Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 07-07-2011, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Chaucer, whenever Toto or anyone else accuses me of being in bed with the Christian apologists, I really don't mind at all. It helps me, not hurts me, because it reinforces my long-time position that mythicists very much tend to have an overblown us-vs.-Christians mentality that corrupts their ability to think reasonably. I don't want to discourage that kind of honesty.

I dunno Abe. I could be part of your target audience: former church-member, semi-intellectual, generally curious about life, and prone to challenging authority (to my detriment at times).

But I still don't know exactly what you're trying to prove. Is it really so weird that church-builders from the 2nd C onward would invent history to serve their own ends? How is this any less plausible than believing in the resurrection, or the super-prophet of the synoptic gospels?

If you are using the resurrection as your limit of what you accept as plausible, then I think you are in trouble (I don't know what you mean by "super-prophet"). The proposal that a town would be founded to match the myth would be highly implausible because we have no close historical comparison, and all of the evidence can be easily explained by Nazareth being just a small rural town, of which we have plenty of examples that have been omitted by historical writings.

spin · 07-07-2011, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You think that you represent some sort of mainstream thinking, when you have actually swallowed Christian apologetic reasoning.

To tell an avowed skeptic like Abe on a board like this one that he has "swallowed Christian apologetic reasoning" is a blatant ad hom. Not only does it have status on this board as an ad hom in itself, it also carries the sneaky implication that Abe's avowal of skepticism is mere prevarication, which is also against the rules here.

You will withdraw this flagrant double-barrelled ad hom, or I will make a formal complaint to the other mods.

Your move.

Chaucer

Oh, stop blathering, Chaucer. One can avow anything they like, but the rest of us judge by the things they say. Abe's major tactics are potted claptrap about best explanation and what the majority of scholars in the field have to say after he subtracts his "atheist" dispositions. That majority is overabundantly christian. He has no means of analysing the views he borrows, not being a historian, nor knowing any of the source languages, nor adept in the wide range of literature of the era. Without having the tools to judge the views he latches on to, can one say anything different from what Toto has alredy said on the issue? I don't think so.

Perhaps with all your experience you can make some defense of Abe's umm... methodology of swallowing christian apologetic material.

Toto · 07-07-2011, 01:50 PM

To various posters:

What part of comments on moderation are off topic is unclear?

If anyone can help Abe understand the issues or help the rest of us understand Abe, please continue.

bacht · 07-07-2011, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The proposal that a town would be founded to match the myth would be highly implausible because we have no close historical comparison, and all of the evidence can be easily explained by Nazareth being just a small rural town, of which we have plenty of examples that have been omitted by historical writings.

Maybe, but how is this a better explanation than the epithet Nazarene/Nazirite being re-interpreted later by non-Jews? Surely a few strokes of a pen are much easier than identifying a whole village that wasn't there.

beallen041 · 07-07-2011, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The proposal that a town would be founded to match the myth would be highly implausible because we have no close historical comparison, and all of the evidence can be easily explained by Nazareth being just a small rural town, of which we have plenty of examples that have been omitted by historical writings.

Abe, what about Hogsmeade in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter? Is not that a town constructed to match the myth?

ApostateAbe · 07-07-2011, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The proposal that a town would be founded to match the myth would be highly implausible because we have no close historical comparison, and all of the evidence can be easily explained by Nazareth being just a small rural town, of which we have plenty of examples that have been omitted by historical writings.

Maybe, but how is this a better explanation than the epithet Nazarene/Nazirite being re-interpreted later by non-Jews? Surely a few strokes of a pen are much easier than identifying a whole village that wasn't there.

My proposition is that "Nazareth" in the gospels referred to a whole village that was actually there, which is far easier than both of the propositions that you gave. We seem to have no good reason to suspect that an epithet of Nazarene/Nazirite was re-interpreted later by non-Jews to attach it to an obscure small town in Galilee if we can instead accept the plausibility that "Nazareth" or "Nazarene" actually referred to that small town and always did. Why would you be inclined to make the model considerably more complicated than it needs to be?

ApostateAbe · 07-07-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The proposal that a town would be founded to match the myth would be highly implausible because we have no close historical comparison, and all of the evidence can be easily explained by Nazareth being just a small rural town, of which we have plenty of examples that have been omitted by historical writings.

Abe, what about Hogsmeade in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter? Is not that a town constructed to match the myth?

Yes, it sure is. It is not such a close historical comparison (it is modern), but at least it is something, so the proposition is not outright impossible.

beallen041 · 07-07-2011, 08:45 PM

Abe, another example would be King Arthur's round table, which were created to match the myth, and the many pretenders to the location of Camelot throughout Great Britain, especially in Wales.

ApostateAbe · 07-07-2011, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

Abe, another example would be King Arthur's round table, which were created to match the myth, and the many pretenders to the location of Camelot throughout Great Britain, especially in Wales.

I think that is a much better example than Hogsmeade, so +1.

Doug Shaver · 07-08-2011, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

all of the evidence can be easily explained by Nazareth being just a small rural town

What you don't seem to get is the distinction between "It is a reasonable explanation" and "It is the only reasonable explanation."

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

07-07-2011, 01:50 PM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	To various posters: What part of comments on moderation are off topic is unclear? If anyone can help Abe understand the issues or help the rest of us understand Abe, please continue.

07-07-2011, 08:45 PM	#38
beallen041 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: S. Nevada Posts: 45	Abe, another example would be King Arthur's round table, which were created to match the myth, and the many pretenders to the location of Camelot throughout Great Britain, especially in Wales.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.