Vorkosigan

[QUOTE=The Evil One]Can't be done. That's why Meta won't do it.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Metacrock has responded to the abstract summary of Doherty's idea:

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20.../Jpuzzell1.htm

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I started to read the first paragraph, and Meta has mischaracterized Doherty so severely - mistating his argument and claiming falsely that he dates Mark to the second century - that I wonder what Meta is reviewing.

Peter Kirby

I once saw someone quite happy with himself for refuting a twelve-sentence overview of Earl's opinions.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

Vamp myth is fun to study.




Weeeeeellll, historians just don't think that way. I mean no one is saying "man, we just have to get some proof that Napoleaon existed. I mean no one questions it, but until we get that formal proof, it's just going begging." No, they say "we don't need that, don't waste your time on a pointless question, no one questions Napoleon's existence so don't worry about it."


My objections to Doherty are primarily methological and philosophical. I do have objections based upon data and the texts, but primarily I am oppossed on methodological and philosophical grounds; that would hold if I were still an atheist.

(1) There's just just no reason to question Jesus of Nazerath's historical existence.

(2) The whole argument is primarily based upon argument form silence.

(3) The only reason anyone even cares is they think it's a short cut to disproving Christianity. If we were talking about the Milord Philmore, would any of you care?

(4) To accept even taking such a theory seriously would be like accepting the illuminti theory of history. I mean there's no reason to believe, the only reason to take seriously is ideological, and its based upon the informal fallacy of argument from silence.

We can't base historical thinking upon the premise that unless a theory is clearly and flatly contradicted than any sortof circumstantial evidence for it is good enough to justify the time we put in on it. It's like saying Kruschev didn't say clearly and distinctly that USSR was not controled by Mars, so therefore, there's good reason to think it was; after all, they don't call it "the red planet" for nothing!

That's just what they are saying when they say "Paul doesn't state clarly that Jesus was flesh and blood and livedon earth, so he must not have believed it." If that was the standard for all historical documentation then we would have to wipe about about 90%of what we know about the ancient world.

I mean look, the whole idea is that religious people think this, they have an ax to grind, so their views must be suspect unless otherwise clearly and directly proven. But most of what we know about the ancient world comes through sources that were religous in their day, and even mythological. Most of what we know about the early history of cradles of civilization such as Egypt and India come from quasi mythological sources. We just couldn't do history if we demanded for historical propositions, the sort of proof that these guys want for proving Jesus existence.

Metacrock

I don't know what you refur to, but what I did on Doxa was to take the very words of the man himself and refute them. I took the little twelve paraghaph summary and refutted each paragraph. Maybe I misunderstood somethings he said. I am not mistake proof, although there are those who think I think I am. I know I'm not. But by and large I was dealing with his words directly.

I also have other guys in there to deal with, Gahndi and Freke, and others. So maybe I got confussed.

I also wrote it back in 2001 or thereabouts. My parents were still alive when I wrote it. I think. That would make it 2000. So maybe D has changed his views sense then.

Metacrock

No reason to accept it. you guys want to get the presumption without having to work for it. Belief in HJ has presumption and it always will as long as all you have is argument form silence.

Do you have a single figure in history anytime before the 18th century who even so much as questioned Jesus historical existence? One document? One single anecdote, legond or tale which questions it? No! So why should we?

Metacrock

You talking about me? I'll tell you the truth Peter. I'm sick to death of this stuff. I don't do apologetics anymore. I don't consider myself "an apologist" anymore. I don't believe that atheism is evena challenge for the faith now, (no offense--just looking at history) and I just don't care. I still believe, but I'm not considered with the views of those who don't, and I certainly don't care about convencing them otherwise.

Just got tried of it. Not made at anyone, it's not because atheists were mean or anything. I made a lot of good atheist friends. I'm just ready to move on to other aspects of life. But I couldn't resist weighing in on this one last time. It' the historical thing I'm concerned with here, doing good history.

Steven Carr

Metacrock mischaracterises lots of things.

He writes :-

'This was probably taught to him during his first trip to Jerusalem. "that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures. And that he appeared to Peter and then to the 12." Here we have a little summation of the Gospel which contains a remarkable amount of Gospel information. The phrase "On the third day" is formulamatic and indicates that the facts of the story were already set in stone. The statement tells us that Christ was crucified and buried.'


Where does that say Christ was crucified? And where is an appearance to the 12 in the Gospels?

Metacrock also wrote 'Of course the Talmudic material actually comes from a very early tradition contemporary with Jesus, but written in the Third century, handed down orally.'

Of course it does! And Metacrock will no doubt explain how he knows that.....

Metacrock

That's right. for two reasons. I once started to debate him on the old email list for the Jesus mythers that Gahndi and Freke started. The one that replaced their message boards. Damn those were fine boards too! But Doherty was such an arrogant jerk I was just ready to trounce him when they kicked off the list saying that we dare not argue with him because he might go away, and he's the celebe par excellance for that field, so they coudln't afford to let him go away. Thus my ego will not let me rest.Make of that what you will.

I'm an egotistical cad and christianity is a big lie, right? Whatever.

Also, no body cares about articles. D has such a bubble of the sacred around him. Everything he says is shourded in the aura of the sacred. unless he is crushed in a debate, his groupies will never notice that he's been debuncked.