It is fascinating that mythicists will hang their argument on a sort of spiritual fraternity with Jesus, when: 1) That's not what a straightforward reading of the text implies. 2) The 1 Corinthians 9:5 reference could easily be to Jesus' Earthly siblings. 3) While Paul refers to the members of the Church as his brothers and sisters, he never states that he or anyone else (besides James) is a sibling of Jesus. 4) Neither early Christianity nor modern Christianity holds this view. 5) James and the others are already present as part of the tradition as Earthly siblings if Jesus in early Christianity. Rather than allowing the text to say what the text says, mythicists' exegesis of the text obliges them to instead impose their own preconceived notions onto the text, designating themselves as Paul's copywriters, so that they can dictate what the text is permitted to say.
This is all assuming that what was written is actually fact. Do you believe the stories in the Quran? Or the Hindu Vedas? The evidence we have suggests that these stories are not historical. From Bill Zuersher's great book, Seeing Through Christianity: "It is difficult to explain how, if they really happened, events so spectacular and widely witnessed would have escaped the notice of contemporary writers. The silence cannot be explained by a lack of interested parties. There were many historians and scientists (called at that time 'natural philosophers'), both Roman and Jewish, active during this period. The Roman historian Livy (circa 10 CE) wrote near the time of Herod’s alleged slaughter, but he mentioned it nowhere. The Roman philosopher Seneca (circa 65 CE) was alive during Jesus’s ministry, but he failed to mention Jesus. The Roman naturalist and philosopher Pliny the Elder (circa 80 CE) was also alive during Jesus’s ministry, but he too neglected to mention it. The Jewish philosopher Philo (circa 40 CE) wrote extensively about both religion and Pontius Pilate, yet he never mentioned Jesus. The Jewish historian Justus of Tiberius (circa 80 CE) was even a native of Galilee. He wrote a history of the Jews from Moses to Agrippa II but never mentioned Jesus." How can we have confidence in the historicity of events so thinly attested? Beyond the echo chamber of the early Christian community, where is the evidence for the religion’s claims?
@mnamhie Doesn't matter one iota. The issue is that this isn't a question of historicity versus ahistoricity. It's a question of historicity versus fabrication; and 1) there is *no* evidence of a fabrication, and 2) even if we throw out all of the evidence for historicity, that's *still* the more reasonable and parsimonious explanation. Minimum number of assumptions for a historical Jesus: 1) A dude named Jesus lived. 2) His buddies told some whoppers about him. Minimum number of assumptions for mythicism: 1) No such person existed. 2) A conspiracy was committed to fabricate a nonexistent person for "reasons." 3) All evidence of this fabrication was lost or destroyed.
@mnamhie "So and so never mentioned X" is argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence *still* isn't evidence of absence. It never was. It never will be. Further, the fact that these people didn't write about some guy named Jesus *js not* evidence of a *_fabrication,_* which is what mythicism requires. "Jesus is like so-and-so" and "Christianity is like such-and-such" are non-sequitur. Just because Jesus shares similarities of mythical figures doesn't imply that Jesus was also purely mythical. The fact that Christianity shares similarities with mystery cults does not imply that Christianity itself is also a mystery cult. This _still_ *is not* evidence of a *_fabrication,_* which is what mythicism requires. I've yet to see any actual evidence of a *_fabrication._* I've seen non-sequitur, argument from ignorance, question-begging, circular logic, appeal to motive, argument by assertion, and plethora of other logical fallacies and apologetics used in the opposite direction of religious people asserting Jesus' divinity. *Neither* side has provided evidence. *Neither* side has met the burden of proof.
It is fascinating that mythicists will hang their argument on a sort of spiritual fraternity with Jesus, when:
1) That's not what a straightforward reading of the text implies.
2) The 1 Corinthians 9:5 reference could easily be to Jesus' Earthly siblings.
3) While Paul refers to the members of the Church as his brothers and sisters, he never states that he or anyone else (besides James) is a sibling of Jesus.
4) Neither early Christianity nor modern Christianity holds this view.
5) James and the others are already present as part of the tradition as Earthly siblings if Jesus in early Christianity.
Rather than allowing the text to say what the text says, mythicists' exegesis of the text obliges them to instead impose their own preconceived notions onto the text, designating themselves as Paul's copywriters, so that they can dictate what the text is permitted to say.
All views welcome! all research appreciated! keep up the good work. Research makes faith stronger:)
This is all assuming that what was written is actually fact. Do you believe the stories in the Quran? Or the Hindu Vedas? The evidence we have suggests that these stories are not historical. From Bill Zuersher's great book, Seeing Through Christianity: "It is difficult to explain how, if they really happened, events so spectacular and widely witnessed would have escaped the notice of contemporary writers. The silence cannot be explained by a lack of interested parties. There were many historians and scientists (called at that time 'natural philosophers'), both Roman and Jewish, active during this period. The Roman historian Livy (circa 10 CE) wrote near the time of Herod’s alleged slaughter, but he mentioned it nowhere. The Roman philosopher Seneca (circa 65 CE) was alive during Jesus’s ministry, but he failed to mention Jesus. The Roman naturalist and philosopher Pliny the Elder (circa 80 CE) was also alive during Jesus’s ministry, but he too neglected to mention it. The Jewish philosopher Philo (circa 40 CE) wrote extensively about both religion and Pontius Pilate, yet he never mentioned Jesus. The Jewish historian Justus of Tiberius (circa 80 CE) was even a native of Galilee. He wrote a history of the Jews from Moses to Agrippa II but never mentioned Jesus." How can we have confidence in the historicity of events so thinly attested? Beyond the echo chamber of the early Christian community, where is the evidence for the religion’s claims?
@mnamhie
Doesn't matter one iota. The issue is that this isn't a question of historicity versus ahistoricity. It's a question of historicity versus fabrication; and 1) there is *no* evidence of a fabrication, and 2) even if we throw out all of the evidence for historicity, that's *still* the more reasonable and parsimonious explanation.
Minimum number of assumptions for a historical Jesus:
1) A dude named Jesus lived.
2) His buddies told some whoppers about him.
Minimum number of assumptions for mythicism:
1) No such person existed.
2) A conspiracy was committed to fabricate a nonexistent person for "reasons."
3) All evidence of this fabrication was lost or destroyed.
@mnamhie
"So and so never mentioned X" is argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence *still* isn't evidence of absence. It never was. It never will be. Further, the fact that these people didn't write about some guy named Jesus *js not* evidence of a *_fabrication,_* which is what mythicism requires.
"Jesus is like so-and-so" and "Christianity is like such-and-such" are non-sequitur. Just because Jesus shares similarities of mythical figures doesn't imply that Jesus was also purely mythical. The fact that Christianity shares similarities with mystery cults does not imply that Christianity itself is also a mystery cult. This _still_ *is not* evidence of a *_fabrication,_* which is what mythicism requires.
I've yet to see any actual evidence of a *_fabrication._* I've seen non-sequitur, argument from ignorance, question-begging, circular logic, appeal to motive, argument by assertion, and plethora of other logical fallacies and apologetics used in the opposite direction of religious people asserting Jesus' divinity.
*Neither* side has provided evidence. *Neither* side has met the burden of proof.