Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-27-2013, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

...

Toto why did you basically ruin this thread with your personal issues?

There is niothing wrong with the opening post, and it could have led to a interesting discussion, but immediately you let your personal issues derail it.

Please stop doing this.

What personal issues? The OP was directed at arguments I have made. There is nothing personal about it - no one here knows my personal issues.

But feel free to redirect the thread in another direction.

thief of fire · 01-27-2013, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

...

Toto why did you basically ruin this thread with your personal issues?

There is niothing wrong with the opening post, and it could have led to a interesting discussion, but immediately you let your personal issues derail it.

Please stop doing this.

What personal issues? The OP was directed at arguments I have made.

The OP doesn't mention you or your arguments. You took it personally.There was no need for you to turn it into that.

Quote:

There is nothing personal about it - no one here knows my personal issues.

You spar with outhouse adnauseum, so we all know about that personal issue,and you turned this thread into another example

Toto · 01-27-2013, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What personal issues? The OP was directed at arguments I have made.

The OP doesn't mention you or your arguments. You took it personally.There was no need for you to turn it into that.

Quote:

There is nothing personal about it - no one here knows my personal issues.

You spar with outhouse adnauseum, so we all know about that personal issue,and you turned this thread into another example

You haven't identified any "personal" issues. Are you projecting?

Jaybees · 01-27-2013, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Do me a favor and tell me which authority I can appeal to in this vast field of theology. What research is available. What success there has been that is univerally accepted by the experts in that fields. And much else of like nature.

Vague questions cannot be answered like this.

Since you consider the above questions to be vague, please show why they are vague. Start with the following example:

"...tell me which authority I can appeal to in this vast field of theology." Why is this a vague question?

thief of fire · 01-28-2013, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

The OP doesn't mention you or your arguments. You took it personally.There was no need for you to turn it into that.

You spar with outhouse adnauseum, so we all know about that personal issue,and you turned this thread into another example

You haven't identified any "personal" issues. Are you projecting?

Well I guess the best way to find out is to try and improve the forum, and not consider the part you play. If you try to improve the forum and neglect the part you play and it doesn't improve that will be the evidence you seek.

mountainman · 01-28-2013, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

All nonsense. The field is much broader then the opologetics you falesly claim. :constern01:

From wiki

Definition (of bible studies)
The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies defines the field as a set of various, and in some cases independent disciplines for the study of the collection of ancient texts generally known as the Bible.[1] These disciplines include but are not limited to archaeology, Egyptology, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology.[1]

Thanks very much for researching an authoritative definition of "Biblical History".

I have taken the liberty of highlighting one of the fields mentioned in the definition - THEOLOGY.

Now we are almost half way there.

Would it be too much to ask now that you cite an authority on the definition of "Ancient History"?

Once this is established we can make a comparison between the definitions of the two fields.

Thank you outhouse.

If one does not understand theology, then one doesnt belong in the section of the forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

Quote:

Theology (from Greek Θεός meaning "God" and λόγος, -logy, meaning "study of") is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and its influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary.[1]

I understand that you follow Meyers, Moss, Ehrman, Crossan, Reed, Borg all of whom received their education in Biblical History at a Theological college. I understand by this admission you would appeal to any of these people as an authority on any issues related to "Biblical History".

Correct me if I am mistaken.

Quote:

Ancient history is one small area within a scholarship.

This a totally inadequate definition of "Ancient History" as distinct from "Biblical History". What is your agenda?

The methods and principles of Ancient history are CRITICAL to the questions and possible answers surrounding the origins of the Early Universal Canonical Christian Church.

Historical Method: Core principles

Quote:

Core principles

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[1]

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

Quote:

There can also be specialist within ancient history, that have no place looking at a bible.

Of course the OPPOSITE also applies in that there are a large number of extremely well respected ancient historians who have investigated the history of the authorship of the NT canonical and non canonical books and the other issues of Christian origins.

mountainman · 01-28-2013, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is nothing personal about it - no one here knows my personal issues.

You spar with outhouse adnauseum, so we all know about that personal issue, and you turned this thread into another example

I disagree. Toto spars with most people here and as one against whom Toto has spared for some time I don't see this as anything personal at all. It is a method to promote discussion. It is an attempt to illicit information and/or data. Toto is prepared to examine all the evidence, both old and new, but I have not seen outhouse deal with the evidence other than to make pronouncements on it via "the authorities".

outhouse in many other threads has appealed to some authority and we have just been informed that he has the utmost respect for a bunch of Biblical Scholars mentioned somewhere above. I am not saying that this is a good or a bad thing, but if your discussing issues with outhouse it is handy to know he might quickly produce an authoritative citation to "Did Jesus Exist" by Bart Simpson Ehrman.

outhouse · 01-28-2013, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I understand that you follow Meyers, Moss, Ehrman, Crossan, Reed, Borg all of whom received their education in Biblical History at a Theological college. I understand by this admission you would appeal to any of these people as an authority on any issues related to "Biblical History".

Correct me if I am mistaken.

.

You are mistaken again.

Not on any issue, this would be ignorance on how to properly use "appeal to authority" No one said it can be used blindly in every application. Actually, it has been explained quite clearly just the opposite.

It is not my fault you choose not to follow intellectually responsible research, all because your hobby horse doesnt work with the evidence there is to date.

mountainman · 01-28-2013, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I understand that you follow Meyers, Moss, Ehrman, Crossan, Reed, Borg all of whom received their education in Biblical History at a Theological college. I understand by this admission you would appeal to any of these people as an authority on any issues related to "Biblical History".

Correct me if I am mistaken.

.

You are mistaken again.

Not on any issue ....

Not on the issue of the historical existence of Jesus?

outhouse · 01-28-2013, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

You are mistaken again.

Not on any issue ....

Not on the issue of the historical existence of Jesus?

Not on that.

One could try, but it wont carry any weight with those who oppose.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.