Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 08-25-2009, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Gets one thing wrong so everything is wrong. Goodbye Jospehus, Tacitus,

Josephus and Tacitus are independent of church tradition. But yes, I am arguing that church tradition is basically worthless. It is found failing but not found reliable. Really, that should come as no surprise, since tradition is not established as trustworthy in general. I can't imagine using 'tradition' to try to date any historical text.

Regardless, it is the very tradition that Polycarp received authority from the apostles that we have discussed endlessly. Even if you think tradition is generally reliable, that specific tradition is not.

...are you arguing for or against the utility of tradition in dating? :huh:

Quote:

Unless arguing for interpolation and adaptation by a later Christian that is laughable.

Vinnie

Considering the vast quantities of proven interpolations, adaptation, and pseudepigraphy, it is naive in the extreme to take these off the table.

If we're going to play the asinine game the apologists insist upon, we might as well just conclude that Jesus really was god and be done with skepticism altogether.

That is not skepticism, its pedantic hyperskepticism. The Garraghan quote applies: "an an itch for novelties and an urge to upset (on no grounds of adequate evidence) established beliefs and traditions, especially those concerning the Church. This spurious criticism is the enemy of genuine science and serves only the cause of error.” By dismissing all church tradition you are doing the same thing as the apologists, just at the complete opposite side of the spectrum. It is not all or nothing. The real world has shades of grey unlike the deluded universes of apologists and hyper-skeptics.

Vinnie

dog-on · 08-25-2009, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Both individuals (Peter and Paul) were historical and lived in the first century.

Evidence???

dog-on · 08-25-2009, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Josephus and Tacitus are independent of church tradition. But yes, I am arguing that church tradition is basically worthless. It is found failing but not found reliable. Really, that should come as no surprise, since tradition is not established as trustworthy in general. I can't imagine using 'tradition' to try to date any historical text.

Regardless, it is the very tradition that Polycarp received authority from the apostles that we have discussed endlessly. Even if you think tradition is generally reliable, that specific tradition is not.

...are you arguing for or against the utility of tradition in dating? :huh:

Considering the vast quantities of proven interpolations, adaptation, and pseudepigraphy, it is naive in the extreme to take these off the table.

If we're going to play the asinine game the apologists insist upon, we might as well just conclude that Jesus really was god and be done with skepticism altogether.

That is not skepticism, its pedantic hyperskepticism. The Garraghan quote applies: "an an itch for novelties and an urge to upset (on no grounds of adequate evidence) established beliefs and traditions, especially those concerning the Church. This spurious criticism is the enemy of genuine science and serves only the cause of error.” By dismissing all church tradition you are doing the same thing as the apologists, just at the complete opposite side of the spectrum. It is not all or nothing. The real world has shades of grey unlike the deluded universes of apologists and hyper-skeptics.

Vinnie

ummmm.... bs.....

Vinnie · 08-25-2009, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Both individuals (Peter and Paul) were historical and lived in the first century.

Evidence???

Genuine Pauline corpus and Christian testimony. There is a mountain of Christian texts. Go to earlychristianwritings.com and start reading them.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 08-25-2009, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

That is not skepticism, its pedantic hyperskepticism. The Garraghan quote applies: "an an itch for novelties and an urge to upset (on no grounds of adequate evidence) established beliefs and traditions, especially those concerning the Church. This spurious criticism is the enemy of genuine science and serves only the cause of error.” By dismissing all church tradition you are doing the same thing as the apologists, just at the complete opposite side of the spectrum. It is not all or nothing. The real world has shades of grey unlike the deluded universes of apologists and hyper-skeptics.

Vinnie

ummmm.... bs.....

Denying the historicity of Peter and Paul just shows anger and resentment towards Christianity. It has nothing to do with historical investigation. You can delude yourself if you want to. That is your business.

I am staying on topic for the remainder of my time in this thread, however. I hope Ben responds to the temple references in 1 Clement.

Vinnie

dog-on · 08-25-2009, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

ummmm.... bs.....

Denying the historicity of Peter and Paul just shows anger and resentment towards Christianity. It has nothing to do with historical investigation. You can delude yourself if you want to. That is your business.

I am staying on topic for the remainder of my time in this thread, however. I hope Ben responds to the temple references in 1 Clement.

Vinnie

I am not denying historicity, I am calling your quoted statement bs...

dog-on · 08-25-2009, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Evidence???

Genuine Pauline corpus and Christian testimony. There is a mountain of Christian texts. Go to earlychristianwritings.com and start reading them.

Vinnie

So you have no evidence. Understood...

Vinnie · 08-25-2009, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Genuine Pauline corpus and Christian testimony. There is a mountain of Christian texts. Go to earlychristianwritings.com and start reading them.

Vinnie

So you have no evidence. Understood...

You dated mark to the middle of the second century. Why should I even bother humoring you?

Vinnie

dog-on · 08-25-2009, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

So you have no evidence. Understood...

You dated mark to the middle of the second century. Why should I even bother humoring you?

Vinnie

You have any reference to Mark, (as we know it and not the bogus version via Eusebius' sock puppet, Papias ), prior to that time.

If so, please do tell.

Vinnie · 08-25-2009, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

You dated mark to the middle of the second century. Why should I even bother humoring you?

Vinnie

You have any reference to Mark, (as we know it and not the bogus version via Eusebius' sock puppet, Papias ), prior to that time.

If so, please do tell.

Mt and Lk and possibly John.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.