Steven Avery

If it was misinterpreted or irrelevant, then why did spin come up with a fallback idea of 'fatigue' to try to explain Matthew 22 away ? If it was irrelevant, such would not be a necessary (rather absurd spinism) cover story.

(After it was pointed out that he was wrong to try to peg the Herodian-Pharisee alliance as a Markan uniqueness.)

You folks are funny when you get caught in a blunder.
You simply cannot acknowledge anything.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Please try to speak coherently.

You seem to be admitting that you hid Matthew 22 in your original presentation. And we see you use the 'fatigue' nonsense as a cover story to try to 'explain away' the Matthew reference. The only fatigue would be upon those who have learned not to trust your presentations, to know that they are frequently manipulated in such a manner.

Deliberately omitting Matthew 22 when you actually knew Matthew references the Herodian-Pharisee alliance makes you look that much smaller and less trustworthy in your presentations.

Better if you had missed it and made an error, as in Sinaiticus having Luke 3:36. Then we might be able to take your future presentations as possibly forthright and complete. When such an omission is deliberate .. caveat emptor.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

aa5874

I didn't want to belabor the point, but possibilty 1 is my selection, after investigation. All versions of Jesus the Christ are historically false.

And the possibilities listed (1-7) were posted in response to an erroneous poster who coud only come up with 2 possibilities.

Toto

Here's spin's original post that praxeus quotes:

It followed posts that mentioned Matt 22. There is no evidence that spin was trying to conceal the existence of Matt 22.

Toto

Most people would disagree with you. We know of real historical figures who have been mythologized - George Washington and Alexander the Great spring to mind.

This is where the historical Jesus crowd are vulnerable - but you have to engage them on their own terms and stop the broken record approach.

Let's just assume that all gods are mythological. But Joseph Smith was not mythological. Mohammed was probably not mythological, although most of us do not believe that he rode his horse directly to heaven. Is Jesus like Mohammed and Joseph Smith, with a large accretion of myth, or is he more like Krishna?

Was the sermon on the mount fictional? There's nothing supernatural there. How about the crucifixion?

It's easy to win the argument if you define the terms yourself.

Steven Avery

Toto, please.

Whatever was spin's motivations (we surely would not want to speculate on that) it is clear that Matthew 22 fully refutes the idea that Matthew "left out" the Herodian-Pharisee alliance in the verse spin referenced because Matthew did not accept the alliance as historical and credible (the context of the discussion).

And that appears to be why spin belatedly came up with the 'fatigue' silliness. Matthew 22 simply refutes his position he was taking. Which would be one very possible reason why spin omitted Matthew 22 from the post above.

The Skeptic Protection Society would do better with substantive posts than trying to look for an out on a little error like this. The apologetics and excuses are far worse than the original error.

Here is a question ..

Do you really think that the Herodian-Pharisee tactical alliance against Jesus is so hard to comprehend ? Getting together to try to find a way to trip Him up, that mini-alliance of convenience ? Is that really so difficult for the skeptic apologists here ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

mountainman

That Toto is precisely the reason that I believe that it is important
to be honest and open about one's "beliefs concerning chronology"
since this is a small and necessary step in unravelling the depths
of BC&H.

Whether posters here belief in a gospel version of an "HJ" or whether
they believe in some other (BC&H Version 18.7.23) "HJ" in order to
separately explicate the rise of early christianity they each must
present a chronology.

Since spin wont respond to my question as to "Which chronology
does the BC&H poster spin favour?", I'd like to ask you whether
you think my reasons for asking this question are sound and fair.

And if so, I'd guess that most BC&H "scholars" are constrained to
the mainstream chronology of a first century beginning of christianity.
Is this more or less correct? Thanks.

Toto

You spent an inappropriate amount of time accusing spin of bad motives, with no basis.

One omission, and one non-omission, does not prove your case and disprove the contrary.

The concept of "fatigue" is well accepted when one source copies from another, as Matthew did from Mark. You are only making yourself look uninformed, "much smaller and less trustworthy" in your own words.

Toto

I can think of at least two alternate chronologies.

There is the possibility that Jesus was originally a Jewish prophet from around 100 BC. Paul and the first century Christians thought that they saw his spiritual return in the mid to late first century; 2nd century Christians (namely Mark) created a story of this Jesus, which was placed in the time of Pilate for reasons we don't completely understand.

Alternatively, there is Harold Leidner's chronology, which sees Paul as starting his ministry as a messianic Jew in the first century with no knowledge of a historical Jesus; he survives the Jewish War and continues preaching, and gradually a "historic Jesus" is created and projected back into the first half of the first century as a personalization of the suffering of the Jewish people. At some time in the second century, belief in the historical truth of the story of this Jesus was made an item of orthodoxy.

I'm sure there are other possibilities.

Steven Avery

You are extrapolating so many different conceptions that you have absurdity upon conjecture upon nonsense.

You claim to go 'into the head' of Matthew (after assuming Markan priority and whatever else). He didn't have his yerba mate. And you assume Matthew did not write carefully and accurately. Didn't check his work. And you assume that Matthew originally had Herodian in two places and 'fatigued' the omission of one. Maybe you have Matthew's notes where he indicated 'I will try to take this out tomorrow.. after I get some rest'.

Anything goes in Skeptic-in-Wonderland.

You actually base skeptic-apologetic theories upon nonsense like this and expect to be taken seriously ?

It is much simpler to actually work with the Bible text. The neverland world of supposition and interpolation makes the skeptics look so silly. And you seem to wonder why Christians don't engage you in more dialog ? Skeptics, heal thyself.

====

Now, Toto, back to the substance.
Do you yourself really have any difficulty with a Herodian-Pharisee tactical alliance against the man Jesus who was stirring up so much 'trouble' ?

Or do you actually agree with me on the substance here - but you are concerned with how spin looked when he omitted the Matthew verse and came up with the fatigue cover story ?

Shalom,
Steven