How many denominations of mythicism is there?

[ABuddhist]

As a reminder to everyone, not the least to myself, why engaging with John T isn't worth it, here a summary of a legendary exchange by Ben C. Smith: viewtopic.php?p=91803#p91803

"I am leaving this post here and bookmarking it in my browser as a reminder of your methods (if they can even be called such) the next time I am tempted to engage you on this forum. The last time you behaved this way you claimed that you were just imitating mythicists; but now it seems clear that this is par for the course for you; it is your standard behavior toward people who do not immediately agree with you."

Thank you for the reminder. Here is one back at ya.

I don't think we need to invoke Origen in order to understand that changing the text of gospels was done deliberately many times. In the beginning, those texts had nothing holy to them. They were just stories. Everyone who thought he understood the matter better than the author before him took the text and "improved" on it. Our three synoptic gospels are surviving examples of this process, and I doubt any of the three is the original source. You can still see the idea behind this at the beginning of our gLuke: the author informs us that he wants to set things straight. That's the reason why he sat down and edited the text, and his version had the luck to become canonical after the church had become more organized and felt the urge to standardize the texts.

For Ulan to arrogantly claim the New Testament were just made up stories, well that is not Biblical Criticism, mythicism perhaps but not Biblical Criticism and certainly not history.

Obviously, I touched a raw nerve with the mythicists on this thread. Strange how mythicists have no problem on this forum criticizing Christian denominations, past or present, true or false. But criticize the mythicist true motives and lack of intellectual honesty, well that is forbidden on this forum just like Biblical Criticism and History.

1. Ulan was not, in the text that you quoted, saying that the gospels were made up stories but non-holy stories. Non-holy stories can be true.

2. You assume that any Christian denomination is true - but surely such a bias has no role in serious biblical scholarship.

3. There is nothing wrong with criticizing mythicists' motives and lack of intellectual honesty. But there is something wrong with ignoring proof that mythicists are not all motivated by certain things and sometimes have intellectual honesty. You are doing both in this forum, when you ignore the fact that some mythicists are not atheists and when you ignore the fact that not only mythicists argue (in scholarly publications!) that Josephus never mentioned Jesus Christ.

[John T]

1. Ulan was not, in the text that you quoted, saying that the gospels were made up stories but non-holy stories. Non-holy stories can be true.

2. You assume that any Christian denomination is true - but surely such a bias has no role in serious biblical scholarship.

3. There is nothing wrong with criticizing mythicists' motives and lack of intellectual honesty. But there is something wrong with ignoring proof that mythicists are not all motivated by certain things and sometimes have intellectual honesty. You are doing both in this forum, when you ignore the fact that some mythicists are not atheists and when you ignore the fact that not only mythicists argue (in scholarly publications!) that Josephus never mentioned Jesus Christ.

#1. So, you speak for Ulan now?
#2. Where did I say all Christian denominations are true?
#3. Where did I say all mythicists are atheists?

Since you speak for Ulan, how about going over his past posts and get back to me and tell me which denomination of mythicism he belongs too. I will add it to the list if it hasn't already been included.

Thanks in advance.

[ABuddhist]

1. Ulan was not, in the text that you quoted, saying that the gospels were made up stories but non-holy stories. Non-holy stories can be true.

2. You assume that any Christian denomination is true - but surely such a bias has no role in serious biblical scholarship.

3. There is nothing wrong with criticizing mythicists' motives and lack of intellectual honesty. But there is something wrong with ignoring proof that mythicists are not all motivated by certain things and sometimes have intellectual honesty. You are doing both in this forum, when you ignore the fact that some mythicists are not atheists and when you ignore the fact that not only mythicists argue (in scholarly publications!) that Josephus never mentioned Jesus Christ.

#1. So, you speak for Ulan now?
#2. Where did I say all Christian denominations are true?
#3. Where did I say all mythicists are atheists?

Since you speak for Ulan, how about going over his past posts and get back to me and tell me which denomination of mythicism he belongs too. I will add it to the list if it hasn't already been included.

Thanks in advance.

1. I never claimed to speak for Ulan and do not speak for Ulan, but I only offered my comments upon what Ulan said. If you think that any person doing such things is speaking for a person or claiming to speak for a person, then you do not understand what it means to comment about a person's words. Because I am not speaking for Ulan nor claiming to speak for Ulan, I will not slot Ulan into any type of mythicism - especially because you seem to define mythicism as involving not just claims that various persons were mythical figures but also as broader philosophical ideas.

2. I never claimed that you were saying that all Christian denominations are true - and indeed, I think that such a position is impossible to hold. Rather, I was saying that you "assume that any Christian denomination is true". My wording, I confess, was a bit unfortunate, but what I meant to say was "you assume that some Christian denomination is true rather than no Christian denomination is true" because I was using "any" not in its sense of "all" but rather in its sense of "the opposite of none" - so that we might agree that "it is absurd to assume that any of Scientology is true" and in such a sentence use "any" in its sense of "the opposite of none". Still, I apologize for the poor choice of wording on my part.

3.

The Mythicist Agenda.

"What is driving the mythicists agenda? ...It is no accident that virtually all mythicists (in fact, all of them, to my knowledge) are either atheists or agnostics....Their agenda is religious, and they are complicit in a religious ideology. They are not doing history; they are doing theology."...pg 336-338 Did Jesus Exist? by Dr. Ehrman.

A cult based on religion is still a religious cult no matter how you try to sell it.

If you allow the mythicists, (i.e. atheists) to dismiss all none Biblical references to Jesus as fraud or interpolations without probable cause, the mythicists will always win.

Ironically, your view can be summarized as "if you ignore all evidence that mythicists and athiests are not always the same, then my claim that mythicists are always atheists is true!"

Nope.

Not all Americans are Californian citizens. But all legal citizens of California are Americans.
Got it?

Carrier is on video (San Diego Atheists) admitting mythicistism is a Trojan horse for atheism. I almost got banned for daring to provide that video on this forum. Perhaps you can did it up from the archives?

Of course you don't believe me. So, how about starting a new thread and ask how many mythicists are atheists and how many are Christians?
And just where does Olson stand?

Yep, thought so.

In these words from you from other threads you both quote an authority whom you trust as saying that all mythicists are atheists and you conflate mythicists and atheists. How else should I interpret your words "mythicists, (i.e. atheists)"?

[Ulan]

1. Ulan was not, in the text that you quoted, saying that the gospels were made up stories but non-holy stories. Non-holy stories can be true.

Indeed. I have yet to see the day that John T will ever honestly represent what others have been saying.
And don't wonder what John T means with "mythicist". A "mythicist" is anyone who disagrees with John T over something. Of course that definition has certain limitations in its usefulness.

Really, read the thread of which I linked Ben's single post up there (up to that post). It's enlightening.

[John T]

2. I never claimed that you were saying that all Christian denominations are true - and indeed, I think that such a position is impossible to hold. Rather, I was saying that you "assume that any Christian denomination is true". My wording, I confess, was a bit unfortunate,

If you allow the mythicists, (i.e. atheists) to dismiss all none Biblical references to Jesus as fraud or interpolations without probable cause, the mythicists will always win.

Ironically, your view can be summarized as "if you ignore all evidence that mythicists and athiests are not always the same, then my claim that mythicists are always atheists is true!"

In these words from you from other threads you both quote an authority whom you trust as saying that all mythicists are atheists and you conflate mythicists and atheists. How else should I interpret your words "mythicists, (i.e. atheists)"?

Back peddling only to blame shift your demonstrable false statements is not an apology at all ABuddhist. It is a cop out.

When you deliberately make things up (lies from assumtions) to discredit posters you are only proving my case that you can't have a civil discussion with anyone that does not support your misinformed opinions. The best I can hope for is that honest people on this forum will see right through your insults as desperate act for attention.

That will be all ABuddhist.

Sad, so sad.

[ABuddhist]

2. I never claimed that you were saying that all Christian denominations are true - and indeed, I think that such a position is impossible to hold. Rather, I was saying that you "assume that any Christian denomination is true". My wording, I confess, was a bit unfortunate,

If you allow the mythicists, (i.e. atheists) to dismiss all none Biblical references to Jesus as fraud or interpolations without probable cause, the mythicists will always win.

Ironically, your view can be summarized as "if you ignore all evidence that mythicists and athiests are not always the same, then my claim that mythicists are always atheists is true!"

In these words from you from other threads you both quote an authority whom you trust as saying that all mythicists are atheists and you conflate mythicists and atheists. How else should I interpret your words "mythicists, (i.e. atheists)"?

Back peddling only to blame shift your demonstrable false statements is not an apology at all ABuddhist. It is a cop out.

When you deliberately make things up (lies from assumtions) to discredit posters you are only proving my case that you can't have a civil discussion with anyone that does not support your misinformed opinions. The best I can hope for is that honest people on this forum will see right through your insults as desperate act for attention.

That will be all ABuddhist.

Sad, so sad.

1. Where did I make demonstrably false statements, in your opinion? And why do you define my honest clarification of my words (complete with apology) as back-pedalling, blameshifting, and a cop-out but not as an apology? Do you have different definitions of such terms? If so, then you should define them just as I defined the different senses of the word "any".

2. Why do you assume that I was deliberately making things up rather than, for example, telling the truth or making an honest mistake?

3. Why do you assume that insults are a desperate act for attention? Is that why you insult people within this forum, and you assume that all are like you? And why do you assume that I am insulting you? Do you regard all who attempt to correct you as insulting you?

4. I hope that all people reading the interactions between us will see that I am the superior party. I, after all, do not descend to insulting you and I acknowledge (and apologize!) for imprecise language which could have caused confusion.

[John T]

As a reminder to everyone, not the least to myself, why engaging with John T isn't worth it, here a summary of a legendary exchange by Ben C. Smith: viewtopic.php?p=91803#p91803

"I am leaving this post here and bookmarking it in my browser as a reminder of your methods (if they can even be called such) the next time I am tempted to engage you on this forum. The last time you behaved this way you claimed that you were just imitating mythicists; but now it seems clear that this is par for the course for you; it is your standard behavior toward people who do not immediately agree with you."

Thanks for the link Ulan. That was a blast from the past. So, what did we learn? That absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Looking back at it now, I wonder who put more time fact checking Ben's translation and interpolation, you or me? Don't bother answering, we already know. Obviously, Ben was not accustomed to showing his work. But Ben demanded I show mine. Ben felt justified inserting what he wanted but I could not do likewise?

Again, thanks Ulan for pointing out hypocrisy on this forum.

But it is more than that. Clearly you are still smarting over losing that argument all those years ago and you just can't let it go.
Now you want to hijack this thread to have a second bite of the apple?

Sad, so sad.

[Ulan]

Thanks for the link Ulan. That was a blast from the past. So, what did we learn? That absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Looking back at it now, I wonder who put more time fact checking Ben's translation and interpolation, you or me? Don't bother answering, we already know. Obviously, Ben was not accustomed to showing his work. But Ben demanded I show mine. Ben felt justified inserting what he wanted but I could not do likewise?

I hope for your sanity that you are simply trolling. if you really believe what you just wrote, that's some kind of cognitive dissonance on your part I have never seen in a person before.

But it is more than that. Clearly you are still smarting over losing that argument all those years ago and you just can't let it go.
Now you want to hijack this thread to have a second bite of the apple?

Dream on. You have made such a fool of yourself in that linked thread that it's worth linking to it again. Of course, you are lying about it and about Ben's posts again, too. At this point, I'm just trying to save any other poster from trying to talk to you and hope, against all odds, to get any kind of sensible argument from you. This will serve its purpose.

See it as a public service announcement.

[John T]

Thanks for the link Ulan. That was a blast from the past. So, what did we learn? That absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Looking back at it now, I wonder who put more time fact checking Ben's translation and interpolation, you or me? Don't bother answering, we already know. Obviously, Ben was not accustomed to showing his work. But Ben demanded I show mine. Ben felt justified inserting what he wanted but I could not do likewise?

I hope for your sanity that you are simply trolling. if you really believe what you just wrote, that's some kind of cognitive dissonance on your part I have never seen in a person before.

But it is more than that. Clearly you are still smarting over losing that argument all those years ago and you just can't let it go.
Now you want to hijack this thread to have a second bite of the apple?

Dream on. You have made such a fool of yourself in that linked thread that it's worth linking to it again. Of course, you are lying about it and about Ben's posts again, too. At this point, I'm just trying to save any other poster from trying to talk to you and hope, against all odds, to get any kind of sensible argument from you. This will serve its purpose.

See it as a public service announcement.

Is that all?

Is it really too hard for you to actually contribute to the topic at hand and tell us which mythicist denomination you identify with?

Or is trolling all you do, just like ABuddhist?

Never, mind we already know.

[ABuddhist]

Or is trolling all you do, just like ABuddhist?

Why do you accuse me of trolling? I have made legitimate inquiries here, such as viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9678 and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9599