Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus

[neilgodfrey]

But Nattier, if I recall correctly, used the criterion of embarrassment to try to reconstruct the situation which the author(s) of the Ugraparipṛcchā were dealing with - related to tensions between Mahayana and non-Mahayana Buddhist traditions.

Which sounds similar to the example of Horsfall's use of the criterion as shown us by Andrew Criddle: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10524 .... On which, see my reply: viewtopic.php?p=151120#p151120

[John T]

However, Craig uses the standard 6 point test that historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts.

Hoo boy oh boy. You just listed points that can be used to assess the relative values of hypotheses to explain "given historical facts". It is those "historical facts" that are the point of question here. How do we know what is a "historical fact"? I suppose we could say a historical fact is something given in the revelation of the Bible. You know, like the resurrection. How do you explain the resurrection, that given historical fact, huh?

(But do give the sources for your quotations and claims. Like the source of the quote, and which Craig you are quoting, and the source for your assertion that I am "a mythicist", whatever that's supposed to mean......)

Neil, feel free to find the answers for yourself by simply going to the Board index, select Nowhere in particular, and then click on the topic Polemic re Carrier Crag etc.

[John T]

(But do give the sources for your quotations and claims. Like the source of the quote, and which Craig you are quoting, and the source for your assertion that I am "a mythicist", whatever that's supposed to mean......)

Well then, let's see if I can you can get you to clarify your position.

A mythicist is someone that doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure but rather a myth. Specifically, a religious leader named Jesus as depicted in the New Testament never existed. By extension, since Jesus did not exist, then Pontius Pilate could not have him crucified for his religious beliefs. Christianity is all based on a religious myth.
You know, just like atheism.

Sincerely,

John T

[lclapshaw]

(But do give the sources for your quotations and claims. Like the source of the quote, and which Craig you are quoting, and the source for your assertion that I am "a mythicist", whatever that's supposed to mean......)

Well then, let's see if I can you can get you to clarify your position.

A mythicist is someone that doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure but rather a myth. Specifically, a religious leader named Jesus as depicted in the New Testament never existed. By extension, since Jesus did not exist, then Pontius Pilate could not have him crucified for his religious beliefs. Christianity is all based on a religious myth.
You know, just like atheism.

Sincerely,

John T

What if I hold neither viewpoint but rather recognize IC XC as a literary creation. Not historical, just fiction.

[neilgodfrey]

However, Craig uses the standard 6 point test that historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts.

Hoo boy oh boy. You just listed points that can be used to assess the relative values of hypotheses to explain "given historical facts". It is those "historical facts" that are the point of question here. How do we know what is a "historical fact"? I suppose we could say a historical fact is something given in the revelation of the Bible. You know, like the resurrection. How do you explain the resurrection, that given historical fact, huh?

(But do give the sources for your quotations and claims. Like the source of the quote, and which Craig you are quoting, and the source for your assertion that I am "a mythicist", whatever that's supposed to mean......)

Neil, feel free to find the answers for yourself by simply going to the Board index, select Nowhere in particular, and then click on the topic Polemic re Carrier Crag etc.

The source Craig quotes in that video actually listed 7 points yet Craig conveniently omits 2 of them. The source quoted confirms that the points have nothing to do with establishing "historical facts" at all -- as you yourself imply in your own description.

The criteria or authenticity are being used by HJ scholars to establish "facts" or "probable facts" about Jesus. That process has nothing to do with the points Craig listed. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain certain facts. It is the hypotheses that Craig's source is addressing and Craig, like you, but UNlike his source, confuses facts and hypotheses. Can't seem to tell the difference.

[neilgodfrey]

Well then, let's see if I can you can get you to clarify your position.

A mythicist is someone that doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure but rather a myth. Specifically, a religious leader named Jesus as depicted in the New Testament never existed. By extension, since Jesus did not exist, then Pontius Pilate could not have him crucified for his religious beliefs. Christianity is all based on a religious myth.
You know, just like atheism.

Sincerely,

John T

John T, feel free to find the answers for yourself by simply going to my blog and looking for the headings explaining my viewpoints.

[John T]

Well then, let's see if I can you can get you to clarify your position.

A mythicist is someone that doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure but rather a myth. Specifically, a religious leader named Jesus as depicted in the New Testament never existed. By extension, since Jesus did not exist, then Pontius Pilate could not have him crucified for his religious beliefs. Christianity is all based on a religious myth.
You know, just like atheism.

Sincerely,

John T

John T, feel free to find the answers for yourself by simply going to my blog and looking for the headings explaining my viewpoints.

I'm not sure why you can not give a clear and straightforward answer to the basic question if you are or have ever been a mythicist. Still, be as that may, I went to your blog and I can't find where you declared your understanding or approval/disapproval regarding the religious belief of mythicism. Perhaps you would be so kind to provide a specific link from your very own blog? Better yet, cut and paste that portion here for all of us with inquiring minds.


Thank you in advance.

John T

[neilgodfrey]

Well then, let's see if I can you can get you to clarify your position.

A mythicist is someone that doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure but rather a myth. Specifically, a religious leader named Jesus as depicted in the New Testament never existed. By extension, since Jesus did not exist, then Pontius Pilate could not have him crucified for his religious beliefs. Christianity is all based on a religious myth.
You know, just like atheism.

Sincerely,

John T

John T, feel free to find the answers for yourself by simply going to my blog and looking for the headings explaining my viewpoints.

I'm not sure why you can not give a clear and straightforward answer to the basic question if you are or have ever been a mythicist. Still, be as that may, I went to your blog and I can't find where you declared your understanding or approval/disapproval regarding the religious belief of mythicism. Perhaps you would be so kind to provide a specific link from your very own blog? Better yet, cut and paste that portion here for all of us with inquiring minds.


Thank you in advance.

John T

You have never given me a straight answer to any query of mine so I am treating you the way you treat me.

Look up the phrase "is not a mythicist blog" in the search field, -- and further, click on the What is Vridar page and when that's opened click on the two links you see there.

Now, go to the youtube video you linked to, at around 25 minutes, and listen for the speaker's reference to the historian and title of book from which he took the 5 points you listed. Then consult that actual source for yourself and see which points he omitted and explain why the list has nothing to do with how historians determine what are historical facts.

[neilgodfrey]

I nearly forgot -- another source that is upcoming within a few days will be a little podcast by Tim and myself addressing that question of mythicism. Watch that space.

[John T]

I nearly forgot -- another source that is upcoming within a few days will be a little podcast by Tim and myself addressing that question of mythicism. Watch that space.

As usual, your non-answer, answer, is clearly recognized for what it is, a dodge. Likewise, your shameless plug and self-aggrandizement is off putting.

But then again, what else is new with Neil? Certainly not an honest discussion based on the merits.

John T is done with this thread.