Mythicist Christ, what is the objection? II

[Dānu]

...Betty Crocker was a 1921 marketing creation by General Mills.

And she was never any more real that "jesus."

I never knew that.  Even in Australia we have small kitchen utensils marketed under the "Betty Crocker" brand name.
I always assumed (yes, I know!) that "she" was some old-fashioned mistress of the USA's cooking hierarchy.  Even me,
as a skeptic, sucked it up.  Oh fucking dear.   

It's worth bearing in mind, as well, that due to cognitive bias, once something is believed to be true, it is much harder to come to disbelieve than it is to continue to believe. And coming to believe that a figure routinely portrayed as historical is in fact historical is almost automatic, as even if we aren't Christian, most western children adopt this belief as a foundational fact of European Judeo-Christian culture. So the fact that there is some consensus regarding the historical existence of Jesus could ultimately just be a side effect of this bias and our culture and how we come to believe. As such, consensus, especially composed largely of religious scholars, as persons like Free seem to lean heavily upon, is not particularly informative. (And on a personal note, my estimation of Free is that he's not sufficiently competent to make valid estimations of the meaning and import of other evidence regarding the question. To speak nothing of the banal idiocy of morons like jerry regarding the question.)

[EvieTheAvocado]

If a dude called Jesus Christ existed he wasn't actually the Jesus Christ that is claimed to exist by Christians. Christians think Jesus Christ was pure magic ... and such a person did not exist.

P.S. WE'VE FUCKING BEEN THROUGH THIS!!!

[Minimalist]

Like Sisyphus ( also a myth ) we are doomed to repeat the process over and over because religitards are incapable of learning.

[Minimalist]

...Betty Crocker was a 1921 marketing creation by General Mills.

And she was never any more real that "jesus."

I never knew that.  Even in Australia we have small kitchen utensils marketed under the "Betty Crocker" brand name.
I always assumed (yes, I know!) that "she" was some old-fashioned mistress of the USA's cooking hierarchy.  Even me,
as a skeptic, sucked it up.  Oh fucking dear.   

Some of them make it easy to figure out.




Others, not so much.

Aunt Jemima was a character in minstrel shows from the late 19th century.  Uncle Ben was a 1946 creation.  In 2007 he was promoted to Chairman of the Board!

And then he flew up to heaven to sit at the right hand of fucking god!!!!!

[jerry mcmasters]

If a dude called Jesus Christ existed he wasn't actually the Jesus Christ that is claimed to exist by Christians. Christians think Jesus Christ was pure magic ... and such a person did not exist.

P.S. WE'VE FUCKING BEEN THROUGH THIS!!!

It has been hundreds of posts over at least two threads...please find a single post by anyone claiming that the Jesus that they think existed was actually the Jesus Christ claimed to exist by Christians, the one of pure magic.  It should be easy.

[Minimalist]

There are a handful of idiot fundies over at AF.org - literal "Adam and Eve" morons.  Perhaps Evie is confusing the two sites.

[jerry mcmasters]

There are a handful of idiot fundies over at AF.org - literal "Adam and Eve" morons.  Perhaps Evie is confusing the two sites.

Like Sisyphus ( also a myth ) we are doomed to repeat the process over and over because religitards are incapable of learning.

[jerry mcmasters]

Actually Min based on what I've read I think you have suspicions that Free is to some degree a (closeted?) Christian, so maybe you see him in the "religitard" category, but I do think you understand that those posting here (non-mythicists as it has been used here) aren't Christians and certainly don't believe the superstitious magical Jesus existed. (Free doesn't either unless I'm really misreading)

[Minimalist]

My complaint with Free is that he sees himself as the arbiter of what is or isn't real "scholarship" and I find that supremely arrogant.  I regard any moron with a theology or divinity degree as a useless twat-waffle but they are free to express their opinion on mythological issues if they desire.  In that, I agree with Voltaire.  And, also as Voltaire, I reserve the right to disagree with what they say!

[Dancefortwo]

Actually Min based on what I've read I think you have suspicions that Free is to some degree a (closeted?) Christian, so maybe you see him in the "religitard" category, but I do think you understand that those posting here (non-mythicists as it has been used here) aren't Christians and certainly don't believe the superstitious magical Jesus existed. (Free doesn't either unless I'm really misreading)

I'm not a mythicist but the difference between me and Free is that I really don't care if others are.  It means nothing to me if Min and others (I think this includes Bucky) are mythicists.

[jerry mcmasters]

Actually Min based on what I've read I think you have suspicions that Free is to some degree a (closeted?) Christian, so maybe you see him in the "religitard" category, but I do think you understand that those posting here (non-mythicists as it has been used here) aren't Christians and certainly don't believe the superstitious magical Jesus existed. (Free doesn't either unless I'm really misreading)

I'm not a mythicist but the difference between me and Free is that I really don't care if others are.  It means nothing to me if Min and others (I think this includes Bucky) are mythicists.

Whereas Minimist and Schroeders Outlaw don't care that you and I and others aren't mythicists?  These threads would have died in their sleep if not kept on continual life support by those two.

[Dancefortwo]

If a dude called Jesus Christ existed he wasn't actually the Jesus Christ that is claimed to exist by Christians. Christians think Jesus Christ was pure magic ... and such a person did not exist.

P.S. WE'VE FUCKING BEEN THROUGH THIS!!!

Wait, are you trying to tell me his last name wasn't "Christ"?   Oy, now I'm all verklempt!  Give me a moment.....

[EvieTheAvocado]

If a dude called Jesus Christ existed he wasn't actually the Jesus Christ that is claimed to exist by Christians. Christians think Jesus Christ was pure magic ... and such a person did not exist.

P.S. WE'VE FUCKING BEEN THROUGH THIS!!!

Wait, are you trying to tell me his last name wasn't "Christ"?   Oy, now I'm all verklempt!  Give me a moment.....

His last name was Garcia.

[EvieTheAvocado]

If a dude called Jesus Christ existed he wasn't actually the Jesus Christ that is claimed to exist by Christians. Christians think Jesus Christ was pure magic ... and such a person did not exist.

P.S. WE'VE FUCKING BEEN THROUGH THIS!!!

It has been hundreds of posts over at least two threads...please find a single post by anyone claiming that the Jesus that they think existed was actually the Jesus Christ claimed to exist by Christians, the one of pure magic.  It should be easy.

There are plenty of posts where people say Jesus Christ existed even though he wasn't the magical Jesus of the Bible ... which makes no sense because that isn't Jesus Christ.

I tried to explain it repeatedly to Free on the last thread.

It's an equivocation if people think that the Jesus Christ didn't exist but the fact some other dude called the same thing who was similar existed means that Jesus Christ did. No, not X under the same name is still not X.

[jerry mcmasters]

Here's what happens: No atheists really seriously give a fuck about this, it only matters to Christians. To atheists it's like "which is better, chocolate or vanilla?" But one side ("mythicist" or "historist") will say: "you're fucking stupid to hold your position." (or words to match) Both sides do it. Which side does it more?

[Dancefortwo]

Actually Min based on what I've read I think you have suspicions that Free is to some degree a (closeted?) Christian, so maybe you see him in the "religitard" category, but I do think you understand that those posting here (non-mythicists as it has been used here) aren't Christians and certainly don't believe the superstitious magical Jesus existed. (Free doesn't either unless I'm really misreading)

I'm not a mythicist but the difference between me and Free is that I really don't care if others are.  It means nothing to me if Min and others (I think this includes Bucky) are mythicists.

Whereas Minimist and Schroeders Outlaw don't care that you and I and others aren't mythicists?  These threads would have died in their sleep if not kept on continual life support by those two.

I don't know if Free is still around (I think he is) but I couldn't get him to understand that I wasn't a mythicist. If I recall correctly I had to resort to upper case letters to make myself clear.

[EvieTheAvocado]

It would be a different matter if only some Christians believed that Jesus was the son of God who resurrected and performed miracles. But that's literally a requirement for being Christian. It's not parallel to, say, Buddhism. Some Buddhists attach more supernatural elements to the Buddha than others. Completely different. It's literally a requirement for Jesus Christ to perform miracles and be the son of God otherwise it isn't Jesus Christ.

[Dancefortwo]

If a dude called Jesus Christ existed he wasn't actually the Jesus Christ that is claimed to exist by Christians. Christians think Jesus Christ was pure magic ... and such a person did not exist.

P.S. WE'VE FUCKING BEEN THROUGH THIS!!!

It has been hundreds of posts over at least two threads...please find a single post by anyone claiming that the Jesus that they think existed was actually the Jesus Christ claimed to exist by Christians, the one of pure magic.  It should be easy.

There are plenty of posts where people say Jesus Christ existed even though he wasn't the magical Jesus of the Bible ... which makes no sense because that isn't Jesus Christ.

I tried to explain it repeatedly to Free on the last thread.

It's an equivocation if people think that the Jesus Christ didn't exist but the fact some other dude called the same thing who was similar existed means that Jesus Christ did. No, not X under the same name is still not X.

My example was Vlad the Impaler.  We know for certain Vlad the Impaler existed (not so much for Jesus) but we sure as hell know he didn't go around sleeping in coffins and drinking women's blood to keep alive. THAT part is myth and storytelling. Vlad existed, Dracula did not.

[Dānu]

This raises the point which I was addressing with my post which jerry attempted to satirize with his own post, and which he asserts possessed glaring errors which he has so far steadfastly refused to elaborate upon, aside from asserting that I implied something that was not in fact implied.

The historicist argument really is lacking if there is no way to determinately figure out which specifics of the accounts of Jesus need to be validated in order for us to conclude that a historical Jesus existed. I wouldn't suggest that the miracles necessarily need to be validated, but the more pieces you subtract from your criterion for validation, the more empty your claim of a historical figure becomes. I believe Free has implied that the only thing which need be validated is that Pontius Pilate crucified a Jew, perhaps one with the name Yeshua. To my mind this is entirely insufficient, as a Jew who preached a syncretism between classic Judaism and Zoroastrianism could not be meaningfully be said to be the same person described in the bible. Does the sermon on the mount need to be validated? Do other teachings of Christ need to be validated? Ignoring the miracle of the resurrection, do the sequelae of Jesus Parouisia need to be consistent and believable? These are all questions which need to be answered before the hypothesis of historicism can be meaningfully addressed, and while I don't profess much familiarity with the field, my impression has been that historicists are more than happy to leave such things undefined so that they can adjust their hypothesis on an ad hoc basis to accomodate any specific criteria that for whatever reason moves from reasonably believable to not reasonably believable. But ad hoc explanation is essentially fallacious, and so the conclusion of the historicists tends toward being a non sequitur, i.e. asserting that, some of the details of the biblical account of Jesus applied to some real person in that era, despite that this can be said about any account of a person whether the person understood to be referenced actually existed or not. As I suggested, if the details of Sherlock Holmes only need to be true to the extent that there was a detective in London who solved crimes, and blithely ignoring the additional elements of Holmes' story when they are inconvenient, then the charge that a historical Sherlock Holmes existed becomes vapid, and likely a very real instance of wholesale equivocation.

[Minimalist]

Here's what happens:  No atheists really seriously give a fuck about this, it only matters to Christians.  To atheists it's like "which is better, chocolate or vanilla?"  But one side ("mythicist" or "historist") will say: "you're fucking stupid to hold your position." (or words to match)  Both sides do it.  Which side does it more?

It's an historical discussion and, as such, fairly interesting as an intellectual exercise.  It's right up there with "what would have happened if Pickett's Charge succeeded?"  Except Pickett's Charge was real.  I'm always amused by the vehemence of the HJ position given the paucity of their evidence.  It is almost as if they regard that as the line in the sand that they will not cross.  (Cross?  Get it?)

[jerry mcmasters]

This raises the point which I was addressing with my post which jerry attempted to satirize with his own post, and which he asserts possessed glaring errors which he has so far steadfastly refused to elaborate upon, aside from asserting that I implied something that was not in fact implied.


The historicist argument really is lacking if there is no way to determinately figure out which specifics of the accounts of Jesus need to be validated in order for us to conclude that a historical Jesus existed.  I wouldn't suggest that the miracles necessarily need to be validated, but the more pieces you subtract from your criterion for validation, the more empty your claim of a historical figure becomes.  I believe Free has implied that the only thing which need be validated is that Pontius Pilate crucified a Jew, perhaps one with the name Yeshua.  To my mind this is entirely insufficient, as a Jew who preached a syncretism between classic Judaism and Zoroastrianism could not be meaningfully be said to be the same person described in the bible.  Does the sermon on the mount need to be validated?  Do other teachings of Christ need to be validated?  Ignoring the miracle of the resurrection, do the sequelae of Jesus Parouisia need to be consistent and believable?  These are all questions which need to be answered before the hypothesis of historicism can be meaningfully addressed, and while I don't profess much familiarity with the field, my impression has been that historicists are more than happy to leave such things undefined so that they can adjust their hypothesis on an ad hoc basis to accomodate any specific criteria that for whatever reason moves from reasonably believable to not reasonably believable.  But ad hoc explanation is essentially fallacious, and so the conclusion of the historicists tends toward being a non sequitur, i.e. asserting that, some of the details of the biblical account of Jesus applied to some real person in that era, despite that this can be said about any account of a person whether the person understood to be referenced actually existed or not.  As I suggested, if the details of Sherlock Holmes only need to be true to the extent that there was a detective in London who solved crimes, and blithely ignoring the additional elements of Holmes' story when they are inconvenient, then the charge that a historical Sherlock Holmes existed becomes vapid, and likely a very real instance of wholesale equivocation.

Lady, you need to get a grip.  You writing that made me scroll up to see what the hell you're talking about, trust me, if I'm questioning somebody I will quote them so there is no confusion.

[jerry mcmasters]

If a dude called Jesus Christ existed he wasn't actually the Jesus Christ that is claimed to exist by Christians. Christians think Jesus Christ was pure magic ... and such a person did not exist.

P.S. WE'VE FUCKING BEEN THROUGH THIS!!!

It has been hundreds of posts over at least two threads...please find a single post by anyone claiming that the Jesus that they think existed was actually the Jesus Christ claimed to exist by Christians, the one of pure magic.  It should be easy.

There are plenty of posts where people say Jesus Christ existed even though he wasn't the magical Jesus of the Bible ... which makes no sense because that isn't Jesus Christ.

I tried to explain it repeatedly to Free on the last thread.

It's an equivocation if people think that the Jesus Christ didn't exist but the fact some other dude called the same thing who was similar existed means that Jesus Christ did. No, not X under the same name is still not X.

You understand that no one here is arguing the criteria you gave, right?  That the non-mythicists here don't think or claim Jesus was "the Jesus Christ that is claimed to exist by Christians," the Jesus who is one of "pure magic"?  The equivocation may be occurring in your mind only.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

well, what is the objection?

The objection is that it's a denial of reality and/or mainstream academia. It's denialism that masquerades as scepticism. The key difference being that a sceptic is willing to change their position when new information or evidence is shown to them or discovered, whereas denialists will continue to believe in their own reality no matter what evidence is presented.

Recently, and I would agree with this, science denial in general is thought to be largely isolated and cherry-picked. And same with other areas of academia like history, archaeology, anthropology, etc. Essentially people will chose an area of the field that they disagree with, without throwing out the field in its entirety. This is what we see with Mythicism. People are convinced that it's an intelligible position to be sceptical of a historical Jesus; even though there's just no way that position is historically credible amongst Western scholars of any relevant field of study (not just New Testament, but Classics, near-east archaeology, etc).

So let's give another example of denialism. The Roman Catholic Church in the West has largely come to terms with the reality of institutional child sex abuse. Yet in Africa and other areas the church is still in deep denial, they still believe strongly that it's a specifically "Western problem" that doesn't affect them. That denial I might add is so strongly held in certain places that many abusers have gotten away with their abuse, even when prosecuted in court. This was the case with Joe Homan of Homan's Boys Town; he was exposed by a newspaper, he had already been excommunicated from the RCC, and when he sued the newspaper for defamation a court in London still managed to find in his favour despite hearing direct evidence from his abuse victims... and after all that the charity to this day remains named after the monster.

what evidence is denied?

[madog]

I always found this amusing.  From Pg 235 of Richard Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus."  Carrier footnotes the story to the original writer...something that gospel bullshitters never did (in case Free shows up whining!)

In 1945 Betty Crocker was rated in a national survey as the second most
admired woman in America, and to this day a street is named after her
in Golden Valley, Minnesota, where she still lives. Her father was William
Crocker, a successful corporate executive in the food industry, and she
started her career answering letters on cooking questions for her father's
company, then acquired her own national radio show where she delivered
cooking advice for twenty-four years. Later she had her own television
show, while making appearances on other TV shows and in TV commercials
to promote her products. I've seen actual video tapes of her cooking
and speaking, and her picture still adorns various General Mills baking
products. She has also pub I ished several cookbooks, and now has her own
Website. All that is 100 percent true. And yet she doesn't exist. She was
never born, never lived, never spoke, never appeared on TV, and never
wrote a word. Others simply wrote or appeared in her name. Welcome to
the world of the mythical corporate mascot

BTW, "Betty Crocker" came in second to Eleanor Roosevelt.  Betty Crocker was a 1921 marketing creation by General Mills.

And she was never any more real that "jesus."

This about sums it up for me  .....

I am sure if people tried hard enough to find a 'Betty Crocker', that cooked and lived in minesota, with a father called William, centuries after the story had slipped into legend, I'm sure they would.

Even more so if those with an interest could use attributes of several 'Betty Crockers' or 'betty Crocker' like females floating around the USA in that period.

So does the fact that a person with the name and tenuous similarities to 'Betty Crocker' prove the historicity of the 'Betty Crocker' intended as a 'corporate mascot'?

I consider that to prove the historicity of Jesus it needs to be shown that a particular 'Jesus' was what the story tellers actually based their stories upon.

From what I have read the historicists have failed to do so.

[Dānu]

This raises the point which I was addressing with my post which jerry attempted to satirize with his own post, and which he asserts possessed glaring errors which he has so far steadfastly refused to elaborate upon, aside from asserting that I implied something that was not in fact implied.


The historicist argument really is lacking if there is no way to determinately figure out which specifics of the accounts of Jesus need to be validated in order for us to conclude that a historical Jesus existed.  I wouldn't suggest that the miracles necessarily need to be validated, but the more pieces you subtract from your criterion for validation, the more empty your claim of a historical figure becomes.  I believe Free has implied that the only thing which need be validated is that Pontius Pilate crucified a Jew, perhaps one with the name Yeshua.  To my mind this is entirely insufficient, as a Jew who preached a syncretism between classic Judaism and Zoroastrianism could not be meaningfully be said to be the same person described in the bible.  Does the sermon on the mount need to be validated?  Do other teachings of Christ need to be validated?  Ignoring the miracle of the resurrection, do the sequelae of Jesus Parouisia need to be consistent and believable?  These are all questions which need to be answered before the hypothesis of historicism can be meaningfully addressed, and while I don't profess much familiarity with the field, my impression has been that historicists are more than happy to leave such things undefined so that they can adjust their hypothesis on an ad hoc basis to accomodate any specific criteria that for whatever reason moves from reasonably believable to not reasonably believable.  But ad hoc explanation is essentially fallacious, and so the conclusion of the historicists tends toward being a non sequitur, i.e. asserting that, some of the details of the biblical account of Jesus applied to some real person in that era, despite that this can be said about any account of a person whether the person understood to be referenced actually existed or not.  As I suggested, if the details of Sherlock Holmes only need to be true to the extent that there was a detective in London who solved crimes, and blithely ignoring the additional elements of Holmes' story when they are inconvenient, then the charge that a historical Sherlock Holmes existed becomes vapid, and likely a very real instance of wholesale equivocation.

Lady, you need to get a grip.  You writing that made me scroll up to see what the hell you're talking about, trust me, if I'm questioning somebody I will quote them so there is no confusion.

That's nice. I'm happy that you have found a method that works for you. Maybe you should get a grip because "not doing what jerry does" is not an example of somebody not having a grip (unless you're so narcissistic that it is unbelievable). But thank you for sharing.