Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-28-2012, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...
Your posts are like the boat that kept Noah afloat during the deluge!

There was no world wide deluge, Noah was a myth, and the whole flood story is an unscientific, primitive attempt to explain natural events. In that sense, perhaps outhouse's posts are like that boat.

Duvduv · 08-28-2012, 05:53 PM

Now, now Toto. We both know that the only way you could know that is if you were there. We all know that we have just begun to scratch the surface of knowing reality.
Indeed, we are still debating whether Galileo and Darwin were right since the views and theories of both cannot be proven empirically. That is why we ALL. rely on some form of faith. Some put their faith in God, others in scientific theories, and others in government propaganda, and yet others in Hollywood.
So let's have a single standard when it comes to condemnation.
That's why we discuss hypotheses about things which cannot be proven empirically. Especially given our limited knowledge about time and space.

outhouse · 08-28-2012, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...
Your posts are like the boat that kept Noah afloat during the deluge!

There was no world wide deluge, Noah was a myth, and the whole flood story is an unscientific, primitive attempt to explain natural events. In that sense, perhaps outhouse's posts are like that boat.

No

outhouse can tell you exactly how a real regional flood on the Euphrates in 2900 BC and a real king Ziusudra, spawned all the flood myths in the levant including the israelite version.

yes what mythers cant stand, a historical core to mythology

outhouse · 08-28-2012, 07:19 PM

Now if you wanted to play on a ancient legend with little to no historicity

Moses for a thousand Alex, would have been acceptable

PhilosopherJay · 08-28-2012, 08:06 PM

Hi outhouse,

I cannot imagine anybody, but a Christian wanting to specialize in teaching
the "New Testament" or "Early Christianity." If you specialize in an area, it is generally because you like it a great deal and feel a deep affinity to it. For example, everybody who teaches the History of Cinema believes that film is a great art form and has made important contributions to the culture of our time. I cannot imagine that anybody who thought movies were unimportant and silly would end up teaching a course in the History of Cinema. However, the opinion that movies are not an art form, but simply trivial entertainment for the masses may be held by a variety of Professors in other fields.

As far as Classics are concerned, I'm not sure that any Classics Professors have come out on one side or the other on this issue.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You appear to have nothing to contribute here except insults. Please stop posting in this thread.

Does my conclusion mirror Barts to close for you to even begin to refute??

I love this statement made by Bart, and it really does sum it up.

http://nearemmaus.com/2012/03/20/bar...he-mythicists/

“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.”

aa5874 · 08-28-2012, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

.....yes what mythers cant stand, a historical core to mythology

HJers can't stand a mythological core to mythology.

Steven Carr · 08-28-2012, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

.....yes what mythers cant stand, a historical core to mythology

HJers can't stand a mythological core to mythology.

Bart has already explained to mythicists that stories of Jesus raising a child from the dead contain some Aramaic words.

Yet they are still not convinced that there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed. Sheesh.....

What does it take to convince these people!

GakuseiDon · 08-29-2012, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

You know why there isnt a unified myther version of the evidence we have???

because no one has produced any work at all in the myther camp that isnt goofier then a 3 dollar bill. And every myther has a different version, none of which makes any real sense.

I think it is because there is no critical review within mythicist ranks, no drive to improve their own theories. However, Richard Carrier's next book should change this. Carrier will be producing the first scholarly mythicist argument in modern times, and it should help to focus attention on the mythicist case. It will become the standard against which other mythicist theories can be measured. Other mythicists' theories should then fade into insignificance, though no doubt niche supporters like Freethinkaluva will still be pushing their wheelbarrow piles of methane-producing arguments.

So I suggest not worrying about mythicist arguments until Carrier's next book. I predict that Carrier will then become the most hated figure by mythicists, even more than Ehrman.

Duvduv · 08-29-2012, 06:13 AM

Will this new book assume that the pauline epistles are unified works by single individuals representing a non-historical Jesus person, or is it open to the idea that the epistles (for which there is no evidence that they have ever been anything other than a single set) are merely church composites that do not reflect a non-historical Jesus at all but simply integrate emerging Christ ideas into pre-existing monotheistic letters?

Huon · 08-29-2012, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...
Your posts are like the boat that kept Noah afloat during the deluge!

There was no world wide deluge, Noah was a myth, and the whole flood story is an unscientific, primitive attempt to explain natural events. In that sense, perhaps outhouse's posts are like that boat.

No

outhouse can tell you exactly how a real regional flood on the Euphrates in 2900 BC and a real king Ziusudra, spawned all the flood myths in the levant including the israelite version.

yes what mythers cant stand, a historical core to mythology

And mythers cannot explain the existence of Mount Ararat. Mythers can't stand a geographical core to geography. Oh, I meant mythology, of coarse. :devil1:

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

08-28-2012, 05:53 PM	#82
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Now, now Toto. We both know that the only way you could know that is if you were there. We all know that we have just begun to scratch the surface of knowing reality. Indeed, we are still debating whether Galileo and Darwin were right since the views and theories of both cannot be proven empirically. That is why we ALL. rely on some form of faith. Some put their faith in God, others in scientific theories, and others in government propaganda, and yet others in Hollywood. So let's have a single standard when it comes to condemnation. That's why we discuss hypotheses about things which cannot be proven empirically. Especially given our limited knowledge about time and space.

08-28-2012, 07:19 PM	#84
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Now if you wanted to play on a ancient legend with little to no historicity Moses for a thousand Alex, would have been acceptable

08-29-2012, 06:13 AM	#89
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Will this new book assume that the pauline epistles are unified works by single individuals representing a non-historical Jesus person, or is it open to the idea that the epistles (for which there is no evidence that they have ever been anything other than a single set) are merely church composites that do not reflect a non-historical Jesus at all but simply integrate emerging Christ ideas into pre-existing monotheistic letters?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.