Greg2003

Roswell

Groom Lake

Christian Science

Mormonism

Dyanetics/Scientology

The grassy knoll

Jews knew about 9/11 ahead of time

Some guy in Africa was raised from the dead

The "true" exorcist story

Layman

So you keep asserting without demonstrating.

So that is a no. And what is the reason now? Too long? Too annoying? Too lazy?

It's hardly arbitrary, as the latest publication of the translation from the Greek so separates it.

But you continue to ignore the largest problem for Robbins' theory--Hanno is a first person account of those who participated in the actual voyage.

I'm waiting for Robbins to offer any justification for his "examples" of the convention. Even you said that Hanno was his "best" example and that you expected him to explain how it still applied. He has not.

Nothing like a little hyperbole to pass the time. Let's see, you claimed I was "obsfustating" the issues and "demanding" that you recognize SW as an authority on Acts but not on Luke. Those kinds of things.

tw1tch

Vorkosigan,
Right...and who thinks these guys are God?


Nobody?


I thought so.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Family Man

Gosh, SOMMS, simply declaring that someone was a god means every story about him must be true? That's some methodology you've got there.

Was Jesus God? Nope. Don't think so.

tw1tch

Koy,
A bizzare line of argument...as it destroys your own case.

Fact: People create myths such as the above all the time.
Fact: Nobody ever believes them.

How did you miss this?

Juxtapose this with the fact that Christs ministry founded a church and a movement that spread with unprecedented speed throughout the mid east despite the fact that there were no modern methods of communication (ie newpaper, radio, tv, internet).

Moreover, to get an idea of how incomprehensible a 'legend' of Christ is...it would be analogous to everybody in the state of Texas believing that Ted Kennedy rose from the dead then ascended into heaven.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Greg2003

Nobody ever believes them? So nobody believes in Mormonism or Scientology or TM or Sun Yung Moon or Heaven's Gate or the Raelians or any of the other cults that seem to me to have actual believers in them?

It is not a fact that nobody ever believes in silly god man myths. It is a fact that some people do believe such myths. This leaves open the possibility that Jesus falls into this category.

P.S. What does "Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas" mean?

Sauron

So you are admitting that you never read Robbins, and that commenting on his writing was therefore premature and inappropriate?

Sauron

You continue to miss the point. Deliberately.

S-W's claim about 40 years being too short for legendary development is now obviously false - and transparently so, as this thread illustrates.

Yet you cite S-W, in spite of the fact that he made such a blindingly erroneous mistake. So your homework assignment is:

1. Why should we trust anything that S-W says, after such a demonstrating such ineptitude? This wasn't an obscure point of Greek grammar; this was a claim that was easily testable by anyone with an encyclopedia or a browser.

2. Knowing that S-W screwed the pooch on this point, why would you *ever* want to cite him as a reference for your arguments?

3. Why is S-W an expert on the historicity of Acts - but then suddenly he's not an expert, when he (and others) shoot down your position on dating the nativity? Explain your selective attention to S-W: he's a respected expert when you need him to be; but when he and others (like Meier) reject your strained date of the nativity, you feel free to jettison S-W's viewpoint. How suspiciously convenient for your argument.

Toto

Layman has admitted he never read Robbins, he's proud of it. He thinks he's scored some points against Robbins on Crosstalk, when he's actually just given Robbins and Ken Olson a platform to explain the theory in more detail. Robbins has referred to his critics as "tone deaf", because they are so obsessed with preserving the possibility that the use of "we" is some indication of eyewitness testimony that they can't actually understand what he is saying.

Perhaps even if Layman had read the article, it would have passed over his head.

Layman

I've read everything word Robbins has written over on Cross-Talk. Still nothing.

And I never said I was "proud of" not having read his original article. Please provide some support for that. In fact, I have tried to get a copy of it. Including asking your to fax it to me or mail to me via a SASE.

Robbins has failed to offer any defense of his "examples" of a convention. Not even the Voyage of Hanno, which you claimed was his strongest case. You yourself said you expected him to defend his reliance on Hanno. Instead, he's avoided talking about it at all.

He has referred to his critics as "tone deaf." But he's given only ad hoc reasons for his theory. And completely failed to defend any of his "examples" of a literary convention.

His theory is a failure. I can see why he has never tried to defend it on a scholarly level in the 25 years since he published it.