ApostateAbe

If anyone thinks that anything in particular that Toto has to say is worth anything, then please repeat it. I am going to try to restrain myself from arguing with Toto any longer, and I don't know if I can manage, but I'll at least make the attempt.

ApostateAbe

I don't adhere directly to the Criterion of Embarrassment, because of such limitations that you are alluding to. Sometimes, it is better to explain the relative weaknesses of Jesus, not as something that would be embarrassing to the author, but as something that fits the point of view of the author. I argued for a more down-to-Earth portrait of Jesus in Mark's gospel in my post to you from last night.

aa5874

I ONLY REPEAT the evidence as found written. I cannot ALTER or RE-WRITE the Jesus stories. I must LEAVE them EXACTLY as I found them.

Again, the author of gLuke EXPLAINED how a Virgin could be IMPREGNATED by a Holy Ghost.

Luke 1.26-35
If you REFUSE to ACCEPT the explanation from the author of gLuke then I CAN'T help you.

All I know is that the NT is about the Child of a Holy Ghost based on the EXPLANATION of gLuke and other authors.

avi

Abe, this is not correct. Toto may not always be 100% on target, but I suppose that this member is correct far more often than most of us, and errs not more than a hundredth that of ordinary blokes like you and me.

Please go have a good rest, and come back tomorrow, awake, alert, refreshed, and invigorated.

Toto is not only right on target with individual replies, but also doing a very good job as moderator. There is no need to take offense at blunt criticism offered by Toto, or anyone else. Without criticism, we make no progress.

avi

ApostateAbe

avi, if you would like me to respond to any points that Toto makes, then please go ahead and repeat them. I respect Toto as a human being. Toto is intelligent and knowledgeable on the subject, and I really have learned a lot from Toto. The last post of Toto was filled with attacks on my personal character, which seems to be a persisting pattern. Most of the time, I just ignore them and focus on the relevant points Toto makes, but it makes for a difficult experience. Toto is wrong much more often than you may think, but it can be difficult to spot since Toto almost never admits it, Toto changes the topic, and I usually let it fly. The fact that I would rather not keep arguing with Toto is a reflection of my own personal weakness more than anything.

Toto

Here's your confusion, Abe. You post utter nonsense. Several people try to call you on it. You repeat your claims. I point out that you have no credentials, and no support for what you post. You take this as a personal attack on your character.

It's not. You're a fine person as far as I know. But you post nonsense on a forum that is devoted to rational discussion.

Respecting you as a person does not require anyone to respect what you write here.

avi

I apologize to you, Abe, if my writing was so obscure.

No, I don't demand anything from you, certainly I do not require you to respond to whatever Toto, (or anyone else) writes.

This is a forum. People write, others respond. In general, the tenor is more or less friendly, sometimes, we respond too hastily, without reflection on the longer term value of our submissions.

We can all improve, in many different ways. That includes you, too, Abe. Toto is not trying, in my opinion, to antagonize you, but, Toto has some convictions, and wishes to share them, same as we all do....

I have not yet read the harm in any of Toto's posts.

Abe there is a fundamental problem, though, in your request/demand that I repeat what Toto has written to solicit your response.

Apart from the fact that it is of very little consequence to me, personally, how you respond to what Toto, or anyone else writes, it is not correct in my opinion, for you to ask, or demand, of someone else on the forum, to represent another forum participant's text. Let each of us write our own thoughts, they need not be filtered through the rose colored spectacles of another forum participant. Toto's writing is very clear, and does not need any reformulation by me, or anyone else, in order for you, or anyone else to respond.

avi

spin

While you pay lip service to Best Explanation, you simply don't use it for you lack the prerequisites to do so.

Pretty rhetoric, but nothing more. When you start off in the wrong place, ie the gospels and not Paul, you can't hope to provide explanatory power, for you are dealing with material that has gather layers of tradition to separate you from the earliest traditions and those presumably most likely to represent any history. The further from the earliest materials you go the further away from being able to supply meaningful explanations, the explanatory scope you might claim will lose context, the plausibility you maintain is based on shifting traditions. The obfuscation of tradition through time alienates you from the material you wish to use and so far your employment of the tools you cite hasn't attempted to circumvent that obfuscating nature. Instead you embrace post hoc status quo, not the earliest possible traditions or the realization that status quo traditions are to be seen as the end result of cultural processes, and produce apologetic analyses, as though they were in some way objective.

aa5874

Well, was the SUB-LUNAR crucifixion of Jesus decided before hand and then evidence was sought?

You MUST know that ALL the EVIDENCE does NOT state Jesus was crucified in the SUB-LUNAR.

Some evidence states Jesus was crucified after trials with the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate in Judea.

It is NOT practicably possibly that ALL the EVIDENCE of any matter be used. A case or an argument can be made ONCE there is believed to be ENOUGH evidence to support the argument.

ApostateAbe

avi, sometimes I wonder how I can agree so often with everyone else about the type of communication that goes on day to day in my own personal life, but then I come on to this forum and there is drastic disagreement. I mean, come on, what if I told you that you have no training in history beyond a few undergraduate courses, no training in historical methodology, and only encountered your methodology through the course of Internet debate? What if all of that was provoked only by you stating in passing your opinions on your own preferred methodology? You see no harm in that? Shoot, well, I see harm in that.

I know I come off like an asshole when I ask anyone who gives a damn about what Toto thinks to repeat it. I make that request only because I really don't want to keep arguing with Toto, and at the same time I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea that I am chickening out or whatever because I can't answer the arguments. It is not that I demand that you repeat what Toto says if you agree with Toto, but my point is: please don't expect me to argue with Toto. Thanks.