maryhelena

Don, "Speculative bullshit" is just as relevant to the historical JC idea as it is to any ahistoricist/mythicist theory. Both positions, the historicist position and the ahistoricist/mythicist position, are just that - positions, ideas, speculation. Neither position can be debunked or validated. Both positions are a leap into the unknown. One man's interpretation is another man's heresy. That is the lot of NT interpretation.

This debate between the historicists and the ahistoricist/mythicists is check-mate - neither side has the 'smoking gun'. One interprets the NT story as best one can; makes ones decision either way, or not at all - and runs with that decision as far as one is able. Ultimately, is it not, the strength of a theory lies in how many questions or issues it answers or settles. Debating over whether or not JC was historical is a waste of bandwidth. The issue can't be settled by yet more interpretations of the NT story.

The JC historicists have their story in the bag, as it were. Great story - end of story. Not so the ahistoricists/mythicists. That 'camp' has no story - it has many stories. From Doherty's sub-lunar to Atwell's Caesar's Messish, to mystery/gnostic ideas to AS and Astrotheology. Basically a rejection of the common and garden historical JC idea. While all this can be frustrating for the JC historicists, and some ahistoricists/mythicists, it is not a bad situation. Whatever value these individual theories might or might not have - their very existence is a challenge to the accepted theory of a historical JC. It is that challenge, not the specifics of the individual ahistoricist/mythicist theories, that the JC historicists have to face. Their story is being challenged. In actuality, the historicists have been caught with their pants down - and are not able, because of the continuing ahistoricist/mythicist 'attack', an 'attack' from many quarters, to pull them back up. It's not the holes in the ahistoricist/mythicists theories that are at issue here - it's the bare bottom of the historicists theory that can no longer be covered up....:blush:

GakuseiDon

Sure. It happens on both sides. And I don't even mind speculation... as long as it is clearly identified as speculation. Stephen Huller floats a lot of ideas on this board, and I enjoy reading them. But he doesn't pretend they are settled questions. Similarly, Neil Godfrey has a lot of interesting thoughts on his Vridar blog. But again, it's not like he is saying "this is how it had to have been". Lots of interesting ideas, lots of interesting speculation.

The problem is when speculation is NOT identified as such. Richard Carrier has said that Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" is "90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth)", but how many readers have the knowledge to pick that up? How many reviewers even notice when Doherty is being speculative? Very few. And so misinformation gets passed on.

We find the same thing with Acharya S's work. She quotes multiple sources from the 19th C without checking that their work is anything more than speculation, and that is bad. But who checks this? Her supporters? Nope. Zwaarddijk is doing us a service by investigating the claims in her book. It doesn't matter whether there was a historical Jesus or not; there may have been no historical Jesus, but her claims can still be bullshit.

maryhelena

There may well be bullshit among the theories of AS....so? What makes any bullshit in the theories AS of such magnitude that it's worth fighting over? What damage is it doing? People believe weird and wonderful things all the time.

How about this bullshit from the JC historicists camp. JC was resurrected from the dead and lives in heaven - waiting for all the faithful to follow him. What damage does that weird and wonderful idea do to our ability to live rational lives in the real world we all live in?

The vast difference in the level of bullshit is obvious is it not; speculation transformed into a belief system is the greater danger. George Orwell (1984) has his character of 'Smith' ending up loving Big Brother. Ideas, speculation, need that 'official' stamp. The God stamp, the government stamp, the ideological stamp. Weird and wonderful ideas need a leg up before they can warrant the crusaders rolling in....Entrapment - that's the downfall of ideas...

Sure, choose ones battles by all means. Best though to keep in mind that people who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones...or they are sure to expect some glass at their feet....

Sheshbazzar

Although 'bullshit' is the more popular term, some fine day it will be found out why it is that everything to do with christianity and its JC claims are really 'HORSE shit' rather than 'bullshit'.

Once mankind sees, and understands that difference, the HORSE shit will be recognised, and the bullshit will come to an end.




.

Toto

You have effortlessly slid from "speculation" to "misinformation." But you haven't identified any misinformation from Doherty. I think all informed readers know that any ancient history is inherently speculative.

And once again you are using Acharya S to smear Doherty, although they actually have hardly anything in common.

No, this is not the problem. She quotes sources that are just wrong.

stephan huller

I don't know why it is we spend so much time defending or attacking this woman. She has a right to her opinions. There are stupid beliefs associated with any position. Some of what she says isn't stupid. If she was attractive she'd make a nice wife. I'm serious. As stupid as much of what she says is, it would be the crown jewel in an already beautiful woman.

I've always said this (half in jest of course) but how can women study the monotheistic traditions objectively? Right at the outset they have to carry the stigma of being inferior. No amount of turning truth upside down can challenge that. As a result I give Acharya credit - she is doing the best with a difficult situation. Make it about pygmies, solar gods and whatever else you want to bring into the discussion. It is amazing to see an outsider try and make sense of this world that has always been for men only.

Religion makes a woman more attractive. It makes them seem substantive. How many strippers are there out there who will tell you something like, 'I am a church going woman.' It makes them more attractive. The best thing about a woman is that mystery that comes from not knowing. Acharya is making herself more attractive by talking about things she doesn't understand. She's putting on make up. She's prettying up.

There's an old word for what she is engaging in - coquetery.

aa5874

You seem to be smearing Acharya S to hide problems with Ehrman and Doherty.

You claim is unsubstantiated. You appear to be diverting attention away from Ehrman and Doherty.

Both of them use sources that they Admit were manipulated.

Ehrman's Jesus is directly based on sources of Admitted Perjury and Doherty use the Pauline writings as an early source when he himself argues that the Pauline writings were manipulated.

Both Ehrman and Doherty have not presented a shred of corroborative evidence for early Pauline writings--None.

Toto, again, where does Acharya claim her "pigmy sources" were manipulated and filled with discrepancies and contradictions???

Why did Ehrman and Doherty use the timeline in Acts of the Apostles for their Paul??

Acts of the Apostles is a work of Fiction.

Toto

OK, this is just too much.

If this is going to be a serious thread, I will split a lot of posts off. I'll leave it up to Zwaarddijk.

stephan huller

im sorry. just trying to bug dave err acharya

stephan huller

So now that we've crossed the threshold, and we aren't allowed to joke about this, what's the best argument for taking any of what Acharya writes about seriously? if i was walked into a church having lived in the remotest part of the Amazon, how is her book going to help me understand what Christianity is?