Go Back   AFA Forums > Atheism > General Chit Chat About Atheism

General Chit Chat About Atheism Something on your mind?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 7th December 2017, 10:39 PM
SEG's Avatar
SEG SEG is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Hills District of Sydney
Posts: 414
Default Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

I'd like to make a comment on why the late, great, Christopher Hitchens believed in the historical Jesus. During his talk on his book, "Why God is Not Great", he makes these comments on why he believes that the Jesus of the Bible may have been a historical person:



Quote:
Now, there is on the historicity point, there're only two reasons to suppose that there may have been the figure of some kind of deluded rabbi present at that time.

The first is the fakery of the story. The fakery itself proves something.

The prophecy says this man must be born in the house of David, of David's line, in David's town. Means he must be born in Bethlehem.

Jesus of Nazareth is well known to have been born in Nazareth.

In order to get him to Bethlehem a huge fabrication has to be undertaken. A census is proposed by Cesar Augustus. No such census ever took place.

The people of the region were not required to go back to their hometown to be registered. That's never happened.

Quirinius was not governor of Syria in that year as the gospels say.

None of the story of the Nativity is true in any detail, and not one of the gospels agrees with each other on this fabrication.

But the fabrication itself suggests something

If they were simply going to make up the whole thing and had never been such person then why not just have him born in Bethlehem right there and leave out the Nazarene business.


So the very falsity of it, the very fanatical attempt to make it come right suggests that yes, there may have been a charismatic deluded individual wondering around at that time.

But which is most impressive to you?


The fantastic fabrications, the unbelievably inane and inarticulate preachments or the inconsistencies in the story?

You can mention another thing about the resurrection.

Most of the witnesses to this are women, illiterate, stupid, deluded, hysterical females, of a kind that to a Jewish Court at that time would have had about as much chance of being listened to as they would in Islamic court today.

What religion that wants its fabrication to be believed it's gonna say You've got to believe it 'cause we have some illiterate hysterical girls who said they saw this.

No, it's impressive to me that the evidence is so thin and is so hysterical and is so feable and is so obviously, strenuously cobbled together, because it suggests that something was going on, there was some character.


And I don't want therefore to profane those who think they know there must have been something.

This is not a whole cloth fabrication, but it is a very human and very intelligible and very pitiable practice of fraud, that may have worked on stupefied peasants in the greater Jerusalem area but should really have no power to influence anyone in this room
I'd like to comment on the 2 objections he said that I have bolded above.

1. If they were simply going to make up the whole thing and had never been such person then why not just have him born in Bethlehem right there and leave out the Nazarene business.

That was the case in Mark and Matthew. He had no birth story in Mark and Mathew had him born in a house in Bethlehem, not a manger. The Nazarene business had nothing to do with locality, it was probably referring to a cultic title.
Where he said;
Quote:
So the very falsity of it, the very fanatical attempt to make it come right suggests that yes, there may have been a charismatic deluded individual wondering around at that time.
This looks like a version of the criterion of embarrassment where the authors would supposedly not have gone out of their way to create a story that embarrassed its author. I think that a far more parsimonious explanation was that it was just made up in order to fulfill a prophesy in the OT.

2.
Quote:
Most of the witnesses to this are women, illiterate, stupid, deluded, hysterical females, of a kind that to a Jewish Court at that time would have had about as much chance of being listened to as they would in Islamic court today.

What religion that wants its fabrication to be believed it's gonna say You've got to believe it 'cause we have some illiterate hysterical girls who said they saw this.
I see the part about women being the witnesses as being an allegorical message of the reversal of expectation, as Carrier notes, that the least shall be first. In any case, in this location and era, women were apparently able to take others to trial and speak in court as witnesses.

This short video is probably a better explanation and is the motivation behind this post;


Last edited by SEG; 7th December 2017 at 10:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thank Darwinsbulldog thanked this post
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 12:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.