Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 12-01-2009, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Setting the example of a rational compassionate Christian is the goal, not picking on uneducated skeptics.

But how can sceptics become educated when people freely admit there are no peer-reviewed articles refuting mythicist theories?

lpetrich · 12-01-2009, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Whether or not there is some historical character buried somewhere in the bowels of Christianity, the Jesus Christ of the gospels, the one that Christians have known and loved, is a Myth. Realization of this fact is devastating, regardless of whether or not some historical individual existed or not.

So a historical Jesus Christ would be like a historical King Arthur. There has been a lot of argument about who the historical King Arthur had been, if anyone at all, but it is usually agreed that if there had been one, then he had little in common with the King Arthur of Arthurian lore.

In fact, the debate over the historical King Arthur is likely what the debate over the historical Jesus Christ would look like in the absence of doctrinal commitments.

BTW, King Arthur also scores high in Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile. He even fulfilled a prophecy, that sword-in-a-stone one.

dog-on · 12-01-2009, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Whether or not there is some historical character buried somewhere in the bowels of Christianity, the Jesus Christ of the gospels, the one that Christians have known and loved, is a Myth. Realization of this fact is devastating, regardless of whether or not some historical individual existed or not.

So a historical Jesus Christ would be like a historical King Arthur. There has been a lot of argument about who the historical King Arthur had been, if anyone at all, but it is usually agreed that if there had been one, then he had little in common with the King Arthur of Arthurian lore.

In fact, the debate over the historical King Arthur is likely what the debate over the historical Jesus Christ would look like in the absence of doctrinal commitments.

BTW, King Arthur also scores high in Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile. He even fulfilled a prophecy, that sword-in-a-stone one.

That is the way I see it, at least.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-01-2009, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ktotwf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

And the mythicist hypothesis has been refuted time and time again by countless scholars, which explains why there are no peer-reviewed articles refuting mythicism? It has been refuted, so there are no articles refuting it....

The only argument every presented to counter the Mythicist hypothesis is, "Well, no serious scholar believes it!"

I take it that you've never read Schweitzer or the other scholarly responses to Drews and his ilk that were produced when the Religionsgeschichte School was in its heyday, let alone Theissen & Merz and Eddy & Boyd.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-01-2009, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Setting the example of a rational compassionate Christian is the goal, not picking on uneducated skeptics.

But how can sceptics become educated when people freely admit there are no peer-reviewed articles refuting mythicist theories?

May we please return to the question of why there are no reviews in peer reviewed journals of Earl's work and whether or not Earl is himself largely responsible for this fact?

Jeffrey

dog-on · 12-01-2009, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ktotwf

The only argument every presented to counter the Mythicist hypothesis is, "Well, no serious scholar believes it!"

I take it that you've never read Schweitzer or the other scholarly responses to Drews and his ilk that were produced when the Religionsgeschichte School was in its heyday, let alone Theissen & Merz and Eddy & Boyd.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey, can you identify some specifics regarding your view of the arguments against Mythicism (specifically Drews and his ilk) propsed by Schweitzer and later Theissen, et al?

What were some of their best points?

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-01-2009, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Many, perhaps not all, peer reviewed journals, demand editorial changes in the submitted text, as a prerequisite to publication.

May I ask how you know this to be the case? Have you personal experience with every peer reviewed religious studies journal?

And what do you mean by "editorial changes"? Are they always major changes to the substance of the submission, as you imply they are?

More importantly, can you name the journals that regularly -- and as a matter of editorial policy -- actually do what you say they do?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-01-2009, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I take it that you've never read Schweitzer or the other scholarly responses to Drews and his ilk that were produced when the Religionsgeschichte School was in its heyday, let alone Theissen & Merz and Eddy & Boyd.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey, can you identify some specifics regarding your view of the arguments against Mythicism (specifically Drews and his ilk) proposed by Schweitzer and later Theissen, et al?

What were some of their best points?

No time to do so. Nor am I inclined to do so so since the issue at hand is not what their best points were, but the validity of "Ktotwf's" (uninformed) claim that " The only argument every [sic] presented to counter the Mythicist hypothesis is, "Well, no serious scholar believes it!"".

Do you think "Ktotwf's" actually knows what he's talking about or is he laying claim to knowledge he (?) doesn't possess? Do you think he has read Schweitzer, et al?
Jeffrey

dog-on · 12-01-2009, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Jeffrey, can you identify some specifics regarding your view of the arguments against Mythicism (specifically Drews and his ilk) proposed by Schweitzer and later Theissen, et al?

What were some of their best points?

No time to do so. Nor am I inclined to do so so since the issue at hand is not what their best points were, but the validity of "Ktotwf's" (uninformed) claim that " The only argument every [sic] presented to counter the Mythicist hypothesis is, "Well, no serious scholar believes it!"".

Do you think "Ktotwf's" actually knows what he's talking about or is he laying claim to knowledge he (?) doesn't possess? Do you think he has read Schweitzer, et al?
Jeffrey

Fair enough, though the actual rebuttals may leave something to be desired.

Steven Carr · 12-01-2009, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I take it that you've never read Schweitzer or the other scholarly responses to Drews and his ilk that were produced when the Religionsgeschichte School was in its heyday, let alone Theissen & Merz and Eddy & Boyd.

Jeffrey

So there have been peer-reviewed articles?

And you claim that Eddy and Boyd haven't refuted Doherty, but this is Doherty's fault?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.