An idea gaining hold in public circles doesn’t make it correct. Flat-earth and antivax sentiments have grown but it doesn’t make them valid. Your appeal to increasing popularity is fallacious.
Yet you depend on the scholarship of Jesus mythicists to make your case.
Another bald assertion. I think we have had enough of your introduction.
Very true. And I agree with Alan Fox’s statement above, and Harshman’s similar statement, and Rumraket’s excellent remarks, earlier. It’s at least plausible that the Jesus of the gospels was based in part upon some person, but since the supernatural claims are not believable in any event and place the credibility of their tellers on very shaky ground, we are left with a Jesus about whom we can say nothing of consequence and/or with confidence.
I think the Jesus mythicists may be right in their conclusion; if I had to place a 50/50 bet I’d bet against them but I think the possibility is very real. I suspect that a TARDIS-equipped theologian could not locate and identify Jesus if he were transported back to the relevant time frame even if Jesus did really live. But the contention that one can demonstrate, today, that Jesus never really lived is not, I think, very sound.
The appeal to the popularity of the view that Jesus never existed isn’t a good one. It reminds me of the many, many times I have had to explain to creationists that while the number of people who agree with them is of interest in a social/cultural sense, it has no bearing on whether they’re right about the underlying facts or not. It doesn’t mean they’re wrong, but equally, it doesn’t mean they’re right.
“If the religious believe and non-religious don’t care there is no one left to convince.”
It’s not that simple. In the U.S. an average of 50,000 people stop going to church and leave Christianity every week. According to apologists themselves 3 out of 4 Christian college students reject their faith before they graduate. So there a millions of people on the fence already and all they need is a little help getting over it. Finding out that Jesus never existed is usually enough reason to make that jump.
“An idea gaining hold in public circles doesn’t make it correct. Flat-earth and antivax sentiments have grown but it doesn’t make them valid. Your appeal to increasing popularity is fallacious.”
The rapidly increasing popularity of mythicism shows that the apologetic claims that mythicism has been debunked, or it’s a 19th century fad, or a fringe conspiracy theory comparable to flat earthism are false. Apologists know they can’t defend their historical Jesus in an honest debate so they resort to unethical and dishonest tactics against their critics. Religions depend on nothing but public opinion because they are not supported by facts. Once a religion loses popularity it dies along with its gods. This is happening right now.
“Yet you depend on the scholarship of Jesus mythicists to make your case.”
I only posted a list of over a hundred writers who have said Jesus never existed to show that the claim that mythicism is a fringe idea is a lie. What mythicists do you say I depend on may I ask? Name 'em and claim 'em.
“Another bald assertion. I think we have had enough of your introduction.”
You’ve said that before.
I’d like to see a source for that. “Christian college students” can mean different things to different people.
Flat-earthism has become more popular in recent years. Does this mean a globe earth has been debunked?
I have been advised on this site to ignore apologists and focus on scholarly writings of trained theologians. I don’t know how peer-review works in the world of theological academia, but I don’t think they would let dishonest or unethical material linger.
That someone called Jesus, lived and kick-started Christianity does not need defending. Its a possibility and a highly plausible one. Similarly, that someone called Boris Badenoff existed 400 years ago is possible and quite plausible.
Dude I can find you a list of mathematicians, physicists, biologists, chemists, etcetera, who reject evolutionary theory in favor of young earth creationism, but that won’t make YEC mainstream within science right?
More so, are you really claiming you don’t read the works of Jesus mythicism scholars?
I will keep reiterating it as long as you continue doing that.
Ken Ham has a book about this, “Already Gone”, but the number he uses is 2 out of 3. Ham might be referring to YEC in particular. It’s not clear if they are gone to atheism or another form of faith.
I am proud to say that I’ve caused many YEC students to question what they’ve been told by Ken. I should put it in my syllabus.
I have a friend who teaches the evolution course at Eastern Oregon State. He encounters a lot of trouble from the local Bible Belt.
Sources: LifeWay Research, Barna Group, Frank Turek, William Lane Craig…
I’m sure that arriving at the view that Jesus never existed is a fairly compelling reason to make that jump. And as an agnostic atheist myself I can see no reason why that should trouble me; I’m all for people making that jump.
But those points don’t make it true. As I’ve indicated, I am not saying it’s not true; I think it may well be true. But demonstrating that it’s true is very difficult for the simple reason that historical questions, especially in dealing with the ancient past, do not lend themselves to definitive answers. I find it easier to believe that there was some real person onto whose core story the folkloric bits agglomerated until we had this bizarre story we see in the gospels today. But, just as there was (apparently) no real Paul Bunyan, big-muscled French-Canadian logger at the core of the Paul Bunyan stories, there could easily be no real person at the core of the gospels stories.
But, in a way, I never have been that sure it mattered. Once one rejects the entire supernatural scheme of the gospels, the jig surely is up anyhow, whether there was some fellow whose personal life supplied a few of the less-consequential details of the gospel stories or not. And if I were a Christian in the midst of losing my faith, I can’t see that that distinction would make much difference. I suppose someone could take a wholly-natural Jesus, conclude that he really did teach some of the things he is said to have taught, and revere him as a wise man, but it’s not quite the same thing as the full-blown fire-breathing supernatural Indiana-Jones-and-the-Ark-of-the-covenant faith. And people raised in the latter don’t tend to soften up to the former; they break rather than bending.
You don’t think theologians would let dishonest or unethical material linger? How else would they make a living? Religions don’t get “kick-started.” They evolve gradually from whatever came before. Buddhism came from Hinduism. Islam evolved from ancient Arabian moon worshiping cults and featured gods named Sin, Halal, Allah… Muhammad never existed either, nor did Buddha or Moses. Christianity is a New Age Religion that evolved from an amalgamation of sun worshiping mystery cults and Judaism which is also a New Age sun worshiping religion. So Jesus is not the cause of Christianity, he’s an effect.
Yes, I am really claiming I don’t read the works of Jesus mythicism scholars. Why would I? I paid my dues in college.
Speaking of which, I’m genuinely curious. What was your interest in studying this material in college? Five semesters of koine Greek is a serious commitment and opportunity cost.
The view among many skeptics is that the Jesus story started out as history and/or biography and then gradually became mythologized. So what we have in the New Testament started out with an historical figure. But we have no evidence of that. In that imaginary world of speculation we see Jesus as a failed prophet. In the real world of religious texts and ancient literature, a prophet who speaks of a cosmic judgment that will soon bring about God’s kingdom is neither mistaken nor failed, but is a figure in a literary world. The myth of the kingdom of God belongs to a long tradition of literature. Its prophet remains a metaphor of myth and literature, where he has a meaningful place. What the historical Jesus people are doing completely wrecks a perfectly good and meaningful story.
People reject religion for a variety of reasons such as birth issues, cultural issues, Trump, sexual abuse by clergy, prosperity preachers, denial of evolution, and for many of our college graduates, religion does not serve the purposes it did for their parents.
Could you include a link to the actual study? I want to see the methodology.
If they peer-review what goes into their literature base, then yes.
You are accusing all theologians of dishonesty, a charge for which you have no shred of evidence for. There are many ways for them to make a living honestly and its odd to even ask this question.
By kickstart, I meant Jesus was the key factor that drove the evolution of Christianity. The Jews tried to stone a lady for adultery according to Mosaic law, Jesus stopped that. The Jews shunned working on a Sabbath, but Jesus healed someone during one of those Sabbaths. The list goes on. Jesus was the “driver mutation” that kickstarted the evolution of Christianity.
Reading the Bible tells you this is an absurd and untrue claim.
I find this hard to believe, but if you say so that’s fine with me.
I didn’t examine any studies. I said, “According to apologists themselves…”
I had to take an ancient language.
Christianity existed before the New Testament. Religions are reverse engineered. Once a religion gains enough popularity stories about how it came about are invented and evolve. This can be clearly seen in the gospels and Acts. Obviously you believe those stories in the gospels actually happened so there’s no way you can understand them.
By the way if you scroll down a bit on my Facebook page, you’ll see where I discuss the woman caught in adultery story and show that even though the story isn’t in the oldest manuscripts it is very likely that it was indeed part of the original gospel.