I see. So you have powers that few of the rest of us mortals have. You have superior and infallible emotional intelligence and know --- by mere interpretation of online comments --- the inner heart and character of writers. You can set up an "Academic forum" in which you insist that there will be no ad hominem and then when you first respond to me you wax eloquent and your perception of my character and motives and even say -- despite confessing your own ignorance of the subject -- that I had probably mis-stated the mainstream view of a particular argument.I said nothing wrong.And yet one will search long and hard before one can find any character denigration or hostile-online-psychoanalysis or merely mundane ad hominemThere's a hundred ideas way more speculative floated all the time, but the historicity of Jesus is treated like so much kryptonite. That isn't simply because of the state of the evidence.
At the same time, nobody's willing to put to words why they find it more interesting (at least) to explore the non-historicity of Jesus.
Instead you get vanity project after vanity project after vanity project putting together "why" Jesus did not exist - because of what RG Price says, because of what Giuseppe says, because what someone else says - united only by the common thread that they're all trying to argue that Jesus didn't exist.
How likely is it that they each decided to pursue this opinion simply on the basis of the evidence? Practically speaking, it's impossible. There's no way.
There is an irrational impulse towards mythicism. It's the beating heart of why a lot of people talk about this stuff at all. And nobody wants to talk about it.
All your hostile views of the characters of writers here are "never wrong" and nor, presumably, are they "ad hominem" if expressed in a forum that forbids ad hominem.
Statistics: Posted by neilgodfrey — Wed Jun 12, 2024 11:28 pm