tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8230149373829862884.post2013781743690449012..comments2023-03-24T22:26:19.711-07:00Comments on History for Atheists: Easter, the Existence of Jesus and Dave FitzgeraldTim O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8230149373829862884.post-71092070730008908282017-05-17T12:52:57.665-07:002017-05-17T12:52:57.665-07:00"I feel confident in firmly placing Fitzgeral..."I feel confident in firmly placing Fitzgerald in the crackpot category."<br /><br />What about Richard Carrier?ratamacue0https://www.blogger.com/profile/03634002130902932576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8230149373829862884.post-82993197400351751732017-04-19T15:48:29.619-07:002017-04-19T15:48:29.619-07:00I would also like to note here for posterity that ...I would also like to note here for posterity that I submitted the comment above verbatim at Tarico's blog (cross-posted from Raw Story), and it was never approved. I couldn't help but notice that pro-mythicist comments submitted AFTER mine were approved without a hitch. For someone who claims to be on the fence, I'd say her actions speak otherwise.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14732752008004280239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8230149373829862884.post-27449355306543691332017-04-16T11:50:45.552-07:002017-04-16T11:50:45.552-07:00Not much there to compel me to continue with Taric...Not much there to compel me to continue with Tarico's series. If Fitzgerald (NB: not a scholar) wants to argue that the differing constructions of the historical Jesus are evidence that there was no historical Jesus, we should sit and wait patiently for him to explain why the same goes for figures like Gilgamesh, King Arthur, Buddha, Zoroaster, Hannibal, Marcus Camillus, Gaius Coriolanus, and the Icenian warrior queen Boudicca, each of whom had differing, often mutually contradictory and in some cases supernatural and other fantastical claims accrue around them. <br /><br />Just because we have no good reasons to accept the sensational claims attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, for example—on whose body it is said miraculously appeared stigmata impressed by a seraph with six wings—does not ipso facto give us reason to doubt the very historicity of the figure behind them. Mythological accretion over time is common to sacred narratives, however historically rooted those narratives may originally have been.<br /><br />I also find it ironic, given Fitzgerald's argument, that among those who reject the consensus of scholarship on this question what you find is an embarrassing lack of consistency. None of their theories on how this figure was supposedly historicized gel together, either.<br /><br />Lastly, his statement that historians “are making things up” is just beyond the pale hyperbole that should remove him from any kind of serious academic discussion. There is quite some distance between applying the principles and methods of modern historical-critical scholarship to the limited, discrepant and overall sub-ideal evidence on hand and “making things up”. This is something only someone outside the field would say in order to grab attention.<br /><br />I feel confident in firmly placing Fitzgerald in the crackpot category. The more atheists and so-called skeptics treat him as an authority on this topic the more credibility we stand to lose.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14732752008004280239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8230149373829862884.post-91593171586497220402017-04-14T18:24:20.594-07:002017-04-14T18:24:20.594-07:00I notice Bretton misspelled your surname again. I ...I notice Bretton misspelled your surname again. I guess he is as childish as Carrier.Kristoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16868744299989172597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8230149373829862884.post-86073001818935542652017-04-14T04:50:55.340-07:002017-04-14T04:50:55.340-07:00>>
Here O'Neil overlooks the fact this t...>><br />Here O'Neil overlooks the fact this this precise criticism is implicit within Gnosticism, Marcionism.<br />>><br /><br />Gnosticism was a 2nd century heresy that emerged from within Christianity. Gnostics were divided on the nature of Jesus; some said he had a physical body, others said he did not.<br /><br />Marcion (also 2nd century) was not a Gnostic; he was a Docetist. He taught that Jesus' body was not physical, but he nevertheless believed that Jesus was a genuine historical figure who came down from heaven and literally interacted with humans. This does not assist Fitzgerald's case.Conscientiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14433442179008134522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8230149373829862884.post-23226994138634234662017-04-14T00:34:19.044-07:002017-04-14T00:34:19.044-07:00And here he is, right on cue ...
... after the s...And here he is, right on cue ...<br /><br /><i> ... after the seemingly obligatory internet name-calling ..."</i><br /><br />Name calling? Did I call someone names? I certainly didn't call anyone a "douche", a "blog gadfly", "the Perez Hilton of atheism", "Bill O’Reillyesque", "a Fox News pundit", "His Shrillness", "his assholedom",or "chicken-shit". We can leave that sort of thing to Dave Fitzgerald. Nor did I say anyone was "a liar" or "insane", though they seem to be the favourite dismissals of criticism by Richard Carrier.<br /><br /><i>"Very early on, Gnosticism, Marcionism, attempted to stress the spiritual, divine nature of Jesus, and to make a virtue of that. "</i><br /><br />Yes, they did. Thanks for pointing that out, as that Docetic tendancy in the second and third century variants of Christianity is simply part of the progression I note in my article above. So we go from the wholly human, adoptionist Messiah of gMark to the more exalted Messiah-from-birth of gMatt and gLuke to the divine Messiah/Saviour of gJohn and then to increasing levels of exaltation and emphasis on divinity through the second century. And then Marcion and the Gnostics take this further by claiming Jesus was wholly spiritual and not physical at all. So yes, this fits the progression from human preacher through human Messiah to incarnate divine being and then purely spiritual divine being completely. Contra the Mythicist idea, where he is meant to be a purely spiritual divine initially. But then you try this:<br /><br /><i>"And as part of doing so, they assert, note, that there was no physical, material Jesus. "</i><br /><br />Yes, but what they don't do is assert that this non-physical, non-material Jesus was also non-historical and non-earthly. Which is what we need if there is to be any actual <i><b>evidence </b></i> to back up the contrived fantasy of a non-historical, non-earthly Mythic Jesus version of Christianity. A fantasy that sits at the core of their failed thesis. Which means you fail, yet again. Tim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8230149373829862884.post-68581355800401126982017-04-13T23:27:58.007-07:002017-04-13T23:27:58.007-07:00Tim O'Neil opens his Easter sermon, after the ...Tim O'Neil opens his Easter sermon, after the seemingly obligatory internet name-calling, with the assertion that there is no evidence of an early criticism of a physical Jesus; no early suggestion that he was only a heavenly divine, not physically real, person. However? Here O'Neil overlooks the fact this this precise criticism is implicit within Gnosticism, Marcionism.<br /><br />Very early on, Gnosticism, Marcionism, attempted to stress the spiritual, divine nature of Jesus, and to make a virtue of that. And as part of doing so, they assert, note, that there was no physical, material Jesus. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12468594795485215832noreply@blogger.com