jjramsey

So why is the scholarship behind the Egyptian "piss poor"?

Chris Weimer

Both are referenced in ancient literature but have no surviving archaeological evidence. In fact, the Egyptian is only mentioned in Josephus.

Of course not. Their genre is ultimately different. But just because we may be willing to believe Josephus more than the gospels doesn't mean that they gospels themselves do not carry any weight.

Scholars merely assume he is real. It's a double standard to assume that the Egyptian is real, but then require exceptional proof for Jesus.

If they do indeed become an amagalm of these various people, then yes, ultimately the Historical Jesus dies and in place we get a literary Jesus based off these several Historical Jesus-prototypes.

Biff the unclean

Beats me...but then I've never made any claims about "the Egyptian." All I'm talking about are Christian apologetic con jobs
ETA. Chris just answered your question for you "Scholars merely assume he is real."

Chris Weimer

The problem is your double standard. Neither Jesus nor the Egyptian have "piss poor scholarship" behind them, but you in fact do not know how to deal with the evidence.

Either that or you are wholly unfamiliar with historical scholarship and analyses?

Chris Weimer

Well no shit! What reason do they have not to? It takes a little brain power to understand ancient writings - none of them are purely "historical" save a few. The rest are ingrained with theological matters, literary conventions, and acts impossible by modern science standards. These were a superstitious people. But these anti-Christianists want Jesus removed, so they employ a double standard - if it's Christian, then it cannot be trusted. If it's secular, no matter the outrageous claims, then it's OK.

Or else they go to the other extreme - Socrates, Buddha, King Arthur, the Egyptian, anyone, never existed. This is flatly absurd. Whatever happened to good, critical scholarship, etymological inquiries, literary crticism? No, that died. What we are left with is centuries-debunked "parallelism" where any inkling of a similarity must mean that the was stolen. Jesus institutes the last supper? Call him Dionysius! Jesus speaks for the poor and downtrodden? God, he must be Dionysius! See! Two parallels! Same person!

No! I'm sick and tired of this second-rate scholarship by these armchair historians who cannot even speak the language, not to mention wholly unfamiliar with their subject matter, who use old and outdated methods to lauch their crusade against valid and critical scholarship.

There are rules of the game - historical sciences follow a rigid system. But no, you're content to read a website or two on the internet on claim all of Christianity to be a myth. Heck, we even have one guy who claims that there were no Christians until Constantine, to hell with archaeological evidence!

These lines of thinking are disturbing and dangerous to what we, as scientists, as freethought atheists, as critical inquirers, have been working so hard to introduce for these many years. Question it all you want, but until you have the relevant credentials to make these evaluations, you're no better than the Christian accepting from his pastor that God must exist. There is no critical thinking, no rational explanation, no scientific investigation. There is only this reeking anti-Christian bias to write off Jesus Christ as myth because of their personal vendetta against their twin, the fundamentalist Christians.

jjramsey

Oh, but you did. When Weimer compared the attestation for the Egyptian with the attestation for Jesus, this was your reply:

The obvious implication is that you understoop the scholarship behind the Egyptian to be "piss poor."

Biff the unclean

Intellectual honesty and professional integrity for starters.
As I’ve already explained in my analogy with psedo-science.


None of which you have yet to demonstrate. You treat the Jesus stories as if they exist in a vacuum even going so far as to declare it poor scholarship to view them in context with surrounding cultures. You ignore that all of the Jesus fables originated in other religions of the time, preferring to perhaps acknowledge the odd one. But then call it “parallel” when, in fact the Jesus tales are derivative.

Do they not teach ethics in this Christian school you are attending? Again and again you make accusations of double standards where none have been expressed. Please appologise.

The only “extreme” that is being requested is that of honesty. If you only assume someone is an historic figure and you present them as an historic figure without any qualification then that is dishonesty.
This is the nuttiest thing that you have written so far. Critical scholarship is what you are attacking. Critical scholarship was what had been requested of you. Had you presented any scholarship at all this conversation would have been over pages ago. You keep repeating what a scholar you are, and no one else is. Yet instead of scholarship you present evasions and bullshite…. Why is that Mr Scholar?

Only you are talking about parallelism.
The church “debunked” it centuries ago by torturing and murdering those who brought the subject up

So how is it that you call yourself a scholar of that period and yet you are completely uninformed of such and important aspect as the Dionysian religion? It’s like someone claiming to be an expert on New York and not knowing where Times Square is.
This is very suspicious. Haven’t you even read Carl Kerényi?

Kid, you have no idea what languages I do and do not speak. I’m really tired of you using rudeness to cover your ignorance.
We ask for critical scholarship and you hand us Christian apologetics and whine that asking for scholarship isn’t critical scholarship.

That may be. But you have done nothing but whine and bullshite.

No, I have shelves and shelves of books on mythology that I have read and quite a few college credits on the subject.

I believe it was the archaeological evidence that he based his claim on, since none of it predates the 4th century.
It’s interesting if you are ever in Rome take a guided tour of the catacombs. They say the Christians constructed them to hide from the Romans. Yet all the art and graffiti from before the 300’s is Pagan. Plenty of paintings of Mithra, Apollonius, Dionysus and even Hercules. The tour guide claimed these were symbolic of Jesus. I asked why they needed symbolism in their hiding place when they cheerfully were fed to lions for the love of Christ when upstairs. She had no reply.

Your embracing of assumptions in lieu of fact is antithetical to science.
Your near hysteria over being asked questions you don’t approve of is the opposite of free though.
And you apologetic defense of Christ is suspiciously uncharacteristic of an Atheist.
I’m still calling “bullshite.”

I have the credentials. I’ve a Ph. D. in zoology. I am trained the recognize claims of existence as opposed to those based on mere assumptions. But you made it easy, you repeatedly boasted that your assertions are based on assumptions. I didn’t need to know ancient Aramaic to understand that.

Gee, I wonder why an “Atheist” should write such a mind numbing cliché of Christian apologetic paranoia? I wonder why, Hmmm?

Biff the unclean

No, that's just you jumping to conclusions. I made no comments on this Egyptian as he was only a devise to knock the thread off track.

jjramsey

I just read what you said here. Now maybe in your mind, you had made no conclusions about the Egyptian, but that is not what you conveyed, especially since your objection is irrelevant if the scholarship on the Egyptian isn't "piss poor."

Biff the unclean

JJ, you asked me once and I said that I made no comment on “The Egyptian”. You can back a second time and I repeated that I had made no comments on this Egyptian. Now you come back a third time and post a link; which reads:
Originally Posted by knotted paragon
I also missed where anyone made the positive claim, as here with HJ, that the Egyptian was a real person or based on a real person.
Biff: Obviously you didn’t miss it, because it never happened.

All reading comprehension problems aside, isn’t it an odd thing to do to keep repeatedly claiming that I think one way while I keep saying that I think another? Isn’t that just a trifle egotistical?