Intelligitimate

By mimics Paul, I simply meant 2Pet also has a high christology. And 2Pet considers the Pauline corpus scripture anyway, so why wouldn’t he mimic him? And you’d think a late second century forger would have more of an interest in playing down the conflict (which is exactly what we find in Acts).

I essentially agree with this if you only mean Doherty hasn’t established that Paul’s Jesus operates in another plane of existence, but that reading isn’t required anyway to maintain the mythicist position. It is pretty clear to me that Paul’s Jesus is not a recent actor in history that was crucified under Pilate.

Rick Sumner

Mimics, as you first used it in defense of Doherty, indicates a conscience intent to copy Pauline style. Either that can be defended (which you indicated early on that you don't think it can), or it's an ad hoc.

I've been arguing against the validity of Doherty's criteria. I don't argue the Jesus Myth.

Sumner's Corrollary to Godwin's Law: The probability of an online discussion of the New Testament involving 1 or more non-Christians becoming a discussion of the Jesus-Myth forever approaches 1.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Intelligitimate

I think we both have misunderstood eachother's positions and I'm not sure how fruitful it would be to continue these little exchanges back and forth. The constant quoting can often mess up long conversations, and I think it has done that here. Maybe you could write a longer post expressing your thoughts on this matter.

Toto

You can prove this untrue by browsing this forum. But I should point out that this is a thread prompted by Doherty's hypothesis of Jesus Mythicism.

Rick Sumner

It was tongue in cheek. I thought the :-P made that rather clear. Godwin's Law isn't a fact either.

Besides which, it's quite impossible to prove that a real world event approaches probability of 1 as time grows--you can't test time to infinity. It can't be "proven" true or untrue, despite your attempt at certitude.

Really now Toto, jumping the gun like this makes you seem like an. . .apologist.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

Actually, I have noticed that all conversations involving you eventually become about that. You seem a little obsessed. In our last exchange over the Temple Ruckus you kept claiming that we were discussing the Jesus Myth, when the only person talking about it was you. I think your corollary here reflects your own insecurities and problems, not anyone else's. A quick glance through the forum shows that the only person who discusses it on a regular basis is Ted Hoffman, and that it has not come up in recent discussions during visits from Christians.

Since the claim you made, by your own admission, cannot be proven, again the only person "jumping the gun" here is you.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

We're not going to rehash the "Temple ruckus" thread. Your efforts at doing so, especially in the light of the fact that you, yourself, noted that it was entirely non-productive, can only generously be described as flagrant flaming. You can take that as a victory, if you like, it's a waste of my time to respond to flames.

There is no claim. It was a joke. As I explicitly stated "tongue in cheek." One must wonder if either you or Toto bothered to read the rest of the thread. There can really be no doubt that neither of you know what Godwin's Law is, and thus weren't in any position to be offering any comment.

Can I truly be the only person familiar with Godwin's Law? More importantly, can it have occurred that two moderators couldn't be bothered to find out what Godwin's Law was before they defended from a attack that was only perceived, and not actualy? The second even after I explicitly stated it was a joke?

Dazzling.

In response to a tendency he observed on Usenet, Mike Godwin began responding to every post he saw that made a comparison to Nazi's by observing that the probability of a Usenet debate resulting in a comparison to Nazi's approached 1. Termed "Godwin's Law," this was probably the most famous series of Usenet posts ever written (though our own Peter Kirby still gets occasional mention for his decade old conversion). There was even a website, for awhile (though it's gone now), at www.godwinslaw.com . It spawned a litany of parodies in the form of corollaries (such as mine), ranging from everything to neopagans to libertarianism. There's even Miller's paradox, which states that the mention of Godwin's Law negates Godwin's Law (as Godwin's Law is stated, the probability of a Usenet debate resulting in a comparison to Nazi's converges on zero).

The link I posted when I mentioned Godwin's Law was one such tongue in cheek discussion of it. You spice that up with the fact that I followed it up with a :-P, and there really can't be any reasonable supposition that I was even remotely serious. For the icing on that scrumptious cake, I made my intentions still clearer by suggesting that I expected everyone to recite my corollary, with the result that Godwin would be forgotten. It's ludicrous to suggest that it was anything but a clear parody. An incredibly common parody, understood best by cyber-geeks, but one that anyone who bothered to learn what I was talking about should have seen. I even provided a link to get the gist of it. And thus I coin Discussion Board Rule #12341234123940789: Always read linked posts if they discuss a term you're not familiar with. And likewise Sumner's Corollary to Discussion Board Rule #12341234123940789: Make sure an attack is actual, and not just perceived, when a means is provided to do so, lest you defend against your own paranoia.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Jackalope

Actually, the main effect of Godwin's Law is that once Hitler or Nazis are mentioned, all hope of rational discourse in a thread is at an end.. It was then noted that if enough posts where made in a thread, the probability of Hitler or Nazis being mentioned approached 1. It's that first part that's important, not the second.

And yes, I'm an ancient geek, I was part of the original flamefest that spawned Mike Godwin's post.

On II, it would appear actually that the Transcendental Argument of God would actually be a better fit than the JM/HJ arguments if you wanted an equivalent of Godwin's Law that fit our little microcosm.

--Lee Thompson-Herbert
(who posted as clueles@ucscb.ucsc.edu at the time)

Toto

Rick - I am moderately insulted that you would think I don't know what Godwin's law is. And since you frequently complain about mythicism and failed to include a smilie in your original post, perhaps I may be excused if I missed the humor.

OK, my eyesight is terrible. But I have read the post where you mentioned Godwin's law, and there is no link and no :-P.

Please do not hijack this thread with this topic any further. You may PM me and explain what you mean if you wish.

<edited to add: the link/smilie has been pointed out to me in a prior post, not the one I responded to - but I still ask that you not disrupt threads like this.>

Ted Hoffman

Mischaracterization of Doherty's arguments and monomanic tendencies by some posters aside, I have been following this thread with great interest. Toto laid out Doherty's arguments very clearly. I am yet to see a thorough treatment of them by the so-called 'dissenters'. Intelligitimate scratched the surface but stopped there.

What we have are colourful and polemical red-herrings which leave Doherty's arguments untouched.

I await a thorough treatment of the arguments preferrably together with Loisy's wrt priority of Apocalypse of Peter etc.