Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 08-29-2012, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

http://nearemmaus.com/2012/03/20/bar...he-mythicists/

“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine.
<skip>”

Was Martin Luther trained in Aramaïc ?
Was Jean Calvin trained in AramaÏc ?
Who here is trained in Aramaïc ?

Is it necessary to be trained in Aramaïc to ask for explanations about the contradictions in the OT or in the NT ?

Steven Carr · 08-29-2012, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

http://nearemmaus.com/2012/03/20/bar...he-mythicists/

“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine.
<skip>”

Ehrman knows perfectly well that Doherty and Carrier can read Greek.

But perhaps Bart simply means that early Christian readers of the Gospels , who had to have Aramaic words translated for them, were just not in any position to say that Jesus really had existed.

They might have thought Jesus had existed, but as they could not speak Aramaic, their opinions are worthless.

aa5874 · 08-29-2012, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

.....yes what mythers cant stand, a historical core to mythology

HJers can't stand a mythological core to mythology.

Bart has already explained to mythicists that stories of Jesus raising a child from the dead contain some Aramaic words.

Yet they are still not convinced that there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed. Sheesh.....

What does it take to convince these people!

Bart has already Written books that have Explained the Gospels and New Testament historically problematic and filled with Discrepances, Contradictions, and events that most likely did NOT happen.

Even Bart can't stand a mythological core to mythology.

hjalti · 08-29-2012, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I predict that Carrier will then become the most hated figure by mythicists, even more than Ehrman.

Care to elaborate?

Duvduv · 08-29-2012, 09:19 AM

I wonder what he thinks of all the contradictions and discrepancies in the writings of "heresiologists" ......

aa5874 · 08-29-2012, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

......But perhaps Bart simply means that early Christian readers of the Gospels , who had to have Aramaic words translated for them, were just not in any position to say that Jesus really had existed.

They might have thought Jesus had existed, but as they could not speak Aramaic, their opinions are worthless.

Bart Ehrman promotes logical fallacies.

Based on Ehrman's logical fallacies, the Loch Ness Monster most likely exists where the stories of the monster originate.

Toto · 08-29-2012, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

..
I think it is because there is no critical review within mythicist ranks, no drive to improve their own theories.

This is not universally true. Rene Salm has a working group. Neil Godfrey's blog Vridar is the center of thinking about mythicism.

Quote:

However, Richard Carrier's next book should change this. Carrier will be producing the first scholarly mythicist argument in modern times, and it should help to focus attention on the mythicist case. It will become the standard against which other mythicist theories can be measured. Other mythicists' theories should then fade into insignificance, ....

Carrier is a professional historian, making an effort to follow his professional standards. Some of the other mythicists (that you in particular like to publicize) are not so much interested in history as in reviving Gnosticism or religious reform, or New Age theories. These theories are not necessarily in competition with Carrier's historical work.

Quote:

So I suggest not worrying about mythicist arguments until Carrier's next book. I predict that Carrier will then become the most hated figure by mythicists, even more than Ehrman.

That's a bizarre prediction. Acharya S already considers Carrier her enemy, but no one else in the general mythcist camp follows her.

outhouse · 08-29-2012, 10:37 AM

The problem is the modern unbiased scholrs are not teaching biblical jesus

they are teaching historical jesus, and will flat state biblical jesus doesnt exist.

critical examination of mythology often leeds to the historical nature of how and why the legend was created. with the israelite culture there is often a historical core, but but always.

lets use Noah as a example. There was no Noah ever. The legend however has a historical core through examination. Also the writers are writing about a man a thousand years in the past or more.

with jesus we have people writing within a decade of his life, it gives us a clearer picture of how and why the mythology was created.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi outhouse,

I cannot imagine anybody, but a Christian wanting to specialize in teaching
the "New Testament" or "Early Christianity." If you specialize in an area, it is generally because you like it a great deal and feel a deep affinity to it. For example, everybody who teaches the History of Cinema believes that film is a great art form and has made important contributions to the culture of our time. I cannot imagine that anybody who thought movies were unimportant and silly would end up teaching a course in the History of Cinema. However, the opinion that movies are not an art form, but simply trivial entertainment for the masses may be held by a variety of Professors in other fields.

As far as Classics are concerned, I'm not sure that any Classics Professors have come out on one side or the other on this issue.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Does my conclusion mirror Barts to close for you to even begin to refute??

I love this statement made by Bart, and it really does sum it up.

http://nearemmaus.com/2012/03/20/bar...he-mythicists/

“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.”

outhouse · 08-29-2012, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

HJers can't stand a mythological core to mythology.

Bart has already explained to mythicists that stories of Jesus raising a child from the dead contain some Aramaic words.

Yet they are still not convinced that there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed. Sheesh.....

What does it take to convince these people!

Its more then just that as well.

and if we really look close most of the evidence is weak as it is with all ancient legends and real attested people, I agree with mythers in that respect.

truth be told im just on the edge of belief based on evidence, but I still cannot wrap my head around romans writing mythology and replacing emporers "son of god" with a poverty stricken peasant jew to worship.

that in itself has not been explained rationally

outhouse · 08-29-2012, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

You know why there isnt a unified myther version of the evidence we have???

because no one has produced any work at all in the myther camp that isnt goofier then a 3 dollar bill. And every myther has a different version, none of which makes any real sense.

I think it is because there is no critical review within mythicist ranks, no drive to improve their own theories. However, Richard Carrier's next book should change this. Carrier will be producing the first scholarly mythicist argument in modern times, and it should help to focus attention on the mythicist case. It will become the standard against which other mythicist theories can be measured. Other mythicists' theories should then fade into insignificance, though no doubt niche supporters like Freethinkaluva will still be pushing their wheelbarrow piles of methane-producing arguments.

So I suggest not worrying about mythicist arguments until Carrier's next book. I predict that Carrier will then become the most hated figure by mythicists, even more than Ehrman.

ive always respected Carriers work, I think Price is brilliant, less his arrow being pojted in the wrong direction

I think he word he uses now, really doesnt apply well. Its on the tip of my tongue starts with a H

the current models fit like a glove compared to this.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-29-2012, 09:19 AM	#95
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I wonder what he thinks of all the contradictions and discrepancies in the writings of "heresiologists" ......

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.