Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 02-08-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Two or three pages into this nonsense and you finally just ask!

Why wait for an explicit request if you think your interlocutor is confused? That doesn't make sense.

Quote:

At least you admit you are in the habit of making such a claim.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Quote:

But since you are now asking, I'll answer. There is no contrast.

Yes, that's what I've said several times now. Hard to see how I obtained the correct conclusion despite misunderstanding you but there it is. :wave:

Quote:

Rather, it implies we should not give the same weight to prima facie historical claims within those writings, that we might otherwise give.

I agree!!!

spin · 02-08-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

If by "keep" you mean "accept as historically accurate", I would continue to say "I don't know".

EDIT: what about "accept as having a historical core related to a once real Jesus that other such parts are related to"?

IIUC, I would say that seems like a viable possibility to me.

BIIUC, isn't that just another "I don't know"?

spin

spamandham · 02-08-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Two or three pages into this nonsense and you finally just ask!

Why wait for an explicit request if you think your interlocutor is confused? That doesn't make sense.

I really didn't think you were confused. I still don't. IMHO, you've been playing games since this post.

spin · 02-08-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That's an evasion, though I might agree with the sentiment.

I don't see how it is an evasion but, if it was unclear, I don't agree with your statement and think an agnostic position can oppose either extreme.

Here is what you are evading:

So if someone said that none of it is historically accurate, you wouldn't be able to disagree.

Admit it: you wouldn't be able to disagree.

You would do what I would and point out the burden of proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I hope you can improve the accuracy of your impression, then.

I need evidence to do that, and you haven't provided that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Then again, as the pro-christian assumptions have been given free reign for over 1600 years, why not give a bit of rein for the contrary by being sympathetic to the endeavor and being a little more constructive?

I consider pointing out the logical flaws in a position to be very constructive if the flaws are adequately addressed.

How about less overscrupulous and more sympathetic? (You should be able to see from the cries of "ad hominem" that you are not coming across as sympathetic.) You'll think that you're being constructive, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

spin

neilgodfrey · 02-08-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Jerusalem is a fictional setting??? I think you're right. I do need a rest from this nonsense.

I have a book of fiction and this is found inside,

Quote:

This a work of fiction. Names, characters, PLACES, and incidents either are the product of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously, and any resemblance to ACTUAL persons, business establishments, events or LOCALES is entirely CO-INCIDENTAL.

"Jerusalem" is used fictitiously in the NT and with the authors' imagination.

What year was Jesus in Jerusalem, after the fall of the Temple?

A word is allowed to mean whatever its user says it means, as we know from Lewis Carroll. But of the scores of studies I have read about biblical literature and historicity I have never once encountered your meaning as the standard means of communication. In post #85 of this thread you wrote:

Quote:

It seems entirely possible that this fictional event was placed in an historical setting to relate a message about significance rather than an accurate record of fact.

Now you're saying the reverse. You keep changing your meanings and usages just like Lewis Carroll, only he did it to make us laugh.

neilgodfrey · 02-08-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

The implication is clear in most of your exchanges with me when you challenge my conclusions that the gospel narratives should be discarded as history. Your innocent victimhood smiley is misplaced.

Yes, I should use a "tsk, tsk" smiley for your hasty assumption that ignores an agnostic position.

I don't make that generalization. I suggest that they contain examples of imagery that appear chosen to express something other than history.

I would hope that the careful readers recognize that I am only suggesting that they might in opposition to the assertion that they do not and explicitly stating that I don't know whether they actually do.

Quote:

Interpreting the texts this way, -- as "truly meaningful" expression of something in history too wonderful to be expressed prosaicly -- is still a claim to their "historicity".

What an odd interpretation of what I've written.

I think you need to reread my posts without the faulty assumptions about my position.

You're way too nuanced for me. Which is a neat trick to always claim a victory coz no one is smart enough to read what you are "really saying". Let me know when you're prepared to say something with enough clarity to be taken at face value and that does not require some highly fine tuned dissection to read the finer shades of suggestions and hints behind your words.

Amaleq13 · 02-08-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I really didn't think you were confused. I still don't.

Apparently, I wasn't.

Amaleq13 · 02-08-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So if someone said that none of it is historically accurate, you wouldn't be able to disagree.

Admit it: you wouldn't be able to disagree.

I can and have disagreed with the affirmative assertion that we can dismiss the entire story as fiction.

Quote:

How about less overscrupulous and more sympathetic?

This from you? :rolling:

I'll try to be nice in the face of what seems to be illogical foolishness if you will.

neilgodfrey · 02-08-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

You couldn't be further from reality if you tried. :banghead:

Yep. I have just been informed off-line of what the reality is and how wrong I was. I make no apologies however. If I had a history of so badly misreading people I'd begin to think the fault was mine. But it's clear that I'm not alone in being on the receiving end of your cat and mouse games. I have nothing further to say than what I've expressed in my previous couple of posts.

Amaleq13 · 02-08-2008, 02:57 PM

ETA: This was posted after Neil's post above but before I read it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

You're way too nuanced for me.

Apparently so seeing how far wrong you've gone in understanding my position. I still think "too nuanced" is better than being sloppy.

Quote:

Which is a neat trick to always claim a victory coz no one is smart enough to read what you are "really saying".

I have declared no victory over you nor do I think one has been obtained. I think we have misunderstood each other's position from the beginning and it has spoiled all subsequent discussion. I don't think your position has ever really been the target of my opposition.

Quote:

Let me know when you're prepared to say something with enough clarity to be taken at face value...

OK. I do not think it is silly, let alone completely, to suggest that Christianity was a response to the events of 70ce. That said, I would like to know more about how you think Paul's letters fit into this beyond that you don't take them at "face value". More specifically, why wouldn't someone have added some reference to Jesus predicting the fall of the Temple?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.