Kapyong

Gday all,

OK, here's a point that bugs me -
frequently we get claims that the JM theory requires many assumptions that have no evidence.

And when I asked archibald for some examples, he came back with examples like this :

* Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus all interpolated on this Jesus citation thing.
* Nazareth interpolated into Mark.
* Numerous interpolations in Paul, amounting to as much as 50% of the texts.

But of course, that's simply FALSE !

JMers do NOT assume that Suetonius was interpolated.
JMers do NOT assume that Tacitus was interpolated.
JMers do NOT assume that Nazareth was interpolated.
Numerous interpolations in Paul is a common view - not a JMers assumption.
Josephus being interpolated is a common view - not a JMers assumption.

So, in fact, NONE of archibald's allegations were actually un-evidenced assumptions made by JMers.

But when I pointed that out - I got a stupid brush off :
"None of the above makes any sense. A lot of it is just plain incorrect. I don't think you can have been reading the thread, or reading it properly, or familiar with the things posted elsewhere I was referring to. You are just getting your knickers in a twist for nothing. Again. "

Pardon?
It made perfect sense - it's quite simple - archibald's claims did NOT stand up to scrutiny. My points are NOT "incorrect at all" - e.g. JMers do NOT claim Suetonius was interpolated - archibald got it completly wrong.

Archibald implies I failed to read where posters claimed e.g.
"So, Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus all interpolated on this Jesus citation thing."

In fact, I HAVE read the thread, and there is NO claims by JMers to match archibald's assertions.

Which is probably why he tried to brush me off with a stupid non-answer - but still tried to pretend there are many more, without even coming up with ONE valid example !

So,
let's start from scratch - WHAT are these many "un-evidenced assumptions" made by JMers. Because so far, archibald's list turned out to be completely without foundation.

Come on archi - can you actually come up with ONE? That is, one un-evidenced assumption that actually comes from a JMer, and not just your fertile imagination?

Or can anyone else provide any examples of "un-evidence assumptions" that JHers rely on? I'll keep a running list here.

Here is the list so far :

Un-evidenced assumptions made by JMers:
<none>


K.

Whoops - can a mod change title to "Un-evidenced" pls?

mountainman

That the new testament may not represent historical truth.

mountainman

If there's still time you can use the GO ADVANCED edit button to change the title.

Kapyong

Gday all ,

Let me answer your little joke with some serious comments about what isN'T an an-evidenced assumption of MJers. (Your line above is of course simply a statement of fact that most people would agree with.)


The Mythical Jesus theory itself is not an 'un-evidenced assumption'

Sometimes we get the bald claim the Jesus being a myth is an un-evidenced assumption - as if Earl's book was 2 lines long :
"Chapter 1. We start with the assumption that Jesus was a myth.
Chapter 2. Therefore Jesus was a myth. QED."

In fact, Jesus as a myth is a conclusion - one may disagree with that conclusion, and the conclusion could be wrong - but it's not an un-evidenced assumption, there's 1000 pages of evidence behind that conclusion.


Interpolated Paul is not an un-evidenced JMer assumption

Archibald's examples above were classic examples of NOT an 'un-evidenced assumption of MJers' at all e.g. it's a common argument that Paul is much interpolated - it's NOT peculiar to JMers.


Same evidence

The evidence for a mythical Jesus is the same as for an HJ.

The Jesus Myth does NOT depend on un-evidenced assumptions - in fact it's the other way 'round - the HJ theory typically starts with the assumption that Jesus WAS historical in the first place.

Occam's Razor supports the Mythical Jesus theory - because it requires one less entity to be 'multiplied' in.


Baby-killing and fornication
Back then, the standard insults of the day were typically accusations of various types of fornication, and also of eating babies!

We are far more sophisticated now-a-days, and those smears have been replaced with new ones - we say that it: fails the test of Occam's Razor; and that it's based on un-evidenced assumptions. The more things change...

But so far, (and I've here been in the argument for some years,) no actual un-evidenced assumptions of MJers have been shown that I can recall.

I look forward to some serious answers, especially from G.Don.


K.

mountainman

This is a bad MJ assumption. We all know the new testament has an historical core.

2) That the historical jesus is a postulate and not a fact.

There is no evidence for this assumption about Jesus.


3) That the historical apostles is a postulate and not a fact.

There is no evidence for this assumption about the apostles.


4) That the historical "Paul" is a postulate and not a fact.

There is no evidence for this assumption about "Paul".



5) That paleographical dating is not a scientific dating methodology.

The MJers will go to any lengths to make a point, even to the extent of openly critizing the well respected research and masses of scholarly research and citation after citation from well respected scholars and academics on the chronology of the earliest papyri fragments and manuscripts of the NT.


6) That the mural art-work on the walls of the Dura-Europos-Yale "House-Church" are not overtly Christian.

We can all see Peter and Jesus walking on the water. We can all see the Women at the Well. We can all see the Healing of the Paralytic. These three things in combination are best explained as Christian motifs from the NT. The un-evidenced assumptions by MJers that they are NOT EVIDENCE of a Christian presence, are obviously fundamentally flawed.


7) That C14 is a reliable and scientific dating technology..

This is another un-evidence assumption by JMers. We all know that C14 dating is not exact, and should not be relied upon for matters related to the faith. Whoever TF let the physicists into the theology seminary, would they knindly ask them to leave. We dont need scientists to tell us what we already know to be true from Eusebius.

8) That the reference in Josephus to Jesus is not genuine.

Another un-evidenced assumption from all those non rational people who argue for the MJ over the HJ. Its quite obvious that even if the Testimonium Flavianum is not 100% completely genuine, then it has inside of it, at its heart, a true and accurate fragment which is the real truth about the real HJ. Everyone knows that the "Interpolation" (not Forgery as some MJers insists) is therefore not a compete interpolation but instead one of those quite routine and usual "Partial Interpolations" with an historical core. The persistent un-evidenced assumption that the TF is something other than a partial interpolation is really pseudo-scholarship.


Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous ...

A particularly pernicious Un-evidenced assumption made by JMers relates to the unimpeachable integrity of the earliest historian of the church Eusebius, who had witnesses first hand the terrible persecutions against the "Early Christians" before the peace. Eusebius may have made some mistakes, but he had alot on his plate, visiting Pamphilus his teacher in jail before his death. He held the integrity of the church together at its finest hour, when he represented the Christian religion to the Emperor Constantine as the official religion of the empire, and miraculously won the contract. Anyone who questions the integrity of Eusebius is really a very anti-Christian type of person, which most if not all JMers are anyway, so this really explains their un-evidenced assumptions.




I could go on K ......

BTW, you never answered my question about your assessment of Earl's theory of the Jesus Myth. Is it a case, to use the words of Douglas Noel Adams, that it is "Paul all the way down"?

Kapyong

Gday,

Please pretty pease, don't spam my thread with your personal conspiracy theory.


If it's a serious question - what does it mean?
"Paul all the way down"?
Down where?
I see no 'turtles all the way down' in view - that phrase was a non-sensical answer that the person apparently really believed in. I don't get the connection.

I've explained many times my view that Paul really believed in some sort of spiritual being, (perhaps as a result of some personal out-of-body experience.)

I think Paul existed.
I think Paul had some sort of spiritual experience of Jesus, and it changed his life.


K.

mountainman

Gday and thanks, That's all I am really asking.
Good luck with your theory.

Kapyong

Gday,

MJers assume C14 dating is reliable?
ONLY Mjers make the assumption that C14 is reliable?
And this assumption is part of the MJ theory?

Frankly - this is idiocy.
It's completely untrue.

In fact -
C14 is fairly reliable, within known limits.
C14 dating is NOT part of the MJ theory.

I've had enough of this shit.

Pete - PISS OFF !
Get your fucking stupid conspiracy bull-shit away from my thread!
I'm fed up with your pathetic and childish attempts to get attention for your stinking donkey-shit of a theory by shitting on every thread in the hope some-one will pay attention to your pathetic textual diarhoea.
Fuck off and never come back.


K.

mountainman

G'day K,

You missed the "little joke". You seem to have lost your sense in the identification of humour. In the above post you identified I was making a little joke with Item 1. You obviously failed to see that the little joke continued to item 7. Oh well. Never mind.


Too bad you didn't appreciate the joke.







I get the impression that I would not be admitted as an "appropriate member" of Kapyong's exclusive version of the JMers Theorists Club, where the official party line is that "Paul" was a real historical figure, and communicated with the Spiritual Jesus in the sub-lunar realms according to the specifications provided by Earl Doherty.



:cantgiveadamn:


Have a nice weekend man.
Good luck with your theory.

Doug Shaver

Of course, no one can speak for all ahistoricists, but I would never claim to be assuming nothing. What I would claim instead is that I am assuming nothing that is not also assumed by historicists, but that they are assuming some additional things that I don't assume.