Freethought & Rationalism Archive

krosero · 07-05-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

While I've not read AOI I'm not aware of Doherty showing any heretics or Church fathers identifying what Doherty claims to be the middle Platonist period, nor anyone in the second century, not even hostile critics like Celsus or Tacitus or Josepheus identifying anything that can be described as support for Doherty's reading of Paul. I agree that you can split hairs, but if something is a logical conclusion of Doherty's theory, I would regard that is equivalent to saying “according to Doherty”.

True, something can be presented as a logical conclusion of Doherty's theory, but it's only one logical conclusion. His theory implies one of at least two things: that the MJ'ers died off quickly; or that they survived a long time but had no surviving witnesses in the record for certain reasons. As far as I know, he has never chosen between these two scenarios; and he could decide that it was some of both.

So this is not quite splitting hairs; I think it's important.

And I'm sure you'll get more responses if you represent a position as carefully as possible.

Kevin Rosero

gnosis92 · 07-05-2007, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

gnosis: I think you are referring to this:

Has anyone here read Odes of Solomon? Is it Christian or proto-Christian mythicism? which you started on June 11 and which got no replies.

If a post that you start gets no replies, it might be because people can't figure out what you are asking, or because your presentation was not clear, or perhaps because you start a lot of threads.

You also use words that make people suspect you are not actually an expert on the matter but like to use big words in an attempt to impress:

Quote:

I base my argument on probability and multi-variate analysis: how many first century Jewish sects would have all of these concepts present in one work, as opposed to the null hypothesis that these details come from or are an allusion to Gospel Jesus?

Multi-variate analysis? Please.

Trust me, you do not understand what Doherty's position is, and it shows. In order to debate someone, you need to be able to understand their theory from their point of view. Otherwise, you end up arguing against a parody of that theory, and your arguments are a waste of time.

Yes that's what I was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_analysis
Multivariate analysis (MVA) is based on the statistical principle of multivariate statistics, which involves observation and analysis of more than one statistical variable at a time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_statistics
Multivariate statistics or multivariate statistical analysis in statistics describes a collection of procedures which involve observation and analysis of more than one statistical variable at a time. Sometimes a distinction is made between univariate (e.g., ANOVA, t-tests) and multivariate statistics.

Discriminant function or canonical variate analysis attempt to establish whether a set of variables can be used to distinguish between two or more groups.

Doherty argues that Odes was NOT Christian. He argues against each candidate reference, considered individually. I argued that since the Odes has NUMEROUS references, the work, as a whole is either Christian, or belongs to an unknown group that uses the same language as Christians, for which we have no record of.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.