Ben C Smith

You still have a question pending.

Ben.

Camio

No. It was a general comment, whence my "sorry for the slight off-topic" note.

"Statement of faith" was to be taken in a broader sense, not specifically as pertaining to religious matter. But given the nature of the subjects discussed on this forum, I concede that it was quite ambiguous.

To be very clear on what I meant: would she have said something along the line of "given the elements I have at disposal, I tend to favor the existence of some founder as the most probable hypothesis", it would have been fine with me. Perhaps you consider this distinction to be unnecessary. As for me, I deem that it is useful insofar as it may reveal two very different states of mind. And as I am presently reading Avalos' End of biblical studies, you may understand why this very sentence (wrongly?) rang an alarming bell in my head.

dog-on

Not at all. I am saying that regardless, this is the nature of the materials you have to work with.

Try this.

Provide one piece of HJ evidence that is not based, at it's core, on either scripture or revelation.

Like a Roman order for execution, a birth notification, hmmm...

:huh:

Maybe a grocery list?
:constern01:

Ben C Smith

The crucifixion as mentioned in Paul, in the gospels, and in Tacitus.

Ben.

dog-on

and, pray tell, what is the source of this little ditty?

Ben C Smith

Paul, the gospels, and Tacitus.

Ben.

Steven Carr

So is the Maitreya historical, when I can produce dozens of sightings of him?

Here are some photographs of this non-existent person.

http://www.share-international.org/b...MI_nairobi.htm

You need more than claims of crucifixion to show historicity.

The Maitreya does not exist, even though Benjamin Creme produces photographs of him and states flat-out that the Maitreya is tied to a particular day in history.

'Q: When you say that Maitreya has been here since 19 July 1977 and that the Master Jesus is in Rome, do you mean in a physical body?

BC: Yes.'



So if we can see today purely fictional characters being 'historicised', then why should we bow down before claims by Paul that his Jesus was crucified?

dog-on

:Cheeky:

1.) Paul - Revelation/Scriptural

2.) Gospels - ditto

3.) Tacitus - Hearsay derived from 1 and/or 2, above...

Ted Hoffman

Good work dog on. Good counter-work Ben. Let the games continue. Or is this gonna get split?

Ben C Smith

I already said that Paul was not scripture to me, and you already agreed that one is not guilty of appealing to scripture just because others regard your source as scripture.

Ditto, redux.

Yet to be proved, and I feel quite certain that Tacitus regarded neither 1 nor 2 above as scripture, and so is innocent of appealing to scripture in either case.

Ben.