Metacrock is still apologizing...

[Metacrock]

every indication is given by Irenaeous, Papis, Polycarp that the Johns they knew were there for most of the action and saw what Jesus did and heard what he said. that makes them eye witnesses.

Eusebius says that John the Elder was not the Apostle, but there is no evidence that either of those figures wrote the Fourth Gospel. The author does not identify himself. The name "John" is not even in the Gospel at all except when it refers to John the Baptist. The appendix is meaningless. Lots of Christian writings contain claims to have come from this or that disciple. The Gospel of Thomas says it was was written down by Judas Thomas, the twin brother of Jesus. At least some of it was probably written earlier than GJohn.

[/quote]

He does not have to have written the fourth Gospel to be an eye witness. my view is the fourth was began by the BD who was Lazarus. Elder John was the last redactor of the process. The Apostle John became confused as the author/community founder becuase he helped to found the community of Samaritan Christians and John seems to have had a big Samaritan influence.

[quote[Why does the author of GJohn think that Christians were expelled from synagogues during the life of Jesus? That didn't happen until the 90's. How could a disciple get that so wrong? Alzheimers, maybe?[/quote]

Where does he say that?

[Metacrock]

Yes they do. just becuase they are not written by the name sakes doesn't' mean they don't have eye witnesses. You don't know that. Bauckham has real good arguments about it.

Steve. I've seen you on boards for years. I have never seen a post by you that impressed me as you knowing anything. If you ad the goods you could let your knowledge speak for you. You don't have the knowledge.

You have been doing this person insult stuff since I have gotten here I've tried not to give in to it because I really get enough of that on carm. You don't know when to shut up.

Put what little knowledge you have where your mouth is and try say to say something acute for a change.

Metacrock is furious that somebody pointed out that not only is he arguing from authority, rather than giving evidence, but his authority is not even an authority.

His advice to people who don't buy his argument from authority - shut up....

you don't know the difference in argument from authority and using a qualified expert. Typical of your know nothing attitude. you hear other aesthetic saying "augment from authority" you don't know what it means but you just assume they know. they don't.

most people think that means that you can't quote an authority.k that is utterly stupid. If you can't quote an authority you can't use a study or a reference book or quote any facts. how you supposed to prove stuff?

If you learn this you will be the onlyk atheist in the world who knows it, so learn it!

the real name of the fallacy is appeal to UNNECESSARY authority! So if I quote Rudolph Bultmann saying something about the New Testament that is not a fallacy becuase it's never a fallacy to quote an expert. the fallacy if it's unnecessary authority if I said My high school principle says this, he's real smart becuase got to be a principle that would be quoiting an unnecessary authority.

you could not have helped me more than to spout of Juline misunderstanding of the rules of the rules of argumentation.

all I do quote is experts. you quote none. you do not back up your opinion. in fact you seldom make actual points. most of the things you say about how stupid Christians are.

we get it, you hate God you hate Christians. brilliant. who cares? I hate republicans.

[Metacrock]

Josephus says nothing about Christians being expelled from synagogues. You should stop trying to front when it's abundantly clear you don't know the material.

Why are you talking to Metacrock as though he was open to reality?

here's the test. what you just said is another personal attack. It's not an argument, it's not backed anything but stupidity.

If you are able to make an arguemnt that matters about something in your next post they will know I"m wrong. If you come back with more trollish gems from the pissing contest like "You dont' know nuth'n" then they will know I'm right.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

He does not have to have written the fourth Gospel to be an eye witness. my view is the fourth was began by the BD who was Lazarus.

Your evidence for this is what?

Why does the author of GJohn think that Christians were expelled from synagogues during the life of Jesus? That didn't happen until the 90's. How could a disciple get that so wrong? Alzheimers, maybe?

Where does he say that?

9:22, 12:42, 16:2

[Mental flatliner]

you don't know the difference in argument from authority and using a qualified expert.

I've found that most of the people in this forum pick and choose their own experts and pretend there aren't any others.

As far as I know, there's no name for this kind of logical fallacy, but the selectivity of course does nothing more for you than find authors who can stroke your ego.

The only way to learn history is to eliminate all modern scholars from the "expert" pool and rely entirely on original documents. The fact of the matter is that the only way to be an expert on an historic event is to be an eye-witness.

[steve43]

you don't know the difference in argument from authority and using a qualified expert.

I've found that most of the people in this forum pick and choose their own experts and pretend there aren't any others.

As far as I know, there's no name for this kind of logical fallacy, but the selectivity of course does nothing more for you than find authors who can stroke your ego.

The only way to learn history is to eliminate all modern scholars from the "expert" pool and rely entirely on original documents. The fact of the matter is that the only way to be an expert on an historic event is to be an eye-witness.

Great post.

People especially motivated, usually by politics, will band together to create their own incestuous pool of "experts" to validate their own fantasy-land "scholarship."

Usually they will challenge the original documents- Josephus and the Gospels.

Or commit the error of using Josephus to prove one point, but on other subjects dismiss what Josephus writes because it is not "verified" by another source.

They start with an agenda and work to support it anyway they can, or any way that will fly with the press.

The Jesus Seminarians are a modern example of this.

[MrMacSon]

The most significant issue with the fallacy of appeal to authority is quoting or citing someone without giving appropriate reasoning to or behind the quote or citation -

it is appropriate to provide suitable explanation or suitable argument behind an assertive-statement.

[Metacrock]

He does not have to have written the fourth Gospel to be an eye witness. my view is the fourth was began by the BD who was Lazarus.

Your evidence for this is what?

why would I need evidence to prove that that's my view? saying it's my view proves it is.

Why does the author of GJohn think that Christians were expelled from synagogues during the life of Jesus? That didn't happen until the 90's. How could a disciple get that so wrong? Alzheimers, maybe?

Where does he say that?

9:22, 12:42, 16:2[/quote]

They weren't Christians. 16:2 is a prophesy of the future. The other passages say they feared being put out not that they were. But not because they were Chrsitians but as Jewish disciples of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Metacrock]

The most significant issue with the fallacy of appeal to authority is quoting or citing someone without giving appropriate reasoning to or behind the quote or citation -

it is appropriate to provide suitable explanation or suitable argument behind an assertive-statement.

I did. several times. It's not may problem if the refuse to read links. If I link to something that spent years researching and they refuse to read it they are not in their rights to claim that I did not document. they did not read what I provided. you didn't either.

[Metacrock]

you don't know the difference in argument from authority and using a qualified expert.

I've found that most of the people in this forum pick and choose their own experts and pretend there aren't any others.

As far as I know, there's no name for this kind of logical fallacy, but the selectivity of course does nothing more for you than find authors who can stroke your ego.

The only way to learn history is to eliminate all modern scholars from the "expert" pool and rely entirely on original documents. The fact of the matter is that the only way to be an expert on an historic event is to be an eye-witness.

Great post.

People especially motivated, usually by politics, will band together to create their own incestuous pool of "experts" to validate their own fantasy-land "scholarship."

Usually they will challenge the original documents- Josephus and the Gospels.

Or commit the error of using Josephus to prove one point, but on other subjects dismiss what Josephus writes because it is not "verified" by another source.

They start with an agenda and work to support it anyway they can, or any way that will fly with the press.

The Jesus Seminarians are a modern example of this.

he's right about picking their own experts. atheists have practically created the their own parallel universe of underground academia. in the bizzaro academia of the atheists John Rylands MS is from the 3d century and so on.