Paul Verhoeven is making a movie that claims Mary, the mother of Jesus, was raped by a Roman soldier. There is no historical evidence for Jesus, let alone the nature of his conception, so this is pure fictional speculation, from a director known more for over-the-top, superficial flamboyance than historical accuracy — expect a crotch shot of Mary, and lots of silicon breasts in the shower scene.
But of course Bill Donohue is outraged.
"Here we go again with idle speculation grounded in absolutely nothing," Donohue told FOXNews.com. "He has no empirical evidence to support his claim, which is why they say 'may have.'"
Hmmm. A lack of empirical evidence and a grounding in mere speculation has never stopped the Catholic church before…
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Over the last couple of days, I've considered posting something on the controversy that's been sparked by PZ Myers' comments about the eucharist, and the reaction of Bill Donohue and the Catholic League to those comments. I've been putting it off because it's not an easy post for me to write. The…
I've barred the doors — I'm sure that any moment now, a squadron of goose-stepping nuns will come marching up the street to wag their fingers at me and rebuke me for what I've started. It seems the Youth of Today are going on YouTube and…flaunting their disrespect for crackers!
People can find a…
God is Not Great author Christopher Hitchens and Catholic League president Bill Donohue showed up on Hardball yesterday to mull over the issues raised by the Time article. I'd write some commentary, but some things simply defy comment. I have taken the liberty of putting certain choice nuggets in…
Jerry Coyne is nervous. He isn't sure if NCSE's Genie Scott will sit next to him at lunch, and he's not sure if he wants to sit next to her, when you get right down to it.
Why? Because in a talk at DragonCon (a talk Jerry didn't attend and only has second-hand information about), Genie said that…
Oooh... love that concluding burn! :)
Sorry to break it to Donohue, but God told me Verhoeven is, in fact, right.
Therefore, ipso facto, QED and all that, we're on even intellectual footing.
If Donohue was ever not outraged, that would deserve a headline.
Wasn't there already a film that claimed this? Was also protested by Catholics too. It even had the soldier's name: Naughtius Maximus.
(Yes, I know, Terry Jones wasn't Mary.)
There is no historical evidence for Jesus,
Slight correction: there is no indisuptable historical evidence for Jesus. Josphephus, etc...
While it is all bunk, historically speaking, it may be that Verhoeven is really making a sly comment on the Church itself. The official Catholic version of church history talks much about the Christianization of Rome, but very little about the Romanization of Christianity.
Maybe that is what he's getting at. Though I'd prefer to see him stick to the pagan splendors of Showgirls.
I am a Christian who is evaluating the veracity of evolution. I was wondering if there are any Christians here I'd like to ask a few theological/evolution questions?
Are there any here, or does this sort of mockery tend to drive them all off?
I thought the whole Josephus thing was a cryptic allusion to an individual who, with the incredible focusing hindsight of history, might possibly could've been someone who, if not Jesus, might have been someone like we'd expect Jesus to have been if, in fact, biblical accounts have any veracity.
Kevin @ #4: But we all know that the offspring from that union wasn't the messiah -- he was just a very naughty boy.
Religious controversy aside, that sounds like a really bad movie.
Not that we should expect any less from Mr. Verhoeven.
I'm stoked that an article I emailed the prof made it in the blog. Of course, I'm probably (as tom and ray would put it) among the huge pile of others that sent it in, but I can dream, can't I?
This is going to make The Golden Compass look like Going My Way.
The 'Jesus was the son of a Roman' meme goes back a lot further than Life Of Brian, Celsus in 178 CE in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#Jesus_Connection.3F
E&A @ #7,
See if Scott Hatfield shows up, or you could look up his blog.
Jebus was a bastard and his mom lied to him and told him he was the son of God to cover it up... Boy did that get out of hand.
"Wasn't there already a film that claimed this? Was also protested by Catholics too. It even had the soldier's name: Naughtius Maximus."
I thought it was "Bigus Dickus".
Are there any here, or does this sort of mockery tend to drive them all off?
Well it drives off the intellectually fragile and stupid ones, to be sure.
Ironic, really. Jesus died for their sins, yet they can't stand a little deserved ribbing. They just don't make martyrs like they used to.
PZ...it appears based on the article you linked to, that Verhoeven is writing a book on the subject, not making a movie:
The book, which also states that Christ was not betrayed by Judas Iscariot, one of the 12 original apostles of Jesus, as the New Testament states, will be published in the Netherlands by Amsterdam-based Meulenhoff in September, according to the Reporter.
Not that I regard Verhoeven as any more of a brilliant author than director. His flicks are revolting, pieces of garbage. But at least he can hold his head up high and proclaim, "I made Hollow Man, but.....I'm not Dembski!"
#13: Correct that 'in' to 'around' sorry.
garth @#11
Yes, garth, you can dream. Dream on. Dream until your dreams come true.
- Wayne
@ DBE # 9 - So is Paul Verhoeven or anyone else who watches Life of Brian and confuses it with a documentary. :^p
Here's the relevant scene lifted from some webpage... eerily similarities.
MANDY: Well, you know you were asking me about your, uh...
BRIAN: My nose?
MANDY: Yes. Well, there's a reason it's... like it is, Brian.
BRIAN: What is it?
MANDY: Well, I suppose I should have told you a long time ago, but...
BRIAN: What?
MANDY: Well, Brian,... your father isn't Mr. Cohen.
BRIAN: I never thought he was.
MANDY: Now, none of your cheek! He was a Roman, Brian. He was a centurion in the Roman army.
BRIAN: You mean... you were raped?
MANDY: Well, at first, yes.
BRIAN: Who was it?
MANDY: Nortius Maximus his name was. Hmm. Promised me the known world he did. I was to be taken to Rome, House by the Forum. Slaves. Asses' milk. As much gold as I could eat. Then, he, having his way with me had... voom! Like a rat out of an aqueduct.
E&A,
You would do well to keep in mind the words of the famous Christian writer, G. K. Chesterton: "It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it."
It may also be the test of a good Christian whether you can handle the challenge to your beliefs that the joking implies.
Laugh it up guys! It's all funny 'til they start questioning the lineage of Santa!
BGT,
Thanks!
Harken to me now! You can't say anything about catholicism without that fat bald christ-puncher Phil Donohue crying havok and letting loose the jowls of indignation.
It amuses me that ol' Phil, being a catholic skull-cracker, wanted to throw such a hissy fit about lack of evidence. I mean that's too obvious but still, lovely.
I wish I had caught this post earlier so I could have made the naughtius maximus joke!
#7,
Eh, this sort of mockery first tends to piss them off, make 'em stay a while and defend their beliefs, and THEN drives them off.
If you're looking to evaluate the veracity of evolution, this probably isn't a good first step for you. If I can give you some advice, you're going about it backwards by looking for other Christians to discuss evolution with. You seem to be trying to decide if you can fit evolution into your Christianity. It doesn't work that way. Evolution either is or isn't (hint: it is), and theological considerations shouldn't be weighed against the scientific evidence.
If you look at all the evidence, accept the validity of evolution and still believe you're a Christian, then is the time to discuss theological implications.
Damn it!, I ignored the advice in the headline and now I need a new meter. I thought the five extra ones I had stacked up before Expelled's release would be plenty.
xkcd shows exactly how Mary got preggers...
No historical evidence for Jesus? I beg to differ. Although one can certainly question whether he was anything remotely like what the later Church depicted him to be, his existence is as certain as that of any figure from whom we have no first-hand writings of their own. If the earliest Christians had invented a Messiah from scratch, they wouldn't have invented a figure who was automatically disqualified by having been executed by the Romans. And so the existence of an actual man named Jesus who was crucified is pretty certain.
As for the movie, I hope it will include the lines found here: http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/04/darth-pantera.html
Emmanuel_Goldstein
Now c'mon, you guys do a helluva lot of--something on here, but most decidedly you do not present a challenge to one's beliefs.
Hah... I yawn at Verhoven's dime-store blasphemy...let me know when someone films Michael Moorcock's
Behold the Man
Retarded, hunchback baby Jesus. Then we'll see some outrage.
I can see where Crazy Bill might be offended. AFter all, he knows perfectly well that Mary was raped by God.
Steve "What? You think He asked?" James
#7 Earth and All Stars,
I strongly recommend the Clergy Letter Project - you can find local Christian clergy who support evolution and affirm that science and religion need not be at odds:
http://www.evolutionsunday.com/
I second the recommendation of Scott Hatfield (monkeytrials.blogspot.com), I also recommend Christopher Heard (higgaion.heardworld.com) and the list of statements by major religions on evolution at the NCSE's page.
Which isn't to say that Christians can't discuss evolution--they can, and many do quite well--but justifying your beliefs first then science second is a bit out of order if truth* is what you're after.
*with a small "t"
Strictly speaking, we have no empirical evidence for anybody's existence from 2000+ years ago. We have as much reason to believe that Jesus existed as we have to believe that Alexander the Great existed: we have chronicles from those who knew him and wrote long after his death, and we have giant groups of people who were affected by what he did, made inscriptions about him, claimed their power from him etc.
Wasn't this the thing in Monty Python's Life of Brian where Brian's mother was supposed to have been raped by a Roman soldier but Brian denies and goes on about how he's Jewish?
His flicks are revolting, pieces of garbage
I disagree! I like Soldier of Orange and RoboCop and some older movies are worth seeing. Starship Trooper was brilliant, like a satire of the yet to come Bush's USA, Iraq invasion, and Fox news. In addition to the obvious I remember seeing newsimages from 2003, like Bush inspecting troops or Condi in a long black leather coat that could have been lifted from that movie.
"James McGrath"
"his existence is as certain as that of any figure from whom we have no first-hand writings of their own."
So is Santa, and any other myth you can think about
SiliconE
Still, computerized boobies would make woot happy.
"I am a Christian who is evaluating the veracity of evolution"
You don't need to be a xtian for that. You do need the ability to think critically, which your religion has probably stripped you of. And definitely more than a casual background in biology, anthropology, geology, and astronomy (to name a few) would be more than helpful. If you truly understand the scientific method (go google it, it is not trivial to know it and know how to apply it), and an ability to search and read vetted scientific literature, then you have about all it takes to learn about the general claims made by evolutionary biology. As far as "evaluating the veracity", I would hope you would be a scientist before thinking you are equipped to do that. Underestimating the sheer volume of extremely detailed knowledge required to "determine the veracity" is one of the most common and arrogant acts committed by religionists trying to understand evolution. In reality, they only want to defend their beliefs, not learn new information that might confound them.
Heddle,
No, the challenges are there, but the fact that you do not find them persuasive is really more about your response than it is about the challenges which are, admittedly, of varying quality. Still, the ones that are good, are very good.
But there is no way to use reason to overcome a belief that is based in faith, not reason, because accepting faith as a premise is really a way of stating at the outset that certain facts, however arrived at, will not be admissible in any discussion. This is certainly a problem for anyone claiming knowledge of universal truth.
This movie is so wrong. Everyone knows Mary was raped by Mohammed while Budda held her down.
I can take a joke. Making fun of the Evangelicals is easy, and I do it all the time even though I'm an Evangelical. BTW, I like Life of Brian, but Holy Grail was much better.
He's been talking about this for a long time. I had no idea he was challenging the premise of the bearded one but why not? I love to see wingnuts pissed off and it's been too long since DaVinci code.
It could be an okay film if Verhoeven stays as far away from Hollywood as possible. His record in his home country is far, far superior. The only exception is Robocop (maybe Flesh+Blood too) which was pretty cool.
If anyone happens to be interested in a more detailed historical discussion of the question of Jesus' legitimacy, Mary's rape, etc., I wrote an article on the subject, which is published in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Unfortunately it requires a subscription, but I presume at least some readers will be at universities that have one.
If memory serves, Verhoeven was a member of The Jesus Seminar, for what that's worth.
And, yeah, I had heard about that "Roman Soldier" theory before, so that's not new.
He sure does like to stir things up . . .
Early Paul Verhoeven goodness includes "The Fourth Man" and "Flesh and Blood". Recommended. If you like his sort of thing, that is. :)
#36:
Wouldn't he still be Jewish, in that scenario? I was always under the impression that being Jewish was inherited from the mother's side not the father's.
As I recall Josephus' writings about christers, he described a group of people who would suffer death rather than denounce their messiah. He did not get into their dogmas.
Realize that the "name" "Jesus Christ" is about equal to Joe Messiah. Besides, he was supposed to be named Immanuel. I swear, that is the most generic religion. A god named God, a man named Man (Adam = man), a messiah named Joe Messiah, etc etc.
Starship Trooper was brilliant
You wouldn't be saying that if you'd ever read the book.
That movie was shite.
E&A @ #7
Ask your questions. If you ask intelligently and respectfully you will be answered (mostly) in the same. Many of the regulars here are ex-Christians and some of those are mature enough to answer objectively. But understand that many are ex-Christians for very powerful reasons and are understandably bitter. Also, as with any blog you will find a far amount of joking and rudeness, take it in stride.
If you are interested in the facts about evolution there are a number of online resources.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4010
Alex,
Your automatic assumption that my "religion" has stripped me of my ability to think critically makes even discussing evolution as it relates to Christianity tough online.
How can there ever be a dialog if the assumption that religious people are too stupid to think? If we are really that dumb then it is pointless to even try.
Reply to #36: Nowadays Jewish descent is reckoned on the mother's side, but that wasn't the case in the first century. That's why Matthew and Luke both include (incompatible) genealogies of Joseph (whom they both claim wasn't Jesus' father anyway).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera
Um ... at the risk of sounding like Rudyard Kipling, this is how Pantera got their name.
#37 Marco -
The movies he makes are pretty gross; both in terms of violence and sexuality. I don't really think I would look to his work for political satire though. Even it was there, I would just be too repulsed to get too it. Although as I stated above, I don't think he's doing a movie based on Mary getting raped; the article suggested he wrote a book. Plenty of opportunity for piggishness there, to be sure.
Hmmmmmmmmm. Somehow, I think Verhoeven's hypothesis makes much more sense than Donohue's.
...but I have a feeling the movie will still suck. But here, I give the guy a nickel for making that idea a movie.
Teach the controversy!
For the people being polite, I appreciate it. For the people who are bitter, I understand. The average Evangelical church has done more harm to its own believers than any atheist or scientist could hope to do. The recent Barna book unChristian can attest to that.
The people here who are bitter and angry at their parents/church/Christians probably have so very good reasons--mainly they went to church when younger and now would rather be swarmed by ants than to step foot in one again due to their treatment.
Anyway, I came here to get answers for myself. Not disprove any scientific theory or convince anyone of believing something.
We have as much reason to believe that Jesus existed as we have to believe that Alexander the Great existed: we have chronicles from those who knew him and wrote long after his death...
Sorry, but this is BS, an old zombie bit of BS. Here's a thread at IIDB on the subject. For instance:
...whenever historians write about Persia and Macedonia of 4 BCE, they mention Alexander the Great. However, when historians, contemporary or not, write about 1st century Judaea, they never mention Jesus, the ascended one. And there are contemporaries' reports of Alexander, while there aren't for Jesus (the earliest reports were written well after anyone who could have known him -- assuming he existed -- would have been dead).
Also, from here:
Alexander, for example, left a wake of destroyed and created cities behind. We have buildings, libraries and cities, such as Alexandria, left in his name. We have treaties, and even a letter from Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332 B.C.E. For Agustus Caesar, we have the Res gestae divi augusti, the emperor's own account of his works and deeds, a letter to his son (Epistula ad Gaium filium), Virgil's eyewitness accounts, and much more. Napoleon left behind artifacts, eyewitness accounts and letters. We can establish some historicity to these people because we have evidence that occurred during their life times.
I have no problem accepting that Jesus was a real person in history. Stories of what he did must have been greatly exaggerated or even fabricated, but I bet many of the quotations attributed to him are as close to accurate as 2000 years of oral and written history can get.
@ Paul D (#49) - hear hear! I'm a longtime Heinlein fan, and I have to say that Verhoeven's "Starship troopers" will forever be a bigger blight to its written counterpart than this fiction about jeebus could ever be...
Of course there's evidence for Jesus, from Paul's writings, to the Gospels (I mention Paul first, because he wrote earlier, even though he did not personally meet Jesus, that we know of).
Most historians accept that someone near the beginning of the first millenium AD a man existed who gave rise to the stories about Jesus. In all probability, he was named Yeshua or some other variant of "Joshua".
Early Jews claimed that Jesus was the product of rape by a Roman soldier, so there's at least some evidence of that, as well. Indeed, the fact that Jews accepted the existence of Jesus is further evidence that he did exist, for they likely had stories, and possibly even writings, from those times, about the various "messiahs" that arose in that time of turmoil. I don't think the evidence that Jesus was the product of rape is especially good, coming from such hostile critics (by that time they were typically hostile, anyhow), but such evidence ought not to be discounted out of hand, either.
A great many non-fundie Bible scholars think that some sort of illegitimate birth factors into the "virgin birth" claims, at the very least. A bit of fun before marriage is perhaps the best bet, but surely Jesus could have been due to rape by a Roman soldier. This is exactly where the evidence allows for varying interpretations, unlike biological evidence, so I think that there is nothing at all wrong with exploring this interpretation, so long as people are aware that it is just one of many possibilities allowed by the evidence, and especially the lack of good evidence regarding the details of Jesus' life.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Dude has doctorates in physics and math, though? That's kind of cool.
Earth and All Stars @ #51
I would think that carefully reading and not being defensive would be a requirement for discussing your explorations on a blog. I try to choose my words carefully, not for dishonest reasons, but to make sure I am not too presumptive. Here's what I typed:
"which your religion has probably stripped you of."
Here is what I think you are implying I said:
"which your religion has stripped you of."
Furthermore, there is a huge difference between being stupid and espousing a dogmatic world-view. I never even used the word "stupid". Dogmatic thinking tends to develop people with bounded ideas. This keeps the dogma safe from scrutiny. Science goes the other way. Every new idea, and many many old ones, are constantly being assailed by new perspectives. The ideas that stick around are the ones that survive critical, methodical, scrutiny.
Hah... I yawn at Verhoven's dime-store blasphemy...let me know when someone films Michael Moorcock's
Behold the Man
I'd pay money to see a competent adaption of that book to film.
Isn't there a story in the Talmud about a fellow named Yeshu who was conceived after his mother was raped by someone?
Wikipedia has something on this. Maybe the guy is exploring this alternative, and disregarding any of the criticism to identifying Jesus with Yeshu. I wouldn't know, of course... and wouldn't trust the fellow Paul Verhoeven being thorough in his research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu
we have giant groups of people who were affected by what he did, made inscriptions about him, claimed their power from him etc
Oh, forgot to include this, which is also one of those silly zombies. The problem (which should've been apparent to anyone who thought about it) is that same can be said about any number of gods. We have entire temples and statues, plays, tales, societies, based on non-Abrahamic gods. The old saw about atheism applies here: when you realise why you reject those gods, you'll know why I reject yours.
Earth # 51
How can there ever be a dialog if the assumption that religious people are too stupid to think? If we are really that dumb then it is pointless to even try.
Is this Dembski? Stop whining and ask something, unless you really are not interested in the answer.
Well you gotta admit. Back in those times, if you were to ever get laid with some other guy and get pregnant by accident... Your best bet would be to say to your naive (and most likely incredibly unsexy) husband it was God's will.
Works for rape too.
Realize that the "name" "Jesus Christ" is about equal to Joe Messiah.
As I understand it, his name was not Jesus Christ, it was just Jesus (with maybe "son of Joseph" added). "Christ" was the title bestowed upon him by his followers. Thus Mel Gibson's movie title "The Passion of the Christ".
RE: #49
Indeed, Starship Troopers, the book, offered up novel views of the purposes of war, violence, government, and citizenship. Even if you didn't agree with the ideologies it espoused, it still managed to provide some talking points on nationalism/patriotism without sounding shrill.
Starship Troopers, the movie, made a mountainous strawman out of one extreme interpretation of the book, and ran with it. (Some might say it ran it into the ground)
Oh yeah, and the book popularized the concept of power armor, which, one must admit, is pretty frickin' cool idea.
OT, but well worth it:
Maybe people will finally like her.
May she win big, and drag the IDiots through the mud because of their dishonesty.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Oh, I searched for Yeshu and it didn't find the #13 post. I just saw it now. Sorry for the repost... :P
The evidence for the existence of Jesus is much stronger than the evidence for the existence of either Pythagoras or Euclid, and about as strong as the evidence for the existence of Archimedes.
Arrgh, I hate when I forget to put nombre de plume and email in - I lost so much.
Starship Troopers - movie wasn't fit to line the birdcage of a parrot reciting the book.
James McGrath, you MUST know how unoriginal the cheeses story is. Start here if you are actually ignorant but not on purpose:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm
Earth and All Stars, your first post set you up. You should have asked for a discussion on evolution and possibly theology (there are some extraordinarily knowledgable folks around here), instead of asking for same from christers.
(to Earth and Stars:)
i'm sure the non-christians here will be happy to answer your questions provided they're intelligent. you do seem a jolly reasonable person, so ask away.
(to the folks talking about the subject of the historicity of Jesus):
i find it interesting to think that if a hypothetical ancient Roman General in the early 1stC, who was generally known to be cruel, and mentioned a couple of times in writings as being a terrible, fearsome chap - if writings were found written by a small and obsessive cult surrounding him that said he could fly, breathe fire and was the Devil incarnate - historians would spend little time even trying to disprove this.
Is this Dembski? Stop whining and ask something, unless you really are not interested in the answer.
Posted by: jetmags73 | April 23, 2008 3:12 PM
I did ask something. Did you miss it?
bill, thanks for showing your ignorance. I meant to point James McGrath here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr.htm
Krishna = cheeses Mk1
(Yoko Rocks!) Does anyone know if the line "no religion too" was part of the clip they used?
#25: It's Bill Donohue, not Phil.
Starship Trooper was brilliant
You wouldn't be saying that if you'd ever read the book.
That movie was shite.
But the Yes song was much better.
I'll ask some questions:
First off, I want to get my terminology correct: What is the correct term or abbreviation for evolution that is accepted here and isn't considered a "loaded" word? I'll use it.
Second: How does this theory impact you if you are a spiritual person at all?
"The goal is to question the divinity of Christ -- to say he was nothing but a happy carpenter who worked at Lowe's or Home Depot."
Not sure why I find this so amusing, but I do.
Earth # 76
Le sigh.
"He has no empirical evidence to support his claim..."
Do you ever feel lost regarding which side of the mirror you're on? Is it possible to be on both sides at the same time? Are there only two sides of the mirror? Until Darwinism can answer these questions....[/snarcasm]
Earth and All Stars,
Francis Collins, a Christian, writes about evolution in his book "The Language of God." He provides evidence for evolution that is readily understandable. He also provides explanations for why he rejects creationism and intelligent design.
Also, google Ken Miller, a Christian biology professor and supporter of evolution.
#81
1. Evolution
2. It may cause you to think that the idea of "spirit" doesn't have a lot of veracity. It may cause you to think the this thing - spirit - just may be a fabrication to help one feel more comfortable with the unknown. The literal translation means "breath" - you can google that. There certainly isn't any empirical data supporting the concept of spirit that I am aware of. There is plenty of empirical data however, that makes the idea of spirit unnecessary. It certainly is quite impotent for explanatory purposes of testable phenomena.
Earth #81:
First off, I want to get my terminology correct: What is the correct term or abbreviation for evolution that is accepted here and isn't considered a "loaded" word? I'll use it.
I think it is preferable to just use the correct terms. It has nothing to do with offending people, or using loaded terminology. "Darwinism" or "Mindless Darwinianism" etc is just incorrect, and has no scientific meaning per se. Natural selection would most closely approximate what you are referring to.
Second: How does this theory impact you if you are a spiritual person at all?
That's entirely up to the person. Some people, like Ken Miller or Frances Collins, feel a greater affinity toward their faith, because they feel like an explanatory framework has been provided for their role in "God's creation." Others, like most of the people on here, have no need for spirituality in the first place so the net effect is to raise one's consciousness about life and it's history on our planet.
"from a director known more for over-the-top, superficial flamboyance than historical accuracy."
"Robocop" wasn't real?
Paul Verhoeven is a genius for making that turgid piece of shit of a book watchable. Heinlein was a hack.
I read the book, and I much prefer the movie.
(C'mon, Doogie Howser as a leather-coated Nazi? What's not to like?)
(just kidding)
Seriously, the book is overrated.
in reply to 77:
(a) My comment was about the *evidence* for the existence of historical characters. You believe Jesus never existed, apparently. I pointed out that the *evidence* for the existence of Jesus is stronger that that of the *evidence* for the existence of either Pythagoras or Euclid; do you not believe in the existence of either Pythagoras or Euclid? If you do believe they exist, upon what evidence do you ground that belief?
(b) I read the website to which you pointed me. Here's a quote: `A few skeptics claim that Yeshua of Nazareth was a purely mythical character. A few others believe that he was a real individual who lived in perhaps the 2nd or 3rd century BCE. But there is a near consensus that Yeshua of Nazareth was born in Palestine circa 4 to 7 BCE.' The very website you choose to support your argument for the non-existence of Jesus SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
(c) And in any case, that's all you got? A webpage written by some guy named Bruce Robinson, who states: `We are simply reporters on religion, spirituality, and ethics.' This is not research; this is accumulation. This website is akin to Wikipedia, but written by one guy. If you have some actual peer-reviewed research conclusively showing that Jesus didn't exist, then maybe you should present it?
Just a thought.
"(C'mon, Doogie Howser as a leather-coated Nazi? What's not to like?)"
I thought the idea of a bunch of giant angry beetles shooting fireballs from their arses such that they hit a planet on the other side of the galaxy seemed a bit far-fetched.
ON the other hand, giant brain-sucking caterpillars - totally reasonable.
@#81 Part 2: As a once spiritual/religious person I find that the more I read and the more I thought about our history and discoveries in anthropology, DNA, etc. the more marginalized spirituality became in my life to the point where it no longer exists. Now life without magic is the most natural and most fulfilling way to go. I don't grieve for that former life. May I suggest subscribing to New Scientist magazine for a very readable general science reference.
But was there talk of him in the cafes?
Alex (#75) said,
Too true.
Size is the only real factor, here.
Since a (relatively) large and influential portion of the population treat such writings as the real deal, it makes them a matter of serious inquiry.
Glen Davidson:
Honestly, why bother? The virgin birth is only attested by two of the four gospels, Matthew and Luke, and the mention in Luke is the sort of parenthetical afterthought which might well have been inserted by a pious copyist. These documents were written decades after the events they purport to describe, and the copies we have date from even later than that, so there's plenty of time for variations. (According to Ehrman, "his father and his mother" was changed to "Joseph and his mother" in Luke 2:33, for example.) Then, too, the virgin-birth business in Matthew is just one item in a whole litany of items with which the evangelist tried to fit Jesus in with Old Testament prophecies (and, often, quite ineptly).
Ryan @ #96
That's alex, not Alex. We are not the same poster. Just fyi.
Heinlein's book was militaristic and patriotic. Verhoeven took that to the extreme and turned it into satire, which you may or may not get. Sadly, 10 years after the movie reality has almost caught up: Bush's USA is not very different from the movie's Federation (although with an army that seems more competent on the battlefield.)
Q: What is the correct term or abbreviation for evolution that is accepted here and isn't considered a "loaded" word? I'll use it.
A: try evolution.
Q: How does this theory impact you if you are a spiritual person at all?
A1: Immediate blind panic & denial (see Ben Stein)
A2: Honest examination of one's spiritual grounding.
A2a: recognize that the "real" empirical world is part of the plan and adjust accordingly (faith is after all called faith for a reason)
A2b: give up, panic and engage rabid denial mode making up reactionary knee-jerk "alternate world-view" "answers" founded on imaginary evidence (ibid)
The only thing I'm wondering is... About "Virgin" Mary... Did they check? Just to be sure she was telling the truth? Seriously.
Verhoeven is no stranger to the Jesus story; he told it once already, as Robocop.
According to the extracanonical work known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the midwife did check...
E&A @81
1.) Evolution is just fine. Calling it Darwinism betrays a definite lack of knowledge about the subject.
2.) I like Wilkins take on the subject:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/04/the_different_epistemo…
Silicon breasts? Talk about rock-hard tits...
And johnc give a good example of what causes the average reaction to religion around here...
Todd @89:
Heinlein was a hack.
Yes, and he freely admitted that. But he left a pretty good literary, cultural and financial legacy. Let me know when you've done half as well, OK?
And if historians were to look into it, they would discover that there was a girl named "Dorothy" who lived in Kansas in the late 19th century who in fact DID give rise to the stories in the Wizard of Oz. Moreover, she even had an Aunt "M" - Maude Gage.
Lastly, we even know that the author of the Wizard of Oz knew Dorothy personally - she was his niece.
So, did Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz exist? Is she the "historical Dorothy"?
Even if there were some carpenter's son named Jesus who gave rise to the stories of the bible, it would not mean that Jesus of the Bible actually existed.
Um, OT, but when you are using the possessive pronoun, it should be "its," as in "its history." The form "it's" should be reserved for the contraction of "it is." Sorry to butt in, but for some reason that particular spelling error seems to be a very persistent one. (English professor scuttles back into her office and resumes grading freshman themes.)
James McGrath,
I just read your article about the historical Jesus and his almost certain existence. I find a critical piece missing from your article: actual evidence. You seem to come to your point of certainty using only logic.
As someone who is an empiricist but not a historian or a student of religion, I find your argument unpersuasive. Based upon what you provided I find it academically irresponsible to be almost certain given the quality and quantity of those data. Perhaps there is more?
#105 Look moron. If you're going to call someone as esteemed as PZ stupid, at least really rub his nose in it. Show us the volumes of historical evidence. Outside of the xtian bible, which is a mish-mash of handed-down fables translated and reworked throughout the ages, I know of only 1. And it is questionable, nigh even dubious at best. Please, show us all.
Re: Starship Troopers
I was a big Heinlein fan and I read Starship Troopers just a few years before the movie came out.
The book is good.
The movie may not be "good" (and it is certainly not the book) but it IS awesome.
Re: The historical Jesus
I think Jesus was probably a real historic person, but the more I read about the dubious historical evidence, the more I understand exactly why many people say there is no historical evidence for Jesus.
I am not a Christian in the way most people use the word. I find the story of Jesus to be much more inspiring if you take out the supernatural mumbojumbo and the literal "son of God" garbage and treat him as a teacher and a mortal man who stood up for what he believed and suffered geatly for challenging the Establishment.
He's much more impressive as a mortal man than he could ever be as an All-Knowing divinity. If he was all-powerful and knew what was going to happen, then his "sacrifice" means nothing and less than nothing.
This is why the idea that he never existed is a little upsetting to me.
Re: The Life of Brian
Funny movie. The main reason I wanted to see it when I was a kid is that it was condemned by the Catholic Church. "The Criterion" was always so useful in helping me decide what movie I wanted to see.
Hey, Pablo, here's another one. Lewis Carroll really did know a little girl named Alice. So down the rabbit hole we go. Whee!
In other news, Paul and Timothy "may have been" a bit more than just friends. Maybe Ted Haggard could make a movie about it.
I tend to believe that Jesus did exist, but it's true that there is no reliable extra-Biblical evidence for him. As for the supposed miracles, well, more reliable historians than the Gospel writers have recorded many accounts of miraculous events. Here's one from my namesake: :)
Funny how no-one takes these contemporary accounts of the miracles of Vespasian seriously today. We have plenty of historical and archaeological evidence that Vespasian really existed so why don't we believe he performed the miracles the eyewitness reports said happened?
Sure, I understand your points, but the fact is that there wasn't much reason to claim virgin birth in the first place (surely any number of rabbis knew that "a virgin shall conceive" in the Septuagint was so much bad translation), unless something might have to be covered up. They didn't look kindly upon "bastards" in that society, so if there was reason to doubt Jesus' "legitimacy", a story might have been concocted to get around it.
And again, both the Jews and Xians seemed to go along with the idea of an impregnation outside of marriage. It's very slim evidence, but it's not a matter of having no evidence. Certainly my point is not that any of the specific claims, other than that some sort of person we know as Jesus existed, is very likely to be true, whether these claims be from the Xians or from the Jews.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Hmmm. A bunch of men wearing robes, no women, chums you could call them. Traveling together, eating together, sleeping together, bathing together. Interesting point decrepitoldfool.
JohnC @ 105:
No historical evidence for Jesus?
That's right, there's no independent, collaborative evidence for the supposed "historical Jesus." All the accounts we have were written by people who were followers.
By contemporary standards of evidence, we'd expect to find an account of Jesus' life by someone not invested in the process, ie a diary entry about executing a Judean rabble-rouser, etc.
The Romans were big on record-keeping, and many of their diaries, etc, survive to this day. Although the lack of evidence does not disprove the existence of an historical Jesus, there is no positive evidence of accepted provenance for the existence of Jesus.
What historical evidence were you thinking of?
Oh, I can't wait to see the fundamentalist response to tacitus!
This is a particular double standard that I'm very curious about. How does it work? How lame is the rationalization?
I'm always very interetsed in the mechanics of sophistry. The more strained the better. (You can imagine how mush I liked "Expelled," after you've subtracted the tedious parts.)
Just love Donahue's statement of "Here we go again with idle speculation grounded in absolutely nothing". He just stated the whole premise of his wacko religion without even thinking of it! He made the statement and so he should be raked to death with it. From nothing comes nothing! That's something?
And to you @ #7 with the ambiguous moniker of "Earth and All Stars" which seems to me to be a bullshit handle as your kind don't believe in anything astronomical, but just ethereal wisps created by your imaginary god. Reading your comments, I find it demeaning for you to appropriate a phony sense in believing in realty. Why the hell should we be bothered to answer your dumb questions when we know in advance what they will pertain to. How many times must we go through this same insane ritual to try to convince you deranged religionists that you are demented and your dumb questions only establish this bare fact? You claim in your comments that we are this way because we are bitter over having to endure these insanities when young and are now rebelling for past lives wasted with wacko rituals. You are so far off in this reason and it is the only example we can give for rejecting these insanities. No, it is the blatant reality that all religions are based on primitive superstitions and the only reason they have endured for so long is because of demented minds like yours and billions of others who will not free themselves of this insane idea of gods, yet have the ability and wherewithal to just give it a rational thought as others have done throughout history. I will always maintain that religion is the most egregious of all mental illness because it displaces the need to think rationally, and once embedded it leads to all manner of aberrant thinking and behavior. Why is it that most of us here are constantly refuting your insane rantings and not joining with you in your state of dementia? You will never prove that your imaginary god exists because it just does not. You were indoctrinated into that insane belief and so were we, yet we have sloughed off that demented crap but you have not. What does this indicate on your part, but that you are insane and are not aware of it. Simple as that. You prove to me that your imaginary god exists, and not by using your phony moniker, and I will consider the unreality. Bring your god down here and prove it. As I have said before, if I was a supreme being and one of my creations questioned my existence I would be down in a flash. We have reason and reality and science on our side; you have humble pie in the sky and even that you will not find edible. Come on, get the crap out of your brain and make evolution proud of you because that is all you have and will ever have. I am a lover of science and Astronomy and your phony moniker demeans the very stuff you are made of. I will not bandy with you on this matter as others might be so inclined for I would rather spend my time in pursuit of the rational reasons for our existence, and not as you, demean my brain with insane matters. Let's see your god.
Lets see now. What is more likely? A young woman gets "ravished" by a Centurion, or the invisible sky dictator impregnator knocks her up and she needs a cover story. I'm going with the Roman.
Re: Starship Troopers
Michael Ironside always adds something to a movie; a negative something.
marco @ 99:
How can you tell the Starship Troopers film was a satire? I always assumed it was just bad. Do I have to rethink Showgirls too?
#59
All evidence seems to point to a contrary view.
Clueless, really really clueless
I think there is alot of truth in this paragraph.
I like Wilkins' commenter's take on the subject:
Says it all, really.
Starship Troopers the movie is a ribald, exciting, and daring send-up of a very tedious book.
Cool.
A competing hypothesis for immaculate conception.
No wonder they are worried....
Glen Davidson:
True, but there's no need to suppose that both groups received the original story independently.
Step 0: Stories of gods impregnating women circulate around the Near East. The fringes of the Roman world are steeped in Mars siring Romulus and Remus on a Vestal Virgin, Amon-Ra impregnating Pharaoh's wife, Zeus getting it on with everything that moves, and so forth.
Step 1: Influenced by this cultural milieu, and perhaps aided by corrupt copies of Isaiah 7, Matthew includes the virgin birth story amongst his other attempts to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
Step 2: A faction of Christianity which accepts the virgin birth becomes predominant. Other texts are written which reference this belief, and by hook or by crook, extant documents are modified to be in accord with it.
Step 3: Jewish scholars, familiar with the predominating form of Christianity, accept that Jesus existed but deny that he was a prophet, let alone a being of divine stature. (The Trinity has probably not yet been formulated in its orthodox form.) To denigrate Christianity, alternate versions of Christian stories are told and codified, retconning them for Judaism's benefit. The guards of the tomb were bribed, Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, and so forth.
The idea of a Catholic being outraged at speculation and a lack of empirical evidence got quite a laugh out of me for several minutes.
@#116 Tacitus (great namsake, btw) --
Well put. I never understand why Xian apologists put so much emphasis on demonstrating the existence of Jesus. Even if we could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he existed, had a mother named Mary, died by crucifixion, etc, this would bring us no closer to demonstrating the veracity of his alleged resurrection, miracles, divinity, the virgin birth, etc.
The Jesus story is mythology. The two competing story lines are aimed at different audiences and seek deliver different messages.
The conventional message is one of deliverance of accepting individuals by way of an act of desecration and destruction, but resurrection, of a perfect being which opens the door for the believer.
This is a tale focused on the extra-temporal and the far side of supernatural, eternity and final disposition of souls.
The alternative myth is one of a superpower cruelly occupying a land. Out of an act of degradation and dominance, rape, a child it born. The child becomes a central figure in a religious and national movement to expel the superpower from the land. This is the origin tale of a revolutionary hero entirely concerned with temporal matters of nationalism, power politics, and social justice.
Historically the movement to toss out the Romans didn't work. The rebellions were put down cruelly. Rome won. Which may explain why this version is less well known. It also explains why the other version was created and became the preferred story line.
In the first story the central figure has to be pure and come from noble familial roots. You have to have clean hands and heart talk to God. Bastard son of a rapine soldier and part of an army holding the holy land under foot wouldn't fit into the story line. You can't get eternal salvation and communication with the great sky daddy from a damaged and soiled instrument.
The second story line pretty much requires the protagonist to be a manifestation and an embodiment of the horrors of Roman occupation. In effect the evils of an unjust occupation are manifested in the person of Jesus. He has to have a direct and personal connection to the degradation and it has to mark his life. Being a bastard son, soiled from birth, gives his story even greater traction as a 'common' man. Part of the story line that says we will have justice when the least among us become first.
Both stories are mythologies created to fill the needs of people at different times and in different situations. The Roman soldier, Pantera or Panera if I have it right, has its origins in the first century CE. Seems to me to be the story of an occupied but still rebellious people. It seeks to lift the occupation and restore the former glory of the nation. Much more short-term and here and now.
The resurrection story sounds more like the mythology of a people who have been far more beat down and defeated. It essentially gives up on the present situation. It points to better times and justice only being obtainable in the hereafter and a distant, to be scheduled later, better time.
In this sense it would seem that the Roman father myth would predate the resurrection myth. The former sounding like one starting at the beginning of an occupation when hopes were still burning. The later after the rebellions when hopes had been decisively crushed several times and next to nothing remained of the former societal structure. Dark days when better times seemed only possible after death.
The two story lines re also a manifestation of the dichotomy of Jesus as both, but neither, man and God. Mythological heroes usually have a touch of supernatural and skim over normal concerns. You don't have Beowolf complaining about an aching gut from food poisoning and rotting teeth or stopping in the middle of a fight to deal with a bout of diarrhea. Such things might fill the day of the average man of the time but heroes get a pass on such infirmities.
That there is little,or no,reliable evidence that either version of the Jesus figure actually existed is pretty much irrelevant. This is mythology, stories created to explain and promote a particular world view. A pedagogical explanation and tool.
Heinlein can bite my shiny metal ass. Honestly, I think there's way too much nerd-worship of schlocky post-war sci-fi authors. Come on, people, they're not gods. They're not even particularly good. They just have the weight of time to gie them the impression of worth.
And I'm ashamed no one's mentioned Total Recall yet.
How can you tell the Starship Troopers film was a satire?
One of the extra features on the DVD has an interview with Verhoeven saying that he intended it as an anti-war film, but that nobody understood this. He seemed surprised at the raking-over-the-coals he got for that film.
Holbach | April 23, 2008 4:19 PM
Wow you have a lot of anger, or at least are an internet tough guy.
Because Verhoeven also did Robocop, which had similar social commentary.
Holbach,
I agree with the essence of your post, and I understand your frustration with the sneaky way that some anti-evolutionists try to weasel into a discussion by pretending that they are just asking a few questions and then eventually dropping a few questions that they perceive as "gotchas" - talking points provdided by creationists with no real relevance, for the most part (See "Expelled" for a multitude of examples) - thus showing bad faith and wasting your time with more fundie nonsense.
But your tone, while understandable, is seriously counterproductive. Earth and All Stars does indeed show a few signs of these disingenuous swine, but has not posted anything deserving of your post. Treat Earth and All Stars as a sincere seeker until you get some kind of proof otherwise.
One of the things that seriously hurts "Expelled" is how pissy and self-righteous Stein and the other IDiots are, and how classy, for the most part, the "Darwinists" are. Our own Dr. Myers, especially, is temperate and patient, and in the big finale - Ben Stein pestering Dawkins with a bunch of stupid questions - Dawkins is polite and accommodating, despite getting a little frustrated at the end. I thought Stein looked particularly bad in that exchange, especially after Dawkins used the Bertrand Russell quote.
I don't know much about Dawkins outside of Myers talking about him on this site, but after I saw "Expelled," Dawkins has shot way up in my estimation, and Ben Stein has sunk more than I thought possible. Stein is a petty, stupid man. It is unfortunate that many conservatives think that his ability to memorize trivia makes him some kind of a great conservative thinker.
There are many temperate and thoughtful responses to EAAS's posts.
So, of course, EAAS latches onto Holbach, thus showing that EAAS was totally sincere in the original post about just wanting to ask "a few theological/evolution questions."
Tread carefully, EAAS. We know all the tricks, and many of us here are very sympathetic to Holbach's frustration with certain kinds of bullshit.
@ 133: Assume that you're a post-boomer. Let me give you some historical context. Until roughly the 1980's, all science fiction was derided as juvenile pulp-fiction. Certainly most "golden age" sci-fi was pulp. "Serious" publishers wouldn't touch the stuff, critics ignored it or laughed at it, and there was no financial incentive to create literature-grade work. Sure it was schlock, but not without reason.
Phony Earth and no Stars @ 135
No, not an internet tough guy, but just fiercely angry at insane morons who rant their insanity trying to prove an imaginary god exists, because they are insane but don't know it. I hate any type of irrationality, especially the religious of which you are a prime example. Why don't you get your god to come down and smite me for making crap of you and it? Come on, let's see your imaginary powerful god and prove it by committing suicide and having it send you back to flatten me. You may achieve the first part, but you will never accomplish the second part as you will be dead and not know it. "Here lies Earth and All Stars, who was not of the Earth, but is buried in the Stars"! How's that for a final epitaph, or would you prefer this: "He insanely believed in a god and died helpless"?
beagledad @124
The Nazi symbolism, the gung-ho heroism, the propaganda TV, the torture of bugs, the good looking unidimensional characters, the racism... Everything is over the top. With so much exaggeration how can you think it was serious? Maybe seen from Europe the irony and critic of US politics are more apparent?
I don't know about Showgirls though.
I can't ground my irony meters not after reading that!
#101: You know there's no actual way to tell, right?
Also, Starship Troopers was a shitty overrated hack job of a book, and the movie was at least sarcastic enough about it to be entertaining. #127 has it right.
#139: "There are many temperate and thoughtful responses to EAAS's posts. So, of course, EAAS latches onto Holbach."
EAAS did respond to at least some of the temperate and thoughtful responses. I find nothing so far to indicate that EAAS is insincere. Holbach's response to EAAS seems a little hostile, and EAAS responded temperately and concisely.
So we come to the burning question: if Verhoeven does produce this book and/or movie, will the Pope issue a fatwa?
Earth and All Stars also decided to cross-post Holbach's response on Vox Day's blog as an example of a "classic hate-filled rant", where he has his own posting referencing PZ's lizard post.
EAS probably isn't the most extremely hateful person at VD's blog, but does show a remarkable ability to mischaracterize and not pay attention.
Just to let the posters know, I'm in contact with Scott Hatfield so I appreciate the help. If I have complex questions about the details of evolution I will know the place to come to. Once again thanks to everyone, even Holbach for a bit of a chuckle.
Art @ #132.
Quite detailed and compelling. Do you have any links about that information? I would like to bookmark them.
From Russell's Teapot
http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/And-His-Trusty-Sidekick-Alter-Boy…
"If I have complex questions about the details of evolution I will know the place to come to."
Wow. And to think. There are idiots spending years in school and in the field learning about the "details of evolution" and all they had to do was visit a blog or two. Poor suckers.
I though Verhoeven's "Black Book" was a pretty good movie, adding further evidence to Geoff's claim (#44) that his Dutch work is better than his Hollywood work.
How much objective historical documentation can we reasonably expect to have for the existence of an impecunious wandering preacher in an obscure corner of the Roman Empire, who died ignominiously in his early 30's, leaving no known descendants, never held any public office, had no visible accomplishments, and, for the first few decades after his death, had a tiny group of followers charitably described as nobodies? You can't expect such a person to be as well documented as Alexander the Great, Pontius Pilate, or Spartacus. Indeed, the existence of any documentation would be unusual. All things considered, the exisiting documentation is good enough that it seems reasonable to believe that a person matching that general description and bearing the name Joshua or Yeshua, or something like that, lived at about that time and place and gathered a small group of followers before he died, who developed into a sect that eventually evolved into Christianity. Any more detailed account would be a stretch.
True as far as it goes, but I still kind of doubt that Heinlein was another F. Scott Fitzgerald had he not had to deal with the pressure to crank out more pulp product.
He was a rollicking good storyteller and full of fantastic ideas. His characters tended to be kind of flat, but when you were a 10 year old reading 'Have Spacesuit Will Travel' you didn't mind at all. His novels were fantastic run, and his successes, both financially and as a writer are nothing to be scoffed at.
I quite enjoyed Verhoven's take on 'Starship Troopers'. The recruiting propaganda was quite subversive, but like most kinds of satire, there are going to be some people who miss the subversive aspect of it, and take it quite seriously.
I wish he would someday make a movie of Joe Haldeman's 'The Forever War'. That would be a great movie. Haldeman was a Viet Nam vet who made that book as a satire on some of the things he experienced there. Since the whole thing was set as a space opera, it made the whole thing more palatable.
We atheists are gonna catch it from Christians over this regardless. Robert M. Price blasts The Da Vinci code ( http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/dvhoax.htm ) and Richard Carrier ( http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/search/label/updates ) tells us The Lost Tomb of Jesus is "bogus." Doesn't matter. Whenever some unsubstantiated crap like this pops up Christians assume we're eating it up. We just can't convince them it's hard EVIDENCE we're looking for. Doesn't much matter whether it happens to be pro or anti anything.
Seconding #139, let me add that while many of the concepts and themes that Heinlein and others explored in the 1950's and 1960's seem trite and old hat now, they seemed mind-expandingly original at the time. (As a minor example, the hero of Starship Troopers (the novel) was not a caucasian.)
I also thank Tacitus for adding another good piece of information to the long list of things which I would like to discuss with my religious friends and relatives on the day that they are willing to listen to my side of the story.
Regarding Starship Troopers, I thought both the book and the movie were respectful of and sympathetic to the people who actually fight the wars, while being critical of the people behind the wars. The movie criticized in a satirical way, and feels like Robocop (a superior movie), what with the commercials and tv news spots. I seem to remember the book being more up front about the bug war having been provoked by Earth.
152 comments on a Jesus thread and no mention of Mithras or Apollonius of Tyana, the Pepsi and Jolt to Jesus' Coke?
"...had no visible accomplishments..."
That's not my understanding.
Alleged accomplishments
- virgin birth
- he's a human, a deity, and the son of a deity (mental gymnastics)
- cured disease
- raised the dead
- defeated death himself
- appeared as an apparition
I think something more than sparse anecdotal recordings would be expected, of course, unless those things back then were common place. Which, they were. There were many with that name, there were many making claims similar to those attributed to him. So why "him"? To me it just supports the idea that there was no "him", only a (common) name, that they could use to start a religious sect for whatever purposes (probably political) they needed. Nothing is corroborated. It feels so manufactured. IMHO.
Don Kane:
I won a bet on a round of drinks recently on this subject. The "immaculate conception" refers to the conception of Mary, mother of Jesus. Not the conception of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_conception
It's fun to point this out to people who think it refers to Jesus's conceeption. They will defend it tooth and nail. Call you crazy, etc.
Come to think of it, I remember an episode of "Win Ben Stein's Money" where he was lost the jackpot on this question. He insisted that he was right, swore up and down. It was hilarious.
If Verhoeven were to follow the Roman Catholic Church's lead, he would simply forge the required evidence.
Alex:
I'm assuming a basic level of common sense here. If anyone did actually do the things attributed to Jesus, in the public fora in which he was supposed to have done them, there would be mounds of reputable historical evidence -- precisely because nobody has ever actually done those things, and it would be, to say the least, worthy of note. It is not uncommon, however, for real people to have had non-existent or impossible accomplishments attributed to them. Someone upthread cited miracles attributed to the Emperor Vespasian, whose existence no one doubts even though no one now believes -- and no one without an agenda then believed or claimed to believe -- that he performed these miracles. No sane person thinks there is respectable historical evidence of a miracle-working Jesus as described in the canonical gospels and many other sources. But there is respectable evidence that someone existed who fit the non-miraculous description of the Biblical Jesus and that a great deal of nonsense was attributed to this real person.
No solid, undisputed evidence. Buddha, yes. Muhammad, yes. Mithra, no. Dionysus, no. Zeus, no. Ra, no. Hecate, no. Jesus, no. El, no. Yahweh, no.
Assertions of evidence, are not evidence. Bring on the clear, undisputed, historically contemporaneous evidence. Seriously, the Son of God might of gotten more than some dubious, and likely fraudulent, mentions in a manuscript. We know more about ancient Greeks born hundreds of years prior who were, relatively speaking, just two-bit side men in historical events than the so-called Messiah and Son of God.
First: Huh? That's nonsense.
Second: They stole him, nearly lock-stock-and-barrell from contemporary dying-god myths of his time: Mithras, Dionysis, Osisrus and, quite likely, the most important being Krishna.
Posted by: James McGrath | April 23, 2008 2:43 PM
Consider two historical figures, Mary <\ref >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariamne_%28second_wife_of_Herod and Joseph (Herod's appointed guardian of Mariamne while he was away). Mariamne being heir to the Jewish Hasmoneon dynasty, now in tatters thanks to the Romans, any male child of hers could lay claim to be King of the Jews.
Herod accused her of adultery with Joseph while he was away supporting Mark Anthony in Egypt. He also executed her two sons by him.
As I understand it, the above is reasonably historical. (IANAH).
Is it possible to imagine the story in Luke coming from this?
The essential features are intact: Mary, Joseph, illegitimate child who would rightfully be King of the Jews, hunted by Herod.
There is no evidence of the illegitimate child though. That part is invented.
What non-miraculous description? Even if you strip away the miraculous and mystical parts of the NT accounts, what you have left isn't self-consistent, nor is it corroborated by anything except glancing mentions in manuscript copies of ancient historians dating to centuries after those histories were written.
LMAO. You're seriously confused, possibly beyond hope, if you think the weight and quality of evidence between the actual historical figure of Alexander and the Jesus-Myth are even remotely on par.
Seriously, there is not one contemporary mention of Jesus. The closest is highly disputed because it doesn't show up in copies of the work made in the Second Century, but only later. Further, the work, when cited prior to the 4th Century, even in defense of this so-called Christ do not mention the later-added paragraph that should have been a slam-dunk citiation. But is strangly absent. Probably because it didn't exist until some time around the 4th Century.
OTOH, we have HUNDREDS of independent, contemporaneous accounts of Alexander and his life and his campaigns. You couldn't ask for a better, more documented life. Especially from that time in history.
I am a Christian who is evaluating the veracity of evolution. I was wondering if there are any Christians here I'd like to ask a few theological/evolution questions?
Are there any here, or does this sort of mockery tend to drive them all off?
EAS wants a naitsirhc to help explain evolution. Not really what you're seeking, is it? You've come to PZ's blog (the one with the big scarlet A after Ben Stein lies on film) fishing for rants to post on naitsirhc websites.
To me this smacks of dishonesty. Now I know many of you here are just as shocked as I am that a naitsirhc could be dishonest, but maybe it was an omission. An omission that you have agenda to goad some atheist into a rant you can use to show what a martyr you are to your similarly deluded friends. You just neglected to tell anyone of your intent. Now EAS might be dishonest by omission but I think it commission. EAS wants a fight and can then cry to other blogs about mistreatment. Pretty sure you knew what you wanted and finally got a pretty good one. Now that you have your prize, I hope you are just filled with that warm glow. Best examine that warm glow though, me thinks it's doesn't have anything to do with your faith.
You want to evaluate the veracity of evolution? Who are you to pass judgment? You going to use magical thinking to determine veracity? Or you really going to take an objective look at reality? So what's it going to be, honesty and really look at evolution or dishonesty and you got what you came for and won't be back until you need to prove to your friends how you can stand up to those "honest but evil" atheists?
from bill (how's it going in the all-spin zone?)
What's wrong here, class? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
bill, you cannot prove a negative. For example, prove conclusively that space aliens didn't take Elvis' body, work him over, travel back in time, and put him in place as Pilate.
I'll wait for you to prove it. In the meantime, consider that there were many people named Jesus/cheeses/Yeshua (still no Immanuel - WTF?) in the assigned place and time, many people performing miracles (that part is in the Bible, so it must be true). So there were many cheeses gods. How do you know you have the right one, Pascal? Seeya in hel.
Earth and all Stars: I could understand why you may want to discuss the theological implications of evolution, but aren't there any questions/discussions you have that wouldn't require me to already accept Christ, etc? You've found a couple of the reactionaries, I see, but many of the atheists around here are former theists. You seem to think that they are largely people abused by their local Christian groups, however you may be surprised to learn how much they know about Christianity and how deeply-involved they were in 'sophisticated' theology.
I don't cry in movies, much anyway, but that one almost made me cry for the horrors of the mangling. I was horrified and that hack-job that movie made of the book.
And the casting was beyond bad... Those guys... They need to aspire to the B-list.
Quaeror @35 said:
This is a flat-out lie. On one hand, we have Callisthenes (an actual historian), Ptolemy (one of Alexander's generals), Aristobulus (historian), Nearchus (officer), and Onesicritus (officer), who all gave contemporary accounts of Alexander the Great's life. In addition, we have the cultural remnants from the Hellenistic movements in Egypt and the Middle East, a direct consequence of his campaign.
On the other hand, we have Jesus of Nazareth, a miracle worker who came back from the dead (and no one of consequence cared until 300 years later when virtually all empirical evidence was gone). The letters of Paul, the earliest writings referring to Jesus, make no reference to an actual man Jesus of Nazareth, and the earliest canonical gospel was written a solid 40 years after his death and none were written by true historians. For a similar timespan look at the conspiracy theories that have popped up around Elvis and the JFK assassination. And Josephus, the first non-Christian historian to mention Jesus and born 4 years after Jesus supposedly died, merely acknowledges that there were a group of Christians that claimed that there was this guy named Jesus who came back from the dead.
God should have waited for television to redeem humanity
Moses @164, you beat me to it
That's a dogmatic assertion that generally only flies in churches and with the uneducated, not with serious students of archeology and history.
I didn't know the jebus character was a mathematician. Did he leave behind a legacy of mathematical truths like the others? Wait!! Was it he who said Pi = 3?! Amazing stuff. I'd say that is very strong evidence. Hmph.
Oh sure...in the time it takes to string up five hops, Holbach guts another trout and I missed it. Nicely done by the way!
Slight correction for Don @128: "immaculate conception" refers to Mary's conception, not to the conception of Jesus (supposedly by the Holy Spirit).
As for Earth and All Stars, I appreciate your honest inquiries, but if you really did single out Holbach's response to you on VD's blog in order to characterize the "atheist reaction" to your questions, I'd say that was really rather crappy of you. You got some polite responses here too. Why not crosspost those?
Ok, here's a question about Starship Troopers, the movie. I recently watched Michael because my mother saw it and really loved it. I, personally, got really annoyed with how much John Travolta danced in it. Yeah, Saturday Night Fever and his 80's flops, we get it, he can dance. I started wondering if he dances in all of his movies. He didn't hit the dance floor in Starship Troopers, did he? The couple minutes that I saw of that movie when I was flipping channels was just hilarious, and that was just him in the make-up. It doesn't get funnier, does it?
#81 Earth and All Stars | April 23, 2008 3:29 PM
Since I'm not a professional biologist, I can't speak for the official abbreviation. The term, in full, that I've heard most is "evolutionary developmental biology" - with the short version being Evo-Devo. I typically type it out as evolutionary biologist.
As to the spirituality - as an agnostic, I might not be the exact person for your perspective. However, the Theory of Evolution, and all the specific components of it, do not deny a spiritual life. And as an agnostic, I have to point out, it doesn't say there is. But that's my bias - ignore it :)
Anyway. If you are a spiritual person, and feel the presence of some greater power in the universe, an understanding of The Theory of Evolution should not challenge that. If you do believe one or the other Creation stories in Genesis as the literal truth, however, the Theory of Evolution will be a problem - as it does not allow for a literal interpretation of either Creation story.
What you'll find is many of the posts encountered by atheists and agnostics by Christians that come onto our turf, and that immediately draw our ire, are from Fundamental Evangelical "Literal Answers in Genesis, the Creation Story is word for word how it happened" Christians - and they're here to brow beat us into "admitting" we're wrong. We've seen every talking point from Answers in Genesis a few dozen times (if not more) - and to a one, those talking points are in error.
So plesae understand that we're fairly skeptical of Christians that claim to just want simple answers. I think I've met a couple that are actually honest when they say so, though, so I keep holding out hope.
I think a good place for a basic start is the University of California, Berkeley: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Talk Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/ is a good place to go to compare with Answers In Genesis, though with the volume of information contained, it can be a challenge to navigate. (It's up to you to consider which site presents the truth - you should be able to guess which I accept).
Last point, while many here think a belief in a deity is foolish and aren't shy about saying so - don't let that put you off, since you will also find genuine answers, too.
At least that's my take.
JBS
True Bob #48: "Realize that the "name" "Jesus Christ" is about equal to Joe Messiah. Besides, he was supposed to be named Immanuel. I swear, that is the most generic religion. A god named God, a man named Man (Adam = man), a messiah named Joe Messiah, etc etc."
No, it seems it's even worse than that. My understanding is that Jesus is just an alternate transliteration to Joshua, who was the lead general for Moses during the conquest of Canaan. Which makes the name Jesus a Hebrew variation on the Jewish version of Alexander the Great, so Jesus "The Savior of Mankind" is a symbolic translation of Alexander "The Savior of Mankind" (a possible literal translation of the name).
Which makes one wonder what early versions of the gospel were like - I'm betting quite distinct, if not the direct inverse, of the dirty-hippy-turn-the-other-cheek Jesus. The bomb throwing fundamentalist and Al-Qaeda killers may actually be closer ideologically to the first Christians than our fairly decent moderate Christian crop.
And, according to this site, there are direct sources in the form of Babylonian cuneiform tablets.
"Hmmm. A lack of empirical evidence and a grounding in mere speculation has never stopped the Catholic church before..."
Why Catholic? They may have their differences with the papists but the protestant churches also worship the "blessed virgin Mary", the "mother of God", aren't they?
but if you really did single out Holbach's response to you on VD's blog in order to characterize the "atheist reaction" to your questions, I'd say that was really rather crappy of you.
I know that's not actually an accusation of me lying, but I figure I should offer the actual evidence http://www.haloscan.com/comments/voxday/6164751716903973213/#2037896
Note that it's on a post called, "So much for TENS".
Mena: Travolta's not in Starship Troopers. You're thinking of Battlefield Earth.
From the mind of celebrated director Paul Verhoeven to a theater near you: "RoboGod!"
Featuring Elvis Presley as Cheeziz K. Reist
You haters are totally wrong about Verhoeven's movies. I find it amazing that such an exciting and subversive artist was working in Hollywood for so long. If you can see the art in a dorky boy book like "Starship Troopers," you should be able to see it when it is expressed in the medium of Hollywood pulp (as it is with Verhoeven). I consider RoboCop, Starship Troopers, Hollow Man, and Black Book to be great movies. Total Recall and Basic Instinct are okay but limp. And Showgirls, alas, is a disaster. So take note: if you're a hater, you are wrong.
PZ, your post reminded me that a while ago I read an essay by an ancient Roman named Celsus that accused Mary of being a whore, and that the real father of Jesus was a Roman soldier named Pantera. Pantera was a real person, we found his tomb a while ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera
So in fact, Mary might well have been raped by this Pantera guy and the movie might have some grounding in fact.
Anyway, you should all check out that Celsus. He reminds me of PZ, except that Celsus thought that some things were probably supernatural.
If I remember correctly Jane Schaberg had proposed that Jesus could've been the product of a rape by a centurion in her book Illegitimacy of Jesus.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist, and that his Jewish life and Roman death did, indeed, lead to the invention of the "Christ Myth" and Christianity. It is It is not unreasonable to conclude that he was a bastard, fathered by who-knows-whom, whether someone named Joseph or a Roman soldier named Pantera or somebody else. It is not unreasonable to conclude that at least some of his followers believed that he was a hoped for messiah/anointed one. It is not unreasonable to conclude that Pontius Pilate with cynical brutal glee crucified him and let his body rot on the cross as carrion meal for crows and dogs, just like so many other of the 1000's of other Jews crucifed by Rome in the 1sr century.
Anyway. If you are a spiritual person, and feel the presence of some greater power in the universe, an understanding of The Theory of Evolution should not challenge that. If you do believe one or the other Creation stories in Genesis as the literal truth, however, the Theory of Evolution will be a problem - as it does not allow for a literal interpretation of either Creation story.
JBS,
I know you are trying to be constructive but don't you think that evolution does interfere with the idea of "The Fall"? Can "The Fall" be merely allegorical? Did doG let evolution run it's course billions of years until we could begin to comprehend or did we begin to comprehend and need something to explain our comprehension? What did our current species do to deserve condemnation and necessitate redemption? Isn't it also problem that this deity only appeared about 4000 years ago to offer the law and later salvation after several other deities had come, gone and been forgotten? Along with "The Problem of Evil" I have always struggled with these tenets of ytinaitsirhC, actually of the whole of Abrahamic religions. If doG didn't really do the things the way they are spelled out in Genesis, doesn't that really negate the need for Jebus and his sacrifice? Is doG waiting for the next species that will be able to better comprehend doG? Just like the problem of evil, wouldn't doG have seen that we were not going to cut it and done something about it? Maybe send a world-wide flood and start over again? Since we evolved instead of being created, do we really have free will since we are a product of the environment? In this particular case the snaitsirhC are consistent and the fuzzy doG that created us via evolution doesn't really offer much in my opinion. This leaves the delusion of belief in the deity of Abraham or living a positive life here and now.
Shelama @ #185
"It is not unreasonable to conclude that Pontius Pilate with cynical brutal glee crucified him and let his body rot on the cross as carrion meal for crows and dogs, just like so many other of the 1000's of other Jews crucifed by Rome in the 1sr century."
That is not how the myth goes.
As far as the point of your post goes, it is not unreasonable to think your post glosses over the real issue of validity and that you ignore the numerous reasonable conclusions that say "so what" if he did exist, which is doubtful.
The type of magic purported by those ancient myths is not real, and if this person was an actual figure in history it is irrelevant. Either his existence was manufactured to achieve a manipulative advantage, or he was real and his actual existence was used to achieve a manipulative advantage. His existence, real or not, has no bearing on the validity or truth of the myths that purport his being, his deeds, or his purpose. At best, that alleged person, was used as a pawn.
With all respect.
May I recommend Jerome Bixby's The Man from Earth to you godless heathens. One of my favourite "sci fi" movies of all time and definitely my favourite movie from 2007.
No budget and no special effects but a story that... well, no spoilers from me. Go watch it.
Thank you rehobo. Thank you.
You may recommend. But without further enticement and clarification, I may decline the recommendation.
Among the evidence that an individual known as Joshua from Nazareth who later came to be known as "Josh the greased" (the closest rendering of "Jesus Christ" into English literally - apologies to the person who suggested 'Joe Messiah'):
1) We have letters from Paul, who had met James the brother of Jesus. It is plausible to suggest that James had an imaginary brother that other people believed was the Messiah? Isn't his having a brother the simpler explanation?
2) We have awkward details recorded about him that embarassed the later church: that he was baptized by John the Baptist and thus one of his followers before branching out on his own; that he was from Nazareth rather than Bethlehem; that he was killed by the Romans (definitely not what was supposed to happen when the Messiah encountered the Romans).
3) I don't think an appeal to authority is worth anything, but I should point out the irony that those who rightly call upon people to accept the mainstream view of the majority of scientists if they don't have expertise in the relevant evidence themselves, here occasionally treat as plausible a hypothesis that no reputable, well-informed historian accepts, namely the hypothesis that Jesus didn't exist.
One can debate (and indeed should debate) what he said, and how much or how little of what is found in the Gospels reflects things he actually said and did. But the evidence that the individual himself existed is about as clear cut as the evidence for evolution, more or less. :)
On "Starship Troopers" I agree with #90, as the movie had a sense of humor, something unknown not simply unknown but morally repellent to Heinlein.
ST is one of the better Heinlein books, but still seems to revel in an absurd, unrealistic, "oiled muscle" - real and metaphorical - realm of early SF.
Some nice SF heretic should publish editions that edit out the embarrassing attempts at social commentary and philosophy. Such editions would be infinitely better reads.
Alex, let's just say the movie relevant to some of the discussion today. Read the synopsis to The Man From Earth on IMDB. Be warned it contains spoilers.
James McGrath, how can we be certain an individual exists when next to no independent documentation of that individual exists. The details you mention are all from apocrypha or from the gospels. Hardly independent.
There is also no evidence that Nazareth even existed before the 2nd century. Jesus of *a town that doesn't exist* eh?
The bibel is all th e empiracel evididense you need to no that jesus is the sun of God.
I always thought that the simplest, occamrazoriest explanation was the good one. That is, that Jesus was the son of his parents (like many people) and that the rest was an later addition, of which we don't even know for sure whether it was already told while he was alive. (Provided he ever was, of course, but I'll go with it).
Shane, the fact that the Gospels are not written by sober historians does not discredit them as pieces of evidence. We can trace back the Synoptics to a narrative of Jesus' ministry dated around 65-70 CE, and we have a collection of his sayings going back a little further. We've also got a Christian community going back earlier, and Pauline letters addressing that community making (admittedly obscure) references to Jesus.
So it's just a straightforward easy explanation to say that there was some guy Jesus. No need to search around for "independent" texts: Josephus or Tacitus or whatever. Just look at the texts from within the budding religion.
Come to think of it, I remember an episode of "Win Ben Stein's Money" where he was lost the jackpot on this question. He insisted that he was right, swore up and down. It was hilarious.
Ben was like that on that show, the times he was wrong he always had some whiny complaint about how he was "really" right, it's that the "question is wrong".
In this case, I think why so many get this wrong is that it goes back to a simple idea:
If you're a protestant Xian, why the fuck should you care if MARY was immaculately conceived? It simply makes no sense to them.
Now if you're Catholic, OTOH...
So it's just a straightforward easy explanation to say that there was some guy Jesus
nope. that does not eliminate the possibility that the person referred to in those texts did not actually exist.
Do you think every individual person/deity mentioned in the Iliad actually existed?
It's simply not the kind of independent evidence one looks for when trying to determine if someone actually existed or not.
If you do believe one or the other Creation stories in Genesis as the literal truth, however, the Theory of Evolution will be a problem - as it does not allow for a literal interpretation of either Creation story.
the thing one should immediately add after saying that is:
neither do a great many other well vetted theories, for that matter.
no reason to isolate the ToE for special treatment when challenging the "literal accuracy" of genesis.
Ichthyic: You don't have to eliminate all alternatives as impossible in order to accept an explanation. That would be a crazy standard to work with.
Now the Iliad seems to belong to a different textual genre from the Gospels and the sayings texts and the Pauline letters. The former is some sort of heroic poetry. The latter look like plain narrative infused with obvious legendary embellishments. So I think it makes sense to treat them quite differently. (Not to say I take every part of the narrative at face value: but when it says Jesus got baptized by John the Baptist, I think that probably happened because it would have been something of an embarrassment to the early church, a story unlikely to develop from within the community).
Of course, no one knows for a fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. But man is it an easy and straightforward explanation with no drawbacks I can see.
Not only is there doubt that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed, there is doubt that the town of Nazareth even existed at the time. Though a place at Nazareth was occupied from time to time over centuries, it seems not to have been the case at the time of fictional Jesus.
@Marco sch. Why catholic, because the one PZ wrote about (Bill Donohue) as complaining about this film being based on no empirical evidence is a catholic. Donohue is invariably one of the first to throw a hissy fit whenever he perceives a potential slight, real or imagined, to his particular brand of delusion.
For more fictional reading on fictional Jesus, I recommend:
"King Jesus" by Robert Graves, and
"The Gospel According to Jesus Christ" by Jose Saramago.
Good novels and good writing.
Only four posts until a Life of Brian reference. I'm so proud of you all.
Haven't you heard about BAVS, Michelle?
That is the 'Born Again Virgin Syndrome'. Mary was maybe the 'town bike', but Dopey Joe took that she didn't want him to poke her as proof of her virginity.
As to checking, would he know what to look for, - a carpenter 2000 years ago?
Hoosier X #112:
[the movie Starship Troopers] may not be "good" ... but it IS awesome.
Thanks Hoosier, that's what I've been thinking for years, but I've never been able to put it into words so eloquently :)
There are lots of things that aren't "unreasonable to believe." That's no reason to believe them.
We have only textual evidence in the case of many individuals. If only after Socrates sat in places they scribbled graffiti next to the imprint of his bottom that said "Socrates (no not that one, the famous one) sat here", then we'd have concrete, solid evidence (assuming, of course, that he sat in concrete). But even in such cases, those who were determined to deny his existence would simply dispute the authenticity of the artifact, or its connection with this particular Socrates.
One can deny that Jesus existed, but only by approaching the evidence in a different way than we approach historical evidence for other figures. And since that is what fundamentalist Christians do with the evidence (albeit to argue for a different viewpoint), it would be ironic if those who denigrate fundamentalist Christians for their anti-intellectualism were to adopt an approach fundamentally (if you'll forgive the pun) similar to theirs.
I have to admit, this is about the most disingenious crap you will see. It's amazing how christians actually think that if there was "some guy Jesus" it actually indicates anything about the bible. The character in the Bible was not at all "some guy Jesus." He had very specific and important characteristics. How does saying that there was "some guy Jesus" who didn't have any of Jesus's important characteristics turn into anything useful? I used the example above of the "historical Dorothy" from the Wizard of Oz. However, the fact that there WAS a historical Dorothy says nothing about the veracity of stories of the Wizard of Oz. In fact, go over to the newstand at the airport and look at all the books in the fiction section. You will see that they make lots of references to real events and real places, and, if you search hard enough, I bet you could often find real people who inspired the characters.
That doesn't make those characters "real", though, just as Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz is not a real person. What makes them compelling characters is not their mundane characteristics, shared by many others, but their unique personal traits and activities outlined in the story. A little girl named Dorothy from Kansas who has an Aunt Em is not the girl from the Wizard of Oz unless you can show that she has travelled to the magic land on a tornado.
Similarly, random Jesus son of Joseph the Carpenter is not Jesus of the Bible unless you can show that he healed the sick, rose people (and himself) from the dead, and performed other miracles. Other than that, you have nothing but the source of a legend, which puts Jesus right up there with Robin Hood.
Alex re:185
Multiple mutually exclusive myths are subsumed within "Christ Myth(s), and they go as they go, your limited understanding of them or the term not withstanding. The historical existence of Jesus is irrelevant to what and whom exactly? And according to whom? Tell me again which magic and which myths are, in fact, "real" or valid, and which do or do not have even a kernel in historical persons or events. As opposed to those that surround the Jesus of the Christ Myth. Don't get your panties in a wad. Jesus would turn over in his grave if he ever found out what the Christ Myth did to him. I glossed over nothing at all. Your comment is irrelevant. Lighten up with your 'religious' dogmatism. Actually, the invention of the Christ Myth from out of the Jewish life and Roman death is an extraordinarily interesting study. Don't assume because your interests in it were satisfied by shallow investigation that others should accept your religion as theirs'.
Cole: "the fact that the Gospels are not written by sober historians does not discredit them as pieces of evidence. We can trace back the Synoptics to a narrative of Jesus' ministry dated around 65-70 CE, and we have a collection of his sayings going back a little further. We've also got a Christian community going back earlier, and Pauline letters addressing that community making (admittedly obscure) references to Jesus."
Except that we have no copy of those documents for centuries afterwards. We have references from the 2nd century, scraps from the 3rd century, and passages from the fourth. We know that there were multiple narratives at the time that were completely different, and that there existed major Christian players who claimed that significant portions of the Pauline letters had been forged/rewritten according to bias. We also know that there existed significant Christian sects with completely different theologies and historical narratives. And that's just from within the religion. Some academic interpretations of the Dead Sea scrolls read the entire story inversely.
Additionally, much of the gospels are not historical narrative with some legendary embellishment - that's the post-medieval translations by folks who understand them that way a priori. Any literal translations make it clear that they are mystical writings that are almost impossible for modern people to make heads or tails off. It's always clearer with the translations of non-canonical narratives which belonged to the same genre - once the assumption of a semi-historical narrative drops, the translation becomes this symbolic, mystical mish-mash that sounds more like mythological stories about the Dream Time than a "historical" narrative.
I'd bet there was a guy who had a nom-de-guerre "Jesus". But who he was, and what his ideology was, is completely indeterminate as of today. Maybe a Jewish anti-Herodian revolutionary monarchist; maybe some kind of neo-Platonist; maybe a nobody around which a pre-existing mythology crystallized; maybe a John the Baptist style early communist. Maybe something completely different.
That is quite different from say our knowledge of Alexander the Great (one of the sources of this myth), about who we have a clear understanding of his social and political environment and goals.
Thanks Nemo, brain malfunctioned there. He doesn't dance in Battlefield Earth though, does he? ;^)
JG: "I don't think an appeal to authority is worth anything, but I should point out the irony that those who rightly call upon people to accept the mainstream view of the majority of scientists if they don't have expertise in the relevant evidence themselves, here occasionally treat as plausible a hypothesis that no reputable, well-informed historian accepts, namely the hypothesis that Jesus didn't exist."
Except this a completely different case. First, historians have nothing close to the authority that a physicist or a biologist or an archeologist has; we all known that history is written by the winners, and anybody who has done any reading into history quickly realizes that the mainstream of history is about as authoritative and biased as a fatwa.
Secondarily, our evidence for Jesus is on par with that for the Buddha, and less than that for Zoaraster. No one would accuse anyone of being anti-intellectual for doubting those tales. We have better evidence for Big Mo, but many, many details of that story can be questioned (as long as his believers aren't around), without "anti-intellectualism" being bandied as a threat.
No, no, our common-sense in this regard is completely disturbed. The historical narratives that are commonly accepted simply make no sense, they are completely inconsistent with historical fact, and psychological fact. Historians lack the archeological basis for their assertions, and as a field (not individually) lack the authority of sociologists or academic PR researchers, primarily because their primary sources, documents, have an inherent evanescence and mutability unlike that in any other academic field.
Jesus is as believable as Simon Magus, Appolonius of Tyana, or Lucius of The Golden Ass. Did they exist? In some sense. Do we know who they were? Not at all.
Hmmm. A lack of empirical evidence and a grounding in mere speculation has never stopped the Catholic church before...
Or any of the rest of these flying monkeys...c.f., "Expelled?"
Pablo, I'm an atheist, so I think your comment is really misplaced.
First, I don't think the Dead Sea Scrolls had any documents from the early Christian community. The Dead Sea Scrolls consisted of Old Testament texts. So I think they're irrelevant here.
Second, while I'll cheerfully admit that the Revelation of St. John is mystical writing through and through, the kernel of narrative in the Synoptics found mainly in the Gospel of Mark does not look like mystical writing. It's almost embarrassingly flat-footed.
Third, historians are really good at dating documents to when they were written even if they only have relatively recent extant manuscripts. And the consensus of historians (as I understand it) is that Mark was written around 65-70 CE, the collection of sayings was circulating sometime before that, and that some of Paul's letters (not the obviously bogus ones) go back a little earlier still. So that's what I'm going on here.
Cole: "Third, historians are really good at dating documents to when they were written even if they only have relatively recent extant manuscripts."
Are you serious? They are using textual mutation analysis when they don't have the fossils. They don't have Q, but have reconstructed it and then they use that to construct the dates for its descended documents. It's the clearest case of begging the question I've ever seen. They "know" what must have been primitive and derived, then they use that to show what is primitive and derived. If you only had two or three extant organisms and then derived the primitive organism from them in biology you'd be publicly ridiculed in biology - because that's what was done by biology pre-genome, and has been found to be significantly off.
Cole: "the kernel of narrative in the Synoptics found mainly in the Gospel of Mark does not look like mystical writing."
You have to go to the "kernel"? And how do you know that this "kernel" was considered to be the kernel in the milieu of the second century, instead of a fairly unimportant scaffolding on which to hang the symbolism? Which is more important, the narrative in the Gospel of John, or the wisdom sayings ("In the beginning was the Logos...")?
We lack the external knowledge of the first century milieu to interpret any of this - I often wonder how much of the wisdom sayings were actually jokes, and we've lost the key to the punch-line ("Peter, I will build my church on you, because you're head is full of rocks").
Cole: "First, I don't think the Dead Sea Scrolls had any documents from the early Christian community."
That is in contention. I don't have my ref where I'm at, but there are academics who do contend that the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced by either the early Christian community, or by a closely allied community. The "Old Testament" material is exactly what a proto-Christian community would produce - the new material had not been produced yet, and proto-Christianity would have been composed of alternate interpretations of the traditional literature. You (generic you) assume that the Christian material comes from new material, instead of considering that the new material is simply backworked on top of the old, after the development of the new interpretation.
Just go to a passover dinner. Every symbol, every narrative, every ritual is exactly Christianity (the lamb, wine, matzoh, exodus, revolt against authority...). Christianity is a translation of the old testament material for a marginal Jewish population. But which margin? We just don't know. You get such extremes from the gnostics, to the Mandaneans, to the Sethians and so forth. The polemics against heretics from the second and third century it make it clear that a significant, if not majority, of Christians held such completely different narratives as to be derived from a completely different story.
So how do you know what the underlying tale is without privileging the winners? Why would the winners have a more accurate historical record than the losers? Particularly when they appear to have been a minority of the early believers?
Being outraged is what Bill Donohue does, is all.
My favorite example of this was when he got upset at the NY Times Sunday crossword puzzle.
frog, as far as I can tell, almost everything you say addresses (i) what the early Christian community was like--what were they focused on, which texts did they take seriously, what doctrines did they hold, etc.--as opposed to (ii) whether there was an historical figure Jesus behind it all.
Even if all our documents are a case of 'winners writing the history books', I don't see why they're not good enough to say, "I guess there was probably an historical Jesus".
Frog thank you for some insights into early Christian history. Fascinating.
Cole, I think you miss the point. There is no such thing as "the early Christian community", there were many different communities.
The Christianity you got is largely down to the clout of a 2nd century Bishop of Lyon called Iranaeus who managed to impose the current canon on anyone who would be a 'true' Christian. Everyone else was a heretic.
If he'd died from an infection in his youth and not lived to dominate the early church you could have been a Gnostic, with a completely different world view. Christianity, more likely, would have sunk without trace and the world would have awaited the next prophet.
#208 There are lots of things that aren't "unreasonable to believe." That's no reason to believe them.
I spent a second unraveling this post and disagree with it.
Cole: "Even if all our documents are a case of 'winners writing the history books', I don't see why they're not good enough to say, "I guess there was probably an historical Jesus"."
I guess the disagreement comes down to what you mean by "there was a historical Jesus". If it's sufficient to say that there was some guy named Joshua involved in some Jewish influenced cult in the early first century, then, yes, there was a historical Jesus. We know that every third guy in Judea was named Joshua, and that almost everyone was involved in some variation of Judaic Hellenism/Hellenistic Judaism. Most of them even had mothers name Miriam!
But that's not what is generally meant by "a historical Jesus". If what we mean is that the Jesus as described in the Canonical gospels, even without the "mythical embellishments", was a historical figure, well the honest thing is that we just don't know. We don't know his ideology, we don't know his social background, we don't know whether he was married, had children, was a celibate Essene, a rabbi, a Hellenistic philosopher or the leader of a Zealot group that intended to overthrow the Herodians and make him a new Priest-King.
We don't know whether he said "Turn the other cheek" or "I come to bring war." The primitive Christians of the Church of James thought of him as their prophet, and their priesthood as composed of his literal relatives/descendants. Maybe the primitive movement was heavily involved in the Jewish uprising of 69, and were almost all killed, so the ideology of the later Christians was produced by those who avoided the war, and therefore had a Christ who was the literal inverse of the putative historical figure.
This is like trying to track down a historical Joseph Smith by reading the minutes of the Councils of the Apostles from 2004. You'd get a completely different character than the historical truth, in tone and historical fact; he was more like Warren Jeffs than Gordon Hinkley. And that is in a much simpler case, where there has been no bloody war, where documents are printed rather than copied by hand and folks have an average life-span of more than 30 years.
kitty,
There is no such thing as "the early Christian community", there were many different communities.
I think you're being very uncharitable. There's no controversy about the fact that the early Christian community was extremely diverse (i.e., that there were many different communities). I never denied it, and I think it's uncharitable of you to think that I denied it.
frog,
In that case, I doubt we disagree on much. I don't think there's much we can uncover with much probability about the historical Jesus. I don't claim to know for a fact that there was an historical Jesus. I'm just saying it seems like a good easy explanation of the texts we do have.
If it's sufficient to say that there was some guy named Joshua involved in some Jewish influenced cult in the early first century, then, yes, there was a historical Jesus.
As far as I know, that's all that the secular folk who accept the historicity of Jesus do assert, with the addition, perhaps, that a bunch of folks built a religion claiming some connection with him.
But that's like saying Odin was a historical figure because there were German chieftains in the 8th century BC named Odin, and after death they were often made demi-gods. Then, of course, the "Odin Myth" is part of a narrative with some historical roots, in some sense (or the reverse, the pre-existing narrative got sprinkled with some historical contingencies).
But very few would make the claim that Odin was historical. Or Hercules, or even Odysseus and Agamemnon. The "historical" figures are basically irrelevant to the story, and their "historicity" is only relevant as a way to connect the stories to a period and place.
There may have been an Iron Age chieftan named Achilles (or more than one!), but he wouldn't be the semi-divine Achilles of the epics. It would be a misuse of the word "historical" to lump The Achilles with The Alexander the Great as "historical" figures.
That is in contention. I don't have my ref where I'm at, but there are academics who do contend that the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced by either the early Christian community, or by a closely allied community.
The community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls were Essenes. Not Christians of any sort, though certainly an example of the diversity of dissident and apocalyptic strains of Judaism around at the time and that would have been influences on early Jesus groups --not Christ cults, which were largely Gentile in membership. That Jesus himself was an Essene has been suggested, but it isn't taken very seriously by most scholars.
The "Old Testament" material is exactly what a proto-Christian community would produce - the new material had not been produced yet, and proto-Christianity would have been composed of alternate interpretations of the traditional literature. You (generic you) assume that the Christian material comes from new material, instead of considering that the new material is simply backworked on top of the old, after the development of the new interpretation.
Not really. Mark, as the anonymous author of the first and foundational synoptic Gospel is known, was a lousy scholar of the Jewish scriptures. He appears not to have been working not even from a Septaguent but rather secondary sources. A good guess is that he was a Gentile member of a largely Gentile proto-Christian community, possibly in Syria. It is almost certain that he had never visited Palestine as well as that he never met an actual apostle.
Matthew, working from Mark and a hypothetical earlier sayings source not available to Mark, actually cleaned up a lot of Mark's embarrassingly (to Matthew's community) garbled citations of Scripture.
To me, one of the enduring perplexities of the early Christian writings is why Matthew and Luke made such extensive use of Mark's narrative, when it was so at odds theologically, with the concerns of their respective communities, and so lacking in Jewish scholarship. One supposes that it was simply too widely spread and familiar to simply be swept under the rug. In any case, it's clear that the "new material," as you have it (which I take to be early sayings, the Pauline writings, and Mark) really was new, and was foundational to the later mythmaking of 2nd century CE Christian communities.
Ironic Statement of the Day:
frog:
I think we're talking past each other. It goes without saying, or should, that no serious secular person believes in the miracle-working Jesus of religious literature, just as, to take your example, no one believes in the demigod Achilles from the Iliad. But suppose we found out that there had indeed been a Bronze-Age warlord named Achilles, who took part in a fairly large-scale raid on a walled city in Western Anatolia, perhaps in the company of other warlords from, say, Ithaka or Sparta. Why wouldn't we say that there really was an Achilles, around whose real-life exploits a bunch of legends coalesced? True, we couldn't say we knew much about the historical Achilles. We wouldn't be affirming any belief in the legends surrounding him, such as that one of his parents was a diety or that (although Homer seems not to have known this legend) he was invulnerable except in one of his heels. Still, learning that a real Achilles had existed, that he had some adventures echoing those in the Iliad, and that many and various legends grew up around his exploits would be an exciting discovery. We don't have evidence for such a historical Achilles, but there is evidence for an itinerant 1st-century Jewish preacher named Yeshua, around whom a cult developed that embroidered whatever his real-life exploits might have been with many and various legends. Nothing conclusive, but how thoroughly would you expect ordinary private subjects of the Empire, especially in its backwaters, to be documented? He isn't as well documented as Alexander or Pilate, but he is better documented than Achilles, and far better documented than Odin. How well documented will you or I or PZ be 2000 years from now, compared to, say, Vladimir Putin or George Bush? If a squid-cult grows around the memory of PZ, which develops all sorts of nonsensical legends about Him, which no sane future person believes, does that mean PZ did not exist?
CJ: We are partly talking past each other. The problem is the ambiguity in saying a "historical" X existed. The PZ of the future squid cult would have little to do with the actual historical PZ, other than a common name and a few details. It would be misleading to say they are the "same" person.
In the same way, it would be interesting to find out some of the roots of the Achilles legend. There are probably a number of historical personages who were weaved into the Achilles legend, in addition to the independent myth development. In the same way, there were probably numerous historical people (some even named Joshua) who were combined with completely fantastic characters to form Jesus. The OT Joshua is probably one of the "historical" Jesii, in addition to Alexander the Great, John the Baptist, and forgotten preachers and hermits, all on top of the numerous purely mythical characters such as the Egyptian trinity.
Which of all these characters were predominant in the formation of the mythical character? We don't know - and it's important because it's the mythical personage we care about, not some random Zealot cutting throats in Judea, or one more failed pretender to the throne in Jerusalem - even less the endless itinerant philosophers begging a meal for a few "wisdom sayings" or a random carpenter who had the bad luck of getting sucked into the Life of Brian.
I'd like to point out that this looks just like the debate between causal theories of reference and descriptivist theories of reference in philosophy of language.
I guess Kripke would say there was an historical Jesus, and Frege/Russell/Searle might have to disagree.
WWQS? (What would Quine say?)
WWWD? (What would Wittgenstein do?)
#187 by reboho on April 23, 2008 10:42 PM
I'm not a Christian apologist so I feel entirely unqualified to justify why specific Christian beliefs work with the theory of Evolution. I might have mentioned I'm an agnostic. The finer points of whether the "Fall" has some evolutionary explanation, or if the writers of the various stories were telling some sort of morality tale to impress upon their audience some specific point, is for a Christian to untangle. My opinion, from a rather naturalistic view point, is the stories are morality tales. "We need rules because we're inherently sinners - God gave us rules..." and stuff like that. I'll let a more "spiritual" person develop their own interpretation.
All I'm saying is that the Theory of Evolution, as it is, doesn't say anything at all about there being or not being some supernatural spirit behind it all - other than to show that we need not invoke God to explain the wonders of nature. That is the extent to which my evangelism of science takes me. I'm not going to argue away someone's spirituality - only defend the non-establishment clause of the first amendment - that religion and religious teachings do not belong in a government provided education system.
The theory of Intelligent Design (so far as it goes being a theory...) is religion. I have yet to find anyone defending it that does not do so from a religious perspective. As found in Dover, Intelligent Design does not belong in the science class. Let's not get so dogmatic in our defense of Evolution that it gets kicked out as well. We accept the Theory of Evolution because of logic and reason. Christians believe in God despite logic and reason (at least from our perspective). These two can not be debated in a fashion that will convince the other side.
We argue logic, they don't care about logic. They argue faith, we don't care about faith.
They think we do have faith, faith in the god named Science, and so they think they can evangelize their faith to us, show it is better to believe in God because otherwise we'll go to Hell. Arguing from faith will never convince us our evidence is false.
We think they use no logic and yet try to use logic to convince them? If they don't use logic, why would a logical argument mean anything to them? We cannot disabuse them of their faith. Not believing in science, to them, has no eternal consequence, especially as compared with spending eternity in Hell. What carrot do we have to offer that will mean anything in that light?
Our best bet (well, in my opinion) is to live a moral and good life - show them that atheism is not evil, that our lives do have meaning, and that no higher power need be invoked to do so. That will convince very few, but over time, maybe we'll learn to get along just long enough that we won't destroy our world before we get past early childhood as a society. Of course we all remember how stormy adolescence can be (Be afraid. Be very afraid....).
JBS
Earth and All Stars,
I suggest Michael Shermer's book "Why Darwin Matters." He addresses many of the points about the veracity of evolution that people brought up as Christians are often confused about. He is a former evangelical Christian but he is not bitter and he doesn't assume belief makes you stupid or that if you're smart you'll give up religion. He makes a nice change from Richard Dawkins.
JBS: "All I'm saying is that the Theory of Evolution, as it is, doesn't say anything at all about there being or not being some supernatural spirit behind it all - other than to show that we need not invoke God to explain the wonders of nature."
You're right - evolution does not "eliminate" the possibility of theism. But physics does. Christian apologists are defending against the wrong enemy - evolution only says the Occam's Razor is against God, but modern physics says that God (as anything more meaningful than awe towards the universe, or an irrational and blind force) is inconsistent with the facts.
That's what the fundies should be scared off - radiation!
actually the person who he is thinking that got raped was eve in the garden of eden this is why cain was born
eve said i have gotten a child by the lord
before satan was cast out of heaven he and his demons and authorities rained in the material matter in the heavens this is why the stars in heaven are imperfect
it is corruptable material
all the stars in this heaven are truly kingdoms and principalities and realms that lead into higher material heavens
when he had done this detestable thing God who rules beyond the curtain of outer darkness banished him and his authorities into tartarus to be bound there until the revelation of jesus christ
because the Lord came from the eternal realm of the imperishable light.... take a thought for one second
if you look in the sky at night you see that the stars are held by nothingness which is the darkness
that curtain is a veil that covers the holy light that comes from the FATHER beyond the shadow or darkness meaning universe
all that you see in heaven above us is actually a copy cat of whats on the other side
and trust me the devil doesnt want any of you to get this because he loves to decieve those who attach their hearts to simple minded pleasures
those who are worldly will only think of that which is perishable but those who are godly will save themselves for eternal life
think of our bodily tomb that we dwell in for a while we where created to express Gods perfection this is why we have free will and also why jesus came
and this is the freedom you have you can live righteously on the earth and bear your fruit to holiness or sin and bear your fruit to death and go to hell its that simple.. the hell with what man says about their theorys
God is more gracious than what we can imagine
i tell you the truth
you wear that flesh as a garment to cover your soul
like water in a bottle and you put your hope in this life and have made it your god you have never known truth and cannot comprehend it because you are not from God
those who listen to Gods words are from God because they would know whether it is from man or from the LORD you choose to believe what you want and continue to have a simple intellect the worlds wisdom is foolishness and its pleasures futile ....you search but cannot find you ask and dont recieve because you dont know how to give
i tell you the truth every person that dies has to answer for every lawless deed that they have done i do not speak to seek glory from men because i already know what is in the heart of men i happen to be one but not like that which has been shown in this outter realm meaning the tomb that i dwell in because i know that on the outside all things are going to fade away
Jesus my Lord rose from the dead with His flesh and sits at the right hand of God we have His image of nakedness because we all as humans where created exactly like Him
and the Lord was created in the image of God
Jesus came to teach about the good news of eternal life to those who would believe in Him
the covenant of eternal life was givin to the israelites
through abraham and then to the twelve patriarchs from then moses gave the commandments of God to Gods offspring HIS chosen people..God sent prophets into the world to speak about a person coming after HIM and would be in His likeness executing judgement into the earth becuase of its evil deeds...jesus came from the bloodline of king david
a man who walk and talk to the God of the jews
and jesus was heir to his throne and came to fulfill the law and the prophets and that the Lord did well
then He died for the sin of the world and the SIN of the world is that ..the children of the earth put their dumb idols and pleasures before God and forget where humanity came from ...WHO IS BLESSED FOREVER AMEN
the LORD rose from the dead being the first because death couldnt hold HIM because that which is sinless is not bond to such clutches so God honored HIM to be a judge of the living and the dead those who are on the earth and under it
so all of you who are far away repent ask for forgiveness for your evil actions that way down your soul and become imperishable and perfect taking in the wisdom and knowledge of GOD and JESUS CHRIST
come to the wedding all is invited and live forever with the lord and HIS chosen and this is eternal life that they may take in the knowledge of GOD AND THE ONE WHOM HE SENT JESUS CHRIST FOLLOW THE COMMANDMENTS AND HAVE HIS LOVE DWELLING IN YOUR SOULS THIS IS YOUR PRAISE FROM GOD
AMEN
TO GOD WHO BELONGS THE POWER DOMINION AND THE GLORY BEYOND ETERNITY FOREVER AND EVER AMEN
MARIO :D AKA XIAO LONG
IF YOUD LIKE TO TALK VISIT ME ON MYSPACE.COM/SPAWNZFURY
mario,
Get psychiatric help.
OOOGAAABOOOGAAAA!!!!
JEEEZUS!!!!
ZOMBIE!!!!
HELL!!!!
That's all I hear.
Anyone got a straightjacket?