Evidence for Jesus

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Just a friendly reminder, but it's possible for an argument to be "fallacious" and "Celestial" at the same time. The forums are divided by tone and politeness, not rightness/wrongness.

So don't worry about fallacious arguments staying in the Celestial Forum for so long.]

[_Yoda]

Now if you do understand what fallacious argumentation entails, then it would have been a simple matter of putting that in your post as the reason for moving it. Instead you posted that the "feel" of it is why you moved the thread. It shouldn't be a matter of how you feel.

The overall tone of the thread had become more Terrestrial. I used the word, "feel". I should have used the word, "tone". Feel better?

I was basically mirroring Shades' moderating style in stating my reasons. Shades moved a thread which I had started in the Celestial Forum, and used this as his reasoning, which I was fine with, by the way:

[MODERATOR NOTE: Thread moved by Dr. Shades due to a Terrestrial "feel" to it that has arisen.]

Since Shades has told us to clone his style of moderating, what I did here was no different, Marg.

Now, as I stated previously, I will not continue to argue with you about my moderating decisions IN THIS THREAD. If you have further issues, PM me.

Or, you can always do something really novel and continue to discuss the OP of the thread!

;)

[_marg]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Just a friendly reminder, but it's possible for an argument to be "fallacious" and "Celestial" at the same time. The forums are divided by tone and politeness, not rightness/wrongness.

So don't worry about fallacious arguments staying in the Celestial Forum for so long.]

Well Shades if the purpose of the Celestial is to enable threads to evolve productively without dishonest tactics of things like attacking people in order to shift focus away from subjecti, then moving them to Terrestial where rules are more lax, is not gong to accomplish that objective, the opposite will be accomplished.

If you would like to step in here, kindly explain to me where you see justification for moving this thread, and what that would accomplish.

[_marg]

Or, you can always do something really novel and continue to discuss the OP of the thread!

;)

First of all, Liz my continued participation in this thread was going to involve research and time. And so I will not continue..where the moving of the thread to a level which is meant to be more lax will enable disruptive tactics. So you have done me a favor, as I will now shift my focus and time to more fruitful tasks in my life.

[_Yoda]

Or, you can always do something really novel and continue to discuss the OP of the thread!

;)

First of all, Liz my continued participation in this thread was going to involve research and time. And so I will not continue..where the moving of the thread to a level which is meant to be more lax will enable disruptive tactics. So you have done me a favor, as I will now shift my focus and time to more fruitful tasks in my life.

Glad I could be of help.

;)

[_marg]

Or, you can always do something really novel and continue to discuss the OP of the thread!

;)

First of all, Liz my continued participation in this thread was going to involve research and time. And so I will not continue..where the moving of the thread to a level which is meant to be more lax will enable disruptive tactics. So you have done me a favor, as I will now shift my focus and time to more fruitful tasks in my life.

Glad I could be of help.

;)

I just wish you had done it sooner, so that I didn't spend time reviewing courses and books I'd already previously read which pertained to that thread. My mistake to ever take this board seriously. It is a lesson learned.

[_Nevo]

Burton Mack, for one, although he isn't really forthright about his views -- maybe he just thinks it is an irrelevant issue for him. I also think that Bertrand Russell doesn't find it necessary to admit or deny the historicity of Jesus. Most of the debate about Jesus centers in whether he was the divine miracle worker versus whether he existed.

Burton Mack doesn't reject the historicity of Jesus.

Jesus was born and raised in Galilee, no doubt from a Jewish family, evidently bright, and apparently educated. His influence indicates that he engaged in some kind of public activity, expressing his views about social circumstances and addressing followers in a challenging way.

-- Burton L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 62.

[_Dr. Shades]

Well Shades if the purpose of the Celestial is to enable threads to evolve productively without dishonest tactics of things like attacking people in order to shift focus away from subjecti, then moving them to Terrestial where rules are more lax, is not gong to accomplish that objective, the opposite will be accomplished.

I think you're referring to the mode of argumentation/discussion that dartagnan took. . . right?

If so, then it would've perhaps been nice if he had addressed only the specific things with which he disagreed instead of assessing the motives of the people making them--I won't argue with that. Kevin, if you could be a little more circumspect in that regard while in the Celestial Forum, that'd be great.

At the same time, however, he didn't call anyone an idiot or say that anyone was stupid. He didn't say "damn," "hell," etc. either. So although his tone may have been borderline, it didn't cross the edge. So that was the state of the "letter" of the law.

Regarding the "spirit" of the law, the tone of argumentation was a little rougher than what you'd expect to see between a grandchild and his or her beloved grandmother--this giving it a Terrestrial "feel." ALSO, even though I wasn't the one who moved it, there were so many complaints about the thread that I think it would be better suited for here anyway.

If you would like to step in here, kindly explain to me where you see justification for moving this thread, and what that would accomplish.

I considered splitting off some of Kevin's posts, but then the context of his remarks would've been lost, to the detriment of the conversation, methinks. Although people participating in the thread may have been aggravated with it, from an outsider's perspective (like mine), it was easier to learn things from it by leaving everyone's comments intact.

In the end, it was a judgment call. Every judgment call is going to be subjective to some degree or other, and someone is going to be dissatisfied with it, no matter what it is.

So just roll with the punches and realize that any research you post here will likely benefit others reading it if not the people with whom you're directly conversing.

[_dartagnan]

I got a minute and I just read this, so I wanted to comment.

Thanks Liz for screwing things up. Kevin I'm out of this thread. I'm not going to put in the time, any research ..only to participate in a free for all thread with fallacious argumentation allowed.

Do we really need to debate where the uncelestial activity first took place? This isn't rocket science here.

It was claimed that I said something I didn't say. I kindly pointed out the fact that I didn't say it. I didn't make a big stink of it, I simply refused to be held to something I didn't say. What ensued was an onslaught of accusations from JAK, asserting that I was not honest and I was shifting my ground. I PM'd the mod just to suggest moving the thread to terrestrial. Why? Because JAK started with the baseless accusations, and when he does this, the discussion only deteriorates from there.

After I showed that I never said it, he kept on accusing me of it anyway.

But I never said it. Others noted that I never said it. JAK remained stubborn, insisting "marg was correct" in her original statement. But now even marg acknowledges I never said it. So the only problem here is JAK's accusations that are completely unwarranted. Now he has disappeared as usual. I guess it is kind of embarrassing since in his posts, he had been accusing me of failing to read and comprehend.

The irony.

Bob, if Burton Mack denies the historicity of Christ, that is news to me. I have his book and I don't recall reading that. Do you have a page number or citation?

[_rcrocket]

Burton Mack, for one, although he isn't really forthright about his views -- maybe he just thinks it is an irrelevant issue for him. I also think that Bertrand Russell doesn't find it necessary to admit or deny the historicity of Jesus. Most of the debate about Jesus centers in whether he was the divine miracle worker versus whether he existed.

Burton Mack doesn't reject the historicity of Jesus.

Jesus was born and raised in Galilee, no doubt from a Jewish family, evidently bright, and apparently educated. His influence indicates that he engaged in some kind of public activity, expressing his views about social circumstances and addressing followers in a challenging way.

-- Burton L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 62.

I think his other books manifest real doubt. He, like others, often assumes for purposes of argument the historicity of Jesus so that they can move on to bigger and greater things to demolish -- his claim to divinity. When he talks about Jesus, he remarks somewhat caustically that the only evidence for Him in in the gospels.

Nonetheless, the claim that there are no historians who doubt the existence of Jesus is easily refuted. Mack is just one of many. I think his analysis of the "Q" shows he doesn't really believe.