A Primer On Scoffers. The Basics.

There are some disagreements among skeptics.  There are some threads of thinking, however, that are very popular.

As a disclaimer, I must admit those who doubt do not know there is no god nor whether there was a Jesus.  On other issues there is more confidence.  There is evidence about the kind of person Jesus was, if there was such a person, and what and why certain events happened.  These are at odds with the prevailing conventional wisdom in Christianity generally.

These ideas are discussed in the links below.   Their origin goes back into antiquity.

I’m well aware there are scholars who study this stuff and come to different conclusions.   The disagreements have been there for 2000 years.  What I would call the basic critique of scoffers are these:

The Jesus character was not about simply loving people, but was apocaplytic and politically engaged.

Jesus did not see himself as the Devine.  This was assigned to him by others later.  He saw himself as the son of man.

Jesus was not born in Betheham.

Jesus probably was not literate–could not write.

Jesus died because he came to be seen as a King on earth, a competitor of a current King, not as a King in heaven.  He died for a common violation of political norms of that time.

Jesus was not about marketing Christianity to the pagans.  It was Paul who came up with that idea.  The Bible shows many followers of Jesus did not like Paul’s idea.



7 Responses

  1. Wanna B Sure

    In response to Jon’s blog; ” A Primer on Scoffers. The Basics”

    1. All of Jon’s points have been addressed before. Nothing new here.

    2. What happens when an ill informed reporter from Fox makes a fool of herself

    3. Related articles following;
    3-a; Helluva Zealot by Jennifer Crompton—Huffington Post-religion section
    3-b; Scholars Respond to Reza Aslan’s “Zealot: The Live & Times of Jesus of
    Nazareth”. Noting also Aslan’s content is not new, or sensational. By Nicola

    1. Wanna 4:09 “Nothing new here.”

      That is true. My point was how wide spread the agreement is among scoffers. You alluded to, a few months ago, Bart Erhman as not a mature scholar. Most of these views are also his, and mostly he cites earlier scholars as the source of these views. In some circles, they are called “mainstream”.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        “mainstream” is a narrow band of thought.
        How wide the spread is only in the mind of the scoffers, including Erhman.

      2. Wanna B Sure

        Look at “Mainstream” as the Platt River. “A mile wide, and an inch deep”. Parallel to “Mainline”.

    2. entech

      Nothing new under the sun Wanna, just because it has been said before doesn’t mean it is wrong. conversely just because you and yours quote Christianity and its doctrines doesn’t mean they are true.

        1. entech

          of course then we could paraphrase that;
          To think to think, to dumb to know.

          But that would raise the eternal question:
          Who is talking about whom. But again the total inconsequentiality and total lack of relevance of the comment @ 11:42 could give a clue.

Comments are closed.