ApostateAbe

Very well. Do you agree or disagree with Argument to the Best Explanation?

aa5874

Which Christian elementary School taught such a thing?? The same Christian elementary School which taught Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin??

The existence of George Washington was DOCUMENTED with records of his birth and death, his parents, his presidency, his acquaitances, and other evidence.

It does NOT matter what people claim about George Washington because his existence was documented.



If ALL the information about any character is a handful of Myth then it can be safely argued that the character was a Myth.

Based on your flawed view then the Lochness Monster must exist or is the Best Explanation???

Now, Jesus is more than a handful of Myth--Jesus is Football Fields of Myth for hundreds of years. And the vast amount of Myth was propagated by the Jesus cult itself.

The Apologetic authors of gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts, the Pauline letters, Non-Pauline letters, Revelation, and Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Aristides, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome , Ephrem, Chrysostom and many more all show Jesus as a Myth.

No one wrote about a Jesus of Nazareth outside Apologetics.

aa5874

The Argument to the Best Explanation when applied to the evidence from antiquity clearly EXPLAINS that Jesus was a Myth.

Effectively, based on the evidence The Best Explanation is that Jesus was a MYTH--No author of the Canon saw Jesus.

Toto

This is generally agreed upon - but it is a framework for discussion.

If you think that a historical Jesus is the best explanation of the data, and I disagree, what then?

And how often are you going to go over these same points? What does it matter if there was a historical Jesus or not?

ApostateAbe

Shoot, why does anything in history matter? Why does anything matter? Some people care about making sense of reality for no reason at all.

I think of Argument to the Best Explanation as most useful as a framework, like you described. Historians (like Richard Carrier) tend to think of Argument to the Best Explanation as a methodology, not just a framework, but I am more with you. It is a great foundation for a debate, but not the end of any debate. I see my method, Reciprocal Expectations, as just a small derivative or simplification of Argument to the Best Explanation, borrowing two of the five criteria (the only essential two). It is obvious on the face, like nobody could reasonably disagree with it. I thought that Reciprocal Expectations may have been what you were referring to when you objected, "And you, with no training in history, have invented your own methods and you have your own unique views on common sense and probability. But you have no validation of those methods of views except that they reach the conclusions you prefer." The objection seems strange, except to be reactionary?

Toto

You are so set in your views that you can't see the problems. I don't see the point of continuing this discussion.

Robert Tulip

Hello Abe, my use of this scales motif, together with the 'someone somewhere said', was a mildly ironic reference to Acts 9:18 and Hebrews 2:6.

I agree with you that coming to an understanding of mythicism should not be equated to a religious conversion experience, but nor should it be viewed as simply ideological. Ideology is a doctrine that promotes specific values. Mythicism, as an effort to determine what can be known about Christian origins, need only be ideological to the extent the scientific method is ideological.

My reading of Earl's book did not change my views, but rather provided extensive evidence to confirm what I already understood.

tanya

Very well written.

:thumbs:

ApostateAbe

Very well, I am sorry I misunderstood. I don't have high hopes for convincing mythicists, but I at least try to understand their perspective. It is one thing to accept the literature of Earl Doherty as sound, but I am especially intrigued by the followers of Acharya S. The mythicists on this forum, bizarre as their thinking tends to be, generally seem to grasp the reality that Acharya S does not write sound literature. Her extraordinary claims for ancient myths are sourced almost entirely from modern tertiary sources, which, when tracked down, likewise source from modern literature. Reputable scholars generally source from ancient sources, and almost all of us know this. I can understand why lay people who don't put much thought into it would forget to be critical with respect to Acharya S's literature, but I have a more difficult time understanding why there is a devoted circle of fans of Acharya S who think of themselves as skeptics. My tentative conclusion is that Acharya S leads an online authoritarian cult. It is an easier conclusion given the behavior of Acharya S's most zealous follower, freethinkuluva, but it is a more difficult conclusion given those in the circle who seem more level-headed, such as yourself.

Toto

Abe - this is stepping into dicey territory, when you try to psychoanalyze people you don't know from a distance.

Acharya S writes explanations of Christianity that resonate with people because they seem to explain a lot of things in terms of natural processes. There is also an enduring fascination with ancient Egypt that she taps into. I think this is sufficient to explain her popularity. As far as I know, she does not have a compound or an ashram where she brainwashes her followers. I don't know how you maintain an online authoritarian cult in any case.

As for the rest of your post, please don't accuse others of bizarre thinking when you just don't have the academic background to evaluate the debate.