MCalavera

Have you ever said something similar to Earl Doherty?

Exactly my point. What ideas of hers did he like when they're basically believed by serious scholars and historians to be complete rubbish?

But when the majority of experts in a certain field have the same position on something, then chances are they're most likely bloody right ... or they're taking the most reasonable approach (regardless of whether or not it's ultimately right/wrong).

I don't know whether Paul was clinically a narcissist or not, but I do know narcissists will use "sudden attacks of humility" from time to time for whatever reasons just to keep their "fans/followers" manipulated into worshipping/admiring them.

I know from experience.

So that issue you're speculating seems to be in your mind only.

MCalavera

What's your point here? I said nothing about anyone here violating the rules.

Well, here's what I'm having a big problem with.

People who claim to be skeptics coming here and telling me that Paul and the Apostles believed that Jesus must've been crucified in a heavenly way by heavenly means by heavenly/demonic beings in some heavenly realm or unknown "unhistorical" place on earth, that he was born in a heavenly/metaphorical way "according to the flesh" (which is meant to be interpreted metaphorically/spiritually even if the context suggests a literal interpretation), that he had the Last Supper (with cups and all) in a heavenly fashion in "God knows where the hell the realm was", that he was buried in some fucking heavenly realm not on earth, and other stuff like that.

These people expect me to take their views seriously without any evidence whatsoever for their speculations.

I bet you if it was a bunch of religious people saying this shit, almost every person here would be ganging up upon him and calling him out on this bullshit.

aa5874

Well, Jesus was a resurrected MYTH.

MCalavera

Widely believed by experts in the field means that an amateur who opposes their position is most likely wrong.

And besides, all these Doherty mythicists are doing is making up issues in the text where there are none and filling in the gaps with their unfounded speculations that they themselves forced into the text.

MCalavera

Do you have poor reading comprehension skills?

MCalavera

Notice how spin took issue at you criticising mytherism.

I have a feeling he's being deceptive by claiming he's "neutral".

aa5874

You seem to have a bad memory. Your posts are recorded.

What skills you have!!!

MCalavera

What's your IQ, mate?

aa5874

I have IDENTIFIED your IQ.

Toto

Why do you ask?

Acharya S is trying to revive the 19th century history of religion theories on the origins of religion. They are out of fashion now, but Price does not follow fashion. Price agrees with Acharya S on the Egyptian origins of the Christ myth and various aspects of Christianity, although he has said that he thinks that the evidence is lost and he will never be able to prove that Jesus is based on Horus. I don't fully understand Price's position, but I don't see the point in using it to taint everything else he has written. He does have two PhD's and an amazing depth of knowledge in his area.

You have to start out with who qualifies as an expert, and know what they base their expert opinion on. Christian apologists like to argue that there is some sort of expert consensus on the existence of Jesus, without actually looking at the consensus or what it is based on. From what I have seen, there is no actual expert consensus on the historicity of Jesus. There is no real agreement on the standards of evidence.

The speculation is not original with me. Paul's letters are an endless source of puzzlement and opportunities for theologians to try to make sense of.