FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-27-2007, 09:59 AM   #51
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solitary Man View Post
I have no idea what "woo woo" is.
It means nutty, eccentric, believers in oddball ideas, that kind of thing....
Oh, you mean the IIDB....

(Just kidding, mods!)

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 10:32 AM   #52
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

"Woo woo" is associated with New Age paranormal trickery fed to gullible consumers. I don't get the idea that it is Solitary Man's main concern.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solitary Man
You'll need to show that Luke read Matthew.
Why isn't this the default position? Why wouldn't aLuke have read gMatthew?

But I look forward to your dialogue with Goodacre on this question.
Toto is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 10:36 AM   #53
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Why isn't this the default position? Why wouldn't aLuke have read gMatthew?
Is there a default position for the synoptic problem?

I myself do favor the hypothesis that Luke read Matthew (whether a Q document of some kind existed or not), but I hardly regard that as the default position; rather, it is a position staked out with painstaking attention to the minutest of details over the entirety of the synoptic record.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 11:10 AM   #54
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

I didn't mean to oversimplify the question, but the idea that aLuke read gMatthew seems like one of those ordinary assertions that does not require some extraordinary degree of proof, as SM seemed to imply.
Toto is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 12:04 PM   #55
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
I didn't mean to oversimplify the question, but the idea that aLuke read gMatthew seems like one of those ordinary assertions that does not require some extraordinary degree of proof, as SM seemed to imply.
Why not that Matthew read Luke? How much extraordinary proof is required for that one?

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 12:05 PM   #56
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

or Mark read ur-luke...
dog-on is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 01:29 PM   #57
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ירושלים
Posts: 1,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solitary Man View Post
I have no idea what "woo woo" is.
Well, tell us about your Yeshua or Jesus. How old was he when he resurrected according to the "TF"?
Which TF? The interpolated version that survived, or perhaps a particular reconstruction? Remember that what survives isn't necessarily what happened. We have great speeches in the mouths of famous people who didn't so much utter a word correlating to that speech (Tacitus was overfond of this device). That doesn't mean that the person didn't exist.

You must separate from the Jesus the legendary stuff is based upon and the Jesus of legend himself.
Solitary Man is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 01:36 PM   #58
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ירושלים
Posts: 1,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
or Mark read ur-luke...
Or Luke read Ur-Mark, or one of them read Deutero-Mark. Or heck, Q existed. That Toto seems to be woefully uninformed on the synoptic problem is telling.
Solitary Man is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 02:19 PM   #59
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solitary Man View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

Well, tell us about your Yeshua or Jesus. How old was he when he resurrected according to the "TF"?
Which TF? The interpolated version that survived, or perhaps a particular reconstruction? Remember that what survives isn't necessarily what happened. We have great speeches in the mouths of famous people who didn't so much utter a word correlating to that speech (Tacitus was overfond of this device). That doesn't mean that the person didn't exist.
So your Yeshua existed because of lies about famous people.
Ambiguities, contradictions, inconsistencies and fiction strenghten the mythical position.
What happened to Yeshua or Jesus after he survived his supposed crucifixion, when did he really die?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solitery Man[You [i
must[/i] separate from the Jesus the legendary stuff is based upon and the Jesus of legend himself.
I came up with nothing.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 02:21 PM   #60
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solitary Man View Post
Or Luke read Ur-Mark, or one of them read Deutero-Mark. Or heck, Q existed.
Couldn't agree more. So then, how about an insight into the particular roadmap you use that allows you to do this:

Quote:
separate from the Jesus the legendary stuff is based upon and the Jesus of legend himself.
Thanks, in advance.
dog-on is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:15 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.