Freethought & Rationalism Archive

09-09-2002, 06:30 AM

Vork, I am not angry with you but with the JM moderators who are now lying about why I was banned. If you remember you had something to do with it too - but they do not.

You said: "In any case, you have not yet put up any reason for me to assume Crossan is wrong. If you had the methods, you would just put them up and end the debate. Your long piece is garbage; rehashing the criteria that Crossan and others have long ago exposed as ridiculous."

On this thread: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000461&p=2" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000461&p=2</a>

A retraction would be welcome.

Yours

Bede

Layman · 09-09-2002, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Why the religious triumphalism? I actually see your point, but I think when you use the phrase, "stooping so low," you do yourself and perhaps others who hold your position a disservice. Such characterization is not necessary and impedes dialogue.

Why do so many on this board act like the courtesy police? If you insist on doing so, I hope you'll give equal time to all viewpoints.

And I have no idea what you mean by "religious triumphalism." I just insulted the Young Earth Creationist position. How is that being religiously triumphant on my part? And if I did "disservice" to the YEC position, that's fine with me.

Layman · 09-09-2002, 08:00 AM

Quote:

I disagree. Scientists and laypersons who respond to creationist claims actually demonstrate why those claims are false or poorly reasoned, and provide evidence and arguments for the theory of evolution. I've yet to see an attack on Doherty's Jesus-myth theory that consists of a point-by-point rebuttal, demonstrating the flaws in each area of his argument and making a persuasive case, via evidence and logical argument, for the existence of Jesus.

Egads. Can you not see your fallacy here? You are comparing refuting an entire fringe field to refuting one guy in a fringe field.

Layman · 09-09-2002, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gregg:


Also, I think in another post you said something like "am I supposed to rebut every non-scholarly ahistoricist case that comes down the pike?" Well, no, but I would say that Doherty's case qualifies as an exception. He has, as I said, been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal (which is more than can be said for Dembski and Behe) and his work has been praised by at least a few respected scholars, such as Robert M. Price.

Gregg

Yeah, a "peer-reviewed journal" devoted to minimalist theories. But if its good for the goose..... Dembski and Behe have both been published in a "peer-reviewed journal." I think you'll find back issues maintained at arn.org.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 09-09-2002, 09:30 AM

Yuri wrote:

So, being pretty sure myself that our canonical Mark wasn't written first, perhaps I may be forgiven for perceiving this whole debate as quite on a par with those fascinating medieval debates about how many angels can dance on a head of a pin...

[Peter:]
For one thing, we would need an explanation of why the alleged fact that the earliest gospel was a Jewish-Christian gospel with primitive features variously from Matthew, Mark, and Luke would show Doherty's fundamental theory that Jesus is a myth to be incorrect.

Hello, Peter,

If Earl is using Markan priority as the foundation of his thesis, then refuting Markan priority will also refute his thesis.

For another, we need a demonstration that your solution to the synoptic problem is correct.

Well, and I just happen to think that this Synoptic Problem business has been highly overrated. In fact, I don't even see that any such problem even exists... That's right, in fact, there's no Synoptic Problem!

As I wrote before, we do know that the 4 gospels had always been in the custody of the Church up to the time of our earliest substantial MSS (3rd century). So then it's very probable that, during all that time, the Church had been continuously at work on these texts, since its dogmas and beliefs were continuously evolving in the first 200 years or so. This is simple common sense, and it also happens to be supported by all sorts of hard textual evidence.

Thus, common sense tells us that all 4 gospels, in their present shape, should be dated to approximately 3rd century. So none of them is the earliest to have been written, and none of them is the latest to have been written. Also, considering such historical background, their mutual interdependence is likely to be massive, and going in all sorts of directions -- depending on which particular passage we're discussing at any given time. Which is what honest and unbiased source criticism is really telling us, in any case...

So where is there any Synoptic Problem still left to be solved?

Everything I've said so far is really quite elementary stuff. So where is there any problem with it? Thus, the Synoptic Problem is a myth.

So, this demonstrates the need for a detailed rebuttal.

But why should I rebut Earl, if I know that he's basically right?

Indeed, if one _assumes_ Markan priority, as he and most of his critics do, then indeed the conclusion should follow inevitably that Jesus was a Myth!

All the best,

Yuri.

NOGO · 09-09-2002, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Layman
Egads. Can you not see your fallacy here? You are comparing refuting an entire fringe field to refuting one guy in a fringe field.

Something is amiss here.
Is creationism a fringe field of the science of evolution?
I think not!

Vorkosigan · 09-09-2002, 02:27 PM

Vork, I am not angry with you but with the JM moderators who are now lying about why I was banned. If you remember you had something to do with it too - but they do not.

I had something to with you being banned from JM? That's one I haven't heard.

You said: "In any case, you have not yet put up any reason for me to assume Crossan is wrong. If you had the methods, you would just put them up and end the debate. Your long piece is garbage; rehashing the criteria that Crossan and others have long ago exposed as ridiculous."

On this thread: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000461&p=2" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000461&p=2</a>

A retraction would be welcome.

Yours

Bede

A retraction of what? I stand by that comment; it's garbage because it fails to do what it set out to do: provide any sort of methodological justification for the positions taken by NT scholars. The comment was provoked by your personal attacks earlier in that thread. Because you, like all apologists, lack the methodology necessary to defend your position, you can only hit back by calling your opponents names. But don't you understand? Each time you or another apologist brands a skeptic "hyperskeptical" or accuse them of "bashing" or of being credulous or insane, you make our case for us. After all, if you had something, you wouldn't need personal insults.

As for being pissed at you, yes I am. I'm tired of your constant twisty misrepresentations and personal attacks on myself and others. Shit like "Besides, you have shown a propensity to believe anti-Christian mythology such as the Pius XII Nazi legend, priests hunting cats etc with much less evidence than we have for Jesus's cricifixion under Pilate. Your scepticism is selective to say the least" or "Vork's Theorem" or accusing CX of following Yuri's wild ideas or hundreds of others.

But most of all, I am pissed at you because I am so disappointed in you. I'm angry because I liked you once. The more fool I.

Michael

Gregg · 09-09-2002, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


Egads. Can you not see your fallacy here? You are comparing refuting an entire fringe field to refuting one guy in a fringe field.

Except Doherty actually has a case to refute.

Probably a lot more people have put out papers on the Flat Earth theory or perpetual motion mechanics too. I guess this means that their arguments must be taken more seriously than ED's.

Gregg

Layman · 09-09-2002, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gregg:


Except Doherty actually has a case to refute.

According to you. But then, who are you?

Radorth · 09-09-2002, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Probably a lot more people have put out papers on the Flat Earth theory or perpetual motion mechanics too.

I'm working on one of the latter myself, but no one with a degree is willing to debate me.

Radorth

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

09-09-2002, 06:30 AM	#41
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Vork, I am not angry with you but with the JM moderators who are now lying about why I was banned. If you remember you had something to do with it too - but they do not. You said: "In any case, you have not yet put up any reason for me to assume Crossan is wrong. If you had the methods, you would just put them up and end the debate. Your long piece is garbage; rehashing the criteria that Crossan and others have long ago exposed as ridiculous." On this thread: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000461&p=2" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000461&p=2</a> A retraction would be welcome. Yours Bede

09-09-2002, 09:30 AM	#45
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Yuri wrote: So, being pretty sure myself that our canonical Mark wasn't written first, perhaps I may be forgiven for perceiving this whole debate as quite on a par with those fascinating medieval debates about how many angels can dance on a head of a pin... [Peter:] For one thing, we would need an explanation of why the alleged fact that the earliest gospel was a Jewish-Christian gospel with primitive features variously from Matthew, Mark, and Luke would show Doherty's fundamental theory that Jesus is a myth to be incorrect. Hello, Peter, If Earl is using Markan priority as the foundation of his thesis, then refuting Markan priority will also refute his thesis. For another, we need a demonstration that your solution to the synoptic problem is correct. Well, and I just happen to think that this Synoptic Problem business has been highly overrated. In fact, I don't even see that any such problem even exists... That's right, in fact, there's no Synoptic Problem! As I wrote before, we do know that the 4 gospels had always been in the custody of the Church up to the time of our earliest substantial MSS (3rd century). So then it's very probable that, during all that time, the Church had been continuously at work on these texts, since its dogmas and beliefs were continuously evolving in the first 200 years or so. This is simple common sense, and it also happens to be supported by all sorts of hard textual evidence. Thus, common sense tells us that all 4 gospels, in their present shape, should be dated to approximately 3rd century. So none of them is the earliest to have been written, and none of them is the latest to have been written. Also, considering such historical background, their mutual interdependence is likely to be massive, and going in all sorts of directions -- depending on which particular passage we're discussing at any given time. Which is what honest and unbiased source criticism is really telling us, in any case... So where is there any Synoptic Problem still left to be solved? Everything I've said so far is really quite elementary stuff. So where is there any problem with it? Thus, the Synoptic Problem is a myth. So, this demonstrates the need for a detailed rebuttal. But why should I rebut Earl, if I know that he's basically right? Indeed, if one _assumes_ Markan priority, as he and most of his critics do, then indeed the conclusion should follow inevitably that Jesus was a Myth! All the best, Yuri.

09-09-2002, 02:27 PM	#47
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Vork, I am not angry with you but with the JM moderators who are now lying about why I was banned. If you remember you had something to do with it too - but they do not. I had something to with you being banned from JM? That's one I haven't heard. You said: "In any case, you have not yet put up any reason for me to assume Crossan is wrong. If you had the methods, you would just put them up and end the debate. Your long piece is garbage; rehashing the criteria that Crossan and others have long ago exposed as ridiculous." On this thread: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000461&p=2" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000461&p=2</a> A retraction would be welcome. Yours Bede A retraction of what? I stand by that comment; it's garbage because it fails to do what it set out to do: provide any sort of methodological justification for the positions taken by NT scholars. The comment was provoked by your personal attacks earlier in that thread. Because you, like all apologists, lack the methodology necessary to defend your position, you can only hit back by calling your opponents names. But don't you understand? Each time you or another apologist brands a skeptic "hyperskeptical" or accuse them of "bashing" or of being credulous or insane, you make our case for us. After all, if you had something, you wouldn't need personal insults. As for being pissed at you, yes I am. I'm tired of your constant twisty misrepresentations and personal attacks on myself and others. Shit like "Besides, you have shown a propensity to believe anti-Christian mythology such as the Pius XII Nazi legend, priests hunting cats etc with much less evidence than we have for Jesus's cricifixion under Pilate. Your scepticism is selective to say the least" or "Vork's Theorem" or accusing CX of following Yuri's wild ideas or hundreds of others. But most of all, I am pissed at you because I am so disappointed in you. I'm angry because I liked you once. The more fool I. Michael

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.