Amaleq13

Can you support this claim with a specific quote from Riley? I ran a search of his book, One Jesus, Many Christs on Amazon.com and found several references to the crucifixion of Jesus but none of them appear to state or imply that Riley thinks it didn't happen. Instead, he seems to accept it as a given.

spamandham

You're asking me to prove that Riley doesn't claim Jesus was crucified? Wouldn't it be easier to show that he does claim it, if indeed he does?

Amaleq13

I'm asking you to support the specific claim you made. What specific evidence from his writings lead you to the conclusion that "he does not contend the death was crucifixion"?

As I've already mentioned, I searched his book and found numerous references to the crucifixion of Jesus but none included any indication he questioned whether that was how he actually died. Instead, he appears to assume it as given.

Yes, it would be easier for you if the burden was on me to establish the opposite of your claim but that isn't the logical approach.

spamandham

Oddly, I always thought 'mainstream' was determined by whether or not a position has withstood peer review, rather than being determined by mere popularity. If the latter were the case, then this discussion is moot, since by definition only the most popular positions can be considered mainstream.

Amaleq13

When and where has the mythicist position "withstood peer review"?

"Mainstream", according to the dictionary, refers to that which is considered conventional or the dominant opinion but your own definition certainly doesn't help mythicism since it has not "withstood peer review" in that it really has never been subjected to it.

In addition to misunderstanding what "mainstream" means, you do not appear to understand what "moot" means. Revealing that your claim is, in addition to being unsubstantiated, fundamentally flawed by reliance upon a faulty definition of "mainstream" does not render the discussion impossible to resolve or insignificant. It simply means you were wrong. :wave:

spamandham

{emphasis mine}

According to your own standard...

...you are now obligated to prove that mythicism has never been subjected to peer review, which is after all, YOUR claim.

You are also obligated to prove I do not know what "moot" means, in addition to proving that "mainstream" means ONLY what you say it means. While your at it, you'll need to clarify what dominant means, and then prove that your position passes that threshold. These are your standards, applied to your claims.

I will wait patiently for you to fulfill your burden, according to your own standard, even if it takes the rest of our lives. :wave:

Amaleq13

Chris has already provided the necessary information. By no rational definition of "mainstream" can mythicism be considered a part of it. That doesn't make mythicism wrong but it does make you wrong.

Your misuse of the word is my only evidence and really the only evidence that is necessary. Feel free to consult dictionary.com for any other words you do not understand sufficiently.

Mainstream (you'll want to pay particular attention to the third meaning as it is the most relevant)

You seem to be suffering under the misconception that I am obligated to try to improve your vocabulary. I have done so in the past but it was out of pity rather than obligation. One's ignorance is one's own burden. :wave:

spamandham

That would be up to Amaleq13 to PROVE LOGICALLY.

spamandham

This is not a logical proof. That's the standard YOU set. Fuck off until you live up to your own standards.

Amaleq13

:rolling:

It really, really bugs you that I've caught you out more than once making claims you cannot support, doesn't it? Maybe you should actually do some research in the future so as to avoid a repeat this embarrassment. Resorting to immature expletives serves only reinforce the appearance that you are incapable of providing a rational defense of your claims.

There is so much wrong with your effort to save face that it is difficult to know where to start.

First, you have yet to support (or acknowledge you can't) your claims so it is a bit hypocritical to criticize others for allegedly failing to support their own and especially with regard to denials of those unsubstantiated claims.

Second, my standard has less to do with establishing a "logical proof" than it does simply providing evidence to support one's claim. That's all you need and that is precisely what Chris provided despite the inherent logical difficulties and precisely what you have not done. I would, however, be willing to consider JHC if you can cite a specific critical review of mythicism (preferably Doherty's). I don't know that it would be sufficient to establish that it had been subjected to "peer review" but it would be a step in the right direction.

Third, my "claim" was simply a negation of your own implied assertion (ie that mythicism has been subjected to peer review and, therefore, should be considered part of mainstream scholarship). In essence, it is really no different than my previous request that you provide evidence to support your claim. Understand? It is logically problematic to "prove" a negative but it is quite simple to disprove it by providing a single piece of evidence for its affirmative opposite. Get it? You can quickly prove me thoroughly and completely wrong by providing evidence for your claim that mythicism has been subjected to peer review.

Fourth, expecting someone to "prove" a negative is almost as logically flawed as your repeated efforts to shift the burden from your own unsubstantiated assertions. If it makes you feel better, I will happily withdraw my negation of your claim and rephrase it thusly:

To my knowledge, mythicism has never been subjected to peer review. Can you support your contention with specific evidence?

That said, it would save you a great deal of wasted time and effort if you were to recognize that one of Doherty's staunchest and knowledgeable supporters on this board has readily acknowledged that mythicism cannot be considered part of mainstream scholarship but feel free to challenge that if you wish.

I'm sure you don't want helpful advice from me but I'm going to give it anyway. Quit while you're behind here but make sure you can support your future assertions.