Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tanya · 11-14-2011, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

In what year do you believe this was written?

Asked, and answered, in another thread.
You replied with a coy smile.

What's missing here, (I am a little dense, as well as slow witted), is an explanation of why, or how, your question relates to my response to judge's comments?

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

This enables the irrational mythicists to ignore the glaring similarities between mythicism and creationism (such as avoiding peer review) and, just repeat the nonsense that there are more points. Then we just invent how ever many points we need to have more points that have been mentioned by the oposition.

Mythicists must of course when making such vague irrational claims make sure that these claims and theories are never ever submitted to any sort of independent scrutiny, ie peer review.

I comprehend, very well, that you wish to impeach my quotation of Mark 1:1, with acknowledgement that it was written (interpolated, actually) LATE, possibly HUNDREDS of years, after Mark itself was first written (in my opinion, the original text of Mark dates from 135-150 CE).

Your valid claim, impeaching my witness, changes nothing, in my view, with regard to judge's point.

judge claims that Mythicists make "vague irrational claims". There is nothing "vague", nor irrational about my quote. It is verbatim from the Byzantine Greek version of Mark 1:1.

So, how does your query, refute my contention? Do you wish to imply that by offering a quote from a later version of Mark (though we really do not know which version was the earliest, perhaps Codex Sinaiticus redacted the "son of god") I have in fact, engaged in exactly the kind of "vague irrational claims", suggested by judge as indicative of mythicist behaviour?

Solo · 11-14-2011, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I wonder if anybody would invent 'Incident Two: seventy-five million years ago the emperor of the Galactic Federation, a despot named Xenu, solved overpopulation on his planet by freezing its inhabitants, shipping them to Earth in spacecraft resembling DC-8s, and dropped them into volcanoes in Hawaii and other places. He then detonated the volcanoes with atomic bombs and captured the suddenly-disembodied Thetans with an electronic device.'

You would never get people to believe that if you invented it. Not in a million years.

Who do you mean by people ? Extreme Scientologists ? Star-Trekker trash ? Roswell, N.M. Chamber of Commerce ? :huh:

Best,
Jiri

Steven Carr · 11-14-2011, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I wonder if anybody would invent 'Incident Two: seventy-five million years ago the emperor of the Galactic Federation, a despot named Xenu, solved overpopulation on his planet by freezing its inhabitants, shipping them to Earth in spacecraft resembling DC-8s, and dropped them into volcanoes in Hawaii and other places. He then detonated the volcanoes with atomic bombs and captured the suddenly-disembodied Thetans with an electronic device.'

You would never get people to believe that if you invented it. Not in a million years.

Who do you mean by people ? Extreme Scientologists ? Star-Trekker trash ? Roswell, N.M. Chamber of Commerce ? :huh:

Best,
Jiri

I mean the people McGrath claims would never believe a story about a crucified Messiah prophesied in the scriptures.

mountainman · 11-14-2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Mythicists must of course when making such vague irrational claims make sure that these claims and theories are never ever submitted to any sort of independent scrutiny, ie peer review.

Hey judge,

There are exceptions.

I would like to know if you think the HJ position may be adequately represented by taking as true the postulate that Jesus was an historical figure.

If possible I would also like to know if you think the MJ position may be adequately represented by taking as false the postulate that Jesus was an historical figure.

Judge may have me on ignore, so anyone feel free to comment ...

Sheshbazzar · 11-14-2011, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

In what year do you believe this was written?

Asked, and answered, in another thread.
You replied with a coy smile.

No coy smile. A BIG grin.

Quote:

What's missing here, (I am a little dense, as well as slow witted), is an explanation of why, or how, your question relates to my response to judge's comments?

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

This enables the irrational mythicists to ignore the glaring similarities between mythicism and creationism (such as avoiding peer review) and, just repeat the nonsense that there are more points. Then we just invent how ever many points we need to have more points that have been mentioned by the oposition.

Mythicists must of course when making such vague irrational claims make sure that these claims and theories are never ever submitted to any sort of independent scrutiny, ie peer review.

I comprehend, very well, that you wish to impeach my quotation of Mark 1:1, with acknowledgement that it was written (interpolated, actually) LATE, possibly HUNDREDS of years, after Mark itself was first written (in my opinion, the original text of Mark dates from 135-150 CE).

Your valid claim, impeaching my witness, changes nothing, in my view, with regard to judge's point.

judge claims that Mythicists make "vague irrational claims". There is nothing "vague", nor irrational about my quote. It is verbatim from the Byzantine Greek version of Mark 1:1.

So, how does your query, refute my contention? Do you wish to imply that by offering a quote from a later version of Mark (though we really do not know which version was the earliest, perhaps Codex Sinaiticus redacted the "son of god") I have in fact, engaged in exactly the kind of "vague irrational claims", suggested by judge as indicative of mythicist behaviour?

For the particular context, I'll let judge judge whether that be the case betwixt you.

But in my sight, so engaging in the חטא of employing the tesimony of a known to be validly impeached witness is חטא ועקש ופתלתל
and σκολιός καὶ διαστρέφω.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.