tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7361688260142352853..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Tim Callahan’s Critique of the Movie Zeitgeist — The Greatest Story Ever ToldUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23933923710876765932010-04-10T20:11:12.923-04:002010-04-10T20:11:12.923-04:00Okay here is the final word the Zeitgeist movie is...Okay here is the final word the Zeitgeist movie is a piece of garbage.Acharya S.'s books and claims have not survived the peer reviewed processby experts in the field of religion and history comprising of both atheists and theists alike.She gives no primary sources because apparently they were all destroyed or went missing.Furthermore her base assumption for ALL her arguments that Jesus was based on the egyptian sun God Horus is false...because Ra was the egyptian sun god.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08197129651922939657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56886725298744355682009-11-24T15:32:27.271-05:002009-11-24T15:32:27.271-05:00There is no proof that the Jesus of Christian myth...There is no proof that the Jesus of Christian myth ever existed, none. Nada. Zip. Even so, religion has been used as a vehicle for the accumulation of power by individuals and institutions since mankind started keeping written records. The suggestion made in Zeitgeist that religion is an institution of social control is beyond dispute.<br /><br />Most ancient gods had more than one story attributed to them. They variated, and at times even conflicted. The Christ story was no different. In the end, an 'official' version won out, most often by outlawing other versions.<br /><br />That the winter solstice and spring equinox were religious festivals tied to these gods is also factual. Continually muckraking about 'Dec 25th' is specious.<br /><br />Likewise is harping that Osiris was the resurrected god. It was common to that particular myth that Horus *was* the resurrected Osiris.R Herrmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58470114345847092382009-03-02T11:51:00.000-05:002009-03-02T11:51:00.000-05:00mmm ... nope, she pretty much mops the floor with ...mmm ... nope, she pretty much mops the floor with him demonstrating that when it comes to the facts surrounding Zeitgeist part 1 he doesn't know what he's talking about after all.<BR/><BR/>"Most of the sources she uses as evidence of her position are HER OWN BOOKS"<BR/><BR/>Well, first of all, that's just an ad hom. Still, of course she cites her works as she has 4 books now with 1,900 pages and over 5,500 footnote/citations referencing over 1,400 bibliographical sources. She has compiled the history of the types of information found in ZG1. So, when she's already covered a topic in detail why wouldn't she refer you to that? Scholars do it often.<BR/><BR/>"she seems to jump to conclusions which are not necessarily inferrable from the sources themselves.....For example, her "evidence" that Jesus was connected with sun worship was a quote from Tertullian claiming explicitly that Christians were being accused of sun worship by worshipping on a Sunday."<BR/><BR/>You've never studied her works at all have you - it appears that you are jumping to conclusions right now w/o really knowing what you're talking about. As I just mentioned above, she has 4 books now with 1,900 pages and over 5,500 footnote/citations referencing over 1,400 bibliographical sources. She has compiled the history of the types of information found in ZG1. So, to claim that her entire premise is dependent upon one quote from Tertullian is utterly absurd and demonstrates a monumental ignorance on the subject.<BR/><BR/>"Sorry, I side with Egyptologists and scholars of religion, not with New-Agers-with-a-degree-in-Journalism like Acharya S."<BR/><BR/>Acharya is not a new-ager and, if you knew her work you'd that she cites an assortment of scholars - many of them Christian. Her latest book contains a very large number of Egyptologists - which she names here - <A HREF="http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html" REL="nofollow">Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection</A>Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02571004784757870370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79390587607409440722009-02-28T22:41:00.000-05:002009-02-28T22:41:00.000-05:00Read the rebuttal by Acharya. She did not "mop the...Read the rebuttal by Acharya. She did not "mop the floor" with him, at all. She called him out on some hyperbole, perhaps.<BR/><BR/>Most of the sources she uses as evidence of her position are <I>HER OWN BOOKS.</I> Biased sources much? She quotes Griffiths and Tacitus and Tertullian, yes, and a few others, but like Marija Gimbutas and her Old Europe/Kurgan Theory, she seems to jump to conclusions which are not necessarily inferrable from the sources themselves.<BR/><BR/>For example, her "evidence" that Jesus was connected with sun worship was a quote from Tertullian claiming explicitly that Christians were being accused of sun worship by worshipping on a Sunday. This is not evidence that the original Jesus cult was a version of sun worship, but evidence that the Christian tradition held that Jesus had risen to Heaven the day after the Sabbath, which happened to be (surprise!) a Sunday.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I side with Egyptologists and scholars of religion, not with New-Agers-with-a-degree-in-Journalism like Acharya S.Philip R Kreychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079037983351521346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48879084945455659122009-02-28T20:19:00.000-05:002009-02-28T20:19:00.000-05:00Acharya has responded to Callahan's article - Ske...Acharya has responded to Callahan's article - <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://stellarhousepublishing.com/skeptic-zeitgeist.html" REL="nofollow">Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST<BR/>(and Religious History)</A> <BR/><BR/>She mops the floor with him.erthluvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16644473140391058829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66114538654203630882009-02-27T11:39:00.000-05:002009-02-27T11:39:00.000-05:00John,I am glad that even in this tired old discuss...John,<BR/><BR/>I am glad that even in this tired old discussion you brought forth the immanent return concept supporting historicity. Maybe I missed this before. It does sway me more in the direction of there was a man behind the myths. That's part of why I at least discuss. Sometimes I learn something.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the amount of patience you have shown, and for the work you do in keeping up this blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73125736909581979582009-02-26T15:19:00.000-05:002009-02-26T15:19:00.000-05:00Qumran<A HREF="http://www.pohick.org/sts/qumran.html" REL="nofollow">Qumran</A>Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38368147027629614272009-02-26T14:28:00.000-05:002009-02-26T14:28:00.000-05:00Evan thanks. You're a thoughful person I have no d...Evan thanks. You're a thoughful person I have no doubt about that, and I appreciate all of your insights. <BR/><BR/>Let me just explain the reason why I tire of this question. It's because I am continually being goaded by skeptics to weigh in more deeply about the subject. To me it's an almost complete waste of my time because I have a goal to convince Christians they are wrong. Since my goal is to change the religious landscape I want to focus on the type of arguments that will achieve this goal. To argue as you do, that there was not a charismatic end-times prophet in an era littered with end-times prophets who started the Jesus cult is quite simply silly to me. And doing so has not changed any Christian believer's mind that I know of, because it stikes them as silly too. <BR/><BR/>As I said it reminds me of conspiracy theorists when using an undue amount of skepticism about any particular claim. Listen, if you want to be this skeptical about historical claims you could deny almost all of them! Historical studies do not cough up their results like the results of scientific experiements. The best we have is sometimes based on hunches and guesses along with meager amounts of evidence for even the most solid claims in the historical past. <BR/><BR/>This question is only of interest to skeptics anyway. They are talking among themselves and being laughed at by Christians. I mean to be taken seriously by Christians. I accept the conclusions I have come to based upon the arguments I have scattered here and there and I have no intention of going deeper into this topic. For me it's a non-issue when it comes to my goals. You should thank me because Christians are listening to me. They are quite literally laughing at other skeptics. Many skeptics are laughing at me. I don't care if they do. They are not my target audience, and I think they (and you) are wrong. Authors like we find in Mark's gospel do not start cult-like followings, anyway. And the textual evidence we have says Paul was persecuting his early followers so the cult leader was not Paul. Who was it then? Charismatic end-time apocalyptic prophets in that era had an easy go of it. There is a core to this Jesus, what he said and did, and I have laid out the criteria for deciding truth from fiction. I refuse to throw out the baby with the bathwater.<BR/><BR/>Do you understand?<BR/><BR/>Now I'm done. I've heard all of your arguments before and I reject them. You've heard my arguments before and you reject them as well. So there isn't anything left for me to say here. Hopefully I can finally bow out of this silly discussion, for that's what it is to me, silly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27692042897217994252009-02-26T14:16:00.000-05:002009-02-26T14:16:00.000-05:00Derek whether you know it or not, you are making a...<I>Derek whether you know it or not, you are making an argument.<BR/><BR/>Here's your argument:<BR/><BR/>The problem with the Jesus myth lunacy is that no credible scholar takes it seriously.<BR/><BR/>I have listed a scholar, RM Price, who takes it seriously. Your argument is that he is not credible. Yet you don't back that up with any facts.<BR/><BR/>So I disagree with your argument.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps I should re-phrase the statement. Almost no credible scholar rejects the Historical Jesus.<BR/><BR/><I>Thanks for letting me know it's not important to you. I'm happy to hear it. I personally think it's important to elucidate whether a man who supposedly walked on water, went 40 days in the desert without eating, teleported to the top of a temple, raised the dead, turned water into wine and sent demons into a herd of pigs actually existed. I don't believe he did. You and Kent Hovind do.</I><BR/><BR/>Uhhh...we are talking about the Historical Jesus so I don't know where that came from.<BR/><BR/><I>As if to emphasize its unimportance to you, you add:<BR/><BR/>The origin of the apostate Jewish cult alone is enough to believe that Jesus existed.</I><BR/><BR/>I wasn't trying to emphasize its unimportance to me with that statement. I said it because that is what Christianity is from a historical standpoint. We are apostate Jews who followed the charismatic cult leader.<BR/><BR/><I>Again, this is an argument. Are you suggesting that no apostate Jewis cults could arise without a Jesus?</I><BR/><BR/>No I didn't suggest that. What I am suggesting is that cults based on a charismatic leader don't start without a charismatic leader.<BR/><BR/><I>What of the Qumran sectarians? Do they pre-date Jesus in your opinion? If so, how could they have arisen without him?</I> <BR/><BR/>I'm not familiar with them and I would appreciate if you could recommend a resource about them.<BR/><BR/><I>Does the fact that there is a cult that worships Krishna in India that is different than the mainstream of Hinduism prove beyond question that there was a historical Krishna? If not, why not?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't understand that question. Cults with charismatic leaders pop up all the time and supernatural stories are later attached to them. It just so happens that my cult spread all over the world.<BR/><BR/><I>Perhaps you think you are not making an argument, but you seem to be.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps....its not my intention though.Derek_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12957838618355496205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10062104376431124232009-02-26T13:55:00.000-05:002009-02-26T13:55:00.000-05:00Derek whether you know it or not, you are making a...Derek whether you know it or not, you are making an argument.<BR/><BR/>Here's your argument:<BR/><BR/><I>The problem with the Jesus myth lunacy is that no credible scholar takes it seriously.</I><BR/><BR/>I have listed a scholar, RM Price, who takes it seriously. Your argument is that he is not credible. Yet you don't back that up with any facts.<BR/><BR/>So I disagree with your argument.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for letting me know it's not important to you. I'm happy to hear it. I personally think it's important to elucidate whether a man who supposedly walked on water, went 40 days in the desert without eating, teleported to the top of a temple, raised the dead, turned water into wine and sent demons into a herd of pigs actually existed. I don't believe he did. You and Kent Hovind do. As if to emphasize its unimportance to you, you add:<BR/><BR/><I>The origin of the apostate Jewish cult alone is enough to believe that Jesus existed.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, this is an argument. Are you suggesting that no apostate Jewis cults could arise without a Jesus? <BR/><BR/>What of the Qumran sectarians? Do they pre-date Jesus in your opinion? If so, how could they have arisen without him?<BR/><BR/>Does the fact that there is a cult that worships Krishna in India that is different than the mainstream of Hinduism prove beyond question that there was a historical Krishna? If not, why not?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you think you are not making an argument, but you seem to be.<BR/><BR/>John, I'm sorry you're tired of the argument. You clearly have some interest in it or this post would not have pricked your ears.<BR/><BR/>I feel guilty continuing to respond because of the wonderful work that we do here, but I really find this issue compelling and I'm not expecting any response from you, merely continuing to think about this issue.<BR/><BR/>However, when you say Jesus predicted the eschaton, what you really mean is that Mark says Jesus predicted it. Mark says a lot of things about Jesus that you don't believe. But you believe that -- I guess because of the criterion of embarrassment.<BR/><BR/>But that criterion goes away if there were a pre-existing belief in an eschaton that was present in the community before Mark, that Mark was tapping into when he wrote his book. His book may simply be an etiology -- NOT a history. After that, the other books come in and try to be more quasi-historical as more believers come to think that Mark was a history. This is midrash, just like was done with all the books of the OT. <BR/><BR/>Does the existence of the book of Esther make historical King Ahasuerus -- or do you require other verification before you accept that as a fact? I think it likely that Esther is an etiology for a pre-existing Purim festival, in the same way that Mark then is an etiology for the beliefs of Christians of a certain type in Rome. <BR/><BR/>Your explanation of the two types of "coming" I will let stand. To me it sounds like special pleading and question-begging of a type I'm used to encountering, just not from you.<BR/><BR/>The fact is that Christians could have been embarrassed about the lack of an eschaton in just the same way that Millerites were by the same experience. And just as the Millerites made up a mythology to explain it (Jesus moved from one room in heaven to another on October 22, 1844), so did the early Christians make up a mythology (Jesus appeared on earth and foretold the destruction of the temple, which then occurred). I assume you agree with me that Jesus never actually predicted the destruction of the temple -- that is all a legend. You also agree that lots of things in Mark are legends as well (resurrection, miracles, etc). So I fail to see what the eschaton adds that creates such a necessity for a single historical individual who lived in the 1st half of the 1st century in Galilee (a place far removed from where Mark was likely written).Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73306150466130665602009-02-26T13:36:00.000-05:002009-02-26T13:36:00.000-05:00I tire of this discussion. Evan, the problem is th...I tire of this discussion. <BR/><BR/>Evan, the problem is that it seems clear Jesus predicted the coming <I>eschaton</I> in which the the "son of man" would come to set up an eternal reign on earth after the destruction of the world. Apocalyptic Jewish prophets were a dime a dozen under the harsh Roman rule. As I said, cult movements are mostly started by charismatic preachers, especially end time prophets. If there wasn't such an end time prophet how did such a cult following originate? this makes no sense to me at all, nor to the overwhelminf numbers of scholars who have thought about it.<BR/><BR/>What happened is that most likely after Jesus's death the early Christians thought (or merely claimed) Jesus was speaking about himself as the "son of man," hence the notion of his return in the coming <I>parousia</I> would have been a natural conclusion for them since they now believed through a series of visions that this is who Jesus was. He had previously walked on the earth and was crucified (which stands as another embarrassing element for believers in the coming Messiah), so his coming was to be a coming as the "son of man." He had not yet truly come in his glory, for the <I>eschaton</I> had to do with the "son of man" coming in glory after the destruction of the present world. Since that had clearly not happened the "son of man" had not yet come in his glory. It was the glorious coming of the "son of man" which was predicted. <BR/><BR/>This is a bit tricky because of the change the early disciples had with regard to the status Jesus being viewed as the "son of man." The fact is that this change in their understanding about Jesus says nothing against a Jewish Jesus starting an end times cult movement based upon a coming <I>eschaton</I> which never happened and was an embarrassment to the Church. The early church not only watered this prediction down, but they also saw it in a different light because of visionary experiences they had about a glorious resurrected Jesus who became for them the "son of man."<BR/><BR/>I'm done here. I said all I want to say on this topic. I merely thought Callahan's piece deserved a wider audience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80809931516007264192009-02-26T13:17:00.000-05:002009-02-26T13:17:00.000-05:00Evan, I'm not making an argument so I don't really...Evan, I'm not making an argument so I don't really get your point.<BR/><BR/>The Historical Jesus is not an issue for the me. The origin of the apostate Jewish cult alone is enough to believe that Jesus existed.Derek_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12957838618355496205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18035608385228649422009-02-26T12:59:00.000-05:002009-02-26T12:59:00.000-05:00Again, I hear nothing of the actual substance of t...Again, I hear nothing of the actual substance of the argument here, merely another appeal to authority from you, Derek.<BR/><BR/>And John, to address your statement about a belief in Jesus's coming from heaven: It is quite plausible that there were believers who were committed to a return of a Jesus from somewhere during the 1st century CE and possibly even in the 1st century BCE, yet this says nothing about their belief of where he was returning from.<BR/><BR/>In addition, most of the epistles do not talk about his "return" they talk about his "coming". The epistles generally do not speak of a "second coming" which is what they would be referring to if they were of the belief that Jesus had lived a physical life on earth.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30704282928554222502009-02-26T12:53:00.000-05:002009-02-26T12:53:00.000-05:00Evan: The appeal to authority is often misundersto...Evan: The appeal to authority is often misunderstood. Appealing to an inappropriate authority is obviously fallacious but that isn't the case here.<BR/><BR/>The reason that this is a valid form of argumentation (to a point) is that people in specific areas of expertise are qualified to deal with data in a manner that people outside that area are not. When these people pretty much unanimously agree on something, they have good reasons for doing so.<BR/><BR/>Obviously this doesn't make it true but, as I have said, one going against this consensus has the burden of proof.<BR/><BR/>Is it possible that Porky Price is right and that Jesus wasn't even intended to be taken as a historical figure? Yes it is possible but I would say it is about as likely as Kent Hovind being right.<BR/><BR/>Hell, Price can't even convince the Jesus Seminar! X-DDerek_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12957838618355496205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15367446739707293092009-02-26T12:46:00.000-05:002009-02-26T12:46:00.000-05:00Evan said...To criticize Zeitgeist is probably eas...Evan said...<I>To criticize Zeitgeist is probably easier and more fun, but those are not the strongest mythicist arguments.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, indeed, but it needed to be debhunked because of the numbers of people who have been exposed to it.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55708102757435154192009-02-26T12:43:00.000-05:002009-02-26T12:43:00.000-05:00exrelayman said...This leaves only the Bethlehem/N...exrelayman said...<I>This leaves only the Bethlehem/Nazareth quandary which I am not knowledgeable enough to remark on. Nonetheless, 2 of the 3 arguments presented as 'meager' evidence are questionable, so that the tenuous case becomes more so.</I><BR/><BR/>There is the even more problematic question of why Christians would invent that Jesus would return in their lifetimes and then subsequently have to repeatedly try to water these predictions down from Mark to Matthew to John to Paul to I John to II Peter to Revelation. These failed eschatological predictions are indeed the most embarrassing element in the stories about Jesus. If Christians merely invented this Jesus and the stories about him then why invent these embarrassing predictions too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35265075433353960252009-02-26T12:41:00.000-05:002009-02-26T12:41:00.000-05:00John: That is from his appearance on the Infidel G...John: That is from his appearance on the Infidel Guy's radio show.Derek_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12957838618355496205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68923160817444489332009-02-26T12:35:00.000-05:002009-02-26T12:35:00.000-05:00I'd be interested in reading Tim Callahan's critiq...I'd be interested in reading Tim Callahan's critique of RM Price's work or that of Earl Doherty.<BR/><BR/>To criticize Zeitgeist is probably easier and more fun, but those are not the strongest mythicist arguments.<BR/><BR/>In addition, Derek M, I'd like your opinion of Price and Doherty's work. The strength of an idea rests on its evidence and arguments, as we are fond of saying here. Consensus or authority play no role in this.<BR/><BR/>When I argue against creationists, I never use an appeal to consensus. I bring up data. The historicist has but one datum, Mark's gospel. Mark's gospel is the source for the other gospels. Mark's gospel is not written in the style of Hellenistic histories. Therefore, to assume it was written as a history is question begging.<BR/><BR/>Ehrman's appeal to the consensus of scholars for the existence of Jesus is no different qualitatively or substantively than Craig's appeal to the consensus of scholars for Jesus' burial and resurrection.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88630652785976324372009-02-26T12:28:00.000-05:002009-02-26T12:28:00.000-05:00Derek_M, where can that quote from Ehrman be found...Derek_M, where can that quote from Ehrman be found?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89888112203836210182009-02-26T11:09:00.000-05:002009-02-26T11:09:00.000-05:00Derek_M,Your confidence in the "Fact of Jesus' his...<I>Derek_M,<BR/><BR/>Your confidence in the "Fact of Jesus' historicity is impressive but if you actually care about this issue, a little more careful reading on your part might prove to be illuminating.</I><BR/><BR/>You are assuming that I'm not familiar with the mythicists' arguments. I've read and listened to a LOT of stuff about it in its fitting domain, the internet.<BR/><BR/><I>The "Fact" is far more tenuous than you make it out to be. Ad hominem attacks on those who are making the case for the mythical Jesus idea are not an argument.</I><BR/><BR/>Ad hominem attacks are fallacies that occur in the course of an argument when someone attacks a person rather than their arguments. I'm not in a debate with anyone or referring to any specific claims so your accusation of ad hominems is pointless.<BR/><BR/><I>Read some of Earl Doherty's essays & stay tuned for Richard Carrier's book to be published in the near future. These are both credible scholars (even if they haven't managed to secure a tenured teaching position in a seminary.)</I><BR/><BR/>I see a nice pre-supposition you are operating under. You are assuming that I am only referring to people who have tenure at a seminary as being credible scholars...this is totally bogus.<BR/><BR/><I>Most of the refutations of the Mythical Jesus hypothesis are just like yours; a huffy ad hominem dismissal without a serious attempt to discuss the evidence for or against the position. Just because a prevailing view may have been held as unquestioned dogma for centuries does not mean that view is correct. The Terracentric universe or the young earth creationist understanding of our origins are good examples of widely held dogmas subsequently found to be false. Is it not also possible that the Historical Jesus could be founded on just as faulty evidence?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>What evidence would you hold forth to support the existence of an Historical Jesus resembling the man described in the Gospels as the founder of the Christian Faith?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I've been looking for it & I'm not seeing anything very convincing.<BR/><BR/>-evan</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't offer a refutation so I don't see your point on that.<BR/><BR/>I also don't see the point of your comparison of the failing of previous models of reality in science as having relevance to a matter of history. Sure, it is possible that the Historical Jesus is based on faulty evidence, anything is possible. But the likelihood of it is very very small. <BR/><BR/>Since the Historical Jesus is an established fact of history which meets the criteria that historians use and is doubted by practically no scholar with relevant credentials, the Jesus Mythicist has a massive hill to climb to prove their thesis. It is not as most people on the internet like to frame it by trying to put the burden of proof on the one who accepts the view of experts. <BR/><BR/>I would love for someone to present a believable argument for the origin of the Christian movement without the charismatic leader.<BR/><BR/>I like the skeptic's favorite Bart Ehrman's comment about this issue, <BR/><BR/>"I don't think there is any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say that Jesus didn't exist but I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus....we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from His time period."Derek_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12957838618355496205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31333495411836653822009-02-26T10:01:00.000-05:002009-02-26T10:01:00.000-05:00I guess I'm feeling lucky today Callahan! We shoul...I guess I'm feeling lucky today Callahan! We should, in my opinion, assert nothing beyond what is supported by good evidence, in order to 1) be as accurate as we can, and 2) to use only strong rather than weak argument (these may be one thing worded 2 ways).<BR/><BR/>As to the arguments for historicity in the OP, the 'James brother of Christ' bit of Josephus can be equally well interpolation as fact. As for the embarrassment of the Christ dying being an indicator there was a real man, dying and returning to life is what god's did - why should the Christian hero not do so also? Argument from embarrassment not quite so strong. This leaves only the Bethlehem/Nazareth quandary which I am not knowledgeable enough to remark on. Nonetheless, 2 of the 3 arguments presented as 'meager' evidence are questionable, so that the tenuous case becomes more so.<BR/><BR/>This topic has been beaten to death here before. John is tired of it and I apologize for adding on here, but feel my points here should not be overlooked, if accuracy is desired. John has said that we should not overlook that the majority of mainstream scholarship favors a historical man behind the story. This factor sort of overlooks the fact that the majority of mainstream Biblical scholars were singing 'Jesus Loves Me' before they went to kindergarten.<BR/><BR/>I do not go so far as to say I know it is all myth, nor so far as to say there must be a man behind the myth. 'I don't know' seems a respectable and non dogmatic evaluation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19715999645300401082009-02-26T09:24:00.000-05:002009-02-26T09:24:00.000-05:00Whether or not there is a case to be made for a hi...Whether or not there is a case to be made for a historical vs. mythical Jesus, let's just say that it doesn't help Mr. Joseph's case to lump it in with a movie about a 9/11 conspiracy and a Federal Reserve Board conspiracy. Even if there is a solid argument for a mythical Jesus, Zeitgeist isn't it. He over-states his case and throws in ridiculous assertions (the whole "end of the age" thing is a good example) to try and prove it. In my opinion, he completely ignores the <I>proven</I> fact that Christianity has its roots deep within Jewish tradition. There are certainly parallels with other mystery religions, but Zeitgeist would have you believe that Christianity is some sort of Roman religion hybrid, when it's clearly a Jewish derivative. Any attempts to ignore that means that everyone else can completely dismiss your arguments.<BR/><BR/>No, I'm not a scholar on the matter, but I know enough about the issue to know that if we deny the Jewish roots of the New Testament, we are completely missing the mark.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07878734919633437792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53972025218603970842009-02-26T06:43:00.000-05:002009-02-26T06:43:00.000-05:00I wouldn't say that Callahan was wasting his time....I wouldn't say that Callahan was wasting his time. <BR/><BR/>I'm tired of coming across all this '16 crucified saviours' garbage. It's embarrassing. In fact I'd say that this area has become the weakest link in the arguments against Christianity, simply because it so often gets used and is so often massively exaggerated, and it makes it look as if we're just making things up!<BR/><BR/>This doesn't mean that I don't think that there are certain links between Christianity, pagan religions and astrology. After all, why did the writer of Matthew deem it so important to have astrologers paying homage to the infant Jesus. Indeed, Jesus himself is made to refer to solar and lunar eclipses and signs in the sky when talking about the end of the age.<BR/><BR/>But let's get the facts straight first! I mean, what about that God's Sun/God's Son part? As far as I know, that particular pun only works in English, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.Pull The Other One!https://www.blogger.com/profile/11006054551957983217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45464304476126110712009-02-26T02:28:00.000-05:002009-02-26T02:28:00.000-05:00Derek_M,Your confidence in the "Fact of Jesus...Derek_M,<BR/><BR/>Your confidence in the "Fact of Jesus' historicity is impressive but if you actually care about this issue, a little more careful reading on your part might prove to be illuminating. <BR/><BR/>The "Fact" is far more tenuous than you make it out to be. Ad hominem attacks on those who are making the case for the mythical Jesus idea are not an argument.<BR/><BR/>Read some of Earl Doherty's essays & stay tuned for Richard Carrier's book to be published in the near future. These are both credible scholars (even if they haven't managed to secure a tenured teaching position in a seminary.)<BR/><BR/>Most of the refutations of the Mythical Jesus hypothesis are just like yours; a huffy ad hominem dismissal without a serious attempt to discuss the evidence for or against the position. Just because a prevailing view may have been held as unquestioned dogma for centuries does not mean that view is correct. The Terracentric universe or the young earth creationist understanding of our origins are good examples of widely held dogmas subsequently found to be false. Is it not also possible that the Historical Jesus could be founded on just as faulty evidence? <BR/><BR/>What evidence would you hold forth to support the existence of an Historical Jesus resembling the man described in the Gospels as the founder of the Christian Faith?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I've been looking for it & I'm not seeing anything very convincing.<BR/><BR/>-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8832993173701289862009-02-25T19:05:00.000-05:002009-02-25T19:05:00.000-05:00The problem with the Jesus myth lunacy is that no ...The problem with the Jesus myth lunacy is that no credible scholar takes it seriously. One can't even find scholars refuting it because it is such a non issue that they don't waste their time. The cause has been taken up by ignorant weekend warriors on the internet who share the same narrow minded rejection of reality as creationists. They are cut from the same cloth.<BR/><BR/>Its like listening to Kent Hovind over all of science. <BR/><BR/>The historical Jesus as the founder of the Christian movement is a fact of history. Get over it.Derek_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12957838618355496205noreply@blogger.com