It is currently Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:23 pm

All times are [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: response to clt
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:21 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1987
Location: U.S.A.
trae wrote:
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
the JS doesn't question the existence of Jesus and they never have because as you always love to proclaim, "IT'S ON SOLID GROUND," remember?
we’ll have to agree to disagree that the jesus seminar doesn’t question Jesus’ existence. I think it’s implied in their thesis. regardless, any of them are free to deny Jesus’ existence at any time yet, we don’t see that happening.


The Jesus Seminar did deny that JC ever existed though.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: response to clt
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:03 am 
Voice of Reason wrote:
Roman influences over Jewish thought is one of the primary reasons for these revolts. Especially when the Romans began to start and force their religion into Judea. What you are not also getting here is something very basic, Galilee was a hotbed of a melting pot between the Hellenic Jewish Culture and the Orthodox Zealot Jews. This being the case, they would have certainly been well aware of this fact and Jesus would have lived among it for the better his 18 years since he lived in Egypt (if you know ANYTHING AT ALL about history then you would know that Egypt was basically one of the primary states for the Hellenic Revival Period of which Jesus was apparently in). Jesus lived in a time of great controversy when the Hellenic Judaism and the Roman influences over Israel would have been a major problem. To claim he and his disciples didn't know this at all especially when they lived in the time and the places where such talk would have been the daily norm when talking about politics is basically the same as saying that Holocaust did not exist.
none of what you say here is enough to overturn the long held belief that simple country people from galilee would not have known the intricacies of Hellenistic philosophy. Of course they were aware that romans were beginning to do things like the raising of the eagle incident. it is well known that the romans allowed their conquered territories to continue their own beliefs provided it didn’t stir up rebellion, which they monitored very closely. You are conflating roman occupation with the influx of Hellenistic philosophy, which are two totally different things. No documents from antiquity that I am aware of portray the average Judean as being anything other than totally immersed in orthodox Judaism. The Sadducees dabbled in Hellenistic thought and that was about it. however, they were reviled by the other Judaic groups for that. so, it’s not just a question of access. It’s also an issue of rejection. Jews were vehemently opposed to pagan beliefs and practices so when the jesus seminar tries to manufacture Jesus being a wandering cynic sage is just absolutely ludicrous. The same goes for contriving that a Jesus legend has pagan mythological roots. It’s absolutely anathema to jews and contrary to the milieu of first century Judea. If Christians were borrowing, they were complete failures.

Voice of Reason wrote:
what is the evidence that you have that suggests otherwise? What kind of reconstruction effort of Jesus have you done?
what kind of reconstruction is needed to know that Jesus and His followers were thoroughgoing jews or that john borrowed a greek word to relate a concept to whatever gentiles might read his book?

Voice of Reason wrote:
I was talking about the Parallel sayings, i am just saying that their are parallel sayings as is denoted in the title of the book.
the parallels merely reflect human conventions of telling stories. They don’t explain the tremendous differences that lie at the core of worldviews such as polytheism vs monotheism or nontheism vs theism or jew vs pagan gentile.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: response to clt
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Mriana wrote:
trae wrote:
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
the JS doesn't question the existence of Jesus and they never have because as you always love to proclaim, "IT'S ON SOLID GROUND," remember?
we’ll have to agree to disagree that the jesus seminar doesn’t question Jesus’ existence. I think it’s implied in their thesis. regardless, any of them are free to deny Jesus’ existence at any time yet, we don’t see that happening.

The Jesus Seminar did deny that JC ever existed though.

Mriana, If you're going to make that claim you need to provide a quote and source citation directly from the JS. I have read their books. You need to read through this thread.

trae insists on contradicting himself repeatedly throughout this thread by claiming in his first post here:

"the scholarly community is in almost unanimous agreement that there was a historical Jesus. even the liberal critics of the jesus seminar (second quest for the historical Jesus) agree that Jesus existed."

Below trae claims that the HJ is on such solid ground that it's not even up for debate:

"the existence of the historical christ is on very solid ground. this point isn't even debated among the leading ancient historians. i myself have seen all of these people in scholastic and debate settings and there isn't mention of Jesus not existing."

So, why then, would the Jesus Seminar, a group originally of around 200 scholars (mostly Christian), question the existence of Jesus if they already believe it to be "on solid ground?" It's trae's contradiction that he absolutely refuses to acknowledge.

The fact is that only around 3 JS members questioned the existence of Jesus or 1.5% and their views on Jesus' existence weren't given any attention. trae refuses to recognize the difference between examining the authenticity of the texts prior to the 4th century for historical accuracy and questioning Jesus' existence.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 3:54 am 
Voice of Reason wrote:
And how is this not the modern consensus? Since you seem to be so adept could you please tell me what the position or the "consensus" really is?
the existence and corpus of the third quest establishes that the ridiculous conclusions of the jesus seminar are not anywhere near a consensus. The majority of scholars realize the foolishness in trying to make Jesus into a hellenic philosopher so that's about as close to a consensus as there is in academia.

Voice of Reason wrote:
You need to be more specific about this other than an ambiguous "selectively chooses certain ancient documents and then invents "layers" by artificially reordering the historical "priority" of certain documents, effectively cooking the evidence."
if you've read crossan then you know that he invents 4 chronological groupings for two purposes; proximity to the events and multiple attestation. This, in and of itself, suggests that crossan is about to lob himself a softball. The earliest grouping contains gospel of thomas which is highly suspect. This just isn't accepted by serious historical experts (like koester or tuckett) because it's pretty clear that thomas is a later, gnostic reimagining of the gospels. Francis fallon and ron cameron made a definitive case on that subject in 1988. He puts the problematic q in this stratum and i'll answer your questions about q later. The cross gospel, allegedly embedded in the gospel of peter is pure fiction. As if that weren't bad enough, he then states on p. 429 that "it is the single source of the intracanonical passion accounts" which is like putting icing on an imaginary cake. Additionally, picking which documents constitute the best attestation is a blatant case of smuggled in authority. That's just the first stratum. Let me know if there is a need to keep going.

Voice of Reason wrote:
What Theory do you have or are you aware of that can replace and is much more significant in filling the gaps than the Q Hypothesis?
i'm not sure what you are referring to when you say gaps. Q was speculated to address the synoptic problem - similarities in content and arrangement between the synoptics (temptations, beatitudes, lord's prayer). This prompted the invention of an even earlier document from which the synoptics drew. Hence, quelle. You might not be aware that support for q started to crumble with the return to the griesbach matthean priority in the 60's (farmer, sanders, dungan, stoldt brings it to continental scholarship).

People like the jesus seminar approach q with their preconceptions leading the way. For wrede, the messianic secret was prominent and that prompted mark to interject this thinking into the already existing jewish/roman zeitgeist. For bultmann, it was the melding of two streams; jewish praxis and an alleged hellenisitic Jesus movement. For mack, mark merged judaism with apocalyptic judgment. Mack then pronounces that the social aphorisms were orginal to q where as the apocalyptic sayings were not. This leads to unfounded speculation such as "the invitation would have been to something like the cynic's 'kingdom', that is, to assume the cynic's stance of confidence in the midst of confused and contrary social circumstances". Anyone who knows anything about first century judaism would consider this mangling of "kingdom" absolutely confounding. This kind of dishonest, unscholarly, biased conjecture leads people to invent fanciful q stories. It should not go unnoticed that the jesus seminar showed signs of anti-reaganism, anti-conservativism and anti-zionism. What better way to substantiate your specious agenda than to apocalyptically emasculate the person who seems to be the root cause of evil american imperialism; Jesus. Reduce Him to an aphoristic social reformer and the alliance with Israel disintegrates. America then has no reason to impose it's will in the middle east or possibly even anywhere else.

To drive a wedge between Jesus' sayings (social reformatory aphorisms and later, invented apocalyptic predictions which authorize political agendas) is to not understand the first century jewish milieu. Jews, based on their scriptures, were expecting the overthrow of the pagans and control of the holy land returned to them through the actions of the predicted messiah, which would vindicate YHWH. This is clear from many aspects, most notably the intertestimental rebellions. The jesus seminar's manufactured revisionism is looking at the situation with smudged and anachronistic glasses. Are we going to treat q as a gospel? Stripping out the expectations of the jews hardly constitutes "good news". In a two source paradigm, how can it be proven that mark and q are independent when q is nothing but a mist instead of a real anchor? What about paul's corpus? It is clearly an outworking of Jesus' ministry but, a sapiential q makes it irrelevant and based on a fiction. This requires a great deal of explaining and conspiracy theorizing. In the end, q is more a phenomenal representation of the interpreter than real, actual positivist history. This is just as true of q being identified with thomas or peter, or even any kind of genre (sayings, wisdom literature, narrative or full blown eschatological theodicy). the most informed historical experts see q as unparsimonious and don't adhere to any one totalitarian synoptic theory. instead, they recognize the virtues of multiple theories including an ongoing oral tradition.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: response to clt
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:13 pm 
Mriana wrote:
The Jesus Seminar did deny that JC ever existed though.
aluva says that they didn't. they claim they impartially examined the relevant documents and they don't deny the existence of Jesus.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: response to clt
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:24 pm 
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
why then, would the Jesus Seminar, a group originally of around 200 scholars (mostly Christian), question the existence of Jesus if they already believe it to be "on solid ground?" It's trae's contradiction that he absolutely refuses to acknowledge.
i can't imagine why you are quibbling over this. in order for you to be correct, you would have to prove that ALL historical experts are operating with a bias and are uninformed.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:42 pm 
trae wrote:
the existence and corpus of the third quest establishes that the ridiculous conclusions of the jesus seminar are not anywhere near a consensus. The majority of scholars realize the foolishness in trying to make Jesus into a hellenic philosopher so that's about as close to a consensus as there is in academia.


Still not answering the question... how is "the idea that the gospels are more a reflection of later political dynamics than earlier Judean history. That later Christians retrojected church issues from their own time(s) by putting words into Jesus’ mouth so that He solved their issue. thus, the Jesus of history was lost in a wash of theological contrivances" not the consensus? Also you have not answered my other question which was "could you please tell me what the position or the "consensus" really is?" Since you seem a master at dodging my questions I am going to assume you don't have an answer you're making it up as you go

trae wrote:
if you've read crossan then you know that he invents 4 chronological groupings for two purposes; proximity to the events and multiple attestation. This, in and of itself, suggests that crossan is about to lob himself a softball. The earliest grouping contains gospel of thomas which is highly suspect. This just isn't accepted by serious historical experts (like koester or tuckett) because it's pretty clear that thomas is a later, gnostic reimagining of the gospels. Francis fallon and ron cameron made a definitive case on that subject in 1988. He puts the problematic q in this stratum and i'll answer your questions about q later. The cross gospel, allegedly embedded in the gospel of peter is pure fiction. As if that weren't bad enough, he then states on p. 429 that "it is the single source of the intracanonical passion accounts" which is like putting icing on an imaginary cake. Additionally, picking which documents constitute the best attestation is a blatant case of smuggled in authority. That's just the first stratum. Let me know if there is a need to keep going.


Great job on pleading to authority. I asked you "how is he wrong" and "can you provide an alternative?" All you just did is "here are some problems with what I see and I am going to not bother putting forth an alternative to you cause I am just going to appeal to authority by naming people without naming their works!" This is not how you answer a question.

trae wrote:
i'm not sure what you are referring to when you say gaps. Q was speculated to address the synoptic problem - similarities in content and arrangement between the synoptics (temptations, beatitudes, lord's prayer). This prompted the invention of an even earlier document from which the synoptics drew. Hence, quelle. You might not be aware that support for q started to crumble with the return to the griesbach matthean priority in the 60's (farmer, sanders, dungan, stoldt brings it to continental scholarship).


Gaps usually refers to our knowledge on a particular text that is wanting. However I did tell you that I wanted you "to name the theory, you need to name the scholars and/or societies that are advocates of such theories and you need to give a detailed description of how it works or you could just give me a link on a credible scholarly source that discusses such a thing." You failed to this as well. All you just gave me was an account of first names; which help me in nothing. Now if you named their scholarly works and named their hypothesis at all then that would help, but you didn't. You sidestepped what I asked of you and you only barely fulfilled 1/4 of what I asked.

trae wrote:
People like the jesus seminar approach q with their preconceptions leading the way. For wrede, the messianic secret was prominent and that prompted mark to interject this thinking into the already existing jewish/roman zeitgeist. For bultmann, it was the melding of two streams; jewish praxis and an alleged hellenisitic Jesus movement. For mack, mark merged judaism with apocalyptic judgment. Mack then pronounces that the social aphorisms were orginal to q where as the apocalyptic sayings were not. This leads to unfounded speculation such as "the invitation would have been to something like the cynic's 'kingdom', that is, to assume the cynic's stance of confidence in the midst of confused and contrary social circumstances". Anyone who knows anything about first century judaism would consider this mangling of "kingdom" absolutely confounding. This kind of dishonest, unscholarly, biased conjecture leads people to invent fanciful q stories. It should not go unnoticed that the jesus seminar showed signs of anti-reaganism, anti-conservativism and anti-zionism. What better way to substantiate your specious agenda than to apocalyptically emasculate the person who seems to be the root cause of evil american imperialism; Jesus. Reduce Him to an aphoristic social reformer and the alliance with Israel disintegrates. America then has no reason to impose it's will in the middle east or possibly even anywhere else.


What the f##k are you even talking about? Where the hell did this political rant come from in regards to the Jesus seminar, I asked you to provide a point by point basis on what these theories entail and instead you give me some kind of "the Jesus Seminar has a political agenda" rant. Also, what the f##k do you mean by "anti-reaganism, anti-conservativism and anti-zionism?" You throw out these terms as if they mean anything and accuse them of even having a view that Anti-Jesus without elaborating on the reasons why. I find these labels to be nothing more than a red herring and they do not answer the question but for the sake of argument and curiosity what the hell do you even by this rant and can you provide sources for your claims?

As far as Anti-Reaganism goes... I am pretty much Anti-Reagan on the grounds that if it wasn't for that asshole we would have had solar and renewable energy and would have had far more advanced technology along with the fact that our dependency on oil would be gone by now. Hell, the technology we have now would have been available in 2002 as well as the fact that if Reagan didn't support Saddam we wouldn't have had 911; along with a plethora of other reasons. Oh and one more thing about good old Ronald Reagan... f##k REAGANOMICS!

As far Anti-conservatism and Anti-Zionism... you are gonna have to elaborate on that. I don't support Zionism and I say they should support themselves and their own state; considering the inhumane bullshit that they have done. It sure looks like the Jewish people were taking notes during the Inquisition that is for sure. Do these views make me Anti-Zionist?

Also I like the idea of humanity changing and outgrowing old social taboos and pretty much advancing ourselves, technologically, spiritually and even socially. I also have a huge hatred for people wanting to go back to "the old ways" or to "good old America" because most of the time when they say that I begin to picture segregation sectors of society... does this make me Anti-Conservative?

So you see the problem with throwing out these labels without even defining them? So please define for the sake of curiosity.

trae wrote:
To drive a wedge between Jesus' sayings (social reformatory aphorisms and later, invented apocalyptic predictions which authorize political agendas) is to not understand the first century jewish milieu. Jews, based on their scriptures, were expecting the overthrow of the pagans and control of the holy land returned to them through the actions of the predicted messiah, which would vindicate YHWH. This is clear from many aspects, most notably the intertestimental rebellions. The jesus seminar's manufactured revisionism is looking at the situation with smudged and anachronistic glasses. Are we going to treat q as a gospel? Stripping out the expectations of the jews hardly constitutes "good news". In a two source paradigm, how can it be proven that mark and q are independent when q is nothing but a mist instead of a real anchor? What about paul's corpus? It is clearly an outworking of Jesus' ministry but, a sapiential q makes it irrelevant and based on a fiction. This requires a great deal of explaining and conspiracy theorizing. In the end, q is more a phenomenal representation of the interpreter than real, actual positivist history. This is just as true of q being identified with thomas or peter, or even any kind of genre (sayings, wisdom literature, narrative or full blown eschatological theodicy). the most informed historical experts see q as unparsimonious and don't adhere to any one totalitarian synoptic theory. instead, they recognize the virtues of multiple theories including an ongoing oral tradition.


Actually no, you are the only one utilizing "conspiracy theorizing" when you accuse the Jesus Seminar of being "anti-reaganism, anti-conservativism and anti-zionism" without even defining what the f##k they even mean to begin with! As far as your view of the first century, yes I agree, this has mainly been happening but can you please provide sources instead of baseless assertions? I mean f##k! This is getting frustrating and your next post will determine whether or not I should consider you a troll.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: response to clt
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:23 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2301
Location: Everywhere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Quote:
What is an Internet Troll/ Forum troll?

An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

A classic CureZone troll is trying to make us believe that he is a genuine skeptic with no hidden agenda. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. Troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.
While sometimes, he may sound like a stupid, uninformed, ignorant poster, do not be deceived! Most trolls are highly intelligent people trying to hide behind a mask of stupidity and/or ignorance! They usually have an agenda. Very few trolls come ...out of pure skepticism.

A ...Troll is generally a person who is extremely skeptical of the main forum subject.
He is generally interested to make other forum members look stupid. A troll will sometimes use insults to provoke other people to insult him. Then, he will complain to moderators of being insulted and will request that his opponents get banned from further discussion.


Let's see shall we...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: response to clt
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
trae wrote:
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
why then, would the Jesus Seminar, a group originally of around 200 scholars (mostly Christian), question the existence of Jesus if they already believe it to be "on solid ground?" It's trae's contradiction that he absolutely refuses to acknowledge.
i can't imagine why you are quibbling over this. in order for you to be correct, you would have to prove that ALL historical experts are operating with a bias and are uninformed.

I asked Acharya to e-mail Dr. Price on the Jesus Seminar issue since he is a Jesus Seminar fellow i.e. he was there. Below is his response to her.
Quote:
"As for the Jesus Seminar, none of the Fellows (besides me and possibly the Unitarian minister Davidson Lohr) took the Christ Myth hypothesis seriously, though neither did they waste time denouncing it. (Bob Funk somewhere very late in the 90s announced that the Seminar did not dismiss or denounce Christ-Myth theorists.) I think they were essentially pursuing the historical Jesus paradigm as far as it could be taken: on the assumption that there was such a figure, what can plausibly be attributed to him? Nor is that a bad way to proceed, though the meager residue (an authentic 18% of both sayings and stories) makes me think it's past time to rethink the whole premise.

As for this tiresome business about there being "no scholar" or "no serious scholar" who advocates the Christ Myth theory: Isn't it obvious that scholarly communities are defined by certain axioms in which grad students are trained, and that they will lose standing in those communities if they depart from those axioms? The existence of an historical Jesus is currently one of those. That should surprise no one, especially with the rightward lurch of the Society for Biblical Literature in recent years. It simply does not matter how many scholars hold a certain opinion. If one is interested in the question one must evaluate the issues and the evidence for oneself. This is what you and I have done."

- Dr. Robert M. Price

"they were essentially pursuing the historical Jesus paradigm as far as it could be taken: on the assumption that there was such a figure" is another way of saying "they had an a priori assumption" as I've been saying all along.

Now, will trae concede or will he continue on remaining consistent with his delusions and red herring fallacies as he has throughout this thread?

Trae, what are your credentials and what university do you or did you attend? Your repeated use of distraction fallacies rather than addressing the issues at hand makes me wonder if you're an alumni of Liberty University created by Jerry Falwell and bunch?

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:36 am 
Voice of Reason wrote:
how is…not the consensus?
The very existence of the substantial work of the third quest is enough to show that the second quest conclusions are not the consensus on the matter.

Voice of Reason wrote:
Also you have not answered my other question which was "could you please tell me what the position or the "consensus" really is?"
I did answer the question. the consensus in the sensationalized, shock value mainstream media is the renewed second quest. The stronger position in academia is the third quest.

Voice of Reason wrote:
Great job on pleading to authority.
Appeals to authority are not always a bad thing. plus, it’s not like I dodged your question or didn’t provide details.

Voice of Reason wrote:
I asked you "how is he wrong" and "can you provide an alternative?" All you just did is "here are some problems with what I see and I am going to not bother putting forth an alternative to you cause I am just going to appeal to authority by naming people without naming their works!" This is not how you answer a question.
That’s not exactly an accurate characterization of my response. First, those aren’t problems that “I see”. They are problems that many in historiography see. Second, the alternative should be clear. Stop revising history and your conclusions won’t be ridiculed. Third, work with me a little here. I can’t recount the entire history of the world for you. be adventurous enough to do a LITTLE leg work. I’m pretty sure you’re not so helpless that you need for me to go that far. Fourth, I answered your question in detail, offered the potential for more and you didn’t even respond to one iota of the information. You just complained about it and asked for even more. If this is going to be interesting, let’s at least discuss the issue without the genetic fallacies and histrionics.

Voice of Reason wrote:
Gaps usually refers to our knowledge on a particular text that is wanting.
That part I knew. I’m just not sure how gaps relates to q. for streeter, it was really more about interdependence, not gaps.

Voice of Reason wrote:
However I did tell you that I wanted you "to name the theory, you need to name the scholars and/or societies that are advocates of such theories and you need to give a detailed description of how it works or you could just give me a link on a credible scholarly source that discusses such a thing." You failed to this as well.
It’s not like I didn’t provide you with any information. In addition to what I have already cited, here’s an article that just barely scratches the surface of the synoptic problem for a quick reference. Of particular note is the conclusion section where the existence of q is questioned, contrary to what you have asserted about q being a foregone conclusion. Feel free to supplement that with works on the subject by any of the aforementioned authors.

http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem

Voice of Reason wrote:
All you just gave me was an account of first names
They were last names, not first names.

Voice of Reason wrote:
What the f##k are you even talking about?
Several things; primarily how the scientific maxim “all observation is theory laden” is also true of things like textual criticism, particularly q. I was showing how the existence of q can proceed from people’s preconceived notions about the earliest stages of christianity. I was also showing how there is a whole world of scholarship outside of the one sbl quote you referenced and classroom discussion. The scholarship on q meant different things to different people and I was tracing the history of that in the second quest.

Voice of Reason wrote:
Where the hell did this political rant come from in regards to the Jesus seminar
It’s just an observation.

Voice of Reason wrote:
I asked you to provide a point by point basis on what these theories entail and instead you give me some kind of "the Jesus Seminar has a political agenda" rant.
First, I did provide several points, of which you are ignoring them all except for one. second, I showed how it’s possible that political motives had a strong influence on the conclusions of the jesus seminar which played right into the hands of an eager and waiting media.

Voice of Reason wrote:
As far as your view of the first century, yes I agree, this has mainly been happening but can you please provide sources instead of baseless assertions?
You agree and then say they’re baseless assertions. Which is it? Provide sources for what? For what I just stated, read any works by any of the third quest scholars. Start with n. t. wright’s Christian origins series.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:48 pm 
trae wrote:
Voice of Reason wrote:
how is…not the consensus?
The very existence of the substantial work of the third quest is enough to show that the second quest conclusions are not the consensus on the matter.

Voice of Reason wrote:
Also you have not answered my other question which was "could you please tell me what the position or the "consensus" really is?"
I did answer the question. the consensus in the sensationalized, shock value mainstream media is the renewed second quest. The stronger position in academia is the third quest.

Voice of Reason wrote:
Great job on pleading to authority.
Appeals to authority are not always a bad thing. plus, it’s not like I dodged your question or didn’t provide details.

Voice of Reason wrote:
I asked you "how is he wrong" and "can you provide an alternative?" All you just did is "here are some problems with what I see and I am going to not bother putting forth an alternative to you cause I am just going to appeal to authority by naming people without naming their works!" This is not how you answer a question.
That’s not exactly an accurate characterization of my response. First, those aren’t problems that “I see”. They are problems that many in historiography see. Second, the alternative should be clear. Stop revising history and your conclusions won’t be ridiculed. Third, work with me a little here. I can’t recount the entire history of the world for you. be adventurous enough to do a LITTLE leg work. I’m pretty sure you’re not so helpless that you need for me to go that far. Fourth, I answered your question in detail, offered the potential for more and you didn’t even respond to one iota of the information. You just complained about it and asked for even more. If this is going to be interesting, let’s at least discuss the issue without the genetic fallacies and histrionics.

Voice of Reason wrote:
Gaps usually refers to our knowledge on a particular text that is wanting.
That part I knew. I’m just not sure how gaps relates to q. for streeter, it was really more about interdependence, not gaps.

Voice of Reason wrote:
However I did tell you that I wanted you "to name the theory, you need to name the scholars and/or societies that are advocates of such theories and you need to give a detailed description of how it works or you could just give me a link on a credible scholarly source that discusses such a thing." You failed to this as well.
It’s not like I didn’t provide you with any information. In addition to what I have already cited, here’s an article that just barely scratches the surface of the synoptic problem for a quick reference. Of particular note is the conclusion section where the existence of q is questioned, contrary to what you have asserted about q being a foregone conclusion. Feel free to supplement that with works on the subject by any of the aforementioned authors.

http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem

Voice of Reason wrote:
All you just gave me was an account of first names
They were last names, not first names.

Voice of Reason wrote:
What the f##k are you even talking about?
Several things; primarily how the scientific maxim “all observation is theory laden” is also true of things like textual criticism, particularly q. I was showing how the existence of q can proceed from people’s preconceived notions about the earliest stages of christianity. I was also showing how there is a whole world of scholarship outside of the one sbl quote you referenced and classroom discussion. The scholarship on q meant different things to different people and I was tracing the history of that in the second quest.

Voice of Reason wrote:
Where the hell did this political rant come from in regards to the Jesus seminar
It’s just an observation.

Voice of Reason wrote:
I asked you to provide a point by point basis on what these theories entail and instead you give me some kind of "the Jesus Seminar has a political agenda" rant.
First, I did provide several points, of which you are ignoring them all except for one. second, I showed how it’s possible that political motives had a strong influence on the conclusions of the jesus seminar which played right into the hands of an eager and waiting media.

Voice of Reason wrote:
As far as your view of the first century, yes I agree, this has mainly been happening but can you please provide sources instead of baseless assertions?
You agree and then say they’re baseless assertions. Which is it? Provide sources for what? For what I just stated, read any works by any of the third quest scholars. Start with n. t. wright’s Christian origins series.


You know, I am just going to write you off as a total troll because of your ambiguous statements that have no grounding in actually conveying to me what I asked for. I asked for the name of said hypothesis/theory and if possible the names of the scholars. Instead you keep referring me to this ambiguous "Third Quest for the Historical Jesus." The First and Second question lead to a variety of different theories and hypothesis on how to find the historical Jesus and what to look for. The same can be said of the third quest... but since you cannot be more specific than an ambiguous "LOOK AT THE THIRD QUEST" statement, all I can say is that you are a troll.

I also love how you think that giving me last names of scholars is really going to help me at all, if that is their last names then how the f**k am I supposed to find them when I don't have their works or even their damn first listed. Kinda makes the whole thing pretty damn hard to do. Also in regards to appeal to authority, yes appeal to authority is bad BECAUSE IT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY!

I am just giving up at this point, because you are illogical, you refuse to answer questions and just dodge around them or just barely give me 1/4 of what I asked for. YOU CANNOT BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROOF and you refuse too when asked for evidence so I am just going to say troll and be done with it.

Image


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: response to clt
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:10 pm 
Aluva, i'll ask the same question again that you won't answer. Why aren't the fellows of the jesus seminar in the public square denouncing the existence of Jesus? Ditto for other historical experts?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: response to clt
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:26 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
trae wrote:
Aluva, i'll ask the same question again that you won't answer. Why aren't the fellows of the jesus seminar in the public square denouncing the existence of Jesus? Ditto for other historical experts?

I have already answered that question many times throughout this thread - the JS were examining the historical authenticity of the TEXTS prior to the 4th century, not questioning Jesus' existence because they already assumed a priori that Jesus existed and worked from there without ever substantiating the claim first. Now, why are you using another distraction fallacy to ask me a question I've been consistent on from the very beginning, rather than answer my question? I think it's blatantly obvious that it's time for you to concede that you have been wrong on this issue. It's time for you to make the necessary adjustment and get over it.
Quote:
"As for the Jesus Seminar, none of the Fellows (besides me and possibly the Unitarian minister Davidson Lohr) took the Christ Myth hypothesis seriously, though neither did they waste time denouncing it. (Bob Funk somewhere very late in the 90s announced that the Seminar did not dismiss or denounce Christ-Myth theorists.) I think they were essentially pursuing the historical Jesus paradigm as far as it could be taken: on the assumption that there was such a figure, what can plausibly be attributed to him? Nor is that a bad way to proceed, though the meager residue (an authentic 18% of both sayings and stories) makes me think it's past time to rethink the whole premise.

As for this tiresome business about there being "no scholar" or "no serious scholar" who advocates the Christ Myth theory: Isn't it obvious that scholarly communities are defined by certain axioms in which grad students are trained, and that they will lose standing in those communities if they depart from those axioms? The existence of an historical Jesus is currently one of those. That should surprise no one, especially with the rightward lurch of the Society for Biblical Literature in recent years. It simply does not matter how many scholars hold a certain opinion. If one is interested in the question one must evaluate the issues and the evidence for oneself. This is what you and I have done."

- Dr. Robert M. Price

"they were essentially pursuing the historical Jesus paradigm as far as it could be taken: on the assumption that there was such a figure" is another way of saying "they had an a priori assumption" as I've been saying all along.

Now, will trae concede or will he continue on remaining consistent with his delusions and red herring fallacies as he has throughout this thread?

Trae, what are your credentials and what university do you or did you attend? Your repeated use of distraction fallacies rather than addressing the issues at hand makes me wonder if you're an alumni of Liberty University created by Jerry Falwell and bunch?

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:51 pm 
Voice of Reason wrote:
I asked for the name of said hypothesis/theory and if possible the names of the scholars.
i'm not sure why you don't understand:
griesbach matthean priority
streeter
farmer
sanders
dungan
stoldt
wrede (i included a comment on his conclusions)
bultmann (i included a comment on his conclusions)
mack (i included a comment on his conclusions)
crossan (i included a paragraph on his method and offered to discuss further)

would you like more?

Voice of Reason wrote:
Instead you keep referring me to this ambiguous "Third Quest for the Historical Jesus."
perhaps if you would read about it, it wouldn't be ambiguous to you and would answer some of your questions.

Voice of Reason wrote:
I also love how you think that giving me last names of scholars is really going to help me at all, if that is their last names then how the f**k am I supposed to find them when I don't have their works or even their damn first listed.
www.google.com

i even provided an amazon link to n. t. wright's books. you only needed to click on it.

Voice of Reason wrote:
Also in regards to appeal to authority, yes appeal to authority is bad BECAUSE IT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY!
again, it's not always a bad thing. it's not like my case is made of "because x said so". i've made many points that you COULD have responded to.

Voice of Reason wrote:
I am just giving up at this point, because you are illogical, you refuse to answer questions and just dodge around them or just barely give me 1/4 of what I asked for. YOU CANNOT BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROOF and you refuse too when asked for evidence so I am just going to say troll and be done with it.
when you are ready to discuss the subject beyond "this is what the textbook says and what i heard in class", let me know.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: response to clt
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:02 pm 
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
I have already answered that question many times throughout this thread - the JS were examining the historical authenticity of the TEXTS prior to the 4th century, not questioning Jesus' existence because they already assumed a priori that Jesus existed and worked from there without ever substantiating the claim first.
do you really not realize that this doesn't answer the question?

why aren't the fellows of the jesus seminar willing to stake their careers and reputations denying the existence of Jesus in the public square?

i'm not talking about the meetings during the 80's. i'm talking about the personal beliefs and writings of the individual fellows over the last 20 years? if funk is right, then they should all be absolutely certain as opposed to the hesitant, unsure response from dr. price.

any of those people have been, and are, free to substantiate the claim and come to the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist. why hasn't that happened despite funk's statement? it should be a foregone conclusion that Jesus didn't exist in light of the jesus seminar's findings.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support