mountainman

Maybe he can appreciate the idea of travelling back in time with Dr Who on board the "Tardis" in order to rescue Big J. from the clutches of Big E.?

judge

Well here is some information from his blog,

Some more inforamtion easily found on the web.


Isn't it true that you on the other hand have no qualifications or experience at all in relevant areas.

JonA

Isn't it, though?

Jon

mountainman

Isn't it true that this entire response is an appeal to a perceived authority?

Toto

No it is not. We have gone through the reasons in depth here in the past. Certain Christian apologists use that comparison as a slur, with no regard for reality.

Creationism involves the outright denial of recognized facts that can be observed, in favor of trusting the Bible.

Mythicism involves an alternate interpretation of ambiguous historical documents.

Creationists have more in common with historicists, since they believe that the Bible is a reliable source of information. All creationists that I know of believe in a historical Jesus.

judge

Yes it is. Just beacuse you yourself don't agree doesnt change that.

Here is where you tried unsuccessfuly to make that point.

judge

It seems more to me that if McGrath mentions the topic, or someone mentions Mcgrath mentioning the topic (as happened here), it is you that feel compelled to post about it here.
I haven't seen anyone anywhere who posts on the topic more than you yourself do.
A quick look at this forum will provide some evidence for that.

Steven Carr

So McGrath has zero training in history, but can talk about Apologetic Christianity.

He simply struggles with history, hence his current method of doing history - 'Would anybody make it up?'


Saves looking at all those artefact-thingies and working out what is a primary and what is a secondary source, and trying to find provenance for documents.

But I do not want to put words in his mouth.

I would rather let McGrath astonish the world of academia with his explanation that it simply doesn't matter if historians work with fabricated material, no matter how inauthentic it is.

It is no use claiming McGrath is an expert on history when he claims he would use fake material and expect others to also use it.

You know, the way scientists still use Piltdown man to study evolution. Who cares if it was fabricated :-)


MCGRATH
Even fabricated material may provide a true sense of the gist of what Jesus was about, however inauthentic it may be as far as the specific details are concerned.

Toto

No, that is not where I first made that point, and I notice that you don't have any arguments to support your conclusions. Anyone who thinks that mythicism is like creationism in any significant manner understands nothing about either creationism or mythicism.

Wrong. Just read his blog - he talks about mythicism frequently, but I usually do not repeat his posts here.

judge

What happened was that a few similarities sprang to mind. You didn't deal with any of them with any thing of substance. In fact you resposted a portion of what I wrote and deleted the rest of the similarites entirely when you responded.

Now, you just claim I didnt have any arguments to support my conclusions.

1. I post similarities
2. You mention some of them and say words to the effect that "McGrath does it too." (What James McGrath does or does not do is irrelevant to the whehter Mythicism is like creationism , though you dont seem to get that point.)*
3.You ignore the other points and delete them from my quote when you reproduce it.
4.Then months later in this thread you claim I had no arguments to support my conclusion.

:huh:

* You seem to be suffering from the delusion that if Mythcism is in some way like creationism, and that you can point out that James McGrath does the same in your opinion, then that lets Mythicism off the hook.