Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-09-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

There are certainly points to be responded to, but my main concern is that you are still maintaining much the same thing as you always have. You still say essentially that I have provided no evidence, meaning evidence that is direct and unequivocal, and in my last posting here (as I have done many times in the past) I made an admission of this. When are you going to accept that and stop making that specific demand?

I have accepted it, and now I am questioning your indirect and equivocal evidence. I have been questioning the relevance of your 'indicators', have I not? ....

It has occurred to me that when mythicists or Jesus-agnostics point out the thin amount of evidence that might support a historical Jesus, the historicist camp rejects that line of argument. History is about probabilities, they say, and if you can't accept the existence of a HJ on that amount of evidence, you have to give up all of ancient history. Where will it end?

But when Earl Doherty proposes a certain interpretation of Paul, there is a sudden requirement to show chapter and verse and confirming details. This is the well-known phenomenon of "selective skepticism" which we all need to be on guard against.

Amaleq13 · 06-09-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

What is comes down to for me is that the evidence is a mess rather akin to a Rorschach inkblot.

Royalties?

Quote:

Perhaps his greatest contribution was showing that the Quest of the Historical Jesus frequently amounts to little more than a literary equivalent to Rorschach's inkblots: What we see in the image is ultimately a reflection of self.

Since I have used this comparison at least since 2003, I guess the question should be posed to you. Fear not, there will be no charge to your account, Rick. "My" wisdom is free.*

*I may owe something to Mack since, IIRC, I originally read the notion in one of his books. And, again IIRC, it was also specifically connected to dear Albert.

squiz · 06-09-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

(May I remind you of an equally false implication on your part that a Professor of Richard Carrier’s at Columbia had called into question Carrier’s competence in Greek, whereas, unbeknownst to us at the time, it was simply his refusal to respond to your e-mail trying to elicit such a criticism which was the sole basis of your implication.

I think that an accusation such as this deserves a link at least.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.