The following is from R.G. Price The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory
and I'm curious as to what points you may or may not agree with in part or in whole.
I hope to demonstrate the following key points:
The Gospel of Mark was written in reaction to the destruction of...
That's his MO.
The author of Mark was writing allegorical fiction, I doubt he was drawing information from past generations other than to use some anecdotes and some oral tradition about various people and events that he pieced together into a storyline.
The author was probably writing...
I joined the church of euthenasia last month when there was 300 members, but now that most have euthanized themselves, there's only ten members left. :thud:Make that nine.
Coming from you that doesn't surprise me anymore. No wonder you view the gospels and Acts as reliable history. Believe everything in the National Enquirer, what a concept.
Originally Posted by dogsgod, "Some consider the sources when reading history in the making. Hearsay is best ignored. However, I'm not surprised you consider hearsay as a basis for history."
Wrong. I was referring to hearsay as it applies to history, not the courts. Hearsay is not a word...
Right. It is a totally coincidence that virtually everyone with a PhD in any field related to the issue of the historical Jesus thinks there is plenty of evidence to say with certainty that he was historical. Naturally, the only reason I say the guys with the PhD's in these fields are...
Do you read much?
Definition of HEARSAY
1
: rumor
2
: hearsay evidence
Examples of HEARSAY
You can't judge them solely on the basis of hearsay.
They're supposedly getting married soon, but that's just hearsay.
Merriam-Webster
--------------
Few words have one meaning or usage.
"Some consider the sources when reading history in the making. Hearsay is best ignored. However, I'm not surprised you consider hearsay as a basis for history."
Where do you see a court of law reference here? Maybe you should have your eyes checked.
Oberon, the rest of your complete distortions are not even worth the time to read let alone respond to. You can prattle on as to who the experts are but we all know full well that the experts are the ones that happen to coincidentally support your views, you're not fooling anyone.
Oberon, "1) You have repeatedly made reference to court room procedures (like hearsay) which have no bearing on historical methods as a means of discrediting historical information in the gospels"
The above is a complete lie and I pointed this lie out just yesterday. I referred once and only...
Oberon, what have you achieved by reading scholarship, that the gospels and Acts represent a reliable history? I think a rational mind and an ability to use sound reasoning would be a requirement over faith based belief of the scholarship that coincidentally happens to agree with your...
Oberon, no one is saying Wiki is an authority. It has information that has to be assessed like any other body of information. Sometimes it's disappointing as concerning religion in particular and other times it can be informative. The exact same thing can be said of any encyclopedia. You're...
Oberon, what have you achieved by reading scholarship, that the gospels and Acts represent a reliable history? I think a rational mind and an ability to use sound reasoning would be a requirement over faith based belief of the scholarship that coincidentally happens to agree with your foregone...
His use of straw man arguments have nothing to do with me.
Did oberon quote Carrier? What's amazing about putting words in Carriers mouth? I question his accuracy, that's hardly an ad homenim.
There was definitely such a thing as a formal history at the time Acts was written. Here's another good example:
About the same time the emperor enrolled in the ranks of the patricians such senators as were of the oldest families, and such as had had distinguished ancestors. There were now...