Ted Hoffman

Laymans dubious interpretation of Ironmonkeys writings.

Why would I want to do this Vinnie? What is its relevance to my question "are there any more arguments for the existence of a historical Jesus"?

Demonstrate that its a non-answer.
Don't you think you would do better to let me answer a question once you have asked it?

Demonstrate it.

Of course you dont.

This is where the argument for the best explanation comes in and one can evaluate between the two possible answers, which one has greater weight.

Evangelion, I am confident that we shall cross swords soon enough. But not with vacuous statements.

Vinnie

It would be very easy for you to provide a citation which demonstrates that 1) I am a liar or 2) that I have a poor memory. So go for it. There is a search function here.

Should you not provide the citation in defense of your caricature/straw man of my statement, I will assume its because you are an uncritical reader who simply was not following along with enough scrutiny. This problem most likely stems from the fact that my views do not "confirm your own uninformed predispositions".

Because its an argument that is incapable of being responded to by the mythicists and HJ agnostics here. It simply can't be touched. Its the argument which ends all arguments on the issue here. What I find highly amusing is that all it took was an extremely basic plug of a variation of the embarrassment criterion to do it

Doesn't my confidence and arrogance incite you to show everyone how I am putting my foot in my mouth? Step up to the plate and take a swing.

There is no need to demonstrate what is self-evident. With that being said its not my counter response. Feel free to demopnstrate how the achilles account correlates with my argument. There is none and that is what it is self-evident. This is a fallacy called appeal to imagination. When lacking good arguments, invent them regardless of how ridiculous they are.

How do I respond to this one? Pick one or more of the following three options. Whatever suits your fancy.

1. In most cases yes but in your case no as you answered my question with two questions that conveniently avoided the issue.

2. Letting you respond to the question would mean I would have to read more of your thoughts than I would like to.

3. I have done nothing to restrict you from answering. You are merely whining and trying to dodge the question in a cowardly fashion.

You made the positive statement first. Demonstrate your claim and then I'll be more than happy to demonstrate my own counter-claim which will consist of a detailed refutation of your own. I won't hold my breath waiting for your demonstration though.

For self-entertaining purposes I might as well use your own fatuous and peurile style which has the tendency of stiffling intellectual discussion in a dishonest fashion:


Prove it!

Demonstrate it!

Prove this negative!

Prove it was refuted!

This one is stacked. You made three unproved assertions!

1. ove Meta and I posed similar arguments.

2. Prove Vinnie actually posed an argument for the bedrock facts.

2. Demonstrate that the argument that Vinnie never argued is refuted by Robin hood parallels.

The proof? Where is it at?

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

If you want to make an argument, formulate it clearly. Gingerly asking a pseudo-question concealing a tangential argument won't do. If I spend my time to refute it, you will retreat and claim you never made an argument just like you are now claiming you merely listed bedrock facts.

Spend a time and come out clearly (about whether you have an argument or not and what the argument is) and I will take it out. If you are not interested in doing that, neither am I. If you are in, I am in.

I don't have time for a flame war right now.

Vorkosigan

Explain the paucity of Gentile related material in the synoptics and explain the account where dog is used as a metaphor for Gentile.

You consider this an unbeatable argument? Oh, Vinnie, your logic devices are surely on the fritz this week. Ironmonkey was right to ask what this has to do with anything.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

What would it take to prove Jesus is a mythical (wholly fabricated) figure?

It can't be done. Period. You can only pile up evidence showing that the figure in the gospels is ahistorical. It's not as simple as an either/or dichotomy. Jesus is a composite figure like Robin Hood, Confucius, King Arthur, Lao Tz, etc. Proving that such a figure is entirely without historical component is difficult. It's easier to show that the Gospels are all fictions of one kind or another, and then pile up suspicion that the HJ never existed.

The only thing that would do it is a succession of reliably dated documents that cover the founding years of the Jesus cult, were untouched by Christian interpolators, and showed that the earliest Christians made absolutely no bones about where the Crucifixion of Jesus took place and who he was.

And what would it take to prove the historicity of Jesus?

Some decent historical references outside the Christian legends that differed in presentation but nevertheless provide some basis for conclusion that we are talking about the same person. For example, the Slavonic Josephus' account of the Miracle Worker might serve as a good model of what to expect. It might even be the real story. Who knows?

What about the argument for the best explanation (for everything about xstianity and Jesus) per Doherty?

I'll be re-reading Doherty soon, against Crossan. I just finished The Historical Jesus by Crossan and was basically deeply shaken by how bad it was. I'll be reviewing it shortly.....but suffice to say that the search for methodology in HJ studies is essentially the search for a methodology that will enable Jesus to survive in history.

The way I see it, one can look at all the evidence and arguments from both sides and either end up confused (puzzled), a HJer or a JMther. IMHO, one can only adopt an agnostic position if one has certain clear (but unmet) expectations (for either position to be valid) that have not been met and that still stand a chance of being met.

I don't think it is logically possible to rule out the existance of some Jesus who became the central figure in a cult that became Christianity. I think it is possible to show that the gospels are theological fictions that are far too late and too distant to have known anything about that person.

What are these expectations? Or is my viewpoint (concerning the "anchor" of the agnostic position) wrong? Or is this agnostic position a cover for resignation to "its unknowable whether Jesus existed or not"? [/B]

That IS the agnostic position. Sometimes resignation is the most satisfying position, intellectually.

Vorkosigan

keyser_soze

Problem was, that particular argument came from a HJ, just one that found the method invalid...Embarrassment is hardly a rational argument for the historicity of anything. And you must not have read the info I included, that could be better researched(I haven't the time) that the figures in the epic most likely were based on REAL people from the greek dark ages, most likely during several of the frequent battles between Greek fishermen(as opposed to middle eastern goatherders)

Ted Hoffman

I concur.
But this (showing the Gospels are all fictions) has implications - (and I think we are obliged to follow up and confront those implications - heck I could be wrong) ... reminds me of the way you compared Wells and Price in your review - one chooses to simply carefully peer over the wall while the other tears it down...

I get it sir. Thanks

Ted Hoffman

Why?
What happened to Christ Logos? Especially given the gospels are evidently fictitious?
Isn't Christ Logos adequate as a central figure for Christianity?

Vinnie

How can I retreat from an argument I've never made?

To help you out in finding a citation from one of my posts where I argued for the bedrock facts of Jesus of Nazareth:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/search.php?s...searchid=86890


You got it. I'll start up a new thread on it soon called "Synoptic Creativity".

Keep caricturing my bedrock facts list as an argument and this is what you will get


They've been on the fritz for a long time now

Vinnie

Vinnie

Who said IM was jumpoing the gun on Ant 20? Oh wait, that was me!

Ironmonkey:

Peter Kirby on X-Talk in response to Stephen Carlson:

Woops!

Vinnie