stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
DR. X.... btw, what are you a doctor of? Third person dialectics?
While the attempt to Poison the Well with quotation marks is noted and demonstrates an inability to argue to the point, if one wishes to overturn the findings of scholarship, one must actually confront the scholarship.
I’m well aware of the scholarship, especially the dominant opinion. The “scholarship” however is more than 1500 years removed from the actual events in question. My point is that you cannot PROVE anything.
You would have been far better off saying “Evidence suggests that NONE of the gospels were written by contemporaries.” Then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Instead you blatantly overstepped the boundaries of know-ability and refused to own up after I merely asked if you could prove your hypothesis, or still the hypothesis of your scholars. You claim that it is the scholarship that must be overturned, I claim that it is the gospels themselves that must be.
Should one wish to actually consult scholarship, one might very well have a more informed opinion.
Again, as I have demonstrated in half a dozen threads below, I am more than aware of the scholarship. My opinion is quite informed and will demonstrate such if you require it, though you could just as easily pull up a few old threads.
I said your statement regarding contemporary authorship could not be proven or dis-proven. And I am correct. Bring a thousand scholars to the table writing 1,500 years after an event and all you have is “an informed opinion.” That’s a far cry from ”proof”.
Argumentum ad ignorantium--they seem quite absent in this discussion. However, to repeat, one is free to use these sources to rebut a century of scholarship and submit it to a scholarly journal. I can guarrantee that it will be reviewed.
It’s getting rebutted, and the scholarship is not above reproach. In fact, since when does good scholarship close its doors on new possibilities? This is nowhere more evident than to watch the scholars scramble to discredit Carsten Theide. Even if Theide is way off base, it’s autrocious to see the response of “scholars” to a new idea.
"We" have not. I have, I must confess, followed the road of scholarship which, it seems the respondent fears to tread.
I have little fear of the scholarship. Again, you are foolish to claim that it represents a “actual” account of events in the distant past. Had you taken your head out of the sand in the threads below then "we" could have treaded this path.
Again, enlightenment merely requires an honest appraisal of the evidence. If one refuses to do that, I cannot help him.
“Help” me? How benevolent of you. Very well then, since you can “prove” the gospels were not written by contemporaries, do it.
Furthermore, “appraise” means “to determine the value of.” Your own words introduce a level of subjectivity into this matter.
Ten years seems rather prolonged for a labor, even in the 1st century CE. . .
OK… ten years. Let’s assume one of them is wrong. What are you left with? The possibility of one eye-witness account and one redaction? Enlighten us, please as to which it is.
MOI: I'm saying the contradictions point us in no direction, . . .
THY: Unfortunately, a direction towards a hole in the sand does not appeal to me.
MOI: If you are willing to say the contradictions lead us anywhere, then you must also conceed that the similarities [which BTW are 100 times greater] lead us to a conclusion as well.
THY: I refer again to the "small" problem of ten years "between" births. Again, I cannot help those who refuse to consider scholarship.
OK, please tell me how you even remotely addressed my point. If the number of similarities outweigh the number of differences by a margin of 47 to 1, then tell me again how the contradictions point to a direction more profound than the similarities.
Unfortuntately, precedence rather argues against this hope. We rather remember the date of ascension of Roman Emperors, we recall the dates of Hellenistic Wars, et cetera ad nauseum.
Do we? What sources do we use? How old are the sources? How many surviving copies do we have? How can we be certain they are eye-witness accounts? Put up or shut up.
Again, I cannot help those who chose not to learn.
I'm sorry, your record is skipping.
Most curious since the earliest Synoptic is dated--at the earliest--to around 70 CE.
Ahh, the fallacies never cease. Your statement should read, “Most curious since the earliest Synoptic that has been discovered is dated--at the earliest--to around 70 CE.”
How do you know it was the earliest written? Enlighten us again, please.
You cannot know what the earliest date for a Synoptic actually was which has been my point for our entire discussion.
Flick
While the attempt to Poison the Well with quotation marks is noted and demonstrates an inability to argue to the point, if one wishes to overturn the findings of scholarship, one must actually confront the scholarship.
I’m well aware of the scholarship, especially the dominant opinion. The “scholarship” however is more than 1500 years removed from the actual events in question. My point is that you cannot PROVE anything.
You would have been far better off saying “Evidence suggests that NONE of the gospels were written by contemporaries.” Then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Instead you blatantly overstepped the boundaries of know-ability and refused to own up after I merely asked if you could prove your hypothesis, or still the hypothesis of your scholars. You claim that it is the scholarship that must be overturned, I claim that it is the gospels themselves that must be.
Should one wish to actually consult scholarship, one might very well have a more informed opinion.
Again, as I have demonstrated in half a dozen threads below, I am more than aware of the scholarship. My opinion is quite informed and will demonstrate such if you require it, though you could just as easily pull up a few old threads.
I said your statement regarding contemporary authorship could not be proven or dis-proven. And I am correct. Bring a thousand scholars to the table writing 1,500 years after an event and all you have is “an informed opinion.” That’s a far cry from ”proof”.
Argumentum ad ignorantium--they seem quite absent in this discussion. However, to repeat, one is free to use these sources to rebut a century of scholarship and submit it to a scholarly journal. I can guarrantee that it will be reviewed.
It’s getting rebutted, and the scholarship is not above reproach. In fact, since when does good scholarship close its doors on new possibilities? This is nowhere more evident than to watch the scholars scramble to discredit Carsten Theide. Even if Theide is way off base, it’s autrocious to see the response of “scholars” to a new idea.
"We" have not. I have, I must confess, followed the road of scholarship which, it seems the respondent fears to tread.
I have little fear of the scholarship. Again, you are foolish to claim that it represents a “actual” account of events in the distant past. Had you taken your head out of the sand in the threads below then "we" could have treaded this path.
Again, enlightenment merely requires an honest appraisal of the evidence. If one refuses to do that, I cannot help him.
“Help” me? How benevolent of you. Very well then, since you can “prove” the gospels were not written by contemporaries, do it.
Furthermore, “appraise” means “to determine the value of.” Your own words introduce a level of subjectivity into this matter.
Ten years seems rather prolonged for a labor, even in the 1st century CE. . .
OK… ten years. Let’s assume one of them is wrong. What are you left with? The possibility of one eye-witness account and one redaction? Enlighten us, please as to which it is.
MOI: I'm saying the contradictions point us in no direction, . . .
THY: Unfortunately, a direction towards a hole in the sand does not appeal to me.
MOI: If you are willing to say the contradictions lead us anywhere, then you must also conceed that the similarities [which BTW are 100 times greater] lead us to a conclusion as well.
THY: I refer again to the "small" problem of ten years "between" births. Again, I cannot help those who refuse to consider scholarship.
OK, please tell me how you even remotely addressed my point. If the number of similarities outweigh the number of differences by a margin of 47 to 1, then tell me again how the contradictions point to a direction more profound than the similarities.
Unfortuntately, precedence rather argues against this hope. We rather remember the date of ascension of Roman Emperors, we recall the dates of Hellenistic Wars, et cetera ad nauseum.
Do we? What sources do we use? How old are the sources? How many surviving copies do we have? How can we be certain they are eye-witness accounts? Put up or shut up.
Again, I cannot help those who chose not to learn.
I'm sorry, your record is skipping.
Most curious since the earliest Synoptic is dated--at the earliest--to around 70 CE.
Ahh, the fallacies never cease. Your statement should read, “Most curious since the earliest Synoptic that has been discovered is dated--at the earliest--to around 70 CE.”
How do you know it was the earliest written? Enlighten us again, please.
You cannot know what the earliest date for a Synoptic actually was which has been my point for our entire discussion.
Flick
I'm hypothesizing about this crap like it's real or something. May as well argue whether or not Perseus used his right hand or his left to fell Medusa! Is the "great red dragon" in Revelations scarlet red, or crimson red?)