Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 1

message: Someone mentioned that a referenced source on Josephus did not support the assertion.  I reviewed the links and do not see a problem. The first reference is to an article by me which clearly discusses the state of the question as to the TF.  The second is to Kirby's article which clearly discusses the state of the question as to the second reference ("most have granted that this passage is substantially authentic").  What am I missing?  Seriously.  Layman 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Josephus References

message: Many experts support the conclusions of the 'Does it Matter' revision.Having said that, I will examine the way that it has been written to seek a tone that deals with those part of your objections that are valid.
Some of the texts to consult: When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstein; Elaine Pagels works on the Gnostic Gospels; Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament (Hardcover) by Bart D. Ehrman; The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Paperback)
by Bart D. Ehrman "Christianity in the second and third centuries was in a remarkable state of flux..."; Jesus and the Lost Goddess : The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians (Paperback) by Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy; The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (Paperback) by Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy; The Closing of the Western Mind : The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (Vintage) (Paperback)
by Charles Freeman 
The fact that Christains and Moslems might dispute the entry is not itself an objection, since they have a POV based on faith. The Orthodox religions did evolve from the fusion with the state. Constantine was the emperor of the Eastern Empires from which the Eastern rites evolved. I will have to research the evolution of the Coptic religion. 
I appreciate the civility and respect with which the prior discussion was made.
: The point about Christians and Muslims is not to show that they are necessarily right, it is to show that it is ridiculous to claim that it does not matter whether Jesus existed.  It matters to billions of people because of their faith and to others because it is an important historical question.  If Jesus existed, then there would not have been a Christian faith to fuse with the state, so even if you assume that Rome consolidated every Christian community on the planet then you still have not proved that Jesus' existence did not matter.  
:I remain skeptical that this belongs in this entry and can be rendered NPOV Layman 19:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also if you look at the arguments used leading up to the first Council of Nicaea in 325, both parties appealed to tradition; both Arians and Orthodox believers insisted that they were most correctly interpreting the Bible, and were most faithfully preserving the teachings of Jesus to the first Apostles. Not only is it important to Christians and Muslims today, but it was important to Christians in the fourth century that there was an historical connection from Jesus to his apostles to their followers. You also need to realize that Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion, he only legalized it, and that persecution of Christians resumed in the middle of the fourth century for a while under Julian the Apostate before Theodosius finally made Christianity the state religion around 381 or so. You might also compare and contrast the role of Constantine I in determining the shape of Christianity with the roles of Leo I and Constantine V years later during the iconoclastic controversy. Constantine I just called the bishops together and promised them safe passage, but allowed them to decide. Some scholars even think that Constantine personally favored the Arians, who lost at that council. The "fusion" theory just doesn't fit the facts at all, which is why it remains a fringe theory. (BTW, why is the newer part of the discussion at the top of the page? Wesley 04:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Constantine I and Christianity for the extent of Constantine's role. Wesley 04:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's well known that Constantine was baptized by Eusebius (an Arian); Arianism and adoptionism are much less difficult to incorporate into the notion of the divine majesty (leaving open the possibility of many humans (rulers) to attain or embody divinity); Arianism was strong in the northern frontier and the Arian Lombards eventually overwhelmed the west; there are reasons to think that if Christianity was endorsed for political reasons, favoring the Arian or gnostic versions would have been more prudent and much easier to merge with pagan preconceptions.   But the theory of lost or corrupted history, and the speculations of what might have been, are intriguing enough that they are likely immune to arguments of fact. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  All good points. Some fourth century emperors did favor the Arians, which at least partly accounts for why it took so long to truly defeat them. And the great thing about the corrupted history theory is it seems to give license to invent any number of alternate histories and claim they're perfectly credible because all records of them were supposedly destroyed. Wesley 11:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it Matter 2 

message: There have been two attempts to add this paragraph so I thought I would start a discussion:
"Does It Matter?
Whether an historical person named Jesus was crucified and that event intiated the evolutionary path that developed into the various Christianites that described early Christianity and then ultimately into the orthodox forms that triumphed in the 4th Century or whether there was no historical person from which a variety of disparate groups came to use the same name for their central mythological symbol (the arguments of those who propound the Jesus mystery) probably makes little difference to the most important aspect of understanding the development of Christianity, namely that as a religion it evolved from many strands that were fused together into what became Christianity. This happened as part of merger of Christianity with the Rome into a state sponsored religion. From this predecessor, all existing sects of Christianity have evolved."
This, IMO, is problematic for a number of reasons.  It contains several disputed assertions and POV comments as simple statements of fact, such as the supposed "evolutionary path" and variety of "Christianities" and the "triumph" in the 4th Century.  It also purports to judge the "most important aspect of understanding" Christianity.  Presumably, Christians and Muslims might dispute that the "evolutionary path" is the MOST important aspect of understanding Christianity.  It also contains disputed statements of fact about Christianity evolving from "many strands that were fused together" as a result of the "merger of Christianity with the Rome into a state sponsored religion."  And is it true that all existing sects of Christianity evolved from the "fusion" of Rome and Christianity?  The Armenian Orthodox Church, indeed the entire Orthodox branch, might dispute that.  As might the Coptic Christians. 
It seems obvious that this paragraph is intended to insert the contributors POV about Christianity as being a hodge-podge of different beliefs hammered into one by state force.  What's worse is that it is all stated as accepted fact when much of this is disputed. 
Can it be cleaned?  Perhaps, if it is stated as the beliefs of some scholars (with references).  That way, other contributors could explain that it does matter that Jesus existed and why.  Of course, I am still not sure that this entire line of argument is relevant to an entry on the Jesus-Myth. Layman 21:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your removal of this material, unless a more direct connection to the Jesus Myth can be described.  If its assertions of opinion as fact can be adjusted appropriately, it may be more appropriate in a different article - I'm not sure that it exists yet - perhaps called something like Jesus mythology.— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it Matter 

message: Regarding the link: "Shattering the Jesus Myth" by J.P. Holding
I am surprised that anyone, especially those of christianism, would attempt to build a case for the historicity of Jesus Christ by relying upon anything that Robert Turkel, aka J.P. Holding, has written.
References:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/turkel.html
http://members.aol.com/bbu85/hold.htm
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/turkeldishonesty.html
http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=001574
If christianism, et al, wishes to acquire credibility, it would be better off not relying upon a man void of such. -BonfireBuddhist 22:48, 05 December 2005
What is "christianism" and how is it different then Christianity?  Sounds like your bias is shining through.  And if you have a response to the merits of the Holding piece, I suggest you write it out and publish it somewhere.  Attempted character assasination is not a rebuttal.  And Holding has responded to attacks on his credibility and raised questions about those who have attacked him.  If you wanted to give the complete picture you should complete your research.  Otherwise, just more bias.  Layman 18:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links, J.P. Holding 

message: The Secular Web has called for activists to modify this entry, which has resulted in a large number of POV (and sometimes just plain inaccurate) changes.  I have kept in what NPOV stuff there was, but have edited the rest out.  Layman 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Secular Web's POV Changes 

message: All right, I left out the reference to Engels (though it is accurate and he was one of the few impacted by Bruno's theory), but I put back in the fact that Bruno did not have an impact on the community of his day.  That's an important part of the background.  Layman 02:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless Engels actually published something reasonably scholarly on it, the relevance of mentioning Engels is outweighed by its prejudical effect and does not really belong in there.  Stephen C. Carlson 02:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx Reference 

message: The assertion a myth cannot gain ground in a few generations seems to be, in my opinion, refuted by the spread and dissemination of urban myths and legends in the 20th century, some of which spread and were/are considered as gospel, in less than a generation.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.244.87.134 (talk • contribs) .
: One would have to take into account the speed of communication in the first century, compared with the speed of communication in the 20th. This would affect how fast news, rumours, and myths alike could travel. Wesley 03:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:Myth making 

message: It seems that KHM03 is very keen to suggest that the scholars who have spoken in favour of the "jesus"-Myth are not valid scholars and keeps removing verifiable fact that is repeated elsewhere on WP. I trust that, for balnace, s/he will allow all scholarts of "faith" supporting the notion that "jesus" was real can be clearly labelled? Robsteadman 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, I have to say I'm surprised.  You have made it an issue on other articles to state that the opinions of actual historians matter more than, say Biblical scholars...and I haven't disagreed with that.  Why not be as precise here?  The scholars listed on this article are absolutely valid scholars in their respective fields; I am not disputing that.  What may be a concern is that none of those presently listed specialize in the field of "Jesus research" (call it what you will).  Are they still valid scholars?  Yes.  Can we list them here?  Sure; they're the most important voices regarding this topic, aren't they?  But we should also, in the interests of "full disclosure", let the readers know where the specific expertise of these scholars resides.  Fair?  KHM03 12:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Full disclosure would mean that if they have more than one area of specialism it is mentioned. Your "version" is clearly an attempt to push a POV. If they have published scholarly works about "jesus" they are valid even if they are professor of something else. Robsteadman 12:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And remember, Wikipedia cann't source itself. So asking me to look at their articles on WP isn't evidence enough. KHM03 12:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know - was just trying to give you a quickj and easy reference point. Robsteadman 12:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Publishing a book on a subject does not make one an expert.  Wells' article states he is "known" as a NT scholar...that doesn't make him one.  Bin Laden may be known in some circles as a hero, but that doesn't make him one.  The additions I made were precise.  What's wrong with precision and accuracy?  What makes accuracy POV?  KHM03 12:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rob, suppose I am known as an NFL Hall of Famer by my kids (I'm not).  That doesn't make me an NFL Hall of Famer.  Wells may be known as a NT scholar, but he carries no specific training/expertise in that area, no formal degrees.  He's self-taught.  Other trained NT scholars don't consider him a NT scholar.  He is a scholar, however, with a degree in German, and we can certainly say that. Doesn't this seem fair?  KHM03 13:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rob, I haven't engaged in any uncivil behavior in this discussion; I'd ask you to do the same and review WP:CIV.  Again, the "POV" I'm "pushing" is accuracy and full disclosure.  Is Wells not a professor of German, with no formal expertise in NT scholarship?  Is Gandy's degree not in the area on ancient pagan mystery religions?  Is Doherty not a scholar of ancient languages?  I think that's all accurate.  I even conceded the "mysticism expert" on Freke and "humanist" on Doherty.  Accuracy is what it's all about.  KHM03 13:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If I've stated something inaccurate, please let me know. Again, is Wells not a professor of German, with no formal expertise in NT scholarship?  Is Gandy's degree not in the area on ancient pagan mystery religions?  Is Doherty not a scholar of ancient languages?  I think that's all accurate. If I'm incorrect, please let me know...I'll be happy to apologize and make the necessary changes in the article.  Thanks...KHM03 13:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've tried to show exactly where the expertise of these scholars lies. Surely we can agree there.  I think you want to claim additional expertise, beyond formal training and degrees, is that correct?  And, regarding reverts, I stopped when I hit 3, and am pleased that you have done so as well. My "POV", which you keep referring to, is accuracy.  I'll assume good faith and assume that you refer to my desire for accuracy.  Again, if I've stated anything that is not accurate concerning these scholars, let me know. KHM03 13:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect scholarships

message: I would have thought the correct title was Jesus myth or maybe Jesus Myth if there's a good rson for th second capital. Rich   Farmbrough. 13:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no preference and defer to the community regarding a move.  KHM03 13:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: This isn't a big point for me, and I'll defer to the community, but it seems to me that Carrier's status as founder of Internet Infidels is relevant to this article, for context (in the same way that it would be fair to list NT Wright's status as a Bishop as well as a scholar on related pages).  We should, in my view, list both the site and his academic creds..."full disclosure" and all that.  That's my take...KHM03 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with this. I think people want to know where people are "coming from" by knowing their credentials. drboisclair 13:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. The fact that he started a website is not relevant and has no scholarly import. Any Joe can start his own website. Infact just to list that when he has scholarly credentials but are not mentioned almost suggests he has none. His other credentials would be relevant but we are not listing these with any of the other scholars. They are linked to their own page and that information should be there. Also, the link I gave for the Book reivew that he wrote, does take you to the the internet infidels site. Lastly, another reason why this needs not to be mentioned is because some people find the word "infidel" to be negative, so it can bias the reader. Giovanni33 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giovanni, I think it's fair to say that the immediate reaction of a casual reader is something along the lines of "Richard who?".  It's better to at least explain why he's being quoted by associating him with the site.  Alienus 17:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm ok if we also list it along with his academic creds, but currently we are not doing that with any of the the other scholars (or most of them). I just am opposed to the appearence that this guy's only credencial giving him a platform to speak is something that anyone can do: be a founder of a website. Actually instead of listing everyone's credencials we could simply describe him as a scholar who founded Internet infidels.  Btw, what's your blog? Giovanni33 07:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carrier's credentials 

message: Otherwise, this article will continue to be a representation of the lunatic fringe.
:It's fringe, but not lunatic. Adding silly criticisms doesn't help. Reintroducing serious criticisms does. Integrating the "before and against" views for specific arguments makes sense to me, but at the moment it's slanted to minimise criticism of the theory. Paul B 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I beg to differ matey. Paul B 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please return the rebuttals 

message: I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but since Trumpet seems to be here entirely to elide this distinction, I want to say it straight out.  The question of the historicity of Jesus is merely whether there was a figure named Jesus, who was executed in Judaea by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate sometime around 30 CE, and who was the center of a Jewish sect which grew into early Christianity.
It has nothing to do with whether or not there was a massacrte of the innocents, or a star of Bethlehem, or an eclipse at the time of the crucifixion, or "zombies wandering around Jerusalem," or whether actual apostles wrote the gospels, or whether the words of the gospels are literal truth, or whether Jesus rose from the dead, or walked on water, or raised Lazarus from the dead, or any of that stuff.  There are plenty of people, including the central consensus of Biblical scholarship, who are willing to accept that none of this was true, but at the same time assert that Jesus was a historical person.  Any argument that Jesus did not, in fact, exist, has to be aimed not at Christian fundamentalists, who are an easy target, but at the broad consensus of secular scholars who accept Jesus's existence.  john k 18:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be sure, this is a minority view, barely a blip on the academic radar.  But, there are articles about even more obscure topics.  Yes, we would have a better article if we trimmed much of the peripheral stuff that proves little.  Good luck.  While I think it's hilarious and completely untrue that we sometimes hear of a Christian cabal (evidence of Olver Stone-type paranoia at Wikipedia!), there is an equally adamant "atheistic cabal" (for lack of a better term) which insists on making its voice heard.  That's not necessarily a bad thing, until they start to violate WP:NPOV (esp. this) and WP:NOR.  KHM03 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Atheism is an argument against religion, it's an argument against God, and therefore an argument against the divinity of Jesus. However, some athiests accept the historical Jesus, and some do not. Some even have empathy with some of his moral teachings. The problem is not Athiesm. The problem is not Skepticism. The problem is that some of the Debunkers (which are only a subset of Skeptics) are as vitriolic as the Religiots. Extremists on both sides polarize the debate and frustrate those of us who are trying to work from the center. There's a reason "TCF" is in my signature. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to nit-pick, atheism doesn't the capital letter, and it's no more "against" God than it is "against" Apollo or Brahma...or YHWH or Zeus or any other god. TrumpetPower! 19:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Atheism is a rejection of all gods, a rejection of the god hypothesis itself. Which only means that, if true, Jesus could not have been God because there is no such thing. To say that Jesus was also not a man, just an idea, is to go beyond atheism. BTW, I use the capital leter to refer to schools of philosophy. For example, there are skeptics, and then there are Skeptics. Not necessarily the same thing. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But rejecting the historicity of Jesus and atheism are completely orthogonal positions. There're devout Jews who reject the historicity of Jesus; have they somehow gone "beyond atheism"? Heck, even some early Christians rejected the historicity of Jesus, and I'm sure some still do today. Have they gone "beyond atheism"? TrumpetPower! 23:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They may be orthogonal, but they are not the same thing. As you yourself point out, not only atheists but some Jews and Christians reject the historicity of Jesus. Also, there are some atheists who accept the historical Jesus but obviously see him quite differently than Christians do, as a philosopher of ethics rather than as a god incarnate. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 00:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly. Atheism and the historicity of Jesus don't intersect at all (i.e., are orthogonal). Sure, there's bound to be overlap that tends towards one position or the other on various points--I'm sure there's a higher percentage of Jews and atheists who reject historicity in comparison with Christians who do--but there's really no connection at all between them. Certainly, one position isn't "beyond" the other. TrumpetPower! 00:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think follow you now. I understood your use of "beyond" in the sense of "transcend," that it included and went one step further. Instead, you mean that they're distinct from each other, completely unrelated except by a coincidental correlation in the position of proponents (with which I would heartily agree). Right? TrumpetPower! 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity of Jesus is not the same thing as the Truth of the New Testament 

message: I've taken the liberty of re-working the article, including incorporation of relevant material from the Historicity of Jesus article that really belongs here instead of there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TrumpetPower%21/Jesus_as_Mythical_Creation&oldid=44993829
If and when this article is unprotected, I'd like to see my version be used as the starting point. I've attempted to remove what I've perceived as a fair amount of bias from both sides as well as organize it into a more logical form.
Comments welcome...but I've got other things I need to catch up on, so please don't be offended if I don't respond promptly (or at all).
Cheers,
TrumpetPower! 20:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the intro, it seems to me like you need to define what "not near-contemporary" means, such as not at least 20 years after Jesus's death, 30 years, 40 years, whatever. I saw a couple instances of some POVish looking word choices but I cant say that makes it a horrible article overall from it, but I do see what you and some others were meaning by needing sources..... Homestarmy 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated intro; thanks. POV tuning probably needs to wait for it to go live. TrumpetPower! 00:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don;t see the point of the title change - the phrase "jesus" myth is a knoen phrase - this seems a rather pointless change to me. Sorry. Robsteadman 20:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that article gets AfDed, the next step should be either a name change vote or you replacing the current article with yours. Homestarmy 20:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article re-working 

message: I'm sorry, I didn't notice the page protection until it was too late. I've only sorted the external links, which I do not beleive impacts the current dispute. Please contact me if this is a problem. -- Scott eiπ 13:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My edit