Roger Pearse

Actually he is being very patient. Much of what is being said here is not a disagreement between Christian and atheist, or atheist and atheist, but between educated and ignorant. There is no real reason for you to take my word for it -- or anyone's word -- but people need to go and find out rather than just repeating any old hearsay off the web that they find convenient. Surely?

I think the person from whom you copied this thought that we have the author's autograph copies of some ancient texts. We do not; indeed none such is known from before the 13th century. If the argument is that no text is reliable unless we have the author's autograph, well that disposes of all ancient literature (as I said, these are the arguments of the ignorant and obscurantist, by which I do not mean to describe *you* but your source).

*Tacitus* (O reader of Pratchett) is extant in an 11th century manuscript. As to whether his text is what he wrote, consult the professionals. It is, give or take trivial damage.

Indeed, although I read a couple of comments below talking about conspiracy...

But again the author of this was being foolish. Do ancient works reach us? All of them are open to this objection. It cannot be an argument against one specific work.

Here the author is being a mixture of dishonest and ignorant. On the one hand he excludes the NT, which certainly is contemporary. On the other he infers without stating it that for other people of the same kind in antiquity we have contemporary histories. This is not so.

Here your source was showing his ignorance, based on 19th century ideas. But even in 1900 only one scholar thought that the short passage was interpolated, and no-one today does. There is no reason to suppose it. As for the long passage, in 1900 it was generally considered interpolated. But not today.

I have no real respect for appeals to authority on matters of controversy, so I don't take "scholars say which religion is true" seriously either. But HJ vs MJ isn't a subject of controversy. The only people espousing the latter need no discussion from any intelligent person.

Note that in all this not the slightest attempt is made to offer evidence for MJ. All we get are low-grade excuses to ignore data. That alone causes me to reject MJ with contempt.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

GakuseiDon

Nope, just offering a mythicist to debate on Paul. Mythicists are at home at poo-pooing historical evidence, but are generally not comfortable when the details of mythicism are questioned. Usually the cry goes up "Doherty akbar! And Carrier is his prophet." My contention is that few mythicists seem to understand Doherty's case, at least enough to debate the details of mythicism for themselves. They just know that Doherty is correct.

If you disagree with Doherty at various points, could you say where you disagree, and why?

So on Paul's epistles, do you think that the evidence is there to make your case? Or do Paul's epistles support the idea that Paul thought that Jesus lived on earth, died in the near past and was crucified in Jerusalem?

How about a debate on Paul's epistles, then? :huh: Let's test your position to see how logical it is.

More like a myth. But I suggest you aren't using "myth" here as in "mythical Jesus". I believe that Jesus was historical with mythical elements attached (e.g. virgin birth), just as Philo has added mythical elements to Moses.

No. But so what?

Let's see if Paul's epistles support a historical Jesus first.

post tenebras lux

Surely we would need to check whether Paul's epistles support an historical Paul first?

Do they, or are you just assuming that? :huh:

dog-on

ummm, ok.... but ad hom is usually not considered evidence in any other type of inquiry...

...except if the trivially damages part happened to say something like "just joking"...

So, ask your "professionals" and prove to me that it didn't...

Besides, the point was that those responsible for the texts we do have were most likely not simply unbiased scribes...

Besides, here is where I got the 11th century bit from:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm

Quote:

This MS is written in the difficult Beneventan hand. It was written at Monte Cassino, perhaps during the abbacy of Richer (1038-55AD). It derives from an ancestor in written in Rustic Capitals, as it contains errors of transcription natural to that bookhand. There is some evidence that it was copied only once in about ten centuries, and that this copy was made from an original in rustic capitals of the 5th century or earlier,8 but other scholars believe that it was copied via at least one intermediate copy written in a minuscule hand.9

So take it up with Peter...

dog-on

and Roger...


I have no idea what to make of this...

Are you serious?

dog-on

I am a little unclear, re. Doherty, in my understanding of his sublunar realm theory, so can't really say much about it one way or another. He tended to take to conservative an approach with regards to possible (or likely probable, imo) interpolations in the epistles.
How about the historicity of the Paul himself...
Maybe Moses is soley myth as well....

Paul's epistles support a heavenly savior... is that guy historical? Where in these epistles is JC portrayed as anything less? Do you think that the being described in these epistles actually existed, or exists (to be accurate according to the text...).

spamandham

Paul is referring to himself in this passage, not Jesus. He wasn't sure if his vision happened while he (Paul) was in the body or out of it - whether it was a dream or a real cosmic journey.

GakuseiDon

I think that Paul's epistles arguably show that Paul believed that Jesus Christ: (1) lived on earth, (2) died in the near past, (3) was crucified in Jerusalem. After Christ died, he became a heavenly saviour.

gurugeorge

It's a serious argument from intimidation You're supposed to feel so humbled and deflated that you'll just shut up and go away.

Chris Weimer

Kruger, Justin and David Dunning. "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology vol. 77 no. 6 (1999): 1121-1134.

Here's the authors' abstract:

Studies have shown over and over again that when amateurs with no training go against professionals, they're not only in the wrong, but they are so wrong that they don't even know when they're wrong, nor can they recognize when someone else is right.