Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2015, 09:19 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2015 02:26 PM by Free.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(16-02-2015 03:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You've mentioned you don't respect Earl Doherty. I do. For anyone who is more interested in details of this please have a read here

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm

Just for the record, Richard Carrier thinks quite highly of Earl Doherty too.

Richard Carrier will support anything that even remotely makes Jesus look like a myth. He's a militant anti-theist who uses his credentials to further his agenda.

Quote:You are convinced that Paul's Christ is a human Jesus. Yet you haven't addressed the fact that Paul barely (see below) talks about the events in Jesus' life other than the crucifixion and supposed resurrection. Paul never once talks about Jesus' parables or his miracles, what Jesus looked like, where he lived, or who his friends and family were. These are impossible omissions if Jesus was a recently departed human being. These are undeniable facts that interpolators were not clever enough to conceal.

You refer to the Corinthians quote. Here is my take on that...

Paul and the Last Supper
Paul had almost nothing to say about Jesus the person. There is, however, one notable exception, (although it may be an interpolation) and that is when, in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, the author claimed that he knew what Jesus said on the night he was betrayed. In this letter, Paul had just finished lecturing women on what they should wear and what to do with their hair, when he turned to instructing the community on when to eat and drink. Paul then introduced a story about Jesus at the Last Supper, in an attempt to get the Corinthians to eat their meals together, and Paul even went so far as to claim to quote Jesus:

“For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn passed on to you: that on the same night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it and broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.’ In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’ Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death, and so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died. If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world. So to sum up, my dear brothers, when you meet for the Meal, wait for one another” (1 Cor. 11:23–34, NJB.)

If Paul actually wrote this, he was attempting to change some of the social habits of the community, perhaps to foster unity between different classes of people who finished work at different times, and he invented a weak story about the Lord to do it. What is surprising is that Paul acknowledged that a flesh-and-blood person (the Lord Jesus) ate and drank with others - nowhere else do any of the genuine Pauline letters discuss what Jesus supposedly said, which is why I suspect this passage was an interpolation. And so does Richard Carrier, btw.

We don't see a lot of any of these stories or parables of Jesus from anyone else either. The other letters in the NT by other writers don't do it either.

At the early time of Paul's conversion, the Gospel was still being mostly orally propagated, so there wasn't much written regarding the parables or life of Jesus from anyone. The religion itself was still being designed, and there were numerous so-called oral or at least partially written gospels floating around, as Paul states in 2Cor 11:4 and Gal 1:6 - 7.

For the most part, like any of the other writers in the NT (aside from writers of the Gospels), Paul only writes about the basic facts regarding Jesus. He didn't say much about what Jesus said in regards to what we see in the gospels, and there are many reasons for this.

Yet neither you nor Carrier, nor anyone can provide any evidence or solid reasoning as to why Paul's quote of the Last Supper should even qualify as possibly being an interpolation.

Like Carrier, if it doesn't work with your hypothesis, the easy thing to do is attempt to make it suspect by claims of interpolation. Yet, a rational skeptic sees right through this immediately, and simply by requesting evidence it can be demonstrated that you have no evidence, and with no evidence, you have no reasonable position.

Just because you can dream up a hypothesis does not automatically mean your hypothesis is valid. You must demonstrate its validity, and using invalid arguments from silence do not help your case.

Both you and Carrier say that he doesn't say much anywhere else about anything Jesus said, and this is true from a direct quote perspective. But from there you make a very huge leap to interpolation while completely ignoring the fact that all of the other writers of the letters in the NT also do not say much about what Jesus said in the Gospels, or anything about his life either, and some reasons for this have already been given to you.

Now that is a critical evaluation of the reality, Mark. Instead of using confirmation bias- which is exactly what you and Carrier do- why not look at this more critically and objectively?

Listed below are 7 points that you will need to argue against with evidence and reasoning:

Point 1: Why do you not consider that other writers of letters in the NT also do not quote Jesus much at all, or say much about him personally?

Point 2: Another thing you need to consider is that the letters of Paul each had an objective, and that objective was not to quote the teachings of Jesus, but to address people in different areas such as the Romans, Galatians, etc. They were letters, and were not written up to repeat anything Jesus said, but to address certain concerns and issues.

Point 3: Within his letters, Paul constantly tells the people about the gospel; a gospel they already had. He references this written gospel with the following verse:

Gal_3:1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?


Point 4: In addition to that, he wrote to the Galatians about Jesus, which by the way demonstrates yet another fanatstic example of Paul knowing that Jesus was a human being. Here is that verse:

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

In the verse above, Paul directly tells you that Jesus was made from a woman, which means he was born from a woman, and he was born under the law, which means he was born a Jew.


Point 5: And then Paul tells you that Jesus had brothers, as in the verse below:

1Co 9:5 Do we not have the authority to lead about a sister and a wife, as well as other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord do, and Cephas?

In the verse above, Paul is stating that he has the same authority with the Gentiles as the brothers of Jesus did- and Peter did- with the Jews.

Point 6: And then there is the obvious one regarding James as shown in the verse below:

Gal_1:19 But I saw no other of the apostles, except James the Lord's brother.

Point 7: And finally, we see the following verses that paraphrase the gospel record:

1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures;
1Co 15:5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve.
1Co 15:6 Afterward He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain until this present day, but also some fell asleep.
1Co 15:7 Afterward He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all He was seen by me also, as one born out of time.


The verses above demonstrate that Paul knew what was written in the Gospel/Acts record and paraphrased it.


Those points above will put you in a very tough position, Mark. And I bet you are scratching your head about how you missed the verse which Paul wrote in regards to Jesus being born of a woman, and being born under the law as a Jew.

Good luck with this.

Wink

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 02:48 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(16-02-2015 09:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 03:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You've mentioned you don't respect Earl Doherty. I do. For anyone who is more interested in details of this please have a read here

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm

Just for the record, Richard Carrier thinks quite highly of Earl Doherty too.

Richard Carrier will support anything that even remotely makes Jesus look like a myth. He's a militant anti-theist who uses his credentials to further his agenda.

Quote:You are convinced that Paul's Christ is a human Jesus. Yet you haven't addressed the fact that Paul barely (see below) talks about the events in Jesus' life other than the crucifixion and supposed resurrection. Paul never once talks about Jesus' parables or his miracles, what Jesus looked like, where he lived, or who his friends and family were. These are impossible omissions if Jesus was a recently departed human being. These are undeniable facts that interpolators were not clever enough to conceal.

You refer to the Corinthians quote. Here is my take on that...

Paul and the Last Supper
Paul had almost nothing to say about Jesus the person. There is, however, one notable exception, (although it may be an interpolation) and that is when, in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, the author claimed that he knew what Jesus said on the night he was betrayed. In this letter, Paul had just finished lecturing women on what they should wear and what to do with their hair, when he turned to instructing the community on when to eat and drink. Paul then introduced a story about Jesus at the Last Supper, in an attempt to get the Corinthians to eat their meals together, and Paul even went so far as to claim to quote Jesus:

“For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn passed on to you: that on the same night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it and broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.’ In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’ Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death, and so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died. If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world. So to sum up, my dear brothers, when you meet for the Meal, wait for one another” (1 Cor. 11:23–34, NJB.)

If Paul actually wrote this, he was attempting to change some of the social habits of the community, perhaps to foster unity between different classes of people who finished work at different times, and he invented a weak story about the Lord to do it. What is surprising is that Paul acknowledged that a flesh-and-blood person (the Lord Jesus) ate and drank with others - nowhere else do any of the genuine Pauline letters discuss what Jesus supposedly said, which is why I suspect this passage was an interpolation. And so does Richard Carrier, btw.

We don't see a lot of any of these stories or parables of Jesus from anyone else either. The other letters in the NT by other writers don't do it either.

At the early time of Paul's conversion, the Gospel was still being mostly orally propagated, so there wasn't much written regarding the parables or life of Jesus from anyone. The religion itself was still being designed, and there were numerous so-called oral or at least partially written gospels floating around, as Paul states in 2Cor 11:4 and Gal 1:6 - 7.

For the most part, like any of the other writers in the NT (aside from writers of the Gospels), Paul only writes about the basic facts regarding Jesus. He didn't say much about what Jesus said in regards to what we see in the gospels, and there are many reasons for this.

Yet neither you nor Carrier, nor anyone can provide any evidence or solid reasoning as to why Paul's quote of the Last Supper should even qualify as possibly being an interpolation.

Like Carrier, if it doesn't work with your hypothesis, the easy thing to do is attempt to make it suspect by claims of interpolation. Yet, a rational skeptic sees right through this immediately, and simply by requesting evidence it can be demonstrated that you have no evidence, and with no evidence, you have no reasonable position.

Just because you can dream up a hypothesis does not automatically mean your hypothesis is valid. You must demonstrate its validity, and using invalid arguments from silence do not help your case.

Both you and Carrier say that he doesn't say much anywhere else about anything Jesus said, and this is true from a direct quote perspective. But from there you make a very huge leap to interpolation while completely ignoring the fact that all of the other writers of the letters in the NT also do not say much about what Jesus said in the Gospels, or anything about his life either, and some reasons for this have already been given to you.

Now that is a critical evaluation of the reality, Mark. Instead of using confirmation bias- which is exactly what you and Carrier do- why not look at this more critically and objectively?

Listed below are 7 points that you will need to argue against with evidence and reasoning:

Point 1: Why do you not consider that other writers of letters in the NT also do not quote Jesus much at all, or say much about him personally?

Point 2: Another thing you need to consider is that the letters of Paul each had an objective, and that objective was not to quote the teachings of Jesus, but to address people in different areas such as the Romans, Galatians, etc. They were letters, and were not written up to repeat anything Jesus said, but to address certain concerns and issues.

Point 3: Within his letters, Paul constantly tells the people about the gospel; a gospel they already had. He references this written gospel with the following verse:

Gal_3:1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?


Point 4: In addition to that, he wrote to the Galatians about Jesus, which by the way demonstrates yet another fanatstic example of Paul knowing that Jesus was a human being. Here is that verse:

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

In the verse above, Paul directly tells you that Jesus was made from a woman, which means he was born from a woman, and he was born under the law, which means he was born a Jew.


Point 5: And then Paul tells you that Jesus had brothers, as in the verse below:

1Co 9:5 Do we not have the authority to lead about a sister and a wife, as well as other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord do, and Cephas?

In the verse above, Paul is stating that he has the same authority with the Gentiles as the brothers of Jesus did- and Peter did- with the Jews.

Point 6: And then there is the obvious one regarding James as shown in the verse below:

Gal_1:19 But I saw no other of the apostles, except James the Lord's brother.

Point 7: And finally, we see the following verses that paraphrase the gospel record:

1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures;
1Co 15:5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve.
1Co 15:6 Afterward He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain until this present day, but also some fell asleep.
1Co 15:7 Afterward He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all He was seen by me also, as one born out of time.


The verses above demonstrate that Paul knew what was written in the Gospel/Acts record and paraphrased it.


Those points above will put you in a very tough position, Mark. And I bet you are scratching your head about how you missed the verse which Paul wrote in regards to Jesus being born of a woman, and being born under the law as a Jew.

Good luck with this.

Wink

Hi free thanks. for replying, and sorry I've taken a little while to get back. I've been pretty busy at work.

I appreciate the effort you put in your reply. I've learnt a fair bit from it, and I will share that with you shortly. There are a lot of issues here. I'll go through them one by one.

I don't know why you have such a negative attitude towards Carrier. You bought the topic up so I'll let you explain that to me and anyone who may be interested.

Re "At the early time of Paul's conversion, the Gospel was still being mostly orally propagated,..."

What gospel would that be? How do you know this?

"so there wasn't much written regarding the parables or life of Jesus from anyone"

Actually there was sweet fuck all. Nothing. Zilch. Nothing from the original disciples or family of Jesus. There may have been some people talking about Christ, such as Paul, that Christ was a universal term that could've been referring to anybody or anything.

"The religion itself was still being designed..."
That's the understatement of the year. No Jesus, no churches, no pope, no bishops, no Trinity, no canon.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 08:39 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2015 09:35 AM by Free.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(18-02-2015 02:48 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I don't know why you have such a negative attitude towards Carrier. You bought the topic up so I'll let you explain that to me and anyone who may be interested.

I have been following Carrier for 15 years. He was one of the chief writers for infidels.org back in the day. Back then, he was basically an unknown in the world of history. As the issue of the history of Jesus became more prevalent online, I watched how other historians were gaining respect for their findings. Carrier was not among them.

Carrier gained some popularity as a militant atheist before the Jesus myth situation began to take hold. In fact, he was only mildly skeptical about the history of Jesus back in the 1990s.

It seemed to me that Carrier only jumped on the Jesus Myth bandwagon to gain more popularity, since the Jesus myth campaign was gaining popularity online. Since Carrier was only gaining his popularity online- he was virtually unknown in the real world- he would advertise his books etc online and gain a following.

To me, Carrier is an attention whore who uses his credentials to further his quest for more attention, and it really doesn't have much to do with the Jesus Myth situation at all. It isn't about history either.

Richard Carrier is all about Richard Carrier.

Quote:There are a lot of issues here. I'll go through them one by one.

I think we both already know how you will deal with them. Your most consistent argument has always been demonstrated to be, "It must be an interpolation."

Because you have absolutely no other way to get rid of this evidence, and your implausible hypothesis means more to you than the reality of this evidence.

Your position is militant, at all costs.

Quote:
Quote:Re "At the early time of Paul's conversion, the Gospel was still being mostly orally propagated,..."

What gospel would that be? How do you know this?

That gospel wouldn't have a name, as it would be orally propagated. The Gospel isn't a book, Mark; it's a message.

Quote:
Quote:"so there wasn't much written regarding the parables or life of Jesus from anyone"

Actually there was sweet fuck all. Nothing. Zilch. Nothing from the original disciples or family of Jesus. There may have been some people talking about Christ, such as Paul, that Christ was a universal term that could've been referring to anybody or anything.

Using intellectual honesty, we cannot say this as being factual. What we currently have for gospels needs to be considered as evidence, and you just cannot throw that away as if it doesn't exist. Also, we have the non canonical gospels such as Thomas, James, etc.

Quote:
Quote:"The religion itself was still being designed..."
That's the understatement of the year. No Jesus,

Another completely unsupported opinion.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 04:48 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(18-02-2015 08:39 AM)Free Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 02:48 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I don't know why you have such a negative attitude towards Carrier. You bought the topic up so I'll let you explain that to me and anyone who may be interested.

I have been following Carrier for 15 years. He was one of the chief writers for infidels.org back in the day. Back then, he was basically an unknown in the world of history. As the issue of the history of Jesus became more prevalent online, I watched how other historians were gaining respect for their findings. Carrier was not among them.

Carrier gained some popularity as a militant atheist before the Jesus myth situation began to take hold. In fact, he was only mildly skeptical about the history of Jesus back in the 1990s.

It seemed to me that Carrier only jumped on the Jesus Myth bandwagon to gain more popularity, since the Jesus myth campaign was gaining popularity online. Since Carrier was only gaining his popularity online- he was virtually unknown in the real world- he would advertise his books etc online and gain a following.

To me, Carrier is an attention whore who uses his credentials to further his quest for more attention, and it really doesn't have much to do with the Jesus Myth situation at all. It isn't about history either.

Richard Carrier is all about Richard Carrier.

Quote:There are a lot of issues here. I'll go through them one by one.

I think we both already know how you will deal with them. Your most consistent argument has always been demonstrated to be, "It must be an interpolation."

Because you have absolutely no other way to get rid of this evidence, and your implausible hypothesis means more to you than the reality of this evidence.

Your position is militant, at all costs.

Quote:What gospel would that be? How do you know this?

That gospel wouldn't have a name, as it would be orally propagated. The Gospel isn't a book, Mark; it's a message.

Quote:Actually there was sweet fuck all. Nothing. Zilch. Nothing from the original disciples or family of Jesus. There may have been some people talking about Christ, such as Paul, that Christ was a universal term that could've been referring to anybody or anything.

Using intellectual honesty, we cannot say this as being factual. What we currently have for gospels needs to be considered as evidence, and you just cannot throw that away as if it doesn't exist. Also, we have the non canonical gospels such as Thomas, James, etc.

Quote:

Another completely unsupported opinion.

I wouldn't know what Richard Carrier's motives are. Nor does it bother me. I admire him to the fact that he changed his mind about the Jesus myth idea.

Re
"That gospel wouldn't have a name, as it would be orally propagated. The Gospel isn't a book, Mark; it's a message."

WTF? What is "it?" What "message?" You sound like an evangelical!!!!!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 05:31 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(18-02-2015 04:48 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 08:39 AM)Free Wrote:  I have been following Carrier for 15 years. He was one of the chief writers for infidels.org back in the day. Back then, he was basically an unknown in the world of history. As the issue of the history of Jesus became more prevalent online, I watched how other historians were gaining respect for their findings. Carrier was not among them.

Carrier gained some popularity as a militant atheist before the Jesus myth situation began to take hold. In fact, he was only mildly skeptical about the history of Jesus back in the 1990s.

It seemed to me that Carrier only jumped on the Jesus Myth bandwagon to gain more popularity, since the Jesus myth campaign was gaining popularity online. Since Carrier was only gaining his popularity online- he was virtually unknown in the real world- he would advertise his books etc online and gain a following.

To me, Carrier is an attention whore who uses his credentials to further his quest for more attention, and it really doesn't have much to do with the Jesus Myth situation at all. It isn't about history either.

Richard Carrier is all about Richard Carrier.


I think we both already know how you will deal with them. Your most consistent argument has always been demonstrated to be, "It must be an interpolation."

Because you have absolutely no other way to get rid of this evidence, and your implausible hypothesis means more to you than the reality of this evidence.

Your position is militant, at all costs.


That gospel wouldn't have a name, as it would be orally propagated. The Gospel isn't a book, Mark; it's a message.


Using intellectual honesty, we cannot say this as being factual. What we currently have for gospels needs to be considered as evidence, and you just cannot throw that away as if it doesn't exist. Also, we have the non canonical gospels such as Thomas, James, etc.


Another completely unsupported opinion.

I wouldn't know what Richard Carrier's motives are. Nor does it bother me. I admire him to the fact that he changed his mind about the Jesus myth idea.

Re
"That gospel wouldn't have a name, as it would be orally propagated. The Gospel isn't a book, Mark; it's a message."

WTF? What is "it?" What "message?" You sound like an evangelical!!!!!

Seriously? Have you never studied anything at all, Mark? What do you think the word "gospel" means?

Quote:gospel

noun

the message or doctrine of a religious teacher

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gospel

FFS Mark. Learn something. This is as basic as it gets.

Blink

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 05:31 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(18-02-2015 08:39 AM)Free Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 02:48 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I don't know why you have such a negative attitude towards Carrier. You bought the topic up so I'll let you explain that to me and anyone who may be interested.

I have been following Carrier for 15 years. He was one of the chief writers for infidels.org back in the day. Back then, he was basically an unknown in the world of history. As the issue of the history of Jesus became more prevalent online, I watched how other historians were gaining respect for their findings. Carrier was not among them.

Carrier gained some popularity as a militant atheist before the Jesus myth situation began to take hold. In fact, he was only mildly skeptical about the history of Jesus back in the 1990s.

It seemed to me that Carrier only jumped on the Jesus Myth bandwagon to gain more popularity, since the Jesus myth campaign was gaining popularity online. Since Carrier was only gaining his popularity online- he was virtually unknown in the real world- he would advertise his books etc online and gain a following.

To me, Carrier is an attention whore who uses his credentials to further his quest for more attention, and it really doesn't have much to do with the Jesus Myth situation at all. It isn't about history either.

Richard Carrier is all about Richard Carrier.

Quote:There are a lot of issues here. I'll go through them one by one.

I think we both already know how you will deal with them. Your most consistent argument has always been demonstrated to be, "It must be an interpolation."

Because you have absolutely no other way to get rid of this evidence, and your implausible hypothesis means more to you than the reality of this evidence.

Your position is militant, at all costs.

Quote:What gospel would that be? How do you know this?

That gospel wouldn't have a name, as it would be orally propagated. The Gospel isn't a book, Mark; it's a message.

Quote:Actually there was sweet fuck all. Nothing. Zilch. Nothing from the original disciples or family of Jesus. There may have been some people talking about Christ, such as Paul, that Christ was a universal term that could've been referring to anybody or anything.

Using intellectual honesty, we cannot say this as being factual. What we currently have for gospels needs to be considered as evidence, and you just cannot throw that away as if it doesn't exist. Also, we have the non canonical gospels such as Thomas, James, etc.

Quote:

Another completely unsupported opinion.

"I think we both already know how you will deal with them. Your most consistent argument has always been demonstrated to be, "It must be an interpolation."
Because you have absolutely no other way to get rid of this evidence, and your implausible hypothesis means more to you than the reality of this evidence.
Your position is militant, at all costs"

Ha ha!
Better watch out Free....me and Richard Carrier and ole Joe....we got a truck and machine guns and we're visiting your neighbourhood soon.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 05:35 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(18-02-2015 05:31 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I think we both already know how you will deal with them. Your most consistent argument has always been demonstrated to be, "It must be an interpolation."
Because you have absolutely no other way to get rid of this evidence, and your implausible hypothesis means more to you than the reality of this evidence.
Your position is militant, at all costs"

Ha ha!
Better watch out Free....me and Richard Carrier and ole Joe....we got a truck and machine guns and we're visiting your neighbourhood soon.

Are you dodging the argument Mark? Or are you just trying to lighten things up?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 06:09 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(18-02-2015 05:35 PM)Free Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 05:31 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I think we both already know how you will deal with them. Your most consistent argument has always been demonstrated to be, "It must be an interpolation."
Because you have absolutely no other way to get rid of this evidence, and your implausible hypothesis means more to you than the reality of this evidence.
Your position is militant, at all costs"

Ha ha!
Better watch out Free....me and Richard Carrier and ole Joe....we got a truck and machine guns and we're visiting your neighbourhood soon.

Are you dodging the argument Mark? Or are you just trying to lighten things up?

I would like to have an interesting discussion with you. Yet your tone is derogatory. You accuse me of being a militant atheist, not that that bothers me particularly, but the implication is that my opinions are driven by an unscholarly agenda. This is an ad hominem, is not true, and lowers the standard of conversation.

For some reason you decided to school me about what the word Gospel means. I've got no idea why. My question to you was ...what do you think this message was that you say was being propagated by the disciples of Jesus? I don't think you have any evidence that there was such a message, and you haven't told me what you think it was.

What is more, I thanked you for expressing your opinions, and I told you that I will address them shortly, yet you are clearly not interested in what I have to say... you're only interested in proving yourself right. That makes for a very unpleasant conversation and no one else is going to be too interested in reading it. If you can improve your manners and show some genuine interest in what I have to say, then we can continue, but otherwise it's just pointless.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 06:26 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(18-02-2015 06:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 05:35 PM)Free Wrote:  Are you dodging the argument Mark? Or are you just trying to lighten things up?

I would like to have an interesting discussion with you. Yet your tone is derogatory.

My tone is often derogatory when I perceive intellectual dishonesty. I have a great respect for both history and integrity, and when I see arguments such as yours which try to hand wave evidence away by claiming things such as "interpolation" etc- without just cause- then yes, I get indignant.

Quote:You accuse me of being a militant atheist, not that that bothers me particularly, but the implication is that my opinions are driven by an unscholarly agenda. This is an ad hominem, is not true, and lowers the standard of conversation.

Your opinions are driven by an unscholarly agenda. Look at the title of this thread, for example. Joseph Atwill is not a scholar. You like Earl Doherty, yet he is not a scholar either. You are not a scholar either.

In fact, you have used everything that is non scholarly to support your hypothesis, so how the fuck can this truth be an ad hominem, not true, or lower the standard of conversation?

You have placed yourself into the position of using a hypothesis that fails to meet the scholarly consensus, that has no evidence for support, has not been subjected to peer review, and which demonstrates itself to be untenable.

Quote:For some reason you decided to school me about what the word Gospel means. I've got no idea why.

That's what you get when you try to compare me to an evangelist. I zero straight in and nail you to the proverbial cross.

Big Grin


Quote:My question to you was ...what do you think this message was that you say was being propagated by the disciples of Jesus? I don't think you have any evidence that there was such a message, and you haven't told me what you think it was.

The letters of Paul and others have paraphrased the message for you. If you are serious about studying Paul, you will find it for yourself.

Quote:What is more, I thanked you for expressing your opinions, and I told you that I will address them shortly, yet you are clearly not interested in what I have to say... you're only interested in proving yourself right. That makes for a very unpleasant conversation and no one else is going to be too interested in reading it.

If you can improve your manners and show some genuine interest in what I have to say, then we can continue, but otherwise it's just pointless.

I already know what you are going to say, Mark. It's the same thing you've said before. Anything from Paul that demonstrates a physical Jesus will be marked as an interpolation by you.

And you will say it's an interpolation for one reason and one reason only; if the verses that portray Jesus as being a human being are true, then they simply ruin your hypothesis.

You are cutting out the parts of Paul that don't work for you, and re-writing Paul into a work of fiction.

That is not scholarly.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 06:41 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(18-02-2015 06:26 PM)Free Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 06:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I would like to have an interesting discussion with you. Yet your tone is derogatory.

My tone is often derogatory when I perceive intellectual dishonesty. I have a great respect for both history and integrity, and when I see arguments such as yours which try to hand wave evidence away by claiming things such as "interpolation" etc- without just cause- then yes, I get indignant.

Quote:You accuse me of being a militant atheist, not that that bothers me particularly, but the implication is that my opinions are driven by an unscholarly agenda. This is an ad hominem, is not true, and lowers the standard of conversation.

Your opinions are driven by an unscholarly agenda. Look at the title of this thread, for example. Joseph Atwill is not a scholar. You like Earl Doherty, yet he is not a scholar either. You are not a scholar either.

In fact, you have used everything that is non scholarly to support your hypothesis, so how the fuck can this truth be an ad hominem, not true, or lower the standard of conversation?

You have placed yourself into the position of using a hypothesis that fails to meet the scholarly consensus, that has no evidence for support, has not been subjected to peer review, and which demonstrates itself to be untenable.

Quote:For some reason you decided to school me about what the word Gospel means. I've got no idea why.

That's what you get when you try to compare me to an evangelist. I zero straight in and nail you to the proverbial cross.

Big Grin


Quote:My question to you was ...what do you think this message was that you say was being propagated by the disciples of Jesus? I don't think you have any evidence that there was such a message, and you haven't told me what you think it was.

The letters of Paul and others have paraphrased the message for you. If you are serious about studying Paul, you will find it for yourself.

Quote:What is more, I thanked you for expressing your opinions, and I told you that I will address them shortly, yet you are clearly not interested in what I have to say... you're only interested in proving yourself right. That makes for a very unpleasant conversation and no one else is going to be too interested in reading it.

If you can improve your manners and show some genuine interest in what I have to say, then we can continue, but otherwise it's just pointless.

I already know what you are going to say, Mark. It's the same thing you've said before. Anything from Paul that demonstrates a physical Jesus will be marked as an interpolation by you.

And you will say it's an interpolation for one reason and one reason only; if the verses that portray Jesus as being a human being are true, then they simply ruin your hypothesis.

You are cutting out the parts of Paul that don't work for you, and re-writing Paul into a work of fiction.

That is not scholarly.

End of conversation. Apologies to anyone else who had to read all this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: