How can we know that God is?

[tabibito]

I am requesting that you provide evidence for your comments.

The examples you have given are not strictly relevant to your observations on the historical method.

Any argument I provided on that field would require that the argument be assessed on its own merits. I provided demonstrations in the past, and even on this thread (linked to another). You have already demonstrated that you have neither the wit nor the will to conduct a dispassionate investigation of my claims.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Any argument I provided on that field would require that the argument be assessed on its own merits. I provided demonstrations in the past, and even on this thread (linked to another). You have already demonstrated that you have neither the wit nor the will to conduct a dispassionate investigation of my claims.

As this thread now runs to well over 100 pages perhaps you could link them again.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Your opinion concerning this hardly has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that you summarily dismiss acclaimed academics if they disagree with you and instead of trying to show where they may be mistaken, you typically look for any excuse you can find to hand wave them off.

I do not dismiss them, I simply note that in the case of some theologians their views are highly coloured by their religious beliefs. As I recall you and I had several exchanges on Loke's work.

[tabibito]

As this thread now runs to well over 100 pages perhaps you could link them again.

The bottom line on my tag would be as good a place to start as any.

[rogue06]

I do not dismiss them, I simply note that in the case of some theologians their views are highly coloured by their religious beliefs. As I recall you and I had several exchanges on Loke's work.

You will happily hand wave away the expert opinion of a world-renown archaeologist because he disagrees with your unique assessment because he once may have improperly interred some remains.

If someone has the temerity to disagree with the Hausfrau of the comfy chair, no matter how qualified they are to express an opinion, you will seek a way, even if it is ridiculous, to summarily dismiss them for the faux historian/anthropologist (anything you want to add to the list today?) can not ever be wrong.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You will happily hand wave away the expert opinion of a world-renown archaeologist because he disagrees with your unique assessment because he once may have improperly interred some remains.

You appear to have something a teen fan's attitude to Yadin. I am beginning to wonder if you have a poster of him in your bedroom.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The bottom line on my tag would be as good a place to start as any.

Who is included in this "majority"? Might we have some names and the precise references found in the works of those individuals?

[tabibito]

Who is included in this "majority"? Might we have some names and the precise references found in the works of those individuals?

What? Are you going to pretend that you don't know of authors who claim that the synoptic gospels and John contradict each other with regard to the day of crucifixion? Bart Ehrman is one of them. But of course their argument floats like a lead colander.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What? Are you going to pretend that you don't know of authors who claim that the synoptic gospels and John contradict each other with regard to the day of crucifixion? Bart Ehrman is one of them. But of course their argument floats like a lead colander.

I know of one or two, however, you allege it is a "majority"..

So apart from Ehrman who else is in this "majority" of yours?

[tabibito]

I know of one or two, however, you allege it is a "majority"..

So apart from Ehrman who else is in this "majority" of yours?

It is pretty hard to find anything that says otherwise; no more than a matter of opening a commentary of John and taking a look see what it has to say about the discrepancy between John and the Synoptic gospels with regard to the day of crucifixion. John, Jesus, and History (p16) for example, or maybe the New Interpreter's Study Bible (p1935).

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is pretty hard to find anything that says otherwise; no more than a matter of opening a commentary of John and taking a look see what it has to say about the discrepancy between John and the Synoptic gospels with regard to the day of crucifixion. John, Jesus, and History (p16) for example, or maybe the New Interpreter's Study Bible (p1935).

Firstly, you appear to have changed that final comment in your tag, perhaps because you could not actually source a majority, and secondly you might want correct what you have written. [My emphasis].

"The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

That comment alleges [with an apparent majority consensus] that he was buried the day before he was crucified. Point of information, the Jewish calendar does not run backwards!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is pretty hard to find anything that says otherwise; no more than a matter of opening a commentary of John and taking a look see what it has to say about the discrepancy between John and the Synoptic gospels with regard to the day of crucifixion. John, Jesus, and History (p16) for example, or maybe the New Interpreter's Study Bible (p1935).

If memory serves you were contending that there was a majority consensus on the date of the crucifixion. We know the gospels accounts contradict each other. That is plain from the texts as they have come down to us. There is also no consensus among academics as to either the day or year in which the crucifixion took place.

[Tassman]

On this, I have assessed Crews' (and others') claim that the historical critical method is flawed, and found those claims validated. Crews has provided a valid analogous satirical demonstration of just how that flaw plays out. Again, if you can provide any viable counter-argument (beyond the aforestated bare assertion) I'll review my assessment. Meantime, you're in disagreement with the findings of accredited scholars (which you have declared improper).

In a brief quiz in a university lecture, to demonstrate the processes of the historical critical method, ten examples of actual claims were provided for scrutiny. In that same lecture, within five minutes, four of the claims had been demolished, the remaining six took a bit longer. Tis a pity that I didn't think to keep records.

One can always find some qualified people who will agree with your position and disagree with the majority. The Discovery Institute is testament to this in its dismissal of evolution despite ‘evolution by natural selection’ being one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science.

Similarly, a minority of biblical/historical scholars disagree with the majority over the late-dating of the gospels claiming that historical critical method is flawed. But there is no reason to not accept the scholarly consensus – unless of course one is pursuing a specific agenda as per the Discovery Institute.

[tabibito]

That comment alleges [with an apparent majority consensus] that he was buried the day before he was crucified. Point of information, the Jewish calendar does not run backwards!

Tell it to the scholars - I already know that. (The gospels also make no mention of the TARDIS)

If memory serves you were contending that there was a majority consensus on the date of the crucifixion.

By date I mean month and day. Most scholars (that is, more than say otherwise) say that the day was the Day of Preparation, the fourteenth of Nisan. In later times, the Day of Preparation came to be termed Passover Eve.

We know the gospels accounts contradict each other.

Not when it comes to the day of crucifixion.

That is plain from the texts as they have come down to us.

What is plain from the texts that come down to us is that Jesus was not interred the day before he was crucified.

There is also no consensus among academics as to either the day or year in which the crucifixion took place.

30CE is favoured for the year. The day of preparation is the favoured day. A substantial minority questions or disputes those assessments.

[tabibito]

One can always find some qualified people who will agree with your position and disagree with the majority. The Discovery Institute is testament to this in its dismissal of evolution despite ‘evolution by natural selection’ being one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science.

Similarly, a minority of biblical/historical scholars disagree with the majority over the late-dating of the gospels claiming that historical critical method is flawed. But there is no reason to not accept the scholarly consensus – unless of course one is pursuing a specific agenda as per the Discovery Institute.

In short, you're happy to declare me wrong, with that declaration being based on no investigation whatever of my claims.