jgoodguy

Peter Kirby has posted an open letter critical of James McGrath's review. McGraft's reply is here.

jgoodguy

An argument from silence is an attempt to read a dead man's/men's mind and determine his/their motives. This has to be done without imposing one's own motives on that reading.

We have a collection of letters without much in the references to a historical person in them. There are many possible reasons for this. My favorite is embarrassment; Paul is 'selling' a 'knock off brand' of Christianity for whatever reason and any reference to the 'brand' in Jerusalem will be deter converts. Other reasons have been suggested.

Some here have suggested that sermons are chock a block full of references to an historical Jesus. I'd like to see some stats on just how often sermons refer to a historical Jesus and compare that percentage with what we seen in Paul's writings. Likewise the argument is made that conversion needs a historical Jesus. I'd like to see some stats on that also. What percentages of converts to Christianity are because of a historical Jesus.

When one buys a product, does one hear about it's history much or how good it is.

Toto

McGraft? That explains it.

jgoodguy

McGraft's Chapter 5 of Earl Doherty's Jesus: Neither God Nor Man is up.

Steven Carr

Of course! That is why Paul says these apostles had been appointed by God. He was trying to deter converts from listening to the brand in Jerusalem by the clever tactic of saying that God had appointed them to be apostles.

Paul cleverly writes Jesus out of the picture so that converts will not turn to this brand in Jerusalem.

And in 2 Corinthians 12, Paul says what the criteria to be a true apostle is 'I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles'.

Paul cleverly writes Jesus out of the picture of being an apostle. He had no truck with the Christianity of this Jesus, so deters converts by demeaning the authority of Jesus as a mark of an apostle.

blastula

The reply is here. Exploring Our Matrix: Dealing Appropriately With Pseudoscience and Pseudoscholarship

Even if mythicists were as fraudulent as creationists, there's no way HJ is as supportable as evolution. They're acting as if you can know to a high certainty that one specific human existed 2000 years ago based on religious writings (as if the idea that the character was invented for religious motivations is too crazy to cast a reasonable doubt). Evolution never makes any kind of claim like that. A claim comparable to evolution would be that various first and second century middle east peoples produced writings about a character named Jesus. Anything more than that adds uncertainties not comparable to evolution.

jgoodguy

Exploring Our Matrix: Dealing Appropriately With Pseudoscience and Pseudoscholarship is a general reply to critics as opposed to a reply to Peter Kirby.

I basically agree with you. Fair or unfair, both Creationism and the JM are not mainstream in terms of acceptance by professionals. This give folks like McGrath an advantage over the JM folks that has to be overcome by publishing in credible journals and taking the heat.

blastula

Ah, the reply at Kirby's blog wasn't showing earlier, but it is the same reply McGrath wrote in his own blog post.

KevinC's post at the Kirby blog makes a good point about how HJ doesn't make their case very well for the layman. The case for evolution is easily made to someone with a lay education. It's not as if history is somehow more complicated to understand compared to biology. All of us are lay historians everyday making judgments about the reliability of reports we hear in the news or even in our social circles (and much of the time reports are inconclusive for a claim). It's not nuclear physics. The original languages may be beyond a layperson's grasp (just as is reading radiometric data), but not the next level basic arguments on reasons for credible history. I don't see the big obvious set of evidence (like the form of the fossil record, or the universal properties of DNA, or molecular markers) that should make me say, yes, there is no doubt Jesus existed.

Of course, I don't say that MJ is comparable to evolution neither. As far as I can tell, the best answer should be, "we don't know, there's not strong enough evidence either way."

Toto

There is some sleight of hand going on here. Lots of theories are not mainstream. But some of those "not mainstream" theories are new theories that will become accepted later.

Creationism is beyond being "not mainstream." It denies the overwhelming evidence for evolution and has no coherent scientific theory of its own.

jgoodguy

I basically agree.

Paradigms are replaced, but not without peer review and publishing in accepted journals.

The creationism-JM is rhetoric, nothing more. I can understand the reason to make it. I can understand the opposition to it. In the end, it is just rhetoric.