tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post1487921974426775597..comments2024-03-29T07:57:16.659-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Bill Walker Strickes Again.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-17460508923255765222010-02-28T12:42:15.143-08:002010-02-28T12:42:15.143-08:00"what do you mean by "tangential?" ..."what do you mean by "tangential?" you mean like this desk? why should it be like that?"<br /><br />Tangible, not tangential. No, not like the desk, I can find plenty of inanimate gods if I want them. I just want something real.<br /><br />"that has nothing to do with the hypothesis.You might use that in some way to argue about not being a Chrsitian in a general sense but it certianly has no breading on the issue that Jesus was made up and copied after other figures.<br /><br />There's no connection and just saying "born supernaturally" Is too veg."<br /><br />Why is it too vague? Really, it would make sense. If I'm wanting create a competing product, but want it be perceived as original than I change it in some way. So YHWH didn't choose a shower of gold like Zeus did, and Jesus was born from a womb instead of YHWH's thigh.<br /><br />"It seems like you are trying re-create a new kind of Jesus myther myth that has nothing to do wit the actual Jesus myth thesis."<br /><br />I've read very little of the Jesus myth stuff as I find a lot of it to play a little too fast and loose withy the truth. What I do know is that my whole Christian life I heard Christians explain away similarities with previous events as God foreshadowing the coming of Christ and I find that explanation just a little too convenient.Mike aka MonolithTMAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08385705390882035829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-81418838765900719532010-02-28T12:32:40.462-08:002010-02-28T12:32:40.462-08:00David Ulansey has done some interesting work on Mi...David Ulansey has done some interesting work on Mithraism, but it's a stretch to consider him "the greatest Mithraic scholar of the age", a title which, IMHO, should go to Roger Beck and/or Richard Gordon.<br /><br /><b>Maybe I should be more careful about bestowign grand titles on people. That Opinion was formulated several years ago, like somewhere around 2004, and I haven't really done any more research in the last few years. So maybe it was true then and not now.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-66305911429460054032010-02-28T10:29:16.230-08:002010-02-28T10:29:16.230-08:00David Ulansey has done some interesting work on Mi...David Ulansey has done some interesting work on Mithraism, but it's a stretch to consider him "the greatest Mithraic scholar of the age", a title which, IMHO, should go to <a href="http://www.ashgatepublishing.com/default.aspx?page=637&calctitle=1&pageSubject=1078&pagecount=8&title_id=5509&edition_id=7744" rel="nofollow">Roger Beck</a> and/or <a href="http://www.uhu.es/ejms/team.htm#Prof.%20Richard%20Gordon" rel="nofollow">Richard Gordon</a>....https://www.blogger.com/profile/01567220063199548315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-12779044946075235242010-02-28T09:40:03.710-08:002010-02-28T09:40:03.710-08:00Mike aka MonolithTMA said...
Myth or no myth,...Mike aka MonolithTMA said...<br /><br /> Myth or no myth, I don't believe Jesus is who the gospels say he was, not because I find it impossible or even implausible, but because I have not experienced him in any tangible way, despite years of devoutly loving and following him.<br /><br /><br /><b>what do you mean by "tangential?" you mean like this desk? why should it be like that?</b><br /><br /> The problem with the mythers is always the details. Were these other great figures born of virgins? I don't care, but were they born supernaturally? Yep, and that's enough for me. Same for many of the other details.<br /><br /><br /><b>that has nothing to do with the hypothesis.You might use that in some way to argue about not being a Chrsitian in a general sense but it certianly has no breading on the issue that Jesus was made up and copied after other figures.<br /><br />There's no connection and just saying "born supernaturally" Is too veg.</b><br /> It's all about reasonable doubt. Is the story of Christ in the NT 100% unique? Nope, is that reason to cast it aside? Of course not, but it is reason to not blindly accept it, to cast reasonable doubt.<br /><br />It seems like you are trying re-create a new kind of Jesus myther myth that has nothing to do wit the actual Jesus myth thesis.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-11337392325824715182010-02-28T08:16:28.469-08:002010-02-28T08:16:28.469-08:00Myth or no myth, I don't believe Jesus is who ...Myth or no myth, I don't believe Jesus is who the gospels say he was, not because I find it impossible or even implausible, but because I have not experienced him in any tangible way, despite years of devoutly loving and following him.<br /><br />The problem with the mythers is always the details. Were these other great figures born of virgins? I don't care, but were they born supernaturally? Yep, and that's enough for me. Same for many of the other details.<br /><br />It's all about reasonable doubt. Is the story of Christ in the NT 100% unique? Nope, is that reason to cast it aside? Of course not, but it is reason to not blindly accept it, to cast reasonable doubt.Mike aka MonolithTMAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08385705390882035829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-7273378037438562252010-02-28T06:53:28.569-08:002010-02-28T06:53:28.569-08:00Meta:"that's not saying anything because ...<b>Meta:</b>"that's not saying anything because it just means that every time part of the thesis is disproved you re-write it. Sot he original Jesus myth thing has been totally disproved."<br /><br /><b>Loren:</b>Not at all. Jesus mythicism does not depend on the sort of claims that I'm criticizing here.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta (new): Yes it clearly does! You only say it doesn't because that's the lattest version having destroyed the one's that came before.<br /><br /><br />all you have to do is trace the use of it on the net. It used to cetenr on the copy cat savior thing, we beat that hands down. I give credit to Miller and HOlding but I think I had some hand in it too becuase I went and got the original myth books like Bullfinch and showed how they differ fromw hat the mtyhers were saying in their books. Then I start publicizing it on the secular web and when some of them admitted I was wright aht broke their hold.<br /><br />then Gandi and Frick being proved as Hoaxes with the anchor cross thing was the nail in their coffin. They started jumping ship like rats on a burning deck and swimming over the Doherty ship in droves.<br /><br />The only reason the Doherty ship hasn't been totally sunk is because he had the sense not to rook his their in such obvious BS but use stuff that can't be looked up in an original body of works.</b><br /><br /><br />(Jesus Christ as 0% god and non-miracle-worker...)<br /><br /><b>Meta:</b>that's just ideology. ...<br /><br /><b>Loren:</b>No it isn't, any more than the beliefs of believers in other religions are "just ideology". Do you agree with Jews and Muslims that Jesus Christ had been 100% human and 0% god? That's what their religions teach about him. If you don't, does that make Judaism and Islam "just ideology"?<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta: That is ideology. Their abhorance of my categories, my abhorance of theirs, that's all ideology. the problem is I admit mine is ideology becuase it's a tenet of faith. I am the first say that. Their rejection of it is due to a tenet of theirs faiths. <br /><br />the problem you wont admit that you are just regurgitating your faith like Muslims, Jews, and myself. you want to present it as though ti's a fact. you know for sure Jesus could not be the son of God and that's a scientific verdict.</b><br /><br /><br />("naturalistic presuppositions" vs. refusal to do special pleading...)<br /><br /><b>Meta:</b>obviously it's the former. ...<br /><br /><b>Loren:</b>Not at all. It's not "naturalistic presuppositions" that causes me to dismiss the story of Romulus and Remus as pure fiction. <br /><br /><b>Meta:Obviously it is, and it's bad reasoning that lead you to assume that the deity of Christ is the same thing. you can't see the distinction between a classical myth and a tenet of faith rooted in Hebrew expectations about Messiah because your ideology leads you to avoid critical distinction and to lump all religious thinking into a shallow surface level category of "myth" that sees all mythology as "lie."</b><br /><br /><br /><br />It's more of a Humean argument of "where did the miracles go?" And if you dismiss that story as fiction also, does that mean that you are doing out of "naturalistic presuppositions"? <br /><br /><b>Meta: I can have naturalistic presuppositions becuase mine aer not just ideological knee jerks and propaganda but real critical thinking. I also understand the distinction between classical mythology and renal religion.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Loren:</b>"Or is it out of some presupposition that every religion but yours must be false?"<br /><br /><b>Meta:why are you unable to learn? isn't English your first language? You've only heard my answer on other religions about 2,400 times. why can't you learn anything?</b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.doxa.ws/Theology/salvation_others2.html" rel="nofollow"><b>my essay on salvation and other faiths</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-6455660371595451302010-02-28T00:02:05.948-08:002010-02-28T00:02:05.948-08:00that's not saying anything because it just mea...that's not saying anything because it just means that every time part of the thesis is disproved you re-write it. Sot he original Jesus myth thing has been totally disproved.<br /><br /><b>Not at all. Jesus mythicism does not depend on the sort of claims that I'm criticizing here.</b><br /><br />(Jesus Christ as 0% god and non-miracle-worker...)<br /><br />that's just ideology. ...<br /><br /><b>No it isn't, any more than the beliefs of believers in other religions are "just ideology". Do you agree with Jews and Muslims that Jesus Christ had been 100% human and 0% god? That's what their religions teach about him. If you don't, does that make Judaism and Islam "just ideology"?</b><br /><br />("naturalistic presuppositions" vs. refusal to do special pleading...)<br /><br />obviously it's the former. ...<br /><br /><b>Not at all. It's not "naturalistic presuppositions" that causes me to dismiss the story of Romulus and Remus as pure fiction. It's more of a Humean argument of "where did the miracles go?" And if you dismiss that story as fiction also, does that mean that you are doing out of "naturalistic presuppositions"? Or is it out of some presupposition that every religion but yours must be false?</b>Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-82780290919980118892010-02-25T08:52:12.828-08:002010-02-25T08:52:12.828-08:00I will concede that there is a lot of misinformati...I will concede that there is a lot of misinformation going around about Mithra and Mithraism and pagan godmen in general. However, it's possible to be a Jesus mythicist while rejecting that misinformation, as Earl Doherty and others have demonstrated.<br /><br /><b>that's not saying anything because it just means that every time part of the thesis is disproved you re-write it. Sot he original Jesus myth thing has been totally disproved.</b><br /><br />Even if there was a historical Jesus Christ, he most likely was someone very different from how the Gospels had described him. That is, he most likely was 100% human, 0% god, someone who had worked 0 miracles, and someone who had stayed dead after he died. <br /><br /><b>that's just ideology. you don't believe in God anyway so of course you think that, saying that is not even particularly Jesus mythie. Its' just what any atheist would say. the truth is there's nothing left of the Jesus hypothesis, it's been reduced to just regular atheism.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />This is not a result of "naturalistic presuppositions", it is a result of refusing to do special pleading on behalf of the Bible's "history".<br /><br /><br /><b>obviously it's the former. I don't do any special pleading and I've proved over and over again most atheists don't what that term means. You don't. you think it means I privilege my stuff and the problem with tat for you is you want to privilege yiour stuff.<br /><br />your arguments are really just saying "you don't privilege my stuff so you are wrong.</b><br /><br />Non-miraculous parts of the Gospels could also have been unhistorical. He could have been stoned to death in Lydda (now Lod), not crucified in Jerusalem (somewhere in the Talmud).<br /><br /><b>course, but there's no reason to think so. there is not one single source anywhere from the era within 400 years that records it any differently. All of those ideas, the crucifixion resurrection that he claimed to be Messiah, that he healed, that his mother was Mary that's all backed up by every single source that talks about him. none of them ever change any of it. So that's a damn god reason to assume it' historical.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-19719413268671084922010-02-25T02:22:55.354-08:002010-02-25T02:22:55.354-08:00I will concede that there is a lot of misinformati...I will concede that there is a lot of misinformation going around about Mithra and Mithraism and pagan godmen in general. However, it's possible to be a Jesus mythicist while rejecting that misinformation, as Earl Doherty and others have demonstrated.<br /><br />Even if there was a historical Jesus Christ, he most likely was someone very different from how the Gospels had described him. That is, he most likely was 100% human, 0% god, someone who had worked 0 miracles, and someone who had stayed dead after he died. This is not a result of "naturalistic presuppositions", it is a result of refusing to do special pleading on behalf of the Bible's "history".<br /><br />Non-miraculous parts of the Gospels could also have been unhistorical. He could have been stoned to death in Lydda (now Lod), not crucified in Jerusalem (somewhere in the Talmud).Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.com