Vorkosigan

No problem then. I'd be happy to stage a debate here and jointly with another venue (your blog?). You can defend the Mark dates from 65-75 position and I''l defend the Mark dates from after 110 position. Postings will be limited to the two of us. That way you don't have to worry about others piling on.

Michael (Vork)

Amaleq13

I can only assume that the meta-argument tangent that derailed this thread is what prevented praxeus from adequately supporting his assertions and answering direct questions addressed to him so I'm bumping it to provide him the opportunity to do so. The unanswered questions and inadequately supported assertions can be found here, here and here.

Steven Avery

LOL.. I dunno if I saw this before. Anyone who looks at the threads see the games that are played. In the midst of a couple of interesting grammatical and textual discussions, the errantists essentially claim everything is late and forged and untrustworthy, and use one late date to support another claim. They will extend this from the NT text even into the writers of the first centuries.

An inerrantist like myself of course has different glasses. I see the NT as one harmonious truthful unit. And I am most happy to acknowledge that there is an element of faith and trust and acceptance in my views of the scripture text and the Messiah that is declared.

Ergo to expect me to convince, or prove to, various details to those who have a completely different conceptual base about the New Testament text, Judaism, Christianity, history and more, of any particular facts or evidences is simply not realistic, and of course a Diogenes or an Amaleq can always claim that they were not convinced by assertion A,B,C or the various scriptures and evidences given.

That is their right and privilege, although I believe they could help themselves by seeking to be lifted out of their skeptic/critic paradigimic unbelief box.

From my standpoint each thread needs be edifying in some manner to be continued. Overall I enjoy the discussion here anyway, when I can give them some time. Back now a bit after a few months hiatus to other worlds.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13

You will never know whether we consider your evidence to be convincing unless you provide it but that is entirely irrelevant to the fact that, in a rational discussion, you are obligated to attempt to support your claims regardless of any differing "conceptual base" one might suspect. You did not do so for the questions/objections raised in the linked posts but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you had simply missed them.

Steven Avery

Well I saw a lot of questions answered on those threads.

Often the skeptic just claims in response that the Gospels and other NT books involved were late first century or in the second, or not by their first-person authors, and/or forgeries and/or fictional drama constructs, ergo irrelevant, so they discard the evidences.

And of course the skeptics will simply appeal to the authority of 'critical scholarship', a realm for others like themselves who reject the truth of the scripture books, to support their assertions. The modus operandi is actually a bit humorous.

So, as stated, it is clear that we have a completely different conceptual base, leading to different conclusions even when viewing the same evidences.

And life goes on.

And the 'moderator' goes a bit haywire.

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13

That is why I linked to the three specific posts that contained the specific questions and refutations that had not obtained a reply.

This is not just true of "the skeptic" but of scholars with varying "conceptual bases". For example, I can find the above conclusions acknowledged by The Catholic Study Bible as accepted by modern scholarship.

I agree that those who consider the evidence through the lense of faith are not likely to reach the same conclusions as those who consider the evidence the same way they do for any ancient texts. If your conclusion is based on your faith-based interpretation of the evidence, then I also agree that you would be wasting your time trying to defend your conclusion here.

Steven Avery

And I looked at them and didn't see hardly anything that was out of the same old conceptual framework loggerjam. Nothing that would really enhance anybodies learning, or delve deeper into the issues. Maybe I missed something, but that's how it looked.

And I still smile big when I think about how hard one of you folks tried to argue that the NT was errrant because the region of Gadara did not border Kinneret because of an ultra-geographic-boundry-parsing of some enpassant words of Josephus. I learned a lot from that dialog, filed it for a future paper, by the grace of Messiah, and moved on.

Sure, in the sense that the scriptures are a spiritual book, and both the acceptances and oppositions are spiritually based, with the logical arguments being consequent. So I do not necessarily try to 'defend my conclusion' to those who base their research on an issue on looking for critical scholars who will tell them 'forgery, false, lies, late'. They have their viewpoint all etched in gravel way before I arrived.

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13

I think you've made it clear you do not intend to defend your assertions or answer the questions. Your excuses for this are irrelevant.

This is a false generalization of your own approach to those who hold opposing conclusions. Speaking for myself and the sources I have relied upon, it simply is not true. I reached the conclusions I hold because I am convinced the evidence requires them and not because of any "spiritually based" opposition.

Steven Avery

LOL... maybe to you, the 'moderator' here, the dude who says 'run around to these three threads and satisfy me, Joe and Herman.' And if I don't go running off on every wild goose chase you can muster, you will feel vindicated in some strange sense.

Folks here, however, can read the threads and address me directly. If they really think I made any assertion that was out-of-line or false, they can comment.

And if they think I took it open myself to prove the New Testament to folks who think everything is lies and forged, then they could show me where. That is your special failing, as a 'moderator'. You ascribe to me a position I never took, and then attack that position.

So the way in which folks handle the threads, including the 'moderator', is in fact very relevant.

Yeah..sure.

Proverbs 20:6
Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness:
but a faithful man who can find?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13

What are you talking about? All you've made clear is that you didn't bother to check the links to see what I was talking about. If you had, you would have known that they are links to three posts in this thread which owes its existence to assertions you made and arguments you offered to defend them.

As I stated, I offered the links on the possibility you had simply missed the posts rather than deliberately ignored them. They were offered on the possibility you would be willing and capable of defending your assertions. Thank you for disabusing me of this notion.

Again, what are you talking about? First, my position as moderator is entirely irrelevant and a red herring in this discussion. Second, I've asked you if you would care to respond to unanswered questions and unaddressed refutations of your argument. Your assertion is blatantly false and another red herring.

I suggest you quit while you're behind but feel free to have the last word. You've made your position clear enough to me.