Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 01-28-2012, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Why should I pretend to know more than I know?

Kind of a short Gospel you are offering here....in other words you don't know what should be included or should be omitted, what is fact or what is fiction.
You tell us that you yourself ".. don't accept the Discourses as all of one piece," but you fail to tell us what part or parts of the Discourses it is that you are not accepting...
but you expect us to accept your undefined and undelineated 'Gospel' as being an accurate and persuasive accounting???

You say you "settle for something in-between". BUT WHAT? We have no way of knowing unless you define exactly what this "something in-between" consists of.

Basically all we are asking you, and most reasonably, is to present to us exactly what this so called 'Gospel' of yours actually consists of.
Only you can decide with what verse it begins, what verses (or parts thereof) it contains, or where it ends.

We know where the received text of The NT begins and ends, and all of its contents in their order.
It is highly unreasonable of you (nearly unsane) for you to expect us to know where yours does, or what of all you might choose to retain, or might choose to eliminate.
No one else can choose these verses (or parts thereof) for you.
Not even another Christian.

Your theory is your own baby, and you are the only one that can deliver it.
If you delay long enough it is likely to be stillborn.

ApostateAbe · 01-28-2012, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The Gospel of Abe

Interesting Abe, but not what I am expecting from Adam. His argument from the day of his arrival here is that certain sections of the Gospel texts were written by certain of the apostles themselves, along with Nicodemus, and they were the 'eyewitness' sources upon whose testimony the Gospels were first composed
Adam professes that he can identify these specific verses as penned in the Gospels, and also exactly identify which of the apostles (or Nicodemus) was the writer of each of these verses or sections of text.

He has proven very facile at providing long lists of verse numbers which he claims to back up his contentions, and claims that there is a credible historical story that can be recovered from these actual verses, without accepting or including any of the Gospel stories supernatural or miracle elements, this is what he has chosen to designate as being his "Gospel According to the Atheists".

This Gospel that Adam is professing to exist or to be able to recover would be quite different than that 'free form' account given in 'The Gospel of Abe', because the very argument being made by Adam in his threads is that these particular verses and portions of text are the accurate eyewitness accounts penned by the apostles (and Nicodemus) that need to be accepted as historical accounts even by atheists and non-believers.
His composition therefore would need to incorporate these exact verses and sections more or less word for word as his alleged eyewitnesses reported them.

The challenge for Adam is to produce a coherent and readable Gospel narrative employing only those elements that can be found within the existing texts- free of any references to Josephus or elements drawn from any latter church writings.

He alleges there is a "Gospel which is According to the Atheists" and I am asking him nothing more than to produce such a Gospel.

I agree. A worthy correction would be that historical inferences are not about either trusting or distrusting the ancient texts, but good inferences are about finding the best explanations for the ancient texts.

DiamondH · 01-28-2012, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

My challenge was and is;
Take your Gospels one or all, and write a coherent text that does not include any supernatural elements, miracles, or actions or interventions by any invisible entities.

You do understand what Gospels one or all,.. means don't you?

For your comprehension I'll explain. You may employ any or all verses or portions of the texts of the received Gospels that do not include any supernatural elements, miracles, or actions or interventions by any invisible entities, to produce that text that you believe best represents your idea of what this miracle-free Gospel that you posit to originally have existed would consist of.

GMatthew was only suggested as beginning because it is placed first in the series of Gospels in all Bibles.
But you are certainly more than welcome to choose the text of your best shot composition, from whatever verses you endorse, from whatever Gospel you wish, and feel free to mix or match them in any way or order that suits you, to fashion a coherent text. With the only proviso being that it not include any supernatural elements, miracles, or actions or interventions by any invisible entities.

You invented, and have employed the title, 'Gospel According to the Atheists' in multiple posts, distinctly implying that there are an identifiable set of witnesses and texts that even atheist must accept as being historical accountings.
Thus I am calling you out on it and issuing you the challenge of backing up your claim by producing such a text in a coherent and readable narrative form.
You alone are the only one qualified to decide exactly what verses you wish to include or to exclude, and none of us can possibly do that for you.

I would expect that the actual length of any such text would be far less than that of the walls of protracted arguments you have thus far presented in this Forum.

Write your miracle-free version of the NT, and we will have something to discuss.

The Gospel of Abe

Con artist, comic or crazy.

ApostateAbe · 01-28-2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiamondH

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The Gospel of Abe

Con artist, comic or crazy.

I think I was most inspired by the story of Joseph Smith.

DiamondH · 01-28-2012, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Why should I pretend to know more than I know? The stylistic markers within the Johannine Discourses are not so clear as those demarkating them from the other sources and redactions within gJohn. I don't accept the Discourses as all of one piece, but Teeple's critique assigns too much to an Editor, and I settle for something in-between. The boundaries do not affect how much supernaturalism is or isn't in the earliest strata (except the whole concept underlying John 6 ). What is clear is that a great part of the Discourses were gathered as evidence against Jesus and thus had to be while he was not yet sentenced. Of course that makes problematic how much we can trust what Jesus is quoted as saying. But it's eyewitness testimony, no matter how slanted.

Wave those hands any faster and you might take off and fly around the room.

DiamondH · 01-28-2012, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiamondH

Con artist, comic or crazy.

I think I was most inspired by the story of Joseph Smith.

Yep, god told him directly not to work, gotta like a god like that.

Steve Weiss · 01-28-2012, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You didn't answer the question. No surprise. To answer your inquiry, I keep a list of criteria for those times when either mythicists or creationists challenge the idea that some intellectuals are more authoritative than others.

There are a number of qualifications that help to establish the credibility of an expert in any field. Here are some positive qualifications:

Has a doctoral degree in the relevant field from a high-ranking accredited academic institution
Holds a teaching or research position in the relevant field at an accredited academic institution
Has authored articles published in respected peer-reviewed journals
Has authored publications that are positively cited by many other experts in the same field
Has opinions that are representative of a significant portion of other experts in the same field

There is a different list of criteria for judging the lack of credibility of an expert. Here are some negative qualifications:

Has positions that are strongly ridiculed or condemned by many other experts in the field
Has positions that strongly align with the same non-academic special interest group that supports the expert's living
Has been convicted of plagiarism or other serious forms of academic dishonesty

Not enough positive qualifications and too many negative qualifications means an expert is not authoritative.

Now, please explain your qualifications for the "Gospel of Abe". Your post resolves NOTHING.

It is EVIDENCE, SOURCES and ARTIFACTS from Antiquity that is required in the 250 year old QUEST for the historical Jesus.

There may be THOUSANDS of qualified experts but there is NO evidence, no sources, no artifacts from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth and the stories about him are unreliable and found in Forgeries.

A miracle-working Jesus of mainsteam Christianity certainly did not exist. Any other Jesus that may have said or done something 2000 years ago is lost in history and is irrelevant. No amount of testimony or documentation will substantiate miraculous claims, and taking a vote on the truth of Christianity is of no validity or value.

Adam · 01-29-2012, 12:35 AM

You don’t want more lists, or you’re demanding another list, I can’t tell. Doesn’t matter, Shesh. Expanding the Nicodemus list in Post #104 to include all the Discourses would not add in more supernatural complications. Contracting the list down to strictly what Teeple includes as “G” would eliminate it all. Either way, there is plenty of teaching of Jesus here that can be held to approximate what he said in his most expansive modes. For my purposes I don’t need to cut out all miracles as fictional, but for your purposes there is little enough that it can be dismissed as not integral to the text. Either way we’re left with the problem of someone here who is in C. S. Lewis’s words, “Lord, lunatic, or liar”. Yes, I know there is the other alternative of “legend”, but that’s irreconcilable with the early record I believe this is. That is, MJ is out of consideration, we need to deal with a Jesus who is a lunatic or a liar (your HJ choices) or Lord (mine).

For your purposes I would like to give you a list of just Howard Teeple’s “G” verses only, but it’s very detailed, splitting some verses in multiple parts. His book (Literary Origin of the Gospel of John) is not impossible to get, for any of you who can only trust an atheist.
Shesh raises the issue of what I am leaving out in my lists. I’m leaving out what Teeple and I agree is from the narrative source “S”. Prior to John 13 this is the Signs Source whose miracles none of you would accept. I have no objection to miracles, but I can agree that these parts were not written by Nicodemus. Also excluded are the Redactor’s additions. Here again Teeple and I largely agree. The other exclusion is wherever I see the Editor at work, and here Teeple excludes much more than I do. Whatever I leave out Teeple would also leave out. You need have no fear that I have wantonly excluded verses that defeat my recent theory that half my eyewitnesses support HJ without going overboard (in your minds) into orthodox Christianity.
And after you give my list a reading and modify for your purposes, let’s discuss it and see if supernaturalism is too integral to it to be supportive of HJ in your minds.

On the other current discussion in this thread, namely Earl Doherty’s lament that there remains no fair financial incentive for publishing on the internet, it would seem that I would serve my own similar needs by not getting everything of mine out on the internet, but to leave something for a print book someday. Regardless of that, it seems certain that whatever I do present will just be shot down here. I hear both that I say too little and that I say too much. I don’t need to respond to demands that clearly can never be satisfied. For example, I had planned for today to be the occasion to give a list for L (Special Luke) in coordination with interwoven Q verses in Luke 9:57 to 18:14. Oh, there I’ve said it; just read those eight chapters that I say were from one or the other of two of the eyewitnesses (Matthew and Simon). There are only a few miracles, so feel free for your purposes to attribute them to the credulousness of a slightly later (L) eyewitness (Simon) who included stories he had not personally seen. You can’t simply cite those as vitiating this evidence for what the Historical Jesus said.

Sheshbazzar · 01-29-2012, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

You don’t want more lists, or you’re demanding another list, I can’t tell. Doesn’t matter, Shesh.

You can't tell....but anyone else that has read our exchanges already knows exactly what it is that I have asked you to provide. repeatedly.

Here, this may help you with your short term memory problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I offer you this simple challenge Adam;
Take your Gospels one or all, and write a coherent TEXT that does not include any supernatural elements, miracles, or actions or interventions by any invisible entities.
And present here what you believe to represent the most accurate, original, and uninterpolated example of how your alleged original texts originally read.
(POST #77)

For your comprehension I'll explain. You may employ any or all verses or portions of the texts of the received Gospels that do not include any supernatural elements, miracles, or actions or interventions by any invisible entities, to produce that TEXT that you believe best represents your idea of what this miracle-free Gospel that you posit to originally have existed would consist of.

you are certainly more than welcome to choose the TEXT of your best shot COMPOSITION, from whatever verses you endorse, from whatever Gospel you wish, and feel free to mix or match them in any way or order that suits you, to fashion a coherent TEXT. With the only proviso being that it not include any supernatural elements, miracles, or actions or interventions by any invisible entities.
You invented, and have employed the title, 'Gospel According to the Atheists' in multiple posts, distinctly implying that there are an identifiable set of witnesses and texts that even atheist must accept as being historical accountings.
Thus I am calling you out on it and issuing you the challenge of backing up your claim by producing such A TEXT in a coherent and READABLE NARRATIVE form.
You alone are the only one qualified to decide exactly what verses you wish to include or to exclude, and none of us can possibly do that for you.(POST #93)

(Your) argument from the day of (your) arrival here is that certain sections of the Gospel texts were written by certain of the apostles themselves, along with Nicodemus, and they were the 'eyewitness' sources upon whose testimony the Gospels were first composed
(You) professes that (you) can identify these specific verses as penned in the Gospels, and also exactly identify which of the apostles (or Nicodemus) was the writer of each of these verses or sections of text.

This Gospel that (you are) professing to exist, or (are) able to recover would be quite different than that 'free form' account given in 'The Gospel of Abe', because the very argument being made by (you) in (your) threads is that these particular verses and portions of text are the accurate eyewitness accounts penned by the apostles (and Nicodemus) that need to be accepted as historical accounts even by atheists and non-believers.
(Your) COMPOSITION therefore would need to incorporate these exact verses and sections more or less word for word as (your) alleged eyewitnesses reported them.

The challenge for (you Adam) is to produce a coherent and READABLE GOSPEL NARRATIVE employing only those elements that can be found within the existing texts- free of any references to Josephus or elements drawn from any latter church writings.

(You) allege there is a "Gospel which is According to the Atheists", and I am asking (you) nothing more than to produce such a Gospel. (POST #100)

I don't need another list of verse numbers.
And "(in the main)__ 'most of',__ 'most of',__ 'most of", just don't cut it,
What are you leaving out??? And how in the hell do you expect us to know?

If your tale is an eyewitness report you should be able to WRITE IT OUT IN AN EASILY READABLE FORMAT.
Arrange it in any manner you chose, leave out whatever you think needs left out, just make it make sense.

Why not simply provide us with the first dozen verses of this alleged 'eyewitness' account?
Shouldn't take up half of the space of one of your longer posts here.

Is your reticence to do so, because you cannot?
Have you been trying it, and finding out for yourself that it comes out deficient?

Inquiring minds want to know, What is your hold up? (POST #104)

Notice the big RED words Adam. Are you intellegent enough to read and understand those big RED words Adam? Why not stop making an incredible ass of yourself.

Can you write even the first verse of your imaginary Gospel? Which at this point is far more significant than whoever it is that you imagine to be that verse's author.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

.... it would seem that I would serve my own similar needs by not getting everything of mine out on the internet, but to leave something for a print book someday.

Yeah, that's great idea, save it for a book, you might even manage to sell one. To yourself.

.

maryhelena · 01-29-2012, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

You don’t want more lists, or you’re demanding another list, I can’t tell. Doesn’t matter, Shesh.

You can't tell....but anyone else that has read our exchanges already knows exactly what it is that I have asked you to provide. repeatedly.

Shesh - methinks you deserve an endurance medal......

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-29-2012, 12:35 AM	#38
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	You don’t want more lists, or you’re demanding another list, I can’t tell. Doesn’t matter, Shesh. Expanding the Nicodemus list in Post #104 to include all the Discourses would not add in more supernatural complications. Contracting the list down to strictly what Teeple includes as “G” would eliminate it all. Either way, there is plenty of teaching of Jesus here that can be held to approximate what he said in his most expansive modes. For my purposes I don’t need to cut out all miracles as fictional, but for your purposes there is little enough that it can be dismissed as not integral to the text. Either way we’re left with the problem of someone here who is in C. S. Lewis’s words, “Lord, lunatic, or liar”. Yes, I know there is the other alternative of “legend”, but that’s irreconcilable with the early record I believe this is. That is, MJ is out of consideration, we need to deal with a Jesus who is a lunatic or a liar (your HJ choices) or Lord (mine). For your purposes I would like to give you a list of just Howard Teeple’s “G” verses only, but it’s very detailed, splitting some verses in multiple parts. His book (Literary Origin of the Gospel of John) is not impossible to get, for any of you who can only trust an atheist. Shesh raises the issue of what I am leaving out in my lists. I’m leaving out what Teeple and I agree is from the narrative source “S”. Prior to John 13 this is the Signs Source whose miracles none of you would accept. I have no objection to miracles, but I can agree that these parts were not written by Nicodemus. Also excluded are the Redactor’s additions. Here again Teeple and I largely agree. The other exclusion is wherever I see the Editor at work, and here Teeple excludes much more than I do. Whatever I leave out Teeple would also leave out. You need have no fear that I have wantonly excluded verses that defeat my recent theory that half my eyewitnesses support HJ without going overboard (in your minds) into orthodox Christianity. And after you give my list a reading and modify for your purposes, let’s discuss it and see if supernaturalism is too integral to it to be supportive of HJ in your minds. On the other current discussion in this thread, namely Earl Doherty’s lament that there remains no fair financial incentive for publishing on the internet, it would seem that I would serve my own similar needs by not getting everything of mine out on the internet, but to leave something for a print book someday. Regardless of that, it seems certain that whatever I do present will just be shot down here. I hear both that I say too little and that I say too much. I don’t need to respond to demands that clearly can never be satisfied. For example, I had planned for today to be the occasion to give a list for L (Special Luke) in coordination with interwoven Q verses in Luke 9:57 to 18:14. Oh, there I’ve said it; just read those eight chapters that I say were from one or the other of two of the eyewitnesses (Matthew and Simon). There are only a few miracles, so feel free for your purposes to attribute them to the credulousness of a slightly later (L) eyewitness (Simon) who included stories he had not personally seen. You can’t simply cite those as vitiating this evidence for what the Historical Jesus said.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.