Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JonA · 06-14-2011, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Feel free to do your own research. I've given you some links.

Okay. So you have nothing, then?

Good to know.

Jon

That's a deliberate misstatement, is it not?

You haven't presented anything, yet. What else am I to conclude?

Telling your opponent to do his own research offers nothing of support for your position. It's not my job to present your evidence.

Jon

JonA · 06-14-2011, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

In summary we have an HJ that existed but outside of that we have no reliable information and we have oral traditions that existed but we do not know what they were.

...Which is logical if we accept that the early catholics adjusted the written records to reflect the 'true' gospel and disposed of conflicting material when they could

We certainly know of a lot of records and communities that were persecuted and destroyed when the Orthodoxy™ came in power.

We can also identify many scribal 'alterations' in the texts that weren't destroyed.

Jon

Toto · 06-14-2011, 09:33 AM

JonA: In post number 2, I gave you the link to Michael Turton's site. Did you click on the link? I gave you links to previous threads where issues were discussed. Did you click on them?

JonA · 06-14-2011, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In post number 2, I gave you the link to Michael Turton's site. Did you click on the link? I gave you links to previous threads where issues were discussed. Did you click on them?

That's nice. Like I said before, though, I'm not going to go hunting down your evidence.

If you'd like to pick out some points from those links and present them here, I'd be glad to discuss them.

Jon

Toto · 06-14-2011, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In post number 2, I gave you the link to Michael Turton's site. Did you click on the link? I gave you links to previous threads where issues were discussed. Did you click on them?

That's nice. Like I said before, though, I'm not going to go hunting down your evidence.

If you'd like to pick out some points from those links and present them here, I'd be glad to discuss them.

Jon

Clicking on a link to a site that is devoted to an extensive and detailed answer to you question does not require hunting.

I don't see any evidence you really want a discussion. Your style seems to involve a lot of sophistry and pointless quibbling.

Doug Shaver · 06-14-2011, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Then what is the purpose of this thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

To debate the sources of the gospels

What, about the sources, do you wish to debate? The scholarly literature on the topic "sources of the gospels" would fill several books.

JonA · 06-15-2011, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Then what is the purpose of this thread?

What, about the sources, do you wish to debate? The scholarly literature on the topic "sources of the gospels" would fill several books.

In the other thread, the point was brought up that there was no oral tradition that went into the gospels.

Seeing someone who holds this view make an honest attempt at presenting their position would be a great start.

Jon

dog-on · 06-15-2011, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

What, about the sources, do you wish to debate? The scholarly literature on the topic "sources of the gospels" would fill several books.

In the other thread, the point was brought up that there was no oral tradition that went into the gospels.

Seeing someone who holds this view make an honest attempt at presenting their position would be a great start.

Jon

Almost the entire Gospel of Mark is sourced from the Septuagint. You tell me which part of Mark you believe comes from oral tradition and we can see how that goes.

Juststeve · 06-15-2011, 07:46 AM

Dog-On:

You could have made a more honest claim had you said that almost the entire Gospel of Mark could have arguably been sourced from the Septuagint. That would at least been honest. To claim as a fact that Mark was sourced from the Septuagint is the kind of stretch that is so common in myther arguments.

Steve

dog-on · 06-15-2011, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Dog-On:

You could have made a more honest claim had you said that almost the entire Gospel of Mark could have arguably been sourced from the Septuagint. That would at least been honest. To claim as a fact that Mark was sourced from the Septuagint is the kind of stretch that is so common in myther arguments.

Steve

There really is no question that most of Mark is sourced from the Septuagint, unless of course you believe that he just repeatedly got lucky...

My response was honest regardless of any specific historical Jesus position.

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

06-14-2011, 09:33 AM	#43
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	JonA: In post number 2, I gave you the link to Michael Turton's site. Did you click on the link? I gave you links to previous threads where issues were discussed. Did you click on them?

06-15-2011, 07:46 AM	#49
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Dog-On: You could have made a more honest claim had you said that almost the entire Gospel of Mark could have arguably been sourced from the Septuagint. That would at least been honest. To claim as a fact that Mark was sourced from the Septuagint is the kind of stretch that is so common in myther arguments. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.