Metacrock

No. that would only work if he thought others wanted to see it. He has nothing to gain by debating me. If you and a couple of others pushed for it he might do it. But I doubt he would even respond to my email.

Peter Kirby

So, you want to debate him, but you don't want to e-mail him?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Meta, it is apparent to me from this paragraph that you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know what History and Theology I am referring to?

By all means do so.

Why don't you just say "oops! I wasn't aware that the consensus put Mark just before or just after 70." That would save personal attacks and nonsense like this.

Whatever errors Doherty made, they have nothing to do with the numerous errors on your website, as well as your refusal to engage in a meaningful way with his writings.

LOL. Meta, you have it backward. It is you who (1) dated Rylands wrongly and then (2) claimed that it refuted a late date for the gospels. It is you who must demonstrate that John could not have been transmitted rapidly. We know, from the Pauline and other epistles, that the Christian communities in the Med basin were heavily networked and wrote each other quite a bit. There's no reason to assume a twenty-year transmission time (there's no reason to assume any particular length of time). No methodology underpins your claim, hence it is valueless.

When you wrote: "Most Scholars vie for a date of composition for Mark around 60 A.D" you erred. The consensus date is just around 70.

When you wrote: "Doherty cannot offer a reason as to why Paul should have retold the Gospel stories, and doesn't seem to be aware even that he should." you erred. Doherty does so offer reasons. You may accept or reject them, but they exist.

This isn't about Doherty's claims or the JM thesis, but about your meaningless and incompetent rebuttal of them, which cites neither Doherty nor his critics nor any scholars. Attacking Doherty won't get you off the hook.

What's to answer? Your claims about Doherty are unsupported by relevant cites and quotes.

Please do not let loose your personal insecurities here. In point of fact I have known you three years and have never once made fun of your spelling. Nor have I ever said you are "shit."

It's not him who is under discussion here. If you want to discuss his thesis in a meaningful way, pick one claim of his and start a thread. Layman did that and we all learned a lot tussling with him. Anytime you want to write something underpinned by scholarly argument, please do so.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

Small, not influential, not accepted, yet Paul was devoting time to combatting them.

If Paul was comabatting Gnostic heresies, then surely drawing upon the fund of knowledge of the life of Jesus that Paul had, would have been an excellent way to do so.

Sensei Meela

SO....

Who saw Mr. Doherty speak yesterday? Anybody?

Metacrock

I want you to email him and say "a buch of us skeptical types want you to debate this guy." See if you can get a couple of his fans to email him and say "I'm your fan, I'm pulling for you. Please come debate this guy."

Metacrock

These are relative terms aren't they? They were "small" relative to the whole of Christian movement in that day. But in the Pauline circle they were't necessarily so small. They were influential in the chruches that Paul was dealing with in Asia Minor, that made them worth dealing with. They were probably big at Corinth, Ephesus and Collasse.


Not if they weren't questioning Jesus existence. Those pre-gnostic groups in the Pauline circle were probably not saying the things Gnostics are famous for in the late second to fourth century, that Jesus was only an immaterial being who didn't have flesh and blood. That kind of doctrine is echoed in John, which was probably written in the 90s. But Paul was dealing with these things in the 50s. They had not yet begun to say those kinds of things. They were dealing with ideas like Marriage is wrong, sexual liscence is ok, worshiping the goddess Sophia, Eve was made before Adam, women must be spiritual men, matter is evil.But they had no yet begun to say that Jesus was an immaterial being.

But even those of the second to fourth century didn't try to say that Jesus didn't live in Nazerath. they never did hold to Doherty's idea of crucifiction in space or any of that.

Metacrock

you don't know.




most of what I said on that page was common knowlede. You found one point, one point, one point to differe with. And you think that makes you some kind of amazing shcolar. You are just flogging one little point because that's all you've got.




I'm sitll not. Why don't you quote a source. You lambast me for not quoting one ,but why don't you quote one?




You haven't read page 2 have you? Not engage in a meaningful way? Here he makes, not I, HE MADE THE SUMMARY! It's HIS SUMMARY OF HIS VIWES. WHY IS IT NOT COMPETE? So I answer it in my own summary so the reader can keep in mind where the debate is going to go, and you want to make a federal case out of it.

You also didn't even notice the four pages on dying rizing savior gods in which I draw upon about 20 books on mythology and about 10 more Christian scholars (that's 30 in all) to show that the basic assumption of the mythers is wrong in realtion to actual mythological stories. That in itself undermines not only Doherty but all Jesus Mythers. Yet you don't even notice that.

You want to claim that my site is full of errors but you only mention one and that's just a difference of opinion!




I didin't date it "wrongly." I dated it as most scholars date it, see FFBruce New Testament Documents and numerous other sources. You want to claim that it's date is changed because you have one aritcle where someone argues that, but you don't quote anything showing that this is the new consensus. You assert that it is, but you don't prove it.

Moreover, I admitted up front that I might be wrong, I might not be up to speed on that point. But it's an honest mistake because that was the "official date" for over 50 years.So why is that such a big deal to you? If you are right, I'm like five years out of date on something that's that's just a hobby and not my real field. So why is that a big deal?

From that you jump to the amazing conclusion that my site is riddeled with errors. Well come big dude let's see one?





Well this is what makes the difference in an amature and professional. I'm not a professional Bible scholar, but Koester is, in fact he's the most respected one of the tops. He's the "grand old man" of the field. He says you have to assume the 20 year rule for everything because you can't demonstate that it didn't take time to circulate.


Look! It was written in Asia Minor, and the oldest fragment turns up in Egypt, how'd it get over there? Obviously it travled so it had to have travel time. See Koester Ancient Christan Gospels because he affirms the dating.




I would say 70 is around 60. I meant to say 70. that's a mistake. I did say in another post that 70 is the date I go by.





Ok I'll have to look for that. But remember, that was written in 2001. why do you keep forgetting that? He didn't have that up at that time.

BTW there is one thing I'll give you. I see it is time to up date the page. which I'm going to try and get done now. I guess I have Peter and you guys in the thread to thank for that.




Didn't cite him? I quote 12 major quoations which he offers as a summary for his whole theory. Don't quote his critics? So what? I wasn't writting an article for an encyclopedia or an academic journal.I was outlining my own beef with him. So what? What business is it of yours anyway? I didn't even bring up the link.

and again You keep ignoring page 2!!!! page 2 quotes Koster and a whole bunch of other sources. Why do you keep ignoring that????



[quote]What's to answer? Your claims about Doherty are unsupported by relevant cites and quotes.[/qouote]

You keep ignoring page 2!!!! page 2 quotes Koster and a whole bunch of other sources. Why do you keep ignoring that????





But I am shit. I missed the dating on Rylands. That's an "error" call Nomad to exterminate me.




Of course it is. Is this thread called "Metacrock speaks in LA?"







I did. I said "he doesnt' have any evidence to support his view, it's all circumstantial and argument form silence, and that's not the way real history is done." To that Pete linked to my page and proceeded to knitt pick about how bad it is and never onece gave any thought to arguments on it.

Amaleq13

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my request for the basis of the "rule" but, if Koester explains it, I may have my answer. Can you provide a specific location in his book? I own it but I don't recall this "rule" being discussed or even mentioned. I've looked through his discussion of Mark and don't see it.

The dates given by the potsherds utilized in that article are quite broad. As I already mentioned, there is archeological evidence of habitation for the late 1st century. Where is the evidence of early 1st century habitation and that the location was named "Nazareth"? More relevant to your assertion, where is the "archaeological evidence indicates Jesus family in Nazerath in frist century"?

It is my understanding that the location was inhabited and named Nazareth after the destruction of Jerusalem. It would not have been a ghost town when author's subsequent to Mark misinterpreted his reference to Jesus as a "Nazarene" or something similar.

I don't understand your confusion since I quoted the statement to which my statement directly responds. First, we have a good reason to explain why at least three versions of the story are similar and it the reason is entirely independent of the historicity of the original (ie at least two are rewrites of the first). Second, we have a version of the story where the "minute details" are not the same. In other words, your original assertion does not appear to be true.

You certainly do unless "everything" was a bit of hyperbole and not a genuine claim.

True but they are story details consistent with myths.

Are you claiming that the depiction of Pilate in Mark is a later addition?

What do you mean by "incomplete"? Both Josephus and Philo describe him as a total ass who had absolutely no regard for the Jews and frequently exhibited extraordinary cruelty toward them. The Gospel authors offer a completely different depiction. Pilate existed but the Gospel depiction of him is contrary to the extrabiblical historical evidence. In other words, the depiction of him does not appear to be historical so appealing to it in support of claims of historicity makes no sense.

lpetrich

Metacrock, you are at a university. Which I'm sure has a well-stocked library. You may be able to find Lord Raglan's The Hero either there or by inter-library loan.

Supernatural elements maybe, prophecy-fulfillment doubtful at best.

Straw profile. Lord Raglan was not that dumb.

Maybe, but there's a lot of mythology in his biography, like him walking and talking just after he was born.

However, he fits the profile very well.

"Christ"
I checked the American Heritage Dictionary, and khristos is someone anointed. Also look under "chrism" in that dictionary.

Which makes Metacrock's etymology a load of taurokopros.

Good, Metacrock. You now know what to look for when you proofread your writing.

LP: Pure hairsplitting. (Jesus Christ) can very reasonably be called a hero.
How so?

Which leaves unexplained why the Lord Raglan profile works so well.


LP: Because legendary heroes have had unusual things happen to them in their infancy.
If you wish to split hairs as to what counts as a virgin birth, go ahead. But the critical ingredient is divine impregnation.

Being chased by the king is a common mythological element:

Herod vs. Jesus Christ
Pharaoh vs. Moses
Amulius vs. Romulus
Hera vs. Hercules
Acrisius vs. Perseus
Laius vs. Oedipus
Kamsa vs. Krishna

And JC's parents take him to Egypt until Herod's death; he later goes out into the wilderness.

I've lost patience here; it has taken a heroic effort on my part to resist the temptation to mock Metacrock's numerous misspellings, since the mods would undoubtely disapprove of that.