GakuseiDon

NOGO, true, you answered on Paul. I think Tatian cuts out most of the ground underneath Doherty's thesis, and impacts on Paul (IMO), but you are right: Paul still needs to be addressed. But forgive me for wanting to get the issue of Tatian straight first. I would hate to see this part of the debate side-lined.

Actually, it is probably better to start a new thread on this, which I will do.

NOGO

Ok my mistake.

A series of monologues and then a declaration of victory.

Brilliant!

I find that you ignore what you don't want to hear and continue your preaching. How about some debating for a change?
Debating necessarily means that you have to answer other peoples questions.
I know that this is a foreign concept for you but do try it some day.

I wont hold my breath.

NOGO

I am not trying to deny you the chance to make a point.
I just wish that when you mention Paul's silence on Jesus, you do not oversimplify the problem by comparing it to other people's silence when essential elements are missing.

Layman

No need to lie through your teeth, Nogo.

I've debated these points in lengthy threads. Since you've participated in some of those threads, albeit ineffectively, you know I stick around and answer other peoples' questions.


It seems a common failing of JMers. You can't even admit someone understand your arguments, has responded in length, and is still not convinced. It must be some deep-seated insecurity about your faith in the JM itself.

GakuseiDon

Well, I started a new thread on Tatian. So let's look at your earlier comments on Paul.

If the differences are largely theological, I'm not sure how it would be relevent. The Gospels were written a number of years after Paul died, so some theological differences aren't particularly a problem AFAIC. Is Paul contrary to the Gospels on historical issues?

Tatian's focus was on the OT. So if I am right about Tatian, this impacts Paul.

And so? Tatian says much the same thing. So if I am right about Tatian, this impacts Paul.

Doherty has the same assumption about Tatian. So if I am right about Tatian, this impacts Paul.

Who the heck says Paul was aware of the Gospels??? What argument are you responding to, NOGO?

Do you mean that Paul was aware of the Gospels from Heaven? When do you date the Gospels from, NOGO?

Come on. Even an amateur like myself knows that Paul says that God will give us glorified bodies. This just shows different theological developments at best. So what? Paul being aware of the Gospels is your fantasy, not mine.

It doesn't matter AFAICS. Both have Jesus born of a woman, don't they? I'm trying to show historicity. Theological development of the concept of "Son of God" over 20 years or so does not disprove historicity.

Tatian says much the same thing. So if I am right about Tatian, this impacts Paul.

Paul argues with Peter on dietary laws in Gal. Peter in Acts is reported to have a revelation that agrees with Paul that changes his mind. Which version to you believe? Why is there a problem? Was Paul aware of Acts in Heaven too?

... And Tatian rips a hole right through it. One rhetorical statement for another.

How can you have a contrary belief based on silence??? "The Gospels say one thing, Paul doesn't say anything, that is a contrary belief"?

NOGO, if I want speculation, I can read Doherty. Please give me some evidence that Paul's letters were substantially different to Tatian's Address to the Greeks, such that it doesn't impact on Paul's supposed "silence".

NOGO

My experience with you is that you don't answer question and flee when things don't go your way.

Remember the thread on The End of the World and Hebrews 9:26
There you demonstrated you amazing talent in effective debate.

If there is one common consistent idea throughout the NT it is that the end of the world was at hand.

If you cannot be brought to acknowledge this simple fact despite the vast supporting evidence what is the point of debating anything with you.

Your resorting to personal attacks demonstrates that you have nothing intelligent to say.

BTW I find your last paragraph very amuzing. I am tempted to pull that thread out and show how you repeatedly failed to understand my point.

Tercel

Please at least try to make sense. If you mean to claim that Michael Grant is not an atheist or an agnostic then say so clearly, but if you are just being pedantic about the way I phrased the statement... ...as it is I'm left unsure what your point is and whether you actually have one.

And what's with refering to me in the third person? It looks like your using it as a rhetorical device which suggests you consider the setting of this conversation to be an informal sort of debate in which you have to "win" the argument. Well, whatever makes you happy, but it must be hard to win an argument with someone who refuses to argue. Personally the main reason I post here, when I do, is because I enjoy chatting with other people who have similar interests to me. If you try and turn everything into a public debate then I'll simply stop posting. It's fairly clear to me that you don't really care about the issues mentioned apart from that you can use them to "win" the argument and correspondingly "disprove" Christianity. If I was to speculate, I'd say you're doing this because you feel threatened by Christianity, and are insecure in your unbelief and so want to prove to yourself (via proving to others) that your unbelief is justified. Or possibly you're desperate to save others from the "evils" of Christianity. Well, whatever makes you happy. But I don't feel the least threatened by atheism, have little interest in convert anyone, and have no interest in having a debate on whether Jesus existed any more than I would bother to argue for "no" in a debate on "is the earth flat?"

As for Wright, well if you read his apologetic-style books targeted at a lay audience, it seems hardly surprising that he says isn't unbiased high-quality scholarship. Yet the criticism that has been levelled at his scholarly works in this thread, by people that have not read them, is quite amusing.

Tercel

Nogo, you seem to have just horribly confused atheism and agnosticism. Of course I don't start out by believing and then investigating claims. But neither do I start out by utterly denying the possibility of the claim being true and then investigate the claim. I start out without any certain belief in the claim's truth or falsity. The claim might be true or it might not. I'll agree that most supernatural claims are more likely to be false than true (there are lots of conflicting supernatural claims and at most only one supernatural can exist) and that therefore a sensible attitude to take with any claim initially is that it is likely to be false. But this is agnosticism, and not the methodological naturalism that Vork was advocating.

Vorkosigan

Methodological naturalism is the basis of scholarly inquiry and is used by all scholars in all fields. Only in NT studies do people complain about it. Vork is advocating what all scholars advocate. As has been explained countless times in this forum, and in numerous scholarly and critical works, there is no way scholarly investigation into the supernatural can be carried out on the basis that there is some possibility that it exists. Once you suspend the rules of the world, controlled investigation becomes impossible and science and scholarship must end. That's basic.

The supernatural was cast out of science by theists, not atheists, who realized that progress was impossible if it could be claimed that Godidit. Controlled experiment is not possible in a world where miracles are alleged to occur. Methodological naturalism does not utterly deny the possibility of the supernatural being true. At any moment, its tenets could be violated by the actual occurrence of a suspension of natural law. But for some reason, despite the millions of scientific projects going on around the world every day, and the millions of people toting around cameras of all kinds, including video cameras, and the six billion potential witnesses, that never happens.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

Tercel continues to praise Wright, while refusing to quote him.

Tercel continues to refuse to answer questions raised about Wright's work, because I refer to him in the third person. Talk about lame excuses!

Why not simply answer the questions?