ApostateAbe

Atheos, specifically which arguments do you think have high quality, in your opinion?

ApostateAbe

Thanks. A little bit ago, you accused me of making false appeals to authority. You would like to rephrase that?

Toto

Is this the key to understanding your behavior? At one time you believed in a version of mythicism that was too easily demolished in an internet debate, so you have never forgiven "mythicism."

But you still seem to act like an ideologue - you are dogmatically committed to your position and can't be budged by argument. So you project the same stance on others.

Comibe this with the fact that you can't tolerate indecision or ambiguity.

Toto

How about you falsely portray yourself as representing the best standard of historical analysis?

I am not claiming that you are lying, because I think you have convinced yourself in your mind that this is true.

Earlier in this thread you wrote "that would be a very shallow method of analysis, which of course Jesus-skeptics tend to prefer, because of a fundamentally wrong idea about the way historical analyses are done" - implying that you have the correct idea on the way historical analysis is done.

You have not demonstrated that you have a clue about historical analysis.

hjalti

Well, I don't think that all of the four gospels are derived from Mark, three of them are dependent on Mark, but Mark didn't use Mark as a source

But Abe, you seem to treat the hypohesis that Eusebius forged the TF as a "bizarre unevidenced improbable eplanation for the historical evidence".

Have you actually investigated that hypothesis, e.g. read Olson's article in CBQ, or are you just, like you've done here before, condemning stuff you don't know anything about?

Juststeve

Toto:

Why should Abe be budged by the arguments of a fringe few who deny the historical Jesus? You sound like one of the "ancient astronauts theorists" (that's what they call themselves) who just can't understand why the world doesn't see it their way. Like a Holocaust denier who discounts any evidence that has passed through Jewish hands, like you discount evidence that passed through Christian hands. Abe isn't budged by your arguments because like most people he recognizes fringe belief systems for what they are. You have a right to think what you want but it is presumptuous in the extreme for you to demand others to agree with you.

Steve

dog-on

The basis of his arguments are, per the available evidence, unfalsifiable and, as such, his arguments are simply vacuous.

However, I will ask you the same question I asked him on another thread. If Mark was, in fact, writing fiction, using the exact same assumptions that are used in Abe's arguments, would the conclusion be any different?

Toto

You are asking why Abe should actually look at the arguments instead of branding them as fringe and ignoring them?

Are you serious?

Juststeve

dog-on

Apologies if I don't understand your question but if I do I would agree that the conclusion drawn from Mark as the only evidence considered would be the same whether Mark was writing history or much to my surprise fiction. Abe does however consider other evidence so that is not an accurate description of this debate.

In a similar way the conclusions I draw about Socrates would remain the same if it turned out that Plato and Zenaphon were writing fiction. That is I suppose always a risk when we make judgments based on sources other than our own observations, which are susceptible to other error. Can I know what happened yesterday? What if the Times account was really fiction? Its happened you know.

I advocate a middle road with regard to Mark. There are claims I have reason to doubt because I regard them as naturally impossible and I don't believe miracles happen. There are other assertions like Jesus was the name of one of a lot of Jews crucified by the Romans that I have no good reason to doubt. Mythers haven't provided one.

Steve

Juststeve

Toto:

Fringers tend to rely on misstating what their opponents have said. Abe is free to consider the arguments of fringers if he wants. He is no more obliged to be moved by your arguments than I am by the arguments of Holocaust deniers. Confession time. I believe the Holocaust occurred without giving full consideration to the arguments of deniers. Is that wrong?

Steve