dog-on

Not mixed up at all, unless of course one assumes ones conclusion.

Like I said, taking the texts themselves at face value, it would seem that the best description of them would have to be myth/fiction, unless you change/edit what the texts themselves purport.

Whatever is behind the only actual evidence, (the texts), seems to be where you wish to interject the argument for parsimony, which of course necessarily requires an unevidenced assumption on your part, or perhaps on anyone's part, at the present time.

dog-on

That is not what I said.

I thought that your format was 1. position, 2. MJ reason, 3. HJ reason.

If that incorrect?

archibald

If you have no better starting point than a lame strawman, I am regrettably going to decline to discuss this further with you at this point.

:wave:

archibald

Then I misread you, apologies.

dog-on

What strawman, Archibald? Seriously?

You have texts. The texts purport whatever they purport.

What else do you have?

J-D

A. I don't think 'based on the Hebrew Scriptures' automatically means 'theological'. Several novels have been written based on the Hebrew Scriptures, but they aren't theological writings. Parts of the Mishnah are based on the Hebrew Scriptures without being theological.

B. I don't think 'not literally historical' automatically means 'theological', either. I think 'theological' should mean something more specific than that.

C. If you think the Gospels were written to make a point about god, what point was that? Also, isn't it possible for believers who have a point to make about god to think that they're doing so by writing history?

archibald

Oh, btw, I just logged on to say one thing.

A score of +1 on the nutshell scale. Very reasonable and rational position, IMO, and my own position would sometimes go at least as high. Glad to see that although we have disagreed often, we are not poles apart. :thumbs:

Strawman?

Well, perhaps it's unfair of me to say you were actually deploying it in that case, but the often made suggestion that an HJ position involves an inherent assumption would be a strawman. Perhaps I misinterpreted you in this particular case.

archibald

I agree entirely. It is more reasonable to think that theological writing contain at least some history than that they don't contain any. this is uncontroversially the position of almost all academics, of all types. More properly, theological texts may also be reasonably considered to contain what the writers believed to be historical, which is a different thing.

The methodologies don't provide conclusive proof, but no one is suggesting that they do.

dog-on

The obvious assumption required by HJ is that the texts are based on the life of an actual person. Once this assumption is made, then the texts are filtered of their obvious mythical content, to find "historical kernals" in order to support the initial assumption. Do you disagree?

As far as the nutshell case is concerned, that is my position. I simply see myth as slightly more probable, though perhaps not probable enough to defeat agnosticism, the only rational position I think one can take, based on the actual evidence.

MCalavera

Um, no. That's not assumed. That's concluded. Big difference.