Deut's Evidence (exodus, scriptures, bible, Israel, Biblical)

[Mister Emu]

Then learn from it.

I do not make arguements from ignorance.

Being a wee bit supercillious?

No.

Learn to read my comments rather than read things into my comments.

I read nothing into your comments.

I made no claim other than the fact that, all else being equal, reverse engineering is the better inference since it does not entail an appeal to miracles.

Exactly, in other words, that the Biblical passion narrative did not happen, since accepting that it did entails the miraculous. (If it did not happen it is a fabrication.)

learn how to read.

I take the words as they are written.

I will not read into what you write, so when you said:

That is simply not true, but believe whatever makes you feel good.

I connected it with the negative in Hope's post, or that you make un-proven assumptions. Maybe if you want people to read this:

1. My assumptions about prophesy are not predicated upon my assumptions about the life of Jesus but, rather, upon inferences about unsubstantiated claims of the Supernatural. You may agree or disagree with those inferences, but it is simply ignorance or dishonesty to distort them.
2. I very rarely make an assertion 'refuting the possibility' of any claim, and I clearly did not do so here

1. You should type it.

Really? You have me at a disadvantage. Who might those be?

I think you know to whom I refer.

As is my stance on the Daoine Sidhe. Therefore?

You should not argue against it.

The one most consistent with empirical observation.

We can not observe the life a 1st century Jew.

It is also true that the Gospels contain elements not at all that dissimilar to a Jewish literary genre called Midrash (similar to parables) wherein fantastic tails are often created using the bible as prooftext.

As an aside, do you know where some translated Midrash genre tales could be found?

Finally, there is very good evidence that the NT has undergone recension and redaction.

(I do not doubt that they are there, I ask only because I want to read them) Could you reference studies that show this evidence.

[Mister Emu]

Let me just say that I am sorry for misinterpretting your statement Deut. I am also sorry for creating a thread based on this erroneous interpretation that misrepresented your views.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

As an aside, do you know where some translated Midrash genre tales could be found?

Though expensive, I highly recommend The Book of Legends: Sefer Ha-Aggadah: Legends from the Talmud and Midrash.

[Mister Emu]

Thanks.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by ES

And you seem to thrive on getting people's goats.

I have often concluded thus.

Most people get all ***** about the ad hominem. Why? Because they feel that motive means nothing. For most reasonable people, motive is incredibly important.

The real problem is the constant double standards. YOU must prove YOUR point, while I DO NOT. Que? Those accusing others are usually guilty themselves of the same offense. So?

While this is a debate forum, we do NOT participate in anything that resembles a "formal debate". Consequently, those who try to impress upon us any formality are promulgating a double standard. I have learned many new terms here that apply to debate. In fact, I have bookmarked this page to help me understand some of the terms and concepts. But in reality, there is no need to have to resort to such.

[michel]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

[/color]
I have often concluded thus.

Most people get all ***** about the ad hominem. Why? Because they feel that motive means nothing. For most reasonable people, motive is incredibly important.

The real problem is the constant double standards. YOU must prove YOUR point, while I DO NOT. Que? Those accusing others are usually guilty themselves of the same offense. So?

While this is a debate forum, we do NOT participate in anything that resembles a "formal debate". Consequently, those who try to impress upon us any formality are promulgating a double standard. I have learned many new terms here that apply to debate. In fact, I have bookmarked this page to help me understand some of the terms and concepts. But in reality, there is no need to have to resort to such.

gee, thank NetDoc, I already have Deuts link to read through, and now this? - at what time does the world close today?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

The real problem is the constant double standards. YOU must prove YOUR point, while I DO NOT. Que? Those accusing others are usually guilty themselves of the same offense.

While I have no doubt that have mispoke on more than one occassion, I typically make every effort to say pretty much what I mean - and I never mean to demand proof. I do, however, frequently insist on evidence, and the double standard is only the minds of those who find this request so disconcerting.

But, why not put it to a test. I suggest that you and I discuss the evidence of the Exodus narrative in a highly moderated forum - one in which the same standards are strictly applied.

[Scuba Pete]

Hmnnn,

that's like inviting a guy with a knife to a gun fight!

Deut, you are no doubt the debating King around here. While I have learned mutch about this from you, I am no match for you. I only have truth on my side, and you are far too crafty for that!

I rather enjoy our "discussions" and would prefer to keep them as that. You and I have much in common that seems to get lost in the volley of our differences. That we hate bigots is probably our biggest mutual commonality. There are those who might mistakenly think that I do not like you. Nothing could be further from the truth. I surely don't mind pointing out your flaws, but you are not shy about exposing mine either!

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

You and I have much in common that seems to get lost in the volley of our differences. That we hate bigots is probably our biggest mutual commonality. There are those who might mistakenly think that I do not like you. Nothing could be further from the truth. I surely don't mind pointing out your flaws, but you are not shy about exposing mine either!

No debate here my friend.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

post #14: "... the only thing suggested by the parallels between Isaiah 53 and the Passion narrative is that the author of the latter was familiar with the former and used it to fabricate the story."
post #17: "... if, during the last half of the 1st century, I were intent in fabricating such a hero, I could do no better than model him after Isaiah - particularly if I were seeking legitimacy among Jews. There is no reason to view your Biblical Jesus as any more than a sloppy attempt at reverse engineering run amok."

I made no claim other than the fact that, all else being equal, reverse engineering is the better inference since it does not entail an appeal to miracles.

Therefore, dear sir, you are making another assumption---that miracles do not, and cannot, occur. You have closed your mind to a possibility. People who so easily dismiss the Scriptures as being fabricated, forget that it is actually a historical book as well as a spiritual one, and that if we were to put other historical records under the same amount of scrutiny that we do the Scriptures, perhaps we would find ourselves questioning much of what we take for granted as being historically accurate. Can I prove to you the Bible is true? Of course not. But there is much evidence---archeological and otherwise---that would suggest it is. Just as scientists will say there is evidence for this, and evidence for that, to support their theories on the origins of the universe, which not one of us was witness to.

So, in my humble opinion, reverse engineering is not necessarily the better inference---it is simply the only inference one can make, when one has already closed one's mind to certain possibilities.