Clivedurdle

Shock horror!

What is that sin called in Islam?

What were definitions of words before dictionaries were invented?

Does not language change? Gay?

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=165153

juergen

That sure would put a new spin on the term "Higher Criticism," but I wonder, what makes you say that?

youngalexander

In another thread Johnny Skeptic has found it necessary to defend himself against "uncalled for absurdities".

I wonder if this is not the true definition of 'crank' - one who promulgates "uncalled for absurdities".

Should we not hereby take a stand, and call for more absurdities :devil1:
(Yet let them be attended by logic, and reasoned argumentation of evidence!)

jjramsey

I'd half-disagree. Most definitely, traditional is not to be cleanly equated with right or wrong. However, the word "crank" in practice means far more than mere minority status and implies that grossly bad reasoning or denial or misconstruing of facts is used. Crank theories are pretty much wrong by definition. Currently, the theory that the TF is completely forged is held by a minority of scholars, but it is hardly crank. There are legitimate reasons to hold the whole passage in suspicion. Contrast this with Earl Doherty's theorizing, where we have him coming to a conclusion about the Greek meaning of kata sarka based on an equivocation fallacy about the English word "sphere" used in a commentary about Paul's use of kata sarka, or with Freke & Gandy, who eke out the claim that Dionysus was crucified from a vase portraying a crude, scarecrow-like wooden idol of Dionysus.

Clivedurdle

I do not have the gall to post in such a superior manner!

There seem to be huge assumptions that alleged errors in arguments are fatal to the whole argument.

Is that the case or are we looking at possible weak supporting arguments.

I do not understand how anyone can stand like Moses on Sinaii and pronounce on these areas so assertively. It reminds me of classic geocentric thinking.

How is it your gnosis is so superior? Why does your use of crank feel identical to heresy?

Ben C Smith

Case in point:

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Agreed. It's a perfectly rational position to take, although not one that I hold myself.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

The following scholars think the TF is completely inauthentic:

Lardner,
Harnack,
Schurer,
Gordon Stein.
Author of CMU,
Arthur Drews,
David Taylor,
Wells, JM
Bishop Warburton "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too",
Remsburg,
Rev. Dr. Giles,
Rev. S. Baring-Gould,
Cannon Farrar,
Theodor Keim,
Rev. Dr. Hooykaas ,
Dr. Alexander Campbell,
Dr. Chalmers,
Lee Strobel (NOTE: See comments),
Charles Templeton,
Freke and Gandy,
Earl Doherty,
Marshall Gauvin ("[the TF] .. did not exist." ),
Edwin Johnson,
Jakob Burckhardt ??
Jay Raskin
Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity


There are probably others. And I'd question the claim
that this view is held by a minority of scholars.
We all know how people love to play with statistics.

Where is the current balance sheet of opinion?
Where is the current total of those for and against?
Support your assertion with some data please.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

arnoldo

Marshall Galvin sure does seem to be "scholar" in fact does his writing appear in any "scholarly" peer reviewed journals on biblical archaelogy/history?
Check out this *ahem* scholarly article: The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person

Here is some data that the TF is authentic (note the Arabic TF)

Josephus' Testimony to Jesus (Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-64

mountainman

The "Biblical History" of the New Testament is totally conjectural. You have only to take one look at the various estimates of its underlying chronologicial framework to see that this chronological foundation itself it is a dog's breakfast. Moreover, "Biblical Historians" are compelled to subscribe to this HJ postulate. And we have already seen, this is a crank hypothesis. The field that has scholarship and objectivity in this matter is "Ancient History", where this totally crank HJ postulate is not necessarily required at the postulate level of the field. And as for the field of "New Testament Archaeology", the entire field is encapsulated by the inscription of Basilides in Rome, which is often taken (and wrongly IMO) as being "christian" on the basis of the (extremely christian phrase) "He Sleeps".


Best wishes,


Pete Brown