I think they should hold off until Nomad actually starts debating.

(I wondered how long it would take Earl to lose patience with him )

Amen-Moses

Well I'm confused by Earls latest post. Can anyone tell me what the theme of the debate (or title) was supposed to be?

I was under the assumption (perhaps mistakenly) that this would a debate about whether Jesus actually lived or not. As such, each side would present their own case and give arguments that refute the other side. The "stronger" case would presumably prevail.

Earl seems to say that this is not the premise under which he was invited here. Can anyone tell me the premise under which he was invited? (and how it was worded?)

It seems to me that if Brian presents 3 arguments (as he did in his last post) that make it seem more likely that Jesus was a real historical figure, than those who hold the mythicist position would have to deal with those arguments in some fashion. Otherwise the mythicist position just seems to an extremely selective bit of historical pondering.

Perhaps Earl can clarify things.

This thing is flying off the rails already. We don't really know under what terms Earl was invited to debate here. We are under the impression that the debate was to be about Jesus being historical or not. Perhaps Earl understood it to be a debate on the actual core points of his thesis?

It seems to me that the organisers of this debate (PhysicsGuy?) should have a quick email exchange with the two debaters to sort out the misunderstandings. A shame to see it sink so soon.

fG

Agreed. I'll see what I can do.

The terms of the debate were not made clear enough in advance and this is my fault. I have emailed Earl Doherty and Brian (Nomad) and hopefully we can get this settled.

[This message has been edited by PhysicsGuy (edited May 15, 2001).]

Just out of curiosity, why was another thread started to hold comments on the debate when there was already this one specifically created to do that?

I have posted a compromise proposal on the Debate thread.

Earl Doherty

People are finding it difficult to wade through this thread and make sense of all the different posts directed to Nomad and Earl and those directed at other responses and so on. Another reasonable solution is to post separate threads directed to Nomad and Earl. Others have complained that this fills up the BC&A forum, however. I'll look into the possibility of creating a feedback forum for the debates.

I want to make a few comments.

I am a bit discouraged about this debate. Given my lack of knowledge on the subject, I intended for this to be a launching point -- a place to explore new arguments, to view a decent defense of two radically different postions. But both Earl and Brian have transformed this into a contest. They squabble at each other, make little stabs, attack credentials -- they have not, until recently, made a decent attempt to take a thoughtful look at the other's argument. Both appear to be knowledgeable about the subject. Both sides need to settled down and lighten up. I suggest you adopt the approach advocated by Bill Shultz in his debate with Jim Mitchell:
When Brian compared Earl Doherty to a Biblical fundamentalist, I glimpsed into his mindset. He wants to portray him as ridiculous, as advocating an unfounded and profoundly anti-Christian argument. This might be true. But I urge Brian to give him a chance. Although I find some of his positions fishy, it does seem like he has tread new ground -- his arguments may not be advocated by previous historians, because they have not been seriously considered by them. This would not require a conspiracy or herd mentality. It might never have occured to them to interpret the gospels in this way.

When Nietzsche developed his radical and unusual form of nihilism, he did not back up every argument with footnotes -- he was a rebel, who differed from the mainstream. You are debating one of those people at this moment. If he makes an appeal to authority, you hold the right to demand a source. If he translates a passage in a certain way, you hold the right to demand a source. But you do not, and should not, when he defends a radical position -- you need to give the reasons for doubting such a stance, rather than demanding he hold to the modern consensus.

Earl has appeared to make some progress. I hope this may transform from a disappointing to a productive discussion.

[This message has been edited by kennyminot (edited May 19, 2001).]

KENNYMINOT: He wants to portray him as ridiculous, as advocating an unfounded and profoundly anti-Christian argument. This might be true. But I urge Brian to give him a chance.

EARL/PHILIP: If someone seriously believed that your mother, wife or sibling never existed, and laid out a number of arguments to demonstrate that your beliefs regarding this person are mythological, would you "give him a chance"?

Earl, this is not a very good example to use. Serious questions are being openly raised about a formerly "hands-off" topic, namely, the historical existence of Gospel Jesus. People have been put to death in the past for refusing to accept this as factual truth. That we are now able to discuss this topic without threat of death or ridicule I find refreshing.

No one in this thread has yet commented on the 3rd item in Brian's list, so I would like to make a few observations.

This is, in my view, the weakest of the three items. I say this because it reminds me very much of the basic Christian belief that the universe exists because a supernatural (Jewish) being named Yahweh created it, a conclusion based on faith and theology, and not on knowledge, intelligence, and open observation. To be more precise, it is the accumulation of knowledge and evidence which brings this theological conclusion, along with other beliefs such as the concept of original sin/original perfection, into question.

Brian is forcing this same erroneous argument upon Christianity, and seems to me nothing but an avoidance of evidence which better supports concluding the exact opposite.

Does the fact that we celebrate Christmas mean that either Santa or Christ (or both) is historical? I do not think this is an unfair comparison, using Brian's reasoning.

As to the beginnings of Christianity, not even Jesus as god is new, except perhaps the name of the new godman. Obviously, Jesus as god grew out of Judaism itself, and the beginnings of Christianity - once again IMHO - are found therein.

To return to an earlier point and make a final analogy, Brian would have us believe that because there is Christianity, there is a creator of Christianity, just as the existence of the universe bears witness to the existence of Yahweh as creator. Well...

That leaves the other two items in Brian's list to carry the thrust of his debate IMHO, along with his rebuttal to EarlD's original comments.