Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rick Sumner · 09-29-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Any such passages would have been edited out by the mid-second century.

You can't fall back on this--it epitomizes an ad hoc response. The historicist can just as easily talk about lost books of Philo that discuss how Philo loved drinking with Jesus and co. because the wine never ran out.

What you need to do is show where such passages were, what they said, and why we should think this is the case. You can't argue from the default presumption they existed.

Regards,
Rick

Vorkosigan · 09-29-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

("It is of course true that the source of statements such as �descended from David� is scripture, not historical tradition. But this does not mean, as Doherty supposes, that the life and the death were not believed to have occurred on Earth.").

This is a stupid argument, one also used by Theissen and Merz. If the only "evidence" you have is fiction, then you have no evidence. Any passage built from the OT cannot be used to prove anything.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 09-29-2003, 03:20 PM

Quote:

As I mentioned previously, " . . . why must the author say anything about the earthly life of Jesus when his audience became a community of faith because of the earthly life of Jesus? Am I assuming too much? How is the opposite position not assuming too much? Where does the burden of proof lie?

Doherty's case is not limited to the silence on the "life" of the HJ. Why dont you get hold of the book through the interlibrary loan and read it? His website is also useful.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner · 09-29-2003, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
This is a stupid argument, one also used by Theissen and Merz. If the only "evidence" you have is fiction, then you have no evidence. Any passage built from the OT cannot be used to prove anything.

Vorkosigan

On the contrary.

For example, I can look at Philo, who uses fiction to produce still more fiction, and can--based only on him--reasonably conclude that both Philo and Philo's audience thought Socrates was a real person. Yet Philo's account of Socrates as the father of Abraham is 1) Based on the OT and 2) Utter nonsense.

Regards,
Rick

Layman · 09-29-2003, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
This is a stupid argument, one also used by Theissen and Merz. If the only "evidence" you have is fiction, then you have no evidence. Any passage built from the OT cannot be used to prove anything.

Vorkosigan

Sure it can. It is especially relevant to the state of mind of the writer. Which is what is at issue here.

CJD · 09-30-2003, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Doherty's case is not limited to the silence on the "life" of the HJ.

Vorkosigan, I simply meant this specifically in regard to the Galatians pericope, as I am not familiar with anything he has done outside of his webpage. IMHO, Doherty's case is limited on this point in particular because his handling of the text seemed extremely forced.

Regards,

CJD

Layman · 09-30-2003, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
Vorkosigan, I simply meant this specifically in regard to the Galatians pericope, as I am not familiar with anything he has done outside of his webpage. IMHO, Doherty's case is limited on this point in particular because his handling of the text seemed extremely forced.

Regards,

CJD

CJD, I sent you an email a day or two ago. Did ya get?

thanks

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.