mountainman

Dear Joan of Bark,

The question appears to be what is to be done with such literary second hand (or third party) calls from antiquity.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Not on this thread, it's not.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I'm more interested in the hard evidence, not the conclusion based on supposition and undocumented statistics, that you might have to support your claims. Where is it?

Jeffrey

EarlDoherty

“Asked and answered!” as they say in the courtroom. He’s already said he is using “common sense” to arrive at that conclusion (whether you agree with it or not, and we all have gotten the message that you don’t), not hard evidence. Now you’re in the witness box, Jeffrey, and YOU have been asked a question. What hard evidence do YOU have to dispute the other witness’s contention?

Or are you going to continue yet again to pull your same old crap and refuse to contribute something substantive to the debate? Since you have adopted a clear attitude of denial that “thedistillers” (Jesus Christ, why can’t we use real names around here?) is right, why can’t we get anything out of you to back up your denial? A survey, something unofficial, something anecdotal, your personal impressions backed up by your experiences—anything. Anything! Anything to show that you’re actually alive, that you voice opinions based on some kind of fact or argument. That you have some kind of integrity. That you’re here not just to throw your personal shit around and make noise and shout us all down with empty words.

Have you got any balls, Jeffrey?

Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the fact that the issue is whether the claim about NT scholars can be substantiated by those who make it with evidence rather than supposition, and not whether I have any evidence to dispute it, I'd be grateful if you'll note that I produced a list of leading and representative NT scholars who, to my knowledge, are not "Christians" and of whose beliefs the original questioner seemed to be ignorant, thus calling the validity of his implied claim that he was acquainted with who and what NT scholars are into question. So yes, I do and I've already presented it.

The only thing that anyone is doing "yet again" is you making this unsubstantiated accusation for the umpteenth time

I've asked you several times now to show that this is indeed something I do, as you have claimed, persistently. The silence with which this request has been answered is curious if not extremely telling.

Have you any actual evidence for your claim above?

Jeffrey

Toto

Asking for "actual evidence" as to whether Jeffrey has balls - there are some things I just don't need to know.

This thread has become unproductive, if not something worse. I will close it while the moderators decide what to do.

Chili

I like it very much and means that we do not want to be Christians by your definition of one.

We have the once a Catholic always a Catholic kind of faith wherein 'water is thicker than blood' which in itself already make the OP absurd.

aa5874

You are very wrong with Christians. You must be orthodox or else you are a heretic and from the devil. You do not just say you are a Christian, someone with authority, perhaps like the Pope or some other Church leader will decide or demand what you must do to say you are a Christian.

Now, if I say I am a Democrat and a Cub fan, virtually no-one would try to deny or not believe, but if I say I am a Christian, then all Hell will break loose. A person really needs approval to call oneself a Christian.

Marcion, Valentinus, Cerinthus, Capocrates, Simon Magus, Menander and the other so-called heretics know you need approval or else you will be destroyed by the real Christians.

aa5874

Jim Jones said he was a Christian. He must have been. And David Koresh, too.

Once you say you are Christian, are you really?

And there may be Christian scholars who are evangelists, missionaries, minsters and pastors for Jesus and expect to be rewarded by Jesus when they die.

And from court trials, it has been noted that experts in almost any field, when paid or expect a reward, can contradict each other, or give opposite views based on their expertise when presented with the same identical data or evidence.

Only a juror, many times not even an expert in any field, in jury trials, can make a determination on the veracity of all the experts from either side.

So, experts in any field can be biased especially when they expect a reward.

Chili

And then there are those who don't say that they are Christian and will say that those who say they are are not.

This would follow from the argument wherein all theologians are students of their own mind wherein they are omniscient but can't seem to get a hold of it on account of the great divide that separates them from their identity as Lord and by extension as God in their own right of Christian domain.