outhouse

Not mythicist, that is very very clear.


You asked simple questions, YOU got simple answers.


You discount the evidence at your own standards which are not everyone else's standards.


And in many aspects, we are only left with opinion due to the lack of information.



The gospels and epistles are evidence, later historians recoding aspects of the movement are evidence. So much so, it is almost universally accepted by the trained professionals that study this.


I find it a complete waist of time to debate with you because you refuse plausible evidence. While your knowledge is greater then mine. It doesn't mean you do not hold a unsupported fringe position.


A typical mythicist tactic is to attack others, your a real pro at that. While not ever producing your own replacement hypothesis where it can be scrutinized.

Any opinion can be scrutinized, it takes no guts to pick a part someone elses work. Placing forward a replacement hypothesis that makes better sense does. What I want from you, as I have provided. A version of the events that left the evidence we are left with. Something simple in a paragraph or two. Not pages and pages of setting up your view. Just a simple explanation, as I have placed forward.


Im not up for debate Spin, replace what I stated with something better or bow out.

steve_bnk

I gave my reason for believing in the likelihood of same historical character upon which the tales were spun. Human nature has not changed all that much in 2000 years, looking at recent centuries provides some insight into the dynamics in Judea at the time. The ancient Jews and their Roman antagonists were emotional and irrational flesh and blood humans just like us with politics, religion, and ethnic conflict. Analysis of fact alone in history is never sufficient. We know there were militant leaders some claiming the mantle of messiah leading up to the rebellion.

We can also look at modern religions for clues to the process. Aleister Crowley and L Ron Hubbard took existing traditions and synthesized fabrications and called them religions. The origins of the Baha'i and Sikh from a single individual. Mormonism was fashioned out of Christianity and 1800s American mysticism.

Refute the above with some rationale beyond claiming it is crap.

Something happened else we would not have had Christianity. The question is how much is based in real people and how much is myth and embellishment.

You raised the 'real Jesus' question. Don't ask a question if you are not interested on discussion. You asked about early Christian centers and I showed you one center is in the area ALLEGED to be where Paul lived. You jumped into a stone throwing tirade rather than discussing...so why are you posting here?

Can you put forth anything more substantial than personal attack and denouncement?

spin

That didn't make sense.

I did not ask "simple" questions. You just crapped on, which looks like you modus operandi. When people communicate here many have learned that you usually need evidence and argument. You need to try it, rather than crapping on all the time.

If you can't tell the difference between evidence and assertion, you had better catch up.

That's also true for the X-perts you keep crapping on about. They lack information. Opinions without evidence to back them up aren't worth repeating.

Here we have the same nonsense appeal to authority. It is merely wasting everyone's time, for you have nothing to say. You just regurgitate potted notions of the exalted X-perts. How lame can you get? The gospels and epistles can provide evidence, but you have to interrogate them to see what evidence they can provide.

When you can't put together an argument because you can't muster evidence, you can't debate anything. All you do is parrot the X-perts.

That's typically what you do, so I guess you're a mythicist.

It may be difficult to get this into your head, but I have made it clear many times that I am not a mythicist. Your learning handicap is duly noted. Stop this moronic rubbish about mythicism. Otherwise I will assume that you are trolling and seek redress.

Don't tell me where I should or should not post. Complain about my arguments by refuting the evidence.

An opinion without evidence is usually not worth scrutinizing. You put forward the unsupported views of people who are not here to respond for themselves and you are unable even to supply accurate bibliographical data.

You bowed out when you couldn't put an argument together, so you are not up to a debate. That's not even an issue. What is an issue is your persistent awful self-denigrating appeals to authority. You just don't seem to have anything to say other than that you have no views of your own, just those of your religious X-perts.

When you say something on the forum, stop shitting on other people's thoughts by insisting that they are wrong because their views are not those of your X-perts. People want to hear your views when they are well-argued with well-documented evidence to support it. Otherwise, you are just crapping on.

spin

These generalities do not make an argument. What makes you think that the Jesus of early christian literature was real??

This truism equates to: someone started christianity. That may or may not be true. Religions rarely start out of a fresh cloth. It might not have been a single person who started christianity but developments within a community over time. I tentatively think that christianity may have started with Paul's revelation of Jesus after some sort of antagonism toward messianists, reported in Gal 1. This Jesus Paul had never met and was derived from the revelation as Paul would have us believe, so was not historical.

There is no need for Jesus to have started christianity at all, although there may have been a real Jesus, who set the ball rolling.

When considering the goose that laid the golden egg, would you think that it was based on real geese? You are already operating on an assumption you cannot justify.

I want an answer. I don't want you to wax assertions and generalities.

Putting aside your straw man, I post here for a number of reasons, one of which is to interact with the evidence and work out what it means. This is a difficult thing when you don't deal with substantive evidence.

I've made no personal attack. You made assertions. I questioned them, seeking substantive responses. You refused to give them.

I have said many times on this forum that there is insufficient evidence to decide whether Jesus existed or not. I know the evidence available well enough to rip any historicist or mythicist to shreds for holding unsupported views. If you put forward a historicist view that you cannot meaningfully support, it isn't strange on a forum like this that the fact is made clear. I don't expect you to change your commitments, but I'd like you not to misrepresent the discussion or make claims that you cannot support.

outhouse

Its a matter of can, or cannot. Nothing more.



This whole argument comes down to evidence, and what is perceived as evidence. cases can be made for both sides.

If you choose to use your own opinion, throwing out what most consider evidence, there is nothing to debate with you. Its why for the most part I avoid you.

spin

If you would only make a fucking case one way or another, it wouldn't be so painful to read your stuff. But you cannot clearly source anything you say; you can't give clear primary sources; you can't give author, book and page for any secondary sources. You just presistently try to take down people who don't support the status quo.

You don't even seem to know what evidence is, for what you post is plainly--to most people in this forum--assertions from authority and nothing much else. Because of this fact I have had you on ignore for a very long time, but I still note a lot of your rehearsals of other people's ideas being dealt with for exactly the same reason: assertions based on no evidence but backed by toothless referrals to authority.

MrMacSon

It ought to be more than what is 'perceived' as evidence -

it ought to be what can be argued as evidence: by sound deductive argument or cogent inductive argument. Both rely on a series of related facts to, respectively, deduce or infer a true or likely conclusion.

outhouse

Who do you think you are? Gods gift to scholarships lol :Cheeky:




Ill take that as a no, you cannot posit a replacement hypothesis.

outhouse

It is.

But wouldn't you have to study real scholarships and listen to real professors to understand that?

MrMacSon

I don't think you need to actually listen to 'real professors'.

Best one is aware of

• appropriate terminology and methodology
• • (such as proper attribution of primary sources and secondary sources, and their inter-relationship);
• critical thinking; &
• current controversies