<Q & A With Paul Hanrahan, CEO of AESThe Oil DrumA primer on reserve growth - Part 3 of 3>
<DrumBeat: January 7, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: January 9, 2007>

431 comments on DrumBeat: January 8, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

b3NDZ3La on January 8, 2007 - 1:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

jesusneverexisted.com

and the bible was written by idiots.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Papirus on January 8, 2007 - 1:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I can't help smiling. This is true creationism.

They are trying to create a second reality, the determined rewriting of history to exclude elements they don't like. Some people never accept the most probable case, even when confronted with overwhelming arguments.

It's worth noting that the Jesus myth theory is quite new. The early opponents of Christianity didn't question Jesu existence. To be a believer of "the Jesus myth", one also have to ignore the evidence for the historical Jesus.

I'm sure everything fits well and you see confirmations of your theory everywhere.

True creationism.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Franz on January 9, 2007 - 12:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You ought not to be so haughty about this, especially as the case you oppose is, contrary to your misrepresentations, very strong.

It is rather ironic when you say ‘the early opponents of Christianity didn’t question the existence of Jesus’, when in fact the mythicist case shows, convincingly, that the very earliest Christians, including Paul, had no conception of a historical Jesus at all. That came later, with the Gospel of Mark. In other words, it would be better to say ‘the earliest believers in Christianity didn’t question the historical non-existence of Jesus’ – he was the mythical Son of God, the intermediary between man and the divine, and not a historical person. Even the earliest apologists never speak of Christ as a historical person. One of them, in the Felix Menucius, even laughs at the idea that Christians worship a man nailed to a cross (and no, he doesn’t go on to say ‘because he was really the son of God’ – he just scoffs and leaves it at that, as if he is dismissing some sort of lunatic historicizing process that had then just begun).

You talk about the ‘evidence’ of the historical Jesus. Well, there isn’t any. None. Except the Gospels, which of course were not contemporaneous and are totally unreliable, for obvious reasons. And as I have indicated, earlier Christians appear not to be referring to a historical person. Look at Paul’s writing carefully, without historicist preconceptions. He never attributes sayings to Jesus, but to God or to Scripture. He never mentions anything about the historical details of Jesus’ existence. Why not? We all know religious nuts obsess on such stuff, if they believe in it. But Paul didn’t – because he wasn’t talking about a historical person.

But from your tone, I know I am talking to a closed mind on this. So if anyone else is interested in this, check out Earl Doherty’s Jesus Puzzle web pages at http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm Very extensive, very well argued. Unless you already have some emotional investment in the idea of a historical Jesus (and unfortunately far too many people do, even athiests), you will never accept a historicist interpretation again.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Papirus on January 9, 2007 - 6:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But from your tone, I know I am talking to a closed mind on this.

I have an intellectual passion for thruth and strongly feel it's unethical to lie, nor do i desire to subscribe to one.

Look at Paul’s writing carefully, without historicist preconceptions. He never attributes sayings to Jesus, but to God or to Scripture.

Hebrew chapter 10, verse 5.

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "

You probably have another interpretation of this verse, and several others. Also, i don't see what rationale you have for rejecting the gospels as a historical source. At least Luke's writing style is very detailed and exact, with lot of (unnecessary) historical references and facts.

Perhaps you should do some critical reading of Luke, not just read books written by people whom made up their minds prior to the investigation?

I have never met any scholars (or non-scholars) subscribing to the Jesu-myth theory without also being an atheist and strongly opposed to christian culture.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Franz on January 9, 2007 - 9:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well, it's ironic that you pick something from Hebrews, because that is regarded by Jesus mythicists as one of the best examples of an epistle that is talking about a mythical and not historical Jesus. But, I do not intend to argue this with you. It's a Peak Oil site, after all. I posted because I want anyone who is curious about it to realize that the mythicist case is stronger than is usually portrayed, and is worth checking out. So if anyone cares about this debate, they should check out e.g. Doherty, where it is covered in great detail.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Don Sailorman on January 10, 2007 - 8:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Have you ever heard of the historian Josephus? He was a contemporary of Jesus and an eyewitness to his existence and actions.

But in cases of invincible ignorance, I would not expect a person to look at the historical evidence.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BeaconBoy on January 8, 2007 - 3:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No he was seen recently waiting for a train in Sydney.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070108/23/11zxi.html

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.