Introducing Boris

[Boris_Badenoff]

@Boris_Badenoff

I don’t care what scholars think.

Well right now, after everything you’ve said, all the claims you have made, I do care. I care a lot.

@Eddie

Then stop making claims which can only be evaluated by scholarship. Make claims about which rock band is the best, or which pizzeria in your town serves the best pizza.

I’ve never encountered anyone who blows their own horn more than you have. Someone who constantly brags about their education which includes being taught by the best of the best who said, “the field I’m in (Religious Studies and Natural Theology) - the latter a contradiction in terms if I’ve ever seen one, [with] all the historians, Classicists, etc. of whatever religious stripe – Christian, Jewish, agnostic, Deist, pantheist, atheist, etc.” Someone who said “Yes, there are people who don’t believe that Jesus ever existed, but their arguments are weak and in some cases downright silly, and have all been refuted countless times.”

Well here’s your chance to shine, to show off what must have been a very expensive education (if what you say about it is even true) by evaluating my claims yourself. Or are you not enough of a scholar to evaluate and refute my claims? No problem, I understand, just go to those books you recommended to others and tell me what they say. You claim there are refutations of my weak and silly arguments so that means you must know what they are. Well, let’s see them, “countless times” if you wish. You know my research methods are so poor I may need to be told twice, even three times.

@Eddie

Actually, it’s the churches where the leadership (lay and clerical) hold views about the Bible resembling your own that are shrinking the fastest ! It’s not at all surprising hearing views like yours from the leaders of the United Church of Christ, the Methodists, the Episcopalians, etc.

Churches teach that Jesus never existed? People have told me I’m missing something by not attending church. Who knew?

@Eddie

Tom Harpur, whom you cited, was an Anglican (as they say in his native Canada, though Americans would call him an Episcopalian). In those churches where such liberal views of Jesus, Scripture, etc. are held, membership numbers are in free fall, and those churches will not exist by 2100.

I’ll make an even bolder prediction than that. In ten years you won’t find hardly anyone who will even admit they believe in Jesus, historical or otherwise. You’re already afraid to admit that on this site. Of course if the Democrats are right the world is going to end in nine years now, so either way my prediction is almost a lock.

@Eddie

The path you recommend that the churches should take, the liberal mainstream churches already embarked on, several decades ago, and it leads to the self-destruction of Christianity.

The path I would recommend that the churches and their members should take would be to go and sell everything they have and give to the poor because whoever does not give up everything they own cannot be a disciple of Christ. Actually that’s not my advice. I heard before somewhere.

@Eddie

Thank whom ?

Ah, the literal mind. You’d hate my book. You wouldn’t get the humor.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Boris_Badenoff

Churches teach that Jesus never existed?

Worse – churches that have ministers who say they don’t even believe in God. Have a look at:

Meet the United Church minister who came out as an atheist

and

“No life, here – no joy, terror or tears”: Bishop Spong and Archbishop...

These two examples, from liberal churches in the USA and Canada, could be multiplied almost at will, with examples from Australia and Britain and continental Europe thrown into the mix. An increasing number of both clergy and laity in the mainstream traditional Protestant churches are denying a variety of traditional doctrines, from the Fall through the divinity of Jesus to the existence of God. And from what several of my Jewish friends tell me about the typical beliefs of congregation members within Reform Judaism (as distinct from the Conservative and Orthodox branches), the case is not much different there.

@Boris_Badenoff

You’d hate my book. You wouldn’t get the humor.

The first sentence is correct. The second sentence, however, does not provide the correct reason.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Boris_Badenoff

Atheists fear theocracy.

I see. So when Dawkins suggests (I paraphrase) that raising a child to believe in one’s own religion is tantamount to child abuse, he writes in that offensive way because he fears theocracy? And when Coyne questioned the appointment of Francis Collins to the NIH, citing Collins’s Christian beliefs, he did so because he feared theocracy? (Collins had a track record of imposing his beliefs on non-Christians up to that time?) And when P. Z. Myers offensively threatened to burn (and actually did burn, if his own report can be believed) a consecrated communion wafer, he did that in order save America from theocracy, as opposed to, say, sheer spitefulness against Christian religion?

@Boris_Badenoff

Those judges don’t give a rip about the unborn.

How can you read their minds and motives? Have you talked with even a single one them personally, for even five minutes? Or are you just making stuff up? (Again.)

@Boris_Badenoff

That’s just wrong. Most atheists don’t care if there is a God or not. Why should they?

Because if there is a God of the traditional religious type, they are going to be in very big trouble. So they have a strong interest (i.e., their own peace of mind) in convincing themselves that there is no possibility that such a God exists. Of course, you must understand that here I’m speaking only of the active, aggressive type of atheist, the sort that posts anti-Christian diatribes on blog sites and campaigns militantly against public expressions of religious belief. There are plenty of quiet atheists who aren’t like that. Atheists who simply don’t see any reason to believe in God, but don’t hate or despise people who do, and don’t hate or despise religion as such, and don’t crusade against religion, are not what I have been referring to here. I’m referring to the ones who have a bee in their bonnet about religion in general, and about Christianity in particular.

@Boris_Badenoff

Chris Hitchens pointed out that the Christian heaven is like a celestial North Korea, bowing and scraping to Dear Leader for all eternity.

That’s a pretty shallow understanding of Christianity. Hitchens might have been an insightful commentator on political matters, but his thoughts on religion were pretty childish, bog-standard Rationalist Society-type objections. I heard him debate on religion once and couldn’t believe how weak this supposedly great writer was. For a great takedown of Hitchens and several of his ilk, see The Devil’s Delusion by David Berlinski. (Berlinski is a secular Jew, by the way, in case you think I’m recommending some sort of Christian fundamentalist author.)

[AlanFox]

@Eddie

Similarly, the moment someone asks how accurate the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is, that person is implicitly acknowledging that Jesus was a real person, against whose life the portrayal of the Gospels can be assessed.

Nope. Discussing the attributes, motivations, etc. of a character in a novel doesn’t make them real. Humans are masters of storytelling.

[Boris_Badenoff]

@Eddie

How can you read their minds and motives? Have you talked with even a single one them personally, for even five minutes? Or are you just making stuff up? (Again.)

If you tune into Christian talk on the radio a large number of the callers will be expressing their fear that the U.S. is going to be or already being punished for allowing abortion and making American Jesus cry. They also express the fear that they will be punished personally for not doing enough to fight against reproductive rights. Christians have also told me this themselves. I have no reason to believe the Christian nationalists on the Supreme Court are any less superstitious, especially the handmaiden one.

Making stuff up? If there’s anything made up here I’m willing to bet it’s your supposed career and education. Your comments look they’re coming from someone who has never set foot on a college campus.

Now quit changing the subject. I want to see those refutations of mythicism and your evidence for the existence of Jesus. I’m not interested in any of these other subjects right now. If you’re not going to produce these things then don’t direct any more comments to me.

[John_Harshman]

@AlanFox

Nope. Discussing the attributes, motivations, etc. of a character in a novel doesn’t make them real. Humans are masters of storytelling.

But discussing whether the portrait of any character given by a novel is accurate would be something else. It’s the question of accuracy that you forget here, and it’s key. Is Voldemort portrayed accurately in the Harry Potter books? How would you even talk about that unless you had some standard against which to compare? What would be that standard for Jesus?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

I should add that I don’t find your arguments repetitive and stale. I’ve never before seen anyone claim that “Jesus” is not derived from a Jewish name, or that the Tanakh was written in Greek.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Boris_Badenoff

@Eddie

I’m not. I find most of the arguments of atheists stale, repetitive, and boring, not threatening at all.

Apparently you haven’t heard or seen mine then. Read on if you dare.

I have very little agreement with Eddie, but I suspect he would agree that (paraphrasing Johnson) your arguments are both good and original.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Eddie

You don’t see astronomy websites where professors of astronomy and astrophysics constantly attack believers in astrology, but on just about every origins website, you see professors and lab technicians in biology and biochemistry (and sometimes other fields such as psychiatry) attack Christianity and the Bible with great vehemence, as if it is a dangerous threat to their view of the world that must be shouted down or repelled. Why the constant anxiety over Christian claims, if Christianity is so obviously wrong? Why not treat it like beliefs in the Abominable Snowman or in the aliens who supposedly built the Pyramids? Why not smile at it contemptuously, rather than rage against it?

Because there are no dishonest charlatans trying to sneak Yetiism into school lessons.

This has been pointed out to @Eddie so many times that he has no excuse for continuing to ask.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Boris_Badenoff

If you tune into Christian talk on the radio a large number of the callers will be expressing their fear that the U.S. is going to be or already being punished for allowing abortion and making American Jesus cry. They also express the fear that they will be punished personally for not doing enough to fight against reproductive rights. Christians have also told me this themselves.

Your claim was not about callers on talk radio or Christians you have talked to. Your claim was about the inner thoughts and motives of Supreme Court judges. You wrote:

“Those judges don’t give a rip about the unborn.”

I was challenging that particular statement. How do you know what is inside their soul, inside their mind? How can you tell the motives of people you have never spoken to for even 15 seconds?

Here, from your newest post, is your apparent answer to this question:

@Boris_Badenoff

I have no reason to believe the Christian nationalists on the Supreme Court are any less superstitious,

So your argument is based on pure supposition. You don’t actually have any statements from any of the judges to back up your claim that they “don’t give a rip about the unborn”. You just impute that sentiment to them. That’s not an argument at all; it’s just unfounded personal opinion. No wonder you never got far in academia, if that’s the sort of thing you regard as sound argument.

@Boris_Badenoff

Your comments look they’re coming from someone who has never set foot on a college campus.

The fact that you can say that suggests that you are the one who has never set foot on a college campus. I’m sure that if you ask the other Ph.D.s in history, Biblical studies, and theology here that they will tell you that my knowledge base, my vocabulary, and my writing style all bespeak someone who has a considerable amount of formal education in such subjects. And certainly your appeals to vulgar populist sentiment (“I write for the masses, not for academics, who are all fools because they disagree with me”) are suggestive of someone who has not spent long in the academic world, and in fact strongly suggest someone who started a BA but never finished it because he did not get reinforcement for his pet ideas from his professors. That is what comes across to me as I read your words. In any case, I’m not concerned with your formal qualifications, but only with the fact that your posts contain so many outright errors and unsubstantiated claims. Even if you could demonstrate that you held a Ph.D., it would not make your erroneous or unsubstantiated statements any more correct.

@Boris_Badenoff

I want to see those refutations of mythicism and your evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Read the books I recommended to Alan Fox, plus a few dozen others, selecting a range of authors to include atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews, etc., and their specialties to include Classics, ancient history, literary criticism, Greek, Hebrew, Judaic Studies, etc. You will find hundreds of arguments for a real historical Jesus in such authors.

No one here is denying that the stories of Jesus could contain legendary or even mythical elements. Certainly the birth stories might fall into this category. But none of that is incompatible with the existence of a Galilean preacher executed under the reign of Pilate. You have to prove that the Gospels could not possibly be referring to a real man Jesus who actually lived in Galilee, visited Jerusalem, was crucified, etc. – that the only possible interpretation of the Gospels is that they are a work of pious fiction, or allegory, or some such thing, with zero anchor in historical reality.

I have no intention of trying to prove to you the existence of Jesus, so if you are waiting for that, don’t hold your breath. The onus is always on the person who holds to the most improbable thesis to demonstrate it. Your thesis is wildly improbable, so the onus is on you. And all you’ve offered here is a set of very loose connections (looser even than the loose connections offered by Tom Harpur in his final works, when a sort of “academic dementia” was clearly setting in) coupled with about the worst philological and methodological controls that I’ve ever seen. A few years in graduate school could have considerably disciplined your scholarship, but you declined to undergo such training – and it shows.

I will gladly accede to your request not to direct any more comments to you, but of course, if you want to remove the temptation for me to break that promise, then you should stop directing comments to me. I look forward to your silence, which will end up pleasing us both.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@AlanFox

Nope. Discussing the attributes, motivations, etc. of a character in a novel doesn’t make them real.

Obviously. But you’re still not hearing what I’m saying. You think I’m trying to prove that a historical Jesus existed, but I’m not trying to do that. You’re not paying attention to the exact words I’m using, and are reading into my words a claim that I’m not making.

Let me try a popular culture example, to see if I can shake you free of the misunderstanding you’ve introduced to the discussion. All fans of classic film know The Adventures of Robin Hood, starring Errol Flynn, from 1938. Now, suppose someone asked you: “Was the portrayal of Richard the Lionheart in the film accurate?”, what would you interpret that question to mean? What is the word “accurate” to be related to, in that question? Accurate in relation to what?

[AlanFox]

@Boris_Badenoff

I want to see those refutations of mythicism and your evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Maybe it would be worth starting a new thread to discuss the evidence which supports either that the Biblical Jesus was based on a real individual or that Jesus was (and to what extent) the figment of various people’s imagination.

Perhaps it could be a side-conversation to eliminate the pre-moderation drag.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@AlanFox

Maybe it would be worth starting a new thread to discuss the evidence which supports either that the Biblical Jesus was based on a real individual or that Jesus was (and to what extent) the figment of various people’s imagination.

This thread is already just starting to regurgitate. What could be said that hasn’t been said? Ultimately, one just has to draw their own conclusions.

[Dan_Eastwood]

Time for an RSTT (Really Short Topic Timer). Reply at your peril!

/fnord

[AlanFox]

Why is that?

[Dan_Eastwood]

Which? The timer or the peril?

[AlanFox]

The timer. If you want to close a thread, close it. Have the courage of your convictions

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Roy

Because there are no dishonest charlatans trying to sneak Yetiism into school lessons.

Oh, yes, I keep forgetting. There is a two- or at most three-week long unit on evolution in ninth-grade biology in many States. Discovery Institute has called for that unit on evolution to be taught in a scientifically critical spirit, explicitly specifying that by this, they mean (a) no creationism is to be taught; (b) no use is to be made of the Bible or other religious literature; ( c ) mention is to be made of criticisms of current models of evolution that are found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This modification of the treatment of the theory of evolution would involve adding perhaps, at most, one class period over the two or three weeks of discussion of evolution.

But this addition of one day’s worth of instruction to one ninth-grade biology course would:

(a) destroy the entire four-year high school science program (not just ninth-grade biology, but all the rest of biology, and all physics, chemistry, and earth/space science courses) all across the USA, putting the USA behind the most backward of Third World countries in science education;

(b) turn the USA into a theocracy, with a huge office in Washington, plastered with Bible posters, controlling the religion and morals of the nation.

Hyperbole, anyone?

Can anyone take seriously the view that the atheists here and elsewhere are foaming at the mouth against religion in general, and Christianity in general (not just fundamentalist US Protestantism), condemning Christianity as one of the greatest curses in the history of mankind, etc., because of the prospect of one day’s instruction in a ninth-day biology course covering the ideas of non-Christian evolutionary biologists (such as Shapiro, Margulis, the Wagners, Newman, Jablonka, etc.)? Does anyone believe that this is the only reason, or even the main reason, why the vocal atheists here and elsewhere bash Christian faith every chance they get, and in the most violent language?

Nope, no one believes that, no matter how often the angry atheists may say it. Everyone can perceive the deep animus against Christianity for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with how evolution is taught in a very brief unit in ninth-grade biology in American schools. And if the atheists of the world can’t see this, if they think that the world will interpret their rage as merely a public-spirited defense of “good science”, they are living in a dream world. The average citizen has too much common sense to believe such tommyrot.

[Boris_Badenoff]

@Eddie

I was challenging that particular statement. How do you know what is inside their soul, inside their mind? How can you tell the motives of people you have never spoken to for even 15 seconds?

A person who is and remains a Catholic after all the horrors the Church has tried to cover up just recently not to mention down through history cares only about themselves, the church and possibly their own family members.

@Eddie

No wonder you never got far in academia, if that’s the sort of thing you regard as sound argument.

I’m pretty sure I got four years further than you did.

@Eddie

but never finished it because he did not get reinforcement for his pet ideas from his professors.

People don’t go to college to teach their professors. It’s the other way around and you would know that if you had ever been there.

@Eddie

if you could demonstrate that you held a Ph.D.

Yeah well I could say the same about you. How about a high school diploma? Do you even have one of those?

@Eddie

You will find hundreds of arguments for a real historical Jesus in such authors.

Yes there are many arguments but arguments are not evidence. A person with evidence does not need arguments. Besides their arguments are weak and in some cases downright silly, and have all been refuted countless times. Touche.

@Eddie

You have to prove that the Gospels could not possibly be referring to a real man Jesus who actually lived in Galilee, visited Jerusalem, was crucified, etc. – that the only possible interpretation of the Gospels is that they are a work of pious fiction, or allegory, or some such thing, with zero anchor in historical reality.

No, someone would have to prove there were Christ followers in Judea, Christians in Judea in the First Century. But the first mentions of Christians are the ones in Rome. And then the superstition spread TO Judea.

@Eddie

You have to prove that the Gospels could not possibly be referring to a real man Jesus who actually lived in Galilee, visited Jerusalem, was crucified, etc. – that the only possible interpretation of the Gospels is that they are a work of pious fiction, or allegory, or some such thing, with zero anchor in historical reality.

I’ve done that. I have demonstrated that the gospels are structured exactly like other myths and fiction and not like any historical narratives. I given sources for them in the OT as well as Greek mythology. I’ve shown that the historical Jesus nonsense is based on shoddy, desperate arguments and not evidence. I’ve shown that Jesus mythicism is not some fringe theory the apologists claim it is. And I haven’t even brought out the big guns yet. Even the Bible talks about mythicism: “By this you know the spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. And any spirit that does not confess Jesus has come in the flesh is not from God.” - 1John 2-3.
Nobody in academia talks like you do. World class scholars my foot.