tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post6974240807034050186..comments2024-03-14T08:15:15.207-07:00Comments on CADRE Comments: My Argument V in my Debate with Bowen: Web of HistoricityBKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-13947873327095146222016-06-26T16:31:19.573-07:002016-06-26T16:31:19.573-07:00Hi Jeff! Glad to hear from you again! {g}
I suppo...Hi Jeff! Glad to hear from you again! {g}<br /><br />I suppose a mythicist would say that the various non-Christian critics (both Jewish and pagan), like the Christians of their day, were fooled by the massive amount of historical verisimilitudes in the texts, and/or by the general web of personal references existing by that time (the web of history Joe was talking about, except of course they&#Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-84795838329370359432016-06-25T20:54:16.481-07:002016-06-25T20:54:16.481-07:00I agree with the Crossan quotation. If Jesus is/we...I agree with the Crossan quotation. If Jesus is/were a myth, then it surprising that none of the early critics of Christianity pointed this out.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-30020805301961853342016-06-25T15:36:23.285-07:002016-06-25T15:36:23.285-07:00Joe - Since you plan to answer my post on Jesus in...Joe - Since you plan to answer my post on Jesus in the Talmud on Monday, I will try to complete the post ASAP.<br /><br />Bradley BowenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-17031996138771024022016-06-25T10:50:42.731-07:002016-06-25T10:50:42.731-07:00Fallacy Jesus existed weather he was son of God or...<i>Fallacy Jesus existed weather he was son of God or not one has nothing to do with the other. Mythers play a game confusing the two questions. I could be an atheist and still be just as much for historicity of J of N.</i><br />- Joe, you got it all wrong. It's not the "mythers" who confuse the two questions. There are plenty of atheists who think that Jesus was probably a real im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-14425447448419578332016-06-25T00:09:57.519-07:002016-06-25T00:09:57.519-07:00i am am answering Talmud post on Monday.i am am answering Talmud post on Monday.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-66830836019086726112016-06-24T22:07:45.748-07:002016-06-24T22:07:45.748-07:00Joe-
My post in response to your first argument (...Joe-<br /><br />My post in response to your first argument (about Jesus in the Talmud) is quite long, and I'm still not finished with it.<br />I had planned on doing just one post for each of your arguments, but there is too much to say, at least on Jesus in the Talmud.<br />Would you mind if I did a second post continuing my response to your argument from the Talmud?<br /><br />I have not Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-29989725069031496482016-06-24T18:00:53.285-07:002016-06-24T18:00:53.285-07:00Matt Cavanaugh said...
You reference the John-Poly...Matt Cavanaugh said...<br />You reference the John-Polycarp-Inrenaeus connection. This is a tradition that has been handed down. What actual evidence exists of it being historical?<br /><br />6/23/2016 08:35:00 AM Delete<br /><br /><< oit handed dow it;s viced by thestudent of PloycarpJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-50943831219191540022016-06-24T17:59:56.392-07:002016-06-24T17:59:56.392-07:00A few things to note here: 1) This is not a consen... A few things to note here: 1) This is not a consensus (except among Christians) that Jesus was anything but an ordinary human who became a figure of legend.<br /><br /><b>Fallacy Jesus existed weather he was son of God or not one has nothing to do with the other. Mythers play a game confusing the two questions. I could be an atheist and still be just as much for historicity of J of N.</b><br /><Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-366185891123362842016-06-24T17:53:52.041-07:002016-06-24T17:53:52.041-07:00Blogger Eric Sotnak said...
“Historians don't ...<br />Blogger Eric Sotnak said...<br />“Historians don't base their conclusions upon the documents we lack but upon those we possess.“<br /><br />This isn’t always true. Suppose you find an article claiming that in 1957, an albino rhinoceros stampeded through the streets of London, killing 6 people. You wonder if this is true, so you go to the newspaper archives, but can’t find any Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-20994176366869322422016-06-24T10:54:35.651-07:002016-06-24T10:54:35.651-07:00Jason,
Yes, many have postulated alternative expl...Jason,<br /><br />Yes, many have postulated alternative explanations for the existence of the stories of Jesus. If you think that it may be likely that he didn't exist due to the paucity of evidence, it stands to reason that there should be an alternative explanation. However, if you posit some such explanation, it doesn't imply that you are making a declaration that this is definitely im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-63385500714644366642016-06-24T10:20:44.531-07:002016-06-24T10:20:44.531-07:00Admittedly, there isn't always a sharp distinc...Admittedly, there isn't always a sharp distinction between historical agnosticism and mythicism; there's only half a step between the nearly total historical agnosticism of Burton Mack (to pull a name semi-randomly out of the sceptical pool) and the theories of mythical development he proposed in much detail to explain the data.<br /><br />I think a good argument can be made, and (for Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-59912143618614041492016-06-24T10:11:27.446-07:002016-06-24T10:11:27.446-07:00Im, but that wouldn't be mythicism per se. Tha...Im, but that wouldn't be mythicism per se. That would only be agnosticism about his existence, and the mythicists we run across promote positive theories about historical explanations for the data (the explanation being some version of a non-historical myth created and upgraded by the earliest generations of Christians.)Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-85141959568601531572016-06-24T08:45:21.296-07:002016-06-24T08:45:21.296-07:00“Historians don't base their conclusions upon ...“Historians don't base their conclusions upon the documents we lack but upon those we possess.“<br /><br />This isn’t always true. Suppose you find an article claiming that in 1957, an albino rhinoceros stampeded through the streets of London, killing 6 people. You wonder if this is true, so you go to the newspaper archives, but can’t find any corroborating reports from any of the London Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-18687550789062253552016-06-23T14:35:08.239-07:002016-06-23T14:35:08.239-07:00I don't suppose I can speak for all mythicists...I don't suppose I can speak for all mythicists, but the ones I've heard do not insist that Jesus positively did not exist. What they say is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the case that Jesus positively did exist. The two things are significantly different. I think most of then would agree that there is some probability that there could have been a guy that was the basisim-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-28126785330256063982016-06-23T13:36:12.714-07:002016-06-23T13:36:12.714-07:00Im was saying he doesn't think Dr. McGrath is ...Im was saying he doesn't think Dr. McGrath is fair in comparing mythicists with creationists, Joe.<br /><br />Maybe not; McGrath is either highly ignorant about creationists and how they operate, or else isn't interested in fairly representing <i>them</i> even though he knows better -- regardless of the merits of their case(s), they definitely do not claim the entire theoretical frameworkJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-11009426100873115522016-06-23T12:02:58.323-07:002016-06-23T12:02:58.323-07:00I don't think he's a creationist or a myth...I don't think he's a creationist or a mythicist.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-60235149483685113492016-06-23T09:33:53.905-07:002016-06-23T09:33:53.905-07:00The creationist dogmatically rejects a VAST body o...The creationist dogmatically rejects a VAST body of solid physical evidence, while the mythicist would love to see something more than hearsay and old oral traditions eventually committed to writing. You can ridicule mythicists, but you can't accuse them of rejecting evidence that you can't produce.<br /><br /><b>I doubt if he is a creationist, he;s a fine scholar</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-90344908558610679262016-06-23T09:32:41.809-07:002016-06-23T09:32:41.809-07:00Matt Cavanaugh said...
You reference the John-Poly...Matt Cavanaugh said...<br />You reference the John-Polycarp-Inrenaeus connection. This is a tradition that has been handed down. What actual evidence exists of it being historical?<br /><br /><b>I linked to huage page full details. did you not see that?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-5230887793188924992016-06-23T09:05:25.754-07:002016-06-23T09:05:25.754-07:00I love James McGrath's guilt by association fa...I love James McGrath's guilt by association fallacy:<br /><i>That is why mythicists and creationists tend to say both that “there is no evidence” and to think that showing that one particular piece of evidence is problematic means that the entire theoretical framework must be invalid. But that isn’t how scholarly investigation of the past works.</i><br /><br />The creationist dogmatically im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-41391814055761951142016-06-23T08:35:52.462-07:002016-06-23T08:35:52.462-07:00You reference the John-Polycarp-Inrenaeus connecti...You reference the John-Polycarp-Inrenaeus connection. This is a tradition that has been handed down. What actual evidence exists of it being historical?Matt Cavanaughhttp://skeptischism.com/atheismneat/noreply@blogger.com