Guys,

To be honest, I think Earl and rodahi are way out of line here.

We are all looking forward to an open and honest debate between Nomad and Earl Doherty, where all that should matter are the arguments presented, rather than the personalities and their presentation techniques.

I am no fan of Nomad's debating methods either, nor do I agree with many of his views, but that doesn't mean that we should
try to influence this debate by casting him in a bad light before he has even posted his first message.

If one of the debaters misuses terms and concepts, this will become apparent quickly enough - and there will be enough spectators to point this out if and when this happens, in case the other debater fails to notice it.

Can we please focus on the actual arguments, rather that drag this whole thing down before it has even begun?

Thanks,

fG

Faded Glory,

Well, I don't want to drag the debate down either. What I wanted to do is point Doherty to Nomad's material on mythicism in the forums, to make it easier for Doherty to do some background reading if he wished to do so, something Nomad (Brian) has of course already done by looking at Doherty's web site. I don't see how balancing things out in this way (not that Doherty needed anyone to point him to the debates, since he could have done his own search and may have already done so) amounts to "influencing the debate." The material was already there for Doherty to read, including my comments on Nomad's views. All I did was bring the material to Doherty's attention. So I think your post is an over reaction.

True, I didn't cite these threads in a neutral way, but on the other hand I don't think pointing out Nomad's abuse of terminology regarding Doherty's arguments and related matters amounts to a personal attack against Nomad. Nor does pointing out the basis for Nomad's argument regarding the early dating of the NT amount to a personal attack that drags the debate down.

But I have no interest in causing any controversies, so I won't post anything of a similar kind except in the designated Commentary thread. I've also deleted my offending post.



[This message has been edited by Earl (edited May 06, 2001).]

Your point is well taken, but would you point out where either Earl or I said anything that is not true.

rodahi

I just started a post called 'Comments on the Jesus Puzzle Debate' in this forum for that purpose.

As soon as Ethan or Bill has mailed me a password for the Debate Forum, I will post my first reply to Doherty. Hopefully that will be done no later than tomorrow.

I look forward to the discussion.

Good night.

Brian (Nomad)

P.S. To Earl (of the Philip variety). Have you actually read my Redating of the New Testament Books thread? The whole question of dating P46 is a relatively minor side point that I found personally interesting and included to give some background to how dating methodologies (and their underlying assumptions) work in the scholarly community. The rest of the thread (and especially my key focus, which is dating of the Gospels) never brings up either P46 or Kim at all. I had to ask, given your comment that my entire argument appears to rely upon Kim and little else. After all, I wouldn't want to think you were accusing me of something without having actually read my posts.

[This message has been edited by Brian Trafford (edited May 07, 2001).]