Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-26-2009, 12:14 AM | #11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
|
Quote:
Canon of historicity number one: Any knowledge of the life of Jesus must be corroborated by another credible source external of the NT and the Church. I am glad you see the NT as a credible source though ("another credible source"). Vinnie |
|
08-26-2009, 12:25 AM | #12 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
|
Quote:
And if these biographies include stories of Moon talking to Satan, a real historian would still use them? Especially if the biographies never gave any sources for their stories, but had a page in the back saying 'We know that the person who wrote this was telling the truth.' |
||
08-26-2009, 12:57 AM | #13 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
|
08-26-2009, 01:03 AM | #14 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
|
Quote:
Why do mainstream Biblical scholars never use as a criterion for authenticity the documented fact that religions have been empirically shown to be very, very often based on frauds, lies and charlatans? If they have come to the conclusion that Christianity was not based on frauds, lies and charlatans, shouldn't they show their working? Even Paul talks about people peddling the word of God for money... I bet you got a lot more attention from fellow Christians if you talked about the miracles that Jesus had done , rather than about his big nose or habit of repeating himself when distracted. And the bigger the miracle that Jesus had done, the more Christians would want to hear your stories. |
|
08-26-2009, 01:08 AM | #15 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
|
It is always depressing to watch people who have never researched anything in their lives laying down "criteria" of historicity designed primarily around convenience to reach a pre-designed conclusion. Please don't. It brings atheism into disrepute.
|
08-26-2009, 01:26 AM | #16 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mornington Peninsula
Posts: 1,306
|
Quote:
From a physical perspective, I ask - are we seeing a progression? Reflective HJ --> Refractive HJ --> Diffractive HJ Diffraction: the process by which a beam of light or other system of waves is spread out as a result of passing through a narrow apertureOr is this what Earl and others have already proposed? |
|
08-26-2009, 01:42 AM | #17 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
|
Quote:
Excuse us while we ignore these ad hominem poisoning the well statements, without a shred of documentation to back up the smug self-satisfaction of somebody who knows he can dismiss anything he doesn't like while projecting his own attitude on to others. I suppose it is a bit like engineers criticising amateurs who can't build bridges when they criticise engineers for not building bridges properly. That would be impressive , if these engineers could show us the bridges they have built. Instead, what we get are books documenting the failure of the First Quest to build a bridge, the failure of the Second Quest to build a bridge etc, and engineers deciding by a vote what would be a successfully built bridge , while other engineers claim these votes about bridge building use all the wrong criteria for deciding what is a good bridge. Mainstream Biblical Scholarship is in disrepute. They can't show us any bridges they have built, while preening that they are the only people in the world qualified to build bridges. |
|
08-26-2009, 01:54 AM | #18 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Historical matrix
I was a little shocked to see that aa 5874 was responsible for the following statement.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Vinnie often seems simply to miss out on the problem of just assuming that Jesus is historical. He will not face what is necessary to demonstrate his historicity. That is to bring him into the historical matrix [the collected body of historical knowledge] based on data already in the historical matrix. You can't get someone to be historical if s/he cannot be connected to what is known to be history. Vinnie, can you try to understand this? The gospels haven't shown themselves to reflect what is in the historical matrix and surely you should be able to see this. There should be no need to say that this situation doesn't mean that there are real events behind the gospels, but that any real events haven't been established, ie they remain outside the historical matrix. The sad thing is that we live in an age where people refuse to do the work to show that the story of Jesus in some form belongs in the historical matrix. spin |
|||
08-26-2009, 01:58 AM | #19 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
What brings non-religious positions into disrepute are usually religiously motivated misrepresentations, such as the one you have espoused. spin |
|
08-26-2009, 06:11 AM | #20 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Please read my posts carefully and please I beg of you, do not omit certain parts so as to make mis-leading statements. This is the first part of the post. Quote:
|
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|