I don't see much in your message which seems to need a reponse, Legion, and since you will not discuss the synoptic question with me, or any other specific issue relatinng to the (non)historical Jesus, I'm afraid I'm losing interest. I'll answer a line or two. If there's anything you want to specifically ask, I'll respond.
I prefer "The One."
(Do you really not recognize my brute appeal to (my own) authority in response to your constant appeal to your offstage 'scholarly consensus'?)
I don't recall you asking me anything in this thread that I haven't answered.
I'm sure that you know exactly what I'm talking about, but I just don't care enough to transplant my question from the other thread to this one.
I don't have you confused with anybody. I recall you saying a lot about "what scholars say" but having little basis upon which your claims were made.
Still the ad hominem. The arguments to the man rather than to the issue. I'm sorry but you're really losing me.
I take it you never see doctors then. And if you do, surely you don't just accept doctors' opinions about medicine? That'd be like accepting biblical scholars when it came to biblical studies!
So the consensus of medical opinion about a particular disease is just as scientific as the consensus of 'biblical scholars' about the historical Jesus? If you really believe that, well... if you want my reaction to that sort of thinking, you'll have to ask me directly for it. It might sting a little, so I won't volunteer it.
But let me ask you something: Medical doctors are generally "people with a license to practice medicine and who practice medicine for a living".
Can you define 'biblical scholar' for me and our audience? What certification is required for one to be a 'biblical scholar' -- qualified to lend his voice to the 'scholarly consensus'?
"Biblical scholars all agree with me!" is the common argument from every direction. So tell me how we can determine that consensus. Does every Catholic priest get a vote on the scholarly consensus? Must one have published a book with a certain number of sales to get a vote on the scholarly consensus?
I seriously doubt that anyone can offer a common defintion of 'biblical scholar,' but I'm willing to listen.
And no doubt when it comes to things like nutrition, health, etc., you in general don't trust people working in this field, and refuse to eat, drink, or otherwise ingest anything without critically ensuring that you know exactly how it will affect you, which you learn not by "uncritically" accepting people whose job it is to understand these things (why sit at their feet and accept what they say?) but through...
So much easier to radicalize and then ridicule the other guy's thinking, isn't it?
It makes me wonder at the power which Jesus seems to still hold over so many people.
That was your last response that time,
Yes. As I recall, your message was among the worst personal attacks I'd ever received. I had no interest in slinging mud with you or even continuing to read a message with that sort of content.
That's my memory of what happened anyway.
while another time I responded and you again selected a single statement to close out with (and didn't respond to anything else)
Yikes. The 'single statement' to which I replied was your assertion that you wanted to drop our dialogue.
I reponded by saying OK.
And you think that's the same as refusing to answer my direct, oft-repeated questions about the nature of the synoptic gospels? My overwhelming, unanswerable argument that Matthew and Luke are simply revisions of Mark?
OK, I guess.
