spin

Someone who has spent the time to learn a lot about the subject in order not to be a slave to religious experts.

You have not presented a coherent hypothesis. There is nothing requiring a replacement. In fact I challenge you, outhouse, to show a serious presentation by you of the hypothesis you advocate, fully argued with the primary evidence necessary to support it. You know as well as everyone else here, you haven't made such a presentation, nor can you do so.

Now, what will it take, outhouse, for you to get realistic and either present something tangible without regurgitating potted versions of christian scholarship or at least to stop the toothlessly attacking everything that you don't agree with?

outhouse

So your not able to answer your own questions?


Humorous, to a point.

That's funny, because it is a summary of most all modern scholars, even though I emphasize Hellenistic more then any.

Mine is the most logical and coherent hypothesis placed forward in this forum, in this thread about the possibility of Jesus reading and writing. Which of course one must first debate the socioeconomic status of Galilee.




By the way, something I learned a long time ago debating apologist and creationist. YOU don't control the debate, you don't control the ground rules. Especially since you have created your own unique hypothesis of history that is some major secret.


If you cannot even answer your own questions, we really don't have a debate.


By the way, your original questions did not ask for evidence. Change the game much?

steve_bnk

This was discussed on another thread.

The JC of the gospels was out of place in the area he is alleged to have wandered about. Dirt poor probably illiterate or marginally literate people.

JC possibly sounds like an educated Jew from Rome. In the tales he is an outsider the Jewish power elite in Judea, but well able to match wits with his antagonists, and knowledgeable of Jewish scripture.

outhouse

Agreed


Cultural anthropology states the places Jesus is said to have lived would have produced this example.


I think marginally literate is very generous.


Since the scripture was written by Hellenist, I agree.



Exactly, like most of the NT, it goes against the cultural anthropology.



Youll find apologetically inclined scholars like Ben Witherington claiming a more middle class educated Jesus.

I find this view ignores how bad these people really had it under Roman and Herodian oppression.

spin

Dodge.

Fudge.

One of those cases where the plain truth seems amusing.

Yup that's right, folks, getting content out of outhouse is like trying to pull hen's teeth. Yet another dodge, outhouse. Evidence was sought and dodge we got.

And another assertion.

We can see that.

And you control yourself.

Try to demonstrate this assertion, this "unique hypothesis of history". Yeah, it's just more noise from your rectal trombone.

I didn't ask me questions. I asked you. Your dodge was to try to shift the discussion off your own deficiencies.

Reasonable people respond substantively.

This post of yours seems to me to be an audition for the scene on the rooftop in Matrix where you're supposed to dodge the bullets, only you don't.

spin

You are merely historicizing text. There is no method in such an approach to a complex tradition whose origins you don't know.

outhouse

Stop the nonsense, it is ridiculous.

Your in a no win situation. You asked for a account of the past, not evidence.

And now your boxed in. It is the exact reason why your CANNOT give your own account of the past. Because it will resemble mine somewhat, leaving you in a weird position. All though your account can be more detailed.

You also cannot refute what I stated for this same reason, as well, mine was pretty vague as I chose to keep it simple.


You ask for evidence, but you will refuse what ever is posted as evidence, or pervert it's interpretation.

spin

Follow your own advice.

As you refuse to respond reasonably, it must mean you can't. This is why you continue to try to shift the burden. This silly "but you didn't ask for evidence" is so demeaning of you.

ETA: If you go back to the initial post in which I asked steve_bnk those questions, you will see that my intention was epistemological, as indicated by my very first question asking whether steve's statement was belief, theory or plain old assertion. It was in this epistemological spirit that I continued the post. You, however, butted in and ignored the purpose of my post to get steve out of making assertions. I did not ask for more assertions. There arw already too many here and they are of little value.

Perhaps you don't understand the situation. You are not supposed to be blathering at this stage. The reason I don't give accounts of things based on insufficient data is because the account would not be of any value. You need to understand that and stop asserting nonsense.

When you have no evidence to justify your stuff, there is nothing to refute.

When you start posting some evidence then we can talk. As it is now, you have nothing to say of any import. Why not remedy that?

outhouse

Evidence is the scripture itself.

using

Multiple attestation
Dissimilarity
Social coherence
coherence


Your trapped in your own web and blathering on with multiple quotes will not get you out of your own mess.


Thank you for not using your normal defensive mechanism of talking in the 3rd party. But I will not jump through your hoops that only take the debate to your desired location.

Your refusal to answer your own questions has been noted.

spin

The bible can be evidence. You need to make your arguments appropriately citing supporting evidence with proper references from the bible.

Stop crapping on. Go back to your initial response to me and look for your biblical references.

You seem to think that I am the only person here who has tried to get a reasoned response from you. Your behavior here seems to me to be petty and shortsighted.

There is no need for me to answer substantive questions when I don't advocate a substantive position on the issues. I have been clear about my position since I started posting in this forum: it is stupid to take a substantive position without the substantive evidence. My questions to steve_bnk were signaled as requiring an epistemological response. When you butted in you failed to notice the obligation to supply how you know what you claim to know. If you did notice you failed to comply. In fact you are one of the most factfree posters on this forum.