Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

timhendrix wrote:I agree with your last point (that new testament studies is much more speculative than evolution) and from my perspective I can't see why mysticism should not be taken more seriously. But my point is that if someone said that only "a couple" of scholars didn't accept evolution or that the earth was warming up that would be less correct than Ehrman is and I don't think it would be fair to say that such a person was a liar. Like, "you liar, we are not a couple, we are a few!". Please don't mistake this as an argumentum ad populum.

I wouldn't really make that comparison, but I agree that calling this lying is a bit silly. I already mentioned that you can use "a couple" as meaning "a few", among other things.

Ulan wrote: And yet, you draw it all the time.

.

That's is not an example you can substantiate with any honesty.


I have never stated it gives us a complete picture, only a paragraph out of all the text.


You are purposely taking me out of context, the question is why, and I see desperation.

Ulan wrote: I referred to incidents, not figures or places that, as you point out, are often part of even novels. It's the old chestnut that, if you remove the supernatural events and some of the personal declarations, the rest is history.

.

Your being ridiculous. I have never supported such ill methodology.


Evidence not opinion posits such certainty, these authors placed their messiah in front of half a million people at the biggest rock concert, on the largest stage ever built, within a lifetime of the actual supposed event. And not one person complained it was fabricated, and EVERY single person acts like it was common knowledge including the movement enemies. No traditions exist in any form that goes against this.

As to where Paul a major figure in orthodoxy and we have many books that tear him to shreds that survived.


Sorry that you cannot hit NONE of the large hard hitting question, with any degree of credibility.

"EBERY"
Finally, SA, you've got the PROOF that he's drunk!

Adam wrote:"EBERY"
Finally, SA, you've got the PROOF that he's drunk!

Pretty desperate you attack my lack of vision. good job that you have to sink that low.

outhouse wrote:

Ulan wrote: I referred to incidents, not figures or places that, as you point out, are often part of even novels. It's the old chestnut that, if you remove the supernatural events and some of the personal declarations, the rest is history.

Your being ridiculous. I have never supported such ill methodology.

It's basically what is behind your summary.

outhouse wrote:Evidence not opinion posits such certainty, these authors placed their messiah in front of half a million people at the biggest rock concert, on the largest stage ever built, within a lifetime of the actual supposed event. And not one person complained it was fabricated, and EVERY single person acts like it was common knowledge including the movement enemies. No traditions exist in any form that goes against this.

We have already been through this several times. This whole line of reasoning you employ is completely illogical. It doesn't matter that you heard it from some NT scholar. Sometimes they just say such nonsense.

outhouse wrote:As to where Paul a major figure in orthodoxy and we have many books that tear him to shreds that survived.

And yet it's exactly Paul who gives fuel to mythicist theories, because he's a perfect fit.

outhouse wrote:Sorry that you cannot hit NONE of the large hard hitting question, with any degree of credibility.

I'm still waiting for a single one of the "large hard hitting question"s. You just repeat this obvious bullshit of "half a million people" as witnesses - who conveniently don't witness a single thing. I'm sorry, but you don't even try to argue your case. I must assume that you cannot.

Ulan wrote:It's basically what is behind your summary.

.

You are repeating something not true.


My methodology is that all of the NT can be scrapped, in favor of a small paragraph that actually is historical.

Ulan wrote: And yet it's exactly Paul who gives fuel to mythicist theories, because he's a perfect fit.

.

Laughable.

Not one mythicist explains Paul with any credibility.

Pauls Judaism is debatable, and thus mythicist love to play in questionable areas, where they cannot be pinned down, in light of not having a working hypothesis to explain the factual evidence we do possess.

Ulan wrote: You just repeat this obvious bullshit of "half a million people" as witnesses

.

"Possible" witnesses. They factually wrote him in as being on stage of one of the largest stages ever built by man at that time, with built in required attendance. "revenue collecting"

have you ever studied the actual evidence in detail as to why EP Sanders has given the historicity to the 400,000 Passover attendants he claims were there?

I have.


Half a million is a safe number a hair on the high side, but far from bs

Ulan wrote:
It doesn't matter that you heard it from some NT scholar


.

Not one all of them.

And every professor that teaches this in every non apologetic university