Toto

My apolgies, aa5874. I didn't realize that you cared about that numerical suffix.

Solitary Man

That's quite simply untrue.

What data goes against the historicist hypothesis? Earl Doherty has been debunked and rebuffed so many times its not funny anymore. And then he gets indignant and posts inflammatory comments about Jeffrey Gibson and others on his website. Poor sport, if you ask me. I've seen nothing seriously competing with historicity that doesn't have the integrity of Intelligent Design. And au contraire, I do have enough data. I've set out a small list, and have gone on in other threads plenty of data to support my conclusion. You, on the other hand, hand-wave it away, as you're doing right now in this thread.

Perhaps because you yet again pull another creationist tactic. I just spelled it out to you. What more do you want?

This is the best that you can do? I post, you ignore. I post, you ignore. I post, you ignore. Ignore, ignore, ignore. I'm tired of the ignorance. What good is it to explain to fundy apologists if all they do is ignore?

Toto

Could it be that your explanations are not very convincing?

Solitary Man

I would possibly entertain that idea if you showed that you were actually engaging those arguments. Otherwise, you're still parroting creationists.

TheInerrantWord

Dang, Solitary Man. You got me all excited to see this awesome evidence you've posted (and posted), but that link in post #15 yielded nothing. Just a bunch of used gospels. I wanted history, not myth. Shit. Help me out. Where are these definitive posts?

Toto

Creationists believe in a historical Jesus, created by God.

I keep trying to find an argument, but you just keep referring to previous proofs, and previous threads that have debunked Doherty.

You refer to the fact that lots of evidence can be faked or corrupted, as if this proves that the evidence for Jesus has to be accepted even though it looks like it is fake or corrupted. What am I missing here?

You refer to traditions, and you have tried to argue that oral traditions preserve historical facts, but the articles that you referred to did not support that idea.

You can just state that the mythicist argument is not proven, and the hypothesis that there was someone at the start of Christianity is the best explanation of the evidence, but you can't claim that there is clear and convincing evidence in favor of it.

Solitary Man

What are you looking for? Do you know anything about what I said? Are you familiar with the historical circumstances in which the story is set? Are you familiar with oral culture, or basic anthropology concerning the Ancient Mediterranean and Ancient Near East? What do you know of the economy of the Levant? What do you know of Hellenistic writings? Jewish writings? Jewish Hellenistic writings? Judaic Hellenes? What do you know of the non-canonical gospels? Do you know who the ebionites are? The Nazareans? The group that authored the Gospel of the Hebrews? The Jewish Gospel? What do you know of 1st century apocalypticism? Why do you not believe Tacitus, a Roman historian, when he says that Christ was crucified under Pilate? Who do you think the Pillars were and why does Paul equate them with his own Christ experience?

Who are you to evaluate the list I gave as "a bunch of used gospels"? I suspect you are no more able to say that an illiterate, back-country yokel can point to genetics and say, "Evolution is bunch of used skeletons." I expect reason and scholarship, not apologetics.

Avalon

I have done some reading on the Ebionites the Essenes and the Nazoreans (notice spelling... google it) , but admit I am ignorant concerning the balance of what you had brought up. Sincerely not trying to go on the offensive, do these prove a historical Jesus or mention a man named Jesus who lived among men, died and was ressurected? I am genuinely interested in what you know, and am not saying this to be a smart-ass.... the Nazorean thing... THAT was me being a smart-ass.

EDIT: Oh my, I stand corrected. Nazarean and Nazorean are used interchangably it seems. Oh well.

TheInerrantWord

Hmm.. you make a compelling argument. I'm an ignorant yokel; ergo Christ lived. I must ponder on this. Thank you.

Okay, I've pondered. And do you know what? I also know a myth when I read it! I don't have to pick up a dog shit and eat it to determine if it's ACTUALLY dog shit. If it looks like a dog shit, and it smells like a dog shit, then I'll just go ahead and assume it's dog shit.

Now don't read that too literally. I'm speaking allegorically, like myth-writers do. I mean no disrespect to the myths. I'm just saying.. read the gospels. They don't even pretend to be history. They're myths.

Oh, and Tacitus? Really. Come on. You can do better than that. He was just reporting back what he was hearing. He didn't give the first thought to whether it was true or not. You know this. Don't bring him up.

Solitary Man

I did so where?

First you butcher my argument there, and then you butcher the articles' arguments. I said they can preserve historical facts. One article in particular which you relished in quoting stated that historical information might not succeed the first generation. What you failed to provide was that the other authors in dialogue with your particular author said that indeed historical information can survive up to 5 generations. What was dishonest about your representation was that article clearly supported the idea that historical information can survive in an oral culture, though it doesn't necessarily have to survive the first generation.

If you were at the Bauckham session, you would have heard about the village story. I cannot remember now if it were Kloppenborg or Adela who told the story.

The above is actually mirroring. I heard several speeches given, and now I am relating to you what happened. In oral cultures, the information is skewed for telling, even by eye-witnesses.

This is standard stuff. The very short article came as a reminder to the two scholars that though historical information can survive up to five generations, it does not necessarily have to. But the fact remains that it still can. I've attempted to show that it did.

I can claim a) that so far the mythicist argument is not only not proven, but is filled with junk pseudo-scholarship, b) the hypothesis that someone at the start of Christianity is the best explanation of the evidence, and c) there is much evidence in favor of it, and it would be convincing if people would take time and effort in learning about the situations surrounding it.

At least R. G. Price is trying. I see no such activity with you.