Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 08-20-2013, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I think he was possibly a Gnostic, or in orthodox terms a proto-Gnostic - as, effectively all early Christianity was, not in terms of the idea of "secret teachings", but in terms of the main mechanics of the cosmology, ideas of redemption, etc. - and GMark was an attempt at an "exoteric" text to attract people to the religion with a cool story.

But I'm not all that certain about it, it just seems the best idea to me. There are various options. The whole thing might have been conceived as a satire, based on bits of Christian ideas the guy had heard!

Thanks for sharing and indulging my questions. Interesting.

aa5874 · 08-20-2013, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

QUOTE]No, it isn't.

But it is most basic that any argument relying on converse error is fallacious.

What absolute absurdity you post!!!

You are merely parroting phrases. You obviously have no idea what "converse error" is.

Your posts do not identify any fallacious arguments.

It is most reasonable and logical at any level that one can argue for non-existence when there is no evidence of existence.

gurugeorge · 08-20-2013, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I accept the orthodox datings (which are partly based on philology, i.e. what forms of language were used at various times, and therefore exempt from considerations of who is mentioned when); IF those orthodox datings are correct, then there was some sort of Christian cult prior to 70 CE. If it's not mentioned in contemporary sources, then it MUST have been too small to register on those authors' radars

Your acceptance of the blatant PRESUMPTIONS of 'orthodoxy' is frightening since your very argument for a Myth Jesus is contrary to 'orthodoxy'.

I don't mean "orthodoxy" as in Catholicism, I just mean orthodox scholarship, consensus scholarship. And I accept the dating, but not their reconstruction (which is over course overwhelmingly HJ).

Quote:

We know the Pauline Corpus was invented AFTER the late 2nd century because Apologetic writers that NEEDED the Pauline Corpus to ENHANCE their arguments wrote NOTHING of Paul, his assemblies, his evangelism of the Roman Empire and his MARTYRDOM.

Why did they need the Pauline Corpus? Why should any of them have heard of Paul (if he existed)? The big old story about Paul is mostly from Acts, which looks like a late fabrication (although maybe based on some bits of history, who knows).

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Now for sure, internal consistency in what the texts overtly avow is an important factor, but the relative times of when things are said is also important. You are claiming that the orthodox dating of the texts is wildly, wildly inaccurate. Your burden of proof is higher than mine. All I'm saying is that it would help your position a lot to dig deeper and learn the languages and/or utilize the scholarship of those who believe something similar to you...

Again, you promote fallacies. I have NOT stated that " the orthodox dating of the texts is wildly, wildly inaccurate".

What are you playing at, man? Your dating of late Paul is completely out of line with the datings of orthodox, or consensus biblical scholarship!!!

Quote:

I have shown multiple times that the NEW TESTAMENT manuscripts that have been recovered have been DATED to the 2nd century or later by PALEOGRAPHY.

Orthodox (i.e. standard, consensus) biblical scholarship knows about those too, yet it still has a completely different dating from you, placing Paul pre-Diaspora. Why do you think that is? (Hint: it has something with what J-D is trying to tell you.)

J-D · 08-21-2013, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

QUOTE]No, it isn't.

But it is most basic that any argument relying on converse error is fallacious.

What absolute absurdity you post!!!

You are merely parroting phrases. You obviously have no idea what "converse error" is.

Your posts do not identify any fallacious arguments.

'Converse error' or 'fallacy of the converse' is another name for the fallacy known as 'affirming the consequent', which I identified in your earlier post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is most reasonable and logical at any level that one can argue for non-existence when there is no evidence of existence.

No, it isn't, and no number of repetitions on your part will change that.

aa5874 · 08-21-2013, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your acceptance of the blatant PRESUMPTIONS of 'orthodoxy' is frightening since your very argument for a Myth Jesus is contrary to 'orthodoxy'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I don't mean "orthodoxy" as in Catholicism, I just mean orthodox scholarship, consensus scholarship. And I accept the dating, but not their reconstruction (which is over course overwhelmingly HJ).

Please be precise. What is "orthodox scholarship" and "consensus scholarship"?? Who determines "orthodoxy" and "consensus" in the dating by biblical scholarship?

Your orthodoxy and consensus is unknown. Please present the evidence from antiquity that support what your orthodox and consensus scholarship has dated.

What about evidence from antiquity? I deal with evidence from antiquity not your unknown orthodoxy and consensus scholarship.

Is Doherty orthodox or consensus scholarship?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

We know the Pauline Corpus was invented AFTER the late 2nd century because Apologetic writers that NEEDED the Pauline Corpus to ENHANCE their arguments wrote NOTHING of Paul, his assemblies, his evangelism of the Roman Empire and his MARTYRDOM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Why did they need the Pauline Corpus? Why should any of them have heard of Paul (if he existed)? The big old story about Paul is mostly from Acts, which looks like a late fabrication (although maybe based on some bits of history, who knows).

That's it. Say it again, "The big old story about Paul is mostly from Acts, which looks like a late fabrication.....

Paul is indeed a late fabrication. Even in the Pauline Corpus the Pauline writers used their LATER name Paul NOT Saul.

The Pauline writers did NOT even remember that they were supposed to call themselves by their EARLY name SAUL--NOT Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, you promote fallacies. I have NOT stated that " the orthodox dating of the texts is wildly, wildly inaccurate".

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

What are you playing at, man? Your dating of late Paul is completely out of line with the datings of orthodox, or consensus biblical scholarship!!!

You have CHANGED what you wrote. You have now inserted the word PAUL instead of the word TEXTS.

Please, I don't play games.

Again, are you claiming that no scholars have argued that the Pauline Corpus were composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple or in the 2nd century?

Please identify exactly who or what is "orthodox or consensus scholarship" and the evidence from antiquity what was used to derive your classification.

It is you who is clinging to WILD presumptions under the guise of your unknown orthodox or consensus scholarship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have shown multiple times that the NEW TESTAMENT manuscripts that have been recovered have been DATED to the 2nd century or later by PALEOGRAPHY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Orthodox (i.e. standard, consensus) biblical scholarship knows about those too, yet it still has a completely different dating from you, placing Paul pre-Diaspora. Why do you think that is? (Hint: it has something with what J-D is trying to tell you.)

Who or what is this unknown orthodox, standard, consensus biblical scholarship? What is the evidence from antiquity for placing Paul pre-Diaspora? ---[It has something to do with Chinese Whispers, presumptions, speculation and Guesswork.]

That is why I tell you about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the dated NT manuscripts, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, the short gMark, Aristides, Justin, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Origen, the Muratorian Canon, and others.

There is abundance of evidence from antiquity that support the argument that the Pauline Corpus was composed no earlier than the late 2nd century.

You can only appeal to your unknown orthodox, standard, consensus biblical scholarship.

The start of the Jesus cult is an extremely simple matter.

There is no need to invent any additional stories.

Writers of the Jesus cult explained how the cult started. The start had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Saul or Paul

Aristides' Apology

Quote:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven............But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven.

Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they have become famous.

Sheshbazzar · 08-24-2013, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I accept the orthodox datings (which are partly based on philology, i.e. what forms of language were used at various times, and therefore exempt from considerations of who is mentioned when); IF those orthodox datings are correct, then there was some sort of Christian cult prior to 70 CE. If it's not mentioned in contemporary sources, then it MUST have been too small to register on those authors' radars

Your acceptance of the blatant PRESUMPTIONS of 'orthodoxy' is frightening since your very argument for a Myth Jesus is contrary to 'orthodoxy'.

I don't mean "orthodoxy" as in Catholicism, I just mean orthodox scholarship, consensus scholarship. And I accept the dating, but not their reconstruction (which is over course overwhelmingly HJ).

Quote:

We know the Pauline Corpus was invented AFTER the late 2nd century because Apologetic writers that NEEDED the Pauline Corpus to ENHANCE their arguments wrote NOTHING of Paul, his assemblies, his evangelism of the Roman Empire and his MARTYRDOM.

Why did they need the Pauline Corpus? Why should any of them have heard of Paul (if he existed)? The big old story about Paul is mostly from Acts, which looks like a late fabrication (although maybe based on some bits of history, who knows).

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Now for sure, internal consistency in what the texts overtly avow is an important factor, but the relative times of when things are said is also important. You are claiming that the orthodox dating of the texts is wildly, wildly inaccurate. Your burden of proof is higher than mine. All I'm saying is that it would help your position a lot to dig deeper and learn the languages and/or utilize the scholarship of those who believe something similar to you...

Again, you promote fallacies. I have NOT stated that " the orthodox dating of the texts is wildly, wildly inaccurate".

What are you playing at, man? Your dating of late Paul is completely out of line with the datings of orthodox, or consensus biblical scholarship!!!

Quote:

I have shown multiple times that the NEW TESTAMENT manuscripts that have been recovered have been DATED to the 2nd century or later by PALEOGRAPHY.

Orthodox (i.e. standard, consensus) biblical scholarship knows about those too, yet it still has a completely different dating from you, placing Paul pre-Diaspora. Why do you think that is? (Hint: it has something with what J-D is trying to tell you.)

Its easy to forget that it was the acceptance of popular 'orthodox "scholarship" and 'consensus' biblical "scholarship" that demanded "scholarly" support and a common consensus of concession to a geocentric universe and a flat earth that was supported supported upon pillars.

Consensus, and a demanded parroting of 'accepted' 'scholarly opinion' will never serve to determine what is in fact, is FACT, and what in truth, is the TRUTH.

aa5874, like a modern Galileo, is painfully aware of the huge holes, flaws, and weaknesses inherent in the claims of tradition bound 'orthodox "scholarship" and its demanded conformity, and is challenging these 'accepted' "scholarly" orthodox 'theories' and claims that surviving documents simply do not, never have, and never will support.

J-D · 08-25-2013, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...
aa5874, like a modern Galileo,
...

Galileo cared about whether other people understood his ideas.

Iskander · 08-25-2013, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

N/A

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

[ANY argument for non-existence must, must, must be based on NO evidence of existence.

This is most basic.

How is it possible to argue for the non-existence of anything if there is no evidence for that something existing?

MrMacSon · 08-25-2013, 04:16 AM

How is it possible to argue for the existence of something if there is no evidence for that something existing?

Iskander · 08-25-2013, 04:22 AM

Your question is included in the statement made by aa5874

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-25-2013, 04:16 AM	#999
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	How is it possible to argue for the existence of something if there is no evidence for that something existing?

08-25-2013, 04:22 AM	#1000
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	Your question is included in the statement made by aa5874

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.