Toto

Read what comes before that:

There is more here than a simple metaphor that only means to work hard. There are probably several layers of meaning, even if one layer is an Aramaic idiom. And the whole passage does support a mythicist interpretation of the narrative.

spamandham

Creationists are universally HJers.

ApostateAbe

So the comparison breaks down?

spamandham

The comparison is simply altogether invalid. But every time I catch you using it I'm going to remind you which camp creationists are hyper-correlated with.

ApostateAbe

OK, as you like, but I think you should find a better way to bust the analogy. It is also universally recognized among creationists that the Earth is spherical, but a secular flat-Earther may share much more of the creationist patterns of thinking than a secular sphere-Earther, and that is what I hope to illustrate. I bring up the analogy only to point out the patterns of thinking among the advocates of MJ, not to disparage the advocates themselves.

spamandham

There is no analogy. There is only an attempt to poison the well and disparage.

Huh? flat-earthers are a farce, the whole point being to laugh at creationists and other Bible literalists who simply accept what the the Bible says until proven false ...with the burden of proof being absurdly unreasonable.

Why not just address the points rather than trying to psychoanalyze?

ApostateAbe

I am not trying to poison the well, disparage or psychoanalyze. The reason I keep bringing up creationism is because, like with creationists, I cannot easily change minds with just the evidence. It is more often the philosophy, or the method of reasoning, that inhibits a correct understanding. If my opponents do not know how to correctly reason, then the evidence will do little for them, so I spend a lot of time encouraging a belief in the greatest probability. MJ advocates seem to believe a theory that is merely possible and made consistent through a set of ad hoc explanations of the evidence against them, and they take the consistency as an advantage. By pointing out that creationists also do this to keep their unlikely beliefs consistent--they explain the geologic column as the expectation that animals would scurry uphill to escape the rising flood waters--I can illustrate the fallacy of the whole methodology, not just a particular argument. A big disadvantage is that it does come off as mere personal attack, as you pointed out, so I am certainly tempted to stop using the analogy altogether. I don't know how else to explain it without coming off as long-winded, but maybe I'll think of something.

hjalti

I personally think that the creationist analogy should be reserved for "scholars" like N.T. Wright.

spamandham

But the same could be said of you. I have made numerous points which you ignored (intentionally or not?). I went to great length to discuss Jesus' family members disappearing off the face of history into the abyss, only to have you totally ignore it, for example.

I went through Paul's use of variants of 'crucify', which you did not ignore, but nonetheless gave short shrift to...as if your mind were already made up and inflexible. In contrast, I have had a months worth of discussion on the minutia of Galatians vs 1 Corinthians with other HJ advocates here.

I discussed how the passion is derived from Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. You ignored that as well.

I discussed the similarities between Abraham and Jesus as foundational characters and the similarities between the OT and the gospels regarding origins stories...I don't think you even responded. Surely you don't think there is a historical Abraham!? Yet the exact same religious cult that produced this fictional foundational character could not possibly produce another.

Not once have I seen you quantify probabilities. You are greatly abusing the term to loosely mean "it's easier for me to swallow...". This is the vernacular usage of the term, but not the professional usage. You are calling to task people with formal educations on the topic, when you appear to have none at all.

"A" theory? I suppose...if you simplify the world to HJ vs MJ, then anything that isn't HJ is thus MJ. There are dozens (hundreds?) of HJ theories. There are at least ~half a dozen well known MJ theories. Are you completely oblivious of the radicals - formally educated scholars who reject not only the historicity of Jesus, but even Paul?

All Jesus theories are ad hoc, because it is impossible that the evidence is prima facie historical. Nor is Jesus a character with a bit of magical fluff attached like so many others. The magical fluff is central to his character. HJers must decide what they will keep/reject just as MJers must.

....there is nothing particularly unlikely with the idea that a hero figure is not historical. There are hundreds...if not thousands of such characters we could both agree are not historical - many of which were once regarded as historical by some society of the past.

dog-on

This, indeed.

The bottom line is that, imo, mythicism basically takes the gospels at their face value and does not seek to make up an apologetic to get around the clear meaning of the text.

If the gospels say that Jesus rose from the dead, then Jesus roe from the dead.

Of course, I do not consider zombies as historically likely, but from my point of view there is no need to make up a new character simply because the one we have is what it, obviously, is...