FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-22-2001, 01:56 PM   #41
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
There is a clear, early attestation regarding a human Jesus which
predates Mark and John. The only reasonable common point is the Jerusalem Church.
</font>
Ok, you have our attention. Don't just leave
us hanging, let's hear it.

 
Old 05-22-2001, 01:58 PM   #42
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kosh:
Ok, you have our attention. Don't just leave
us hanging, let's hear it.
</font>
Context, context, context.
 
Old 05-22-2001, 02:29 PM   #43
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Context, context, context.</font>
The early attestation regarding a human
Jesus which predates Mark?
 
Old 05-22-2001, 02:30 PM   #44
Lance
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Overland Park, KS USA
Posts: 335
Wink

Layman: Do you really think most of us care what the "majority of NT scholars" think?

Consider that most of these are extremely believing Christians and just like creationism, the conclusion is foregone. Its just a matter of defining how we got to it.

So we discard those "NT scholars".

Remember most of your church at one point in time believed in a geocentric model of the solar system too. Knowledge changes with time as long as you're truly digging for knowledge.

But when you start with a preordained conclusion and work backwards...well...shoddy at best.
Lance is offline  
Old 05-22-2001, 02:51 PM   #45
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kosh:
The early attestation regarding a human
Jesus which predates Mark?
</font>
I said "context, context, context" because you obviously misunderstood the statement. It was an "if, then" statement. Mike was presupposing a common tradition for Mark and John. If true, then that tradition, by definition, predates Mark.

Do you read posts you disagree with or just skim them?

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 22, 2001).]
 
Old 05-22-2001, 03:03 PM   #46
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lance:
Layman: Do you really think most of us care what the "majority of NT scholars" think?

Consider that most of these are extremely believing Christians and just like creationism, the conclusion is foregone. Its just a matter of defining how we got to it.

So we discard those "NT scholars".

Remember most of your church at one point in time believed in a geocentric model of the solar system too. Knowledge changes with time as long as you're truly digging for knowledge.

But when you start with a preordained conclusion and work backwards...well...shoddy at best.
</font>
Ahh, the appeal to bias/conspiracy. It's lik a reliable old friend on these boards.

First, prove that most of these scholars are biased Christians. I doubt you even know who they are. Not that some internet searches couldn't help ya out there.

Second, atheist scholars like Michael Grant and Sherman-White arrive a pretty much the same conclusions. Heck, even Richard Carrier (biased Christian?) places a 98% probability on Jesus' death by crucifixion.

Third, you admit to dismissing them without having examined their evidence or arguments. Thank you for the admission.

Fourth, my church has only existed for 20 years. I doubt it has expressed any views on the geocentric model of the solar system.

 
Old 05-22-2001, 03:24 PM   #47
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
I said "context, context, context" because you obviously misunderstood the statement. It was an "if, then" statement. Mike was presupposing a common tradition for Mark and John. If true, then that tradition, by definition, predates Mark.

Do you read posts you disagree with or just skim them?

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 22, 2001).]
</font>
Well, I just re-read the paragraph. Here it
is:
======================
Fourth, if, as you suggest, Mark and John are relying on a tradition common to both of them, then Doherty's theory is in trouble. There is a clear, early attestation regarding a human Jesus which predates Mark and John. The only reasonable common point is the Jerusalem Church.
=======================

And it still looks me like you were making
a statement about knowledge of an earlier
attestation. Perhaps you meant to put the
world "That" in before that sentence? Either
way, they way you typed it is misleading, and
I was simply asking for what I though was
clarification. I guess maybe we're all just
not up to your incredible intellect.

Now, as to your smart ass comment at the end
there, has it occurred to you that you basically come across as an arrogant ass most
of the time? I'm willing to be they don't
let you out much. You'd get a lot better
(and more polite) responses if you toned your condescending tones.

 
Old 05-22-2001, 03:33 PM   #48
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kosh:
Well, I just re-read the paragraph. Here it
is:
======================
Fourth, if, as you suggest, Mark and John are relying on a tradition common to both of them, then Doherty's theory is in trouble. There is a clear, early attestation regarding a human Jesus which predates Mark and John. The only reasonable common point is the Jerusalem Church.
=======================

And it still looks me like you were making
a statement about knowledge of an earlier
attestation. Perhaps you meant to put the
world "That" in before that sentence? Either
way, they way you typed it is misleading, and
I was simply asking for what I though was
clarification. I guess maybe we're all just
not up to your incredible intellect.

Now, as to your smart ass comment at the end
there, has it occurred to you that you basically come across as an arrogant ass most
of the time? I'm willing to be they don't
let you out much. You'd get a lot better
(and more polite) responses if you toned your condescending tones.
</font>
I still think it was pretty clear Kosh. I separated out each point in different paragraphs. I don't know what other reasonable inference could have been drawn.

I notice you didn't even answer the last question. It was not rhetorical. Given the length of the post, the separated paragraphs, and the fact that I was responding directly to Turton's statement, the most likely explanation was that you just skimmed the post.

I have been nice on this board. Very nice at times. I haven't noticed that it makes much of a difference in how skeptics respond to theists. Some perhaps. But not many.

But rest assured that it is a continuam. I only get condescending when the skeptical arguments get absurd. When you object to a historical conclusion regarding the resurrection, I can hardly claim you are being unreasonable. When you object to historical conclusion regarding the mere existence of Jesus, then I lose some of my infamous self-control.
 
Old 05-22-2001, 05:20 PM   #49
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:

I have been nice on this board. Very nice at times. I haven't noticed that it makes much of a difference in how skeptics respond to theists. Some perhaps. But not many.

But rest assured that it is a continuam. I only get condescending when the skeptical arguments get absurd. When you object to a historical conclusion regarding the resurrection, I can hardly claim you are being unreasonable. When you object to historical conclusion regarding the mere existence of Jesus, then I lose some of my infamous self-control.
</font>
Right, Layman, I noticed that you and Nomad play the good cop - bad cop routine at times.

But face it - you're losing your cool because you're losing the argument.

If you had spent the time you have spent claiming that "all experts agree" about the historical Jesus, actually laying out the evidence, you might get more respect. But you haven't - because the actual evidence for the historical Jesus is not very strong. And when people who don't have to pretend that there was a historical Jesus look at the evidence, more of them decide that the mythicist position might have something to it.

And now Doherty has blasted Nomad out of the water on the Formal Debate Board.

Your strategy has backfired. Atheists actually like Jesus - it gives us a feeling of moral superiority to think that he was some kind of hippy radical guy, and the Christians have so messed up his real message. But once you look at the mythicist case with an unbiased eye, it starts to look plausible. With the paltry state of the evidence, it will never be more than plausible, but that's all Doherty is arguing for.

And a lot of people would never have known about the controversy if you and Nomad hadn't made such a point about it.

Good work.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-22-2001, 05:32 PM   #50
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:
Right, Layman, I noticed that you and Nomad play the good cop - bad cop routine at times.

But face it - you're losing your cool because you're losing the argument.

If you had spent the time you have spent claiming that "all experts agree" about the historical Jesus, actually laying out the evidence, you might get more respect. But you haven't - because the actual evidence for the historical Jesus is not very strong. And when people who don't have to pretend that there was a historical Jesus look at the evidence, more of them decide that the mythicist position might have something to it.

And now Doherty has blasted Nomad out of the water on the Formal Debate Board.

Your strategy has backfired. Atheists actually like Jesus - it gives us a feeling of moral superiority to think that he was some kind of hippy radical guy, and the Christians have so messed up his real message. But once you look at the mythicist case with an unbiased eye, it starts to look plausible. With the paltry state of the evidence, it will never be more than plausible, but that's all Doherty is arguing for.

And a lot of people would never have known about the controversy if you and Nomad hadn't made such a point about it.

Good work.
</font>

Toto, I responded to Turton's post in full. I discussed Q, L, and John's references to the human Jesus. I defended Josephus' references. I did refer to several authorites along the way, but I also provided the reasoning and supplemented their points with my own. For you to come along and say all I do is appeal to authority is just a lie.

It is especially disengenuous for you to level such a claim when you commonly just post a link or cut and paste from a distinctly minority viewpoint, rarely ever engaging in substantive debate or establishing your own arguments.

If you think that Doherty is winning the debate then you live in a fairy land of a unique combination of hyper-skepticism and naive gullibility.

But you are loyal, which is a quality that I admire.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:41 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.