LegionOnomaMoi

No. I was waiting on his responses to some questions. Now that I have those, I am working on the issues in question. But Carrier is no fool. He is a competent, intelligent individual whose knowledge of epistemology and logic is not lacking. How do I explain the problems with his use of Bayes' to those without a background in mathematics and historiography?

LegionOnomaMoi

I wrote something which applies to most people, and specifically stated that the reason for the problem has nothing to do with any inadequacies of individuals. It is not an attack, but an attempt to instruct, and I repeatedly made both of these points explicit. Once again, you are determined to ignore and continue to interpret as you wish. So now you have gone from a devotion to misrepresenting a portion of my respons to the whole thread. Admirable. If I had created a dual account, and sought to compose responses of those who disagreed just to make my point, I couldn't have done better. Thanks again.

Toto

You could start there. Why exactly do you think there is a consensus? What modern scholar has examined the question of historicity?

How can you say that the mythicist position (in the singular) has been repeated been raised and rejected when Ehrman started his book with the admission that he barely knew anything about it?

Your grandfather had what appears to have been an emotional reaction to the issue, similar to Bultman's rejection of mythicism. It could have been a reaction to a particularly naive version of mythicism - you don't know, you weren't there. You appear to be unwilling to look at what lies behind this emotional reaction; you assume that there must have been some considered intellectual reason. But where is that reason?

Is "perhaps" the best you can do? Where is this backing of scholarship?

Over there, behind a rock? Stop playing games.

Even if there is an academic consensus, academics are always open to re-examining the basis for the consensus. Scientists who are challenged on evolution can explain the evidence for it and the way the evidence supports the theory in terms that laymen can understand. Why do historical Jesus scholars just get all huffy and throw insults at anyone who questions the existence of a historical figure behind the gospel Jesus?

aa5874

Please, address Agnosticism in Scholarship. It is most remarkable that you seem to have forgotten you are Agnostic.

Adam

HJ scholars aren't the only ones who get huffy.

I entered this forum last year with minimal knowledge of mythicism ( (the position that Jesus never existed as a person). I failed to obtain meaningful interaction with my thesis of seven wrirtten gospel eyewitness accounts, so I shifted to my own minimalist position that I could refute mythicism by scaling back to four eyewitness accounts free of supernaturalism. (Clarifying, not just deleting miracles from a supposed account, but limiting myself to frinding a valid source that is free of disqualifying supernaturalism.) I identified as my Gospel Accourding to the Atheists such sources as the Johannine Source Passion Narrative, ql, L (thus far what I call the Gospel According to the Jews, contra Maccoby and Boteach) and the Johannine Discourses. I did not claim that I had already provided sufficient evidence here for these four sources, but that once I did so, mythicism would stand refuted.) Yet so deep-rooted is the prejudice here for mythicism that no one would discuss it. I was even told not to use my witty name for the sources.

My point is that mythicists here don't legitimately use a priori denial of supernaturalism to claim there is no proof. They refuse to consider whether there might be proof. (Surprisingly, even HJers here don't want to consider it, probably worried that it might lead too far.)

Toto

Trying to discuss your thesis was like talking to a stone wall. Perhaps people just gave up in frustration.

Mythicists do not refuse to consider whether there might be proof - several have listed what physical evidence they would accept. It's just that your particular "proof" is wanting.

Please don't try to hijack this thread. You've had an adequate opportunity to discuss your theory in other threads.

mountainman

As an attempt to instruct you have omitted mention of the evidence and its evaluation by various parties.

Was this purposeful?

This is not an attack, but an attempt to instruct.

spin

Self ban? :huh:

I would have thought a course of self-editing would have been sufficient... oh, and a little less academic brown-tonguing.

Adam

"Adequate opportunity?" Perhaps. Adequate response from members here is quite lacking, however.
No need to hijack this thread, just someone please answer me where I have challenged before, as in
Post #102 in Why people can't give up on the historical Jesus
in which I refer on to
Post #243 of Falling Dominoes?
that details the corrected Passion Narrative part of
my Gospel According to the Atheists
at Post #561 of Gospel Eyewitnesses.

spin

You had adequate response when you first proposed your unfalsifiable theory, but you didn't provide adequate understanding of the problems you have placed before you, so you didn't give adequate consideration of those problems meaning that you didn't show adequate reason for anyone to continue further with your eisegetical exercise.