Christ Mythicism with Robert M. Price

[PeteDarwin]

Jesus Myth - The case against historical Christ.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... tory.htm#2

I definitely recommend having a skim if not a deep read of the following. I'm a bit fan of Robert Price who's a professor of theology and a christ mythicist. He was a pastor but is now a "christian atheist" as he describes himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price He's got two PhD's in theology, 1 on the new testament specifically. Anyway, enjoy.

Pete

[JimC]

Interesting area, Pete. The Wiki article is useful to see where he is coming from, which seems to be accepting the absence of god but wanting to hang on to some aspects of christian teachings...

The grin of the Cheshire Cat comes to mind, somehow...

[Animavore]

Not big on the whole myther thing. I find Bart Ehrman's apocalyptic rabbi view far more plausible.

[JimC]

Not big on the whole myther thing. I find Bart Ehrman's apocalyptic rabbi view far more plausible.

So, the historically real but clinically insane verdict?

[Animavore]

Not big on the whole myther thing. I find Bart Ehrman's apocalyptic rabbi view far more plausible.

So, the historically real but clinically insane verdict?

No different to those people with The end is nigh sandwich boards.

[JimC]

Not big on the whole myther thing. I find Bart Ehrman's apocalyptic rabbi view far more plausible.

So, the historically real but clinically insane verdict?

No different to those people with The end is nigh sandwich boards.

Except they don't have the charisma to start a successful cult; imitative loses...

[PeteDarwin]

Hahaha. Yeah the Cheshire Cat is a good analogy. He's a funny guy, Robert Price. I've heard him interviewed and interview a numerous people on the podcast Point of Inquiry and he considers himself a Christian Atheist, brought up a Christian and still believes in the moral teaches (and then some secular/humanist to fill in the gaps), which is reasonable enough. He's also an interesting character in that he's a conservative atheist who is anti-abortion, as having a background as a pastor still has him considering a fetus human, even at conception (or soon after). He's also pro-war and a few other conservative things I can't remember.

I'll have to get my hands on his books in the near future, when my list gets shorter haha, for those interested in his books or those of anyone I really recommend booko.com.au as it compares all of the online book stores prices and finds you the cheapest I bought all of Dawkins books (well the ones I didn't have) recently and it cost me about 50 bucks for 6 books (including postage).

[Dispraxis]

Jesus Myth - The case against historical Christ.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... tory.htm#2 ... Robert M. Price ...

Pete,

You weren't confusing R. G. Price of Rational Revolution with Dr. Robert M. Price. the Bible Geek? Since you posted a link to both Prices, I thought there might be some confusion.

Just checking,

John

[PeteDarwin]

Jesus Myth - The case against historical Christ.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... tory.htm#2 ... Robert M. Price ...

Pete,

You weren't confusing R. G. Price of Rational Revolution with Dr. Robert M. Price. the Bible Geek? Since you posted a link to both Prices, I thought there might be some confusion.

Just checking,

John

Wow, didn't realise they were two different people. How confusing... As Robert M. Price has a book called the case against the case for christ http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

and Robert G Price has a book called the case against historical Christ... That's some insane coincidence.

[AshtonBlack]

Jesus Myth - The case against historical Christ.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... tory.htm#2 ... Robert M. Price ...

Pete,

You weren't confusing R. G. Price of Rational Revolution with Dr. Robert M. Price. the Bible Geek? Since you posted a link to both Prices, I thought there might be some confusion.

Just checking,

John

Wow, didn't realise they were two different people. How confusing... As Robert M. Price has a book called the case against the case for christ http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

and Robert G Price has a book called the case against historical Christ... That's some insane coincidence.

Or is it???

[Thinking Aloud]

Thanks for that OP link - I remember reading something similar (possibly the same thing) a few years ago, and thought it was an interesting perspective.

[hiyymer]

Jesus Myth - The case against historical Christ.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... tory.htm#2

I definitely recommend having a skim if not a deep read of the following. I'm a bit fan of Robert Price who's a professor of theology and a christ mythicist. He was a pastor but is now a "christian atheist" as he describes himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price He's got two PhD's in theology, 1 on the new testament specifically. Anyway, enjoy.

Pete

I didn't see that he had dealt with the problem of the apostles. If Jesus was based entirely on the writings in Mark, then why did some of his apostles appear to be historically real figures. Peter was supposedly a central figure in the founding of the church in Rome. Was he some kind of lying impostor?

[hiyymer]

Jesus Myth - The case against historical Christ.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... tory.htm#2

I definitely recommend having a skim if not a deep read of the following. I'm a bit fan of Robert Price who's a professor of theology and a christ mythicist. He was a pastor but is now a "christian atheist" as he describes himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price He's got two PhD's in theology, 1 on the new testament specifically. Anyway, enjoy.

Pete

I didn't see that he had dealt with the problem of the apostles. If Jesus was based entirely on the writings in Mark, then why did some of his apostles appear to be historically real figures. Peter was supposedly a central figure in the founding of the church in Rome. Was he some kind of lying impostor?

Whoops. Looked again.

"This is one example of where Paul calls Peter an apostle and he says that both he and Peter were called in the same manner. In all of his discussions of the apostles Paul gives no indication that these people have literally walked hand-in-hand with Jesus and seen his miracles first hand. Paul treats these people as just another group of evangelicals like himself. It is only with the Gospels that Peter and the others are called "disciples", meaning people who were literally taught by Jesus; Paul never identified them as such."