Layman

Toto believes that whatever diminishes theism--especially Christianity--must be propogated. No matter how devoid of logic or support.

But he serves a purpose for them. He wastes our time and tries our patience.

Why hang around here to try and discuss substantive things if Toto is just going to spend 20 posts whining about your style (to mean or lawyerly), 10 posts referencing Amazon.com book reviews, 5 posts accused you of being a big mean bully, and 5 posts pretending you didn't ask him to support his assertion that the Gospel of Matthew's account of the census contradicts the Gospel of Luke's account of the census?

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: "Since I have never in my life referred to McDowell as an authority on anything, I really have no interest in defending him. He's more of a whipping boy of the skeptic than a serious participant in New Testament studies."

Maybe it would have been better if you had not put his name in the topic title.

Layman writes: "I would like to share them with you. But it will take time. I just had a son so my life is kinda hectic right now. But I would appreciate it if I could get some clarification on some points. Don't know if you'd prefer to do it by email or on this board."

I will let you choose the venue.

Layman writes: "I'm curious, because I got the impression it was rather important to your rejection of the "Josephan vocabulary and style" for the reconstructed version. Have others also communicated this impression to you?"

Layman writes: "Well, didn't you also use it to counter the "pro" camp's argument that the remaining terms of the reconstructed version of the TF were tpyically Josephan? That seems an important aspect of the discussion."

I suppose that such a counter depends only on the possibility of the Eusebian fabrication theory. Perhaps the counter could be made into an argument that, if the Testimonium were forged, it was forged by Eusebius, on the assumption that the style coheres with Eusebius alone of Christians -- which, of course, may not be a correct assumtion. (This is not the same as an argument that, as the Testimonium was forged by Eusebius, it was forged, which is the way that Ken Olson argues.)

Bede writes:

"While it is possible to disagree with the academic concensus it would be honest for the likes of Peter and Michael to admit they are going out on a limb and most experts think they are wrong."

It is odd to me that you write this after referring to my post to Jesus Mysteries in which I honestly state:


Steve Mason, a Josephan scholar, comments (_Josephus and the New Testament_, p. 173): "The vast majority of commentators hold a middle position between authenticity and inauthenticity, claiming that Josephus wrote _something_ about Jesus that was subsequently edited by Christian apologists." (emphasis original)

If by a consensus we mean a majority in agreement, then it does appear that there is a consensus that the Testimonium is partly genuine.

Personally, I don't agree with that consensus. I am more inclined to regard the passage as an interpolation as a whole, as a result of my own investigation and reading.


Bede, I hope you are not suggesting that I should not think for myself on an issue that I have studied personally at length?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Corrected UBB error.]

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: peterkirby ]</p>

Anunnaki

Layman & Bede,

Why are you both here? You two are all alone and nobody here agrees with either of you. Your comedy team is very amusing,but why are you here if theres nothing to gain besides lost patience and wasted time?

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Layman

Well, I don't claim to be the best writer on the internet, but I do expect people who comment on my posts to read more than just the title. The text was quite clear that I was not opening up a rehash of the autheniticy debate per se. I wanted to know how many skeptics here agreed with Stein that support for the authenticity of the TF was so unreasonable.

Vorkosigan

That's a good point. A strong one. But like mine, it is also question-begging. Both of us must throw out my point (2), since neither of us can say just what Jesus was.

Vorkosgian

Toto

Bede (and Layman) - I went through this on the other thread. It all comes down to how you translate pseudos, which is why I used the word "fable" and not "lie" in this thread, although I think that the distinction is Clintonian at best.

It certainly was not proven on the other thread that Eusebius never said that lying was okay. Pearse had to revise his essay on at least one point, and Richard Carrier did not back down from his characterization of Eusebius.

I make no connection here between Eusebius's love of fables for those who are too feeble minded to handle the truth, and the possibility that he was a forger. I leave that to others.

I am an amateur at this, and I only speak up here to keep you theists from dominating the conversation and using this forum as a propaganda tool. But I try to do my best. Please show me one instance where I have propagated a falsehood. When I have made mistakes, I acknowledge them. Otherwise retract your libel.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Vorkosigan

ROTFL. This issue isn't whether Jesus existed. That's a red herring. The issue is to what extent the early writings reflect the reality of that existence. I'm sure it is about the same as the reality of Robin Hood, the Prince of Huai-nan, King Arthur, Rustum, Buddha, Confucius, and other Legendary/Founder Figures: almost entirely fictional.

Watertight? In your dreams, Bede. By what methodologies is this "watertight" case demonstrated?

Vorkosigan

Bede

Peter,

Quite right, I didn't reread the post and forgot the rest of it. Not sure you are quite so clear on your website but it is a minor point.

Anunnaki,

I'm here because Peter, CX and Michael are here. Carrier and others drop in from time to time. It makes for interesting discussion. The background whine is inevitable on an open forum and most Christians have to go away and beat a wall from to time. I'm no exception. If you'd just like to hang around and sniff each others bottoms all day there are private forums you can do that on. Check out the Jesus Mysteries yahoo group where any dissenters are banned (again, I'm no exception).

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan

The text was NOT clear at all. Here is what you actually said:

So I guess my question is this. Who is right?

Is Stein right that people like Lowder and me are "dishonest," "fooled" and "ignorant" because of our use of the Testimonium?

Or are Lowder and I right that the Testimonium provides independent historical evidence for the historicity of Jesus?

You clearly appeared to be asking two questions: Is Stein right, and does the TF provide independent historical evidence for the historicity of Jesus? It looks to me like the second question appears to re-open the debate.

Vorkosigan

Layman

You are right. I did also ask posters whether people agreed with Loweder and me.

Which is still different than opening up the debate again.