Mythicist Christ, what is the objection? II

[Bucky Ball]

Hey!

I like Robert Price. He's cool. I may not agree with his views, but I respect him. At least he's not some fucking asshole like Carrier.

But unfortunately for you Mythicists, he was completely destroyed by Ehrman in this debate:



PS: Ehrman and I spoke in email prior to this debate. I offered him my research on Tacitus in regards to the arguments you have seen me post here, however he already knew all my arguments from his own research.

There were over 200 gospels.

Yeah you keep saying you're not a mythicist, while defending the Mythicist position and swearing by its god, Richard Carrier.

Ehrman is only talking about the 4 gospels in the canon.

I do get you're only capable of simple ideas, but one can *not* be a mythicist and argue either position. It's something educated, non-emotional, objective people can do. Obviously you can't. YOU don't even understand the mythicist positions, as you are so judgmental and pontifical in your pronouncements.

You have never argued rationally about any of the good mythicist observations, as you simply don't have the background to do it. Carrier makes some errors, and could do with input from Biblical Scholars. He's not a god. He asks interesting questions ... as opposed to har-liners like you who make papal pronouncements and demand their views are the ONLY legitimate views. You have RAILED against mythicism with all sorts of outbursts for years. It's very boring, and you never really address the real arguments they have.

[Free]

There were over 200 gospels.

Yeah you keep saying you're not a mythicist, while defending the Mythicist position and swearing by its god, Richard Carrier.

Ehrman is only talking about the 4 gospels in the canon.

I do get you're only capable of simple ideas, but one can *not* be a mythicist and argue either position. It's something educated, non-emotional, objective people can do. Obviously you can't. YOU don't even understand the mythicist positions, as you are so judgmental and pontifical in your pronouncements.

You have never argued rationally about any of the good mythicist observations, as you simply don't have the background to do it. Carrier makes some errors, and could do with input from Biblical Scholars. He's not a god. He asks interesting questions ... as opposed to har-liners like you who make papal pronouncements and demand their views are the ONLY legitimate views. You have RAILED against mythicism with all sorts of outbursts for years. It's very boring, and you never really address the real arguments they have.

I understand the Mythicist position better than you or any mythicist here. I have systematically destroyed every single mythicist argument ever presented.

If you think you actually have a good argument on anything, present it here and watch what I do to it.

The floor is yours.

Go!

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

was Paul an invention of Marcion?

[Bucky Ball]

Yeah you keep saying you're not a mythicist, while defending the Mythicist position and swearing by its god, Richard Carrier.

Ehrman is only talking about the 4 gospels in the canon.

I do get you're only capable of simple ideas, but one can *not* be a mythicist and argue either position. It's something educated, non-emotional, objective people can do. Obviously you can't. YOU don't even understand the mythicist positions, as you are so judgmental and pontifical in your pronouncements.

You have never argued rationally about any of the good mythicist observations, as you simply don't have the background to do it. Carrier makes some errors, and could do with input from Biblical Scholars. He's not a god. He asks interesting questions ... as opposed to har-liners like you who make papal pronouncements and demand their views are the ONLY legitimate views. You have RAILED against mythicism with all sorts of outbursts for years. It's very boring, and you never really address the real arguments they have.

I understand the Mythicist position better than you or any mythicist here. I have systematically destroyed every single mythicist argument ever presented.

If you think you actually have a good argument on anything, present it here and watch what I do to it.

The floor is yours.

Go!

How hilarious. 
Your typical insecure adolescent bravado boasting. You are a student of Donald Trump, I see. 
You will "watch" nothing I do, you patronizing arrogant ass-hole. 
You can't stop being you ... it's why no one will ever take you seriously.
What a complete joke you are.

[Free]

I do get you're only capable of simple ideas, but one can *not* be a mythicist and argue either position. It's something educated, non-emotional, objective people can do. Obviously you can't. YOU don't even understand the mythicist positions, as you are so judgmental and pontifical in your pronouncements.

You have never argued rationally about any of the good mythicist observations, as you simply don't have the background to do it. Carrier makes some errors, and could do with input from Biblical Scholars. He's not a god. He asks interesting questions ... as opposed to har-liners like you who make papal pronouncements and demand their views are the ONLY legitimate views. You have RAILED against mythicism with all sorts of outbursts for years. It's very boring, and you never really address the real arguments they have.

I understand the Mythicist position better than you or any mythicist here. I have systematically destroyed every single mythicist argument ever presented.

If you think you actually have a good argument on anything, present it here and watch what I do to it.

The floor is yours.

Go!

How hilarious. 
Your typical insecure adolescent bravado boasting. You are a student of Donald Trump, I see. 
You will "watch" nothing I do, you patronizing arrogant ass-hole. 
You can't stop being you ... it's why no one will ever take you seriously.
What a complete joke you are.

Obviously you take me seriously, otherwise you would have accepted my challenge.

Yes, I am arrogant.
Yes, I am an asshole. 
Yes, I patronize people whom I determine to lack the ability to rationalize and reason effectively, especially other atheists.

I will always be me, and more people take me seriously than you could imagine. The only ones who don't, especially in regards to this subject matter, are those of you who find it necessary to create a completely implausible Mythicist concept in some whacked out anti-Christian agenda to make some Jew from 2000 years ago disappear from history. The incredible stupidity of it wreaks of some fucked up psychosis so deeply etched in the psyche that it could set back the advancement of psychiatry by another 100 years. 

Get the fuck over it.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

you got anything to add @Bucky Ball ??

[Bucky Ball]

I understand the Mythicist position better than you or any mythicist here. I have systematically destroyed every single mythicist argument ever presented.

If you think you actually have a good argument on anything, present it here and watch what I do to it.

The floor is yours.

Go!

How hilarious. 
Your typical insecure adolescent bravado boasting. You are a student of Donald Trump, I see. 
You will "watch" nothing I do, you patronizing arrogant ass-hole. 
You can't stop being you ... it's why no one will ever take you seriously.
What a complete joke you are.

Obviously you take me seriously, otherwise you would have accepted my challenge.

Yes, I am arrogant.
Yes, I am an asshole. 
Yes, I patronize people whom I determine to lack the ability to rationalize and reason effectively, especially other atheists.

I will always be me, and more people take me seriously than you could imagine. The only ones who don't, especially in regards to this subject matter, are those of you who find it necessary to create a completely implausible Mythicist concept in some whacked out anti-Christian agenda to make some Jew from 2000 years ago disappear from history. The incredible stupidity of it wreaks of some fucked up psychosis so deeply etched in the psyche that it could set back the advancement of psychiatry by another 100 years. 

Get the fuck over it.

LOL. YOU, of all people, sermonizing on psychiatry. LMAO. 
Wrong again dipshit. You've already blown your wad with the pathetic argument you gave above, which was destroyed. 
No one takes you seriously. The ugly little secret, as you may or may not be aware, is .... you don't even take yourself seriously. 
No one who REALLY knows what they're talking about,  and is recognized for that, has any need for the adolescent ridiculous boasting that you constantly engage in. Obviously you are VERY VERY insecure about your knowledge, or you wouldn't have to keep reminding everyone of it. 
Grow up.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

oh my, @Free can you declare victory so we can move on?

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

maybe @Bucky Ball should concede here....

[Phaedrus]

If you insist, let us start with Raphael Lataster.

A former fundamentalist Christian, Raphael Lataster is a professionally secular PhD researcher (Studies in Religion) at the University of Sydney. His main research interests include philosophy of religion, sociology of religion, Christian origins, logic, epistemology, Bayesian reasoning, justifications and social impacts of atheism, Taoism, overpopulation and sustainability concerns, pantheism, and pandeism.

Raphael wrote his Master's thesis on Jesus mythicism (the view that even a 'historical', non-miraculous Jesus may not have existed), concluding that historical and Bayesian reasoning justifies a sceptical attitude towards the 'Historical Jesus'.

There was no Jesus, There is no god

Ironically, @Free never responded to this.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

$38 dollars certainly not a cheap book

[Dānu]

I suspect Ehrman has evolved into an empty shill. Like a preacher who no longer believes, he appears to lament having forsaken his gravy train, and is simply trying to keep his books in the public view.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

I got discouraged with him

[SYZ]

...The incredible stupidity of it wreaks of some fucked up psychosis so deeply etched in the psyche that it could set back the advancement of psychiatry by another 100 years.

I'm guessing you mean "reeks"?

Wreaks; verb —to carry out the promptings of (one's anger, will, desire, etc.),
as on a victim or object;  to inflict or execute (punishment, vengeance, etc.)

[mordant]

This thread has devolved into a bunch of pompous chest-thumping about nothing of importance. The fabulist mythos spun by the gospels tells one and all that the gospel version of Jesus is -- at best and being overly charitable -- grossly misrepresented and shamelessly embellished.

In the face of that, whether the mythos is spun out of whole cloth or "based on a true story" is beside the point. It can be dismissed as the baseless assertions that it is peddling.

[jerry mcmasters]

This thread has devolved into a bunch of pompous chest-thumping about nothing of importance. The fabulist mythos spun by the gospels tells one and all that the gospel version of Jesus is -- at best and being overly charitable -- grossly misrepresented and shamelessly embellished.

In the face of that, whether the mythos is spun out of whole cloth or "based on a true story" is beside the point. It can be dismissed as the baseless assertions that it is peddling.

I wouldn't say the pompous chest-thumping is nothing of importance.  The thread seems to be serving some therapeutic purpose.

[mordant]

This thread has devolved into a bunch of pompous chest-thumping about nothing of importance. The fabulist mythos spun by the gospels tells one and all that the gospel version of Jesus is -- at best and being overly charitable -- grossly misrepresented and shamelessly embellished.

In the face of that, whether the mythos is spun out of whole cloth or "based on a true story" is beside the point. It can be dismissed as the baseless assertions that it is peddling.

I wouldn't say the pompous chest-thumping is nothing of importance.  The thread seems to be serving some therapeutic purpose.

Well sure it's clearly doing something for those invested in the back and forth, and that's fine -- for them anyway -- I'm just saying it's not a battle I pick beyond a certain point. Too bad that it turns an interesting speculative discussion into a pointless ass-kicking and character assassination contest. I mean, I'm just not very invested. I am skeptical of the historical Jesus, but a historical Jesus is not a problem of any sort for me, either.

[jerry mcmasters]

This thread has devolved into a bunch of pompous chest-thumping about nothing of importance. The fabulist mythos spun by the gospels tells one and all that the gospel version of Jesus is -- at best and being overly charitable -- grossly misrepresented and shamelessly embellished.

In the face of that, whether the mythos is spun out of whole cloth or "based on a true story" is beside the point. It can be dismissed as the baseless assertions that it is peddling.

I wouldn't say the pompous chest-thumping is nothing of importance.  The thread seems to be serving some therapeutic purpose.

Well sure it's clearly doing something for those invested in the back and forth, and that's fine -- for them anyway -- I'm just saying it's not a battle I pick beyond a certain point. Too bad that it turns an interesting speculative discussion into a pointless ass-kicking and character assassination contest. I mean, I'm just not very invested. I am skeptical of the historical Jesus, but a historical Jesus is not a problem of any sort for me, either.

I'm skeptical of mythical J, but a mythical J would be no big surprise or stunning development to me.  It is odd watching the emotional investment others have in it though.

[madog]

I am on the fence, probably leaning towards the myhicist position presently ...

However knowing a lot of the 'scholars' are personally invested in the historicity of 'Jesus' makes me more skeptical of their conclusions  ....

I raised issues that I find inconclusive, however the vehemence and dishonesty of a member made me realise nothing could be learned in this thread.

Although the dishonest and arrogant tactics of the member doesn't prove the historicity of 'Jesus' either way, it is clear to remain in the thread is pointless  .... and just allows the member to act out his Dunning–Kruger effect ....

[jerry mcmasters]

I am on the fence, probably leaning towards the myhicist position presently ...

However knowing a lot of the 'scholars' are personally invested in the historicity of 'Jesus' makes me more skeptical of their conclusions  ....

I raised issues that I find inconclusive, however the vehemence and dishonesty of a member made me realise nothing could be learned in this thread.

Although the dishonest and arrogant tactics of the member doesn't prove the historicity of 'Jesus' either way, it is clear to remain in the thread is pointless  .... and just allows the member to act out his Dunning–Kruger effect ....

Lol, yes, of course, that one member.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

was Paul an invention of Marcion?

well?

[Bucky Ball]

I suspect Ehrman has evolved into an empty shill.  Like a preacher who no longer believes, he appears to lament having forsaken his gravy train, and is simply trying to keep his books in the public view.

Ehrman is a scary dude. He seems very angry, like someone who could fly off the handle at the slightest provocation.

[Minimalist]

Ehrman is a man with a problem.  He has successfully demonstrated over the course of his career that the gospel accounts are heavily-edited piles of shit designed as propaganda.  In this, they differ not at all from the hadiths of islam.  However having been so successful Ehrman has to face the reality that so many people are abandoning religion that no one will be buying his books in the future.  It's a thin line to walk.  He has to inflame the religitards but he can't pour so much water on the fire that he puts it out.

[Free]

How hilarious. 
Your typical insecure adolescent bravado boasting. You are a student of Donald Trump, I see. 
You will "watch" nothing I do, you patronizing arrogant ass-hole. 
You can't stop being you ... it's why no one will ever take you seriously.
What a complete joke you are.

Obviously you take me seriously, otherwise you would have accepted my challenge.

Yes, I am arrogant.
Yes, I am an asshole. 
Yes, I patronize people whom I determine to lack the ability to rationalize and reason effectively, especially other atheists.

I will always be me, and more people take me seriously than you could imagine. The only ones who don't, especially in regards to this subject matter, are those of you who find it necessary to create a completely implausible Mythicist concept in some whacked out anti-Christian agenda to make some Jew from 2000 years ago disappear from history. The incredible stupidity of it wreaks of some fucked up psychosis so deeply etched in the psyche that it could set back the advancement of psychiatry by another 100 years. 

Get the fuck over it.

LOL. YOU, of all people, sermonizing on psychiatry. LMAO. 
Wrong again dipshit. You've already blown your wad with the pathetic argument you gave above, which was destroyed.

Do tell ... which "argument above" was destroyed? The one you refused to engage in, or the one that doesn't exist?

No one takes you seriously. The ugly little secret, as you may or may not be aware, is .... you don't even take yourself seriously.

I suppose if you keep repeating your own mantra, even you will start to believe it. If people, especially those here, didn't take me seriously they wouldn't be failing miserably in this debate with me, including you.

No one who REALLY knows what they're talking about,  and is recognized for that, has any need for the adolescent ridiculous boasting that you constantly engage in. Obviously you are VERY VERY insecure about your knowledge, or you wouldn't have to keep reminding everyone of it.

You have no idea what the "boasting" is all about? After all these years you still don't get it? You still don't understand the patronizing, the arrogance, the holier-than-thou attitude, as well as the pomposity?

Really?

I will give you a clue .... as you like it.

Let's see if you are smart enough to figure it out.

[Free]

If you insist, let us start with Raphael Lataster.

A former fundamentalist Christian, Raphael Lataster is a professionally secular PhD researcher (Studies in Religion) at the University of Sydney. His main research interests include philosophy of religion, sociology of religion, Christian origins, logic, epistemology, Bayesian reasoning, justifications and social impacts of atheism, Taoism, overpopulation and sustainability concerns, pantheism, and pandeism.

Raphael wrote his Master's thesis on Jesus mythicism (the view that even a 'historical', non-miraculous Jesus may not have existed), concluding that historical and Bayesian reasoning justifies a sceptical attitude towards the 'Historical Jesus'.

There was no Jesus, There is no god

Ironically, @Free never responded to this.

Is there something specific you expect me to say? Okay ...

Raphael did not write his Master's thesis on Jesus Mythicism. Raphael wrote his Master’s thesis on Jesus ahistoricity theories, concluding that historical and Bayesian reasoning justifies a sceptical attitude towards the ‘Historical Jesus’. 

http://www.raphaellataster.com/

And guess what? He's correct. Historical and Bayesian reasoning indeed justifies a sceptical attitude towards the ‘Historical Jesus’. But it does not justify any positive claims of non-existence, such as what Mythicists employ.

He's not a Mythicist. Sorry to disappoint you.

Anything else?

By the way, if you investigate the book 'There was no Jesus, There is no god' you would know that it is not a statement of his position, but a generalization of the claims of atheists.

Raphael Lataster is a friend on my Facebook.