Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-03-2006, 09:17 PM | #21 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
Quote:
For example, let's see from his website: Quote:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm Go down to "Learning of a Sacred Meal". What he fails to do in every case is explain why this passage by Paul is so similar to that of the gospels. Yes, I fully agree that it can be read in the way that he asks us to read it, indeed I could see that before even reading Doherty's commentary on it, but that doesn't explain the similarity between Paul and gospels on this. There are possible explanations, but I want to hear what people offer for them. Possibilities are: 1) Mark read the letters of Paul, and thus got the idea from there 2) Paul started this rite himself with these letters, and it caught on, becoming an oral tradition that influenced Mark 3) The wording of Paul is a later modification (in which case Doherty is wasting his time trying to explain it away, and in which case Doherty's argument actually counters the claim that its a later modification) My point is, we don't need to just come up with an ahistorical reading of this passage to fit it into JM, we also have to explain how this rite appears in both Paul and the gospels, and as far as I can see, Doherty hasn't done that. |
|||
12-04-2006, 06:46 AM | #22 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Ben. |
|
12-04-2006, 08:06 AM | #23 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
Quote:
Naturally, this forum has adopted no such criterion. Some people may do so (no credit to them), but that's it. (Hint: this forum has, for itself, stepped up for very little indeed.) regards, Peter Kirby |
|
12-04-2006, 11:21 AM | #24 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
I can state with some confidence that "the forum" has not adopted the position that mainstream rejection is a good thing for a theory.
|
12-04-2006, 12:09 PM | #25 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Ben. |
|
12-04-2006, 12:37 PM | #26 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Do you alone determine what becomes 'mainstream'? Or are you just a wall in that direction? It appears to me that you would have probably advised Galileo to burn and destroy his instruments of astronomy so that he could avoid hitting all the walls of mainstream. |
|
12-04-2006, 01:15 PM | #27 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
1. I have no power whatsoever to determine what is mainstream. My prediction should not be mistaken for a threat on my part to hold biblical studies hostage or such. 2. I am not a wall in that (or in any) direction, as far as I am aware. 3. While I cannot with very much certainty tell what I would have been like if I had been born several centuries ago, I can say that, judging by my current stances on contemporary scientific research, I seriously doubt I would have had anything to say against Galileo and his research. Thank you for your questions. Ben. |
|
12-04-2006, 01:42 PM | #28 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
|
Quote:
Please tell me who it was, even amongst Galileo's opponents (all of whom, by the way, admitted Galileo was right), who advised Galileo to burn and destroy his astromomical instruments? Jeffrey Gibson |
|
12-04-2006, 01:47 PM | #29 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Please stay on topic and do not wander off into Galileo, Christian atrocities, etc. We have had other threads on the significance of the mainstream consensus, but feel free to start a new one if you care.
Toto mod, BCH |
12-04-2006, 02:09 PM | #30 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 294
|
Quote:
Quote:
Kevin Rosero |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|