Layman

So you are a taker? Please provide the primary evidence you are comparing with the Gospels.

Thanks

spin

I rarely see any primary evidence in your posts and then you almost never go beyond a translation when you lean on a phrase.

Layman

And the only way you can handle vigorous opposition is by escalating the personally hostility. But I doubt you share my opinion anymore than I do yours.

In any event, the primary evidence has not usually been in dispute when we have disagreed. We know what the texts say (though you tend to misrepresent sources by highly selective parsing), but disagree on their meaning or ramifications. In such cases, the secondary literature can be very helpful.

And yes, I do tend to be suspicious of the contradicted word of long dead scholars who advocate a rare minority perspective (much as you do) against a contemporary majority against them. Thus, I'd like to know what the primary evidence is and what it says.

spin

Actually, no personal hostility at all. I don't know you. (This is the festive season, so I'll make that concession of fact.)

That's right. You aren't interested in what the text actually says, just what your preferred authors (ie the ones which support your a priori positions) say about it. The source you prefer to cite through some translation without showing the ability to deal with the problems not indicated by the translators. (The sorts of problems involve routine mistranslations due to previous commitments and, when one shares the previous commitment, one cannot see the problem.)

And primary evidence is often only secondary in your analyses.


spin

Layman

Lie.

I am dependent on translations. But I try and consult as many as I can, as well as secondary literature discussing the merits of those translations when relevant. I am simply unwilling to accept your word that the leading translations on a particular text are wrong.

gregor

You know, after the Layman / spin debate on Ireneus and Polycarp, you can't imagine how audible my guffaw was when I read Layman demanding that someone site a PRIMARY source. (I can't read greek, latin, or aramaic myself - but I don't demand that of others).

Layman

If it was not clear, let me make it clear, I don't demand the original language. In fact, a cite to a translation would be preferable.

I cited more primary evidence than Spin did in our discussion on Polycarp. This whole line of attack is silly.

joedad

I'm not presently a taker in that sense. I'm not overly interested in what aspects of a mythology are borrowed or shared. I get the strong impression, however, that you are, and that any christian uniqueness is important to you. I'm assuming that this in turn motivates you to undertake an academic discussion of the subject, perhaps because you believe this uniqueness must confer legitimacy and/or historicity or something else. So, is that the case?

Layman

I have not been too interested in the matter b/c I have never seen a serious presentation of the theory. If I did see one, I would be interested.

joedad

Well, lets say that while only christian myth claims human parthenogenesis, both christian and mayan myth claim divine ancestry. Though virginity and divine ancestry are common to both mythologies, does christian myth, in your opinion, in any way trump mayan myth merely because mayan myth does not include human parthenogenesis?

I'm hoping you'll answer "no."