Rick Sumner

Barbara Thiering has published in more peer-reviewed journals than any advocate of the Jesus-Myth. Does that mean she isn't a fringe theorist?

I just stated that they could. Twice. Being a fringe theory doesn't make it wrong.

Here's what you said:

And:

Except that I've exhibited no contempt for mythicism, and if it is so "well-known," that can only be the product of the same presupposition you've exhibited. I certainly haven't stated that "anyone who is not convinced of the existence of a historical Jesus [is] a fringe nut case." If you can show me where I've done so, I'll certainly retract my denial. As it is, it appears you're making things up based on what you'd like me to be saying, rather than refuting what I am saying.

And here in this very post you've done it again--I never said that "a reasonable person [could] not decide based on the evidence that Doherty's theory is the best explanation of early Christian history." I, in fact, emphatically stated otherwise.

Once again, show me where I've said this, or I'd appreciate you rescinding the attribution.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I am convinced that it's the more reasonable conclusion to draw, but that conviction is subjective, as I've stated previously I feel it must be. I don't think the converse is unreasonable.

Do you have any hard evidence of the existence of the Teacher of Righteousness? Do you not employ his existence as a working hypothesis?

I will, eventually.

I don't take a position, for the most part. I emphatically state that I have no interest in the debate--it's become nothing more than a litany of tired argumenta ad nausea. To cite a common example, I wasn't convinced last time someone attempted to tell me that kata sarka had no semantic range, I won't be convinced next time, barring a new argument on the matter. Simply repeating Doherty who is (mis)repeating Barrett isn't going to change my mind.

I'm convinced it's solid enough to be a working hypothesis, and as such I work with it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

I consider her as rational as any Catholic scholar. I'm not the one using the term.


You said "In the main? Certainly. In his entirety? Certainly not."

So you said that a person who accepted Doherty's thesis in its entirely is not rational. Please explain.

Rick Sumner

I sincerely hope you're kidding.

Because Doherty makes mistakes. For example, his argument regarding the veneration of artifacts is entirely moot--Doherty himself shied away from it in correspondence, where it rapidly went from "perhaps the single strongest argument" (in the Jesus Puzzle) to "a small piece of a larger puzzle" (in correspondence). Because he uses 2 Peter as a letter that meets his criteria of silence, yet 2 Peter (as our own Peter Kirby has pointed out) knows the gospel of John (2Pet.1.14), for two easy examples.

The qualifier "in its entirety" is just making its first appearance in your statements. Am I to presume that you've decided that your three prior characterizations of my argument were, in fact, incorrect? It's not a rhetorical question. It's one thing to misrepresent an argument, quite another to villify me. The former I wouldn't press for a concession so hard on.

I'm still waiting, for example, to learn where I said that mythicists were "nut cases." The best you've proferred so far is a misrepresentation of what I explicitly stated would be an ad hominem.

Failing that, I'm waiting for you to rescind the attribution. It's starting to look like I'll be waiting a long time.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Metacrock

Gee really? what is this "scholarship" thing, anyway? You mean like getting paid to play football at school?





He's not one of them at all. He has no credentials in the field. I have better academic credentials in the field than he does (that ant saying much).





Standard liberal scholarship wouldn't piss on him. You go ask people like Crosson, Barr, Abraham, Farmer, and so froth if they think Jesus didn't exist is a good thesis you will spit in the face (perverbially). You say it to Schubert Ogden and you'll get punched. No one credits that idea Schweitzer destroyed it in the turn of the century.

As for looking at "things in new ways" which you big mean scholar guys appreciate so much, you never heard of the Quest? That is not a new idea. Take my word for it. Schwetizer dealt with people who had very Doherty-like ideas.


I question your understanding of just about everything. If you can't see that I've laid down a wealth of information then you can't see much at all.




Totally unjustified wishful thinking. What on earth could be the resaon for assuming that just becasue Jesus was a common name that there were several Messianic claiments with that name? Why think that, it's ludicrous.

Stop saying "I don't think you understand" just because see through crap.

Toto

Perhaps.

The first point seems incredibly picky. Some people are not persuaded by the argument, others are.

No, I asked if a rational person could accept Doherty's argument as more or less correct, and you said, and I quote,

Those were your words, which surprized me.

You said that calling mythicists "fringe scholars" would be an ad hominem, but then you said it was a fact. You have not owned up to the negative implications of that term.

Perhaps I misinterpreted you, but you do seem to be dripping with contempt and scarcasm for mythicists. You also seem to want to pick a fight over something. I don't have that kind of time to waste right now.

Rick Sumner

The second point is emphatically correct. Which indicates, as I noted, that it is unreasonable to accept Doherty's argument in its entirety.

Why would that surprise you? I've just outlined a clear reason why he shouldn't be accepted in his entirety.

And how, exactly, does this address your villification of me prior to asking me anything?

It would be an ad hominem if I replaced "mythicist" with "fringe theorist" as a regular point of usage. That doesn't mean it isn't true.

Allow me to draw a parallel. If, in a political debate, I prefaced every comment with "neo-cons say" when my opponents were, in fact, neo-conservatives, it would nonetheless be a thinly guised ad hominem--it implies an "us and them" mindset, where my argument implies that you don't want to be "them," simply because of the label attached.

There has also, as point of fact, been substantial red herrings strewn about here as well. We seem to have skipped over your spiffy new definition of "apologetic in nature" as synonymous "unconvincing."

You were the one villifying me. I'm still waiting for some of this contempt and sarcasm, still waiting for a shred of evidence indicating that you were engaging in anything but flaming. Alas, I'm left to conclude that there is none, and that I was correct at the outset in observing that your rant was nothing more than invective and strawmen.

Is this the part where I get to go on a rant about how your "presuppositions against historicists are well-known" and your attribution of false motives are growing tiresome? Do you not see how ridiculous that would sound? Yet running the other direction you genuinely believe that it is a reasonable assessment of what is being said?

Let me know when you can back up your ad hominems with so much as a single citation. As it is, attacks such as yours are wholly inappropriate, do nothing to foster further discussion, bear no relation to any position I have outlined, and have no basis in reality.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

Removing one piece of evidence does not require you to reject the theory in its entirety. (I haven't looked into this, but assume it is true.)

This is disingenuous. Since when does an ad homimen only become and ad hominem if it is repeated more than once? If you are arguing with an admitted neo-con, what is wrong with describing what neo-cons say, if in fact they say that?

But it is a common slander around these parts that mythicists are conspiracy theorist-nuts, so we don't need to discuss the evidence. I'm not saying that you ever used the term conspiracy theorist or nut, but the term "fringe theory" has the same effect.

Apologists use arguments that have a surface resemblance to a logical argument, but are completely unconvincing to people who do not already believe. They are used to shore up the faith of the faithful, but generally do not convince the skeptic.

I don't have time to find everything you have written, but

"It's a fringe theory, that's simply reality"

qualifies as contempt by itself.

In fact, I have never said anything bad about historicists in general, and I hold open the possibility that there was a historical Jesus of some sort, if I am presented with some evidence.

I am of course willing to villify apologists and their arguments any day of the week.

That's all I'm going to say on this.

Rick Sumner

That's what I said. You can't accept it in its entirety--everything Doherty says is not correct. You can in the main.

I explained why.

And common slander in the other direction is that historicists are biased and reach their conclusion a priori. The term "apologist" has the same effect.

Apologetic argumenst are faith based. The criteria of embarassment is emphatically not.

No it doesn't. I stated, repeatedly, that being a fringe theory does not make it wrong, it makes it outside of conventional opinion.

So you do see how ridiculous it sounds?

I'm atheist. I cannot, by definition, be an apologist. Yet you villify me nonetheless.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Peter Kirby

That applies to Vinnie. It does not apply to Rick.

Is this a definition of apologetics, or is it a description of all apologetics that is defined elsewise? What is the definition? Is it sufficient to dismiss an argument because it is apologetic? If not, what is the purpose of identifying an argument as "apologetic"?

That requires that one believes that Rick has contempt for all fringe theories. But one should not assume this. Heliocentrism was once a fringe theory, evolution of species was once a fringe theory, and superstring theory was until recently a fringe theory. "I, Brian" says, "there's nothing necessarily demeaning about being on the 'fringe' of mainstream scientific theories." It means something along the lines that the theory is still new, developing, and not widely accepted. But it is of course worked on by some serious people, or else it wouldn't even be a fringe theory.

I hold to the fringe theory that there was a tradition about seven disciples of Jesus. Apparently Robert Price does too. It is a fringe theory because it isn't widely accepted, or even something that most in the field concern themselves with.

best,
Peter Kirby