spamandham

If you review the exchange in this thread, you'll find I never claimed mythicism had been peer reviewed. This is the second time in as many exchanges between us, that you've made false claims regarding what I've stated.

I suppose if IIDB were my site, I'd look for mods who reflected the image I desired, but, it isn't my site, and IIDB can unfortunately lower their standards to whatever level they choose.

Amaleq13

Wow. Now you want to rewrite history? A review of our exchange will reveal that is precisely what you have appeared to be trying to argue for the entire time. This will sting a bit but it is for your own good.

You initially asserted that Every detail of his life is disputed in the mainstream.

I challenged that claim and specifically asked if You know of "mainstream" scholars who deny that Jesus preached or was crucified?.

You attempted to meet that challenge first by offering a link that didn't offer any such support but, later, with references to scholars promoting mythicism..

This part of our exchange, alone, is sufficient to refute your attempt to change history but this post makes it quite clear that you, by applying a faulty definition of "mainstream" considered mythicism to qualify and that this had been what you were trying to establish.

No, this is the second time you've failed to understand the implications and meanings of your own words as you unsuccessfully attempted to support your assertions. Thank you for the reminder that anyone engaging in discussion with you should request that you explicitly state exactly what you mean several times since you aren't always sure yourself. :banghead:

Now, stop clogging up the discussion with illegitimate complaints and whining. Either participate like a rational adult, silently lurk, or ignore it. You've wasted more than enough bandwidth as it is.

ETA: My status as moderator is entirely irrelevant to our discussion so mentioning it is simply a red herring.

spamandham

"Appear" is the key word there. I never claimed mythicism had been subjected to peer review, because I wasn't aware that it had been.

My goal was to point out that the word 'mainstream' does not simply mean 'concensus' in a case where there really is little to no concensus. Even if what you originally stated is true, that there is concensus on the three points you listed (and presumably nothing else), then those three points would be the only thing that could be considered mainstream. Propositions that Jesus was a rebel rouser, or a wandering preacher, would be just a non-mainstream as mythicism. This seems to me to be an arbitarily narrow meaning for 'mainstream' as used in regards to scholarly work on Jesus.

When you claimed mythicism had not been subjected to peer review, my demand you present evidence of that was nothing more than an application of your own standards back on you. Now I'm somehow responsible for proving the opposite of your position merely because I challenged you to support your claim? Maybe you need a reminder of how things work around here:

from http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=159

You're elaborate attempted strawman didn't do me any good. I have no idea whether it stung or not. Did it?

It's relevant, because your mod status prevents me from adding you to my ignore list, and you're one of the most prolific posters in BC&H. This makes it difficult to manually weed out your posts.

Amaleq13

I only used it because you were denying it despite what your posts entailed.

When you offer mythicist scholars in response to a question about mainstream scholarship, you are identifying those scholars and their positions as mainstream whether you recognize it or not.

If you say so. Your posts don't support that as being your goal nor do they achieve the goal, itself.

I would add "He was Jewish" to the list.

Those three (now four) points are all I would argue are accepted without dispute by mainstream scholarship and that's all I said at the start. You simply shouldn't have challenged such a painfully mundane statement. The end.

No, I think those propositions obtain far more support from mainstream scholars than mythicism. They aren't ignored or dismissed as ridiculous but tend to be addressed by mainstream scholars as they present their own views.

It was a misapplication of "my" standard in addition to being a logically flawed approach. I've already tried to explain this to you but I'm not interested in teaching Logic 101. You haven't supported the claims you've made and you haven't supported the claims your responses entail. Simple as that.

No, you are responsible for supporting the claims your responses entail. Apparently, you were again unaware what those were and actually don't support what your responses indicate you did. I'm fine with any outcome that involves you ceasing to spout unsubstantiated nonsense. That you continue to belabor the point is simply tiresome.

I used nothing but your own words. If you created a strawman rather than present your actual position, I'm not sure how that is my problem.

I guess that would be easier than doing a better job expressing yourself or bothering to actually provide supportive evidence for your assertions but I'm clearly not the only person here who recognizes the lack of substance in certain of your posts. Feel free to ignore my non-moderator posts in the future but don't think that will stop me from asking you to support your claims. Failure to reply will probably be recognized by others as a tacit admission of an inability to do so.

And I'm really not one of the most prolific posters. I've just been around long enough for my number to grow. I generally only post when someone says something I find interesting but the individual hasn't provided enough supporting information to make it credible. Problems generally only ensue when it turns out they have none but refuse to admit it. :angel:

spamandham

I suggest you show a quote where I state explicitly what you claim I stated. You can't, because I didn't, nor did I suggest that was my position. Since you can't, why not be an adult about it rather than desparately trying to define my position for me. You don't know my positions, because you never bother to ask them. All you do is assume endlessly.

Your inferences are simply wrong. Don't you ever get tired of making an ass of yourself?

I created a strawman of my own position? Do you even know what the word 'strawman' means? I presented my position in the first post you commented on.

If it makes you feel any better, you'd be the first mod I ever added to my ignore list, were it possible to do so. I really have no idea if you have anything to offer, because the exchanges turn to petty sniping at the first moment you're challenged, and the type of exchange we're having now, is all I've ever seen of you. Who needs it? That's what the ignore feature is for.

Amaleq13

The links make it very clear that what you wrote did entail the claim and I'm happy to let your own words speak for themselves even if you don't understand them.

Oh, and please don't think that, because you haven't been edited for your childishly rude and abusive posting behavior, that you can repeat such a sad display posting to others. I've intervened on your behalf and asked that you not be edited despite having your post reported by a member because 1) I think it ultimately only reveals the true nature of the individual and 2) it avoids the appearance of favoritism.

:wave:

spamandham

I admit I am rude on occasion, but generally only as tit for tat. I have little tolerance for those who attempt to construe my positions, to put words and claims into my mouth I never stated, such as you have done twice now.

Amaleq13

As I've already noted, when you offer mythicist scholars in response to a question about mainstream scholarship, you are tacitly identifying those scholars and their positions as mainstream.

If you genuinely do not understand how this post clearly lays out how your posts require the claim, I don't know how to better help you comprehend.

It may not have been what you intended to convey but it is what your words entail.

spamandham

I pondered this a bit, and it seems to me, your failure to enforce the rules is itself a violation of the rules:

...if you want to make exceptions for me, and the other mods agree, I suppose that's your prerogative as a group, but it's not an unbiased approach as you seem to think. Considering your obsession with teaching me, how am I to learn anything unless my wrists are slapped when appropriate?

Infer, assume, and extrapolate...do you do any other tricks, like perhaps, occasionally asking people to commit or clarify?

We both know you can't quote me on what you say I claimed, because I simply didn't make that claim. Rather than admit you jumped to a conclusion, you prefer to spend time bizarrely trying to construct strawmen of my positions. It's doubtful anyone but you or I is paying attention to this exchange or your hack job attempt at reconstructing my position, and I'm clearly not buying it, so I can't imagine what's motivating you.

We have not even agreed on what 'mainstream' means in this context, yet that doesn't stop you from drawing conclusions about my positions based on the mere fact I refered offhandely to mythicists in a side point, and then behaving as if I'm somehow obligated to defend your strawman. How could you miss the fact I did not include them under the bold headings that were clearly the thrust of the argument here ?

Speaking of strawmen, I'm still interested in knowing how to go about constructing a strawman of my own position. That would be a pretty cool trick.

:wave:

Toto

This dialogue between spamnham and Amaleq13 has degenerated into pointlessness. It is being split and locked until the mod team decides what to do.