andrewcriddle

Hereward_the_Wake
is a bad example of your general point. I don't see any reason to doubt his basic historicity.

Andrew Criddle

Stringbean

I have read this and do not see where you proved any eyewitness to anything.

spin

Careful phrasing in order to make clear distinctions is certainly a good thing. Being able to refrain from jumping into things given insufficient evidence is also good methodology.

You may think what you like, of course. I am aware of your methodology-challenged musings in this forum which are a continuation of the same lack of scholarly approach in your droppings in the online journal of the "Mega Society", Noesis, which I have sufficiently shown to be amazingly unaware of what evidence is, apparently assuming a stringing together of assertions is the way to go. You may keep pointing back to the flood of nonsense you have poured out here and get zippo response because people learn that your material is too caught up in its own certainty to worry about facts, evidence, argument or communication with its readership. We frequently see posters here with the same lack of awareness of the hole that they are in, zealously sure of what the parishioners are missing out on, while preaching to an empty church.

The amusing reference to a peer-reviewed article in the "Cincinnatus Society Bulletin" draws one to google "Cincinnatus Society Bulletin" and find 'No results found for "Cincinnatus Society Bulletin".' (I did look at the "Cincinnati Historical Society Bulletin" as well, but it closed down in 1982.) Convincing isn't it? Who were the scholarly editors of this journal? Who were the peers for this journal that has left no trace anywhere across the internet? This is a new angle on resting on your laurels.

spin

I was working from the Petersborough Chronicle which comes in in the 14th c. You may be right though, as I'm not up with the full range of evidence. I would have thought that Prester John was more the odd man out, being obviously the least historical.

aa5874

Whether or not some other person did or did not exist has nothing whatsoever to do with the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

The existence or non-existence of Hereward requires a separate and independent investigation and the results cannot be transferred to other unknown characters.

The very fact that it is documented and publicly declared that Jesus had no human father and was the Son of God by a Holy Ghost must mean that there was no known records to contradict the Jesus cult.

Iskander

This book describes Hereward the Wake as a “Lincolnshire thegn “, a member of a composite force whose objective was the abbey of Peterborough...[page 221-222].

In page 324 an uncle of Hereward the Wake, Brand, is said to have “made immediate overtures to Edgar Atheling on his appointment”


David C. Douglas,
William the conqueror
Yale English Monarchs, Yale University Press 1999, New Haven and London
ISBN 9780300078848

Adam

spin, you carefully choose in your #123 here not to post instead on my thread (where it might prove embarrassing to you), though your concluding paragraph here (hidden) does show you at least took my link to it and mocked my claim that my article was peer-reviewed:
N/A
I chided you recently on your memory failure for 18 months ago (not seriously, just showing you had not reviewed the subject before posting), but now you are forgetting (or ignoring) what I wrote to you just 10 days ago on

Many Jesuses in which in my #72 I stated that it had been peer reviewed in Biblical Theology Bulletin, and in my preceding #68 I had said that it was peer reviewed in 1980. I did not realize I had so hidden the editor's name, but in my thread itself Significance of John I had stated this at #43:
I flatter myself in assuming that this would be embarrassing to the editor, so I have not (according to Search) used his name elsewhere. So my article was accepted in 1980, but never published by BTB, but in 1988 instead by a short-lived High-IQ Society (above Mensa level, below Mega Society level), but with some unfortunate omissions. My serialization on FRDB restored the cuts (that had, after all, been peer reviewed).

Sorry to go into detail on this matter, but spin apparently won't accept evidence as evidence unless it's peer reviewed.
Edited to add:
For those unfamiliar with the "View Single Post" window, to see other posts in the thread click on the thread title, i. e. "Significance of John" in this case.

spin

I'm sorry, I admit guilt to the charge of wasting the forum's time for it seems I have only encouraged you to produce more non-content.

Think what nonsense you like about me. You've demonstrated your wares and still shown no redeeming features. I'm not interested in the web of confusion you seem to have woven around your position.

Adam

No use responding in kind. Not on this website, anyway.
If spin plans to shoot down my claims to authenticity, I need to repeat what I said here recently, if one is going to ask Editor David Bossman at Biblical Theology Bulletin if my paper was peer reviewed there in 1980, be advised that the title was not "Significance of John" but "The Three Sources and Five Editions of John"--or the other way round (no, not Five Sources and Three Editions of John").

And yes, BTB is put out by Roman Catholics. I converted to RC in 1969, largely as a result of historical study as an outgrowth of earning my M. A. in History that year (but turned Episcopalian in 1992 and Lutheran in 2004). BTB is rather liberal.

I think we all know what it means that spin still refuses to deal with my thread.
Edited to add:

Cincinnatus Society (1 out of 1,000)

Cincinnatus was founded by Grady Ward in 1987 at the 99.9 percentile during

a bitter dispute in the Triple Nine Society. Grady Ward declared himself

Dictator, which some found preferable to the chaos in TNS. Apparently

defunct since about 1989. It seems Grady faked his own death (there was a

death notice in the “Mensa Bulletin”), but has become well-known in

Internet free speech advocacy circles for his opposition to the Church of

Scientology.

spin

"I think we all know what it means that spin still refuses to deal with my thread."

:hysterical: