stephan huller

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ure-right.html

spin

There is no point in trying to redefine "consensus", which merely indicates the majority opinion. Those opinions need not be more than presumptions and guessing, but they need to be held by the majority.

This complaint is utterly irrelevant to the stated consensus. :banghead:

spin

The headline is worth giving:

The best way to win an argument? Shout louder than everyone else and people will simply assume you're right

If we all could stop shouting our assertions we could get on with business.

aa5874

Your response is hopeless. You do not even understand that a consensus based on presumptions and guessing has no real value in the reconstruction of the past.

This discussion is not really about the numbers but about the actual data from antiquity that clearly show that the Pauline writers were not credible and without corroborative support in the Canon of the Jesus cult.


How in the world can the so-called consensus be irrelevant when it is being discussed right now?

The data for the supposed consensus MUST be relevant. What Toto thinks about the consensus and how it was derived is of utmost importance.

You very well know that Toto disagrees with "conventional wisdom" for the dating of the Pauline letters and admit that Scholars must use Presumptions and Guessing for early dating.

It must be known and circulated that the majority of scholars who dated the Pauline writings early did so by Presumptions and Guessing.

Effectively, the consensus is worthless.

Early Pauline letters cannot be maintained any longer as soon as it was exposed that it was baseless and without any evidence.

spin

Could I recommend an English teacher?

You haven't been reading. The discussion you are getting into was about an assertion by Shesh about numbers.

This is a derail.

This doesn't help you avoid what Toto said with "the consensus view that Paul wrote before 60 CE and the gospels were composed after that."

If you don't want to deal with that fact, that's understandable, but you won't change it with your irrelevant efforts.

Try to understand: Toto was not arguing against such a position. Toto was stating the consensus view.

When you call the stated consensus "so-called", you are indicating your disbelief that that is the consensus.

Again, you are attempting to derail the conversation.

That does not change the consensus.

Yet that is irrelevant to the existence of that consensus.

This sentence isn't clear in meaning. It seems to contain an unsupported assertion.

Sheshbazzar

Interesting beastie, that 'majority opinion'. Everywhere it goes it tries to take control of human affairs .....even when it really shouldn't oughta.

It likes to sit upon a throne and dress itself up in royal robes, and pomp and circumstance, to make itself appear to be way much bigger than what it really is.

In this society, and in that, it claims the foremost status, and by the 'tyranny of the majority' attempts to get everyone to bow to its dictates, and to worship at the altar of 'status quo'.

But it has one serious defect. ....it is very short sighted, and never wants to see beyond the borders of whatever little kingdom it has set its self up in.

It tries to deceive us that there is a 'consensus' and agreement by 'the majority 'about this, about that, or about another thing.

But let us of inquire of this King named 'consensus' and of his retinue,
Do the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, 900 million Hindu's, 394 million Chinese traditional religion, 376 million Buddhists, 300 million primal-indigenous religionists, 23 million Sikhs, 14 million Jews 14.2 million Jains, and another dozen or more sundry non-christian peoples, (not even counting non-theists) that collectively comprise over 53% of the worlds population, hold a consensus that 'Paul' wrote before the Gospels?

When it comes right down to this so called 'consensus', How many of the earth's humans actually support it? a few hundred ivory tower textual scholars? a few million of the Christians?

How many, in point of fact, have no knowledge or understanding of the claim, or that it even exists?

If majority opinion decides the matter, would not the majority of mankind find the claim to be simply rather trite and ridiculous, and unworthy of even the time of day?

spin

Yes, Shesh, you fucked up when you misrepresented consensus and all the rest, no matter how often you rehearse it, is you not having the wherewithall to admit that you have no evidence to support your assertions.

Sheshbazzar

Usual useless and insulting reply courtesy of spin. But take note that spin does not want to answer the questions.

Do you ever barf up those nasty hairballs?

spin

You can ad hom as much as you like. You have willfully violated the guidelines and you are shitting on the forum because you don't like being called out about it because that way your ego isn't being stroked.

aa5874

Again, your entire response is hopeless.

The consensus is worthless because it is not based on any evidence.

You simply cannot grasp that a consensus can be worthless when it is based on presumptions and guessing.

I am dealing with evidence from antiquity and there is none to support early Pauline writings so telling me of a consensus based on guesswork is really worthless.