outhouse

Adam.

If you have to set up pages of apologetics to prove your point, you don't have one.



All your doing is inanely posting scripture for not.

Adam

You entirely miss my point.
I have demonstrated that huge portions of source text (often even contiguous) in the gospels exhibit no supernaturalism. Thus they cannot be dismissed a priori as impossible. They must be considered as disproof (unless carefully studied and proven fictional) of the strong MJ hypothesis that we know there is no evidence for a real Jesus around whom the gospels were written. If not refuted they must be considered as foundational henceforth for HJ studies and as further demolishing Form Criticism.

Toto

You are trying to shift the burden of proof. How often do we have to go over this? The mere fact that you can extract a part of the gospels that has no supernatural element does not make that part historical, and does not create any obligation to prove that it is fictional.

If you won't acknowledge this, you will continue to just talk to yourself until this section is closed.

MrMacSon

Also, Adam is using the fallacious argumentum ad ignoratum

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

There are no primary sources from the time the gospel stories are set to verify them: no archaeology; no texts; no art; no objects. No valid extra-gospel sources from the rest of the 1st century, either.

outhouse

Lack of supernatural aspects has no bearing on historicity at all. It does not discount fiction in the slightest.


This is pretty ridiculous.

Adam

Is that why this section is being closed?

Toto

No, that is not why this section is being closed.

But the successor to BCH will have new rules, and I don't think your posts will pass muster.

Toto

This thread has ended up in the new forum. I propose to either close it or ship it to Elsewhere.