stephan huller

http://legiononomamoi.deviantart.com/

I think we should show him some kindness. It's seems like he's sad.

stephan huller

Maybe we should lighten up the mood with possibly the worst song ever recorded in the history of music.

mountainman

"Let's all look on the bright side of life"

Toto

On Vridar:

Scholarly Consensus in Biblical Studies — Does It Mean Anything?

aa5874

What you have shown is the WORST POLL conducted in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Built_This_City

This a perfect example where Opinion CONTRADICTS the actual DATA and is PROVEN to be in Error yet accepted as valid.

"We Built this City" could NOT be the worst song ever recorded in the history of music once it was Number One in the USA, Canada and Australia.

Amazingly, the worst recorded songs were NOT considered when We built this City was nominated for the worst recorded song.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Buil...s_of_the_1980s

The worse recorded songs were DISQUALIFIED from the poll!!!!

We have before us the WORSE POLL ever conducted in history.

aa5874

Amazingly, the very people who ridicule "Consensus" are the same people who rely on it to claim the Pauline writings are early.

It is most mind boggling that even Scholars only accept a supposed "consensus" when it agrees with their position.

Now, what is the actual evidence for the supposed consensus that the Pauline writings were composed before c 70 CE????

It is NOT the Pauline letters.

It is NOT Acts of the Apostles.

It is Irenaeus--the Guy who did NOT even know when Pilate was governor of Judea.

The supposed consensus is based on Irenaeus whose claims about the authorship, dating and chronology of books in the NT have been REJECTED by the very same Scholars.

Adam

Yet another non-response, and like all the others providing no link for your side.

You don't even say which theory of mine you responded to, my main theory of seven written gospel eyewitness records or the subsidiary you chose, my six layers in gMark.

Nor do I recall that you EVER engaged my minimalist theory of four non-supernatural accounts that refuted mythicism. (The rest of my theses could be disregarded automatically by atheists, though of course still open for discussion on BCH by its nature.)

And in general FEDB responses attacked my methodology as if I am (or anyone is) still bound by long-abandoned Form Criticism.

Adam

I have been touting myself as having an advantage over such methodologists as Vorkosigan because I am a contrarian. I have been mentioning that that enabled me to set aside Form Criticism and proceed independently. Another unexamined consensus discussed above was Bauckham's overturning of the assumption that locality was critical to development of the gospels. In a personal letter to me from J. Edgar Bruns 32 years ago he told me the question of scholars was not "when" or "who" but "where". (Maybe it was just my lucky guess that I ignored the "where" question then, and 30 years later the "where" answers came to me.)

spin

What do you expect when you have failed dismally to demonstrate your eye witlesses, to show that you actually can individuate separate sources? The only person who cannot see your inability to supply substantive evidence is you. Quoting other people's opinions to reinforce your initial assumptions gets you nowhere other than by providing a little self-stimulation that your not alone with your lack of substance.

At which point in a house of cards does one need to point at??

Form criticism? Maybe text criticism.

Your faecesthesis gets disregarded by its automatic assumption of its conclusions. You've sprayed lists of numbers across this forum like a cat trying to mark out territory. You've ignored everything that anyone has said in criticism of your stuff and assumed its correctness, referring back to it as citable material. I mean really, do you think that this is any way to proceed in sustaining a hypothesis??

hjalti

Well, let me know when you're going to write anything substantive regarding his book.