RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 12:47 pm
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 1:08 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I'll let Min handle the tacitus and jospehus bits, if he can muster up the patience to do it for the hundredth time. I'm glad that you and I agree that your comments are not the mythicist argument. Seems a little perplexing now, though, since neither you nor mythicists argue that point....it was introduced, by you...because? Hmn, let's check the tape.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
"The bible says so" isn't so great for historicity...it's perfectly fine for observing....what the bible says, which is the subject of the mythicist position. The mythicist position doesn;t argue in the manner that you're claiming. That the bible says something..to a mythicist, is just the acknowledgement of whats contained in the narrative, not it's historicity. Perhaps you'll appreciate the difference...and come to understand why you're still pitching straw?
Did you not want an opportunity to respond to what a mythicist position actually argued? No objections to the quoted statement in my last response? Are we having a discussion about the mythicist position or your misapprehensions of it?
Quote:I don't know about your comparison, but if it is anything like the irrational garbage that other mythicists here espouse, you might want to re-consider how similar the two are. It's a circular argument to say, "Jesus probably didn't exist because the texts about him are corrupt and include embellishment; therefore Jesus probably didn't exist."lol...shameless. If I hadn't already upvoted you I would. Reconsider how similar what two are?
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Quote:when mythicists use the same texts to argue for their case... well, except the ones that clearly require a historical Jesus,and which ones.....if you would be so kind, are the ones which clearly require a historical jesus?
"The bible says so" isn't so great for historicity...it's perfectly fine for observing....what the bible says, which is the subject of the mythicist position. The mythicist position doesn;t argue in the manner that you're claiming. That the bible says something..to a mythicist, is just the acknowledgement of whats contained in the narrative, not it's historicity. Perhaps you'll appreciate the difference...and come to understand why you're still pitching straw?
Did you not want an opportunity to respond to what a mythicist position actually argued? No objections to the quoted statement in my last response? Are we having a discussion about the mythicist position or your misapprehensions of it?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
