Religion

dimbear

(6,271 posts)

43. Don't be distracted by Joseph Atwill and the like, there are perfectly respectable scholars who

Sat Nov 2, 2013, 09:42 PM

Nov 2013

Last edited Sun Nov 3, 2013, 12:00 AM - Edit history (1)

hold the view the JC wasn't real. The belief is generally called mythicism. It goes all the way back to the Tubingen school, through the Dutch radicals, and persists to the present day.
One ominous truth is that scholars who adopt the view tend to languish unpublished, and sometimes lose their positions. It's a hazardous opinion.
Don't confuse it with the belief called Docetism, which is sometimes unfairly applied to mythicists. That's a bit different.

Probably the most available author upholding the reasonableness of the mythicist position nowadays is Robert M Price. Another interesting source is the always controversial Vridar. Both are scholars, neither is actually a mythicist, but both insist that mythicism is defensible. That's about as far as anybody can really go.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

210 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Was Jesus even born? [View all] gopiscrap Nov 2013 OP

I think Jesus existed. Whether he is who he says he is, is a matter of faith. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #1

I agree, so the question I am posing is was there a Jesus in the context of what gopiscrap Nov 2013 #2

Why is it plausible that Jesus even existed? cleanhippie Nov 2013 #11

what about the historical artifacts that have been discovered? gopiscrap Nov 2013 #13

What historical artifacts? cleanhippie Nov 2013 #15

Possibly all the parts of the true cross: AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #27

That hardly qualifies as an "historical artifact." At best, it's supposition. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #47

So you are choosing to ignore the question? cleanhippie Nov 2013 #56

Apart from a relatively few historical people Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #99

No edhopper Nov 2013 #100

Which is why believers take it on faith. Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2013 #101

Why is that ? Leontius Nov 2013 #103

Basic reasoning, lack of objective evidence, common sense... cleanhippie Nov 2013 #104

That the only evidence edhopper Nov 2013 #106

Your first point is typical of much of early history. The scources for three of the Gospels are very Leontius Nov 2013 #107

And there is much edhopper Nov 2013 #108

The idea that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony is laughable. stopbush Nov 2013 #137

I also often wonder why anyone thinks such biblical eyewitnesses could write... Moonwalk Nov 2013 #181

The apostle Matthew is described as a tax collector muriel_volestrangler Nov 2013 #204

Um, no. Just able to do math. People used marks on slates... Moonwalk Nov 2013 #208

All you say is true edhopper Nov 2013 #186

Because the figure of Jesus in the NT is pretty much a straight archetype stopbush Nov 2013 #189

To be fair, thinking Jesus even existed is a matter of faith, too. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #5

There is an interesting point there but I think he exited. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #6

Yes, you've already stated that. Are you agreeing with my point? cleanhippie Nov 2013 #7

I would say that historians believe that all of the writings written about Jesus in the first hrmjustin Nov 2013 #12

Do you agree with my point or not? cleanhippie Nov 2013 #14

I have mixed feelings to be honest. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #16

It's difficult to have a conversation when points of fact cannot be agreed upon. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #17

We don't agree on things. You knew that. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #18

YOU don't agree on things. If its factual, I'll agree with it. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #19

If we cannot agree on even basic facts, what's the point of discussion? cleanhippie Nov 2013 #22

Seriously. How can there be meaningful discussion if basic facts cannot be agreed upon? cleanhippie Nov 2013 #59

I am sorry I did not get back to you. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #61

So if you "simply don't know", then you take his existence as a matter of faith and not fact. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #63

Jesus existance is not a fact. That is clear. I believe the bible that it says he was here. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #65

So you agree with my initial reply which is that you take it on faith not fact. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #86

no I base on the overwhelming consensus of academia. nt arely staircase Nov 2013 #87

Your post would make more sense were my question directed to you. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #88

so if I say I believe in man made climate change because that is the consensus among scientists arely staircase Nov 2013 #89

I say you base your opinion on nothing more than an argument from authority. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #90

+1 okasha Nov 2013 #197

I have no problem agreeing with you. I agree that there is not written accounts of him during his hrmjustin Nov 2013 #96

The virgin birth? Really? stopbush Nov 2013 #133

I know about the translation. I believe in the virgin birth. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #134

Wow. I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. stopbush Nov 2013 #135

First off I already own part of the bbrooklyn bridge so you don't need to sell me anything. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #136

I appreciate the humor, but you don't own part of the BB and stopbush Nov 2013 #140

Yes I do own some bricks that were apart of the bridge. And as for my belief I am allowed to hrmjustin Nov 2013 #142

I defend your right to believe whatever you will. That's what being an American is about. stopbush Nov 2013 #146

I understand. You don't elieve in the virgin birth. It is something not easy to believe in. I have hrmjustin Nov 2013 #149

"You either believe or you don't." What a lazy statement. stopbush Nov 2013 #174

Whhat do you want from me? I believe it. If you have a problem with it that is your problem not mine hrmjustin Nov 2013 #176

I don't have a problem with your faith. Just letting you know why i find it so easy to stopbush Nov 2013 #177

and what do you want from me? hrmjustin Nov 2013 #178

Well, I was hoping for a serious discussion, but your blind faith rather closes that door. stopbush Nov 2013 #179

I am not going to engage a person who is going to insult me. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #180

Buh-bye. Don't let the door hit ya where evolution split ya. stopbush Nov 2013 #183

Very rude. I did nothing to deserve your scorn. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #184

Justin always tries to be polite and engaging to everyone on DU Marrah_G Nov 2013 #191

No, the resurrection is implausible, because it is unknown, biologically muriel_volestrangler Nov 2013 #36

Fair point. The Resurrection is implausible, while the existence of jesus is plausible. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #49

not for historians. arely staircase Nov 2013 #45

Hogwash. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #52

name me three published peer reviewed historians who say Jesus of Nazareth arely staircase Nov 2013 #54

Find me one peer-reviewed paper that proves a negative. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #55

peer reviewed historians who claim Jesus didn't exist are about as common as peer reviewed scientist arely staircase Nov 2013 #58

Find me one peer-reviewed paper that proves a negative. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #68

atheists for jesus by richard dawkins arely staircase Nov 2013 #69

You obviously do not understand what a peer-reviewed paper is. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #71

I know I am still wating for just three from your side arely staircase Nov 2013 #76

Since you seem unable or unwilling to produce anything peer-reviewed cleanhippie Nov 2013 #85

You're the one with the positive claim Goblinmonger Nov 2013 #110

yeah because martian teapots are a real academic discipline like history, etc arely staircase Nov 2013 #111

You don't really understand burden of proof do you. Goblinmonger Nov 2013 #113

You're aware, of course, okasha Nov 2013 #198

Do you even read your own sources? cleanhippie Nov 2013 #62

yeah dawkins says possible but not widely supported arely staircase Nov 2013 #64

What evidence is there to support an historical jesus? cleanhippie Nov 2013 #66

here Athests for Jesus by Dawkins arely staircase Nov 2013 #67

An article by Dawkins is evidence of an historical jesus? cleanhippie Nov 2013 #70

it is evidence of the acceptance of his historical existence among even the most arely staircase Nov 2013 #72

Ah but Richard Dawkins is no Joseph Atwill. rug Nov 2013 #73

right? arely staircase Nov 2013 #74

Actually, he is conceding the point. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #84

Jesus may well have existed, a religious Jew and a revolutionary against Rome. meti57b Nov 2013 #173

i agree, but i don't believe DesertFlower Nov 2013 #24

I don't believe that there's any artifactual proof or any reference to Jesus that's dated to the... Fridays Child Nov 2013 #3

how can you get ahold of that documentary? gopiscrap Nov 2013 #4

Here you go. Fridays Child Nov 2013 #9

thanks gopiscrap Nov 2013 #10

i saw it. very interesting. DesertFlower Nov 2013 #25

I agree. Fridays Child Nov 2013 #44

It doesn't take a lot of effort to see that we'll never really know. Like King Arthur or William dimbear Nov 2013 #8

Do you know of any evidence to support the idea of the existence of Jesus? cleanhippie Nov 2013 #20

Well, the evidence for his existence is a bit slim. longship Nov 2013 #21

To believe he did not exist requires the belief in a mid-first century conspiracy, rug Nov 2013 #23

False. Deep13 Nov 2013 #32

Not at all. rug Nov 2013 #39

+1. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #77

Nope, there is nothing from the 1st century which supports a corporeal Christ intaglio Nov 2013 #143

There is nothing in the record to support a conspiracy. rug Nov 2013 #147

There is every evidence of a mystery cult intaglio Nov 2013 #165

Then it should be a simple task to identify it and establish how it wrote the Scriptures. rug Nov 2013 #166

Well, no-one does know who wrote the scriptures intaglio Nov 2013 #167

Wrong about Paul. okasha Nov 2013 #199

Galatians 4:4 intaglio Nov 2013 #202

Nice try, but no cigar. okasha Nov 2013 #209

and so would any worshipper of Dionysus intaglio Nov 2013 #210

I doubt it. Cleita Nov 2013 #26

Is there any evidence for that last sentence? rug Nov 2013 #28

I was gonna ask that myself. gopiscrap Nov 2013 #30

Yes. The late Joseph Campbell wrote about it. Cleita Nov 2013 #33

Posit sounds more like a hypothesis than evidence. rug Nov 2013 #35

I'm just going to exit right here. Cleita Nov 2013 #40

Very sensible. I'm going to follow your lead. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #42

Don't forget to take Joe Atwill with you. rug Nov 2013 #53

No problem. rug Nov 2013 #51

i agree. nt DesertFlower Nov 2013 #60

You must edhopper Nov 2013 #83

Strictly speaking, they are not parallels at all. rug Nov 2013 #91

I think the case is much stronger than edhopper Nov 2013 #92

"acknowledging such is a problem for your belief in the divinity of Jesus as portrayed"? rug Nov 2013 #93

message deleted edhopper Nov 2013 #94

He was born if he existed, but we don't know if he existed. Deep13 Nov 2013 #29

Whoever came up with the phrase "Render unto Caesar" was real. But was it JC or Titus Flavius? AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #31

Good question. n/t Cleita Nov 2013 #34

Geez. Please google Joseph Atwill on DU in the last month. rug Nov 2013 #37

Google it yourself. My response is my own and not dependent upon any previous DU post. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #41

I don't need to. I read his thoroughly discredited crap in five threads in four forums. rug Nov 2013 #50

I believe that a Joshua of Nazareth existed, lived past 30, and then burnsei sensei Nov 2013 #38

historians only universally agree on two things about Jesus arely staircase Nov 2013 #48

Don't be distracted by Joseph Atwill and the like, there are perfectly respectable scholars who dimbear Nov 2013 #43

No Jesus...and a bit of snark.... wcmagumba Nov 2013 #46

Great site for exploring the start of the Christ myth boomer55 Nov 2013 #57

this sight does not argue Jesus didn't exist arely staircase Nov 2013 #75

That's an excellent site that should be visited by people making the argument against a corporeal stopbush Nov 2013 #175

No. No contemporaneous historical evidence of his existence. Manifestor_of_Light Nov 2013 #78

you are confusing the existense of the man with myths about him arely staircase Nov 2013 #79

here: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Manifestor_of_Light Nov 2013 #95

Here's a musical take on your question, by Nashville singer-songwriter David Olney... DreamGypsy Nov 2013 #80

Was Jesus ever born? LostOne4Ever Nov 2013 #81

he existed , was a prophet not the son of god, and was probably crucified madrchsod Nov 2013 #82

Yeah, but he could make one hell of a pine nightstand. Kablooie Nov 2013 #102

The only report from close to Bible times is that the family business was making farm implements, dimbear Nov 2013 #112

There are no contemporaneous writings stating that he existed. Duh. Manifestor_of_Light Nov 2013 #97

That is true but that does not mean he did not exist. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #98

It means that his existence is improbable, yet plausible. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #105

We know about Julius Caesar. Manifestor_of_Light Nov 2013 #109

hippie edhopper Nov 2013 #114

The complete lack of evidence for starters. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #115

I think there are two figures here edhopper Nov 2013 #116

The burden is not on people who aren't aware of his existence, to disprove it. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #117

Well if he did live edhopper Nov 2013 #118

40 years was a lifetime in that period. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #119

Why would someone write a fictitious account of a fictitious person four decades later? rug Nov 2013 #120

That seems more logical to me edhopper Nov 2013 #122

That raises the question of who did it and the purpose of their propaganda. rug Nov 2013 #126

There's little evidence of the people who actually wrote it AT ALL. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #132

It was written. rug Nov 2013 #138

Still ignoring the one or the other billion adherents mutually exclusive faith issue huh? AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #139

That doesn't even make sense. rug Nov 2013 #145

Cite contemporary evidence for the existence of 'jesus'. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #150

Let's say there is none. That does not provide evidence of the necessary alternate explanation. rug Nov 2013 #152

No alternate explanation is required for a work of fiction. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #154

If your claim is that it's fiction, then who wrote it and why? rug Nov 2013 #156

You seem to have some fundamental misunderstanding of the burden of proof. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #157

You seem unable to distinguish between a critique and a claim. rug Nov 2013 #159

Again, burden of proof. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #161

You're repeating yourself. rug Nov 2013 #162

None is required, unless you're starting from a presuppositon that it is true. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #163

I see. Your evidence is a) not required and b) I'm irrational. rug Nov 2013 #164

The premise that it must be true and thus disproven is irrational and begs the question. Sure. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #168

The premise is that the scriptures exist. rug Nov 2013 #169

No, that's not what I said. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #170

Therefore . . . . someone created a forgery. rug Nov 2013 #171

I don't call fiction 'forgery'. I call it fiction. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #172

I am saying that edhopper Nov 2013 #187

Lots of reasons. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #124

That's not a reason. rug Nov 2013 #125

To exert control, for starters. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #128

That's ludicrous. rug Nov 2013 #129

Or controlling individuals at the time. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #130

Ok. By whom and why? Where is the evidence of that? rug Nov 2013 #141

They are mutually exclusive. (There's your evidence) AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #148

Ah, "I don't need to know who wrote them, why can be assumed." rug Nov 2013 #151

Scant historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #153

Zero evidence of an alternate explanation. rug Nov 2013 #155

"is required." AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #158

"exists". rug Nov 2013 #160

Very forthoughtful, wouldn't you say, okasha Nov 2013 #200

Therefore Harry Potter is a real person. Warren Stupidity Nov 2013 #203

You do not have a good grasp of logic, do you. rug Nov 2013 #205

You have nothing but insults. Warren Stupidity Nov 2013 #206

That post is not an insult. Your reply was not a logical conclusion. rug Nov 2013 #207

True but there was an oral history and practiced storytellers. edhopper Nov 2013 #121

Could, but hardly certain. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #123

The Q hypothesis is a famous posited source. rug Nov 2013 #127

Was he born? JimboBillyBubbaBob Nov 2013 #131

Makes not the slightest difference M.G. Nov 2013 #144

M.G., you know nothing about Buddhism. Manifestor_of_Light Nov 2013 #190

I know a tiny bit more than nothing about Buddhism. M.G. Nov 2013 #192

So the Buddha wrote nothing but a bunch of monks wrote down what they think they remembered Leontius Nov 2013 #193

If we're really going to discuss Buddhism.... M.G. Nov 2013 #194

That really was not the point I was making and I will not dispute your take on Buddhist Leontius Nov 2013 #195

More religious debate... M.G. Nov 2013 #196

These debates always turn sour. Lobo27 Nov 2013 #182

Until those people edhopper Nov 2013 #185

And there's the harm to society that comes from the validation of magical thinking. trotsky Nov 2013 #188

He NEVER produced a Politicalboi Nov 2013 #201