GakuseiDon

I think some mythicists are more motivated with disproving Christianity than showing that there was no historical Jesus at the centre of Christianity. I can't count how many times I've read mythicists finishing an argument with "Who cares if there was a Jesus if he was just some guy?", when the argument was about the historical Jesus in the first place.

dog-on

I guess that's because, in the end, that's kinda where you are left, based on the available evidence. How could one prove their HJ or, indeed, their MJ with the evidence currently available?

GakuseiDon

Yeah, I agree that such comparisons do more harm than good, and should be avoided. But the MJ/creationism analogy is often a knee-jerk response to mythicists who play the "you're just an apologist!" card in arguments. Neither advances the argument. The focus should be on the evidence.

Brother Daniel

That "who cares" rhetorical question (if faithfully quoted) indicates that the arguer in question believes that (traditional) Christianity has already been disproved, and so there is no need to do so. In that case, the mythicist could be offering that question precisely for the purpose of defending himself against the accusation that he is motivated by a desire to disprove Christianity -- an accusation that is readily made (by Christians) with no evidence, in a clear case of projection.

If the original question was more of a "why do YOU care", then it could be a reference to the fact that emotions run high around MJ/HJ debates (for some reason), and an attempt to defuse the tension.

Either way, your evidence (your 2nd sentence) contradicts your thesis (your 1st sentence).

Brother Daniel

I was really tempted to protest: "The MJers never do that!"

Except that I would have been completely wrong.
Quite right.

Vivisector

Agreed.

What if I suggested the Golden Rule or, better yet, any one of the Beatitudes as analogous to the Pythagorean Theorem? This is perhaps not strictly analogous (and others on this thread have commented on the difficulty in identifying valid analogies), but it seems to me that both the theorem and the beatitudes (e.g., blessed are the peacemakers) can be considered as products of intellectual creativity, even if the apparent natures of those products (mathematical vs. moral) are different.

I don't deny a wall, I just question whether a wall high enough to keep HJ out will be low enough for HP to leap (or even climb) over it.

On the basis of his influence, one could certainly argue that Paul might as well have been Jesus.

Cheers,

V.

Gooch's dad

I think the comparison is completely apt. Earl Doherty has continued to ignore the challenge, "why haven't you published in a peer-reviewed historical journal?"

Until JM'ers can attain that level of academic integrity, why not compare them with creationists? Pop-press books and internet postings do not make for a sound scholarly theory, whether it be Behe or Doherty.

When presented with the simple facts supporting a HJ, I continue to see obfuscation and moving goal-posts. Most typical is nonsense such as "Paul wasn't an eyewitness, so he doesn't count", and, when dealing with the Josephus Ant 20.9.1 reference, the response "The Testimonium is a fraud!"

This has been going on for years and years. Why, once again, doesn't a JM'er like Doherty simply submit his hypotheses to a reputable journal of historical inquiry? Why the continuing dance about this issue? Why hasn't Earl even responded to this issue? He seems to be content with letting others make up ad hoc reasons as to why he hasn't gone through peer review.

Amaleq13

That it does absolutely nothing to further a rational discussion of the subject should be sufficient.

An analogy is a short-cut to actual thought and one with such blatant negative implications is certainly counter-productive to meaningful discourse.

Gooch's dad

But pointing out hypocrisy can further a rational discussion. If someone is caught outright in a clearly hypocritical stance, then they ought to be called on it.

The JM'ers find "negative implications", because they, along with me and most other HJ proponents on this board, find creationists to be irritating dissemblers. When called on the carpet regarding peer-reviewed science, they dance around the issue, often never even bothering to reply.

I'll note once again that the chief JM proponent on IIDB, Earl Doherty, has not even addressed this issue.

That is clearly hypocritical, and should, in any good skeptical thinker, bring on a painful case of cognitive dissonance. And isn't one of the chief missions of most of us, the vast majority of us, to challenge and uproot cases of cognitive dissonance?

I maintain still that the analogy is useful. The analogy applies to anyone who chooses to go outside the scientific mainstream and push their pet idea through pop-press books and fancy websites, whether the idea is Jesus Mythicism, astrology, reiki, or homeopathy.

Dreadnought

Is it your claim that the testimonium (which is the one in 18 BTW) is genuine? If so are you equipped with a 6th sense that lets you off hand tell apart frauds, interpolations etc? Or perhaps it's your contention that there are no frauds, no scribal errors, no editing, no additions, no marginal comments creeping into the texts anywhere? If so I think you qualify for the label fundamentalist.