keyser_soze

And I would assume that my take on Goliath's stance is correct(please object if not Goliath), but it reads to me like he is not saying that the "stupendous" nature of jesus negates the possibility, only reduces it. And in light of all the other "evidences" you have provided, there is INSUFFICIENT cause to think differently. The more you argue it, and the more the arguments are flawed, the more I think that perhaps my stance as HJ instead of MJ is wrong. Not that it's any big deal, but the evidence is growing one sided.

Vorkosigan

Relax, Keyser, he's just trollin' along.

Vorkosigan

keyser_soze

Yeah, I know...but it just seems like he's TRYING to misunderstand what is being said. It's the kind of unethical thing that just irks me to no end.

Vinnie

NOGO and I believe Vork have both uttered the idiotic notion that Mark made it up. This only shows that neither one really knows what they are talking about as I slapped the snot out of this claim. I challenge everyone here to tackle my three reasons and show otherwise.

What? Mythicists [edited to add in "and HJ agnostics"] don't like it when I point out their blatant stupidity? At least 5 and 1/2 of these six have been argued here in the last few days.

No, your assumption is as incorrect as Goliath's nonsense. Jesus didn't exist because some people believe he is the Son of God. Goliath clearly articulated this nonsense and repeated it. If you can't see that then you have no business uttering nonsense like this: "I swear it's like trying to get my 4 year old to understand something".

Vinnie

Vinnie

No. I can produce the quote which says almost exactly as number six reads. It was directly stated that Mark made it up. Have you not been following the recent threads?


Number 6 has nothing to do with Marcan priority, Mr. Red Herring. I already stated I accept Marcan prioroty and helkl, of ALL THE TIMES I listed my source list recently did you ever see Matthew and Luke listed as independent sources to be used as such??? Duh! Its always Mark, Q, John, L, M, etc. This information is elementary.

I've alreay answerd this several times. The methodology finds out about the life of the HJ. It does not determine historicity of the HJ. It works under the rubric of historicity. I stated that historicity is determined on prior grounds when dealing with sources and historical plausibility. NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS RESPONDED TO THIS CLAIM YET. You have all only reasserted that the methodology is flawed.

Feel free to actually keep up with the discussion. That way you can actually critique my arguments.

Vinnie

Vinnie

LOL ROFLOL

I've already stated several times recently that historical methodology could never reconstruct miracles or the existence of deities. Historical methodology is scientific. It assumes that the laws governing our world work in the same way today as they did then. It doesn't matter whether miracles are possible or not. In Jesus research all we have is [Historical] reconstruction. Get with the program. I haven't argued that I can historically reconstruct that Jesus was the Son of God, or that he walked on water, or that he rose from the dead and so forth. At best it can be said that person a believed miraculous claim m about person x. So what is the actual point of these red herrings?

Don't you know that is the reason for number 4 here??? The method is based upon a prior consideration of sources. If we had eyewitness or autobiographical sources we might not need such a stringent method. Fictional sources like the LotR's trilogy fail in this regard. And yes, Vork apparently was amused when I said this becuase Tolkien saw his work as "true". Yeah, its what I like to call a "true myth", but its not an actual historical biography of some place called Middle Earth so keep grinning.

Vinnie

Vinnie

We'll go for number 7 in light of recent commentsi n this thread.

Methodology Used by Mythicists at II

1. If you see a historical datum regarding Jesus of Nazareth in the Pauline corpus it must be an interpolation.
2. If a datum is not mentioned in a source, even if that source has no real need or business mentioning that specific datum, it equates with a failure to know such information.
3. The existence of nature defying-miracles and OT themes allows for wholesale dismissal of a text.
4. Critique the methodology of bona fide HJ scholars while completely ignoring the whole tedious and cumbersome business of sources.
5. Make the existence of Jesus out to be a supernatural or extraordinary claim. Then say that history cannot reconstruct the supernatural or demand extrordinary proof for this extraordinary claim.
6. Mark invented the historical Jesus material so none of it can be used as a credible witness to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
7. The principle of using earlier, independent and widespread traditions to reconstruct ancient history is unreliable because this method which presumably is goint to be "mechanically implemented" would prove the existence of numerous deities and miracles.

Vinnie

keyser_soze

In regards to #7, since meiers methodology validates the existance of Achilles, are we to assume that you will be coming out of the closet re: Greek gods as HISTORICAL and physical beings? After all, the methodology works for him, and going further, we found troy...so he MUST have existed. And it would be embarrassing to die by an arrow to the heel, so they(greek writers) had NO reason to lie about it after all. And using multiple attestation, he obviously was a real person. How much more could you possibly want?

Vinnie

Maybe I want you to stop ignoring the questiuon of "sources" in history. Then you wouldn't repeat the same nonsense over and over again.

I'll state it again for those who learn slowly: the existence of Greek God's cannot be argued on historical grounds.

Why do you insist on making idiotic comparisons? Stratification of Achilles sources please? Then we can go through them together and evaluate your comparison.

Vinnie

keyser_soze

Are there not separate sources for the greek gods? Was there not faith in these gods by the people who followed them(i.e. greeks and romans)? They apparently believed enough in these gods to sacrifice humans to them, I would say that gives them equal FAITH that historically these figures existed. Not to mention that the stories, have REAL cities and kings in them. Exactly what would we compare? Do you have a no for any of those questions? If not, then we are in agreement. Mulitple attestation, in different works, a faith that such a person or figure existed, detailed accounts involving real and historic backdrops, and frequent embarrassing actions that obviously wouldn't be written about if they were not true. I think you should be up here with me waving our arms trying to get zeus's attention. I'm waving now, I hear thunder, obviously he heard me(either that, or the storm outside is just giving off lightning with the resultant air compression producing sonic booms).