Metacrock

I have read it. I don't have to know every little excrewshiating detail to know that it's crap. Just like I don't have to know all possible forms of counterfit money to know when it's not the real thing.

Metacrock

for some reason they wont let me into the diatribe they give agasinst Bede. They get to have the last word, on their board. I guess that figures. But Toto says I have used "dirty tricks." What "dirty tricks" did I use?

Metacrock

They weren't written to be fictions and then pushed as fulfilling prophesy. They didn't say "O let's up a story to fulfill that prophesy." Job was Ugaretic and adopted latter. Exodux probably has some basis in historical fact. I know, no record. Big deal, why would any race be so hung up on something that never happened to them? Their slavery in egypt is even enshrined in their major ceremonies and whole doctrines are centered around it. Something connected to Egypt had to have happened to them at one time.

Cornfeld suggested that some lose band of slaves came out of Egypt and mixed with fixed tribes living in Cannan. They didn't have to "the Israelites" in Egypt and they didn't have to cross the read sea to have come from an Exodus.

Toto

I don't recall accusing you of dirty tricks.

I moved Bede's complaint about the moderation to the Complaints forum, which is the proper place for it. I don't think that you can reply to a thread there, but you can start a new one if you have a complaint.

Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.

Spenser

Metacrock,

Since your intent is to thoroughly discredit the guy, don't you think you owe it to yourself to read his work in its entirety? Otherwise its only your credibility that is in question. Think about posters here that attempt to discredit the bible with out have read it compared to those that have read it completely. What do you think of the former?

Also, reading over this thread, using the bible to prove a figure in the bible was historically really is fallacious. You say everyone believed it from the get go, wrong, what about non-christians. What about the 2/3 majority of the world today that isn't Christian and don't believe it to be anything more than fiction. Does this some how prove that Jesus is a myth? No, it is not good for argument either way. It like using Harry Potter and the Sorcer's Stone to prove that Harry Potter existed historically. Step outside your presumption and realize that you do have to offer up some independant evidence for the positive assertion of Jesus if you wish to debate.

Spenser

Vorkosigan

I am glad that you've conceded that the historicity of Jesus is an assumption.

Why don't you find a more concrete thing to debate? It's pretty pointless to debate what "assumption" people should hold. Go for something like "Paul does not mention a historical Jesus" or "The Gospels are midrashic fiction-constructions." Or pick some outline Jesus story, such as EP Sander's points that scholars know, and defend that. I'd be happy to debate the gospels, maybe even Paul.

Vorkosigan

Metacrock

Alright. You convenced me. I'll read the book. But I know so many people who read both and say it's all on the web site. I also know people who say Dohertyites do this back and forth thing with the site and the book. But ok whatever.

I'll read the book. In the mean time if you want me I'll be on my boards, or at Ebla or CARM.

Amaleq13

Why?

You are still missing the point. You have offered nothing to support your subjective opinion that it is "odd". Do we have any reason to expect them to even think of such a concept? Do we have any reason to expect them to know enough to make the accusation?

Would the Jews have been more concerned about the absence of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus or claims that the Messiah had been crucified and resurrected and worshipped as though he were, himself, a god? Would the Jews have tried to prove that Jesus had not actually been crucified or would they be more likely to argue that the Messiah would not have been crucified?

Do you see what I'm getting at? You seem to be making a big deal over an absence in the record without establishing that any other situation would be expected.

This is quite unlike the argument from silence that Doherty employs. He, at least, makes an attempt to establish why we should expect Paul to quote specific teachings of the living Jesus or mention specific actions of the living Jesus or locate the execution of Christ in a specific time and place.

I said this was likely as close as you were going to find to what you were noting was absent. In other words, there doesn't appear to be any reason to expect to find critics of Christianity questioning the historicity of Jesus. All we can reasonably expect them to have done is claim the Gospel stories are fables or deny that a crucified man could be the Messiah or deny that the man described by Christian beliefs didn't qualify as the Messiah.

When do you think Christians first started to "make a big deal" out of the historicity of Jesus?

Your posts do not suggest to me that, as far as you are concerned, no such reason is possible.

As far as I'm concerned, that no history can be reliably extracted from the Gospel stories combined with Paul's total avoidance of locating his Sacrificed Christ in time or space means I have to remain open to the possibility. My view of Doherty's thesis is pretty much in line with Carrier's review of his book. It has, at the very least, as much explanatory power and as many difficulties as any argument for a specific historical Jesus.

Spenser

Hey, I respect your choise to the utmost one can desreve respect! Thank you. With this I am impressed.

Spenser :thumbs:

Ted Hoffman

Metacrock,
What a chicken.
How would you know this? You proceed to make such apallingly egregious errors and false claims like the one below and you are not even ashamed of yourself! You really have some nerve.
Metacrock: He is completely oblivious to the works of Heggesipus
Ted Hoffman: Doherty mentions Hegessipus in p.219, p.220-1 and p.273. You have evidently not read his book.

State five reasons why it would be more reasonable to make assumptions about this historical question.
Provide evidence that shows that MOST historians assume Jesus was real please. Otherwise, stop repeating this senseless blather.
Robert W. Funk, Jesus Seminar Founder and Co-Chair. (From The Fourth R, January-February 1995.) wrote:
"As a historian I do not know for certain that Jesus really existed, that he is anything more than the figment of some overactive imaginations....In my view, there is nothing about Jesus of Nazareth that we can know beyond any possible doubt. In the mortal life we have there are only probabilities. And the Jesus that scholars have isolated in the ancient gospels, gospels that are bloated with the will to believe, may turn out to be only another image that merely reflects our deepest longings."

Provide two clear examples in my recent post where I don't make clear what I am responding to or withdraw this insult.
Just don't keep us waiting until we are all grey and withered.
Those are lying idiots. Look how wrong you were about Doherty on Hegessipus. And about Hebrews 5:7. Your ignorance has made you incapable of mustering an adequate response to my post: because you just have a lifetime of reading to do before you can respond.
If you want a formal debate, learn to use a spellchecker and read the book. Then come back and I will personally barbecue your criticism on an open fire. You can put your money on that.