http://vridar.org/whos-who-among-mythicists-and-mythicist-agnostics/

For future reference, here is a handy little chart that identifies some of the leading mythicists. This might come in handy when credentials are under attack.

A great resource! Thanks for the link.

I had no idea that there were so many scholars who had written questioning Jesus' existence!

An added plus is that the list contains links to the many authors' articles, books, and blogs.

mythicists ?
Why don't you call them realists.

Wow, these credentials are pretty embarrassing. For example:


Timothy Freke
Timothy Freke has an honors degree in philosophy and is the author of more than 20 books. He is a keynote speaker at major conferences and is regularly featured in the media internationally, as well as on Websites such as Ken Wilber’s “Integral Naked.” He has appeared in the History Channel documentary Beyond the Da Vinci Code, as well as several other programs about that work . . . and he is now completely fed up with talking about that damn book! He runs seminars in the U.S., Europe, and South Africa exploring the experience of gnosis.

Wow, that screams scholarly rigor!

Then there is Achyra S who lied about her credentials and her alma mater. Need I say more? And Hoffman who mocks mythicists and who has now been turned into a mythicist on the basis of some faint praise of Well. Yup,great resource!

That is pathetic, even by your low standards.

Then again, you do not present evidence of your claim, and I can't see anything that validates your claim

An example of what I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2014 12:40PM by MJ.

Obviously you missed or are ignoring the section on her reception and please note that the opening of the articles uses the word"claims" in regard to her credentials. There is no proof and the school she claims as her alma mater has never heard of her. Oh , yes, even Carrier says she is a hack.

Yes, they disprove of what she has said, happens all the time to legitimate scholars.

The fact that they used the word "claim" is innuendo and in no way proof that she lied about her credentials.

I would think that if the detractors had solid evidence that she did lie, they would explicitly say so and show the evidence. The accusation would then explicitly be stated. But that is not what is happening.


If we were to dismiss claims as lies, virtually everything you post would be dismissed as a lie.

According to your pathetic logic, saying "bona claims Jesus was a real person" would mean you are lying about Jesus being a real person. Are you admitting that every time you claim something you are not telling the truth because that is the implication of your claims about the use of the world claim.

DO you even think before you post?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2014 01:53PM by MJ.

WestBerkeleyFlats Wrote:
> Wow, that screams scholarly rigor!

Sure, don't bother with the evidence a person presents, attack their credentials. That's not fallacious or anything.

WestBerkeleyFlats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, these credentials are pretty embarrassing.
> For example:
>
>
> Timothy Freke
> Timothy Freke has an honors degree in philosophy
> and is the author of more than 20 books. He is a
> keynote speaker at major conferences and is
> regularly featured in the media internationally,
> as well as on Websites such as Ken Wilber’s
> “Integral Naked.” He has appeared in the
> History Channel documentary Beyond the Da Vinci
> Code, as well as several other programs about that
> work . . . and he is now completely fed up with
> talking about that damn book! He runs seminars in
> the U.S., Europe, and South Africa exploring the
> experience of gnosis.
>
> Wow, that screams scholarly rigor!



What's wrong with a philosophy degree?

The ability to understand the nature of philosophy, and present it in a poetic and alluring manner, is the leading component behind the writers of a historical Jesus both past and present.

We have been told that scholars agree that there was a historic Jesus, thus the thinking has been done.

Oh wait, it changed to only three scholars disagreed but they can be dismissed, thus the thinking has been done.

I am sure someone will pipe up and, without evidence, proclaim that everyone in the list is a quack, thus the thinking has been done.

The dismissal has began while I was writing my post.

Not seeing relevant academic credentials and Joseph Hoffman is in no way a mythicist. In fact he regularly mocks mythicists. The quotesn were taken out of context. I suscribe to his blog. Freke and Gandy and Achyra S are not scholars and many of the others are in completely unrelated fields

MJ,I made it clear that I was referring to scholars with credentials in relevant fields,not German,New Age philosophy,or geology for starts. Got it? Stop misrepresenting what I said.

Does it make them wrong, Yes or no?

Are you proclaiming that only people with degrees can be right, Yes or no?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2014 11:58AM by MJ.

so now it it the "who is actually a scholar" debate.

I guess all people who think jesus was real are not scholars.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2014 11:59AM by Dave the Atheist.

Don't forget, that, evidently, people have never made significant contributions to fields of study where they have no credentials.

Non scholars can be right,but it is more likely that peoplein the field are right. In this case,I believe the mythicist are wrong.

just because you believe it does not make it true.

It is unethical to dismiss them on a probability that they are wrong, PERIOD. As you proclaim, they may be right. So why are you dismissing people that you proclaim may be right?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2014 12:02PM by MJ.

I'm sure that the LDS church has 0.0000000000001% probability of being "right." I have no problem in dismissing them.

Lol

Yes, that was absurd to the point of being funny.

Making the CLAIM does not make it so.

Making a claim about what TSCC probabilities are has nothing to do with the probability of the people on the list being right.

If you want to claim probabilities, pleas show the evidence that determines the probabilities of the people on the list being wrong. Otherwise my claim that "you have a 0.00000000000001 probablility of being right" is every bit as valid as your claim.

Then again, the odds may be 49.9999% that the people on the list is wrong and you would be be dismissing people where the probabilities are virtually identical.

Oh, and I do not base my claim that TSCC is not true based on probability, I base it on evidence. It is the evidence that makes TSCC unlikely to be true. My probabilities are based on evidence. I do not consider claims of probability as evidence unless I can see the evidence the probability is based on, then it would be the evidence that I base my conclusion on.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2014 12:26PM by MJ.

what about the archaeologists?

No archaeology proves toward a historical Jesus.

Do you think all the archaeologists are mythicists or anti-Jesus conspiracists too?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2014 04:25PM by MyTempleNameIsJoan.

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Non scholars can be right,but it is more likely
> that peoplein the field are right. In this case,I
> believe the mythicist are wrong.

No, actually, it's not.
Whether they're "right" or not is entirely determined by their arguments and evidence -- not by their credentials.

Your statement is the typical and obvious "appeal to authority." It's a fallacy. For good reasons.

So the scholars at BYU who claim the book of mormon is true as well as Joseph Smith are likely to be correct by your reasoning.

You believe in the myth of Jesus...that is fine, it just demonstrates you accept poor evidence from the best guesses of scholars who believe in Jesus.

Dismissing all mythicists because of the overstated or unjustified claims of some mythicists (like Acharya S) reminds me of how Mormons feel justified in dismissing all critics of Mormonism because of critics like Ed Decker.

There is a maxim in the law that seems appropriate to this issue:

"It is a question on which reasonable men may differ."

Implication: there is no practical use in arguing about it.

It reminds me of how the "Jesus is real" people dismiss those they disagree with. You know making vague accusations of overstating their position and such. Of course there is evidence in this thread where a Jesus lives person overstating their position, claiming that use of the word "Claims" means someone lied about their credentials.

Dismissing the biblical scholars that use such nonsense as "criterion of embarrassment" is far better than trying to dismiss "Myshicists" with vague accusations. Sorry, mind reading of people that lived 2000 years ago is not good historical study.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2014 04:17PM by MJ.

I dunno...I've had more than enough troubles with Smithicists and dismissithists.

Where's the list of orthodox Rabbi's?

That list alone is probably unlimited .