did jesus exist?

[outhouse]

faith leeds people to believe the world is 6000 years old, 6 day earth, babal, sun rotating ect ect ect ect

for my scholars im using i can post as i go makes no difference. im not going back to look for ones ive used if it makes you happy ill say none. I believe i already told you ive read none.

And having a scholorship in fiction helps you how? does it give you the ability to paint a picture with one color? Theres only so much non fiction in the books and that is not only up for debate its up for interpetation differences as well.

 

[Oberon]

And having a scholorship in fiction helps you how?

Being able to tell what is and isn't fiction in a culture long since past, especially as these texts represent literary traditions and genres based in foreign and dead languages, means that scholarship is essential.

So you haven't read scholarship. What did you do then just decide arbitrarily that the NT must not contain any historical information? Based on what?

 

[outhouse]

your not perfect oberon, you try and box people into a conversation with only your way out.

you talk down to people use your knowledge and faith induced judgement as means to the only answer.

its not that easy

you study fiction and create non fiction, this doesnt make you right.

 

[outhouse]

What did you do then just decide arbitrarily that the NT must not contain any historical information? Based on what?

the fiction of the NT is obvious, the whole myth wreaks of previous religions plus imagination runs unchecked and laughable. One doesnt need to have a high school education to realize BS when one see's it.

 

[dogsgod]

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 once to the fact that tampered with evidence is not admissible in a court of law when making a point about Josephus' Jesus references being tampered with. Anyone can take the analogy for what it's worth, I know it's inconvenient for you because you so desperately cling to the Josephus references because really, you got no other non Christian source from the first century to turn to.

 

[outhouse]

I may have used hearsay, not all history is based off of 4rth or 5th generation sources

 

[dogsgod]

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]

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 once to the fact that tampered with evidence is not admissible in a court of law when making a point about Josephus' Jesus references being tampered with.

That's not the only court reference you've relied on:

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.

Hearsay is not admissible as evidence in a court of law as it is unreliable.

and so on.

 

[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."

Where do you see a court of law reference here? Maybe you should have your eyes checked.

 

[Oberon]

"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.

Hearsay is a legal term.

 

[dogsgod]

Hearsay is a legal term.

Do you read much?

Definition of HEARSAY

1
: rumor

2
: hearsay evidence

Examples of HEARSAY

1. You can't judge them solely on the basis of hearsay.
2. They're supposedly getting married soon, but that's just hearsay.

Merriam-Webster
--------------



Few words have one meaning or usage.

 

[outhouse]

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.

real experts freely express there beliefs unless there ashamed of the truth.

 

[Oberon]

Few words have one meaning or usage.

The issue the negative meanings, i.e. why "hearsay" should be excluded as you have stated. This applies to courts. Not history. And I like how you ignored the other quote:

Hearsay is not admissible as evidence in a court of law as it is unreliable.

Are you going to argue THAT has nothing to do with courts?

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

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 experts is because they agree, and guys with no expertise in any field or in unrelated fields aren't is because they don't agree. After, all, what other reason would there be for saying I guy like Doherty isn't an expert?

 

[dogsgod]

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 experts is because they agree, and guys with no expertise in any field or in unrelated fields aren't is because they don't agree. After, all, what other reason would there be for saying I guy like Doherty isn't an expert?

All the experts agreed that the sun revolved about the earth, and what happened to those that disagreed?




"Are you going to argue THAT has nothing to do with courts?"
So what if it does, I was commenting on the reliability of hearsay, and I wasn't suggesting anything other than that.

 

[dogsgod]

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."

The issue the negative meanings, i.e. why "hearsay" should be excluded as you have stated. This applies to courts. Not history.

Wrong. I was referring to hearsay as it applies to history, not the courts. Hearsay is not a word confined to usage in the courts alone as you are wrongly suggesting. The Merriam-Webster clarified that yet you persist. I question your grasp of the language, maybe you're not one to question what scholarship others have read nor the one to be interpreting ancient texts in any language.

 

[Oberon]

Again? Must be old age. What is it this time?

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 confined to usage in the courts alone as you are wrongly suggesting. The Merriam-Webster clarified that yet you persist. I question your grasp of the language, maybe you're not one to question what scholarship others have read nor the one to be interpreting ancient texts in any language.

Thats 's the thing. Hearsay, as you are using the term (something to be ignored) DOES NOT apply to history. It is and always has been a central wasy for historians and journalists to gather data

 

[Oberon]

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 experts is because they agree, and guys with no expertise in any field or in unrelated fields aren't is because they don't agree. After, all, what other reason would there be for saying I guy like Doherty isn't an expert?

All the experts agreed that the sun revolved about the earth, and what happened to those that disagreed?

interesting. You have to back hundreds of years before the enlightenment to come up with a comparison, but you don't consider thatsomething which invalidates it? Your theory is really that all of the thousands of pages of careful argumentation over 2 centuries by experts amounts to the same type of view as pre-galilean cosmology? Perhaps you need to read more of the scholarship, and less of the sensationalist b.s.

"Are you going to argue THAT has nothing to do with courts?"
So what if it does, I was commenting on the reliability of hearsay, and I wasn't suggesting anything other than that.

Yes, by making a comparison between courts and history, as if the two are comparable. Which is exactly what I said you did.

 

[dogsgod]

Thats 's the thing. Hearsay, as you are using the term (something to be ignored) DOES NOT apply to history. It is and always has been a central wasy for historians and journalists to gather data

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.

 

[outhouse]

hey dog, I thought you said he was a expert?

So far all he has done is spouted off that were wrong because he knows so much and avoided questions.

We know the new testament is corrupted just by the story there trying to pass off.

The imagination makes the mystery documents that are possibly 3rd or 4th or 5th hand material of ficticious work not credibal.

He can be caption fiction! Able to turn non fiction out of of the wildest tales mankind has ever known. A scholar of fiction is NOT the definative answer to such a deep question

 

[Oberon]

Coming from you that doesn't surprise me anymore.

So all of history should be written by people who were there? Are you seriously arguing that? I suppose you'd like to discount journalism too. Most of history is built on hearsay: people record what they were told. This is true for ancient history and modern history. The fact that you somehow think that hearsay is inappropriate in history means your understanding of the discipline is so fundamentally flawed you cleary have no idea how to evaluate any source. Which is why you use courtroom procedures as a means to understand reliability in sources. After all, courts clearly don't have any different aims...