Sheshbazzar

:horsecrap::hobbyhorse::deadhorse:

I certainly haven't been noticeably on ignore. Got more dialog going on, on more subjects in these Forums than I have hours in the day to devote to.

If you're posts aren't getting enough responses, Maybe you ought to consider changing your presentation, or your subject matter?

Adam

So you're accusing the membership here of such a low level of intellect that they consider your four horsemen of the end things a conclusive disproof of my thesis? I prefer to think better of them than that, that they prefer to let you make an :deadhorse:
(note that I did not say "a" but "an")
of yourself, not themselves. (Now how do I make the icon's ears longer?)

Sheshbazzar

Many others have already addressed and dismissed your theories in the threads you continuously link to.

They have already stated what the they think of your present work and methods quite clearly.

Whether you like it or not, it is already for most, a case that they have dismissed and disposed of.

I regard them as men and women of superior intellect, who can easily detect horse-shit when they encounter it.

They have simply 'left the room' where you carry on your dead-horse arguments. Leaving me to serve in the capacity of their unofficial spokesman. They have given up on you in disgust man.

What can I say to you that has not already been said? Both your material, and your way of presenting it is unimpressive, and those here have found your arguments deficient in substance and logic, and unappealing.

Endlessly presenting the same dismissed material over and over and over, changes no one's views of it.
They just get tired of the repetitions and move on, -perhaps putting you on ignore.

I continue to respond, of course not in the way you would like, as a favor to you, although I'm sure that you don't recognize the fact.
You have lost your audience Adam, and it's time for you to get yourself a new song to sing Adam, if you wish for anyone else here to come back and listen.

.

Doug Shaver

I've already told you why I don't buy your arguments.

Duvduv

In the entire discussion about whether the reference to James "the brother of the Lord" is an interpolation, has anyone noticed whether the epistles ever use the term "the Lord" in other places without the words Jesus or Christ along with it where the intention is only to Jesus?

Sheshbazzar

Rom 10:13. 'For whosoever shall call upon the name of "the Lord" shall be saved.'

The context of Romans 10:4-12 comprises an elaborate 'set-up' so that the intention of 'the Lord' can only be applied to "Jesus" as being that 'name' to be 'called on' or 'Christ Jesus' as being that 'the Lord' intended by Joel.

Of course anyone familiar with the Hebrew text of Joel 2:32 will know that this is a quotation where The Tetragrammaton occurs as that specific Name which is to be 'called upon'.

והיה כל אשר־יקרא בשם יהוה ימלט
'Ve'ha'yeh kall esher-e'qura b'shem YHWH e'malat'
'And [it] shall be all whosover-call in-name YHWH shall escape'

(Joel's context indicates 'escape' as a more appropriate translation of the 'e'malat',__ and there is no such thing as a 'the' YHWH' because there being only one YHWH, the Name YHWH is exclusive to that YHWH.)

It is quite an abuse of the quotation from Joel to so imply that the Tetragrammaton occurring there is the name 'Jesus', or in any way refers to the name Hellenic 'Jesus'.
By no stretch of spelling or linguistics can The Tetragrammaton יהוה actually be the Hellenic name "Jesus", or for that matter even that Hebrew name 'Joshua' from which the Greek form 'Jesus' is derived.

Romans 16:2 'That ye receive her in "the Lord", as becometh saints,..'
is somewhat generic as to which 'the Lord' is intended, but of course any trinitarian will argue that with Father and Son being one and the same 'the Lord' it doesn't matter.
The same with Romans 16:8, 11,12,13 & 22 -
1Cor 1:31, 2:8, 2:16, 3:5
and there are a whole lot more with this non specific generic 'the Lord' with no 'name' or names attached.






.

Adam

It's been almost five days now, and still no argument against my Post #370 from anyone. So I'll respond to this non-response. Doug, my problem with you was always that you evaded my arguments by saying that I had presented no evidence. If you have since presented "evidence" for your own side, I have not taken very seriously one who does not know what "evidence" is. Meanwhile I have presented as evidence a complete "Gospel to the Jews" (Proto-Luke plus the Johannine Passion Narrative), adding on the Johannine Discourses for inclusion in my "Gospel According to the Atheists", and for further eyewitness testimony unacceptable to atheists I offerred as evidence the Signs Gospel in John and a great deal of the remainer of John and Mark. That's more than the equivalent to two complete gospels as evidence.

Everyone here prefers to thrash Bart Ehrman for arguing for a Historical Jesus based on consensus academic scholarship, then to turn around and thrash me for not basing myself on consensus academic scholarship. You guys can't properly have it both ways. Nor can you dismiss my citation of the gospels as being mere apologist literature, because that assumes what is to be (dis)proven, that the gospels are not early. Even your appeal against the supernatural does not serve, because I showed how sources totalling a gospel in length were free of supernaturalism.

Between us, Ehrman and I have done away with MJ.

Sheshbazzar

:horsecrap::hobbyhorse::deadhorse:

Many others have already addressed and dismissed your theories in the threads you continuously link to.

They have already stated what the they think of your present work and methods quite clearly.

Endlessly presenting the same dismissed material over and over and over, changes no one's views of it.
They just get tired of the repetitions and move on, -perhaps putting you on ignore.

Adam

Just one more non-reply.
So you guys really have no answer at all? Bad enough that Ehrman shot you down, but I provide the detail evidence from the primary sources that MJ is dead. Ehrman relied mostly on consensus, but I provide new arguments for eyewitnesses.

Sheshbazzar

:hysterical:
Ehrman relied on consensus to produce a steaming pile of horse-turds about non-existent and invisible documents and evidences that would even do you credit, and now his ass is getting dragged through it.