Kapyong

Gday,

I do not agree he is.
Please stop these silly games judge


K.

aa5874

How can that be the case? It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE that so-called critical scholarship is vaguely aware of mythicism.

God and his Son Jesus Christ replaced the Roman and Greek MYTH Gods and Sons of God plus the Myth Gods and Sons of God of other Christian cults in the 4th century so any person who studies Ancient Religions MUST be aware of Mythicism.

Justin Martyr declared that Jesus Christ is no different to Roman/Greek mythology so it cannot even be credible that so-called Critical scholarship is vaguely aware of mythicism.

This is Justin Martyr. So-called Critical Scholarship MUST be aware of this passage.

"First Apology" 21 Why would Jesus the Son of God not be a MYTH just like the MYTHS of the other competing Christian cults?

Jesus the Son of God was described as the product of a Virgin and a Ghost and in Roman/Greek mythology sons of Gods were also the product of virgins. So-called Critical Scholarship MUST BE FULLY AWARE of MYTHICISM.

Even Trypho was aware of the Greek/Roman myths Gods and Sons of God since the 2nd century.

"Dialogue with Trypho"

judge

Well of course you dont agree. You have already indicated you are a fan of his. Now after stating that one day his theories will become accepted (safely saying this wont be for 500 years) , you are investigating the evidence.

You did this in the wrong order.
First look at the evidence, then make you mind up.

Toto

Just because there is no conspiracy, it does not follow that Doherty would get a fair hearing, whatever his evidence. Even in the sciences, where there are agreed upon standards of evidence, it may be difficult for a new or controversial theory to get a fair review.

I suspect that peer review of the elements of Doherty's thesis will only come from a younger generation of scholars who have the time and energy to navigate that route. Doherty has done what he can by publishing his books, maintaining his website, and speaking at various conventions.

Somehow GDon has managed to drag the question away from the evidence for a historical Jesus to Doherty's strategies in gaining acceptance of his theories. I don't see the relevance.

judge

Go back to post#171.
Earl started promoting his book in a response toa throwaway line from Spin.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....15#post6634315

maryhelena

That's interesting re convention speaking. Is there any video or mp3 available online anywhere?

GakuseiDon

I suppose anything is possible, but why should he not get a fair hearing? There is no conspiracy here. People may not agree with him, since theories that are against the academic consensus have a fair amount of inertia to push against, but why shouldn't people seriously evaluate the evidence for his argument? What are you hinting at here?

Yeah, but can you imagine a scientist saying that he has collected the evidence needed to substantiate his theory, but people on the Internet -- who don't even comprehend his theory -- have dumped over his case, so there is no point in going to peer review? Or he said "it does not follow that I would get a fair hearing, whatever my evidence"? Would you think of that scientist?

If it is a matter of expertise -- on Middle Platonism, on Q, on Second Century writing styles -- then peer review journals are the very place for Doherty's theories.

Doherty has enough time to publish a 800+ page book, maintain his website, speak at various conventions... but not enough to write even one article for peer-review publication?

Besides, he has given his reason: Doherty has "long since regarded seeking ‘peer review’ as a lost cause" because of those on this board and elsewhere "who have dumped all over [his] case and mythicism in general, most of whom had never read any of [his] books and betrayed the most abysmal ignorance of mythicism’s arguments, let alone had any ability to answer them".

But isn't this in itself a good reason to publish in peer review publication? So that people with the ability to answer his arguments can become familiar with his theories?

There is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, but the cumulative case is strong. An indication of the comparative strength of the cumulative historical case is to set it against competing explanations. Doherty always hints at dark forces that swirl in the air around him, and that the princes of the power of peer-review stand against him. But there is no conspiracy here. I see all to gain and nothing to lose for him going down that road. I suggest that he has less confidence in his theories than he pretends, certainly if Internet amateurs are a reason for him to not seek peer-review.

Toto

I'm not hinting at anything. The "peers" doing the reviewing often have confessional interests that require them to believe that Jesus walked on the earth, or their livelihood depends on studying the historical Jesus. The idea that Jesus never existed can be threatening or confusing to them. They have been told by people that they respect that the question was settled a long time ago and there's no need to worry their pretty little heads about whether Jesus existed. You don't need to believe in conspiracies to realize that there are many impediments to the reception of a new idea.

But this isn't a science.

He only spoke at a few conventions some years ago. He has to earn a living, and he knows that he can get his ideas out by writing a book. Going through "peer review" might or might not be a good use of his time. And you still haven't identified the journal that would publish his work.


No it's not. There is no cumulative case.

I suggest that you are not a mind reader. I suggest that you stop trying to delve into Doherty's state of mind. And I think you are just dead wrong.

GakuseiDon

Upon Toto's recommendation, I'll make this my last word on the matter, at least at this time. I don't like it that Doherty makes stupid accusations about what I claim. I don't like it that he does the same about the motives of people who questions his theories. It is intellectually dishonest, and a pandering to his audience.

If Doherty -- or Toto, or anyone else -- wants to raise hints about the motivations of those who question Doherty's theories that are other than just "I think you are wrong", I will follow them as far as I can go.

GakuseiDon

Really? As far as I know, modern scholarship affirms:

• The Gospels were a form of ancient biography.
• The earliest Christians seemed to believe that the Gospels were written around a real person who was crucified under Pilate.
• The earliest Christians all believed in a 'real' Jesus.
• There is no record of any Christianity that didn't believe in a Jesus that walked the earth.
• Paul seems to indicate that Jesus was a real person who died in Paul's recent past, probably around the time of Pilate.

Naturally, mythicists disagree on one or more points, but still: if all the points above are valid, it builds a strong cumulative case. Overwhelming, in fact.