why did they want to crucify jesus

[outhouse]

William Lane Craig uses the Inference to the best evidence to argue that Jesus is historical, as do most of the scholars in the consensus.


.

It is ridiculous to use a known apologist who does not have anything AT ALL to do with the historical Jesus.

He is someone who opposes the historical Jesus and all that credible scholarship stand for.


He is a apologist not a historian.


YOUR just like him, I think you both use poor methodology and I place you both in the same league.

 

[outhouse]

Why not?

The Bible says it, Dunn believes it, that settles it.

James Dunn (theologian) He is a minister of the Church of Scotland and a Methodist local preacher.

Can we imagine Dunn explaining to his congregations that the resurrection did not happen?

I know your lost here, and do not possess the knowledge SO YOU TAKE CHEAP SHOTS from the bleachers.

You need to show his bias if you think he has any at all, you judge a man by his work he produces, but since your ignorant on this topic I do understand why you don't have any REAL knowledge of his possible bias.

 

[Bunyip]

It is ridiculous to use a known apologist who does not have anything AT ALL to do with the historical Jesus.

He is someone who opposes the historical Jesus and all that credible scholarship stand for.


He is a apologist not a historian.


YOUR just like him, I think you both use poor methodology and I place you both in the same league.

WL Craig is one of the foremost scholars FOR HJ, not against it.

 

[outhouse]

Well Bart Ehrman happens to agree with him.

As do the rest of the scholars.


After reading hundreds of articles over the years, I have learned their different positions,

There are scholars that do show bias, Ben Witherington is about where I personally draw the line and choose not to follow any of his work.

But because of their bias, they don't hold much credibility in what ends up being even considered historical.

 

[outhouse]

WL Craig is one of the foremost scholars FOR HJ, not against it.

He is an apologist. That makes you dead wrong again.

He opposes the traveling teacher who was only man.

You lost the luxury a long time ago due to constant errors on your part.

Start providing sources, you don't carry any credibility but showing a strong lack of it.

 

[oldbadger]

He is an apologist. That makes you dead wrong again.

He opposes the traveling teacher who was only man.

He sounds good! J wasn't a travelling teacher...... he was a travelling HEALER! At least he got that bit right.

 

[Bunyip]

He is an apologist. That makes you dead wrong again.

He opposes the traveling teacher who was only man.

You lost the luxury a long time ago due to constant errors on your part.

Start providing sources, you don't carry any credibility but showing a strong lack of it.

I gave sources, several of them.

The scholarly consensus is that HJ is the best explanation.

To draw a conclusion from an inference to the best explanation is to commit a fallacy, the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

I gave four sources, all of whom are PRO historical jesus. The point that HJ is an inference from best evidence is mentioned by most scholars writting on this topic.

You yourself confirm this everytime you demand "Well what is YOUR explanation? How can you explain it better?"

Very much as the other pro HJ participants here tend to do. It is a rather constant theme in the pro HJ camp.

That is an inference from best evidence, and it is a fallacy to draw conclusions from them. (like that HJ is a fact).

 

[outhouse]

I gave sources, several of them.

.

Boloney.

You don't post any to back your position. placing a name in a forum out of context is boloney, not a source.


All I see is your running your imagination from a point of severe ignorance.


Without study in this field, you don't get to run your mouth and expect people to believe a word you say.

 

[Bunyip]

Boloney.

You don't post any to back your position.


All I see is your running your imagination from a point of severe ignorance.


Without study in this field, you don't get to run your mouth and expect people to believe a word you say.

Ok mate, you ask for sources and I post four of them. All pro HJ and all with good references and citations to similar sources.

Your response is to deny that I have provided sources. And you are clearly failing to grasp the significance of inferences to the best evidence. I commend you to follow Jaywalker's lead to the wiki page on abductive reasoning and then you will at least be able to follow the conversation.

 

[outhouse]

Ok mate, you ask for sources and I post four of them. All pro HJ and all with good references and citations to similar sources.

Your response is to deny that I have provided sources. And you are clearly failing to grasp the significance of inferences to the best evidence. I commend you to follow Jaywalker's lead to the wiki page on abductive reasoning and then you will at least be able to follow the conversation.

NO!

We require LINKS


Because honesty is required here.


EXAMPLE

You say William Lane Craig is a historian who is part of what makes a historical Jesus, I mean if you were honest and claimed he has a part in this, then he would be a historian.

Lets check your statements

William Lane Craig - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William Lane Craig (born 1949) is an American analytical philosopher and Christian theologian.

He is not a scholar or historian

He only tries to prove his apologetics are true, and he has failed.


LINKS are required from you because you don't have any credibility at this point fighting credible scholars staments

 

[Bunyip]

Richard Carrier, Historical method and Jesus of Nazareth.
G Dawes, The Historical Jesus Question
MJ Wilkins, Jesus under fire
Scott McNight, Jesus and His death
John Pippo, McGrath on Inference to the Best explanation

All good sources on inference to the best explanation in the context of the HJ

http:// http://www.johnpiippo.com/2012/10/mcgrath-on-inference-to-best-explanation.html

Craig is one of the foremost Christian thinkers alive today, he is a full professor of philosophy and theology - how can that not make him a scholar?

 

[outhouse]

Links

Because I don't believe a word you say. You have already posted NAMES and were caught making fraudulent claims

 

[Bunyip]

Links

Because I don't believe a word you say. You have already posted NAMES and were caught making fraudulent claims

I can not supply links, they are not enabled.

I have made no fraudulent claims and you have evidenced none, I have also given many sources. Furthermore, you have most certainly NOT caught me making fraudulent claims.

I suggest that prior to any more empty accusations you take the time to google 'inference to the best explanation historical jesus' it will link to most modern books of scholarship on the HJ and then at least you will grasp the basic principles.

Furthermore, if you take any of your books on the HJ (assuming you have a nice thick scholarly one that you really think is good) and look to the table of contents, and the index. Now the probability is very high that in the contents or index of YOUR books on the HJ there will he a heading very close to: Inference from best evidence

I would advise you to turn to that indicated page and have a look.

I know that's more difficult than empty accusations, but yo will at least learn something important.

 

[outhouse]

I can not supply links, they are not enabled.

Yes you can.

I have made no fraudulent claims and you have evidenced none,

Mr Emu and I had caught you doing just that.


I posted links showing how the statement you made regarding the name was incorrect regarding his position on Nazareths historicity.

Do I need to drag the exchange out in public for you, its here.

 

[outhouse]

http:// http://www.johnpiippo.com/2012/10/mcgrath-on-inference-to-best-explanation.html

Dead link

I expected no less from you.

- how can that not make him a scholar?

No

The question is how can you!!!!!!


Im guessing from severe ignorance on this topic, due to a severe lack of education in biblical studies


.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes you can.




Mr Emu and I had caught you doing just that.


I posted links showing how the statement you made regarding the name was incorrect regarding his position on Nazareths historicity.

Do I need to drag the exchange out in public for you, its here.

Drag it out by all means, you can not support your accusation because it did not occur.

It would be more useful if you just engaged on topic instead of trying to cry foul all the time.

Have you read up on inferences to the best evidence as they relate to the HJ yet?

 

[oldbadger]

LINKS are required from you because you don't have any credibility at this point fighting credible scholars staments

I've been reading....

The above is abductive reasoning..... :yes:

You can't prove truth by showing credible scholar's statements.....

Credibility can be an attribute that any cheap trickster possesses. Has to have, in fact.

Scholar's are in serious contention over HJ.... as shown by your resolve to judge and ignore so many.

Statements are not proofs or evidences. Only evidence, however tenuous or faint, can be considered in relation to the question.

So you football teams of scholars are only as good as the evidence that they can show...... rather than their names. Read up on Abductive reasoning.... Come at it from another route...

 

[outhouse]

I've been reading....

The above is abductive reasoning..... :yes:

You can't prove truth by showing credible scholar's statements.....

Credibility can be an attribute that any cheap trickster possesses. Has to have, in fact.

Scholar's are in serious contention over HJ.... as shown by your resolve to judge and ignore so many.

Statements are not proofs or evidences. Only evidence, however tenuous or faint, can be considered in relation to the question.

So you football teams of scholars are only as good as the evidence that they can show...... rather than their names. Read up on Abductive reasoning.... Come at it from another route...

You need to provide links to.


You make way to many unsubstantiated comments here.

 

[outhouse]

Drag it out by all means, you can not support your accusation because it did not occur.

It would be more useful if you just engaged on topic instead of trying to cry foul all the time.

Have you read up on inferences to the best evidence as they relate to the HJ yet?

Less words more LINKS

 

[Bunyip]

You need to provide links to.


You make way to many unsubstantiated comments here.

No offence, but you complain almost to the complete exclusion of actual engagement.
Most of your posts are a gripe of some form, but never actually on point.

Seriously mate, you are being silly - just google inference from best explanation or abductive reasoning and catch up to the conversation.