Vinnie

Some scholars? Well yippidy doo dah. What's your point? Some people think the earth is flat. Of course, no one listens to them and if you argue 140 ad for Mark I wouldn't waste my time with you either. You seem to have a habit of pointing out ridiculously extreme fringe views when various issues are raised. Since virtually every serious scholar today accepts ca 70 ad. you might want to check the sophistry at the door and come back down to reality. Your "some scholars" is equivalent to absolutely nothing.

That is what we call an ad hominem argument. All NT scholars do not have a valid reaons for this. Its just a compromise. Anyways, tell this conspiracy theory nonsense to the fundamentalists who think the liberals are nuts for dating the Gospels so late.

Or the date which best matches all the evidence which has produces a scholarly consensus.

When two sources use the same source in such a manner it is established that the source predates them both. This isn't tensor calculus.

Say goodbye to all ancient history based upon literary data.

Vinnie

Celsus

The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. External corroboration is everything in ancient history. If you have some nonsectarian multiple-source corroboration of your "bedrock facts," then show it and stop ducking the issue. Your behaviour is getting rather silly, so I'll leave you to have whatever last word you want on this subject.

Joel

Toto

I discussed this recently with Layman. Kummel states that 70 is a compromise. There are scholars who try to date gMark to 64, but most accept that the prediction that no stone of the Temple would be left on another stone means that 70 is the earliest date (for that passage at least.) But there is nothing that requires gMark to be dated that early.

You can prove that the earth is not flat, but there is no observation you can make that will date gMark precisely.

But you're trying to change the subject. If you date gMark to 70, you cannot prove that a subject contained in it was written earlier.


I fail to see how this is ad hominem. I had the same argument recently with Layman, and had to quote Kummel to him. Kummel says there is not sufficient evidence to date Mark precisely, and 70 is a compromise.

It's not even logic. First of all, you have not established that gMark and gJohn use the same source - one could have used the other as a source, and you have not given us any reason to rule out those possibilities. There is much less reason to think that this list had a separate existence than there is to believe that 'Q' was a separate document.

Secondly, you made a bald statement that the list of miracles in Mark / John could be dated to before 70. You seem to imply "well before 70 CE", and there is clearly no evidence for this, just speculation, based on nothing more than an attempt to force the documents to have an early date, so you can claim some kind of eyewitness status for them.

Ted Hoffman

<chuckle><chuckle>
And now that "non-fundamentalists" have questioned your fundamental (and erroneous) assumptions, and after you have resorted to appeal to popularity, tried to shift the argument, made false claims about strawman, ad-hominem and red-herring arguments and made unrealistic demands while comitting special pleading fallacy, I find you in a very untenable situation. Pasted yourself in a corner is more like it. I am very keen on seeing exactly how you will extricate yourself from this, um, conundrum.

All I had to do was posit my Robin Hood bedrock facts alongside your Jesus' bedrock facts. Much as the two characters do not fit exactly (as Peter has correctly pointed out - saviour figure etc), the point is clear: you stuck your feet in your mouth when you provided that vacuous list of "facts about Jesus". In essence, your list had zero probative value one way or the other as far as the historicity of Jesus goes, because as far as lists go, any story has a list about events and characters in it. Even dates. It doesnt mean squat.

You are burying yourself deeper by picking arguments with people who know better about these issues. There is no point in being polemical and flailing wildly about basic issues. You have always been level-headed and it breaks my heart to see you doing this to yourself: taking a fundamentalist position on the issue after claiming you are agnostic about it (the historicity of Jesus).

I will now immerse myself in a state of deep repose as you get tackled by sharper, better-informed minds. Because by doing nothing, the Tao does everything .

Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

Vinnie

I'm done with amatuerville. Have fun arguing with the fundibots.

Vinnie

Worldtraveller

Hmm...this is interesting..

Originally posted by Vinnie

"No I don't see your point unless your trying to raise the tired argument which makes the *overly perceptive* observation that the Gospels have "miraculous material". Unfortunately for you, it is a historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a "miracle worker" so your argument becomes worthless. If this is what you were getting at, of course. If so, try reading E.P. Sanders on miracles in The Historical Figure of Jesus. That would be chapter 10. Pages 132 through 168. If not, I have no clue what point I am supposed to be seeing right now.

Vinnie"

In particular, pay attention to "historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a "miracle worker""...umm, all archeological evidence I've seen points to there not BEING a town of Nazereth until well after JC was 'historically' around.
The sources are posted on another thread (it's no excuse not to find it, but I'm running late already)

Vinnie

Nazareth was excavated.

Vinnie

telerion

The most likely scenario IMO would be that a teacher/heretic/cult leader (we'll call the person Jesus though that may not have been his name) became popular as a religious/political leader opposed to the Roman empire as well as to the ruling Jewish authority. After his execution, his fundamentalist followers used his message as a base to create their own sects.

As a former evangelical-fundie-missionary, now atheist, I am very interested in historical evidence and/or mythological sources that shed light on the origins of my former "lord and master." :notworthy

Metacrock

ONe of the most obvious things in this life, up there with knowing that we exist, or that history is real. Sure we don't know much about him, we can't prove very much more than that he existed, he had followers, he claimed something, he was probably from Nazerath. But to doubt his very existed just because people like Doherty can go "O well why don't say this?" that's so idiotic! Why? why do you people let that mean something to you? It could be tons of reasons. That's just absurdly absurd!


I can't for the life of me see how any of this speculative crap could mean beans to anyone! O Paul didn't mention his mother, so he didn't have a mother! There's a guy in Cleveland that picks his nose, Paul picked his nose, freaky hu?

None of that is any kind of proof.

It's just beyond understanding. and what really gets me is, the silences that favor believe mean nothing to you. But the silences that might make you wonder if its ture, you take that as just absolute proof.

why allow yourselves to be led down the garden path when there is no reason to doubt that a guy existed. Do you think that if you say he existed that means you have to believe he was the son of God? Is that your way of getting ultimate revenge on christianity?

Look, look at this. think about it ok? Please? Please think about this?

this here:

Anytime I say I believe in God, atheists go "there's no reason to believe in God. I can't believe in someting without total absolute proof! Extraordinary claims require extaordinary proof!"

WEll the mythers have no proof of any kind. All they have is questions, and a kind of silly logic which is like saying

1) Essenes lived in Plaestine

2) Jesus lived in Palestine

3) therefore, Jesus was an Essene.

can none of you see what's wrong? Lots of other people lived in Palestine and weren't essenes see? There could be lots of reasons why people didn't mention the empty tomb. But the fact of it is we can prove conclusively that the story of the empty tomb (and therefore a historical guy named Jesus to to go in the tomb) was around since AD50. All the stuff they say about "the Gospels were 100 years latter, that is all a big fat lie! Now that's the Koester stuff, and that's proven. they can't say anything against it. they just dismiss it.


But Where is their extraordinary proof?


we have positive evidence and it's been accepted for 2000 years. So where is the extraordinary proof to disprove it? Just asking questions is not proof.

Metacrock

Meta => and to you that's just absolute proof that he didn't exist right? Anything with any kind of supernatural claim just has to be a lie and the people who believe it dont' exist.





Meta => I venture to say that you haven't seen any. You say "all the archeological evidence I've seen..." but there isn't any to that affect. I happen to know, no excavation has ever formed the conclusion that Naz didn't exist. It's there today, it's been excavated several times, each time they found evidence of 1st century habitation. So what have you seen? If you have seen some evidence of it not existed show it to us!







That wasn't an excavation! That wasn't archeological proof at all. the evidence says that two excavations show it was inhabited in the first century! where do you get the idea it wasnt>? no excavation, no archaeological evidence has ever suggested otherwise. where did you come to that conclusion? The evidence is in that other thread, it says quite clearly, pottery form the frist centry., Pottery is left by people. So it was inhabited. Pottery is one of the easiest things to date. Pottery is actually the major means of dating ancinet artifacts and sites. The archaeologist who excavated says it was inhabited. No excavation has ever suggested otherwise.

read the stuff on the link , stop jumping to conclusions,