Translation?

Rejecting part of something is being viewed as a complete rejection of all of it and, in turn, acceptance of all of the "opposite" not even just part of it.

Sarge...

This is what I am attempting (failing so far), to understand about bobby's thinking.

It appears he rejects most of a Specific Peoples History. Because of their belief in a Deity, Miraculous Events, Superhumans, outright lying, written decades or centuries after the event and personalities depicted.

All Ancient Peoples History do the same.

Why the rejection of one, and not the others?

May I ask a favor? As your time allows, please take a random sample of Bobby's past postings. I suggest 10 from each year Bobby has posted, so about 100 posts? I don't think you're going to get a good enough idea about what he accepts, rejects and takes a more nuanced approached to from just a few posts in one thread. I tried to provide another angle by a link to his posts in Matt Giwer's anti-Semitic thread from about 2 years ago. Bobby provided the best arguments (present) against Matt Giwer's anti-Semitism. You replied when I linked that but I didn't really follow. Seeing a larger picture, I don't think Bobby is the type of person you think he is. I think I can tell fairly well now what you have your guard up against and you are right to have you guard up. But, I have found it best, in my own experience, to have my guard up, while most people cannot even tell it is up and there is a time to act and there is a time to remain vigilant.

Sarge...

You are very correct about having my "guard up". In what I perceive (perhaps incorrectly) to be intolerance.

As I have stated: I am tolerant in most things, excepting intolerance.

Perhaps, in this instance. I should take a more nuanced approach, regarding a very interesting Poster.

Cool, then perhaps you'll do me the honor of answering my questions.
1. Do you believe the rabbi quoted in an earlier post, inhabit one of the small universes you mention?
2. Do you believe those who pose questions about the historicity of events and characters portrayed in various texts inhabit these small universes?

As for acceptance, I do not accept the historicity of Gilgamesh (as portrayed in the Akkadian poem), Beowolf (as portrayed in the Anglo Saxon poem), Achilles (as portrayed in a Greek poem), and many more.

I do not understand what you mean when you say that mythical characters are accepted from one tradition and rejected from another It seems to me that this thread is about assessing whether one more character described in a text should be considered mythical in nature alongside the others from different traditions that are already considered mythical.

In other words, why should person A accept the historicity of Jesus when person A does not accept the historicity of Heracles, Achilles, Beowolf, &c.?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Cool, then perhaps you'll do me the honor of answering my questions.
1. Do you believe the rabbi quoted in an earlier post, inhabit one of the small universes you mention?
2. Do you believe those who pose questions about the historicity of events and characters portrayed in various texts inhabit these small universes?

As for acceptance, I do not accept the historicity of Gilgamesh (as portrayed in the Akkadian poem), Beowolf (as portrayed in the Anglo Saxon poem), Achilles (as portrayed in a Greek poem), and many more.

I do not understand what you mean when you say that mythical characters are accepted from one tradition and rejected from another It seems to me that this thread is about assessing whether one more character described in a text should be considered mythical in nature alongside the others from different traditions that are already considered mythical.

In other words, why should person A accept the historicity of Jesus when person A does not accept the historicity of Heracles, Achilles, Beowolf, &c.?

1. Yes
2. Yes

Thanks, I now know that you consider me an inhabitant of a small universe. If inquiries regarding historicity mark a person as an inhabitant of a small universe, is unquestioning acceptance of historicity a positive attribute?

Both sides the same.

Re: Accepting Jesus (not speaking of myself), and not accepting Heracles, Achilles, Beowolf, et al.

I don't believe Beowof is relevant.

I'm trying to understand what you meant by accepted figures from secular history. If Beowolf is not relevant, please provide some of you own examples that you believe are relevant.

Possibly Heracles should also be included.

Now Achilles... No real miracles, accepting he was an efficient killer, who was lucky to survive, as long as he did. Existed? Good question.

According to the tradition the mother of Achilles was a nymph, and Homer says Achilles had use of his father's immortal horses. Don't these details indicate he may be a mythical character?

Now Jesus... That He (Capitalisation for those who wish), a very minor Religious Figure. Who wrote nothing during His lifetime. Was not important to The Empire. Just another person, of many, who were killed by... That he was not mentioned by others outside if his very small followers: Is to be expected.

Could His Religiously Fanatical Followers, lie about what their Prophet, Deity, God had done? Of course.

I am not asserting that Jesus did exist. But lying about possibly some (most) events for religious reasons, and no contemporary notation. In, and of itself, can be explained.

I am just trying to understand the life threatening motivation of His followers.

Why didn't they just 'Go Home'. It would have been safer.

Understanding that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so proof positive that a very minor religious figure called Jesus did not exist would be extremely difficult to provide. It may even be plausible that such a figure was the basis of the character described in the new testament, though, as Dave Nelson noted early on in this thread, the earliest writings of the character do not appear to portray him as an earthly character. Isn't it just as plausible that this unearthly character was given human attributes at a later date (possibly for religious reasons, though it may be a simple misunderstanding of the message, we've seen how simple that is)?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

According to the tradition the mother of Achilles was a nymph, and Homer says Achilles had use of his father's immortal horses. Don't these details indicate he may be a mythical character?

May, as others: Yes

Explaining military victories and survival. By attribution to The Gods or a God. Re: David, Daniel, Solomon, and possibly Achilles, is very normal for those eras.

it just as plausible that this unearthly character was given human attributes at a later date (possibly for religious reasons, though it may be a simple misunderstanding of the message, we've seen how simple that is)?

Or... Jesus, a very minor religious figure at the time. Was given unearthly character at a later date, by his Religiously Fanatical Followers.

An interesting idea, are you suggesting that an earthly character (for which there appears to be little, if any, evidence), was made unearthly (as detailed in the earliest writings), and then later had earthly characteristics re-attached? When do we apply Occam's razor?

BTW, the question "is unquestioning acceptance of historicity a positive attribute?" was not rhetorical. I am trying to understand whether you view living in a small universe as a negative. I am quite happy to pose questions about historicity, and if that means you consider me an inhabitant of a small universe, there's no issue (why would there be?).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...