time and place. That aspect of the legend tells us absolutely nothing at all about the reality of Jesus himself.
Joe Hinman said…
This is probably close to the consensus view of secular scholars who are not brainwashed by religious ideology. What Ehrman is saying is that it is likely that the legends of Jesus were based on an actual person. But they are still legends. There was no actual person who did the things Christians believe Jesus did. There was no miracle worker. There was no virgin birth. There was no resurrection. That is a Jesus who never existed. And the person who became the basis of these legends would not be recognized as the Jesus of the bible, because that Jesus never existed.

contradiction, if it is based on an actual person then you can't say there is no actual person, perhaps the actual person did not do exactly everything said of him but if it;s baqssed upon him then there was an actual person
Joe Hinman said…
Let's take an honest look at those facts. Ehrman's position isn't substantially different from that of people who call themselves mythicists.

that is stupid, it sure a hell is, you are trying to have it both ways. The proof is when he debated Carrie he didn;t fold, His position held up as distinctly not Carrier's,
Joe Hinman said…
He says my discussion of mythicism is misleading. But I'm describing what real people think - not about some distorted view that certain Christians have about mythicists. The fact is that there is no clear dividing line between what constitutes a mythicist and what doesn't.

thatis obvious bull shit, the truth is you want to deny being a mytheists but use their work to back your hatred of Christianity.

Obviously there are basic points that separate mythucists from non, There are some who don;t hold those points that just shows how mixed up they are

(1) Mythers say Jesus never existed as a man in history
(2) they do not say Jesus really existed but was just every different so they NT image of jesus never existed that;s not a myther,
David Madison said…
Right, Joe. I admire your patience. Personally, I can't be bothered with people who play silly games with definitions.
im-skeptical said…
contradiction, if it is based on an actual person then you can't say there is no actual person, perhaps the actual person did not do exactly everything said of him but if it;s baqssed upon him then there was an actual person
- Joe, that's YOUR opinion. There are people who call themselves mythicists who don't deny that the legend could be based on an actual person. In fact, most mythicists probably fall into that category. But YOU don't get to define what their beliefs are.

that is stupid, it sure a hell is, you are trying to have it both ways. The proof is when he debated Carrie he didn;t fold, His position held up as distinctly not Carrier's
- That's only proof that they have disagreements about certain matters of historical truth. It doesn't address the question of exactly what a mythicist believes.

the truth is you want to deny being a mytheists but use their work to back your hatred of Christianity.
- I don't hate Christianity. I'm just interested in truth and understanding reality.

(1) Mythers say Jesus never existed as a man in history
- They say the Jesus depicted in the bible didn't exist. And they are correct. There was never any such man, even if there was a guy that became the basis of the legend.

(2) they do not say Jesus really existed but was just every different so they NT image of jesus never existed that;s not a myther
- That's YOUR opinion. Others disagree with you.

Personally, I can't be bothered with people who play silly games with definitions.
- Plenty of people have reasonable disagreements about the definition of various terms. Personally, I have little patience for people who are not willing to listen to an argument that is based on a definition that may differ from their own.


It is a reasonable position for a historian to say that the historical evidence does not support the existence of person depicted in the bible. And that's why they can be considered mythicists. But that does not, in itself, preclude the notion that there might be some grain of truth in the myth. Just as in the case of King Arthur (which is a VERY GOOD analogy), there may be a little grain of truth in what is essentially a myth.
Joe Hinman said…
Blogger im-skeptical said...
contradiction, if it is based on an actual person then you can't say there is no actual person, perhaps the actual person did not do exactly everything said of him but if it;s baqssed upon him then there was an actual person

- Joe, that's YOUR opinion. There are people who call themselves mythicists who don't deny that the legend could be based on an actual person. In fact, most mythicists probably fall into that category. But YOU don't get to define what their beliefs are.


Trump calls himself a genius


that is stupid, it sure a hell is, you are trying to have it both ways. The proof is when he debated Carrie he didn;t fold, His position held up as distinctly not Carrier's
- That's only proof that they have disagreements about certain matters of historical truth. It doesn't address the question of exactly what a mythicist believes.

the truth is you want to deny being a mytheists but use their work to back your hatred of Christianity.
- I don't hate Christianity. I'm just interested in truth and understanding reality.

(1) Mythers say Jesus never existed as a man in history
- They say the Jesus depicted in the bible didn't exist. And they are correct. There was never any such man, even if there was a guy that became the basis of the legend.

(2) they do not say Jesus really existed but was just every different so they NT image of jesus never existed that;s not a myther
- That's YOUR opinion. Others disagree with you.

Personally, I can't be bothered with people who play silly games with definitions.
- Plenty of people have reasonable disagreements about the definition of various terms. Personally, I have little patience for people who are not willing to listen to an argument that is based on a definition that may differ from their own.


It is a reasonable position for a historian to say that the historical evidence does not support the existence of person depicted in the bible. And that's why they can be considered mythicists. But that does not, in itself, preclude the notion that there might be some grain of truth in the myth. Just as in the case of King Arthur (which is a VERY GOOD analogy), there may be a little grain of truth in what is essentially a myth.

evidence for Jesus is overwhelming the last two or three Mondays I posted stuff showing that you have no argument

10/11/2018 08:09:00 AM Delete
im-skeptical said…
Right, Joe. I admire your patience. Personally, I can't be bothered with people who play silly games with definitions.
- Let me add one more thing, David. Joe uses his own peculiar definitions for many things - like "supernatural". Doesn't come close to the definition you will find in any dictionary. Is he allowed to do that? Yes, as long as he explains what he means and then uses it consistently in his argument.


evidence for Jesus is overwhelming the last two or three Mondays I posted stuff showing that you have no argument
- that the Christian party line. It's not a historical fact. But if you are brainwashed to accept the Christian party line, you believe whatever they say, regardless of any evidence.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
Right, Joe. I admire your patience. Personally, I can't be bothered with people who play silly games with definitions.

- Let me add one more thing, David. Joe uses his own peculiar definitions for many things - like "supernatural". Doesn't come close to the definition you will find in any dictionary. Is he allowed to do that? Yes, as long as he explains what he means and then uses it consistently in his argument.

Of course that's a typical ploy used by internet atheists all the time. Take a view that is well supported by experts and they assert it's only the one guy that made the post who accepts that regardless of who he cites to back it up. Because my view is different from the popular definition you find in non-specialized directorates like Webster's then Skepie assumes it's just my idea.I cite major theologians such as Mathias Joseph scheeben and the Orotundity church that doesn't matter to Skep.


evidence for Jesus is overwhelming the last two or three Mondays I posted stuff showing that you have no argument

- that the Christian party line. It's not a historical fact. But if you are brainwashed to accept the Christian party line, you believe whatever they say, regardless of any evidence.

That does not answer my arguments Skepster old buddy

10/11/2018 09:22:00 AM Delete
im-skeptical said…
Joe, it would be unreasonable for someone to say that there was definitely no person who was the original source of the legend of Jesus. And I don't think you can find anyone - Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Thomas Brodie (highly respected Christian historian), or anyone else who calls himself a mythicist - who would make such a claim. The fact is that your understanding of what mythicists actually say is not consistent with reality. Maybe instead of instinctively railing against them they way you do, you should try reading their books and understanding their arguments. Then, if you disagree with them, you can take issue with their actual arguments.
Joe Hinman said…
Skep: "Joe, it would be unreasonable for someone to say that there was definitely no person who was the original source of the legend of Jesus. And I don't think you can find anyone - Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Thomas Brodie (highly respected Christian historian), or anyone else who calls himself a mythicist - who would make such a claim."


Doherty:

"Paul and other early writers present us only with a divine, spiritual Christ in heaven, one revealed by God through inspiration and scripture. Their Jesus is never identified with a recent historical man. Like the savior gods of the Greek mystery cults, Paul's Christ had performed his redeeming act in a mythical arena. Thus, when we open the Gospels we are unprepared for the flesh and blood figure who lives and speaks on their pages, one who walked the sands of Palestine and died on Calvary in the days of Herod and Pontius Pilate.:


your argument is really a con game. Any evidence for Jesus historicity is just relisted to the&ea a guy like that lived bu the was;t much like the one in the gospels:
Joe Hinman said…
The fact is that your understanding of what mythicists actually say is not consistent with reality. Maybe instead of instinctively railing against them they way you do, you should try reading their books and understanding their arguments. Then, if you disagree with them, you can take issue with their actual arguments.

I think rather they need to do some time listening to truth and reading history,
im-skeptical said…
Their Jesus is never identified with a recent historical man.
- That is right, and it helps to make the point of the mythicists. But it doesn't change the point I made. Paul wasn't talking about the legendary Jesus at all. He didn't speak of walking on water and virgin births, and the only resurrection he spoke of was a resurrection OF THE SPIRIT. None of that changes the idea that the legendary figure of Jesus (as discussed in the gospels) could have had its root in an actual person. And if you care to learn something other than religious dogma, I would suggest once again that you read these arguments that you dismiss without even knowing what they say.
Joe Hinman said…
Their Jesus is never identified with a recent historical man.

- That is right, and it helps to make the point of the mythicists. But it doesn't change the point I made. Paul wasn't talking about the legendary Jesus at all. He didn't speak of walking on water and virgin births, and the only resurrection he spoke of was a resurrection OF THE SPIRIT.

Your analysis really betrays your view. You assert that the "real Jesus" is the miracle working Jesus. Paul does't talk about that so he's not talking about the real Jesus But that's an ideology that must crush rebellion against naturalism. But miracle working is only one aspect of historical Jesus. The historical Jesus does not reduce to the miracle worker.


None of that changes the idea that the legendary figure of Jesus (as discussed in the gospels) could have had its root in an actual person. And if you care to learn something other than religious dogma, I would suggest once again that you read these arguments that you dismiss without even knowing what they say.

Mythers are some of the biggest idiots I've known. Carrier total moran. I bested him every time he's an idiot. Mytherism is for ignorant people they teach nothing.


I know so much more than you do. you know nothing about the bible or theology. You get all your ideas from illiterate unknowing crack posts who hate God you don;t know anything about the real research,
David Madison said…
Spot on about Carrier, Joe. The problems with his “Celestial Jesus” theory are too numerous to count. I would make a couple of additional points that aren’t usually mentioned. In his letter to the Romans (9:3-6), Paul says the following:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Notice the parallel occurrences of “according to the flesh”. It is clear that Jesus is as much a Jew by blood as Paul himself. This alone would rule out a “celestial” Jesus. Consider as well Paul’s account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26). Of course, the idea of a “celestial” Jesus eating a meal is bizarre enough, but even if we overlook that problem there is another obstacle for Carrier.

According to Carrier’s theory, the celestial Jesus descends to the lower heavens, where he is crucified. Apparently, the lower heavens are the abode of the demons and it is they who supposedly crucify Jesus. But Paul tells us that Jesus had a meal before he was crucified and during this meal he gave certain instructions. So who were the recipients of these instructions? Since the lower heavens are the abode of the demons, the only companions who could have shared Jesus’ meal are the demons themselves. What a bizarre scenario Carrier has given us!

Just to forestall a possible objection to this point, it is sometimes argued that Paul had received his information about the Lord’s Supper through revelation. But if Paul had wanted to indicate this, he would have used the preposition “para” rather than “apo”. “Para” would suggest the information came directly from Jesus, whereas “apo” suggests the indirect receipt of tradition.
im-skeptical said…
"according to the flesh" refers to the Israelites - not to Jesus himself. Clearly, Paul doesn't claim that God is of the flesh - but he claims that Jesus IS God. What he's saying is that Jesus is "for the sake of" (Israelites, according to the flesh), to whom belong "belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises". This doesn't require any kind of advanced theory to understand. It only takes a straight-forward reading of what the words actually say.
David Madison said…
IM Skeptical once again reveals his ignorance of the basics.
Joe Hinman said…
"according to the flesh" refers to the Israelites - not to Jesus himself. Clearly, Paul doesn't claim that God is of the flesh - but he claims that Jesus IS God.

that is mutilation of Trinitarian doctrine. we all know Paul was Trinitarian He understood Christ came in the flesh not that he started out in heaven as flesh. The first time he mentions flesh he is speaking of Israel but the second time he;s including messiah,"o them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ,",


What he's saying is that Jesus is "for the sake of" (Israelites, according to the flesh), to whom belong "belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises". This doesn't require any kind of advanced theory to understand. It only takes a straight-forward reading of what the words actually say.

so why don't you give it one? you have mutilated it, here;s a fact little poser,I have translated that out of Greek because I studied Greek in university did YOu?I think not, YOU don't know,

10/13/2018 07:59:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
NIV Translation Romans 1: 1-3

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead:"

That is a very clear and clean translation one of the best there is. It says clearly that Jesus was a flesh and blood decedent of earthly men. It says it in the Greek,just that clearly.
im-skeptical said…
that is mutilation of Trinitarian doctrine.
- There was no Trinitarian doctrine in Paul's time. It was invented centuries later.

... his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David ...
- Those are not Paul's words. Paul didn't even speak of the lifer of Jesus the man. He was an adoptionist (which is what the words of Romans 9 refer to). There are many passages (and whole books) in the NT nominally attributed to Paul that he didn't actually write.
David Madison said…
It might be worthwhile to quote the NIV version of Rom. 9:5 as well: “Theirs are the Patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ”. Makes it pretty clear. But perhaps the translators of this version should have consulted IM Skeptical first.
im-skeptical said…
As I said, There are many passages (and whole books) in the NT nominally attributed to Paul that he didn't actually write. Passages like that are interpolations. And if you read Romans, it is perfectly clear that the first four verses are an introduction to Paul's epistle. They are not the words of Paul himself.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
that is mutilation of Trinitarian doctrine.
- There was no Trinitarian doctrine in Paul's time. It was invented centuries later.

Paul's thinking was pretty much inline with what came to be called trinitarian doctrine, that is expressed perfectly the NT.They ere veining to understand the rudiments of what became Trinity,

... his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David ...
- Those are not Paul's words. Paul didn't even speak of the lifer of Jesus the man.

Yes those are his words doufus, not a sinlge scholar anywhere says otherwise. all scholars agree,the only reason you doubt that is because you are trying to cover up for Doherty;s supreme ignorance. Doherty is an ignorant poser who forgot this verse and said Paul never refers to Jesus as a flesh and blood man,but he does.


He was an adoptionist (which is what the words of Romans 9 refer to). There are many passages (and whole books) in the NT nominally attributed to Paul that he didn't actually write.

No he never was, that's more of your litle Bible hater ideology,

the big science guy can't live with having his world view disproved so he changes the data to fit the hypothesis,
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
As I said, There are many passages (and whole books) in the NT nominally attributed to Paul that he didn't actually write. Passages like that are interpolations. And if you read Romans, it is perfectly clear that the first four verses are an introduction to Paul's epistle. They are not the words of Paul himself.

that is utter nonsense. There are other statements by Paul that show Jesus as flesh and blood Eph 2 and Pauline circle Hebrews,

No scholar takes that seriousy
Joe Hinman said…
Halley, Henry H. Halley's Bible Handbook: an abbreviated Bible commentary. 23rd edition. Zondervan Publishing House. 1962

This coarse assumes that Romans 1:3 was written by an amanuensis that is not the same as being interpolation.

your interpretation is seen as anti marcionoite but there is no basis for that view. The arguments for iot are week week such as tertullian never quotes the son of David passage,


example: "Contextual evidence for interpolation: Romans 1:1-3 is an unnaturally extended epistolary introduction. (The normal ancient introduction was simply modest handful of words expressing little more, often no more, than “From X to Y”.) The formal introduction of a letter is simply not the place to embark on a lengthy digression to discuss several specific doctrinal and biographical points and is not found in any other ancient letters."

that kimnd of arguent is totallly conjectural and is contradicted by other books such as heberws, It;s contradicted by he need for address, as with tyhe book of Hebrews wouldexaplin it,
David Madison said…
Ah, so now we have the appeal to alleged interpolations. What I find interesting is IM Skeptical’s approach. First he praises mythicism, but then he suggests that he is a actually mythicist in the sense that Bart Ehrman is a mythicist. It's not surprising that he would try to cloak what is obviously a crank position with the respectability of someone like Ehrman. But now his true colours are showing. Apparently, he endorses the lunatic celestial Jesus theory, with all its elaborate apparatus for explaining away inconvenient evidence.
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
But now his true colours are showing.
- Just because I am able to read and understand things that don't comply with your own dogmatic views, it does not imply that I personally endorse or accept all those theories.

As for Bart Ehrman, I fully agree that he is a respectable scholar. And many of his views (including about interpolations in the works of Paul, and other biblical modifications that were intended to bring scripture into compliance with later-developed dogma, such as Trinitarian doctrine) are not agreeable with your dogmatic views. At any rate, there are other respectable scholars as well. Including mythicists.
Joe Hinman said…
At any rate, there are other respectable scholars as well. Including mythicists.

No, all the major myther like Doherty are matures None of them are scholars in a field that deals with Biblical criticism. Carrier is closest to that and he is world Harlotry not Bible. He is also not a major scholar, he has no name in the Seinfeld beyond the apologetic and internet apologetic at that.
im-skeptical said…
No, all the major myther like Doherty are matures None of them are scholars in a field that deals with Biblical criticism.
- Joe, your blind adherence to religious dogma is plain to see. Unlike you, Carrier actually has a PhD in the relevant field, and he has done considerable research, which is all cited in his scholarly works that you have never read. And what about Thomas Brodie, a well-respected Christian scholar and Dominican priest, whose books are published by Oxford Press, and whose research has lead him to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical figure?
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
No, all the major myther like Doherty are matures None of them are scholars in a field that deals with Biblical criticism.

- Joe, your blind adherence to religious dogma is plain to see. Unlike you, Carrier actually has a PhD in the relevant field, and he has done considerable research, which is all cited in his scholarly works that you have never read.

you are full of shit,I already pointed this out: Carrier does not have a degree in the field His Ph,D is world history. I do have the proper degree its theological studies.

I have done considerable research Carriers research is stupid, it;s nothing more than quote Mining



And what about Thomas Brodie, a well-respected Christian scholar and Dominican priest, whose books are published by Oxford Press, and whose research has lead him to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical figure?

I don't know anything about him,
David Madison said…
Despite Carrier’s evangelistic prophecies that the scholarly world will come to see that he, though now a voice in the wilderness, is correct in judging Jesus of Nazareth to be a mythical invention, there is in fact no sign of fulfillment. He is a paid advocate of his views (having been hired to produce these books), not a disinterested or dispassionate assessor of things. He is not expert in the very subjects on which he writes in these books, and his mishandling of the evidence shows this all to clearly. I conclude that, in so far as scholarly judgment of the matter is concerned, Carrier’s often-strident efforts will be judged as the last hurrah of the “mythicist” claim, although internet die-hards are likely to remain doggedly committed to it.

That is a comment made by Larry Hurtado on his blog.
im-skeptical said…
That is a comment made by Larry Hurtado on his blog.

"As Robert M. Price put it, mythicists were never refuted as much as they were “harrumphed”! In other words, the past 250 years of NT scholarship largely consists of the same close minded, intellectually lazy approach Mr. Hurtado has demonstrated."
Hurtado’s Horrible Happening
David Madison said…
Ah, so now scholarly credentials only count when it's convenient.
im-skeptical said…
Clearly, for you and Joe, they only count if the scholar agrees with your dogmatic views.
David Madison said…
If someone of Larry Hurtado's standing says that Carrier is incompetent, I take it seriously.
im-skeptical said…
Did you read the article I cited? He didn't even read Carrier's book - by his own admission.
David Madison said…
Hurtado checked a number of specific claims that Carrier made and found that in each case Carrier had handled the evidence incompetently. You don't need to read a whole book to tell whether someone knows what he is talking about. Just as you don't need to eat an entire loaf of bread to determine whether it is stale.
im-skeptical said…
Like I said, if it disagrees with you religious dogma, you automatically reject it. It doesn't even matter what the argument is.
JBsptfn said…
Im-skeptical: And what about Thomas Brodie, a well-respected Christian scholar and Dominican priest, whose books are published by Oxford Press, and whose research has lead him to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical figure?

J.P. Holding did an entry on his book:

Tekton Ticker: Thomas Brodie

So did Nick Peters:

Deeper Waters: Book Plunge-Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
That is a comment made by Larry Hurtado on his blog.

"As Robert M. Price put it, mythicists were never refuted as much as they were “harrumphed”! In other words, the past 250 years of NT scholarship largely consists of the same close minded, intellectually lazy approach Mr. Hurtado has demonstrated."
Hurtado’s Horrible Happening

read the history of the Jesus project to see why price has no credibility. That is utter bull shit to say they haven't been refuted, they have directly refuted by my stuff on religious a priori

People like you and price are intellectual cowards, you are afraid to say I hate Christianity I want it go away so I will assert the truth of mytherism then you are too big a coward to admit that
im-skeptical said…
Tekton Ticker: Thomas Brodie
- You have to be an idiot to believe what that guy writes. He's a lot like Trump - ideological, but devoid of any serious intellect.

People like you and price are intellectual cowards, you are afraid to say I hate Christianity I want it go away so I will assert the truth of mytherism then you are too big a coward to admit that
- It is based on solid research by people who don't have the ideological blindfold that you wear. These people are more interested in historical truth than affirming what believe. In the case of Brodie, he's still a Christian. But unlike you, he has the courage to look at evidence regarding Jesus. His beliefs are much more in line with Paul's - before they got morphed into the invented historical tale of the gospels.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
Tekton Ticker: Thomas Brodie
- You have to be an idiot to believe what that guy writes. He's a lot like Trump - ideological, but devoid of any serious intellect.

OK what guy? Brodie?

People like you and price are intellectual cowards, you are afraid to say I hate Christianity I want it go away so I will assert the truth of mytherism then you are too big a coward to admit that

- It is based on solid research by people who don't have the ideological blindfold that you wear.

OK I see you don't know the history of it either,first of all it was started by Christians. they were not mythers they did not want it to be about mytherism, the mytyhers took it over even the people who started it withdrew and it collapsed, it was a fiasco,


These people are more interested in historical truth than affirming what believe.

Hog wash it's nothing but the God hater club,


In the case of Brodie, he's still a Christian.

Of course not, no Christian can deny Jesus; existence, that makes him a defector. He doesn't the the decency to leave the institution


But unlike you, he has the courage to look at evidence regarding Jesus. His beliefs are much more in line with Paul's - before they got morphed into the invented historical tale of the gospels.

If you think you are such a brave intellectual why have you not answered any of my arguments.

I just go through showing how the propaganda about Rm 1;3 is a bs lie so why aren';t you answering it? you are scared to death to look at the evidence,
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
Apparently Brodie's arguments revolve around Memisis so he is assuming that can be used to suggest historicity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimesis

>>>"In ancient Greece, mimesis was an idea that governed the creation of works of art, in particular, with correspondence to the physical world understood as a model for beauty, truth, and the good. Plato contrasted mimesis, or imitation, with diegesis, or narrative. After Plato, the meaning of mimesis eventually shifted toward a specifically literary function in ancient Greek society, and its use has changed and been reinterpreted many times since.

One of the best-known modern studies of mimesis, understood as a form of realism in literature, is Erich Auerbach's Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, which opens with a famous comparison between the way the world is represented in Homer's Odyssey and the way it appears in the Bible. From these two seminal Western texts, Auerbach builds the foundation for a unified theory of representation that spans the entire history of Western literature, including the Modernist novels being written at the time Auerbach began his study. In art history, "mimesis", "realism" and "naturalism" are used, often interchangeably, as terms for the accurate, even "illusionistic", representation of the visual appearance of things.

Mimesis has been theorised by thinkers as diverse as Plato, Aristotle, Philip Sidney, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Adam Smith, Gabriel Tarde, Sigmund Freud, Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, Erich Auerbach, Paul Ricœur, Luce Irigaray, Jacques Derrida, René Girard, Nikolas Kompridis, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Michael Taussig, Merlin Donald, and Homi Bhabha.[citation needed]"
im-skeptical said…
OK what guy? Brodie?
- Joe, I thought you gad ate least two brain cells to bub together. Of course I'm talking about the author of the piece, JP Holding, your own village idiot.

OK I see you don't know the history of it either,first of all it was started by Christians. they were not mythers they did not want it to be about mytherism, the mytyhers took it over even the people who started it withdrew and it collapsed, it was a fiasco
- Oh, really? Show me this documented history. And please identify the specific claims of Brodie or price or Carrier that are contradicted by historical fact. On second thought, don't bother, because we all know you're all bluster. There is no such document historical fact that you can point to. There is only a lot of hot air from people like you.

Of course not, no Christian can deny Jesus; existence, that makes him a defector. He doesn't the the decency to leave the institution
- Here we go with the "no true Scottsman" fallacy. Because Brodie's concept of Christianity more closely resembles the original concept, but doesn't match your own, which has been molded and shaped by many centuries of changing church dogma and evolving theology.

I just go through showing how the propaganda about Rm 1;3 is a bs lie so why aren';t you answering it? you are scared to death to look at the evidence
- It is unclear to me what argument you are referring to. Please state it, and I will address it.

Apparently Brodie's arguments revolve around Memisis so he is assuming that can be used to suggest historicity.
- Brodie's argument is that the legendary stories of Jesus are a product of mimesis. That is an argument against historicity, and it is supported by extensive research, which neither YOU nor anyone else has actually refuted with factual information.
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
I just saw your new article on the introduction to Romans. So now I know what argument you were referring to. Let me start by reviewing my own claim. I said: "Those are not Paul's words. Paul didn't even speak of the life[r] of Jesus the man. He was an adoptionist." I wasn't talking about interpolation, although I think the case could be made that the passage in question may be an interpolation. The point I was making is that the first verses (six of them, although I first thought it was only four) of Romans are clearly an introduction to Paul's epistle. Read them.

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:


Notice that in the KJV, the introduction ends with a colon. Why do you think they would do that? Because it is pointing to the text that follows, which is the actual epistle. Notice also that Paul is identified (in the third person) as the author of the epistle. This is NOT Paul speaking. It's an introduction to what Paul wrote. And notice that starting with verse 7, it becomes first person and the tone and style are entirely different, where Paul is now speaking for himself. This is Paul's letter to the Romans, and it speaks directly to them (using first and second person), but Paul himself never uses the kind of language we see in that introduction. He doesn't speak of himself in the third person, nor does he ever speak of Jesus in the flesh. The introduction was put there at some later time. That's patently obvious. All you have to do is read it to see what I'm saying.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
OK what guy? Brodie?
- Joe, I thought you gad ate least two brain cells to bub together. Of course I'm talking about the author of the piece, JP Holding, your own village idiot.

this is another reason why it seems can't critically evaluate things, you just know someone is against you and that makes him stupid.

OK I see you don't know the history of it either,first of all it was started by Christians. they were not mythers they did not want it to be about mytherism, the mytyhers took it over even the people who started it withdrew and it collapsed, it was a fiasco
- Oh, really? Show me this documented history. And please identify the specific claims of Brodie or price or Carrier that are contradicted by historical fact. On second thought, don't bother, because we all know you're all bluster. There is no such document historical fact that you can point to. There is only a lot of hot air from people like you.

I am beginning to think you don't know what the Jesus project was. Brodie wasn't part of it that was before he came out as an unbeliever

Of course not, no Christian can deny Jesus; existence, that makes him a defector. He doesn't the the decency to leave the institution
- Here we go with the "no true Scottsman" fallacy. Because Brodie's concept of Christianity more closely resembles the original concept, but doesn't match your own, which has been molded and shaped by many centuries of changing church dogma and evolving theology.



why am I not surprised you commit the typical athyeist fallacy,we are going to have to call this atheist fallacy 101. NTS cannot apply where membership in an organisation or movement or belief is prescribed with credentials required. You can;t be a Christian if you don;t believe in Christ, 1st John says the definition of believing is to accept Christ came in the flesh,you can;t do that without being historical.

ever notice they call it no true Scotsman not no true orthodontist? an orthodontist has to meet pre set requirements a Scotsman is born into it, we Christians have preset requirements too.


Joe Hinman said…
I just go through showing how the propaganda about Rm 1;3 is a bs lie so why aren';t you answering it? you are scared to death to look at the evidence

- It is unclear to me what argument you are referring to. Please state it, and I will address it.

right on top the discussion as usual. It takes up a whole post the one I put up Monday,

Apparently Brodie's arguments revolve around Memisis so he is assuming that can be used to suggest historicity.

- Brodie's argument is that the legendary stories of Jesus are a product of mimesis. That is an argument against historicity, and it is supported by extensive research, which neither YOU nor anyone else has actually refuted with factual information.

No it;s not. mimesis is about presentation not historicity

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

The Meaning of the Manger