The causation is far from clear or simple. Saying the Gospels assign specific blame is an interpretation. You might like to cite the Gospel texts that give you this impression, as I suspect you will find you are running together various ideas to construct a mental narrative that is not really supported in the text. Yes, you can point to Jewish responsibility for handing Jesus over to the Roman executioner. But compare this to a modern policing operation – we do not place sole guilt on an arresting officer for the punishment of an innocent prisoner, it is a complex institutional process involving police, judge, jury and jail. That ignores the comple backdrop of economic and social relations between Christians and Jews. It is rather like saying the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland have hated each other because of specifically religious differences, when it is obvious these differences are primarily the surface markers of deeper questions of identity, especially political tribal conflict rooted in war and imperialism. The anti Jewish lines in the Bible were a handy excuse to latch on to to justify a predisposition grounded in the identity politics of a dominant group that found the Jews a convenient target. You are mistaking an outward sign (dogma) for a deep cause (politics). The Bible also tells us other things, such as to love our enemies and aim for unity, but these get ignored as inconvenient.It is not the words alone, but the interpretation that rationalises hatred. The interpretation requires that people with motive whip up popular sentiment. This particular angle in the Bible had to be emphasised, given priority over other teachings that are equally present and that argue against racial hatred. Love, forgiveness and mercy are primary themes in the New Testament. You have to twist the text to get a primary message of hatred, let alone your alarming phrase implacable hatred. In the Nazi context that required a lot more than the Bible to generate it.Calling the Romans bystanders is a distortion of the historical context. Just before the Gospels were written, the Romans had utterly destroyed the Jewish temple in one of the most massive wars of the Empire. Here is the Arch of Titus that commemorates their victory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Titus

The scale of Roman intimidation was immense. It is hardly surprising that the Gospels parcel out the blame equally between Rome and Israel. To do otherwise would have invited immediate retribution, which came anyway with persecution of Christians for their anti-pagan attitudes such as refusal to worship the Roman Emperor. Pilate washing his hands of the affair is a cunning device that can in no way be taken at face value as some exoneration of Rome by the Gospel authors.
Christianity is high on the scale of superstitions. All miracles are rank superstition. Belief in the supernatural and heaven is superstition. Just because many Christians can bracket their absurd beliefs and function as rational modern people does not make those beliefs any less absurd. The bracketing makes the beliefs less dangerous, but why would you want to endorse claims you know to be false? That is unethical and hypocritical. Unbracketed Christianity of the rapture variety is a principal danger to world peace, security and sustainability. Each of us has our own ethical values. I see Jesus as the voice of Gaia and indigenous nature, speaking the word of cosmic reason and grace against the alienated evil of human constructed culture. His statement that the last will be first is to recognise that many hidden and vulnerable things in our world are among the most important, and that the values of the powerful do not serve the public interest. But this statement is also set within a context of respect for the powerful, for example in the parable of the talents, in a way that I believe provides the best available model for contemporary ethics, when combined with the expression of human solidarity and mercy in the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Judgment. With the scale of problems facing our planet, I simply do not believe the world can afford to have large numbers of people believing things that are not true, such as the actual existence of Jesus, and for political leaders to acquiesce in this folly. It becomes a lemming-like plunge towards the cliff.

Christianity has seen two great scientific revolutions, those of Copernicus and Darwin. Recognition of the fraudulent history of the church is a third religious revolution on a par with these two big earlier ones. But critique of the Gospels should mean reforming religion, not calling for its abolition. Religion is a good and necessary basis for community and identity. It is possible to be serious about science while also respecting the ethical message and symbolism of Christian tradition.

That entire post was from my Iphone while I was sitting in traffic.

You might try sticking to facts and evidence in this discussion.
Your story telling, although entertaining, is becoming quite boring.

You want to get childish, Robert? I'm willing to stoop to your level if necessary.

Stop being an intellectual hypocrite, Robert.

Careful ant, I was just giving you some friendly advice to help you make your comments more readable. So now observing a few spelling mistakes is boring and childish intellectual hypocrisy? No wonder you think Did Jesus Exist? is a great book, with that logic. Don't get so antsy. Or maybe you can enlighten us on where my comments are actually hypocritical. I would love to know.

Cute picture

That's not what I meant re the hypocrisy comment. I think you know that. You were being cheeky and childish.

I do admire your demonstration of intellectual courage for supporting such a flimsy, unsubstantiated, hollow, conspiratorial, kooky theory that the mythicist angle is. You simply will not admit you are allowing much more rope than you normally would otherwise (that's my gut feeling on this).

You can not substantiate most every single claim you endorse.

You refuse to recognize the plethora of differences between the historical Jesus and the gods that mythicists claim have the exact same narrative attached to them. That simply is false.

You don't have a desire, so it seems, to attempt to falsify your hypothesis.

You disregard scripture that indicates Jesus was a flesh and blood man, but are more than willing to turn to scripture when it suits your needs (and that's just one example!).You want it both ways, Robert. You want the rules bent in your direction so that you can add substance to your theory.

And most telling of all in my opinion, you will not allow the criteria historians use into this entire discussion. You are happier whining and opining that this is all really about the suppression by a paradigm of Christian scholars who will not entertain or give credence to really brilliant scholars like Doherty. The old paradigm, who believe in Jesus and have too much at stake to believe otherwise, are out to discredited masterpieces like Doherty's recent book.

You are highly emotional about this because you have a dog in this race, Robert. Even a high school dropout like me can see that.

I do, however, appreciate your participation in this.

I think you misunderstand me. The causation I'm claiming is simply that what the Gospels say about the role of the Jews had a great deal to do with their treatment down the ages. I don't feel I need to defend an interpretation, because obviously millions of believers have taken this "interpretation" as Gospel (sorry). Support in the text, the true historical situation--neither is relevant to the point.

Here again, from the standpoint of all the good Catholics, this is indeed all that is needed. You're bringing into the picture an analysis that was no part of the catechism Catholics were taught. It's not relevant to what they believed. I won't continue to comment on your post, because my point would be the same. We know the Bible has all sorts of statements in it about love, especially in NT. The fact that this love was not entirely universal is shown by the distinctly unloving attitude toward the Jews. There is a specific charge made against a people. I can't see how, in the context of prevailing "fundamentalism" and the unfolding of history, that cannot be said to have had a most profound effect.

Perhaps you could outline the narrative of the argued historical Jesus, because I am somewhat confused by your comparison. Usually mythical images of various gods are compared to the mythical images found in christian religion. When removing mythical images from Jesus story in order to claim historical Jesus, would naturally reduce compatibility. Removing similarities is known to reduce similarity.

But the important thing is essentially what narrative, what story, does the historical Jesus provide without miracles and supernatural claims? The historical Jesus argued by Celsus is one of the earliest, if not earliest, described historical Jesus. Although rejected by Origen because of the historical Jesus are founded on miracle birth, miracle works, divine existence, destined savior of humanity, concluded by death, resurrection and return as the metaphysical spirit ascending to heaven in merger with himself as the father god image.

Going back to the narrative of the historical Jesus. I would appreciate outline of narrative, where you of course leave out supernatural and magical mythical images, doctrine, ritual practice and traditional lore infused over time. I hope you make the small effort of outlining historical narrative, as I am really curious where our different views start. Thank you in advance

Ehrman concludes his book by getting to the very heart of the matter.

Ehrman speaks of a meeting he attended to receive an award given by the American Humanist Association - the "Religious Liberty Award." The AHA reason for existence is to promote "being Human without God."

Ehrman states (in a nutshell) although he agrees with quite a few of the AHA's views, what was noticeable;

"But what struck me most about the meeting was precisely how religious it was."

I have had similar experiences while in attendance at some of the lectures I go to conducted by The Skeptics Society. Although highly informative, I notice that there is a very religious feel in the air. The scattered hoots and "UH-HUH, that's right!" remind me of a religious flock. The lecturers remind me of preachers (but that's more of a projection of supreme authority bestowed on them by the audience). And anytime Darwin, Dawkins, Shermer, Hawking, etc. etc are mentioned, you get the feeling that they are the apostles of this particular flock.

Ehrman goes on to say that what was not surprising was a good number of the people in attendance at the ceremony were either mythicists or leaning toward mythicism. He says that in a way these mythicists are doing a disservice to Humanists because they are staking out a position that is accepted virtually by no one. They "open themselves up to mockery and to charges of intellectual dishonesty."

The actual problem here is belief in Jesus. Christ stands for the heart of Christianity. If you do away with Jesus completely by claiming he was a myth, then you drive a stake through the very heart of Christianity itself. And if you do that, then perhaps you move closer to the ultimate goal of doing away with the Christian god himself.

Since Christianity is the dominant religion with political, social, and educational influence in our western culture, the agenda becomes clear.

I tend to agree with Ehrman's view on this. The degree of emotion here is high for mythicists. So high, atheists/humanists are willing to develop theories about the historical Jesus that are mostly emotion driven. Unsubstantiated narratives, obscure claims of cabals, scriptural interpretations of convenience and the like are digested with an uncritical eyeball.

Here's a document on Facebook by Dave Mack that includes a pile of links for responses to Ehrman by mythicists.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/thebible ... 040301233/

Although I hoped for a response that outlined the purely historical narrative regarding the claimed historical figure. Nonetheless I think a different comment perhaps brought up one important aspect in this discussion.




The message in the bible does not change regardless of historical or myth. And for those bothering to read the bible, the message of the story is repeatedly reminded of being that of importance. If moral and values gained from bible have worth only because of claimed historical background, they are not intrinsically true. But merely embraced out of fear of punishment. Those who drive a stake through the very heart of Christianity itself, are those who need divine gifts and rewards of riches on earth or eternal life in paradise to be historical and factual in order for message to contain value to them. Unfortunately they do so without shame.

the actual problem here is belief in a literalised metaphor



give me a break! does santa stand for the heart of xmas, does the easter bunny stand for the heart of easter, does a cat stand for 9 lives!



you dont do away with Jesus by claiming he was a myth anymore than you do away with efficiency by claiming that you cant really stitch time, you do away with the true significance of the metaphor by insisting the dumbass literal interpretation is the only interpretation when in fact it is a childish and stupid interpretation.



isn't that what you are supposed to do with vampires? literalist orthodoxy has sucked the lifes blood out of many a seeker.



oh what piffle, what balderdash, poppycock! any god that can be done away with is a numpty, God Shmod!

show me a God that can be done away with and i'll show you an outworn metaphor for the transcendant.

where is this christian God that can be done away with according to ant? is he on the toilet? perhaps he cant hear us because he is old and his ears are failing, would that he would do away with the tiny conception of ant.



yawn... literalist orthodoxy is the faith of fools, submissive fools who have subjugated themselves to a priesthood that wouldnt know the truth if it bit them on the arse.

well meaning seekers accepted.



good riddance to bad rubbish.

The degree of emotion here is high for literalists. So high, literalists are willing to develop theories about the historical Jesus that are mostly emotion driven. Unsubstantiated miracles, obscure claims of needing tithe money, scriptural interpretations of convenience and the like are digested with an uncritical eyeball by people who have sacrificed reason on the altar of subservience to a stupid preisthood dumb enough to believe a literalised metaphor because they lack the education to understand mythology and how it works in history and life.

Christ stands for the heart of christianity! sheesh give me a break, Christ is a metaphor, get over it already.

death to literalists, oh wait they are dead in understanding already, perhaps if they understood the reference of the metaphor christ is they could be bought back from among the dead.

literalism RIP!

ahhhhh mythicism, it is the espresso to the dishwater of literalism.

so belief in a literal historical jesus is essential eh ant?

cant have salvation without a carnalised christ eh ant?

cant experience union with god unless you believe in a literal historic jesus? god i remember when i was dumb enough to believe that horse manure, i only wish my two buddies who committed suicide in anguish over torment caused in large part by literalist orthodoxy had seen through it in time, and i wish i had been able to help them understand THEY WERE BEING PLAYED.

what do you think ant?

what's your take on Jesus, the Nazarene, Yahweh in the flesh.... you reckon he is risen, ascended, seated at the right hand of the Father in the heavenlies?

or do you have another take on the whole thing?

you know my favourite saying of Jesus? (well i have many, of course)

"I and the Father are one"

"He that has seen me has seen the Father"

have you seen the Father ant?

what do you think of Joseph Campbell and Alan Watts ant?

ahhhh so many questions so little time.

thus spake zarathustra

This "Errorman" ordeal has worked out pretty good because it brought the existence of the argument to a much larger audience. The backlash from the book (much of it listed in my last post) has shown this newer, larger audience out there, the thin line historicists have to walk on. And of course the book was such a hack job that it works out better for the mythicist position than for the historicist.