Vinnie

I am trying to figure out the methodology used here and this is what I have so far:

Methodology Used by Mythicists at II

1. If you see a historical datum regarding Jesus of Nazareth in the Pauline corpus it must be an interpolation.
2. If a datum is not mentioned in a source, even if that source has no real need or business mentioning that specific datum, it equates with a failure to know such information.
3. The existence of nature defying-miracles and OT themes allows for wholesale dismissal of a text.
4. Critique the methodology of bona fide HJ scholars while completely ignoring the whole tedious and cumbersome business of sources.

Feel free to fill in the rest

Vinnie

keyser_soze

Whine when your pet theory is shown to have flaws and try to distract....

Vorkosigan

I am trying to figure out the methodology used here and this is what I have so far:

Clearly, you're not trying very hard.

1. If you see a historical datum regarding Jesus of Nazareth in the Pauline corpus it must be an interpolation.

No need. There is nothing in the Pauline corpus that refers to an historical Jesus.

2. If a datum is not mentioned in a source, even if that source has no real need or business mentioning that specific datum, it equates with a failure to know such information.

Good luck proving the source knows the information.

3. The existence of nature defying-miracles and OT themes allows for wholesale dismissal of a text.

Pure, absolute, unmitigated bullshit. Nobody has ever maintained this position. The problem is not the presence of OT themes, but the use of the OT to construct the NT. Very different idea altogether.

4. Critique the methodology of bona fide HJ scholars while completely ignoring the whole tedious and cumbersome business of sources.

Again, complete and utter bullshit. Apparently the way to critique mythicists is the old apologist two-step.

1. Invent strawmen.
2. Critique them.
3. Repeat ad inifinitum.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Of course I'm not. That is a no-brainer.

Is too

I would rarely ever attempt to do so. In certain cases it might be acceptable. For example, I would assume a person knows of the existence of a lake next to their house even if they never mention it in conversations with me. Some are no brainers.

Progress. How sweet.

I have not engaged in any apologetics arguments and have no interest in doing so here. The truth claims of Christianity cannot be argued on "historical" grounds. As stated in another thread, history is all about source and method and all historical reconstruction works under the assumption of the constancy of the laws of nature.

Its the nature of scientific reconstructions. An "unpapal conclave" if you will. To do otherwise is to do theology and call it history.

Even if i wanted to knock down strawmen I have no need of inventing bad arguments on the part of mythicists.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Even if i wanted to knock down strawmen I have no need of inventing bad arguments on the part of mythicists.

So you did invented these because....???

Vinnie

I got number 5 of the Mythicist methodology!

Compliments of a little gem from Goliath we have this:

5. Make the existence of Jesus out to be a supernatural or extraordinary claim. Then say that history cannot reconstruct the supernatural or demand extrordinary proof for this extraordinary claim.

Vinnie

Vinnie

We now have a number 6 :

Methodology Used by Mythicists at II

1. If you see a historical datum regarding Jesus of Nazareth in the Pauline corpus it must be an interpolation.
2. If a datum is not mentioned in a source, even if that source has no real need or business mentioning that specific datum, it equates with a failure to know such information.
3. The existence of nature defying-miracles and OT themes allows for wholesale dismissal of a text.
4. Critique the methodology of bona fide HJ scholars while completely ignoring the whole tedious and cumbersome business of sources.
5. Make the existence of Jesus out to be a supernatural or extraordinary claim. Then say that history cannot reconstruct the supernatural or demand extrordinary proof for this extraordinary claim.
6. Mark invented the historical Jesus material so none of it can be used as a credible witness to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Vinnie

Secular Pinoy

Funny post, Vinnie! BTW, where'd you get the 6th methodology?

keyser_soze

Setting up the straw men quite rapidly are we?
I think in relation to number 6, Markan priori merely reduces your SOURCE list by 3(the NT books that were written using Mark as the pattern). Do you disagree with this logic? It seems quite valid that if there is a classroom of students taking tests, and 3 people cheat off of little timmy by copying his essay, then only one should get the credit for the test. Do you disagree? If so, why? This action merely reduces your source list, and is not an attack on you, so why are you attacking us? I state it again, for those who are unaware of the thread that invoked this one, YOU asked us to critique meiers methodology! We didn't call you into question, only the method, which we were able to show quite easily is flawed. Why do you insist on continuing to take this personally? And once again, I am a HJ, not an MJ...So, it's kind of wrong to say that only Mythers are having some trouble with the methodology, as you are inferring. The methodology is crap! It simply doesn't work. Anyone can make up a methodology that will support a belief! It's only when you can apply that method to more than one single instance that it is valid. You keep defending the methodology, when it is flawed, saying "it wasn't meant to be used like that". But that's the whole problem! If you can't use it for more than just a single instance...of what value is it? Keep setting up the straw man of using it on fiction if you like, but remember...it can also be applied to other religions! If it could only be falsifiable with fictional works, I'd be jumping up and down with you, but it can't. It can easily be used to provide historicity of OTHER deities as well! Think Indian, and chinese, and japanese, and russian, native american....Apply it yourself, and see what the results are. You are being childish about this, and you need to get over it. You never bothered to ask for a BETTER methodology, vorks might just have given you one, as I might have. Some thought could be put into it, and you would most likely get a good one offered! But you didn't even ask. You merely threw meier out there and then whined when a flaw was shown in the first 15 minutes after you proposed it!

keyser_soze

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I swear it's like trying to get my 4 year old to understand something!:banghead: :banghead: