1. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #132164 by Sara on February 24, 2008 at 11:32 am

The fact that biblical history didn't sway him bothers me too.

It swayed me immediately -- but then I wasn't pursuing a career as pastor or a biblical scholar at the time.

If I had been, maybe cognitive dissonance would have kicked in, especially since I suspect I would be surrounded by it in such an environment.

2. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125661 by Sara on February 11, 2008 at 7:55 pm

I second the nomination for Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

He's a highly respected scientist and I've heard him speak - He's excellent

3. Man and God

Comment #103777 by Sara on December 26, 2007 at 7:56 pm

FLYING FALCON - Leafing through "Age of reason" I just realized that Paine was an atheist. I don't recall that in his book he referred to himself as an atheist, or a deist.

I have read that Teddy Roosevelt (many years later) reffered to Paine as a "filthy little atheist." Why, I don't know.

4. Man and God

Comment #103627 by Sara on December 26, 2007 at 10:27 am

Regarding "The Age of reason" - by the time I read it, I had already arrived at atheism. What was fascinating to me was that although I had heard about the book and knew about the author from my high school study of American history -- I still had no idea what the book was really about or that Tom Paine was an atheist -- and an outspoken one at that, way back in the 1700's. That little piece of history had been kept very quiet.

5. Man and God

Comment #103535 by Sara on December 26, 2007 at 6:37 am

Whig - interesting about our similar religious backgrounds. Wish I'd read "Age of Reason" when I was 19!

I don't know, but suspect that it's easier for people from liberal backgrounds both to stay in church and to leave church. There's no external pressure to do either.

6. Man and God

Comment #103453 by Sara on December 25, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Paula - I was most recently a liberal Christian. Episcopalian - but raised roman catholic - a rather liberal brand of that, in the sense that no one seemed to take it very seriously. It was just THERE.

My move towards atheism was very similar to Fighting Falcon's. Long story short, once I learned Christian history, I couldn't stay on in the church, although I would have been very welcomed to stick around. You don't really have to believe anything in particular in the more liberal branches of the church. Lots of people there don't buy much of the party line – there 's just a tacit agreement to go along with the program. This applies to clergy as well. I'd love to see this change. There are a lot of good people who are, in my opinion, living a lie in at least a part of their lives) in order to hold on to the good things the church offers. Maybe someday they'll figure out a way to do it, that does not involve feigning belief in an imaginary god and his son, who died for our sins, etc., etc.

7. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103169 by Sara on December 24, 2007 at 11:40 am

I predict that despite his death and the fact that it is legally recorded and that there were eyewitnesses, a full-blown resurrection myth will develop. He will be spotted in various locations around the world and some will worship him as a savior.

Of course, this didn't take much imagination on my part.

8. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103153 by Sara on December 24, 2007 at 11:19 am

Walk – you're welcome – also Eric H. Cline, a scholar in archeology and ancient history just wrote a book called "From Eden to Exile." I think he tries too hard not to offend believers (e.g., moe often referring to biblical myths and legends as "mysteries") but he eventually gets his point across – evidence is sorely lacking.

Elise97 – agree with your premise. Meanwhile, I think it's important for the biblical scholars who are currently so vocal in their agreement that Jesus existed to be just as vocal in explaining that they use a completely different standard of evidence than is used today and that their assertions specifically do NOT address Jesus' divinity. I know I've made this point before – I'm hoping people here will make it too, whenever they have a chance.

9. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102803 by Sara on December 23, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Walk - You're right about Exodus -- here are some links:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684869128/ref=olp_product_details/002-1878591-2519231?ie=UTF8&seller

10. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #102525 by Sara on December 23, 2007 at 5:41 am

No, Eeekie, I don't think I misunderstood you. I was just clarifying for those atheists who feel uncomfortable singing.

For me, when words are put to music, they lose meaning and just become lyrics. Such is not the case for others.

11. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #102447 by Sara on December 22, 2007 at 8:29 pm

Eeekie - great analogy: "To say an Atheist shouldn't sing Christmas songs relating to Jesus, is to say an educated person shouldn't sing Christmas songs relating to Santa, as deep down they know Santa isn't real."

But I wouldn't say it's pathetic, I'd say it's a personal choice. Singing is supposed to be enjoyable. If it isn't, for whatever reason, then there's no need to sing.

12. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #102090 by Sara on December 21, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Steve zara - going with your gut, usually works out best, I find.

I was raised catholic then became an episcopalian. I've been moving towards atheism for 2 years and just left church in June - at the end of the choir season. I'd stopped going to communion and saying the creed and other prayers long before. I went once to receive a "blessing" (instead of communion)and felt stupid, so I didn't do it again. I always kept singing and started listening to the sermons for the first time in my life.

It feels really good to be out of there.

13. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101900 by Sara on December 21, 2007 at 5:48 am

Paula asks, "Have you been scrutinising the posts of the people who agree with you for signs that they're being kept open to alternative ideas too? Or your own, for that matter?"

Sure have – It's been interesting to watch the evolution of the discussion. It seems like many of us, including me, are discussing and thinking about this for the first time. I think there are probably many issues like this that we haven't talked much about, because the subjects didn't come up and there was no good forum for discussion. I doubt that even last year, before Dawkins' book was out, any BBC interviewer would have bothered questioning an atheist about singing carols.

So, I've learned that there's a range of views that are being fleshed out as they're being discussed with others. I simply didn't know some atheists were so against singing religious songs that they think no atheists should sing them. On the face of it, it seems intolerant. But, I think in some cases, it's not just that, so I'm eager to know more about that position and what arguments, if any, affect it. I'm also considering making more of a point, when I do sing religious music, to make clear, as RD has, that I see it as fiction or fantasy, and sing it just as I would "Puff the Magic Dragon." Maybe it will turn on some lights in the heads of believers and as they sing, they'll ask themselves, for the first time, "Do I really believe this stuff?"

14. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101695 by Sara on December 20, 2007 at 7:09 pm

So, rationalist -- when they taught you the "truth" in div school - how did you and the other students take it? did you talk about it with each other? Did you band together in complicity to keep the facts from the proletariat?

Obviously, you got out. Was it in reaction to this kind of info? How do others react?

I'm all ears.

15. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101665 by Sara on December 20, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Steve Z: "Anyway, I am really confused now. Not entirely sure what I think!"

That's sort of what I was hoping for – suggests this conversation is keeping you open to alternative ideas.

I also agree that context is important, but for me, as long as that context involves music, the rest of the context doesn't matter – could be in church or not. You can bet that if I go to midnight mass, I'll be singing the hymns. It's one of the main reasons for going.

Richard Morgan: "If you sang "All fags deserve to die, trala -lala -laaah -lela le la." would that make you a homophobic?"

Good question! In today's society, it's hard to imagine such words would be written into a popular song. Perhaps it could be in a pro-gay musical, sung by the villain. So, no, unless I was playing the part of the villain in that musical, I wouldn't sing it. Christmas carols hearken back 2,000 years into a very different world, and to me (like RD), the songs are about fictional events.

On my car radio, I just heard "It came upon a midnight clear – that glorious song of old. Of angels bending near the Earth, to play their harps of gold." It's beyond fiction – it's fantasy. Full of beautiful images. It's not even one of my favorite Christmas carols, but it was sung by an extraordinarily gifted soprano with beautiful choir accompaniment, and I was singing right along. I'm sure it doesn't make me any less of an atheist – just the usual sucker for good music that I've always been.

16. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101591 by Sara on December 20, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Steve – bottom line, here's how I see it – tell me if I have it right: You think all atheists should stop singing Christian songs because it sends "the wrong message" to Christians about atheists. You disagree with my position that it's OK for atheists to sing or not to sing, based on personal preferences.

17. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101573 by Sara on December 20, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Steve: "Is thinking to yourself "these words really don't mean anything to me" really enough?"

yes - otherwise I'd not express myself in many ways unless I lived in a Utopia where everything was just as I liked it. I'd probably be there by myself - which I wouldn't like at all.

Back to singing carols, I realized the other night, singing "Deck the halls" that it has no Christian references. Never noticed that before - it was just another Christmas carol. I was singing it with a lovely soprano who I know is a church singer (this was a secular occasion - we sang Channuka songs too). Between verses, I commented "this is Pagan!" She merrily agreed and we kept on singing.

If you sang "Bess, you is my woman now" would that make you heterosexual-black-guy sympathizer?

18. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101471 by Sara on December 20, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Paula - could you possibly see it as something besides "ammunition?"

The idea is not to defeat them (at least in my mind) but to educate them.

It is fascinating how much of an us/them, black/white atmosphere there is even among ourselves.

19. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101470 by Sara on December 20, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Steve -- it's an INDIVIDUAL thing -- if you don't want to sing carols, don't do it -- and if you want to make a point to christians, TELL them why you're not doing it. Then they will have learned something about atheists. not ALL atheists, but about some atheists.

I will do the same, in my own way. I'll sing carols and go to midnight mass if I want and will tell christians, as RD is doing, that the words mean nothing to me - I really like the music and will sing it if I want to.

We might even mention in our explanations to these curious Christians that not all atheists react in the same way. That way perhaps they will be reluctant to stereotype what is "proper atheist behavior" in the future.

20. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101460 by Sara on December 20, 2007 at 11:46 am

Paula – those religionists determined to put us down will say and will misrepresent us no matter what we say or do. They are desperate and it shows. I think the more we're "out" and acting normally, whatever that means for us as individuals, we're better off than playing to what we think will make us look good to them.

I remember the women's movement and so far this is just like that. At first most men and some women were convinced that all "women's libbers" were shrill, angry bra-burners who hated men. Getting through that was a real paradigm shift for everyone. We were all feeling our way. But, you know, we were right and eventually society started to see it.

Steve- maybe they won't believe me. Then maybe they'll meet up with another atheist singing carols with the same story and eventually they'll consider (using some of their own intelligence and experience) that's it's possible to sing a song and not believe its words - pretty elementary, really. But if we hide this from them, because we think they will give us a hard time, then we've made no progress at all.

Look how much ink I've spilt trying to explain this to you - a fellow atheist! Maybe someday it will pay off.

21. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101401 by Sara on December 20, 2007 at 10:05 am

Steve Zara - I'm with Diacanu on this.

Regarding Mozart's Requiem being secular while carols are not -- I really think that deduction is personal to Paula and does not/need not apply to others. To me, both are musical pieces, one (Mozart) better than the other. Their originally intended audience does not concern me.

A group of friends, mostly atheists, is right now looking for a good midnight mass to go to. The 2 practicing Catholics in the group know exactly why we're going -- for the music and the show - same reasons they're going.

22. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101361 by Sara on December 20, 2007 at 9:19 am

Hello all - If you don't want to sing religious music or enter a church, of course don't do those things. You don't need to justify them -- and if you do choose to EXPLAIN them, then do so for yourself, not for all atheists. We do not think or act as a block any more than religious people do. We've had a range of religious education/indoctrination experiences and a range of paths to atheism.

Interesting that you mention going to "great pains" to "defend" carol singing. I see it as taking the time to explain how my point of view is different. Consciousness-raising again.

I've always liked singing and never paid much attention to the words, except to the extent they "work" with the music. I've sung in choirs since grade school – both secular and religious, but the music is often religious even in a secular choir, because religious music is so good. The one I'm in now just did the Messiah and will do Bach's Mass in B-Minor in the Spring. We did a Gershwin selection in the Fall.

When I was moving rapidly away from religion, while still singing in a church choir, I certainly did start really noticing the words to hymns and anthems -- for the first time. The words ranged from silly, nasty, horrible, incomprehensible to benign. I wouldn't be surprised if many believing Christians noticed the same thing if they paid any attention to the words. And maybe now they RD has them thinking about it, they will.

23. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101290 by Sara on December 20, 2007 at 7:26 am

Giving the appearance of participating in a religious event can re-define societies expectations the "wrong" way. It can make it seem like we approve of religion, or that it is something we can't quite give up.

[Response from Sara - having trouble blocking quotes:]That's when we explain that what it SEEMS like is happening is not what's really happening. It's something else they haven't thought of before. Make it a teaching moment. Otherwise, we and they fall back to current society's tacit definition("real atheists don't sing carols or set foot in a church") and nothing much has changed.

24. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101235 by Sara on December 20, 2007 at 6:12 am

To Steve Zara – singing religious music isn't necessarily "participating in a religious event" – it might be if you're religious, but if you're not, then it could be singing beautiful music, participating in a community or family event, or taking a choral music class for academic credit. It could be some or all those things whether a person is religious or not.

Do you expect country and western fans to rustle cattle, chew tobacco and hang out at saloons? Do acid rock fans have to dye their hair green and do drugs to be authentic?

This is conscious-raising time – we're in the process of redefining society's expectations.

25. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101227 by Sara on December 20, 2007 at 5:49 am

That's right – consciousness raising. Maybe now that we have Christians thinking about the words to songs, some of them will notice that they don't actually believe everything they're singing - never did, never will. They might notice for the first time that some of the words they're singing are really wacky. Maybe they'll even start listening to the words as they recite the creed and ask themselves if they actually believe all that stuff and if not, examine their reasons for standing up to affirm it once a week since they knew how to talk.

Please consider that, regarding "appearances," it's better for us to define ourselves than to let religious people define us. If we did that, we'd continue being seen as angry, immoral, devil worshippers with empty, joyless lives.

We don't have to fit believers' stereotypes. We're not all alike, any more than religious people are. Some of us like to sing carols. It has nothing to do with religious belief. It's not that difficult to grasp. It's one of the many little lessons we can teach believers and accept about ourselves.

26. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101084 by Sara on December 19, 2007 at 7:31 pm

For those of you worried about what "message" we're sending by singing carols -- maybe it's that we're not so hung up on appearances that we can't enjoy music.

Are you ever afraid people will get the "wrong idea" if you sing a song about a cheating spouse or a jailbird or an itty bitty spider?

Atheists are reasonable, right? Not all the time, of course, but it's something we like about ourselves, right?

So let's just be reasonable and stop thinking about what will "play" best with believers.

Side note – a few years ago, when I was still a church-goer, but heavily doubting, I went to the opera one night and to church the next morning. The obvious similarities were startling. They were both big shows. Great costumes, pageantry, drama and fabulous music. Actually, the opera was better, but church was pretty good, considering most of the participants were not professionals.

I recently sang the Messiah and got all goose-bumpy when the soprano soloist sang excitedly about the arrival of the heavenly host, and the choir came in with, "Glory to God!"

It's Drama set to music - Enjoy!

27. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100044 by Sara on December 18, 2007 at 6:06 am

We don't "believe" the words to other songs and no one expects us to - "caint get no satisfaction, caint get no girly action"

"Oh Susanna, don't you cry for me, I'm goin' to Lousiana with a banjo on my knee."

We can change words to songs if we want - people do it all the time to suit their needs. We can keep the words too and render them meaningless, pointing out to Christians that we don't believe the words anymore than they would croon about their inability to get laid or their upcoming banjo-strumming trip to the deep south.

28. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99576 by Sara on December 17, 2007 at 5:12 am

To those commenting on Newton's faults and foibles, please keep in mind that point here is not to worship him as a miracle-working God, but to recognize him for his human scientific achievements.

29. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99267 by Sara on December 16, 2007 at 6:49 am

Hi, Monkey2 – actually the type of reputable scholar I'm referring to and I think Richard is referring to do NOT "use their 'finds' to justify the 'truth of the Gospels.'" They typically state their positive position on the existence of Jesus, then leave the rest to the imagination of the listener. Scholars only take a public stand on the positive message they know their audience will appreciate, but as I mentioned above, are typically silent (as any reputable academician would be ) on the issue of the supernatural.

I can understand that they would want to avoid such a controversial topic, but I think it needs to be pointed out to them and to the public that it is inherently disingenuous to tacitly encourage the connection between Jesus existence and Jesus' divinity.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I suppose this behavior is unconscious for some of them, being so practiced at concealing publicly unwelcome biblical issues. Still, it's got to stop. At some level, they're responsible for circulating falsehoods. If they don't know that, they need to be told.

30. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99198 by Sara on December 15, 2007 at 9:53 pm

thanks, Monkey2, for linking me to that site.

I'm familiar with this kind of evidence. What I'd like to see the evidence scholars use to determine the existence of Jesus. I'd like this from scholars, with their names attached to i and their reasons for thinking the evidence is compelling.

It doesn't seem like too much to ask of experts regarding one of the most important figures in world history.

31. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99090 by Sara on December 15, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Richard Dawkins (and others who may have this info)

Could you get these "objective historians" who "agree that the evidence [for Jesus] is weak" to go on record? I have deduced the same thing myself, but it hasn't been easy wringing information out of people.

Oh, they willingly state with great confidence that "respected scholars agree" that Jesus existed, but they squirm and obfuscate when asked about the type and amount of evidence. They typically leave off anything about the divinity of Christ (which, of course history does not address), knowing full well that that's what many people imply. I think they're seriously misleading people.

Please, assuming you have the evidence to back up your claims about the scholars, let's see it.

If they don't want to talk - please tell us why.

32. The Pagan Christ

Comment #98994 by Sara on December 15, 2007 at 5:57 am

Smithyboy - spoken like a true biblical scholar, even if former: "and the archeaological evidence is debatable too."

What's the debate? and who's debating it? any non-apologist scholars? you don't mention those details, and of course, "debatable" sounds like "doubtful," which is how a non-scholar who's already disposed to accepting the bible story will take it.

It's this kind of talk that I feel perpetuates confusion and misinformation.

Did you know that the conservative Jews have a whole section on biblical archeology in their prayer book that accepts (and explains) scholars' views regarding the complete absence of evidence for Moses and the exodus?

Are you aware of the work of Finkelstein and Silberman ("The Bible Unearthed") that presents this indepth, along with vast physical evidence that the israelites and the canannites coexisted in Canaan all along?

33. The Pagan Christ

Comment #98735 by Sara on December 14, 2007 at 7:02 am

Hi, Smithyboy - nice to see you back here. I hope you return to address my entry 163: "Please note, I wasn't asking your opinion about the historicity of Paul, Moses, etc. I was asking if you knew if biblical scholars had made similar studies and similar statements about them as they have about Jesus."

I'm on the trail of this, as time permits, but thought you might have some good references, or insights.

Thanks

34. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96548 by Sara on December 10, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Hi, Smithyboy - thanks for getting back to me. Please note, I wasn't asking your opinion about the historicity of Paul, Moses, etc. I was asking if you knew if biblical scholars had made similar studies and similar statements about them as they have about Jesus. From what I know, the answer is "No."

I do know both from readings and discussions with clergy and seminary professors that Moses and the whole Exodus story is not considered historical, but I've never heard any glib statement that "most serious scholars agree that Moses is not historical."

I'm surmising that this is because such a negative statement would be a political mess, whereas making a positive statement about Jesus is a politically smart move – scholars give the feel-good answer that most everyone wants to hear, without mentioning the shaky evidence (from a modern perspective) on which it's based or the fact that they are NOT taking a stand on Jesus divinity (which Christians simply assume). And then scholars put off people like me who ask probing questions.

Personally, I don't care if Jesus existed as a real human being or not – and I doubt it can ever be conclusively determined. I do care deeply, however, that academics and clergy are actively or passively, consciously or unconsciously perpetuating false and misleading information. That has got to stop. Really, it's the kind of thing that has gone on too long and can't last forever.

I'm glad you're starting to take an active interest in this. I agree that Christians are not going to encourage it; in fact would suppress it, as they have up to now. I do think, though, that a savvy publisher would see the potential of such an enterprise. With the right author, this is a big story. Please do what you can to encourage dialogue. As a scholar, you're in a much better position than I am. I have talked with seminary professors who look terrified when I suggest that what they know to be myth should be taught as myth.

35. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96368 by Sara on December 10, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Smithyboy - I'm glad to see you back here - and hope you address my questions in entry 124.

How do you think scholars and the proletariat can have fruitful conversations about Jesus' historicity?

Also, I had further thoughts about how these standards of evidence are applied to other biblical characters. What have scholars had to say about the historicity of Peter? James? Paul? Moses? I don't know of any "most scholars agree..." statements about any of these people - or of any characters except for Jesus. Do you?

36. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95774 by Sara on December 9, 2007 at 7:28 am

Smithyboy – (regarding your entry 117) Then again, maybe there's a market for a book that lays out scholarly points on both sides and also presents accurate information on the pagan gods and Hellenistic precedents to Christianity – so that readers get the full picture and then draw their own conclusions.

Another idea is a book on how scholars talk among themselves about these issues and describes their various concerns about going public.

Instead, what we currently have is two even-handed people like you and me, both atheists, who have to work pretty hard to plow through presumptions to arrive at a point of agreement.

You have the biblical education and willingness to engage in conversation with non-academics, some of whom are unreceptive to your point of view. I have basic knowledge, intense curiosity and the persistence to find out what you really think - not only about the facts, but the internal political issues (fascinating!).

I'm sure it shouldn't be so hard for two people who want to communicate to get to this point and am convinced it needs to change.

If you agree, do you have any ideas on how to do this? Anybody else listening have thoughts on this?

37. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95636 by Sara on December 8, 2007 at 9:35 pm

Smithyboy, you ask," Are you worried that admitting the existence of Jesus gives support to Christian views? My opinion is that we should try to find out the facts wherever they lead."

I would love to follow the facts. However, there seem to be very few facts to follow – but plenty of theories and speculation. What worries me is biblical scholars who publicly espouse their views on the "historicity" of Jesus, without making it very clear how different their evidence is from what constitutes evidence nowadays – and without ever mentioning that claims of Jesus "historicity" do not address claims about Jesus' divinity. The experts may be looking at it in an objective manner, but they should know, if they don't already, that ordinary people don't interpret it that way. They hear "my redeemer liveth!" Do you not worry that ordinary people are misinterpreting what you say? Do experts perhaps prefer that they misinterpret it, so they don't have to get into some pretty delicate conversations with believing Christians demanding confirmation of their beliefs? I'm asking this as the devil's advocate.

I'd be satisfied if I knew experts like you were telling people just that they weren't sure about Jesus existence -- that the evidence is not what we would consider strong evidence in today's world. I'd especially want you to make clear that that the research on Jesus' existence does not address the issue of whether or not he is the son of God, who was born of a virgin, died on a cross and rose from the dead. Also be sure to mention previous pagan gods with similar life stories.

Do you think experts responding in this way is a plausible scenario?

Thanks, look forward to your reply.

38. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95502 by Sara on December 8, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Smithyboy - Thanks – your comments to Wonderist and Elise were very helpful.

Also, you said earlier: "Nor am I aware of any particularly plausible mechanisms whereby the above [stories] came about without him existing."

How about rumors? Or word-of mouth, like stories of the loch ness monster, or myth or fables, like Aesop's fables? Any reason why these are particularly less plausible than Jesus being real? Also, it's my understanding (learned this from a university professor teaching an adult Christian education class) that Jesus was a common name back then and wandering itinerate preachers were also common. Is this right? I asked the teacher for a reference, but he didn't have one. To me this could contribute to either possibility. Your thoughts on this?

39. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95288 by Sara on December 7, 2007 at 9:50 pm

Smithyboy - I just see that I did not comment on your entire post - will do so, hopefully tomorrow.

40. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95287 by Sara on December 7, 2007 at 9:47 pm

Thank you, Smithyboy. You mention: "people who themselves believed that Jesus existed in history" - then comment only on Paul. Is there anyone besides Paul? Who are they and are they any more "historical" than Paul or Jesus? I won't dispute (though I don't know) that Paul thought Jesus lived and died, but I do know that he didn't know much about Jesus' life and acknowledges, for what it's worth, that Jesus came to him in a vision and that there is speculation among scholars that Paul was having seizures. This would have made him very flaky, indeed, at least in terms of credibility regarding his experiences. I realize this is all speculation, but so is what you've described to me. Paul's apparent knowledge of Jesus could suggest he knew people who knew Jesus, or that he was bragging, which seems in keeping with his personality, to the extent it comes across – and also seems in keeping with human nature. Again – this is conjecture, but so it seems, is the alternative point of view that Paul was speaking credibly from personal experience. And what do we know about the historical Paul? Surely there was someone (or maybe more than one) who spread the word, because we have evidence that the word was spread, but is there any extra-biblical evidence for Paul?

To me the evidence you present is not very convincing. Why is it convincing to you? I ask this sincerely. If this is the reason scholars are agreeing with each other, I can see why they don't go into explanations.

I'm tired now too, but hopefully will have more to say later. Thanks for responding. It's the first straight answer I've received. I welcome further insights and information.

41. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95215 by Sara on December 7, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Smithyboy - Please, don't spare us the evidence -- this is exactly what I've been seeking. Telling us you have the evidence, based on your advanced education -- and then not providing it, is just more of the same: "Trust me, I'm an expert."

42. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95177 by Sara on December 7, 2007 at 2:03 pm

<>

Yes, indeed it is, but do you know on what basis they hold this opinion? If so, let me know. I have not seen them provide any evidence, only their collective "opinion" -- and I've really been trying.

After meeting Bart Erhman at a book discussion about a year ago, I engaged him in a conversation about this, and he referred me to a 1985 book, "The Evidence for Jesus," by James D.G. Dunn. Its index was of biblical references only.

Below is a list (which I emailed to Erhman) of scholars who were confident of Jesus' existence, but provided no evidence:

- Marcus Borg says he'd swear in a court of law that Jesus is the Son of God because early Christians believed it to be so. That's not evidence, it's a personal interpretation.

- NT Wright says he's written about it at length elsewhere, but he doesn't say where. Plus, lengthy writings are not necessarily evidence.

- You [Erhman] said, "I don't know any serious historians who think so" regarding Jesus as myth. You added that you don't think Paul would lie. That's not evidence, it's conjecture.

- Raymond Martin, in The Elusive Messiah, quotes Dominic Crossan saying the fact that Jesus was crucified is "as sure as anything historical can ever be" but there is no reference for the comment, for Crossan's source of information, nor is any reason given for such certainty. Scholars quoting each other's assertions is not evidence, no matter how impressive the scholars.

Such repeated assertions without evidence to back it up is not only misleading, at some point, it becomes intellectually dishonest.

There are just a few extra-biblical references, as you know, all long after Jesus lived. None of the contemporaneous historians or writers mention him. ….

I wish the scholars and historians could just acknowledge that they can't know whether or not Jesus existed. Despite a long and diligent search, there is not strong evidence for Jesus and it's doubtful now that any will be found.

I can think of some good political reasons for not saying this, but no good scholarly or ethical reasons. …In fact, it seems like there would be an academic and ethical imperative to be clear. But it hasn't happened. Instead, from my outsider's vantage point, it seems like there is a tacit agreement or perhaps a unconscious constraint regarding discussing the shaky evidence in anything but ambiguous or veiled terms."

Erhman responded to my email. I won't copy his response here, because that seems like a violation of privacy. I certainly wouldn't want someone to publish my email responses on a blog. I'll just say that his response did not address the issues I raised.

I have another example to add. When Susan Jacoby, well-known atheist journalist, posted on her Washington Post "on faith" blog, that she thought Jesus was a real person, several atheists responded, doubting her information or asking what her source of information was. She responded several times, without answering the question. Check it out here. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/12/people_who_are_living_longer/all_comments.html

So, what do you make of all this? What can be done about it?