archibald

(my bold)

Toto, what a possibly very odd-sounding way to express yourself.

Why did you not say 'is' a skeptic, on the second occasion also? That would have been correct syntax (someone who is sceptical of HJ - specific case - not everyone who is sceptical - general case).



And by the way, regarding your comment about my citing what some history professor said, someone in your position really should know the difference between an appropriate reference and an argument from authority. Clue: it's not the latter until the person says x is true because Y thinks so.

It's probably true that some will only see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence (though I'm not sure what you mean by 'as we have found'. I wouldn't agree that 'we have found' any such thing on the forums I have discussed it on. These have by and large been in a rationalist/atheist setting. We might find it on a Christian Forum, I suppose).

And I think the same is true of both sides. I'm not sure if you're willing to see that.

A phrase from Matthew about planks and eyes comes to mind, in many cases.

MCalavera

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions there, aa5874. You are only speculating that they are purely ghost stories.

Speculations don't mean hell of a much to me unless they're somewhat in line with what the primary texts say. Otherwise, stop yapping about as if you know what you're talking about. You don't. And only a few (if any) from both this HJ side and the MJ side take you seriously.

Ever noticed why so many members here ignore your posts? It's not because your posts are solidly grounded in truth and facts. It's because you give the impression of someone whom one cannot reason with much.

Next time you make a ridiculous post with lots of yapping and capital letters and prophet of doom words, note how many actually pay attention to the contents of that post. I'll probably be the only one engaging you for a while.

Toto

I mean exactly what I wrote, referring to this forum. Most of the scholars who study the historical Jesus do not concern themselves with the historicity of Jesus. That was the point behind the Jesus Project.

You haven't been on this board. I don't know your experience, but if it involves Tim O'Neill, I don't think you have a fair sample.

Part of the problem is that there are a lot of nutcase mythicists, and a lot of bad mythicist arguments. But there is no mythicist central to control that.

The fact that there are bad arguments for mythicism does not prove historicism.

archibald

Well, in regard to this forum, I can't agree. There may be those on both sides who 'assume' their conclusions, but by and large I see people here making arguments, not assumptions. And if I'm perfectly honest, I think there is often more unevidenced speculation on the mythicist side, generally. I think it's inevitable that there has to be, owing to the fact that the evidence is 'winner's bias'. But to cast HJers on this forum as 'assumers' is inaccurate. Many scholars, yes (possibly) but 'HJers on this forum? I don't think so.

Toto, I really don't understand why you want to keep this going, unless you want to fuel a pointless debate. First off, I have indeed been on this forum long enough now to form an opinion, and secondly, what's with the strawman about if I mention Tim O'Neill (who is, in my opinion, at least as worth listening to as many many others, unless you have an ad hom in mind) I do not have an adequate sample? In any case, the main reason you are off the mark is that I wasn't even thinking of Tim O'Neill in this case, since I haven't seen him posting here.

Judging by the knee-jerk response from at least a couple of posters, it seem Tim O'Neill is like some sort of 'unmentionable' in here.

No. And I never even went near the vicinity of saying such a thing.

Toto

You ran several things together to produce something I never claimed.

I state that most scholars who claim to study the historical Jesus assume that he was historical, or that the question has been settled. I did not say that about most of the people who argue on this forum at this time.

I don't. But you keep posting bad old arguments.

archibald

It's true you didn't originally say 'at this time', you only said 'we have found at this forum', so I forgive myself for not picking up what you meant but didn't say. If you meant before I was here, that's fine. For myself, I certainly haven't seen it, and if there were such 'assumers' before I arrived, that's not my concern.

Very funny. Nice try. If you had shown you were able to deal with my arguments any better, I'd almost think you were being serious there.

Toto

He posted under the handle Antipope Innocent II. You can find his posts in the archives. His real passion was medieval history.

archibald

I know that. And in referring to him earlier, it was his historical knowledge I was referring to, specifically his opinion that the evidence is not lacking when compared to the context of evidence for minor figures from ancient history, not his argument for/against HJ/MJ.

As for checking out his old posts, if he was here, I'm sure he probably covered much the same ground as he did when arguing against mythers at ratskep. I really didn't mean to get into his arguments in general.

Toto

You still missed the point.

There is a world of scholarship outside this forum, with people who devote their careers to studying the historical Jesus. These are the people who assume that a historical Jesus existed. That's why appeals to expert consensus don't work in this area - the experts have never paid attention to the question of historicity until very recently.

That's all for now.

Toto

Now it's "minor figures" from ancient history. Where were those goalposts?

Tim doesn't know anything that the rest of us don't know.