spin

:hysterical:

No Robots

Well, I was included in the quotation, so I thought I'd weigh in. Too bad you're being so reasonable. I had a post all ready to explain how your position arises from the Coriolis effect wherein, for antipodeans, effects precede causes.

spin

I like to contextualize people's comments wherever possible.

I'm sorry. I can't help that.

Which reminds me, what's the last thing that passes through a bug's head as it hits a windshield?

:thinking:


N/A

(I wanted to use NSFW tags rather than HIDE, but the image was not the sort the software could handle.)

arnoldo

The demise of the various criteria for authenticity will diminish the following arguments that the following gospel accounts are factual rather than fictional.
John 2:3-4 allegedly portrays an embarrassing event where the Mary’s request is initially rejected by Jesus

Therefore this account is argued to be factual since according to the Criterion of Embarrassment (defined below);

Mark 3:31-35 contains to provide another account where Jesus rejects a request by Mary and his brothers.

This account is argued to be factual according to the Criterion of Coherence since it follows the former account of Jesus rejecting his family member’s request. The Criterion of Coherence is defined as;

Since the account of Luke 11:27-28 also “coheres” with the former two examples of Jesus’s relationship with his family it also is argued to be factual.

Additionally, since the account of Luke 11:27-28 is also documented in the Gospel of Thomas (79);

Is argued to be factual according the Criterion of Multiple Attestation defined as follows;

IMHO, these various criteria have the same value in arguing for the historical accuracy of gospel accounts as arguments that latinisms, or alleged anachronism, support a latter, rather than earlier, dating of the gospels.

*Definitions were taken from Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Anthony Le Donne

Adam

Says the man who never answers questions, yet quoting a sentence of mine that claims none of you listened to me. spin certainly didn't.
I recall one instance in which spin did more than merely state that I had only asserted, not proved. He never refuted me, but did turn up the point about Boismard and L that I had already ceased to believe.

spin

I pointed out over and over again that Adam's was a crock of assertions, built on other people's opinions, and falsified twice.

Adam

All wrong again.
Much of what I said had to be assertions, because they were my own original ideas. Thus there could not be footnotes. The rest was so much in common scholarship that footnotes were superfluous. Nor is spin apparently aware of the last few hundred posts in Gospel Eyewitnesses in which I first considered whether three or four eyewitnesses might yet be consistent with atheism (though not with MJ), but later found evidence from three recent texts that supported my original presentation of seven written eyewitness records about Jesus.

You made very few attempts to refute me and certainly never falsified my thesis. You may be confusing your arguments against my six or seven layers to gMark, which you harped on endlessly even though I kept saying it was only peripheral. Any refutation of my six-layer peripheral thesis in Post #230 I handled by bringing in a seventh layer.

mountainman

Sounds like string theory with curled up dimensions.

spin

It wasn't a case of just too many assertions, but no glue (evidence) to justify any of them.

spin simply learnt that Adam was a write-off, incapable of producing anything other than a bunch of assertions peppered with names and lists of numbers. A look at the thread will see that a number of his "you gotta read my post number XYZ" posts were analyzed and proved to be just as I described them in the previous sentence.

Adam's "thesis" was falsified by the large amount of Latin influence on the text at all levels which he asserts all happened late. His "thesis" was also falsified by the underlying chiastic structures that cross his layer boundaries. The response in both cases was simple denial.

Adam is incapable of defending his "thesis" or even understanding the problems facing him.

Yeah, yeah, let's add another layer of obfuscation in a sad attempt to cover up the faults. One would need more layers of obfuscation to cover up Adam's twaddle.

In case one hasn't divined my opinion of Adam's eye witlesses:

:horsecrap: igsfly: :hobbyhorse: igsfly: :horsecrap:



And I've spent more than enough time on Adam's crud.

:tombstone:

arnoldo

The identification of chiastic elements to argue that the gospel were based on oral (eyewitness?) accounts may also face an untimely demise. Richard Horsley argues that the gMark has the following chiastic structuring.