Posted: May 07, 2012 7:17 pm
Cito di Pense wrote:IgnorantiaNescia wrote:So the option for you is: do you want me to treat your Mythicism seriously or not?
What you take seriously is of very little concern to me.
Now, you want me to take seriously the notion that historicism is the theory that anything not accepting historicism is mythicism. I don't promote mythicism or historicism. I promote the idea that you don't fucking know the answer to that question.
If you think that "I don't know" is not the right answer, then all I have to say is that binaries are for those who can only count to two.IgnorantiaNescia wrote:I simply want to know is what you think "brother of the Lord" means.
I don't think you know the answer in terms of history or myth, and, as long as you are stuck in binaries: Not everything that isn't history is myth, and vice versa. With you people, it's like the difference in witch-burnings between 'guilt' and 'innocence'. You're wishing for witch-burnings, but haven't got the poetry for it. You present me nothing to fear, until you win at the ballot box. Then you'll make me say all the right things.
Who said my position is binary? I've never said "I know for certain" and knowing doesn't have to be binary. So there's no need to adopt ternary logic either (which is not only for those who can count to three).
In any case, if your position is "I don't know", there are still important issues. It is more than obvious that you don't think "brother of the Lord" means Jesus actual brother, but do you think Paul is untrustworthy (here) or do you accept Carrier's explanation?
Keep in mind this point has arisen from your hyperscepticism from lexigraphical research. What I want to know is how you figure out what these words mean. Or is this Jesus scepticism not an intellectually serious position for you?