spin

This is sad pathetric stuff, Layman. We have a bunch of people who are not prepared to do their jobs saying only what is obvious to me at least, without being prepared to use the same apparatus the other way. Not one of them is prepared to examine the positive evidence, if there is any.

The scholar should be aware that the scholar must provide the substantive evidence fo the substantive position. These guys are all emptyhanded.


spin

Layman

Hardly basis. All respected scholars from a diversity of backgrounds.

Right. Quacking in their boots. They've seen so many crackpot theories they aren't likely to take the time to respond to another one.

Hardly true. Where it stands is unpresented. No one has made a serious enough case to be taken seriously by the scholarly community.

Spoken like a man of faith.

Layman

Nah, we have many respected scholars from a diversity of backgrounds doing their jobs by focusing on real historical questions instead of chasing down hack theories.

Scholars should spend their times on serious issues. Just because a guy gets his book published by an atheist outfit, maintains a website, and has devoted followers who only half understand his theories does not mean that his ideas are to be taken seriously by serious scholars.

Ted Hoffman

Appeal to authority. A baseless claim is a baseless claim. Even if its made by God.


You mean quaking in their boots? Or are they chicken enough to clack? You are saying Jesus Mythicism is a crack pot theory just like the Historical Jesus theory?

Begging the question Robert Price takes it seriously - or is he not a member of the Scholarly community?.
There is no evidence that there is any opposing scholar who bases his rejection of the Jesus mythicism on seruous reading of Doherty's books.

Hack theories is just a label. Thats just talking the talk. Walk a mile in Doherty's shoez and you will grow some spine.

True true. Just because some scholars are walking in lock-step, applying slow-moving anemic mentality and scared to death of losing their relevance and grip on the thoughts of people doesn't mean they are right. They can huddle closely together cravenly with their Ph. D's clasped frighteningly in their fists, jaws tightly locked in denial, back turned, ears plugged, tone deaf and bones rattling, but Jesus Mythicism wont stop pounding on the door.

Like I said, somebody has got to grow some balls, walk up and look Jesus Mythicism in the eye and either drive a spear in its heart or bow down and show some respect.
Very soon, the door will come down and we will run them over. In the mean time, good old Fredricksen is nibbling.

Ted Hoffman

What, in Laymans opinion is a serious issue? Could Layman please provide examples of these serious issues?

spin

Empty rhetoric. I'm tired of dealing with (religion) scholars who shirk their duties.

Rule one: if you can't defend your foundational prinicples, you're only jerking off.

I haven't read Doherty. So don't kid yourself. He may have a position, but mine comes from elsewhere. Evidence is what makes or breaks a case. If you cannot cough up with substantive evidence for a real Jesus, then you cannot assume such an entity. This is pretty basic stuff. You know, Jesus 101. If you can't pass that, then you have no hope in the scholarly stakes.


spin

Layman

I hardly think that Michael Grant, Will Durant, and Rudolph Bultmans are religioius scholars who shirk their duties.

As for the others, it's hardly for you to tell them what their duties are.

Talk about empty--and inappropriate--rhetoric.

I have yet to see you discuss anything in depth in the threads we have bickered in. Usually you just drop in, make wildly contrary assertions, then keep yelling them without substantive discussion.

spin

OK, a person who can only rely on authority has nothing to say.

Methodology has demands that must be met. If people do not use coherent historical methodology, then anyone is free to call them. So, plainly you have no reason to make your comment.

Let me rephrase it for you a little euphemistically:

Rule one: if you can't defend your foundational principles, you haven't got a functional position.

Now, do you understand? If so, deal with it.

I have seen you in numerous conversations, never fulfilling your methodological responsibilities. All you can do is call names. This is just flaming. Please deal with what confronts you. Don't just hide in rhetoric.


spin

Layman

Not sure I agree with that. But when I run into sucha person I'll let you know. I suppose they have more to say than the person whose only authority is his or her untrained self.

They have plenty of criteria. Jesus studies has produced more discussion about appropriate historical criteria than any area of historical inquiry.

And like I said, when the foundation is no longer at issue, there is no reason to waste time continuing going back to it. If someone were to present a serious concern about it, then it should be checked. Doherty has not done so. At least not in the eys of the scholarly community. And neither you nor I are there gatekeeper.

And I thought you were going to actually defend a position instead of just call names and deploy your hyperbolic rhetoric.

Alas, I am disappointed. Perhaps I am beginning to see how Doherty feels.

spin

If you wonder why you don't have meaningful conversations, it's because you don't participate.


spin