Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 12-18-2009, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I'll do that, if I can manage to finish it and have time to discuss it (Winter quarter will be a very busy time for me). I know that Christopher Price is an apologist, but that does not matter to me, and I don't see why it should. His information is useful. The book by Voorst, that Price favors, seems to assume the errancy of the New Testament (Voorst states that the historical Pilate was a lot meaner than the New Testament Pilate).

Of course, Price is going to recommend books that do not even mention mythicist arguments, let alone refute them.

That is the historicist way. Claim mythicism is refuted, praise books which don't even address mythicist arguments and then walk away, enjoying the look of bafflement on mythicist faces.

Mythicism is like creationism.

Just like there are evolution web sites and books, which refute all creationist claims , there are non-existent historicist books and web sites which refute all mythicist arguments.

So a perfect analogy :-)

It isn't a perfect analogy, and I didn't mean it to be. I should have followed my gut and left out the analogy, because it is too insulting. I don't know a lot about Christopher Price, so your accusation against him may well be true. Make no such mistake about the book by Van Voorst. Refuting the MJ position is the central theme of it.

dog-on · 12-18-2009, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Of course, Price is going to recommend books that do not even mention mythicist arguments, let alone refute them.

That is the historicist way. Claim mythicism is refuted, praise books which don't even address mythicist arguments and then walk away, enjoying the look of bafflement on mythicist faces.

Mythicism is like creationism.

Just like there are evolution web sites and books, which refute all creationist claims , there are non-existent historicist books and web sites which refute all mythicist arguments.

So a perfect analogy :-)

It isn't a perfect analogy, and I didn't mean it to be. I should have followed my guy and left out the analogy, because it is too insulting. I don't know a lot about Christopher Price, so your accusation against him may well be true. Make no such mistake about the book by Van Voorst. Refuting the MJ position is the central theme of it.

Again, what do you think his best argument is?

Steven Carr · 12-18-2009, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It isn't a perfect analogy, and I didn't mean it to be. I should have followed my guy and left out the analogy, because it is too insulting. I don't know a lot about Christopher Price, so your accusation against him may well be true. Make no such mistake about the book by Van Voorst. Refuting the MJ position is the central theme of it.

So that is why he never mentions common MJ arguments and doesn't even discuss the Biblical data like Romans 10, or 1 Peter 2. He is too busy refuting the MJ position to mention MJ arguments.

Why do evolutionists actually address creationist arguments like shrinking sun, changing day length, changing light speed etc, while Voorst does not address mythicist arguments like Paul claiming Jews needed a preacher, so Christians had been sent to be preachers - as though Jesus had never preached....

ApostateAbe · 12-18-2009, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It isn't a perfect analogy, and I didn't mean it to be. I should have followed my guy and left out the analogy, because it is too insulting. I don't know a lot about Christopher Price, so your accusation against him may well be true. Make no such mistake about the book by Van Voorst. Refuting the MJ position is the central theme of it.

Again, what do you think his best argument is?

I'll let you know when I finish reading it. I am a quarter of the way through.

dog-on · 12-18-2009, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Again, what do you think his best argument is?

I'll let you know when I finish reading it. I am a quarter of the way through.

Cool.

Toto · 12-18-2009, 01:12 AM

From what I read online, Van Voorst's primary evidence against mythicism seems to be that the academy has dismissed it. His evidence - no books have been written since the 1940's that address it. Oh, except for Wells, but Wells is "unpersuasive," as shown by the fact that the academy ignores him or does not address his arguments at any length. (p.14)

But he does list 7 reasons behind the academy's dismissal of Wells, all of them familiar and weak as dishwater. He states that 1) arguments from silence are just wrong and can be ignored, and 2) that the gospels contain plentiful and accurate references to Palestine so they must have been written before 100 CE, and 3) you can't conclude from the obvious mythologizing that there is no historical core, and 4) how come the enemies of Christianity never questioned Jesus' existence, and 5) there is a strong consensus that the non-Christian references to Jesus are mostly trustworthy, and 6) Wells is motivated by a desire to see Christianity destroyed.

And the coup de grace, reason number 7, is that how else can you explain the rise of Christianity?

I felt like I was reading a rehash of some of the weakest arguments advanced on these boards. I have a feeling that the Rev. Van Voorst is not used to being questioned

His evidence in favor of historicity - the usual, starting with Thallius.

Nothing new here.

ApostateAbe · 12-18-2009, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It isn't a perfect analogy, and I didn't mean it to be. I should have followed my guy and left out the analogy, because it is too insulting. I don't know a lot about Christopher Price, so your accusation against him may well be true. Make no such mistake about the book by Van Voorst. Refuting the MJ position is the central theme of it.

So that is why he never mentions common MJ arguments and doesn't even discuss the Biblical data like Romans 10, or 1 Peter 2. He is too busy refuting the MJ position to mention MJ arguments.

Why do evolutionists actually address creationist arguments like shrinking sun, changing day length, changing light speed etc, while Voorst does not address mythicist arguments like Paul claiming Jews needed a preacher, so Christians had been sent to be preachers - as though Jesus had never preached....

You speak as though you have read the book. Have you? If you still have the book accessible, then I refer you to pages 13-15, where Van Voorst summarizes and judges the main arguments of George A. Wells (the most popular JM advocate in the year 2000). You seem to be right in the respect that Van Voorst spends much more time refuting MJ than focusing on the arguments put forward by MJ, which sounds ridiculous when put that way, but there is a huge amount of persuasive significance and value in fully explaining the evidence for HJ, because the hundreds of various arguments out there in favor of MJ (I don't know about your argument pertaining to Romans 10 or 1 Peter 2) come off as extremely weak by comparison.

dog-on · 12-18-2009, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

From what I read online, Van Voorst's primary evidence against mythicism seems to be that the academy has dismissed it. His evidence - no books have been written since the 1940's that address it. Oh, except for Wells, but Wells is "unpersuasive," as shown by the fact that the academy ignores him or does not address his arguments at any length. (p.14)

But he does list 7 reasons behind the academy's dismissal of Wells, all of them familiar and weak as dishwater. He states that 1) arguments from silence are just wrong and can be ignored, and 2) that the gospels contain plentiful and accurate references to Palestine so they must have been written before 100 CE, and 3) you can't conclude from the obvious mythologizing that there is no historical core, and 4) how come the enemies of Christianity never questioned Jesus' existence, and 5) there is a strong consensus that the non-Christian references to Jesus are mostly trustworthy, and 6) Wells is motivated by a desire to see Christianity destroyed.

And the coup de grace, reason number 7, is that how else can you explain the rise of Christianity?

I felt like I was reading a rehash of some of the weakest arguments advanced on these boards. I have a feeling that the Rev. Van Voorst is not used to being questioned

His evidence in favor of historicity - the usual, starting with Thallius.

Nothing new here.

Thanks Toto.

I will wait to see what Abe comes up with.

Steven Carr · 12-18-2009, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You speak as though you have read the book. Have you? If you still have the book accessible, then I refer you to pages 13-15, where Van Voorst summarizes and judges the main arguments of George A. Wells (the most popular JM advocate in the year 2000). You seem to be right in the respect that Van Voorst spends much more time refuting MJ than focusing on the arguments put forward by MJ, which sounds ridiculous when put that way, but there is a huge amount of persuasive significance and value in fully explaining the evidence for HJ, because the hundreds of various arguments out there in favor of MJ (I don't know about your argument pertaining to Romans 10 or 1 Peter 2) come off as extremely weak by comparison.

And Voorst refutes Wells by the simple tactic of saying that RT France does not agree with him.

Gosh, evolutionists produce data and evidence when they refute creationists.

They don't just say 'Dawkins says you are wrong - case dismissed' But then they are real scholars.

Voorst writes 'As every good student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist.'

Yes, Elvis was a superb tap-dancer, and the fact that nobody mentioned his tap-dancing until I did, is no argument against my praise of Presley's tap-dancing.

Ask any scholar.

Steven Carr · 12-18-2009, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Thanks Toto.

I will wait to see what Abe comes up with.

Voorst actually comes up with Mara bar Serapion, who does not even mention Jesus!

These guys can find a Jesus anywhere, even in works where the name is never used.

I quote Voorst about Serapion '...his statement that Jesus lives on in his new laws rather than by his resurrection. In writing to Serapion, Mara speaks of Jesus as 'the wise king of the Jews'.....'

This is laughable. No wonder historicists love to praise these books. They know that they can wind up mythicists by producing rubbish, calling it great, and watching mythicists explode when they see this rubbish masquerading as a 'refutation'

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-18-2009, 01:12 AM	#56
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	From what I read online, Van Voorst's primary evidence against mythicism seems to be that the academy has dismissed it. His evidence - no books have been written since the 1940's that address it. Oh, except for Wells, but Wells is "unpersuasive," as shown by the fact that the academy ignores him or does not address his arguments at any length. (p.14) But he does list 7 reasons behind the academy's dismissal of Wells, all of them familiar and weak as dishwater. He states that 1) arguments from silence are just wrong and can be ignored, and 2) that the gospels contain plentiful and accurate references to Palestine so they must have been written before 100 CE, and 3) you can't conclude from the obvious mythologizing that there is no historical core, and 4) how come the enemies of Christianity never questioned Jesus' existence, and 5) there is a strong consensus that the non-Christian references to Jesus are mostly trustworthy, and 6) Wells is motivated by a desire to see Christianity destroyed. And the coup de grace, reason number 7, is that how else can you explain the rise of Christianity? I felt like I was reading a rehash of some of the weakest arguments advanced on these boards. I have a feeling that the Rev. Van Voorst is not used to being questioned His evidence in favor of historicity - the usual, starting with Thallius. Nothing new here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.