Authors who argued a mythic/spiritual Jesus

[Iasion]

Greetings again,

It was suggested that few belived or argued for Jesus as mythical or spiritual.

While it is true the majority argue for HJ, there is a long history of authors arguing against the historical Jesus, as follows :

C.F. Dupuis, 1791, Abrege De L'Origine Des Cultes

Robert Taylor, 1829, Diegesis

Godfrey Higgins, 1836, Anacalypsis

Bruno Bauer, 1841, Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics

Mitchell Logan, 1842, Christian Mythology Unveiled

David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined

Kersey Graves, 1875, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours

T.W. Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions

Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ

Thomas Whittaker, 1904, The Origins of Christianity

William Benjamin Smith, 1906, Der vorchristliche Jesus

Albert Kalthoff, 1907, The Rise of Christianity

M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?

Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth

John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem

Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus – A Myth

Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity

L.Gordon Rylands, 1935, Did Jesus Ever Live?

Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus

P.L. Couchoud, 1939, The Creation of Christ

Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory?

Karl Kautsky, 1953, The Foundations of Christianity

Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth?

Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus Christ


Modern proponents include :

Earl Doherty,
Profesor G.A. Wells,
Robert M. Price,
Hermann Detering,
Freke and Gandy,
P. Alfrani,


The JM case has been argued for centuries, and is alive and well, even if a minority view.

Iasion

[Dee Dee Warren]

And that proves that again that there is nothing new under the sun. So?

[undead]

03-08-2003 @ 01:05 AM
Iasion:

Greetings again,



Here is one you missed

John Allegro - "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" was published in 1970.

From: http://www.freedomdomain.com/relig.htm

"His ultimate conclusion (and he was kicked off the team for his opinions) was that Jesus was a Mushroom consumed by the Essenes and covered up to keep the Roman authorities in the dark about the fertility cult of the Essenes.

Allegro claims that the ancient people considered the rain similar to God's sperm in that it would fertilize the soil (of Mother Earth) and allow the crops to grow. If the rain was a source of "Heavenly Sperm" then there must be a giant Penis in the sky producing this "Heavenly Sperm", assumed the ancients. Well, after the rain, the mushroom would grow, allowing them to "Talk to God" and the mushroom looked like a miniature Penis growing up from the ground. This, Allegro adds, was to them the "Son of God come down in the flesh to show the way to himself"".

Well. I guess those early attempts to discredit Christ weren't particularly convincing. Otherwise, why do we now end up with Jesus being reduced to a mushroom?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hello again Iasion,

I see you've mentioned the Diegesis and the Anacalypsis. Have you read these works? Care to discuss them?

I am aware that Taylor argues for a mythical Jesus, but he also argues for pre-Christian gospels. Comments? The Anacalypsis is of the mythicist position, really? Would you like to cite where Higgins says this?

Kautsky, a Marxist, actually wrote his work a half-century before the date you gave, and it was left unpublished for decades- although he was a journalist I find his use of quotations - especially Pliny - rather poor. (Since you say on the other thread you have an interest in accuracy)

The issue is not how many authors support the Christ-myth thesis, but are they rational? I cannot see, having read the Diegesis and much of the Anacalypsis, much evidence of this in these works.

Hence I find your citing them leads me to believe either you have not read them yourself, or your support for the thesis is a weaker position than the non-believing historian who does acknowledge Jesus' existance e.g. Sanders, or Morton Smith.

As for Fau, do you read French then, as I am not aware this work was translated into English.

I would welcome your response,
from Guy

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hmm,

Quentin, as I just mentioned, for the list of authors given to be considered as a whole a rational viewpoint requires internal consistency in that thesis. However mentioning Taylor *and* Mangasarian leads to the following problem:

While both denied the validity of the text in Tacitus' Annals of the mention of Jesus, they held to differing views of its origins, and for different reasons. Sure, they both denied Tacitus was the origin, but one cannot have your cake and eat it too. It cannot have originated from the pen of Poggio Bracciolini in the 1420s AND the printing press of de Spira, some 50 years later. I will note that the mythicist R P Oliver, a classics professor studied the manuscripts of the Annals and dated it from the 11th century. Mangasarian's claim was that the entire Annals was penned by Bracciolini. This is clearly untrue, and proven so from one of your own. Oliver's work was done later than Mangasarian's. Lastly, I find it hard to accept that you have listed Mangasarian alongside Strauss, when M admits to lack of competence in assessing others' arguments.

As such I find it extremely hard to even nod the head towards such shopping lists - are you truly doing your own research here? :bonk:

from Guy

[ACFaith.Com]

ghbearman, I heard somewhere that Sanders is a very liberal protestant?

Where did you get the idea that he is a non-believer from?

Vinnie

[spl_cadet]

03-12-2003 @ 12:40 PM
ACFaith.Com:

ghbearman, I heard somewhere that Sanders is a very liberal protestant?

Where did you get the idea that he is a non-believer from?

The fact that he would be a very liberal Protestant.

[markg]

“Jesus Mythers” certainly exist as is demonstrated by the list of mostly obscure individuals offered up on this thread. One is free to believe whatever one wants to, but if one ignores the overwhelming scholarly consensus then one can legitimately be described as either a revisionist or a conspiracy theorist. It is not that such a thesis is impossible; it is that, when it is weighed and assessed on historical grounds, it is highly improbable. The primary motivation for rejecting the historicity of Jesus has nothing to do with history or evidence but has everything to do with metaphysical and ideological prejudice and bias. Christ could be a myth, he may never have existed. But the point is that such a view is NOT taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of historians and New Testament scholars - whether they be atheist, agnostic or theist, Christian, Jewish or secular, Protestant or Catholic, liberal or conservative. It is telling, for example that very few, if any, Christ mythers, are trained historians. For example, the most vocal of recent proponents of the theory, G. A. Wells, is a Professor of German. And even he, in his latest works on the subject, has had to back track somewhat form his earlier dogmatic position.

For those who claim to represent and espouse rationalism, logic, reason, evidence and skepticism as the highest virtues, to argue forcefully and dogmatically that Jesus never existed, is to bury their heads in the sand of a desert of purely ideological and subjective assumptions and presuppositions. It is to ignore the actual weight of scholarly consensus based upon the evidence both of the witness of history and the logic of history. One should be skeptical of an idea that is so roundly dismissed in terms such as “idiotic” “irresponsible” “crazy” “unwarranted” by the broadest range of historians and NT scholars.

I simply present a selection of comments from this broad range of scholarly opinion ( by scholarly opinion I mean just that - recognized, qualified authorities upon the subject.)



Historian Michael Grant, perhaps the greatest contemporary historian of the Greco- Romean world notes:

"This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' -- or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary...."
Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, pp 199-200.


The radical liberal Rudopf Bultmann, an historical skeptic himself about much of the NT material, is quite adamant that the Jesus-myth approach is not “sane”:

"Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community.”
Rudolf Bultman, Jesus and the Word, p 13.


This from Robert Van Voorst, THE authority on the extra- Biblical references to Jesus:

“Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question.”
Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, pp 6, 14.


“Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, pp 140-41.


“The doubts which have been cast on the historical reality of Jesus are, in my judgment, unworthy of serious attention.”
Sir James Frazer. The Golden Bough Macmillan 1913, Vol 9 p 412


“Theories about the non-existence of Jesus have again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.”
Roderic Dunkerley Beyond the Gospels, Penguin 1957, p12

“No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus”
Otto Betz. What do we know about Jesus? SCM press, 1968, p 9

This small selection of quotes only skims the surface of the well of such comments that have been made by reputable scholars. It is obvious that the diverse and almost unanimous opinion of modern Jesus scholars and relevant historians - whatever their background - is to dismiss completely the unconvincing arguments of the Jesus myth proponents.

I will finish with a quote from the Humanist, Will Durant:

"The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion....

The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies--e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates--would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed--the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them.

That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man."
Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, at 555.

[Iasion]

Greeting Guy,

thanks for your polite and knowledgeable comments :smile:


The issue is not how many authors support the Christ-myth thesis, but are they rational? I cannot see, having read the Diegesis and much of the Anacalypsis, much evidence of this in these works.

Its true that many of these works are questionable, but this list is partly a helpful bibliography and partly a response to claims that the JM theory is a new theory known to few.

Let me be very clear - I do not argue from authority - I dismiss such arguments.

I believe arguments should be made directly from the evidence, in ways that can be directly comprehended by the participants.


I see you've mentioned the Diegesis and the Anacalypsis. Have you read these works? Care to discuss them? ... I am aware that Taylor argues for a mythical Jesus, but he also argues for pre-Christian gospels. Comments?

Well, much scholarship from this period was rather poor by our standards, whatever side it was from, even Enc.Britt. from that period is funny. I'd agree with your implied comment that these books are mostly turgid muck. Of course, I don't agree with everything he said, Gospel scholarship was very crude in his day.

Yet I consider the Diegesis to be a fundamental breakthrough - here is a man JAILED for daring to speak about the mythical origins of Christianity, writing his masterwork from his cell in Oaknam Jail, possibly fearing for his life just because he disagreed with Church dogma - and that was only one & three quarter centuries ago. Nowadays, we don't risk jail, merely obloquy for daring to say Jesus was a Myth.


The Anacalypsis is of the mythicist position, really? Would you like to cite where Higgins says this?

Whoops, you are correct, I had wrongly slipped it into my list - Godfrey did had a weird sort of historical Jesus in mind (by God does he go on and on!). I will fix that, thanks. Here is the dialiectic of debate in action, cut and thrust, thesis and antithesis.



Kautsky, a Marxist, actually wrote his work a half-century before the date you gave, and it was left unpublished for decades- although he was a journalist I find his use of quotations - especially Pliny - rather poor. (Since you say on the other thread you have an interest in accuracy) ... As for Fau, do you read French then, as I am not aware this work was translated into English.

Fair cop. I have only recently stumbled across these names in the dusty little-trodden byways of J.Mythicism, I have not read them.
Seriously, this is NOT an argument from authorities, its just a bibliography that stretches back 2 centuries, my aim was more COMPLETNESS and coverage, its true some of the works are obscure or dubious by our modern standards.

Iasion

[Iasion]

Greetings Guy,


Quentin, as I just mentioned, for the list of authors given to be considered as a whole a rational viewpoint requires internal consistency in that thesis. However mentioning Taylor *and* Mangasarian leads to the following problem:

Well, it is to be expected that a list of rather varied people over a long period, would have disagreements and inconsistencies over their total views.

Its true that some of these authors are not in the same class as others - but hey, its just a Bibliography of authors who argued a JM type position, my argument lies elsewhere.

Iasion

[Iasion]

Greetings markg,

Thanks for you lengthy post :smile:


One should be skeptical of an idea that is so roundly dismissed in terms such terms “idiotic” “irresponsible” “crazy” “unwarranted” by the broadest range of historians and NT scholars. I simply present a selection of comments from this broad range of scholarly opinion ( by scholarly opinion I mean just that - recognized, qualified authorities upon the subject.)

Indeed,
it is true the Jesus Myth theory is a minority one.
Yes,
you can quote many authorities to ridicule the theory.

But is this surprising in a culture that has only just turned away from the Church and towards Science?
For nearly two millenia the Christian church dominated our culture. Less than 2 centuries ago Robert Taylor was jailed for arguing that Jesus was a myth. For over a millenia before that it was probably DEATH to question the church! The Church domination of our lives, even our very thoughts, stands very recent in our past, and still echoes strongly through some countries of the West.

So who can be surprised that the authorities, i.e. the conservative voice of the past, ridicules the JM theory - of course they do! The shame of being WRONG would be overwhelming.
For that reason I reject any argument from authority.

I see many, here and elsewhere, think that the cries of ridicule from the "authorities" is a clinching argument against the JM theory.

Not so -
The JM theory is a radical idea that challenges old paradigms, of COURSE it is derided by the "authorities".

I am reminded of Kuhn word's about scientific revolutions :
first they ignored,
then they ridiculed,
then they are accepted as the new truth.

As to JM historians, I don't know for sure the occupations of my original list, but surely what matters is the quality of the argument they make?
And, there are some modern JM historians, Richard Carrier seems is supportive of Earl's thesis.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bio.shtml

The issue is about checking the evidence for yourself - not just collecting aujthorities like a boy-scout collects merit badges.

I looked at the evidence for myself, I checked Josephus and Tacitus and Pliny and Suetonius and Thallus and Phlegon and the Talmud.
I read Paul, the Gnostics, Philo, the Hermetica, studied the Kabalah.
I made my own mind up and I can argue my case - I don't quote authorities unless warranted.
I consider arguing from authorities, especially in this field, to be the weakest sort of argument - the dead weight of the outmoded Church views make for much leftover bias in this very subject.

The issue of the origins of Christianity needs to be looked at afresh - the vast majority of previous work has been done under the gaze of the church, of COURSE it tends to support their view. The scientific method is by its nature conservative, they evolve by micro-increments, but total about-faces are feared greatly.
Humans tend to repeat what they have heard and been told, and the story of Jesus is the single most WELL KNOWN story in our culture for the past 2 milennia almost - this weight of belief still carries VAST momentum of emotional power. Everyone knows Jesus existed because everyone knows.

Thus I care not one whit how many recognised, qualified authorities you cite to ridicule the JM - of course they do, they WOULD, wouldn't they? so what?



Durant: No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John;
Wrong.
Some authors have questioned Paul's existence.


Durant: Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh
No he doesn't.
Paul makes it clear he is just as good an apostle as they are - there is no suggestion that he envies them, in fact he criticses them dismissively. He denies learning anything from those people ("received from no man").


Durant: The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper
In one passage (that may be interpolated), he makes a formulaic reference to a supper. It is DIFFERENT to the story in the Gospels. There is no evidence it is referring to a physical event - no name, dates, places, times, relationships, effects.


Durant: and the Crucifixion....
There is no evidence it is referring to a physical event - no name, dates, places, times, relationships, effects.



Durant: The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ.

Oh, Poppycok!
The synoptics are totally incompatible with the G.John.
The contradictions between the synoptics themselves are profound and numerous (consider the challenge to recreate the events of Easter morning, covering all events in all Gospels - it cannot be done - e.g. what happened with the stone?).


Durant: In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies--e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates--would fade into legend.
All stories must stand or fall on the merits of the evidence.
Funny you should mention David - he probably IS a myth after all.
When the skeptical stands of real objective history are applied to the Gospel stories, they fade away like mist in the sunlight...


Durant:Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed--the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them.

Rubbish.
Hercules did some pretty bad things - by that argument he must be real.
Bacchus' stories have some pretty wild stuff in it - couldn't POSSIBLY be a story then, must be true.
To suggest that a negative element ina story must make it true is pure hogwash.

Consider the despairing cry on the cross, sorry, CRIES - for there are THREE different versions of Jesus' last words - whoops.
No-one reading this fable could think it was historical.


Durant: That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel.
Pure fantasy.

Firstly, there is little if anything in the NT that is new for its time - the vast majority of the Jesus story is lifted from the OT. It is mixed with some contemporary spiritual themes in mimesis (mimicry) of pagan writings.

Secondly,
the Jesus story grew over a century and half - the final four Gospels were unknown until late 2nd century - it is false to suggest the rapid growth of the story makes it true.

Thirdly,
if he was such as "so powerful and appealing a personality" why did none of his contemporaries even MENTION him - even Christians say nothing about this person until a CENTURY after his alleged life. So powerful and appealing that no-one even NOTICED him at all.

I see no "lofty ethic and inspiring a vision of human brotherhood" - once the Christian Church came to dominate the empire, it closed all the ancient centres of learning, crushed all opposition, burnt all books that disagreed with them and ushered in centuries of dark ages.

Iasion

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Greetings Quentin,

you wrote,

Its true that many of these works are questionable, but this list is partly a helpful bibliography and partly a response to claims that the JM theory is a new theory known to few.

Guy> Helpful bibliography to whom? When I first read the Diegesis I was amazed at how UNhelpful the work was regarding Christian origins. I do think you should have an advisory note attached to such lists - "Warning: reading these works could seriously damage recognition of the JM as a valid theory".

Please give a list of authors with references who say the JM theory is recent and of few authors - I think obscure is a better term, but considering the number of historians (even non-believers) who acknowledge Jesus' existance puts it in the 'few' category.

Quentin> Let me be very clear - I do not argue from authority - I dismiss such arguments.

Guy> Then why start with Remsburg, (regarding your contemporaries' list on the other thread) who does exactly this when discussing Josephus for example. He can't even give authorities correctly, Warburton for instance was a rector when he wrote his 'Testimonium is a stupid forgery' remark, not a bishop. Where please in Remsburg does he give analytical arguments? Anywhere will do, I have it here.

Quentin>I believe arguments should be made directly from the evidence, in ways that can be directly comprehended by the participants.

Guy> Yes, and indirectly, as historical assessments often are hypothetical. But then, which historians did you consult in your project? As for direct evidence, I'd like to discuss the Iasion myth with you, as you claim it a parallel with Jesus (!) Oh, and sorry for the earlier comment, it wasn't meant at you at all.


Quentin> I'd agree with your implied comment that these books are mostly turgid muck. Of course, I don't agree with everything he said, Gospel scholarship was very crude in his day.

Guy> Oh, are you REALLY saying that Strauss' scholarship was crude?! Perhaps you'd like to tell Acharya S that her fave authorities are "turgid muck". :smile:

Quentin>Yet I consider the Diegesis to be a fundamental breakthrough - here is a man JAILED for daring to speak about the mythical origins of Christianity, writing his masterwork from his cell in Oaknam Jail, possibly fearing for his life just because he disagreed with Church dogma - and that was only one & three quarter centuries ago. Nowadays, we don't risk jail, merely obloquy for daring to say Jesus was a Myth.

Guy> Oakham to be precise. I think it does represent a breakthrough in a sense, it has - unusual for the times - lots and lots of footnotes. However, not all these are relevant and consistent in the work (eg quoting a tombstone, or the Qu'ran when he'd already agreed not to bother with post-Constantine history), and the fact that it was written in prison probably is the reason why it got largely ignored - except for the odd nut like Herbert Cutner or Gordon Stein.

btw, Taylor was jailed for blasphemy (he acted irreverently in the courtroom for instance, and I'll note his lectures would have been considered highly inflammatory and anti-social - consider the invectives against Rev John Pye Smith for instance [introduction to the Syntagma], or his claims that Chemosh was the Christian Messiah!!! I could go on...) and not paying debts - you see this one worked out in the book when he speaks unfairly of Quakers (it was a Quaker banker who he owed the debt to.) Feared for his life, yeah, he fled the country after his 2nd jailing for getting engaged - when he already was, to someone else! Strange, he considered his Christian Evidence Society as faithful!

Quentin>Godfrey did had a weird sort of historical Jesus in mind (by God does he go on and on!).

Guy> I think he goes "on and on" because he's trying to prove the theory of prehistorical civilisation, and he's got to link every known thing up to that theory. (even when it doesn't work, eg calling Quetzalcoatl Indra!)

Quentin> I will fix that, thanks.

Guy> I am glad you are open to correction: another thing to tell Acharya about! :thumb:

Quentin> I have only recently stumbled across these names in the dusty little-trodden byways of J.Mythicism,

Guy> One is constrained to ask, why are they "dusty" and "little-trodden"? After reading some of these (incl. Dupuis, whose over-use of the comma makes it difficult reading) my opinion is: because they are works of fantasy by non-experts and also because many of the claims made in them have since been disproven. See, I didn't say "orthodoxy". :smile:

Quentin> I have not read them.

Guy> Please explain why you expect people to read things you haven't?

Quentin> Seriously, this is NOT an argument from authorities, its just a bibliography that stretches back 2 centuries,

Guy> Is this not the reason why the JM thesis is considered "recent"? Can you list any JM guys from say, the 16th century? (Leo X doesn't count.)

Quentin> my aim was more COMPLETNESS and coverage, its true some of the works are obscure or dubious by our modern standards.

Guy> Um, actually the Diegesis is dubious in its own day. I have found, upon researching works available *then* that they contradict Taylor. I can give examples, if you wish. Thus I reject the Diegesis on the basis of its non-factuality and irrationality.

I am pleased that you are open to discussion, and correction: many JMers are not - according to experience speaking to them.

from Guy

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hi Quentin,

I'll just note here that Robert Taylor was inconsistent in his claim that Jesus was a myth, in chapter 1 (Diegesis) he says Jesus was a mechanic (one has to exist to be a mechanic) and in chapter 4 cites approvingly some unnamed authority who calls him a "Pharisaical Deist" - now to be a Pharisee...well, I'll leave it with you to decide what it means. (and uh, didn't you say you don't like arguments by authority? why then do you bring up Robert Taylor?)

bye for now
from Guy

[markg]

Iasion wrote:

“The issue is about checking the evidence for yourself - not just collecting authorities like a boy-scout collects merit badges.

I looked at the evidence for myself, I checked Josephus and Tacitus and Pliny and Suetonius and Thallus and Phlegon and the Talmud.
I read Paul, the Gnostics, Philo, the Hermetica, studied the Kabalah.
I made my own mind up and I can argue my case - I don't quote authorities unless warranted.
I consider arguing from authorities, especially in this field, to be the weakest sort of argument - the dead weight of the outmoded Church views make for much leftover bias in this very subject.”



Thanks for the homily, but…

Whence this high and mighty attitude that assumes you alone know the truth about this matter? Do you think you are the only one on this forum who has investigated it? And who has read extensively about it? Do I take it that you are claiming by some power of mental telepathy to know the extent of my own knowledge and research? That I cannot recognize history from myth? You think I haven’t read the contemporary authors - Paul, Philo, Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius or examined a wide range of subsequent scholarship?

Exactly how did you “check out” Thallus since the only reference to him or his works is in later Christian apologists?

Ditto Phlegon?

Let me also point out that studying the Kabalah or the Hermetica, no matter how fascinating, is NOT going to help you come to an informed opinion about the historical existence of Jesus.

I am sorry to have to respond to you so; for all I know you are very sincere and genuine, but the tone of your response is dismissive and patronising towards any counter position so I must take you as a wild-eyed “true believer” who has all the inside secret knowledge denied the rest of us mere mortals.

Leaving aside gnosis, what are your academic qualifications in history that allow you to make the assertion, in the face of the scholarly consensus to the contrary, that Jesus was a mythic figure with no historical existence? If Richard Carrier believes it to be true does that make it so? You and he are free to believe whatever you want to, and I personally don’t care if you believe the moon is made of green cheese, but I do object to you asserting that you know better than the best scholarly minds in the relevant fields of this and previous generations. And I am appalled, not only that you are able to blithely dismiss the comments of such scholars, but that you attempt to bolster your own case with your own “authority list” of questionable and obscure writers. I quote your own words about this list in a subsequent post:

“Its true that many of these works are questionable”…

“its true some of the works are obscure or dubious by our modern standards”…

and
“these books are mostly turgid muck”.

You don’t see this as even a little bit hypocritical? The whole preachy, patronising tone of your response is uncalled for - especially in the light of these admissions. Indeed, you give the impression of being exactly what I described in my original post – a revisionist or a conspiracy theorist – with all the usual fervent emotional commitment to your pet theory. Oswald really didn’t shoot Kennedy, he was just a patsy. NASA never really landed men on the moon; it was all faked in a film studio… and Jesus never existed. That’s your conspiracy theory and you’re sticking to it.

And then there are these comments, when you were called out by someone who does know what he is talking about:

“Whoops, you are correct, I had wrongly slipped it into my list - Godfrey did had a weird sort of historical Jesus in mind (by God does he go on and on!). I will fix that, thanks…”

”Fair cop. I have only recently stumbled across these names in the dusty little-trodden byways of J.Mythicism, I have not read them…”

”Seriously, this is NOT an argument from authorities, its just a bibliography that stretches back 2 centuries, my aim was more COMPLETNESS and coverage, its true some of the works are obscure or dubious by our modern standards…”

Seriously? Whoops! Do you really understand what the “argument from authority” fallacy involves? And that if one is quoting from recognised, qualified authorities speaking within their field of expertise one is NOT making a fallacious appeal to authority? One is making a legitimate case. As you seem unsure I can suggest you check it out on this skeptical website for clarification: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Maybe, you should consider that I offered a selection of quotes from a range of scholars from varied ideological, religious and philosophical backgrounds to show that as a result of their studies they have concluded that the “Jesus myth” is a myth itself. This is how I prefaced my original selection of quotes:

“I simply present a selection of comments from this broad range of scholarly opinion ( by scholarly opinion I mean just that - recognized, qualified authorities upon the subject.) “


Please, get off your high horse and face up to the fact that another person has examined this question and come down firmly on the side of the mainstream position held by the overwhelming majority of scholars – whether they be atheists like Grant, radical liberals like Bultmann or humanists like Durant - that this ”Jesus myth” notion is a load of ( to use some of your terms) “poppycock”, “fantasy”, “rubbish”. You disagree, fine; you feel you have a case to argue, fine; you want to ridicule and debunk everything in the gospels, fine just don’t pretend you are the one serious guy on the block who has done all the hard miles of study and research, and that others are just ignorant, and duped ignoramuses who don’t know what they are talking about.

I note that you spend the majority of your post attacking (no other word for it) the views of one of America’s most famous philosophers and historians, Will Durant, whose quote I appended simply to illustrate that someone who was had rejected Christianity and embraced Humanism was also able to acknowledge both Jesus’ historicity and the indelible effect that his person, words and work has had on the subsequent two millennia of world history. Poor Will, what he would know…

“Pure fantasy. Firstly, there is little if anything in the NT that is new for its time - the vast majority of the Jesus story is lifted from the OT. It is mixed with some contemporary spiritual themes in mimesis (mimicry) of pagan writings.”

Rubbish.
[But you are entitled to your opinion]


”Secondly, the Jesus story grew over a century and half - the final four Gospels were unknown until late 2nd century - it is false to suggest the rapid growth of the story makes it true.”

Poppycock.
[But you are entitled to your opinion.]

"Thirdly, if he was such as 'so powerful and appealing a personality' why did none of his contemporaries even MENTION him - even Christians say nothing about this person until a CENTURY after his alleged life. So powerful and appealing that no-one even NOTICED him at all."

Pure fantasy.

“Until a CENTURY after” is really a very silly, uninformed comment. And you do make a lot of unsubstantiated assertions in your post.

[How do you like being on the receiving end of the dismissive approach? ]

By the way, Paul “noticed” Jesus and was writing about him in c. AD 50. As to “the final four Gospels were unknown until late 2nd century”, from which “expert” did you pick up this?

I will end by repeating the paragraph that opened my original post to this thread. Read it again and see that I did not set out to slam you personally but to point out that the "Jesus myth” scenario is a fringe position. That doesn’t prove it is actually wrong or false, it only makes it highly questionable. I make a point of being open to a lot of things, even if far-fetched, purely on the principle that “there are more things in heaven and earth, [Iasion], than are dreamed of in your philosophy…” but one cannot just bury one’s head in the sand and ignore the scholarly consensus.

“Jesus Mythers” certainly exist as is demonstrated by the list of mostly obscure individuals offered up on this thread. One is free to believe whatever one wants to, but if one ignores the overwhelming scholarly consensus then one can legitimately be described as either a revisionist or a conspiracy theorist. It is not that such a thesis is impossible; it is that, when it is weighed and assessed on historical grounds, it is highly improbable. The primary motivation for rejecting the historicity of Jesus has nothing to do with history or evidence but has everything to do with metaphysical and ideological prejudice and bias. Christ could be a myth, he may never have existed. But the point is that such a view is NOT taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of historians and New Testament scholars - whether they be atheist, agnostic or theist, Christian, Jewish or secular, Protestant or Catholic, liberal or conservative. It is telling, for example that very few, if any, Christ mythers, are trained historians. For example, the most vocal of recent proponents of the theory, G. A. Wells, is a Professor of German. And even he, in his latest works on the subject, has had to back track somewhat form his earlier dogmatic position.

Fair cop?

Mark

[roger_pearse]

On Robert Taylor, author of the 'Diegesis', the Dictionary of National Biography should be consulted. It has the following to say:

--start--
Taylor, Robert 1784-1844, deistical writer, sixth son of John and Elizabeth Taylor, was born at Walnut Tree House, Edmonton, Middlesex, on 18 Aug. 1784. His father, a prosperous ironmonger in Fenchurch Street, London, died when he was young, leaving him under the guardianship of his uncle, Edward Farmer Taylor of Chicken Hall, Bridgnorth, Shropshire. Having been at school under John Adams at Edmonton, he was articled as house pupil to Samuel Partridge [see under Partridge, Richard], then house surgeon at the Birmingham general hospital. In 1805 he walked Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals under Sir Astley Paston Cooper [q.v.] and Henry Cline [q.v.], and was admitted a member of the College of Surgeons in 1807. The influence of Thomas Cotterill, perpetual curate of Lane End, Staffordshire, led him to study for the church. In October 1809 he matriculated at St. John's College, Cambridge, as Queen Margaret's foundation scholar. At Cambridge he attached himself to Charles Simeon [q.v.], who reckoned him one of his best scholars in the art of sermon-making. He was specially complimented on his university career by the master of St. John's, William Craven, D.D. (1730-1814); by his own account he was never second in a competition, his compeer being Sir John Frederick William Herschel [q.v.]. He commenced B.A. in January 1813, ‘purposely refusing his chance of the inferior honours of the tripos.’ Simeon selected him as curate in charge for Richard Lloyd (d. 1834) [q.v.] at Midhurst, Sussex, and he was ordained deacon on 14 March 1813 at St. James's, Westminster, by John Buckner (d. 1824), bishop of Chichester. He preached his maiden sermon the same day at St. Dunstan's, Fleet Street. Ordained priest in due course, he remained curate at Midhurst till the summer of 1818, holding also the neighbouring perpetual curacy of Easebourne, which he calls ‘a brown-coat rectory,’ the chief revenue going to the lay patron. An attack was made (1817) on his ministerial efficiency by John Sargent [q.v.]; Lloyd warmly defended him.

Early in 1818 a Midhurst tradesman, whom Taylor calls ‘an infidel,’ lent him books which raised sceptical doubts in his mind. On Trinity Sunday he preached a sermon which gave offence. He resigned his preferment (July), a step which Buckner thought quixotic, and advertised in the ‘Times’ (30 July) for four pupils to be taught (at Midhurst) English, classics, and French, and ‘the principles of the religion of reason and nature.’ In the ‘Times’ of 5 Aug. he inserted an advertisement in Latin, asking for employment, and giving an account of his views, not very decently expressed. Out of consideration for his mother's feelings, he published a Latin recantation (dated from Church Street, Edmonton, 7 Dec.) in the ‘Times’ on 11 Dec. ascribing his previous advertisement to mental aberration. He put a similar advertisement in the ‘Hampshire Telegraph,’ burned his deistical books, and sent a penitent circular to the Midhurst parishioners. George Gaskin [q.v.], rector of Stoke Newington, took him up, and he officiated at Edmonton, Tottenham, and Newington. Promised preferment not coming as soon as he expected, he applied to William Howley [q.v.], then bishop of London, who replied cautiously, and to Buckner, who answered by Lloyd that he must expect to remain in ‘the background.’ His scholastic advertisement had introduced him to a Bristol family named May, who, on pretence of helping him to a school, got hold of his money (‘a few hundred pounds’) and his acceptance to a hundred-pound bill. One of the Mays was afterwards hanged at Newgate for forgery.

At this juncture an old friend put Taylor into the curacy of Yardley, near Birmingham, where he hoped to rehabilitate his clerical reputation. But the Bishop of Worcester (Cornwall) insisted on his dismissal, and Taylor, under notice to quit, indulged in ‘the open preaching of deism in the parish church.’ His brothers offered him a monthly allowance if he left England. He went to the Isle of Man; in a month or two the allowance was stopped, and he tried to get employment on local newspapers. For an article justifying suicide, he was brought before the bishop, George Murray [see under Murray, Lord George, 1761-1803]. Making off to Whitehaven, he got 10l. from Partridge, his old master, and sailed for Dublin, where he became assistant in Jones's school at Nutgrove. Engaged for temporary duty by the rector of Rathfarnham, co. Dublin, he was inhibited (1822) by William Magee [q.v.], archbishop of Dublin, and (contrary to Magee's advice) dismissed from Nutgrove. He began a series of attacks on the church, under the title of ‘The Clerical Review,’ and was noticed by Archibald Hamilton Rowan [q.v.] and Henry Augustus Dillon-Lee, thirteenth viscount Dillon [q.v.], under whose auspices he projected (14 March 1824) ‘The Society of Universal Benevolence,’ of which he was ‘chaplain and secretary.’ He hired (1824) the Fishamble Street theatre for Sunday morning lectures, till a riot (28 March) closed the experiment. Coming to London, he drew up a petition for liberty to preach ‘natural religion’ (dated from 2 Water Lane, Fleet Street) which was presented to the House of Commons on 18 June by Joseph Hume [q.v.]. He taught classics, projected (12 Nov.) a ‘Christian Evidence Society,’ and gave lectures, followed by discussions, at various public rooms. In the summer of 1826 he hired an old independent chapel at Founders' Hall, Lothbury, and conducted (from 30 July) Sunday morning services with a liturgy, remarkable as enjoining a sitting posture in prayer, and still more remarkable as directing that no phrase or word was ever to be altered, added, or omitted. A petition by Taylor, dated from Carey Street, and praying that deists might be admitted to give evidence on oath, was presented to the House of Commons by Hume on 29 Nov. His success led to the purchase of Salters' Hall chapel, Cannon Street, by shareholders. On 1 Jan. 1827 it was opened by Taylor as his ‘Areopagus.’ In the same month he was arrested and indicted for a blasphemous discourse at Salters' Hall; the chief prosecutor was Brown, the lord mayor, a dissenter. While the case was pending, Wright, a Bristol banker, a member of the Society of Friends, sued him for 100l. on the acceptance he had given (January 1820) to May. He was thrown into the king's bench prison for the debt, and went through the bankruptcy court to obtain release. Another indictment, for conspiracy to overthrow the Christian religion, was laid against Taylor and others; the Salters' Hall chapel was then resold at a loss.

Taylor was tried (‘in full canonicals’) on the first indictment on 24 Oct. 1827 before Charles Abbott, first lord Tenterden [q.v.], and found guilty. The trial on the second indictment was abandoned in January 1828, apparently at Tenterden's instance. On 7 Feb. Taylor was sentenced by Sir John Bayley [q.v.] to a year's imprisonment in Oakham gaol, and to find securities (himself 500l., two others 250l. each) for good behaviour for five years. His close acquaintance now began with Richard Carlile [q.v.], who raised a subscription for him. At Oakham he contributed a weekly letter to Carlile's ‘Lion,’ from No. 7 (15 Feb.), and wrote his ‘Syntagma’ and ‘The Diegesis,’ a curious medley of random judgments and passages of secondhand learning. Carlile had introduced him to Miss Richards, whom he promised to marry. On his liberation (February 1829) he lectured occasionally at Carlile's shop in Fleet Street, and at the universalist chapel, Windmill Street, Finsbury Square. In May he set out with Carlile on a four months' lecturing tour, beginning at Cambridge, where Taylor fastened a thesis to the door of the divinity schools. In May 1830 he took the Rotunda, Blackfriars Road, and preached in episcopal garb to large audiences. Two sermons on the devil (6 and 13 June) gained him from Henry Hunt [q.v.] the title of ‘the devil's chaplain.’ He was tried at the Surrey sessions on 4 July 1831 for preaching blasphemy at the previous Easter, found guilty, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment in Horsemonger Lane gaol, a fine of 200l., and recognisances as before. His friends raised a subscription for him in September 1832. A visitor describes him as over the middle size, inclined to be stout, and of gentlemanly manners; he referred in conversation to Charles François Dupuis (1742-1809) as his predecessor in astro-theological studies. He had a fine voice, closely resembling that of Charles Kemble [q.v.], and a powerful delivery. His ill-arranged writings are of no original or scientific value; so far as they have a consistent purpose, it is to expound Christianity as a scheme of solar myths. His philology is helpless word-play. The attraction of his discourses was in his jocose manner; they exhibit no real humour, but his taunts are smart. His drollery, though of a low type, is never impure.

Released from gaol in 1833, Taylor retired from public view. He married an elderly lady of property; the marriage was a happy one, but it exposed Taylor to an action for breach of promise on the part of Miss Richards, to whom a jury awarded 250l. To escape paying this, Taylor removed to France, practising as a surgeon at Tours, where he died in September 1844. His portrait was engraved in 1827 from a drawing by W. Hunt.

He published: 1. ‘The Holy Liturgy: or Divine Service on the Principles of Pure Deism’ [1826?], 8vo (has catechism appended). 2. ‘The Trial ¼ upon a Charge of Blasphemy,’ 1827, 8vo (portrait). 3. ‘The Judgment of the Court of King's Bench,’ [1828], 8vo (Nos. 2 and 3 are on the basis of the shorthand writer's report). 4. ‘Syntagma of the Evidences of the Christian Religion,’ 1828, 8vo (against John Pye Smith, q.v.). 5. ‘The Diegesis ¼ a Discovery of the Origin ¼ of Christianity,’ &c., 1829, 8vo, Boston (Mass.), 1832, 8vo. 6. ‘First Missionary Oration,’ 1829, 8vo. 7. ‘Second Missionary Oration,’ 1829, 8vo. 8. ‘Swing: or who are the Incendiaries? A Tragedy,’ 1831, 12mo (the British Museum copy was presented by Taylor to Charles Kemble to show him ‘what the drama should be’). 9. ‘The Devil's Pulpit,’ 1831-2, 2 vols. 8vo; last edition, 1881, 8vo. He is not included in Smith's ‘Bibliotheca Anti-Quakeriana,’ 1873, but no writer has more roughly aspersed the Society of Friends.

Sources: Taylor's Works; Memoir (autobiographical, but arranged by Carlile) prefixed to Devil's Pulpit, 1831-2; Lloyd's Two Letters, 1818; Lloyd's Reply, 1819; Monthly Repository, 1818 p. 754, 1824 p. 381, 1827 p. 77, 1828 p. 214; The Lion, 1828-9; Annual Register, 1831, pp. 93 sq., 1844 p. 273; Gent. Mag. 1844, ii. 550; Notes and Queries, 25 Nov. 1876 p. 429, 17 March 1877 p. 213, 25 Jan. 1885 p. 78; Secular Review, 15 Feb. 1879.

Contributor: A. G. [Alexander Gordon]. Published 1898
---end ---

A curious life, isn't it, and one spent always in hot water. Note that the action for breach of promise (to marry) indicates that he seduced the girl whom he then abandoned for the wealthy lady.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 08:06 AM
Iasion:
I see many, here and elsewhere, think that the cries of ridicule from the "authorities" is a clinching argument against the JM theory.

Not so -
The JM theory is a radical idea that challenges old paradigms, of COURSE it is derided by the "authorities".


I am quite beside myself at the obviously double standard games people are so willing to play.

I find it funny that if I were to talk about how "Creation Scientists" were ridiculed and laughed at because they were in such a minority and for anyone to think such a thing is just ridiculous since anyone who knows anything about the topic knows the world is 4.6 billion years old and that life evolved... well, I think you get the picture.

Anyone care to defend that particular double standard?

[jpholding]

Today @ 02:40 AM
TenDimensions:
I find it funny that if I were to talk about how "Creation Scientists" were ridiculed and laughed at because they were in such a minority and for anyone to think such a thing is just ridiculous since anyone who knows anything about the topic knows the world is 4.6 billion years old and that life evolved... well, I think you get the picture.

Anyone care to defend that particular double standard?

The JM is related to a very narrow focus of study.

The science of creation/evolution is related to a study of numerous fields that no one person could possibly master.

Diversity is far less tolerable when the field of study is narrower and fewer specialties are required for full mastery. Historians have less study to do to be authoritative than the chemist who also stands on the side with biologists, geologists, etc who he must trust as they trust him. This goes for both sides of the issue. As well, JMs lack historians favoring their position altogether, whereas at least for creation/evolution both sides have those who claim to be or are scientists.

Comparison: invalid barring further justification.

[Sheepdog]

sorry for entering discusion late, but that is an interesting list of Christ mythers. however, i bet someone more knowledgable of the scholarly field than i could, for every one person on your list, mention 5 conservative/moderate scholars who believe in a historical Christ. and we aren't talking about people who believe because their parents believe-- we are talking about scholars who base their faith on decades of scholarly studies. furthermore, we could mention the many critical and/or liberal scholars who believe in a historical Jesus of some sort.

so in short, i echo Dee Dee, "whats your point?"

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 11:28 AM jpholding:
The JM is related to a very narrow focus of study.

The science of creation/evolution is related to a study of numerous fields that no one person could possibly master.

Diversity is far less tolerable when the field of study is narrower and fewer specialties are required for full mastery. Historians have less study to do to be authoritative than the chemist who also stands on the side with biologists, geologists, etc who he must trust as they trust him. This goes for both sides of the issue. As well, JMs lack historians favoring their position altogether, whereas at least for creation/evolution both sides have those who claim to be or are scientists.

Comparison: invalid barring further justification.

Just so I understand you clearly - you're saying the analogy is simply flawed because the issue of creation/evolution is more complicated and requires more knowledge in general than a historical study of whether Christ existed or not?

So you're saying that it's a valid defense to the JMs to call them "fringe historians" or whatever derogatory term you'd like to call them to refute their claims? And since they're in the extreme minority that just continues to condemn their case?

But those same two arguments are invalid when applying to "Creation Scientists" because it's a more complicated field of study (assuming it is for the moment).

Did I understand that correctly?

Side Note to Moderator: Are you kidding me? I'm not one to complain about rules but you guys are editing the word dam when spelt with an 'N' on the end? Are we children here? The sentence above should have read "And since they're in the extreme minority that just continues to dam their case" People really need to lighten up a little bit.

[jpholding]

Just so I understand you clearly - you're saying the analogy is simply flawed because the issue of creation/evolution is more complicated and requires more knowledge in general than a historical study of whether Christ existed or not?

Not just more complicated, but MUCH more complicated, MUCH more knowledge.

So you're saying that it's a valid defense to the JMs to call them "fringe historians" or whatever derogatory term you'd like to call them to refute their claims?

No. The valid defense is that they are not historians, period, versus that historians do not share their views.

And since they're in the extreme minority that just continues to condemn their case?

That, combined with their lack of relevant training, together is enough to justify dismissing them out of hand if one so desires, which is exactly what the historians have done, mentioning them (if at all) in footnotes.

Side Note to Moderator: Are you kidding me? I'm not one to complain about rules but you guys are editing the word dam when spelt with an 'N' on the end? Are we children here? .

What's wrong? Your dictionary is not think enough to find a more sophisticated word? :smile: Condemn? Disqualify? Come now.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 08:07 AM
jpholding:

And since they're in the extreme minority that just continues to condemn their case?

That, combined with their lack of relevant training, together is enough to justify dismissing them out of hand if one so desires, which is exactly what the historians have done, mentioning them (if at all) in footnotes.

Okay, so just to wrap it up - do you feel the treatment of Creation Scientists by mainstream scientists have been unfairly treated or fairly treated? I guess you're saying there's no comparison because the issue at hand is MUCH more complicated. But then do you think that Creation Scientists are being treated unfairly - even though on the surface it is very similar to the treatment suffered by JMs?


Side Note to Moderator: Are you kidding me? I'm not one to complain about rules but you guys are editing the word dam when spelt with an 'N' on the end? Are we children here? .

What's wrong? Your dictionary is not think enough to find a more sophisticated word? :smile: Condemn? Disqualify? Come now.

Censorship is censorship. Human language is limiting enough without artificially limiting the available pool of words I may draw upon simply because for some strange and arbitrary reasons people have classified them as "vulgar". Of course I am quite capable of using other words and I did so in that previous post. But the result of censorship results in just silly nonsense like the automatic editing of eternal ****ation. Seems silly, doesn't it?

[jpholding]

Okay, so just to wrap it up - do you feel the treatment of Creation Scientists by mainstream scientists have been unfairly treated or fairly treated?

I know they claim to be unfairly treated; whether they have been in actuality is not something I have looked into. I have contact with a prominent one and see no reason to doubt him when he says there has been unfair treatment. But I also do not have enough knowledge to debate the point, so I will not, i.e., make use of such a point in any argument.

Censorship is censorship. Human language is limiting enough without artificially limiting the available pool of words

Geez, your vocab must need some exercise. I could think of probably 10-12 words that would have done the job just as well or better, to say nothing of a multitude of other expressive phrases. How were your grades in creative writing class?

Seems silly, doesn't it?

Sorry, no. :smile:

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 07:30 AM
jpholding:
Censorship is censorship. Human language is limiting enough without artificially limiting the available pool of words

Geez, your vocab must need some exercise. I could think of probably 10-12 words that would have done the job just as well or better, to say nothing of a multitude of other expressive phrases. How were your grades in creative writing class?

Seems silly, doesn't it?

Sorry, no. :smile:

While I hate being suckered into this ad hominem argument, my ego just won't let this point rest. :smile:

When you quoted me saying "Seems silly, doesn't it" you conveniently left off my true objections.

1) Words are just tools meant to convey ideas. Regardless of the extent of my own vocabulary (which I see no reason to defend to you, my previous posts speak for themselves) I should not be limited to the use of whatever words I see fit. They are only words and therefore any "offense" readers may feel upon reading them is a completely generated emotion stemming from within themselves. To think otherwise is to acknowledge that I have power over your emotions.

2) Regardless of how well intended censorship practices are they invariably lead to illogical conclusions and hinder free expression. In one such example, particularly appropriate to this board, I can not use the term eternal ****ation without the censorship program picking it off.

3) In addition to those two points above, the censorship does not prevent me from calling you all sorts of "offensive" names if I so choose to do so. I admit I am very tempted to in order to more graphically demonstrate my point, but I suspect the majority of readers here are not aficionados of satire. :smile:

[jpholding]

Leggo your ego! :smile:

When you quoted me saying "Seems silly, doesn't it" you conveniently left off my true objections.

I considered them irrelevant. You are in mixed company here. Common courtesy dictates that you oblige others here, even if you find their rules inconsistent, or for that matter even if they truly are inconsistent.

They are only words and therefore any "offense" readers may feel upon reading them is a completely generated emotion stemming from within themselves. To think otherwise is to acknowledge that I have power over your emotions.

I see. Now may I be permitted to send a battallion of Hell's Angels to your doorstep to loudly discuss their sexual conquests, and describe in great detail how they would do the same to others in your household? After all -- any offense you feel would be a completely generated emotion stemming from within yourself.

2) Regardless of how well intended censorship practices are they invariably lead to illogical conclusions and hinder free expression.

You have no idea how much pity this arouses in me, the depths of sympathy I feel for your oppression. :tongue:

I admit I am very tempted to in order to more graphically demonstrate my point, but I suspect the majority of readers here are not aficionados of satire. :smile:

Many are. Feel free to do so within the rules. I guarantee you I can outdo you significantly. We can even play the dozens in the Janitor's Closet here if you like. :bonk: I sent prison inmates shamefully away after a game of the dozens, and never used profanity once. Can you do better? :smile:

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 11:54 AM jpholding:
I considered them irrelevant. You are in mixed company here. Common courtesy dictates that you oblige others here, even if you find their rules inconsistent, or for that matter even if they truly are inconsistent.

This seems like a good point that I can accept. Even if this board is publically accessible I imagine someone is privately funding the machines it is housed on. Therefore we are in a privately owned setting where they can do pretty much whatever they want.


I see. Now may I be permitted to send a battallion of Hell's Angels to your doorstep to loudly discuss their sexual conquests, and describe in great detail how they would do the same to others in your household? After all -- any offense you feel would be a completely generated emotion stemming from within yourself.

So far you've seemed smarter than that. You do realize the physical presence creates a threat to my physical being. Even if they weren't physically present, threats to myself or those I care about are threats to their physical bodies rather than pure verbal messages. That's a long way from posting an argument on Tweb with language that someone might find "improper". I am really unclear as to exactly what people find "offensive" about words.


We can even play the dozens in the Janitor's Closet here if you like. :bonk: I sent prison inmates shamefully away after a game of the dozens, and never used profanity once. Can you do better? :smile:

This sounds interesting, but I am unfamiliar with what you're talking about. Could you enlighten me? It sounds like it has something to do with trading insults and I have to say I'm not exactly interested in doing that.

[jpholding]

10D:

So far you've seemed smarter than that. You do realize the physical presence creates a threat to my physical being.

I'll send police too to keep them from acting up. So now what do you say? :smile:

Could you enlighten me? It sounds like it has something to do with trading insults and I have to say I'm not exactly interested in doing that.

Okey dokey. Scratch it.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 11:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43688#post43688)
jpholding:

10D:

So far you've seemed smarter than that. You do realize the physical presence creates a threat to my physical being.

I'll send police too to keep them from acting up. So now what do you say? :smile:


Well, I'm still not sure their physical presence is the same as not being able to post "offensive" words on this board, but whatever - we've beat this topic to death. :smile:

You won when you pointed out that it's a privately owned board. They can do whatever they want.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I see Quentin is online so,

When are you going to update your webpage sir, to reflect your "I will fix that" comment Re: the Anacalypsis not being a JM book?

Thanks, Guy