Chili

. . . with all Roads leading to it, paved with gold through the battle field of resistance wherein truth was the lifeline of the innocent by faith alone.

Mageth

And a Starbucks on every corner.

outhouse

<smilie removed> LOL how funny.

They have no one to state or follow with credibility. Less Price or Carrier who only carries the smallest amount of credibility in certain areas. Even then, with mythers, if either one promotes a idea following mainstream scholarships, they are denounced as well.

Mythers have no sources to play or use, but demand sources when anyone barks up the mainstream scholarly tree. So to speak.




I follow Meyers, Moss, Ehrman, Crossan, Reed, Borg, some Sanders, some Carrier, and quite a few others.

None of my ideas or learning patterns are really trying to break ground in new areas already well studied and dismissed, as someone who has utterly failed in every aspect trying to promote or perverse history with gospel eyewitnesses as authors.


Call it a crime for following the most educated and knowledgeable on the subject, because of your own inane attempts at recreating history that opposes those more educated on the topics at hand.







You want my assessment? To bad you get it now.

Heres what happens here.

Someone post something not in question by any credible historian. Call it #10 asking for possible details surrounding #10


#10 is posted

Someone asks for sources.

Then someone states it is a appeal to authority, not understanding the term, not applying the same to mythicism because they cannot due to the lack of credibility.

Someone chimes in and says the moon is blue and cow gives milk and christians get sick. And it is not the least bit comprehensible.

Then someone steps in and states Eusebius did it

Then someone says, oh no, the miracles are true because a eyewitness wrote it.

ALL Long after someone has written that there are no early sources for this, and it cant be used as evidence regardless of any actual historicity it may or may not carry.

Meanwhile #10 is ignored never really being addressed, all due to off topic thread jacks and conspiracy mentality .

All the while a very few eagles sitting on high perches, watching and waiting for something to chew into not only worth their enjoyment but worth their intellect.

forgot someone denounces Christian mythology.

Put this in a blender rinse and repeat daily, hoping you can ad to your own personal knowledge.

Then a mod thankfully states, we need to address this everyday circus.


:innocent2:

Thankful im not anywhere in there


:goodevil:

Steven Carr

You mean, if we can find a Dominican priest who thinks Jesus did not exist, it would be intellectually responsible to cite him as an authority?

But what happens when your authorities are stripped of their authority?

Does somebody cease to be an authority if he does not have a badge?

How do you get to be an authority?

By peddling the party-line?

aa5874

Please name the "Top Scholars" who agree with you.

You may well be on BC&H because you have been a reject or thoroughly denounced by your own "Top Scholars".

You may have to start a new cult if you want people to agree with you.

I have very little time for opinion---I deal with the presentation and examination of evidence from antiquity.

My arguments MUST, MUST, MUST AGREE with the DATA--that's all.

outhouse

I really think we have a comprehension issue here, so I will answer for you.

Prime example of off topic completely, sorry I forgot you in my rant above about confusing the churches power with modern history and scholarships on every post.


Did I ever state apologetic's carry historicity? NO

Does the church control history? NO

Can the church fire historicity? NO

The man had a job to do, and decided he didnt want to do it anymore, and was fired.



What part of "proper authority" do you not understand. :facepalm:

Sheshbazzar

Well it appears that the Catholic clergy has a real taste for, and would really much rather find some of this on every corner. <mooning smilie removed>

Adam

You're quite a rarity on FRDB, one who thinks none of us can be allowed to diverge from authority. But since you don't remember the authorities very well, you're asking us to bow to what you say they said, in effect making us bow to your authority.
As for "recreating history", that was first the 19th Century critics who were sure the gospels were false. Form Criticism in the 20th Century switched that to certainty that there is no certainty. I take the rational position of accepting evidence (in one gospel source) that is corroborated by another source, that is, I accept Higher Criticism.

Juma

Appeal to authority only works if your opponent accept that authority. Appeal to authority is simply a way to use a common ground. If your opponent does not accept that referenced authority then you cannot use it.

outhouse

One is always free to investigate.



I know all of my sources. Your making stuff up here.