Rick Sumner

There is some truth to this, though the blanket statement is a little hyperbolic. Would you prefer I switch "plain" for "standard?" I'm good with either.

Or a lot hyperbolic.

I have now, and will offer my thoughts after some digestion. Perhaps I should have clarified why it is nowhere near enough in my blog post. I'll expand, assuming, at this point, that I still prefer convention.

One of the caveats of modern historiography generally is that it assumes divisibility. Doing away with that assumption we have sources that consistently fail to anchor themselves in the past, save this one instance. If we are to be fair to different paradigms, this greatly adds to the weight of a reading I would otherwise not prefer.

So taken on its own, the passage would be significant. Taken in context it's a sidebar. A curiosity worth mentioning, but not worth giving serious thought to overturning an otherwise consistent understanding.

In other words, regardless of what reading I find preferable, as long as yours is reasonable you take the point.

Sheshbazzar

Well I'm not going to recite all of those 'Kingdom of Gawd' verses here. They are in the books. And are the most prominently presented of his alleged teachings, so apparently they 'were let through the roman seal'.

As for me, I don't believe that any such person ever existed (no, not even as an 'inspiration' for these tall tales)
But the story is what it is. And there is no sense in attempting to revise it, or to make something out of it that it never was.

It is a human literary treasure, but is no description of any reality no matter how much some may wish, or try to force it to be.

Atheos

That's nice, but there's a difference between nice evidence and evidence that fits nicely.

I spoke of the latter.

Adam

Except that you're ignoring my 628-post thread

Gospel Eyewitnesses
Read there my posts about seven eyewitnesses of Jesus:
#1, #18,#38, #52, #74, #132, and #144, and #170

Or if that offends your presuppositions, try Posts #526, 534, 555, and 561 in which I develop my
Gospel According to the Atheists
basically Proto-Luke plus the Passion Narrative in gJohn.

It's also from eyewitness testimony, but so early that the supernatural is largely absent.

Rick Sumner

Or I'm just unaware of it, which given the lapse of months between my periods of posting here is probably a more realistic assessment.

I am, in general, highly skeptical of efforts to extract primary sources from secondary material. So rather than read through 628 posts, I'll just repeat a simple epistemological axiom: speculation may never be cumulative.

This thoroughly reasonable principle precludes source criticism, on its own, from ever serving as a means to ground data as historical evidence.

This is addressed indirectly in my linked blog post. Methodological conservatism is a requirement of sound historiography.

Atheos

Spin did a nice job of doing a "Cliff Notes" summary of that entire thread near the end.

Your thread was full of preposterous claims based on no actual evidence. In every case the quest for an eyewitness was nothing but conjecture and bluster. If anything that thread only succeeded in demonstrating how blindingly weak the claim is that the canonical gospels contain any eyewitness testimony.

Rick Sumner

Looks like I was wise to forego reading the thread.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

outhouse

The reason you dont post these verses on the kingdom of god, is because you already know the counter verses as I do LOL come on buddy!!!!!!

you also know the scholars are almost split down the middle on how this was or was not preached.

Sheshbazzar

Oh good grief! anybody can look them up. What 'counter verses'?
He, according to the TEXTS- preached the soon 'coming of The Kingdom of G-d' and the coming 'Day of Judgment' .
I am not aware of any verses that 'counter' that basic teaching.

Adam

spin did finally get un-pedantic and come out swinging, yes. However, you are missing that this Post #612 of his was refuted by me in
Post #616
in which I observed that his earlier #420 was the last he enumerated, yet I had already refuted it in my
Post #422

By then I had learned that no one here was learning anything that could not fit within preconceived molds of thinking. I therefore devised my Gospel According to the Atheists that showed that Proto-Luke & Passion Narrative (in gJohn source) by-passed such presuppositions. For that refer back to my Post #124 in this thread, the end-portion that Atheos cut off (for obvious reasons). Notice that these various posts start with my #524, long after spin had stopped engaging me in my thread. I can understand why seven written gospel eyewitnesses does not fly with people who have categorically rejected the supernatural, but this cannot explain the refusal to consider Gospel According to the Atheists. As I said to Vork and others, the matter seems to be visceral, not intellectual, belying the Freethought concept of this forum. I have presented a text that gives us HJ, so at least those among us here cannot reject the possibility of these three eyewitnesses.