FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-19-2010, 08:04 PM   #271
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
I figure that a pretty good way to make sense of what is wrong with the arguments of MJ advocates is to think of the rhetoric of aa5874 as essentially the same arguments and thought processes as those of MJ advocates generally, only aa5874 takes them to the extreme. That might be a good way for me to leave creationism out of it.
Why don't you learn something about history and historical methods instead of trying to find a new way of insulting people on the other side of the debate?
I am just trying to find a good way to get my methodological points across and encourage their acceptance. The problem seems to be not so much my lack of knowledge about historical methods. It is that the other side does not share them.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-19-2010, 08:08 PM   #272
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
...

I am just trying to find a good way to get my methodological points across and encourage their acceptance. The problem seems to be not so much my lack of knowledge about historical methods. It is that the other side does not share them.
You have no methodological points. Everytime I challenge you, you back off and claim not to really know very much about the subject. But then you come back and post the same ill informed charges again.

And if you did have some points, insulting people is not a good way to encourage their acceptance.

So what do you know about historical method? What have you read? What points are you trying to make?
Toto is offline  
Old 02-19-2010, 08:16 PM   #273
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
...

I am just trying to find a good way to get my methodological points across and encourage their acceptance. The problem seems to be not so much my lack of knowledge about historical methods. It is that the other side does not share them.
You have no methodological points. Everytime I challenge you, you back off and claim not to really know very much about the subject. But then you come back and post the same ill informed charges again.

And if you did have some points, insulting people is not a good way to encourage their acceptance.

So what do you know about historical method? What have you read? What points are you trying to make?
The suggestion to switch the comparison from creationism to aa5874 was intended to reduce the level of insult. It is insulting to aa5874 for sure, but I am not trying to change his mind, obviously. :-P

Bart Ehrman laid out a pretty good set of historical methods in his book, Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk). Would you like me to summarize those methods?

EDIT: Sorry, make that Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet (or via: amazon.co.uk), not Misquoting Jesus.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-19-2010, 09:32 PM   #274
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

Why don't you learn something about history and historical methods instead of trying to find a new way of insulting people on the other side of the debate?
I am just trying to find a good way to get my methodological points across and encourage their acceptance. The problem seems to be not so much my lack of knowledge about historical methods. It is that the other side does not share them.
You have already admitted that your position is based on guesswork.

The mythicist position is based on information of antiquity found in the NT, Church and Apocryphal writings, not by guessing.

More than one author of the Gospels gave information about the origin of Jesus Christ and it was AN ENTITY of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin, the Creator who was raised from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

There is not one bit of information in the Gospels that show Jesus was just a man.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 02-19-2010, 10:07 PM   #275
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
I think many of us are hung-up on the third step. We believe unlikely conclusions for the sake of strong opposition to Christianity. McGrath is not some lightweight with a blog like Neil Godfrey or any of us. He is a professor of religion.
I don't know about the other MJers here, but I have no stake in a mythical Jesus. If there really was a historical Jesus reasonably well depicted by the the gospel stories (minus all the magical stuff), it's no skin off my back.

Mythical ideas are more appealing to me because they are the simpler explanation of the evidence, not because of some bone to pick.
spamandham is offline  
Old 02-19-2010, 10:09 PM   #276
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
Update re the debate

James McGrath's blog post.


Friday, February 19, 2010

Is There Evidence For Mythicism?

The ongoing conversation has shown yet another parallel between mythicism and creationism.

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.c...mythicism.html
I think I've decided to stop reading his posts. It's a vacuous waste of time.
spamandham is offline  
Old 02-19-2010, 10:40 PM   #277
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
I think many of us are hung-up on the third step. We believe unlikely conclusions for the sake of strong opposition to Christianity. McGrath is not some lightweight with a blog like Neil Godfrey or any of us. He is a professor of religion.
I don't know about the other MJers here, but I have no stake in a mythical Jesus. If there really was a historical Jesus reasonably well depicted by the the gospel stories (minus all the magical stuff), it's no skin off my back.

Mythical ideas are more appealing to me because they are the simpler explanation of the evidence, not because of some bone to pick.
That's great. It is no mere coincidence that MJ advocacy finds great support among atheist activists, such as American Atheists. Wishful thinking has a lot to do with it, but it is not all about wishful thinking. It has to do with the more general patterns of thinking. The position is an extension of the philosophy and psychology of skepticism. MJ advocates generally grant only the barest degree of historical legitimacy to canonical Christian writings, and they take that as reasonable. That isn't to say that MJ is completely unreasonable, either. They do have at least some evidence in their favor. The lack of early non-Christian testimony also has a lot to do with it, as well as comparisons with other mythical gods and heroes. In addition, there are surprisingly many on the Internet who are deceived by particular mythical Jesus theories that are no more than outright lies that go back 100 years, although they are generally not present here in this forum.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-20-2010, 01:55 AM   #278
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
....
Bart Ehrman laid out a pretty good set of historical methods in his book, Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk). Would you like me to summarize those methods?

EDIT: Sorry, make that Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet (or via: amazon.co.uk), not Misquoting Jesus.
I read Apocalyptic Prophet, and I read it with a particular eye to what it could say about history. It's been a while, but I don't remember any persuasive discussion of historical methods.

Why don't you summarize what you got out of it?
Toto is offline  
Old 02-20-2010, 06:31 AM   #279
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
That's great. It is no mere coincidence that MJ advocacy finds great support among atheist activists, such as American Atheists. Wishful thinking has a lot to do with it, but it is not all about wishful thinking. It has to do with the more general patterns of thinking.
Correct.

As somebody trained as a scientist, I get really shocked at the standards of arguments used by mainstream Biblical scholars.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 02-20-2010, 06:51 AM   #280
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
The shared patterns are:
  • unlikely ad hoc explanations treated seriously
  • the tendency for a postmodernist style argument, where uncertainties of all degrees are treated the same
  • pessimism of the motives of the intellectual authorities and the established system
  • focus on disproving the established position instead of building a positive case
  • advocacy of a theory defeated 100+ years ago
  • wishful thinking being the likely motivation of the advocates, not the evidence
You are free to disagree with the fact of these points.
I would disagree only with any suggestion (and I'm not trying to imply that you're making it) that all ahistoricists fit that pattern. Many do. Some do not.
Doug Shaver is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:05 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.