Darth Christ?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What about precession...

Yes, of course. However, precession doesn't change the physical location of the stars in their repective constellations. It merely rotates the position of that constellation relative to certain astronomical phenomena when viewed from Earth, such as the attendant "star sign" of the rising sun on morning of the solstices. Declination, though, is a different matter...nevertheless, I'd like to think my point remains: more than one observer has noted the Cosmic Opera. It's only post-Christianity that some wish to apply this dance to Jesus.

Now, about that Orion/Hunter/Saviour genesis...or even this:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e235/davidc2/1143223342_jp2_wafer.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e235/davidc2/1143223644_hazor.gif

Originally posted by David C
Then pay more attention. Holding's essays in response to Mythical Christ proponents amount to several paragraphs of ad homenims followed by the usual appeal to the popularity among "biblical scholars" of the historicity of Jesus.

[b]As to 1b, how is it circular reasoning?

1) The Gospels exist because Jesus was real.
2) Jesus was real becaus ...[text shortened]... ny bearing on the "fate of my eternal soul", as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron might put it.[/b]

Holding's essays in response to Mythical Christ proponents amount to several paragraphs of ad homenims followed by the usual appeal to the popularity among "biblical scholars" of the historicity of Jesus.

Then I would advise you to pay more attention. Granted, Holding does not hold back from ad hominem attacks (one of his least likeable character flaws), but he does not then fall back on the "experts' census" option. He uses it as one of his counter-arguments - but he also lists the actual arguments that other scholars make against the Jesus Seminar cabal.

Aside: You were wrong about the whole "since the 18th century" bit, weren't you? 😉

1) The Gospels exist because Jesus was real.
2) Jesus was real because the Gospels say so.

Er, no.

The Gospels are real. Christianity is real. That Christianity was widespread by the end of the 1st cent. AD is also real. Given these facts, that the object of these, i.e. Jesus, was also real is by far the most plausible explanation. That's how Holding argues.

Your "circular argument" is a strawman.

I'm not concerned with Socrates or Alexander, as the existence of these characters do not have any bearing on the "fate of my eternal soul", as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron might put it.

Whether they have a bearing on your soul or not has nothing to do with their historicity. If you apply one standard of historical acceptance for them and another for Jesus, you are using double standards - pure and simple. That's hypocrisy.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The Gospels are real. Christianity is real. That Christianity was widespread by the end of the 1st cent. AD is also real. Given these facts, that the object of these, i.e. Jesus, was also real is by far the most plausible explanation. That's how Holding argues.

Yes, yes, yes, quite likely there was a man named Yeshua active in those times and places. However, there's no reason to believe the account contained in the Gospels should be taken as the gospel truth. If you happen to belong to the religion, you need faith...Otherwise, it's a collection of stories...Fantastic. Everyone likes stories. They may lead to the Truth...There's no reason why the story of Darth Vader shouldn't lead someone to the Force...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes, yes, yes, quite likely there was a man named Yeshua active in those times and places. However, there's no reason to believe the account contained in the Gospels should be taken as the gospel truth. If you happen to belong to the religion, you need faith...Otherwise, it's a collection of stories...Fantastic. Everyone likes stories. They may lead to ...[text shortened]... ruth...There's no reason why the story of Darth Vader shouldn't lead someone to the Force...

...there's no reason to believe...

Ah yes. All the reasons given are not really reasons. What are they then?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]...there's no reason to believe...

Ah yes. All the reasons given are not really reasons. What are they then?[/b]

What's that phrase you love to use when you discuss evolution...Ah yes--it's just wishful thinking, in my opinion...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Your "circular argument" is a strawman.

Aside: You were wrong about the whole "since the 18th century" bit, weren't you? 😉

Since I have no idea to what you are referring, I'll say "maybe".

Er, no.

um, yes.

Holding doesn't posit that Jesus "is the most plausible explanation", rather he says a, b and c, therefore 'Christ Mythers' are a bunch of insert ad homs. and Jesus was real. The "most plausible" stance would expose his argument as weaker than he intends. This might be your line, Hammy, but honestly...it's on shaky ground. By that reasoning, we should consider it 'plausible' that all mythological heroes or religious figures were actual historical entities. Do you really believe that Osiris and Odin existed?

If you apply one standard of historical acceptance for them and another for Jesus, you are using double standards - pure and simple. That's hypocrisy.

However, I'm not. I've acknowledged the historical veracity of Socks and Al might be considered equally questionable. I believe at that point, you asked if I truly thought the moon landings were faked, and called me a conspiracy nut. Look at it this way: If the JWs were knocking on my door preaching the Gospel of Socks, this might be a different thread entirely.