FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-15-2001, 07:31 PM   #21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

NOMAD: For what it is worth, Earl was free to use his opening arguments to help account for the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus, as well as explain the foundation of the Christian movement sans a real Jesus. Since he didn't, I believe the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that he could not account for these things.

EARL/PHILIP: Except that Doherty does account for the crucifixion story and the rise of Christianity both in his book and on his website. See Doherty's arguments about the mystery cults, the dying and rising godmen, and the platonic multi-level model of the universe. See also Doherty's arguments about the Q community and the patch work of groups combined in Mark, which explains the popularity of early Christianity (the religion was a combination of several other groups which already had followers). You were supposed to be aware of Doherty's arguments, and to attack them. Doherty was then supposed to defend the arguments he's already made and summarized in his opening and second last post. But how can he defend them if you never attack them?

Using the embarrassment criterion to show that Jesus was very probably baptized by John is hardly strong evidence for Jesus' existence. Jesus' baptism by John would not necessarily have been embarrassing to Mark's readers. The event could have been seen as a passing of the torch from John to Jesus. After all, Mark does call John the prophesied messenger sent out ahead of the Lord. That's a pretty important role for John, according to the early Christians, so there wouldn't necessarily have been anything embarrassing about Jesus being baptized by John. One important figure baptizes another important figure. Although Jesus would have been regarded as more important than John, Jesus is portrayed in Mark as a humble servant of the Lord, not a know-it-all king of the universe as in the gospel of John.

Furthermore, Jesus' special connection to God isn't indicated prior to the baptism but only just after, so Mark's readers would have been free to think that prior to the baptism Jesus was just an ordinary fellow. Notice also that it's not John who confers divinity upon Jesus, but the Father who does so. John's baptism was just the setting for the Father's compliment to Jesus, and the sending of the dove, or Holy Spirit.

Finally, although the text says that Jesus was baptized by John, Mark uses his characteristic informal style in saying only that "as Jesus was coming up out of the water" as opposed to "as John pulled Jesus out of the water," thus de-emphasizing John's role in the baptism. So how involved was John in the baptism? Did John lord it over Jesus? If Mark had indicated as much, that would be much stronger evidence for the event's historicity according to the criterion of embarrassment. This criterion is valid, so far as it goes, but we must establish first that the early Christians would indeed have very probably been embarrassed by the event in question. That's not clear to me in this case.

Nomad actually went so far as to quote Josephus to prove that John existed, as if John's mere existence has the slightest bearing on whether Jesus existed or was baptized by John. That's how desperate the traditionalist is for evidence regarding Jesus' existence. Everyone knows that a piece of fiction can be told in the context of historical events.



EARL/PHILIP: Why did you not take the opportunity to demolish DOHERTY'S ARGUMENTS?

NOMAD: You mean the ones that are not relevant (like those presented thus far?), or the ones he has not offered or defended yet?

EARL/PHILIP: Doherty's arguments aren't relevant to Doherty's mythicism? That's a simple category mistake on your part, Nomad. What I'm doing is giving you a strategy to beat Doherty. Simply refute his arguments! Of course Doherty's arguments are relevant to the debate. All you have to do is show that they don't establish Jesus' non-existence. Why don't you simply refute Doherty's arguments as he's presented them in his first and second last post in the thread, and in his website and book? Why snub the star participant by ignoring his arguments? Why not take this chance to demolish his case?

Normally, I don't care how debaters handle their case. Normally you would be free to take any strategy you like, including ignoring your opponent's arguments and trying to refocus the debate. Normally, virtually anything is fair game, as far as I'm concerned. But this is a special case. Here we have a relative star who was apparently under the impression that you were interested in discussing his views rather than presenting an independent case for Jesus' historicity. These two agendas are related, but the emphasis is different. By the emphasis of all your posts, at the very least, you have shown that you're not interested in refuting Doherty's own arguments directly. That's a shame as far as I'm concerned, because I was really looking forward to seeing if those arguments could be well-defended by Doherty, to help me make up my mind on their validity. Instead there's the danger that the debate will be cut short.

For the sake of better demolishing Doherty, if only by continuing the debate, why don't you refocus your efforts and tackle Doherty's arguments themselves, whether or not you consider them weak or irrelevant to the question of Jesus' historicity as YOU see it? You're supposed to be undermining Doherty's view of the issue, not supporting your own. Simply take a page from his website or book and refute it, or better yet go back to his first or second last post in the formal thread and refute it at length. By demolishing Doherty's arguments themselves you will not only show that Jesus existed, but that Doherty's arguments in particular fail. Obviously it follows that if some other arguments not considered by Doherty succeed in demonstrating that Jesus existed, Doherty's mythicism must be false. But that's simply a discourteous, and in this case, counter-productive and unnecessary strategy to take. Why not please Doherty, keep him around, and pummel his arguments line by line? Why not prolong his agony and the debate by accepting the focus he laid out, and of course refuting his arguments? Why stubbornly try to refocus the debate when you have the opportunity to destroy Doherty's position at length and in detail?
 
Old 05-15-2001, 08:03 PM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Angry

EARL/PHILIP: Except that Doherty does account for the crucifixion story and the rise of Christianity both in his book and on his website. See Doherty's arguments about the mystery cults, the dying and rising godmen, and the platonic multi-level model of the universe.

SWL: If Nomad IS interacting with areas Earl's "hypothesis" covers, all the more Earl should attempt a response! But since you seem pretty familiar with Earl's work, and Earl doesn't seem willing, why don't you drag the info. on over on the mystery cults, D.A.R.G.s, and Platonism?

Earl/Philip: You were supposed to be aware of Doherty's arguments, and to attack them. Doherty was then supposed to defend the arguments he's already made and summarized in his opening and second last post. But how can he defend them if you never attack them?

SecWebLurker: And thanks for pointing out the fact that this is exactly what Nomad did.

Earl/Phillip: Using the embarrassment criterion to show that Jesus was very probably baptized by John is hardly strong evidence for Jesus' existence. Jesus' baptism by John would not necessarily have been embarrassing to Mark's readers.

SWL: But indeed we know it was from the Synoptics and from The "Gospel of the Nazarenes 2" which is openly hostile to the idea:

"Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brethren said to him: John the Baptist baptizes unto the remission of sins, let us go and be baptized by him. But he said to them: Wherein have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless what I have said is ignorance [a sin of ignorance]."

Earl/Philip: The event could have been seen as a passing of the torch from John to Jesus. After all, Mark does call John the prophesied messenger sent out ahead of the Lord. That's a pretty important role for John, according to the early Christians, so there wouldn't necessarily have been anything embarrassing about Jesus being baptized by John. One important figure baptizes another important figure.

SWL: Uh-oh, Earl's reaching into his magic bag again. Problem is - his ministry of baptizing is explicitly identified with repentence for sins. If passing the torch along was at issue, Jesus would have become the baptizer - not gotten baptized Himself. The torch the baptizer holds is AS eschatological herald and baptizER (no hint is given as to John having been baptizED).

Earl/Philip: Furthermore, Jesus' special connection to God isn't indicated prior to the baptism but only just after, so Mark's readers would have been free to think that prior to the baptism Jesus was just an ordinary fellow. Notice also that it's not John who confers divinity upon Jesus, but the Father who does so. John's baptism was just the setting for the Father's compliment to Jesus, and the sending of the dove, or Holy Spirit.

SWL: All completely irrelevant as any other setting would do - particularly an ANOINTING.

Earl/Philip: Finally, although the text says that Jesus was baptized by John, Mark uses his characteristic informal style in saying only that "as Jesus was coming up out of the water" as opposed to "as John pulled Jesus out of the water," thus de-emphasizing John's role in the baptism.

SWL: Ahahhaha! This is beyond lame. First of all, its entirely irrelevant to the point about Jesus identifying with a movement of repentance. But of course, there's nothing in the text to say John did NOT pull Jesus out of the water and Mark not mentioning this explicitly hardly betrays any redactional tendancies or motives.

Earl/Philip: So how involved was John in the baptism? Did John lord it over Jesus? If Mark had indicated as much, that would be much stronger evidence for the event's historicity according to the criterion of embarrassment.

SWL: Right, if John had told Jesus "Look man, I baptized you so you can't be the Messiah, and plus, I held your arm while you were coming up out of the water. The Messiah would have come up all on his own", then Earl would be convinced.

Earl/Philip: This criterion is valid, so far as it goes, but we must establish first that the early Christians would indeed have very probably been embarrassed by the event in question. That's not clear to me in this case.

SWL: See above and take a look at the Synoptic parallels!

Earl/Philip: Normally, virtually anything is fair game, as far as I'm concerned. But this is a special case. Here we have a relative star who was apparently under the impression that you were interested in discussing his views rather than presenting an independent case for Jesus' historicity.

SWL: What? Star? Earl D. is an unknown with a web-site who hangs out on e-mail lists and argues with kids! Oh, he's got places to BE right? He can't hang around if Nomad doesn't want to get tangled in his web of silly quibbles. He's too busy arguing on the prestigious JesusMysteries e-group. If Earl wanted to interact with actual scholars, he'd DEFINITELY be on crosstalk.

Earl: For the sake of better demolishing Doherty, if only by continuing the debate, why don't you refocus your efforts and tackle Doherty's arguments themselves.

SWL: Because, as you've shown, he already has.

SecWebLurker



[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited May 16, 2001).]
 
Old 05-15-2001, 08:07 PM   #23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Except that Doherty does account for the crucifixion story and the rise of Christianity both in his book and on his
website. See Doherty's arguments about the mystery cults, the dying and rising godmen, and the platonic multi-level model of the universe. See also Doherty's arguments about the Q community and the patch work of groups combined in Mark, which explains the popularity of early Christianity (the religion was a combination of several other groups which already had followers). You were
supposed to be aware of Doherty's arguments, and to attack them. </font>
So now, Nomad was not only responsible for responding to the arguments raised by Doherty in his posts, he has to respond to arguments Doherty hasn't even raised yet and are mentioned in his book! I suppose that is one way to increase book sales, but I don't think that is any way to hold a debate .

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> although the text says that Jesus was baptized by John, Mark uses his characteristic informal style in saying only that "as Jesus was coming up out of the water" as opposed to "as John pulled Jesus out of the water," thus de-emphasizing John's role in the baptism. So how involved was John in the baptism? </font>
I don't suppose you realize that this supports the position that the gospel authors were "embarassed" by the baptism? Mark has chosen language which you claim intentional demphasizes John's role in the baptism. But it is clear that John is baptizing Jesus. The fact that Mark is soft pedaling the plain reality of the situation only further illustrates the discomfort with the baptism.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Doherty's arguments aren't relevant to Doherty's mythicism? That's a simple category mistake on your part, Nomad. What I'm doing is giving you a strategy to beat Doherty. Simply refute his arguments! </font>
So now you are complaining because Nomad has not adopted YOUR strategy on how to debate Doherty? How can you possibly criticize him for not adhering to your tactics?

He already has a strategy. It seems to be working. Doherty has failed to respond to it. Why should Nomad adopt yours?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Normally you would be free to take any strategy you like, including ignoring your opponent's arguments and trying to refocus the debate. Normally, virtually anything is fair game, as far as I'm concerned. But this is a special case. Here we have a relative star who was apparently under the impression that you were interested in discussing his views rather than presenting an independent case for Jesus' historicity. </font>
A star? I'm glad he showed up to defend his theory, but I didn't know he must be given special treatment in a debate. His theory hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal and no prominent New Testament scholar has even bothered to review his book.

And I still don't see how you separate the Jesus-Myth theory from the Jesus did not exist theory. The Jesus-Myth theory is necessarily dependent on the nonexistence of Jesus. Demonstrate the existence of Jesus and you destroy the Jesus-Myth theory, no matter how fanciful your interpretations of Paul are.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> By demolishing Doherty's arguments themselves you will not only show that Jesus existed, but that Doherty's arguments in particular fail. Obviously it follows that if some other arguments not considered by Doherty succeed in demonstrating that Jesus existed, Doherty's mythicism must be false. But that's simply a discourteous, and in this case, counter-productive and unnecessary strategy to take. Why not please Doherty, keep him around, and pummel his arguments line by line? </font>
This is a debate Earl, not summer camp. The goal is not to "please" your opponent in order to "keep him around." The goal is demonstrate the superiority of your position. Nomad has chosen some strong lines of attack. Any one of which, if true, would utterly demolish Doherty's theory.

The thing I really can't believe is that you appear to be attacking Nomad because he didn't debate this thing the way you would have. You are upset that Nomad didn't play by some unwritten rules (unless I missed a memo) that you now insist are necessary to keep "please" our "star" so that we can "keep him around."

 
Old 05-15-2001, 09:16 PM   #24
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Earl:
NOMAD: I believe the answer, based on the evidence, is overwhelmingly yes, and that the argument that He is a mythological construct is untenable and indefensible, at least as the argument has been made to date by Earl and all other mythicists.

EARL/PHILIP: Then why haven't you refuted Doherty's arguments themselves, Nomad? If they're so indefensible why did you ignore Doherty's first post and spend your first two with red herrings and well-poisonings of your very own? Why did you then ignore his latest effort to turn the debate around by offering an easily manageable handful of specific mythicist arguments, and instead brush them off in the blink of an eye and offer three albeit relevant arguments that don't, however, take account of Doherty's views? Why, for example, did you ignore Doherty's arguments on Tacitus and Josephus? Why did you cite the opinion of a number of scholars on a number of topics, as if the minority status of Doherty's position was ever in question? Why did you not take the opportunity to demolish DOHERTY'S ARGUMENTS? Why when you had Doherty in your sights did you ignore HIM, his arguments themselves, and instead shoot up the scenery with broad-based attacks and other evasive material? Why didn't you show everyone how untenable Doherty's ARGUMENTS are? Why have you evaded the debate?

And the better question is, who for pity's sake will quickly replace Nomad so that this opportunity for a formal debate with Doherty isn't lost? Metacrock or Bede? Will one of you step up to the plate?
</font>
Meta =&gt;Do you not see that Dhortey has a double burden? He not only has to prove the things that he asserts, but he also has to disprove any other evidence for Jesus existence. That's becasue he argues that Jesus didn't exist as an historical figure. So any evidence that argues for Jesus' existence automatically disproves Dhortey's view.
 
Old 05-15-2001, 09:22 PM   #25
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:
And why exactly is it, that on these discussion boards run by non-theistic non-Christians, you insist that everyone concede your point about the historical Jesus existing? Your evidence comes down to a few debatable passages in ancient manuscripts, which have clearly been doctored by Christians to some extent. Can this issue be decided here?

All I hoped to get out of this debate was more information, perhaps more clarification of the issues. You have been alluding for some time to the extensive proofs that you had for Jesus' existence. So far, on the basis of probabilities, I think Doherty has the more "probable" case. But I don't think that this debate format is working.
</font>

Meta =&gt;Here is an analogy to what you are saying:

Supposse we are put to the task of arguing that the Gulf of Tonkein resolution was unjustified. And you are defending that it was. So I put out a bunch of evidence that says "the Gulf of Tonkein incident never happened. It was trumped up so that LBJ could pass the resolution and send troops." and you say "that is irrelivant you must prove that the resolution was not justified. I have all these arguments that say that it was, and you don't answer them." But the Gulf of Tokein incident was the total reason for the resolution. If that didn't happen there is no reasont to have that resolution.

Dhortey's theory is centered on the notion that Jesus didn't exist. Why must Brian waste his time arguing about the reasons why Dhortey thinks that, if he can prove that Jesus was a real guy he's disproved the theory.
 
Old 05-15-2001, 09:30 PM   #26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by joedad:
Hmmmmm.

Damn, I'm rather disappointed with the direction of the debate, and I sincerely wish Brian will take it upon himself to address Earl's original evidentiary salvo. But what I've gotten out of these proceedings thus far is surprising, and perhaps makes such a response impossible.

Perhaps I misunderstood the original concept of this exchange, as I see Brian having argued, perhaps proven, that there was indeed someone living at Mount Vernon at the time of George Washington's life, but, I'm disappointed to say, that that was not my expectation.

I fully expected Brian to argue and attempt to prove that the Jesus of the Gospels, the Jesus of Paul, and the Jesus of Christianity, aka the Messiah, were all the same person. Did I miss something? Wasn't this the point?

So, now we have two people in 100 percent agreement that Paul's Jesus is mythical and 100 percent non-historical! Yes?

Well, end of debate then!
</font>
Meta =&gt;Ok that's another thing. A lot of people around here seem to think that it is logical to assume that there was some guy called Jesus of Nazerath but unless we can prove that he was exactly as the Gospels portay him than we have not done anything to disprove Dhortey's views. Dhortey says that there was not even a guy called "Jesus of Naz" no matter how different he was form the Gospels. If it is proven that there probably was such a guy, that in itself is a defeat of Dhortey.

Moreover, it is illogical to think that there is this historical cypher shouded in secrecy and we don't know and can't prove anything about him other than that he existed. The fact that he existed is more than just a fact of his existence, there is a probability associated with that fact. Since he did exist, the evidence of his existence does link him to calims of his Messiahship and baptism by John, his curcifiction, than the probablity of his similarity guy in the Gospels is pretty high.

Of course no historian can prove than anything thing in history happned. History is all probablity. All historical facts are assumbed as probable. So the fact that the probability of Jesus being a Messianich claiment was was crucified under pilate is very high, is a good argument that was the guy in the Gospels. The rest has to be faith. But why is that bad? It's not a blind leap in the dark, there is something to base it on. The guy did exist, he did probably say the things attributed to him, and there is no good reason to doubt that.it's a very high probability.
 
Old 05-15-2001, 09:43 PM   #27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Well I have to say as an atheist that I'm rather disappointed. I think Doherty is on shaky ground and I don't think the explanations that have been offered on his behalf rescue him in any way.

The case for me is a simple one: Was there or was there not an historical Jesus? It is Doherty's contention that there was not. Fine. Lets see him address what Nomad believes to be the strongest arguments for an historical Jesus. If he can address them adequately then his theory becomes significantly stronger. If he can't, then as far as I am concerned his position remains a side show curiosity but not much more.

 
Old 05-15-2001, 09:50 PM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Earl:
LAYMAN: The question we all thought was being addressed in this debate was whether or not Jesus really existed.

EARL/PHILIP: No, Layman. That was not the subject of the debate. The debate was supposed to be about MYTHICISM, and in particular Doherty's arguments. Nomad was supposed to refute Doherty's case for Jesus' ahistoricity.</font>


Meta =&gt;That is luicrous. You guys have no honor and no hoesty. He's supposse to debate Jesus' ahistoricity but not debate the fact that Jesus existed? O that makes a lot of sense! Any argument that proves Jesus' existence is a refutation of Dhortey's theory a priori. Of course it is. that's aburd. To say that he has to just answer the specific arguments that Dhortey gives but can't prove Jesus' existence in any other way what would that prove? If Dhortey's arguments were excellent and among the best arguments in the whole history of argumentation, but still wrong, than they are wrong! So any evidence that proves them wrong is a proof that they are wrong. That should be apparent to anyone.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The debate was supposed to be focused around Doherty's case, not the general question of whether Jesus existed. How do we know this? Because (1) Doherty is the star of the show. He was asked to come to defend his views in a public debate--HIS VIEWS, you know, all those arguments on his web site and in his book. Doherty's arguments were supposed to be the target. And (2) the thread is called "The Jesus Puzzle Debate" not "Did Jesus exist?" </font>
MEta =&gt;Ok I have to admit that if I were in Nomad's shoes I would have done it differently. I wanted to him pound Dhortey's views. I have stuff that will blow him away and I've been itching to use it since I was kicked off that email list when I had just begun to debate him. But I still think that Brian did a heck of good job, and the things he said are very relivant. Anything that proves Jesus was a real guy disproves Dhorty. I don't care if he is the "Star of the show" (and he better enjoy it while he can because there aren't many other shows he's going to star in). He still has the burden of disproving any and all evidence for Jesus' historicity becasue that is his theory. And this just amounts to a cheap trick. You won, but you still lose because you didn't win the way we wanted you to.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The difference is in the focus. The former is focussed around one of the sides on a question, the point being for one of the participants to defend that side and for the other participant to try to refute that side.</font>
Meta =&gt; How in the name of all that is scholarly can the fact of Jesus' existence as an historical figure be the side issue???? That's the whole point. That's the lynch pin. If he is wrong about that he can't be right about any of the rest of it. Half his theory concerns how this etherial figure was read into history. But if Jesus existed in history than all of that is wrong. That would mean that when Paul met the Apostles he heard the real story form them and that would mean that the confessionals the statment abou the 500 and all of that is based upon historical events. Of course that is centeral to the whole theory.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The title, "Did Jesus Exist?" however, is focussed on a middle ground question with the purpose of having each participant lay out his case on either side of the question.

I'm not speaking, by the way, as a biased follower of mythicism. As I said before, I'm not a mythicist, but I am interested in Doherty's arguments and I wanted to see Doherty defend those arguments. I did not want to see Doherty attack Nomad's paltry case for Jesus' historicity. </font>
Meta -&gt; Paltry? those are the very reasons that scholars give for excepting Jesus' historicity. That is THE CASE and its' as good as ANY FOR ANY ANCIENT WORLD FIGURE.That is just a ridiculous charge.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Do you understand that a debate can be focussed around a set of arguments rather than around a general question? In this case, Doherty's arguments were the focus of the debate. That's why Doherty came to the Secular Web, and that's why Nomad was allegedly happy to get a chance to debate DOHERTY in particular, and not just any skeptic or mythicist. This was how Doherty framed his first post: he laid out HIS arguments, expecting Nomad to address some of them. Nomad never did so, but instead indulged himself in irrelevant matters. In his last post, he did indeed make relevant arguments to the question of Jesus' existence, but that doesn't mean he fulfilled his role in the debate. He was supposed to demolish Doherty's arguments. That what I for one wanted see, whether Doherty could successfully defend HIS CASE for Jesus' non-existence.
Quote:
</font>

MEta =&gt;I bet if he did focuss on Dhortehy's stuff you would be saying "but you didn't prove that Jesus existed."
 
Old 05-15-2001, 09:53 PM   #29
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Earl:
Layman,

Did I anywhere say Nomad couldn't bring up Josephus' references to Jesus, John's baptism of Jesus, and early Christian practice? Of course Nomad was allowed to raise these issues, but he should have done so in the context of Doherty's own discussion of them. He should have raised these issues by attacking Doherty's arguments regarding them. That's what it means to have a debate focussed on one of the sides in the discussion, in this case Doherty's mythicism.


[This message has been edited by Earl (edited May 15, 2001).]
</font>

Meta =&gt;So now you are complaining because Nomad didn't organize his material better! You guys are a riot!
 
Old 05-15-2001, 10:06 PM   #30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Earl:
LAYMAN: All your argument boils down to is that Nomad can only attack issues if and when they are raised by Doherty.

EARL/PHILIP: False. Nomad can raise any issue he likes and when he likes, but in doing so he has to address Doherty's arguments on the subject, if indeed Doherty does have arguments on the subject, whether found in his website, his book, or summarized in his first post. </font>


Meta =&gt;That really does seem to be just a complaint about how he organized his material. I want to know why, since Dhorty's theory centers on the non-historicity of Jesus, proving that he was historical is not dealing with Dhortey's views?


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Again, that's what it means to debate Doherty's mythicism, the debate's topic as indicated by the debate's title, and the relative star power of Doherty compared to Nomad.</font>
Meta =&gt;Star power? ahahaha, yea's a bigger fish in his little pond than I am in mine. Have your people call my people, we'll do lunch.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
We wanted to see Doherty defend his views against strong objections. Nomad has indeed raised objections to mythicism in general, but he hasn't indicated any willingness to address Doherty's arguments in detail. He really did brush off Doherty's arguments about Paul as irrelevant to the question of Jesus' existence. </font>
Meta =&gt;WEll that's one failing. I wish he had done more on the Paul stuff. But, that doesn't mean that what he said wasn't relivant or that it didn't disprove Dhortey's theory. Why is the Star not obligated to defend his whole theory?


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
In the present thread Nomad actually says "I'm not interested in getting side tracked into a separate discussion on how Paul and the first apostles preached this Jesus as Christ, and God." Thus Nomad calls one of Doherty's major mythicist arguments a "side track." Nomad is free to consider Doherty's arguments weak or even irrelevant, but it's a simple category mistake to call them a "side track." Since the debate was supposed to be about Doherty's mythicism, by definition Doherty's arguments and only those arguments are the main course, not a side dish.</font>
MEta =&gt;You may well have a point about that, as I keep saying. I would like to have seen Brian light into that Paul stuff too. But that doesn't mean that what he did do didn't scroch the theory overall.

I propose that some moderator or other come up with some new guidelines for the formal debate, especially a proposition to be affirmed or denied, to get the debate back on track. At this point, the debate is foundering because of the confusion between these two propositions: "Did an historical Jesus live?" and "Is Doherty's mythicism true?" The two questions are, of course, related, but the emphasis is different, as I explained in my previous posts in this thread.
[/QUOTE]

Meta =&gt;I think it's a tactic because The Star man knows he ' on the rocks. He can't make good on the centeral thesis of his thoery. Think about it E. If Nomad is right and there was an Historical Jesus, and the basic facts about him are true, he was a Messianch climaint and crucified and so forth, than all Dhortey has is a theory about Paul. And that theory is only half right, at best becasue it's also wrong about all the business of the "Pualine circle" writing in the concete stuff on Jesus' historicity. And he's wrong on the stuff about crucifiction in the heavenlies if Jesus was really crucified in real life. If Jesus was crucified in history than the early chruch's talk about that has to be based upon the histoircal event, not upon the concretizing of Paul's alleged gnostic mythos. So the Jesus history thing brings down many aspects of D's theory,not just that one.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.