aa5874

But, positing that "Jesus was a figure of history because there's no evidence in favor of him is totally absurd.

Chris Weimer

I wasn't being insulting. I'm seriously flabergasted that you haven't bought into the historical paradigm yet. And I don't mean "historical Jesus paradigm", but the way that historians reconstruct history. It's like working with scientists for years and not catching on to the scientific method.

Yes. We ask about it every time we ask about methodology.

That's a serious mischaracterization of creationists. But then again, why am I not surprised coming from you?

No, I don't think they're stupid, but they're not playing games either. They work within a different paradigm - one of faith. They're not doing science.

It isn't! "fiction" wasn't an invented genre yet. The books of the Bible fall into various genres. Check any library - poetry and letters definitely do not fall under the "fiction" category.

Simply false. Not all proponent of an Historical Jesus think that Christianity must have been inspired. I don't recall ever having used that.

Your analogy could even be extended. Creationists don't think that computers evolved, ergo HJers are like creationists. Your reasoning is illogical, insidious, and vapid. It contains no substance at all.

False. The Exodus didn't occur because Israelite origins are better explained by a local population emerging. That there is no evidence for a mass exodus is a part of the evidence, yes.

What? Seriously? You mean they weren't writing poetry? So all that about Paul containing hymns is bullhocky to you?

Julian

[MOD]
The discussion on sigma was off-topic so I have moved those posts to here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=215421

Julian
Moderator BC&H
[/MOD]

Toto

Bought into the historical paradigm? I know how historians reconstruct history. I've seen it in many cases. Jesus just can't be reconstructed that way.

And every time Vork asked about methooology, he got a lot of hand waving. There is no HJ methodology.

In what way does this mischaracterize creationists? Do you think I should be nicer to them? Why?

Well D'uh - that was my point precisely. They do not get their ideas from working within a scientific paradigm. They are doing religion. But they do try to rationalize their ideas within the scientific paradigm - and it is obviously a sham, mere game playing that they don't even take very seriously. Their logic and facts are twisted. You know this - that's why you insult people by comparing them to creationists. That is why they come to these board and post their proofs, and get demolished by the scientists, but they keep coming back with their pseudo-scientific arguments, like bettors who think they might win at the local Casino.

So what about the Hellenistic novels of the time? The Golden Ass of Apuleius? Not fiction? Just straight reporting?

I don't recall that you said that, but that's what it seems to come down to for a lot of observers. Why else do people cite evidence for Christianity as evidence for a historical Jesus?

Well, you don't seem to have gotten it.

Yes indeed. So by analogy, we have a lack of evidence for Jesus, and a mythical explanation for the rise of Christianity that provides a better explanation of the data, at least according to Richard Carrier.

Certainly not that quality of poetry. But if Jesus is comparable to Lesbia as the subject of literature - well, that opens up a different perspective, but not necessarily one that will support your case.

Chris Weimer

That's because you uncritically ignored tradition.

D'oh! The methodology for the historical Jesus is the same for any other reconstructed figure. Jesus does not need his own methodology.

Well, if you don't mischaracterize them, then you're not misrepresenting their views, and if you're not misrepresenting their views, then you're not deceiving idle witnesses. Be mean to them all you want, but be honest about it.

Actually, many of them don't think their arguments have been demolished, even though to a rational person clearly it was. That's why so many people use the same arguments over and over again.

Apparently, you're not familiar with genre, are you? And no, there is no such thing as "straight reporting". That's another modern invention that's anachronistically applied to ancient genre.

Perhaps because they too are untrained in historical sciences?

No, it just sucks as a comparison.

Yes, I pointed out the three Mythicist theories that I've seen. Carrier falls under the Doherty sphere, as far as I'm aware.

How so?

Toto

What tradition? or are you saying that this discussion is at an end?

Exactly what did I say that is not accurate?

Snipping the rest. Life is too short.

Chris Weimer

Are you serious??!?!?

Your quote exactly:

"Please stop this nonsense. Creationists do not use a paradigm that says that missing evidence shows that evolution is false. Creationists' paradigm is that the Bible is true, therefore evolution is false, therefore any lame argument can be raised just to annoy evilutionists."

But bow out if you want. Let another mythicist take up the gauntlet.

Toto

What exactly is wrong with that statement?

Chris Weimer

How about it's not true for starters.

Toto

Please elaborate. Do you think that creationists do anything other than start with the requirement that the Bible is true? Do you think that they learn the scientific method and apply it? Do you think that they have valid scientific objections to modern science?