neilgodfrey

So is it really true, as per Weaver, that the "most able" arguments (p.69) against a nonhistorical Jesus are those forwarded by Shirley Jackson Case?

Is Schweitzer's essential response to the arguments of nonhistoricity that the debates should essentially be bypassed by grounding Christianity in "a metaphysics" instead, since "Christianity would likely always have to reckon with the possibility of Jesus' non-historicity" (Weaver, p.62)?


Neil

neilgodfrey

Jeffrey, some students do homework and catch their teachers out in the process.

I have checked each of these page references and except for two of them they do nothing more than cite Wells or Doherty in their presentation of the mythicist case in a passing manner, and in some cases even add supporting arguments from for their positions from non-mythicists. (Of the two exceptions, one is a mere brief conclusion of a discussion elsewhere, and another is a superficial rejoinder (an opinion piece) of only a fraction of the arguments made by "mythicists" on a particular topic.)

It almost looks like you have done nothing more than look up Christ myth and Doherty in the index and copied their page references without even bothering to read the actual contents of those pages to see if they really were relevant to the point you were trying to establish.

But of course you knew that, and so framed your comment as a technical request for information in order to deflect the sort of rejoinder I am delivering here now.

Oh, yes. And the epistemology they discuss at the beginning certainly does underpin the assumptions supporting their arguments throughout. But let me know when you read the book and we can discuss this too.

Neil

Jeffrey Gibson

So the answer to my question is "no".


It does, does it? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to show me how this is so in each and every one of their arguments against the "Christ Myth theory" as you seem to be claiming.

Jeffrey

neilgodfrey

Wrong. The answer is that your question is a false one. E and B do not "discuss" on those pages what your question inferred they did. You did nothing more than copy a few page references from the index without checking to see if they did indeed "discuss" what you implied they did.

I have discussed Eddy and Boyd often enough on my blog and will no doubt do so some more in the future. If you were a nicer person I really would be kind enough to show you in a special personal post where their assumptions guide their arguments "throughout".

N