Freethought & Rationalism Archive

metacristi · 08-17-2013, 01:51 PM

I agreed that I do not think we can talk of quasi-certitudes. However I think the mythicists argument needs a little way too much mental gymnastics to be the winner of this time. And yes the fact that there is some authoritarianism in Academia do not really entitle mythicists to start a political revolution.

Toto · 08-17-2013, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

.... And yes the fact that there is some authoritarianism in Academia do not really entitle mythicists to start a political revolution.

What political revolution? Mythicists only seek to subject the historicity of Jesus to the standards used by real historians.

spin · 08-17-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I don't see the relevance of this to what we are dealing with. The tax was paid in Tyrian coin, a coin found at Qumran among other places. What has the fact that one had to pay the tax with a Tyrian shekel to do with your reification of the table turning story?

The implications are multiple.

It was another tax of many to be paid. This temple was the cash cow for the Romans and if it didnt bring in the revenue, they would have destroyed long before they did. This Passover was a money making event similar to todays rock concerts. The Saducees ran the treasury, owned the sheep to be bought, and most other goods and worked hand in hand with the Romans to keep their power.

I see nothing more than someone making a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions. What evidence is there to support the notion that:

1. The Romans "would have destroyed [the temple] long before they did"?

2. The "Passover was a money making event similar to todays rock concerts"?

3. The "Sadducees ran the treasury, owned the sheep to be bought, and most other goods and worked hand in hand with the Romans to keep their power"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Zealous Jews would not have liked the corrupt Saducees running the temple for the finacial collaboration with Romans.

Yet another bullshit assertion, supported by nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

You dont think some zealous Jews would not find it blasphemous to have a pagan deity on a coin in gods very own house?

Got any evidence that anyone did??

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Possibilities at best are all you will find for a death of a peasant.

And that's not enough to substantiate the existence of anyone. Fantasies are based on possibilities, not scholarship.

spin · 08-17-2013, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

.... And yes the fact that there is some authoritarianism in Academia do not really entitle mythicists to start a political revolution.

What political revolution? Mythicists only seek to subject the historicity of Jesus to the standards used by real historians.

Much of the talk about mythicism in the existence of Jesus debate is a shifting of the burden. It's easier to attack someone else's position than to justify one's own when you don't have evidence. It is almost impossible to get a historical Jesus supporter to do the job of looking at the evidence and weighing it rationally.

aa5874 · 08-17-2013, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

Reading what some people say here one would believe that there is no reasonable argument for the historicity of Jesus. Actually this is what I often encounter in mythicist circles (some can even be labelled safely 'priests of mythicism').

I think is pointless to continue a polemics in this direction if some want to believe that be it so. Only that all rational people reckon that there is a reasonable argument pro the historicity of Jesus. Try that of Ehrman for example in 'Did Jesus exist?', which is fully tenable overall (Carrier really has nothing of substance). Or read a sketch of it here (there are 7 parts). Not enough for quasi certitudes but there is enough to settle the matter for the moment.

I weighted the arguments (and believe me or not I happen to know some about research programs and paradigm shifts in science) and I'm afraid mythicism is not really synonymous with simplicity, elegance and best accommodation of data. A BIG breakthrough is needed to provoke a paradigm shift. Until then all I see is politics, I maintain that mythicists are engaged in a huge political 'bloody revolution' to 'gain the power' with all costs. Little in common with rational paradigm shifts. Remain to be seen (I do not write off this hypothesis) what will happen on long run, sometimes metaphysics becomes science way later after its first proposal indeed, but I personally don't think that Carrier's arguments will be able to make mythicism less 'fringe'.

It is you who is engaged in "politics" because you presented NOTHING--no evidence from antiquity--to support an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

May I remind you that Ehrman argued for an historical Jesus of Nazareth using the NT--a compilation of mythology about Gods, Devils, Sons of God, Evil Spirits, and Holy Ghosts.

In fact, Ehrman declared that his sources for HJ of Nazareth, the Gospels, "are riddled with other kinds of historical problems and that they relate events that almost certainly did not happen." See page 184 "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

The New Testament is Ehrman's source for his Jesus of Nazareth but he declared that the very NT, his source, is FILLED with discrepancies and contradictions in the accounts of Jesus. See page 182 "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

The argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth is extremely weak and unreasonable because it is inundated with logical fallacies, discrepancies, contradictions, events that did not happen and other kinds of historical problems.

metacristi · 08-17-2013, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

.... And yes the fact that there is some authoritarianism in Academia do not really entitle mythicists to start a political revolution.

What political revolution? Mythicists only seek to subject the historicity of Jesus to the standards used by real historians.

Let's be serious. Mythicists try to demolish an entire field (at least New Testament studies but after seeing how Carrier argued with Tom Stark I think they want to demolish much more than that, everything which is inconvenient in fact) and replace it with their own approaches. One may think bayesianism is not a bad idea but the way in which crucial data pro an earthly jesus is 'patched' (requiring really creative imagination) to look as if is the contrary is the case is not really a good idea. Now I do not try to defend the people in the New Testament studies but I think there are enough there who use reasonable standards. Ehrman is definitely one of them. It's not as if there is a huge void which mythicists fill with rationality.

Finally I never understood this militancy from the part of mythicists, discretion should be their approach until a real breakthrough is found and even then being polite will still be of outmost importance. Remember me of the attitude of the many 'geniuses' who try to demolish the whole of physics and other parts of science.

aa5874 · 08-17-2013, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

.... And yes the fact that there is some authoritarianism in Academia do not really entitle mythicists to start a political revolution.

What political revolution? Mythicists only seek to subject the historicity of Jesus to the standards used by real historians.

Let's be serious. Mythicists try to demolish an entire field (at least New Testament studies but after seeing how Carrier argued with Tom Stark I think they want to demolish much more than that, everything which is inconvenient in fact) and replace it with their own approaches. One may think bayesianism is not a bad idea but the way in which crucial data pro an earthly jesus is 'patched' (requiring really creative imagination) to look as if is the contrary is the case is not really a good idea. Now I do not try to defend the people in the New Testament studies but I think there are enough there who use reasonable standards. Ehrman is definitely one of them. It's not that there is a huge void which mythicists fill with rationality.

Finally I never liked this militancy from the part of mythicists, discretion should be their approach until a real breakthrough is found and even then being polite will still be of outmost importance.

Your post are all "political propaganda". Your posts reflect the lack of any real substance.

What non-apologetic source of antiquity mentioned Nazareth and a Messianic ruler named Jesus?

NONE

The HJ of Nazareth argument is essentially an argument of Faith--unsupported by non-apologetics of antiquity.

metacristi · 08-17-2013, 02:47 PM

And that you name a mythicist argument?

Edit to add: if you had read Ehrman you would have understood that what you say is not really so impossible to explain. And of course why the Christian sources can be accepted in some aspects, in spite of the fact that the criterions of authenticity are not perfect (actually there is some archeological evidence pro Nazareth in Jesus time).

Toto · 08-17-2013, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What political revolution? Mythicists only seek to subject the historicity of Jesus to the standards used by real historians.

Let's be serious. Mythicists try to demolish an entire field (at least New Testament studies but after seeing how Carrier argued with Tom Stark I think they want to demolish much more than that, everything which is inconvenient in fact) and replace it with their own approaches.

Most New Testament studies involves textual analysis, and mythicism would not change much there. The study of Christian origins would still be a field of study, and since most scholars seem to think that Jesus did not start a church, very little would change.

I don't see the political revolution you are talking about. A handful of scholars would have to revise their work.

I do think that a lot of the members of the Church of the Historical Jesus had some political aims, but history seems to have passed them by. They wanted a political Jesus who would support compassion for the poor, but the religious right created their own political Jesus to support war and capitalism. :huh:

Quote:

One may think bayesianism is not a bad idea but the way in which crucial data pro an earthly jesus is 'patched' (requiring really creative imagination) to look as if is the contrary is the case is not really a good idea.

I have not idea what you think you are saying here. What crucial data is there in favor of an earthly Jesus? Do you seriously think that a dubious reference to the "brother of the Lord" has some relevance to an earthly Jesus?

Quote:

Now I do not try to defend the people in the New Testament studies but I think there are enough there who use reasonable standards. Ehrman is definitely one of them. It's not as if there is a huge void which mythicists fill with rationality.

There has been a huge refusal to even look at the issue of historicity. That's why Ehrman's book was so weak. He didn't have a lot of the usual scholarly debates to hone and test his arguments.

Quote:

Finally I never understood this militancy from the part of mythicists, discretion should be their approach until a real breakthrough is found and even then being polite will still be of outmost importance. Remember me of the attitude of the many 'geniuses' who try to demolish the whole of physics and other parts of science.

Doherty has always been exceedingly polite. You can see how far it got him with the guild. Carrier is a bit more brash, especially with audiences at skeptical conferences, but his approach has always been scholarly.

aa5874 · 08-17-2013, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

And that you name a mythicist argument?

Edit to add: if you had read Ehrman you would have understood that what you say is not really so impossible to explain. And of course why the Christian sources can be accepted in some aspects, in spite of the fact that the criterions of authenticity are not perfect (actually there is some archeological evidence pro Nazareth in Jesus time).

Again, you have not presented any argument for an historical Jesus. You are engaged in "political propaganda".

By the way, you had no idea that I do have Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"--the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

Did Jesus Exist? by Ehrman has virtually destroyed the argument for an HJ of Nazareth.

Ehrman's fundamental source for his HJ of Nazareth is the Bible--a source of mythology, fiction, implausibilities, and Faith.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-17-2013, 01:51 PM	#71
metacristi Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 649	I agreed that I do not think we can talk of quasi-certitudes. However I think the mythicists argument needs a little way too much mental gymnastics to be the winner of this time. And yes the fact that there is some authoritarianism in Academia do not really entitle mythicists to start a political revolution.

08-17-2013, 02:47 PM	#78
metacristi Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 649	And that you name a mythicist argument? Edit to add: if you had read Ehrman you would have understood that what you say is not really so impossible to explain. And of course why the Christian sources can be accepted in some aspects, in spite of the fact that the criterions of authenticity are not perfect (actually there is some archeological evidence pro Nazareth in Jesus time).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.