Elijah

Another skeptic who refuses to answer questions asked of them?

Toto

You can lead a horse to a url, but you can't make him read it.

Elijah

Asking for the texts that support your lunar/myth realm theory shouldn't be such a big deal. :huh:

Amaleq13

I will leave you to your confusion and imaginary problem. :wave:

Amaleq13

Since you're in a reviewing and clarifying mood, I continue to be interested in your answer to my question here.

Toto

It's not my theory.

Do you know how to click on a link and read the material there? :huh:

Elijah

I don't see what I'm asking for sorry. I'm talking about the actual historical texts that deal with the issue not a modern writers interpretation of the issue. I'm asking for the actual texts you and the writer used to come to believe in a lunar/myth plane.

spin

I guess, as you are left to your confusion and imaginary problem trying to redefine Paul's gospel as target not content.




spin

spin

Elijah still has to muster his so far resolutely unstated evidence for his claim of a historical core to the gospel narrative. He cannot fathom the notion of non-committal when there is not enough evidence and feels forced to commit to a historical core to the Jesus tradition. Now it seems he is claiming that there are "actual historical texts that deal with the issue". I think we'll be waiting till the cows come home before he gives any substance to his posturing. And still the cows won't come home. This seems to be another case of a lot of facade but no building.


spin

No Robots

Basically, mythicists take the same dismissive attitude toward the assertion of the historicity of Christ that Francis Bacon took toward Copernicus's heliocentric theory:

Copernicus, for Bacon, was typical of the kind of pseudo-scientific speculator who gets a hunch and rebuilds the universe on the strength of it, making the earth go around the sun only because the mathematics of that situation look nicer.--Spiritus mundi: Essays on literature, myth, and society / Northrop Fry, p. 68.

The fact is that science starts with hypotheses, which are then tested against the evidence. We have in the case of Christ essentially three hypotheses: god-man, myth, or man mythologized into god. Each of these are valid as hypotheses. The question then remains as to which fits best the evidence. In my view, of course, only the third adequately fits the evidence.