Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 01-22-2012, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is crazy. Doherty's writing is full of careful research. Ehrman is a major proponent of the claim that the Christian documents have been forged and altered.

Let's just wait for March 20.

What?? Jesus [HJ] is coming ???

It is most amusing that people are waiting for opnion WITHOUT evidence.

Jesus [HJ] never had any evidence of Life.

ApostateAbe · 01-22-2012, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

I would be disappointed if Ehrman did not make the copy-cat-Christs arguments the focus of his book, because those are the most popular arguments among mythicists generally, though not on this forum.

Not among 'pro' mythicists, including myself. If Ehrman, knowing this, nevertheless makes that his focus, then he will be indulging in fraud; or if he does not know it, then he knows nothing about the mythicist case and is indulging in ignorance.

You really never change, do you, Abe?

Earl Doherty

The copycat-Christs claims deserve the most attention because they are most popular among mythicists, despite your own efforts to promote your own theory. It is the 'pro' mythicist position that the myth of Jesus is a derivative of previous mythical godmen. It didn't help that you endorsed The Christ Conspiracy of Acharya S. Gakuseidon keeps rubbing it in, and I think now would be a good time to reverse your endorsement. Price at least hedged, which is better than nothing.

ApostateAbe · 01-22-2012, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

These two methods would make any theory you can possibly imagine consistent with the evidence. There is nothing wrong with those two methods as long as one supplies a strong argument. If they are mere possibilities proposed to make the theory fit, then they are mere ad hoc. Earl Doherty does this all throughout his literature. For example, he explains the passage in Josephus about "James, the brother of Jesus, called Christ," as interpolation, where "called Christ" did not originally exist. The evidence seems to stand against this, as it would leave "Jesus" unidentified until a few lines later (at best), breaking a consistent pattern of Josephus, but it is still a possibility, and Earl Doherty writes as though the mere possibility is enough to save his case. In history, though, anything is possible. Making a case should be about probability, and, typically, the theory with the least number of improbable ad hoc explanations is the winner.

Ad hoc explanations are both ways. If you want to accept the "..called Christ" as original to the text, you're stuck producing ad hoc explanations of the silence about it in the Xtian sources, explaining why Josephus would refer to someone called "Christ" when he has no truck with messianic pretenders, why the death of a random James should result in the rise of the Damneus family to the High Priest position -- which makes sense if the passage had originally referred to a James in that family, why Photius reports a different phrase in that location, indicating tampering, etc. You can't escape the problem of ad hoc explanations by falling back on the mainstream interpretive framework, you simply trade one set with few or none (mythicism) to one set with zillions (historicism).

Vorkosigan

Josephus wrote that Jesus was 'called Christ' probably because that was the popularly-known title of Jesus. The death of James really did cause political trouble for the high priest. Photius was paraphrasing, not quoting. But don't stop there. If you scrounge around long enough, you will be able to find a dozen more half-assed reasons why any given passage that happens to conflict with your existing conclusions actually said something else before Christians tampered with it.

aa5874 · 01-22-2012, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The copycat-Christs claims deserve the most attention because they are most popular among mythicists, despite your own efforts to promote your own theory. It is the 'pro' mythicist position that the myth of Jesus is a derivative of previous mythical godmen. It didn't help that you endorsed The Christ Conspiracy of Acharya S. Gakuseidon keeps rubbing it in, and I think now would be a good time to reverse your endorsement. Price at least hedged, which is better than nothing.

Over 1800 years ago, even a Christian writer ADMITTED that the Jesus story is JUST like Mythology of Greeks and Romans so please stop spreading your propaganda.

How many times must you be shown that Justin Martyr stated that the Jesus story is NOT different to Mythology?

"First Apology" 21

Quote:

...And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.

For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars?...

The Jesus story was MYTHOLOGY from start to finish and CONFIRMED by a Christian source of Antiquity.

EarlDoherty · 01-22-2012, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

If you can wait until March I live in Seattle and go visit the office on your behalf. I know how frustrating it is to deal with Amazon

Thanks, Stephan. If nothing is resolved before March, I'll let you know.

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe · 01-22-2012, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... They represented an anti-religious camp, as the modern Jesus-minimalists do today,

Why do you keep repeating this false accusation? Robert Price is not anti-religion, nor is Tom Harpur. A lot of the interest in the Christ Myth theory comes from New Age believers, such as Freke and Gandy.

OK, so let's say anti-fundamentalism and anti-religion, not just anti-religion. I suppose I should make a habit of splitting those hairs from now on, though I still dont quite understand your thinking on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

They lost the political debate, and scholars have since ignored it for their own convenience.

No disagreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Funny, these are the same methods most scholars use. There are widespread interpolations in early Christian literature, and the most obvious interpretation is often not the best when you are dealing with literature full of allusions and hidden meanings.

Yea, but, you know, when you split up everything I say for the sake of firing off a series of counterpoints, it can be at the disadvantage of missing some essential clarifying points. That is a frustrating habit, in my opinion. I followed up by saying, 'There is nothing wrong with those two methods as long as one supplies a strong argument. If they are mere possibilities proposed to make the theory fit, then they are mere ad hoc.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is no evidence against the idea that "called Christ" is an interpolation.

It is highly improbable that any random passage is an interpolation unless a good argument is made in favor of interpolation. In this case, the phrase is expected of Josephus, who very much tended to identify people as soon as he introduces them in the text, not the second time he mentions them. And it is phrasing that is NOT expected of Christians, whose confirmed interpolation has drastically different language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In general, Doherty does not favor interpolations.

Right. He depends very heavily on method number 2: not-so-obvious interpretations. It is in the same league as method number 1, because it is finding meaning for texts that is not evident on the face.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is crazy. Doherty's writing is full of careful research. Ehrman is a major proponent of the claim that the Christian documents have been forged and altered.

Yes, but, if you pay attention, you may notice that Ehrman's theory of the historical Jesus does not depend on the claims of interpolations. They happen to be two separate debates for Ehrman. His theory would work just the same with no insistence on either interpolations or bizarre interpretations. It is only with a theory that is in stark conflict with the face of the evidence do the ad hoc claims become necessary.

EarlDoherty · 01-22-2012, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

The copycat-Christs claims deserve the most attention because they are most popular among mythicists, despite your own efforts to promote your own theory. It is the 'pro' mythicist position that the myth of Jesus is a derivative of previous mythical godmen. It didn't help that you endorsed The Christ Conspiracy of Acharya S. Gakuseidon keeps rubbing it in, and I think now would be a good time to reverse your endorsement. Price at least hedged, which is better than nothing.

You really do have trouble understanding things, don't you? You miss my point entirely. This is not a popularity issue. The focus of scholarly mythicism has never been on copy-cat Christs, and if Ehrman knows anything about mythicism he should know this. 'Disproving' the copycat approach will do nothing to counter professional mythicism from Bruno Bauer on, and so you are urging Ehrman to waste his time and accomplish nothing.

As for the Christ Conspiracy, I've said it before, I simply ignored the final part of the book as irrelevant to her main case and judged the rest as worthy of a positive review. You and Don are wasting your own time trying to 'rub in' an irrelevancy and have proven nothing. But then, your cupboard is bare, you've got nothing else to offer. I still await a reading and review of my latest book, Abe, and a substantive rebuttal to genuine mythicism. Something other than your pathetic appeals to authority which you never seem to run out of.

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe · 01-22-2012, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

The copycat-Christs claims deserve the most attention because they are most popular among mythicists, despite your own efforts to promote your own theory. It is the 'pro' mythicist position that the myth of Jesus is a derivative of previous mythical godmen. It didn't help that you endorsed The Christ Conspiracy of Acharya S. Gakuseidon keeps rubbing it in, and I think now would be a good time to reverse your endorsement. Price at least hedged, which is better than nothing.

You really do have trouble understanding things, don't you? You miss my point entirely. This is not a popularity issue. The focus of scholarly mythicism has never been on copy-cat Christs, and if Ehrman knows anything about mythicism he should know this. 'Disproving' the copycat approach will do nothing to counter professional mythicism from Bruno Bauer on, and so you are urging Ehrman to waste his time and accomplish nothing.

As for the Christ Conspiracy, I've said it before, I simply ignored the final part of the book as irrelevant to her main case and judged the rest as worthy of a positive review. You and Don are wasting your own time trying to 'rub in' an irrelevancy and have proven nothing. But then, your cupboard is bare, you've got nothing else to offer. I still await a reading and review of my latest book, Abe, and a substantive rebuttal to genuine mythicism. Something other than your pathetic appeals to authority which you never seem to run out of.

Earl Doherty

I read the first few pages of your book (The Jesus Puzzle), I was unhappy with it, and I ignored the rest of it, so I think a negative appraisal of the whole book is fair.

aa5874 · 01-22-2012, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Josephus wrote that Jesus was 'called Christ' probably because that was the popularly-known title of Jesus. The death of James really did cause political trouble for the high priest. Photius was paraphrasing, not quoting. But don't stop there. If you scrounge around long enough, you will be able to find a dozen more half-assed reasons why any given passage that happens to conflict with your existing conclusions actually said something else before Christians tampered with it.

There is simply no evidence that Jews practised the ritual of Human Sacrifice of a murdered victim to appease the God of Moses.

The worship of a MURDERED man as a God was unknown to the Jews.

Please read Tacitus Histories 5.

Quote:

the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence.

They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials.

They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay...

It is just total BS that Jews worshiped a Murdered Man as a God and considered him a Human Sacrifice to appease their own God and who Abolished Jewish Laws of Sacrifice.

EarlDoherty · 01-22-2012, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

I read the first few pages of your book (The Jesus Puzzle), I was unhappy with it, and I ignored the rest of it, so I think a negative appraisal of the whole book is fair.

If you really think that this is a legitimate analogy to what I said about my review of The Christ Conspiracy, it shows that you need to exercise your critical thinking habits beyond the confines of your simplistic appeals to authority.

I read the entire Christ Conspiracy and judged that the final part of it (or the objectionable elements within it) were irrelevant to the case she made in the preceding bulk of the book. You, on the other hand, did not read The Jesus Puzzle beyond the first few pages, which is hardly the same thing.

And I have no doubt you were "unhappy with it," since it ran up against your set-in-concrete opinions and your prejudice against anything worthy being written by someone outside established academia.

Again, pathetic.

Earl Doherty

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.