Vorkosigan

LOM, that is not what is "given." That is what we are debating.

Grog

It's an interesting evening. I notice that spin just caught Diogenes in a fork.

Will Wiley

It would be helpful if you could
1) quote in full rather than ripping snippets out of context.
2)link to the post (as everyone else does) so people can see what you've done. In fact you yourself just did it, you linked to the post you quoted.

Yet , in this instance you needed to obscure what you were doing, so you chose not to link to it or quote it in context.

Vorkosigan

As your apt pupil, I always operate on bad faith. I'm just worried, when I expand my post to two whole lines, do I need to use complete sentences? Or can I just bullet points to save space?

Vorkosigan

LegionOnomaMoi

The email wasn't about my intent, but the validity of my thesis. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The fact that a number of people who have written online arguments or published popular books have been maligned, criticized, ignored, or dimissed by academia is not evidence of some scholarly hegemony. Merely wounded egos. There are those without credentials in other fields who have managed to not only be published in journals and similar academic media, but who have changed the face of academic discourse. The fact that mythicists have not is hardly evidence of scholarly hegemony, however much Spin wishes to redefine the term.

Will Wiley

remove please

spin

I can understand your emotional reaction, given the lack of substance behind the assertion.

It's very hard for you to pontificate on historical methodology. You still haven't shown how you can get history from tradition.

You've shown nothing. You've asserted having history before and got no further than assertion. You've had long enough. You get a Fail on this paper.

Amateur historians think they don't need functional epistemologies. You should find real historians to depend on.

Personal feelings like those you've expressed are not probabilities. Talking of probabilities detached from evidence is utter balderdash. You seem to like using such balderdash.

Eeee, look another assertion. Do it, go on, just once, get your hands dirty with the evidence and show us all the epistemology behind your ontological commitment for the historicity of Jesus. I hope you can get beyond the stupidity of claiming that Paul must be referring to Jesus's brother when he talks of "the brother of the lord". You haven't given any expectation of better.

Science usually gives you means to test your theories. You can falsify them.

Another one of your empty headed space fillers.

Yes, it is pathetic. Subjectivity is what you need to circumvent.

Talking about best explanations might make you feel good, but you need to connect the explanation to evidence. You are only babbling in the backroom at the moment.

It was obviously you. The separation is clear enough if you aren't intent on mixing them.

You can continue this with yourself if it helps you. You don't seem to want to look into hegemony and you've demonstrated a lack of desire to learn about it by yourself.

OK, I think at this stage, your going to bluff your way into silence.

This is just more of the same.

When you want to get epistemological then you might stop mumbling. You talk this rubbish about best explanations without any meaningful evidence. I'm sure you can decide which is the correct color for the man from Mars that way on as much evidence as you have been using for your historical Jesus. But as usual you are all assertion and no evidence, so you will remain as convincing as George Bush at a peace conference. At least he can tap dance.

I don't think you'll cough up the goods, so, unless you do produce something to build your best explanation on, I've leave you to babble on alone.

:wave:

outhouse

maybe we will get more quality scholarly work like what is found in zitgiest icardfacepalm:



the peanut gallery here is really fond of this type of work. And anyone who claims quality work is appealing to a higher authority while sticking his head in hegemony sand

:realitycheck:

spin

You've never had XYZ, just the same X(?)(?) that you have always had. Without your Y and Z you have nothing. To get the Y you need an appropriate Z, but you haven't got one. There's the rub. It would seem your historical jesusism dependent on this rubbish.

spin

This guy deliberately confuses arguments about mythicism with the burden of proof necessary for establishing historicity for Jesus. To me the two positions seem to be on the par of "the men from Mars are red!" "No, they're not. Everybody knows they're yellow." Judging from his claim regarding Gal 1:19, his problem is that he is prepared to manipulate his data to make it more convincing to himself of the historicity of Jesus, so that it must be for everyone else.