FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-16-2013, 05:44 PM   #651
outhouse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

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.
outhouse is offline  
Old 06-16-2013, 05:51 PM   #652
Adam
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

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.
Adam is offline  
Old 06-16-2013, 06:26 PM   #653
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
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.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-16-2013, 06:49 PM   #654
MrMacSon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
You are trying to shift the burden of proof.
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.
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 06-16-2013, 06:55 PM   #655
outhouse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.


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


This is pretty ridiculous.
outhouse is offline  
Old 06-16-2013, 08:56 PM   #656
Adam
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
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.
Is that why this section is being closed?
Adam is offline  
Old 06-16-2013, 09:07 PM   #657
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

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 is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 01:19 AM   #658
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:24 PM.

Top

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