GakuseiDon

Toto, would it be fair to say that, among mythicist theories, Acharya S's are probably the most popular and well-known, through her books and the Zeitgeist movie? And that prominent mythicists like Doherty, Zindler and Dr Price, support her?

aa5874

You hardly talk about Wells. You appear to an anti-mythicist. Please, don't you realize that you have admitted that there is very little evidence for an historical Jesus.

Don't you understand that your post history is being monitored and they show that your post are almost always against Doherty or Acharya S??

The ancients support the Mythicists.

When are you going to tellus what the ancient Tertullian wrote about your Jesus??

Did NOT the ancient Tertullian claim Jesus was the Son of a Ghost??

Tell us what the Ancient Irenaeus thought about your Jesus??

The Ancient Irenaeus also claimed your Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and a virgin.

What about the Ancient Ignatius??

The Ancient Ignatius claimed your Jesus was GOD.

Tell us about the Ancients Gakuseidon?? What did the Ancients think about your Jesus

The Ancient Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was was produced WITHOUT sexual union.

Gakuseidon, we know what the Ancients Wrote.

"On the Flesh of Christ

tanya

So, if I cite Lightfoot, I am casting doubt on mythicism?

If I cite Leibniz or Newton, am I casting doubt on the Calculus?

Mythicism is nothing more than a belief that all religions represent fiction. Consequently, if I or you, or AS or anyone else employs an authority, the authenticity of whose text, has subsequently been questioned, by new technologies (for example spectral imaging of the charred papyrus texts at Herculaneum, buried in 79CE by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius), the underlying belief in rational thought has not been challenged.

The argument against mythicism, whether proposed by this member of the forum, or that member, ultimately is revealed to represent a challenge to rational thought, versus superstitious thinking. No quantity of errors, whether committed by AS or anyone else, can change that fundamental character of this dispute.

I do not share your opinion, here, that AS is harming mythicism by "using outdated research uncritically." I don't know if she uses outdated research, and I don't know if she uses that research uncritically. I would need, to confirm or repudiate that contention, to read both text by AS, including her citations, AND some more contemporary research, repudiating her assertions and her authorities, research regarded as veracious by a transparent process of verification.

In my opinion, there is no need for a "standard bearer". The struggle is between two competing ideas:

superstition;

science, including mathematics;

Most people living in contemporary societies now have access to information, whether text, or video, or audio. The greater the access to information, i.e. answers to questions, the greater the tendency to ignore those who proclaim a requirement for supernatural powers to explain phenomena, problems, and unhappiness.

It is not AS, or Carrier, or Price, or Wells, or anyone else, bearing "the" standard, heading into battle, that will make a difference. It is bandwidth.

Toto

No. I think your statement gives an exaggerated sense of her importance. I think you are trying to avoid any serious discussion of the historicity of Jesus by focusing on the author you think is the weakest link, who has some quirks that you can use to avoid the real issues.

Besides - Doherty wrote one nice review of one of her books, but does not cite her work as influential or interact with her. I can't find anything by Zindler explicitly supporting her - she cited a paper by him that advocates a compatible theory as a hypothesis, but he does not credit her work. Price is very friendly to her and says nice things about her - but I can't actually find where she has influenced him.

I think it is also odd to speak about the popularity of mythicist theories. Most people are just not concerned about this area of history.

maryhelena

Indeed, on a very basic level this debate is between superstition and rationality or logic. Mathematics is not the solution however...i.e. numbers, bandwidth, tell us nothing about quality, nothing about value. How many CDs did Pavarotti sell? How many does Bieber sell?

Science requires not only evidence based reasoning - it also, very often, requires creative minds. Originality can spur on discoveries.

So, while bandwidth is important - perhaps in the sense of that hundred monkey effect - creative minds are also required and provide value. Whether it is AS, Carrier, Price, Wells or Doherty - their contribution to the debate - and their willingness to keep that debate 'hot' - is vital to what we all want - a world free from superstition as a mode of enlightenment.

aa5874

Please, Mathematics is not just about numbers. Mathematics involve probabilities and logic.

You seem not to know that understanding Mathematics is extremely important.

May I remind you that Science does NOT create evidence--or a Creative mind is NOT data.

Data must first be collected and then analyzed.

But having said that some people simply may not have the ability to analyze certain data because they don't understand Maths.

GakuseiDon

Acharya S and Doherty cite speculative bullshit about what ancient people thought. I am against speculative bullshit about what ancient people thought. However, I have also repeatedly stated, there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, and asking whether he existed or not is a valid line of inquiry. But you will conveniently 'forget' that I've stated this (yet again!) as soon as you've read this post, I suspect.

maryhelena

Some quotes to consider:

[T2]“There are no logical paths to such natural laws, only intuition can reach them”. (Einstein: Ideas and Opinions, 1973)[/T2]

[T2]“Mathematics is a serious of great intuitions carefully sifted, refined, and organised by the logic men are willing and able to apply at any time”. (Kline: Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, 1980)[/T2]

[T2]“There is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas, or a logical reconstruction of this process. Every great discovery contains an irrational element or a creative intuition". ((Karl Popper: Objective Knowledge, 1972)[/T2]

GakuseiDon

I suspect many mythicists feel that way: HJ = support for superstition (regardless of whether the HJ proponent is an atheist or not.) MJ = science.

Yes, the Internet has certainly unleashed a great wave of rationality around the world. Speculative bullshit now has no place to hide! Thank you, Internet!

Vorkosigan

My own experience is that people are more likely to encounter mythicism through the Zeitgeist movie, most of which is a load of utter crap, and one of the accompanying Kelsey-type Crucified Savior lists and/or Archarya S' stuff. I see that on Facebook all the time. Very annoying.