Stephen said
maryhelena I am thoroughly familiar with the mythicist arguments that have been made.  I reject them because I have considered them not because I’m ignorant of them.  It also has become apparent that many of these folks first decided they were mythicists for polemical reasons then went looking for evidence to back up their positions.  Their “evidence” largely consists of the obvious historical problems with the tradition.  As silly as it sounds much of it boils down to –

“I don’t believe Jesus actually [insert miracle] therefore he didn’t exist.”

“Philo didn’t mention Jesus therefore he didn’t exist.”

“I can think up a really clever reinterpretation of what Paul or Josephus said therefore Jesus didn’t exist.”

etc etc etc

And what about you, maryhelena?  You’ve constantly made assertions about what must have happened but at no point have you made any kind of serious argument to buttress your position.  Unless and until you do that you’re just wasting our time.

 

   

Serious argument? I did put up a chart dealing with Hasmonean Jewish history and how that history is reflected in the gospel story. History is the basis of my ‘serious argument’. 

All I see from the historicists side of the debate is endless speculation and assertion. Both sides of the debate have to deal with the gospel story. Yes, it can be viewed, minus whatever is deemed unhistorical, to be about a first century wandering carpenter preacher. That’s one interpretation. I’ve offered another interpretation of the gospel story. That it is a political allegory that reflects Hasmonean Jewish history. My interpretation of the gospel story rests upon history. That is not the case with the historicists interpretation of the gospel story. That position has no history on it’s side. It has interpretation of source material but interpretation is not history.

Serious argument? I’m offering an alternative interpretation of the gospel story based upon on actual history. By all means reject my argument  –  as I can reject the historicist argument. The bottom line is that historicity cannot be established for the Jesus of the gospel story. Consequently, the issue is an open one. All the historicists have on their side of the debate is an interpretation  –  they don’t have an historical argument. Interpretation is anyone’s game. It’s easy. Door-stop preachers do it all the time. This ‘battle’ of the interpretations, cannot be settled by more interpretations of the source material. The gospel story is itself an interpretation  –  an interpretation, from the historicists perspective, of how followers of Jesus interpreted his life through OT prophecy and theological musings. An interpretation of an interpretation  –  which is what gospel interpretation is   –  just adds more confusion rather than clarity. What has the prospect of bringing clarity to the debate is history.

So  –  I’m waiting for the historicists  –  and the ahistoricists  –  to put their interpretations aside and deal with history. Once history is acknowledged then the process of creating a narrative from that history can begin. One does not begin, as you say, with ones conclusions regarding the gospel story. One begins with history and then draw conclusions from the history. 

Yes,  perhaps people believe Jesus did not exist because X   –  but you can’t put a scholar like Thomas Brodie in that box. People also believe the gospel story just because they have been told it’s true. 

————

Yes, mythicist arguments have problems  –  as does the historicists position.  No side in this debate holds a trump card…..

Stephen said

And what about you, maryhelena?  You’ve constantly made assertions about what must have happened but at no point have you made any kind of serious argument to buttress your position.  Unless and until you do that you’re just wasting our time.

 

   

You’d have better luck getting evidence from Ken Ham; though I don’t think he has any snazzy tables!

spiker said

Yes,  perhaps people believe Jesus did not exist because X   –  but you can’t put a scholar like Thomas Brodie in that box. People also believe the gospel story just because they have been told it’s true.

 

ABSOLUTELY Priceless! (Is that a pun?). With one fell swoop you’ve demonstrated why mythicists will continue to hold the fringe postion for generations to come. 

 

First of all because X is, as it’s stated giving a reason or pointing to evidence. That’s the actual way to demonstrate something

But mythicists certainly don’t- and probably cant do that. If they’re not reciting a pet theory or repeating bad scholarship they’re offering insinuation and laughable commentary. To wit,

That scholars “believe the gospel story just because they have been told it’s true”  

Come now, even Creationists make better arguments than THAT!

This is what I wrote: People also believe the gospel story just because they have been told it’s true.

You said I said:”That scholars “believe the gospel story just because they have been told it’s true”

Now then  –  that is a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote.

In your desire to belittle a viewpoint different than your own you are resorting to tactics that have no place in a serious discussion. 

maryhelena said

This is what I wrote: People also believe the gospel story just because they have been told it’s true.

You said I said:”That scholars “believe the gospel story just because they have been told it’s true”

Now then  –  that is a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote.

In your desire to belittle a viewpoint different than your own you are resorting to tactics that have no place in a serious discussion. 

Actually no, as usual you  can’t quite keep your facts straight. It’s instructive that you needed to ADD  a quote where I did not put one. Let’s put them side by side so even a mythicist can see the difference:

You said I said:”That scholars “believe the gospel story just because they have been told it’s true”

And here’s what I actually wrote. So why if I am Blatantly misrepresenting you, do you need to manipulate the information?

That scholars “believe the gospel story just because they have been told it’s true”  

what you said is bolded and surrounded by quotes. I don’t think any non mythicists would fail to understand what is being attributed to you. However, what is the context of the remark? 

Yes,  perhaps people believe Jesus did not exist because X   –  but you can’t put a scholar like Thomas Brodie in that box. People also believe the gospel story just because they have been told it’s true.

So you meant people in your neighborhood? Your friends on Facebook? Mexicans in Manitoba?  How is “scholars” a “blatant misrepresentation” of “people”  and if that’s the case why did you need to drop the context and insert a quote where there clearly wasn’t one? Tactics, maryhelena? Pleeease! Serious discussion? Being serious when you post doesn’t make it a serious discussion.

But let me be fair, yes I am absolutely ridiculing you, but not because you have different ideas, it’s because you refuse to even offer even a spec of evidence. You seem to think concern about undercurrents, claiming people aren’t being fair (sniff, sniff) and personal martyrdom (the mecca of mythicist matriculation) buttress your argument SOMEHOW.

maryhelena said

I made my case in the chart I posted. You have not presented any argument against the point the chart is making i.e. that historical reflections, reflections of Hasmonean and Jewish history, are reflected in the gospel story.

   Take that, Stephen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’ve been testing my historical chart…..the forum software for tables leaves much to be desired……anyway, rather than put the chart in this thread I’ll put up a new thread…..