jgibson000

Well, since it means you, then by all means please go ahead and "correct this misconception" that I have abandoned research and publication in recent months.

You are. I don't need to correct what you now seem to be admitting is a misconception on your part that I have abandoned research and publication in recent months or that my contributions here show that I have not done so. I know what I've been up to and I have no misconceptions about it.

The discussion is fragmented because you keep avoiding answering the questions that if answered, would keep us on track, and instead keep changing the subject.

So I ask again

1. How you actually know, as you claim you do, that I have abandoned research and publication in recent months.

2. Whether and why, in the light of what you claim non MJ scholars should be taking the time and making the effort to do -- namely, mounting and getting out to the public a critique of the MJ hypothesis, my paticipating here in just such a critique should be not be seem as the engagement on my part in the very thing you claim I have abandoned.

On the contrary that's exactly what he has to believe if he is to be one who, as you claim he does, has come to believe that Earl is right.

Hardly so --especially if you are claiming that he supports Earl's views.

Did you read what I wrote? Did I not say in answer to your "do you want more?

Yes. Pointing to one person (and is he scholar or amateur? and if scholar, what's his publication record on matters NT?) who purportedly came over to the view that Paul and other early Christian writers believed that there was a Jesus who was crucified in a heavenly realm is hardly evidence that "the MJ hypothesis is gaining support both from amateurS and scholarS alike, let alone that it is "quickly" gaining such support.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

Alright, with all the time you spend as a whipping boy here, I doubt that you would have any energy left to do more research or publish anything. I think I am right. I will think so until proven otherwise.

jgibson000

Hmm -- a whipping boy for proponents of X is someone who takes the punishment that opponents of X dish out to X's proponents. So I don't think you meant what you said.

Oh, I see. You think you are right. But contrary to what you indicated before, you really don't know. You are -- and have been all this time -- just working from a hunch and a certain set of assumptions about my capabilities.

That's good to know. I'll keep it in mind (and recommend that others here do so as well) as what most likely really stands behind any subsequent apodictic and global statements of "fact" you make.

Now how about answering my second question (which you've now avioded 3 times):

Whether and why, in the light of what you claim non MJ scholars should be taking the time and making the effort to do -- namely, mounting and getting out to the public a critique of the MJ hypothesis, my participating here in just such a critique should be not be seem as the engagement on my part in the very thing you claim I've abandoned.


Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

Alrighty, Chris Price has been alerted about this thread but is no longer interested in IIDB discussions. He is aware about Doherty's response.
Jeffrey, whipping boy, I think, I know, a hunch, a fact, a set of assumptions... Whatever. These are unimportant issues and I wont spend any more time on them. I really dont care. And I wont let you bog me down with hair-splitting and side-issues. If you want, start a new thread and we can discuss them. This thread should be about Doherty's recent effort.

jgibson000

Hey, back up, Ted. You were the one who started out this thread by claiming that I haven't recently been engaged "as I should be" in research and publication, that what I've been doing here isn't reserach publication, and that proponents of the MJ are growing quickly, not to mention that you have has been chiding me recently for writing incoherently and not saying what I mean. So how you can now tag them "unimportant issues" is beyond me,

Now, if you don't back up the claims you made, or admit that you didn't say what you intended to say, fine.

But let's not pretend that your refusal to do (and your response above to the call to do so) is anything other than the sour grapes "I'm taking my toys and going home" ploy used by those who don't want to face up to the fact that they are losing the game they started.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ben C Smith

There is a logical error on page 3. Doherty quotes Van Voorst as follows:

Moreover, we should not expect to find exact historical references in early Christian literature, which was not written for primarily historical purposes.

But Doherty summarizes this statement differently:

On what basis is it to be considered that only documents written for primarily historical purposes should contain historical information? This is simply another dismissive tactic.

The statement by Van Voorst does not imply that only documents written for historical purposes should contain historical information. Rather, it states that we should not expect historical statements from documents that are not written for primarily historical purposes, that to find an (exact) historical statement in a nonhistorical document is a boon to the historian.

When Doherty rephrases the statement in order to condemn it, he restricts it unfairly.

The nature of the logical fallacy here can be seen by analogy:

1. We should not expect recipes in a memoir, which is not written primarily for culinary purposes.

2. Only cookbooks (texts written primarily for culinary purposes) should contain recipes.

Statement 1 is fine; statement 2 is not. Statement 1 implies only that memoirs without recipes are not unusual. Statement 2 implies that no memoir can ever contain a recipe.

Likewise, what Van Voorst wrote is fine. It implies only that documents which were not written primarily for historical purposes and which do not in fact contain exact historical statements are not unusual. But what Doherty wrote as a rephrase is not fine. It implies that no document for unhistorical purposes should ever contain historical statements.

Ben.

jgibson000

Ben,

Would you mind posting what you write below to the thread I started entitled
Selective quotation, misreadings, and misrepresentations of sources? It seems particulary apt.


I'll be away for a few days, but when I return I'll be posting something that shows that what Earl has done with Burton is very similar to what you point out he's done with Van Voorst.

Jeffrey

***********

JoeWallack

Ben, can you recreate your Ascension of Isaiah Thread? I can't help thinking that the mysterious removal of it was orchestrated by the Archons in The Firmament.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

Ah, but did they or did they not carry out their work without and apart from the instrumentality of some human agent and in a heavenly, not an earthly realm?

JG

gstafleu

Maybe I'm getting senile here, but as I read it, Doherty says that it is not the case that "only documents written for primarily historical purposes should contain historical information." To me that implies that documents written for "unhistorical purposes" can in fact contain historical information.

His rhetorical question is "On what basis is it to be considered that only documents written for primarily historical purposes should contain historical information?" He clearly expects the answer to be "There is no basis for this." Hence it is not only "documents written for primarily historical purposes" that should contain historical information. Hence a "document for unhistorical purposes" can also contain historical information, which is the opposite of what you say he implies.