Toto

From his own words, he shares conclusions and arguments with apologists.

Look, I've been arguing with Abe for years on this issue. He's got a lot of ego invented in his position for reasons which are not clear, and he has a lot of rationalizations for why he is right. These include some arguments that he has picked up from Christian apologists that have the veneer of rationality but are actually contrived and invalid, and some arguments that he has constructed himself that are "unique". There's not much I can say to him because his fingers are stuck firmly in his ears.

If Abe were a graduate student in history, he would be meeting face to face with people who could tear his arguments apart and grade him on how he stood up. He could then at least refine his arguments and work out the bugs. But he's not. He's on the internet in his own little world.

Toto

But in fact, the arguments that you share with Christian apologists - such as the criterion of embarrassment or double dissimilarity - have been thoroughly discredited, and even historicists who believe in a historical Jesus will admit that. Why can't you?

ApostateAbe

Toto, as you know, I will be consulting very shortly with people who could tear down one of my claims, and I will take a valuable lesson from whatever feedback I get. Will you? I have an email template that is awaiting your approval here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....29#post6854029

bacht

I dunno Abe. I could be part of your target audience: former church-member, semi-intellectual, generally curious about life, and prone to challenging authority (to my detriment at times).

But I still don't know exactly what you're trying to prove. Is it really so weird that church-builders from the 2nd C onward would invent history to serve their own ends? How is this any less plausible than believing in the resurrection, or the super-prophet of the synoptic gospels?

Toto

Abe - Go ahead and send your email to the faculty.

Chaucer

That's one thing (and I agree). But when it corrupts mods' abilities to abide by basic rules they are obliged to enforce, it's quite another. Words like "swallow" are no different from saying one is an active apologist. It violates rules on this board to bandy around malicious notions like that.

I'm sorry, Abe, to have to disagree here. But I do.

Chaucer

Toto

Comments on moderation are off topic in this thread.

ApostateAbe

I have a set of reasons, it has NOT been thoroughly discredited, and the authority of some people who believe in a historical Jesus has nothing to do with any of those reasons. It seems strange that you would cite that as a reason to reject a criterion. I think you are justified in rejecting it if you really have good reasons, not just because there are a few people who agree with you. The "discrediting" of the criterion tends to assume that the criterion standing alone should be expected to point to the correct conclusion absolutely all of the time, but no useful historical criterion is ever like that.

Chaucer

Pertinent to this thread, do you still say that Abe has actively adopted and swallowed here, rather than merely sharing, those -- occasional -- conclusions that he -- occasionally -- shares with -- some -- Christian apologists?

Thank you,

Chaucer

Juststeve

There's one Toto enforces with vigor. It's called the emperor has no clothes rule.

Steve