Diogenes the Cynic

This is a ridiculous comparison. You are attempting to people who use the word "myth" that they don't really know what they mean when they say it. The term has a well established definition as a literary genre and that's the definition that's being used. Other definitions are irrelevant because they aren't being invoked. "Philosophical allegiances" do not play into this. Even if (hypothetically) every word of say- the Tower of Babel story was literally, historically true, the story would STILL be literarily catgorized as "myth."

As an analogy, poetry is a literary genre. If an epic poem is literally, historically true, that doesn't mean it's not still an epic poem.

Diogenes the Cynic

But Jesus did NOT fulfill Messianic prophecies. The OT material used to create the Gospel narratives are NOT, by and large Messianic prophecies. The stuff that is twisted to apply to Jesus usually has no Messianic or prophetic meaning in its original context and the stuff that WAS Messianic prophecy remains unfulfilled by the J-man.

Vorkosigan

As Diogenes has pointed out, Jesus did not fulfill any of the old messianic prophecies. But I am talking about the way the stories of Jesus are borrowed from the OT and reworked. For example, the way the disciple calls in Mk 1:16-20 are taken from the calling of Elisha by Elijah. The way the healing of the girl in Mk 5 is taken from a similar healing in the Elijah tale (it even cites the Septuagint). In fact, as Thomas Brodie has pointed out, the Jesus story parallels the Elijah-Elisha tales all the way through the Temple Ruckus and beyond. As Ted Weeden has demonstrated, the framework for the Gethsemane scene is 2 Sam. Etc.

The point is that Jesus is a bog-standard middle eastern savior figure in the way that he is presented. There is nothing "historical" about it.

In Greek fiction of the first-third century travel narratives, city entrances and being taken for a divine being, trials before the local potentate, crucifixions, miraculous survivals, resurrections, empty tombs, and many, many other aspects of the Gospel tales are all conventional elements. The Gospels are Hellenistic fictions.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

That is not a definition but an old-fashioned euphemism while the actual definition has remained unchanged. In addition to being factually inaccurate and confused, this comment is irrelevant to the preceding discussion.

If you want to dispute the definition of "myth", please do so. The one I offered is the primary one and the one I'm using though, for unstated reasons, you appear to have difficulty accepting this. To continue to argue as though another definition is being used is to argue against a straw man.

My "philosophical allegiance" is to rational thought and logic. Ignoring the definition of a word appears foreign to both, IMO.

I'll repeat my question since you seemed to have missed it:

What specific criteria or methodology can be relied upon to inform us of the "likelihood" of a given claim made within a text?

Lógos Sokratikós

Oh good grief.

You have apparently solved the problem of epistemology. Thousands of years of philosophical debates and all they had to do is say:

... and that's it! Wow!

There's no point in going on with this. Freethought destroyed all theistic claims to a "Truth" with a capital T. You seemed to have returned to it. Is "I am rational and logical" the atheist version of fundy "self-righteousness"? That is your answer to any questioning of your beloved definition? You are a "rational and logical" being and those of us that might disagree with any of your opinions are mere irrational brutes? You are the rational one, so this discussion is suddenly over now. I cannot go on anymore because now, I am not discussing with a mere mortal, I am discussing with the incarnation of rationality -you all of a sudden own rationality... What a way to "win" an argument! I haven't seen something like that since discussing with my brother when I was 7 years old.

"I win, because I am rational" -gee whiz. I haven't seen worse on fundy forums and I'm not exagerating.

Amaleq13

There is no assertion of moral superiority or total certainty so, no.

No, that is my answer to any questioning of my "philosophical allegiance".

I have no emotional investment in the definitions of words but effective communication requires a common understanding of the words being used. When one is told exactly how a word is being used and given a specific dictionary entry as support for that use, it is simply not rational to ignore that information and continue as though some other meaning was intended.

Not at all. In fact, I've had many disagreements with individuals, including theists, who were entirely rational and logical throughout the discussion. Some have even presented arguments that have been so rational and logical that I've been compelled to reconsider my position. Ignoring the definitions of words, however, is irrational regardless of the "philosophical allegiance" of your opponent. Repeatedly ignoring a direct question about your claim is something else entirely.

If I am the only rational one, I question if it was ever really a discussion at all. I'm only interested in rational discussions and you've yet to show yourself capable of participating in one so I'll leave you to your ranting. :wave:

Ted Hoffman

You ridiculously invoke an Oxford Concise Dictionary from the 1910's and pull from it a puritan, judgemental definition for an act that was socially discouraged, then you hold it up as an example of how unreliable dictionary definitions can be.
This is like providing a witch-burning example from the McCarthyst era to support the argument that humans cannot be relied upon as agents of justice.
Of course it is fallacious. You employed a false analogy. You appealed to emotions and attempted to present one selective example, as representative of how Dictionaries define terms.
That is irrational.
This is about your singular act of employing shoddy argumentation to fudge a meaning of a word to favour your argument. This is not about "those who disagree with us". This is not about a way to win an argument. This is about relying on established sources for the meaning of a word. Not some unknown, unidentified discussant on the internet.