spin

It seems I spent more time on you than was necessary. If you didn't want to find out about historiography, you didn't have to ask me. You have simply removed from context a few comments and shaped them for your apologetic. Thanks but no thanks. I fear you are incorregible, willfully misconstruing or ignoring anything that doesn't fit your a priori commitments. You don't learn about historiography overnight. But you weren't interested anyway.

You take a sentence out of context:

Carr argued that historians must concern themselves with the 'winners' of history.

adding the utterly trivial conclusion:

And who, I then ask, is the greatest winner in history if not Christ?

already assuming what you needed to demonstrate with... ummm... what was the word again? ahh, yes, facts. Using a potted summary of Carr, you then reduce again to absurdity what you read.

You give glib unsupported rubbish responses every time you abused Carr:

And I would place Christ in the first group.

And I would put Christ at the top of the list of prophetic geniuses.

And you also are another one of these who talk to me of mythicism when I personally don't give a fuck about mythicism. This is one of those repetitive stress issues that I am facing with people here who simple refuse to get it into their sorry brains that mythicism has nothing to do with me.

I'm told that it is very hard to help someone out of a rut once they become accustomed to the rut. Reading is supposed to be a liberating process, but you need to want to learn from what you read. Instead, what you have done is cherry-picked a few phrases and avoided most of the notional content of a crib of what was recommended to you. That shows mean spirit. You lose out, not learning anything.


spin

No Robots

What I wanted was for you to name a scholarly source so that I could demonstrate that your position has no scholarly foundation whatsoever. Thank you for allowing me to do just that.

I am perfectly willing to engage in an extended discussion of Carr, but you would need to elaborate on just how I have misconstrued him.

You assume all to facilely that your interlocutor doesn't know about the subject at hand. Not only is this mean-spirited, but every student of history knows how often the underestimation of one's adversary has proved fatal.


Please demonstrate how this is taken out of context.

Please discuss Carr's position on facts in history.

You have criticized mythicism. I am just applying Carr's approach to the question, which is, after all, germane to this thread.

If your object is to change people, I think you will find that, yes, you are involved in a hopeless task. You will never be more than a Procrustes, trying to lop off heads and feet in order to make people fit into your rut.

I am grateful for you having pointed me toward Carr. I agree with much of what he says, and I may well make further use of him. That I use him to point out the problems with your position is an added bonus. Your peevishness about this is to be expected.

spin

First you need to understand what you read.

The travesty you have already produced, indicates that you're full of baloney.

You have already demonstrated your knowledge.

You totally ignored the discussion on facts and jumped onto the "winners" stuff. You of course don't need facts for your "winner". Never have, never will.

As you don't know and I'm not here to teach you, I'll wait for you to learn something.

Stop wasting your time and mine.

As historiography is what you need to know about, then saying that that is a hopeless case, merely seals your coffin.

Ohh, gosh, a back-at-you! Deep.

You haven't read much, so your agreement is pretty vacuous.

I hope you get past cherrypicking.

You'll try anything to take you away from your job. But there is a teensy possibility that you might learn something, though nobody will be holding their breaths.

I have to try to sink down to your level of ridiculousness in order to communicate. Peevishness seems to be your preferred methodology.

No matter how you hide from it evidence is what you have to deal with if you want to do history. Until you can understand that, you'll be pissing into the wind.


spin

mountainman

Dear premjam,

These characters were not important enough to attract tax-exemptions.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear folks,

Constantine was a supreme being. He loved his children and family and the Logos of the Hellenes. Where would we be without his militaristic bullshit? Probably out there past Alpha Centauri.

Best wishes,


Pete

youngalexander

Great work guys - keep it up!

Tom Sawyer

18%.

The probability of a historical Jesus is 18%.

Sheshbazzar

and falling.

aa5874

Which historical Jesus, the god/man, the man or the phantom? All the Jesus believers believe that anyone of these characters was on earth and preaching and teaching real people during the reign of Tiberius.

How did you get 18% when Jesus may have been fabricated like "Tom Sawyer", that is, from multiple real characters?

Now, if Jesus was composed of multiples, then the probability is reduced to 0.0000000..% to the nearest zero.

Sheshbazzar

Many fundamentalist Jesus believers conjecture that more evidence will be found that will support the existence of their JC, they grasp at every straw, and most easily are suckered in by every fraud perpetrated, and by every false claim made.
I conjecture that every piece of additional evidence that is found, when examined, will only prove the existence of a real and historical JC to be less and less probable, until that probability bottoms out a zero.
The more that archaeology discovers, the more ancient mss. that are turned up, the more unsupportable a physical JC will become.

No, many Christians are not yet ready to (publicly) concede the point, although a good many already have, and have moved on to simply advocating what they perceive to be an ethical, moral, and socially beneficent religious viewpoint, with an admittedly mythical JC only being employed as their "good guy" hero example.
"His" -principals- being what is of prime importance, "his" ever existing as an actual living person, dismissed, and entirely secondary to The Christian church's mission.
My personal conversations with many Christian ministers over the years, have left me no doubt, that most do not as fervently believe the stories that they shout, and jump up and down to, as they do in those principals that they support and are attempting to instill in others.
"Jesus said" is simply a way of giving force, and an aura of authority to their own religious views. For that, "Jesus" does not need to have ever been a real, living, 1 st century human, or god.
"Santa said" would work just as well, if the audience viewed Santa as their moral benefactor, and were afraid of getting on his wrong side, where he would no longer give them goodies, but punish them instead.
"Heaven" is an ideal place and reward, but few who talk about the kingdom of heaven actually consider it as being of any post-death reality. But it is far easier to continue with the lip- service, than give up the dream, for that reality that most in their hearts know to be true.
That a literal beliefe in a"real" JC is diminishing day by day, is no hindrance to the continued growth of Christianity, as it has never required the existence of a "real" Jesus or God. It is "the STORY" and "the SPIRIT" that is embodied in that story, and embodied in the Christian church, "The Body of Christ", that has held it all together down through the ages.