Quick Review of "No Meek Messiah" by Micael Paulkovich

[MrMacSon]

... the idea of the non-historicity of Jesus is on the same level as Lamarckian evolution when it was first proposed... a good-natured if somewhat misguided attempt to explain a real phenomenon (evolution, the origin of the Jesus story).

I think that's a bit of a strawman, Peter: I'd say the idea of the non-historicity of Jesus is a proposition about the character central to the NT narratives; and part of an attempt to investigate the origin of the Jesus story.

[Peter Kirby]

... the idea of the non-historicity of Jesus is on the same level as Lamarckian evolution when it was first proposed... a good-natured if somewhat misguided attempt to explain a real phenomenon (evolution, the origin of the Jesus story).

I think that's a bit of a strawman, Peter: I'd say the idea of the non-historicity of Jesus is a proposition about the character central to the NT narratives; and part of an attempt to investigate the origin of the Jesus story.

I'm confused. What is the strawman? How do you believe that statement contradicts the one quoted?

Even at its worst evaluation (not exactly my evaluation), the idea of the non-historicity of Jesus is on the same level as Lamarckian evolution when it was first proposed... a good-natured if somewhat misguided attempt to explain a real phenomenon (evolution, the origin of the Jesus story).

When you abbreviated the first part of the quote, you changed the meaning of my sentence...

[outhouse]

And this is why you should be on your guard against anyone who compares it to contemporary Creationism. Expect a load of baseless assumptions, innuendo, and outright bullying (but very little real argument) from that type.

What I see from many mythicist is denial of evidence which is similar, is it not? And not supplying a replacement theory, is that not similar?

While evolution Is based on facts, and the historicity of Jesus is based on weaker evidence, and it may be poor. But it is still evidence.

King Arthur has weak evidence for his existence, and there is not much to be said regarding any replacement theory other than the idea that some people made some stuff up in some story that other people liked enough to believe it were actually true. .

Yet he is highly disputed and deemed a legendary literary creation for the most part. Most of what was written about him was done so what over 400 years after his death?

The Jesus character has people writing about him within 2 decades of is death, and people 4 decades after his death were compiling multiple traditions. And yet no one refutes his existence, not even the movements enemies.

Still that does not make King-Arthur-mythicisists anything like Creationists

Agreed

[Peter Kirby]

Yet he is highly disputed and deemed a legendary literary creation for the most part. Most of what was written about him was done so what over 400 years after his death?

The Jesus character has people writing about him within 2 decades of is death, and people 4 decades after his death were compiling multiple traditions. And yet no one refutes his existence, not even the movements enemies.

Well then. King-Arthur-non-believers have standards. Jesus-non-believers have higher standards.

[MrMacSon]

When you abbreviated the first part of the quote, you changed the meaning of my sentence...

OK. Sorry, I got it wrong: I focused on

... attempt to explain a real phenomenon ('evolution', the origin of the Jesus story).

though I still contend its "a proposition about the character central to the NT narratives" ...

• ... as a component of a wider investigation of "the origin of the Jesus story."

[Peter Kirby]

When you abbreviated the first part of the quote, you changed the meaning of my sentence...

OK. Sorry, I got it wrong: I focused on

... a good-natured if somewhat misguided attempt to explain a real phenomenon (evolution, the origin of the Jesus story).

though I still contend its "a proposition about the character central to the NT narratives" as a component of a wider investigation of "the origin of the Jesus story.".

I think you are right, so I think I can conlude that we agree to agree about your proviso.

[MrMacSon]

Cheers; I was/am being pedantic.

[RecoveringScot]

While evolution Is based on facts, and the historicity of Jesus is based on weaker evidence, and it may be poor. But it is still evidence.

You're ignoring the intervention of the human creative mind, a phenomenon of almost unlimited duplicity, mephistophelean motive and lust for domination (both physical and mental). There are no such hurdles to be overcome in nature, which, if not exactly guileless (camouflage, for example) seems not to have distinct 'persuasive' aims in its reproductive arsenal - that is a butterfly wants you not to notice it (to avoid being eaten), but would be unconcerned about what your beliefs (as opposed to your actions) were, were you to notice it. The person who wishes to remake humans to his or her taste has to try to control, or at least influence, what they think, however 'innocently'. Sometimes it appears that people approach texts as if they were unambiguous natural features, like trees, instead of their being tortuous labyrinths arising from the human brain.

[MrMacSon]

The Jesus character has people writing about him within 2 decades of is death ..

"The alleged Jesus character allegedly has people writing about him within 2 decades of [his] alleged death"

and people 4 decades after his death were compiling multiple traditions.

Yes, compiling "traditions" (cough, cough)

[outhouse]

While evolution Is based on facts, and the historicity of Jesus is based on weaker evidence, and it may be poor. But it is still evidence.

You're ignoring the intervention of the human creative mind,.

No. Just the opposite.

By understanding the social and cultural anthropology by our best accounts, we know how ancient writers were trained, and we know the subject matter they started with and we see the evolution of said concepts and how they evolved in time.

In this case nothing touches or replaces a martyred man at Passover killed by Pilate and Caiahpas.

My hats off to Doherty, Carrier and Price for being one of the very few that did try to posit a replacement hypothesis for the evidence we do have.