Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[dafydd]

Correct. There is no evidence that God created Man out of the earth.

Blasphemer! In the Middle Ages Canterbury Cathedral had some of the clay the god used to create Adam. The place used to rake in about a thousand quid a year from pilgrims who came to see it.

 

[OCaptain]

I like the way the highlighted words work together.

I guess not then....no constructive reply from you.

 

[welshdean]

I guess not then....no constructive reply from you.

'Constructive reply'? What on earth can one say to a one eyed, closed minded fundy aside from 'read a different book', that could possibly be 'constructive'? Fundies aren't interested in a dialogue unless it reinforces their twisted world view. They aren't interested in conversations from outside their clique, lest they learn something worthwhile.
Fundies, by their very definition are 'destructive'. Destructive to themselves, their families, their communities and as we've seen with the likes of the Texas School Board, their nation.
Fundies have no place in the 21st century, the sooner this world is free of them, the sooner we all will enjoy a true 'enlightenment'.

 

[Resume]

I guess not then....no constructive reply from you.

I've been out having a constructive day, in a constructive life.

 

[OCaptain]

I've been out having a constructive day, in a constructive life.

Normally, I ignore rude posts because they're not worth my time, but yours was just the right combination of rudeness, ignorance and snark that it just rubbed me the wrong way. You went above and beyond in highlighting part of my message in order to make a joke, and yet you offered nothing of substance.

I knew immediately that you knew nothing of the list I referred to, or else you wouldn't have been so dismissive. The Biblical Studies listserve is made up primarily of scholars from around the globe, including a great number of biblical minimalists, and those of the Copenhagen School. The minds on the list are greater than mine and yours combined. Even though there is a great deal of disagreement on it, there is also a great deal of respect and civility.

Before posting my reply, I read you recent post history and it seems like that is par for the course for you. In the future, I will simply consider the source and ignore such posts.

 

[OCaptain]

'Constructive reply'? What on earth can one say to a one eyed, closed minded fundy aside from 'read a different book', that could possibly be 'constructive'? Fundies aren't interested in a dialogue unless it reinforces their twisted world view. They aren't interested in conversations from outside their clique, lest they learn something worthwhile.
Fundies, by their very definition are 'destructive'. Destructive to themselves, their families, their communities and as we've seen with the likes of the Texas School Board, their nation.
Fundies have no place in the 21st century, the sooner this world is free of them, the sooner we all will enjoy a true 'enlightenment'.

Feel better now?

 

[Resume]

Normally, I ignore rude posts because they're not worth my time, but yours was just the right combination of rudeness, ignorance and snark that it just rubbed me the wrong way. You went above and beyond in highlighting part of my message in order to make a joke, and yet you offered nothing of substance.

I knew immediately that you knew nothing of the list I referred to, or else you wouldn't have been so dismissive. The Biblical Studies listserve is made up primarily of scholars from around the globe, including a great number of biblical minimalists, and those of the Copenhagen School. The minds on the list are greater than mine and yours combined. Even though there is a great deal of disagreement on it, there is also a great deal of respect and civility.

Before posting my reply, I read you recent post history and it seems like that is par for the course for you. In the future, I will simply consider the source and ignore such posts.

Feel better now?

I'm betting irony one of the many things you don't understand.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've been out having a constructive day, in a constructive life.

Normally, I ignore rude posts because they're not worth my time, but yours was just the right combination of rudeness, ignorance and snark that it just rubbed me the wrong way. You went above and beyond in highlighting part of my message in order to make a joke, and yet you offered nothing of substance.

There, there.

I knew immediately that you knew nothing of the list I referred to, or else you wouldn't have been so dismissive. The Biblical Studies listserve is made up primarily of scholars from around the globe, including a great number of biblical minimalists, and those of the Copenhagen School. The minds on the list are greater than mine and yours combined. Even though there is a great deal of disagreement on it, there is also a great deal of respect and civility.

And you feel the need to lecture us about this why, exactly?

Before posting my reply, I read you recent post history and it seems like that is par for the course for you. In the future, I will simply consider the source and ignore such posts.

And?

 

[OCaptain]

Feel better now?

I'm betting irony one of the many things you don't understand.

Actually, Welshdean seemed like he needed to get that out, something to which I can relate.

No irony required.

 

[Resume]

Actually, Welshdean seemed like he needed to get that out, something with which I can relate.

No irony required.

Doesn't require your acknowledgement.

 

[amb]

All this squabbling is not answering the question whether the N/T writers told the truth.

"The burden of proof is with the claimant." So far there has not been a single scrap of evidence that the gospelers wrote the truth.

 

[Resume]

I knew immediately that you knew nothing of the list I referred to, or else you wouldn't have been so dismissive. The Biblical Studies listserve is made up primarily of scholars from around the globe, including a great number of biblical minimalists, and those of the Copenhagen School. The minds on the list are greater than mine and yours combined. Even though there is a great deal of disagreement on it, there is also a great deal of respect and civility.

And just to address part of your self-indulgent lecture, it seems clear you don't understand or are aware that there are a number of well-educated individuals that do not subscribe to the idea that biblical studies, minimalist or not, is an actual worthy discipline. I'm not speaking of the book as a regional document of myth (it certainly isn't a historical document) but as alleged scripture. I have some experience in that area, though admittedly not enough, but if we're speaking of the bible as literature, a subject that I am schooled in, it is nothing to write home about. The "begats" are kinda cool in a beat sort of way, but beyond that . . .

Be cautious riding your high horse around here as there are many here better equipped than I ready to knock you off.

Do you have any evidence the new testament writers told the truth?

 

[OCaptain]

And just to address part of your self-indulgent lecture, it seems clear you don't understand or are aware that there are a number of well-educated individuals that do not subscribe to the idea that biblical studies, minimalist or not, is an actual worthy discipline. I'm not speaking of the book as a regional document of myth (it certainly isn't a historical document) but as alleged scripture. I have some experience in that area, though admittedly not enough, but if we're speaking of the bible as literature, a subject that I am schooled in, it is nothing to write home about. The "begats" are kinda cool in a beat sort of way, but beyond that . . .

Be cautious riding your high horse around here as there are many here better equipped than I ready to knock you off.

Do you have any evidence the new testament writers told the truth?

What I've seen so far in the thread is a lot of grand, sweeping statements, which usually contribute little to the advancement of any subject.

That and a militant, kneejerk, foam at the mouth attacking of anyone new.

If you guys are open to actual discussion without demeaning, I'm into it. If not, it probably isn't my thing. I have a sneaking suspicion that the latter might end up being the case, but I'm open to making the attempt.

 

[pakeha]

What I've seen so far in the thread is a lot of grand, sweeping statements, which usually contribute little to the advancement of any subject.

That and a militant, kneejerk, foam at the mouth attacking of anyone new.

If you guys are open to actual discussion without demeaning, I'm into it. If not, it probably isn't my thing. I have a sneaking suspicion that the latter might end up being the case, but I'm open to making the attempt.

Right.
And evidence for why we know the NT writers told the truth hasn't figured in your posts to date.
What has figured is an attempt to boost hits on a link you seem to think highly of, but don't quote.

 

[zooterkin]

What I've seen so far in the thread is a lot of grand, sweeping statements, which usually contribute little to the advancement of any subject.

I'm guessing you haven't read all of this thread, let alone the monument to futility that is part one. If you really want to discuss the issue of biblical authorship, or the Q document or related topics without the baggage that any DOC thread has, you'd be better off starting a new thread.

 

[joobz]

What I've seen so far in the thread is a lot of grand, sweeping statements, which usually contribute little to the advancement of any subject.

That and a militant, kneejerk, foam at the mouth attacking of anyone new.

If you guys are open to actual discussion without demeaning, I'm into it. If not, it probably isn't my thing. I have a sneaking suspicion that the latter might end up being the case, but I'm open to making the attempt.

I'd love to hear what you have to say regarding the Q hypothesis. For a couple of reasons, A more fulfilling conversation would likely be had if you start a new thread on it.

1.) It would be off topic here.
2.) This thread is "scorched earth" Anyone that is mentally stable has avoided this thread like the plague. It's why you only see the likes of me and the others here now.

 

[carlitos]

What do you think of redaction criticism?

I ask because I was reading a recent exchange on the biblical studies yahoo listserve in which both redaction criticism and Q were roundly ridiculed by a good number of the scholars on-hand.

Hi OCaptain. You still haven't linked or typed any "list" of the members of any listserve for anyone here to comment on. You certainly haven't presented any of their "redaction criticism" for any of us to react to. Remember, we can't read it here unless you post it here.

Also, in case you are unaware, this thread is a continuation. If you want to read the original 20,000+ posts, you can do so here. If you read that, you might understand why some folks have lost patience with DOC.

 

[OCaptain]

Right.
And evidence for why we know the NT writers told the truth hasn't figured in your posts to date.
What has figured is an attempt to boost hits on a link you seem to think highly of, but don't quote.

You're certainly inferring a lot beyond what I said.

Does that seem wise?

 

[OCaptain]

I'd love to hear what you have to say regarding the Q hypothesis. For a couple of reasons, A more fulfilling conversation would likely be had if you start a new thread on it.

1.) It would be off topic here.
2.) This thread is "scorched earth" Anyone that is mentally stable has avoided this thread like the plague. It's why you only see the likes of me and the others here now.

Fair enough.

 

[OCaptain]

Hi OCaptain. You still haven't linked or typed any "list" of the members of any listserve for anyone here to comment on. You certainly haven't presented any of their "redaction criticism" for any of us to react to. Remember, we can't read it here unless you post it here.

Also, in case you are unaware, this thread is a continuation. If you want to read the original 20,000+ posts, you can do so here. If you read that, you might understand why some folks have lost patience with DOC.

Really?

You're incapable of Googling things yourself?

I'm not inclined to spoonfeed anyone who isn't willing to follow issues to ground.