outhouse

The problem is "you" do not understand the definition, let alone to even begin and understand differences.

Of course you have to take this position and denounce common knowledge and education because your own hypothesis are so far out there they have zero backing in any type of credible research, by anyone besides uneducated bloggers.


By the way, they are called scholars, all of which listed by me, have proven their work unbiased and non apologetic.


Im sorry, you placed yourself in the time out box by your own admissions.

Toto

This thread is quite marginal. It does raise some significant issues, but the discussion is pretty low grade.

I'm not sure what you had recently consumed when you wrote this, but it doesn't make any sense.

Please stop these baseless generalizations and provide some specific examples of what you are talking about.

Meyers? There are several scholars in the general area with a similar last name. Who exactly are you referring to? The John P. Meier who is a Catholic Priest?

Candida Moss "specializes in Biblical studies and early Christian history, she holds an undergraduate degree in Theology from the University of Oxford, a Masters degree in Biblical Studies from Yale Divinity School, and a doctorate in Religious Studies from Yale University." So what books have your read by her and which part of her thesis on Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom do you agree with?

Ehrman has been thoroughly debunked here. Crossan is another ex-Catholic priest. Jonathan L Reed is a student of Burton Mack, and a professor at LaVerne University, which is owned and operated by an evangelical Christian group. Marcus Borg is primarily a liberal theologian. Sanders is close to being a disinterested scholar, but no one seems happy with his approach. Carrier is one of those "mythers" you like to disparage.

I don't know what you have read by these scholars, or if you are just dropping their names into the conversation. Most of these people do not agree with each other about the historical Jesus, and I think that all of them would be appalled at your arguments here.


This is some kind of twisted word salad. Care to translate into standard English?

I think you don't get this internet discussion thing.

outhouse

Toto, you freely admit you dont accept modern scholarships. That translates to "I discount those more knowledgeable then myself" And despite their knowledge, I will label them as apologetically motivated to try and discredit them instead of refuting a case agaisnt their work.

Toto

That's not exactly true. I don't think that a lot of writings in the field of historical Jesus studies are up to the level of scholarship in other field.


What the hell does that mean?

outhouse

Low grade, is only mirroring the methodology of those who constantly abuse the term "appeal to authority"





Far from being a fallacy, appeal to proper authority is intellectually responsible research.


Guess which past poster this comes from yet?

Toto

Mr. o - Is English your first or second language? Do you bother to read what you write, much less what other people have posted?

Jaybees

I guess I've missed it, somewhere, but would you point out to me how one identifies the proper authority?

If the answer isn't somewhere in this thread, than perhaps you might deal with the following:

Let's start with the problem of determining the nature of god. Where do I find the proper authority?

Thanks for answering the question.

Chili

This is a good beginning and we'll soon find that God is not even part of the argument, and never was. In Col.1:15 God is invisible made known in the firstborn of all creatures (that excludes trees, btw), which in mankind is Christ as the first-born to him in the particular, and therefore not visible either now as both God and Lord God, or they could not be the same while in fact they are for that man, now in the image of God.

outhouse

You bring on a good issue, can it be properly used? Yes it can.

Example, a trained educated scholar VS a internet blogger on the same topic. One speaks from ignorance, the other atleast has the possibility of being more probable.

Really it all depends on the context the poster is appealing to authority. There are gray areas in historical studies, and most will state, I dont know, or it is my opinion.

As long as the poster keeps it in that context, it is correct.


If someone states the sky is purple everynight, and a reply is given that scientist so-n-so states the sky is blue. Would also be correct.


When someone states they have proof that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and the reply given is that modern scholarships do not see it that way. It is not a ppealing to authority. It is stating the obvious.



I witnessed a show last night that reminds me of this place. It was on the DOC channel. they were talking about alternate dating of the pyramids. It was a joke with one lie after another due to uneducated authors and bloggers making conspiracy type hypothesis. I knew it was all garabge from the lies, but when one guy showed up that is on "ancient aliens" it wasnt even laughable. Its all about the source and keeping that opinion in context, when appealing to authority. Not one person on this show was a authority of anyting except garbage collecting.


As a former myther, im appalled at the desperating I see in trying to discredit education and knowledge from a point of ignorance.





What would you like to know about the nature of the concept of god?

Lets try using science ok? he doesnt exist, there is nothing to test, and there is nothing thatcan be attributed to any god concept less the mythology that surrounds them. Next question please.


And thank you for bringing decent question, that stayed on topic.

Chili

God is that part of us we do not know, and we call her Mary as the woman who presides over our TOL (right brain) and that is precisely where we do not know ourself as rational beings for whom right brain is mere intution.

That is exactly what makes ecstacy known and science exhillerating because that is where all our primary premises come from. Also in our human behavior are we torn in our free will between our own left and right . . . as angels keep talking to us from there.

So please never look up to see angels, and we call her Mary who is also the Queen of angels because She is president there. Just read Gen 3:6, again and again if that is what it takes, from where She saw that the left brain was good for searching, now with a mind of his own so he, as Adam now, could sniff and taste and remember what things are like as outsider to Eden wherein She is the Boss.