J
Jeckyl
Guest
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:j2ast2l8s5n0r9fmf1pgj708uo9skc68eg@4ax.com...
>>You haven't yet demonstrated that he existed to do that. The problem
>>is that you can't. You have nothing trustworthy in the real world
>>outside Christianity. Even inside Christianity the earliest stuff is
>>Paul's, which even you have admitted shows no knowledge of an
>>historical Jesus.
>
> You cannot "push" someone like this into learning.
I am learning
> He has started from the wrong end of the forensic trail
Not at all. I am not making any assumptions as fact. For example, some
take the assumption that Jesus did not exists as fact, despite there being
no evidence for that conclusion. I do not dothat. I do not claim as fact
that jesus existed as a person or that he did not. I am willing to look at
arguments based on either hypothesis, if they are logically presented.
I would, however, put more weight on the one of two equally plausible
theories if that one is also consistent with the gospels. To make out a
theory as suprerior because is is inconsitent with other documents is not
rational.
> example, that there has been a murder, not because he has a body, but
> in spite of the lack; based on ancient and utterly unsubstantiated
> rumours from agressively biased sources, and then proceeds to pick,
> choose and fabricate clues to point to a murder, and reject those that
> do not, including evidence that SHOULD be there, but is entirely
> absent. (Which is ignored for the sake of the 'case')
An interesting example, but not really applicable. If iwas one of the
nuttes here who accepts everything written in the bible just because it is
written in the bible, that would be justified. But I don't.
> If he were to start from the other end; the way that all detectives
> do, and work back from current evidence, researching it's provenance
> until the trail dries up, or is revealed to be fraudulent, he would be
> educable.
That is what I do, as much as is possible.
> This much is both elementary, and vital.
Yes
> Regrettfully, I have plonked the guy
Your loss, not mine
> as he seems genuinely unwilling to vary from this perverse course
Not at all .. if there is valid reasoning shown, I will accept it.
If others chose to use discredit a proposition without proof or logic, then
i will say so
> instead of listening to knowledge, becomes combative and
> self-protecting of his ignorance.
That is completely untrue.. I am probably one of the least combative of any
that I've read here. I will, however, defend myself against baseless and
incorrect allegations about me, and will not accept rejection of what I have
to say that are not based on sound logic and reasoning and evidence.
news:j2ast2l8s5n0r9fmf1pgj708uo9skc68eg@4ax.com...
>>You haven't yet demonstrated that he existed to do that. The problem
>>is that you can't. You have nothing trustworthy in the real world
>>outside Christianity. Even inside Christianity the earliest stuff is
>>Paul's, which even you have admitted shows no knowledge of an
>>historical Jesus.
>
> You cannot "push" someone like this into learning.
I am learning
> He has started from the wrong end of the forensic trail
Not at all. I am not making any assumptions as fact. For example, some
take the assumption that Jesus did not exists as fact, despite there being
no evidence for that conclusion. I do not dothat. I do not claim as fact
that jesus existed as a person or that he did not. I am willing to look at
arguments based on either hypothesis, if they are logically presented.
I would, however, put more weight on the one of two equally plausible
theories if that one is also consistent with the gospels. To make out a
theory as suprerior because is is inconsitent with other documents is not
rational.
> example, that there has been a murder, not because he has a body, but
> in spite of the lack; based on ancient and utterly unsubstantiated
> rumours from agressively biased sources, and then proceeds to pick,
> choose and fabricate clues to point to a murder, and reject those that
> do not, including evidence that SHOULD be there, but is entirely
> absent. (Which is ignored for the sake of the 'case')
An interesting example, but not really applicable. If iwas one of the
nuttes here who accepts everything written in the bible just because it is
written in the bible, that would be justified. But I don't.
> If he were to start from the other end; the way that all detectives
> do, and work back from current evidence, researching it's provenance
> until the trail dries up, or is revealed to be fraudulent, he would be
> educable.
That is what I do, as much as is possible.
> This much is both elementary, and vital.
Yes
> Regrettfully, I have plonked the guy
Your loss, not mine
> as he seems genuinely unwilling to vary from this perverse course
Not at all .. if there is valid reasoning shown, I will accept it.
If others chose to use discredit a proposition without proof or logic, then
i will say so
> instead of listening to knowledge, becomes combative and
> self-protecting of his ignorance.
That is completely untrue.. I am probably one of the least combative of any
that I've read here. I will, however, defend myself against baseless and
incorrect allegations about me, and will not accept rejection of what I have
to say that are not based on sound logic and reasoning and evidence.