CADRE Comments

A Rational Look at Christianity; Basing Reason in Truth






  • this is from the comment section on secular outpost where Bowen responded to the post below that I made on this blog. the previous post on this blog here





    I said:
    I think that discussions about the "communities" behind the gospels are highly speculative and of little historical value. The author of Mark never discusses "the community" that is allegedly the true author of his gospel.
    Joe responded:
    every bible scholar there is even the atheists regard that as a given
    =============
    Comment:
    What "every bible scholar" assumes to be true is NOT historical evidence. I am asking for historical evidence, not opinion polls of biblical scholars.







      • Avatar






        I think you have been around academia long enough to know how that plays out. there is a reason why it's Consensus. I already told you what that reason is, because oral traditions is not passed by Lone individuals. you are obviously trying to save a disproved argument.
        (1) Jews used oral radiation, that is related to community
        ...
        (2) Jewish writing where read in community
        ...
        (3)a lot of work on showing rhetorically that it [Mark] was passed on as oral tradition before being written.
        ...
        but there is also the statement by Papias about preferring oral tradition to written.
        ...
        (5) Paul is quoting so many oral sources, maxims, songs, creeds, the fact that they made creeds all point to oral material and communal understanding.
        ...
        (6) Acts basically says it point blank. they moved in together so they could study the bible together. there's a community







        • Avatar






          I said:
          The author of Mark never discusses how many eyewitnesses he spoke with in his "community". The author of Mark never even states that he obtained info about Jesus from his community or anyone from his community. This is all just speculation. Speculation is NOT the same as evidence.
          Joe responded:
          you are assuming Mark is the origin of the story which is just utter ignorance. Attaching a number is bull shit. That's a Mcguffin. It matters not at all but something you can cling to as an unknown and thus save face that you can't disprove the arguments.
          ====================
          Comments:
          Bowen: Once again, instead of responding with substance and evidence to support your views, you simply distort my views and attack a straw man. This is why I do not take you seriously. Keep this shit up, and I will just go back to ignoring you entirely.
          I am NOT assuming that Mark is the origin of all the content in his gospel, nor am I assuming that the content of his gospel came from his local "community" of believers. I am CHALLENGING YOUR assumptions about the content of Mark, and demanding evidence from you, evidence which you are refusing to provide.

            see more






            • Avatar






              sorry Brad, explaining why your question is nonsequitter is substance. you want to pretend to be a big thinker but you don't want to have to think about it.
              ...
              Bowen:I am CHALLENGING YOUR assumptions about the content of Mark, and demanding evidence from you, evidence which you are refusing to provide.
              ...
              Me: then try answering the evidence. Not only did I show your question irrelevant I also answered it. the evidence of oral tradition and pre mark redaction (PMPN pre Mark passion narrative) shows that Mark is derived from older material and circulated in oral form. 
              ...
              if the shoe was on the other foot and I refused to accept what all scholars taken as given you would not hesitate to castigate my understanding for that.







              • He never answered any of my arguments but went on assenting that I had no answers. This guy is a philosopher and the sec outpost guys are thye best atheist thinkers I've seen and they still include narrow minded bigoted people who don't think. I don't include Lowder or Parsons in that but it definitely applies to Bowen.


              3 comments:

              Yeah, from what I recall it's pretty much common knowledge among scholars that the Synoptics were derived from earlier, very strong communal oral traditions, and even written materials like Q.

              I do agree that the Secular Outposters represent atheism much better than most, and that Bowen seems more driven by ideology than Lowder or Parsons (especially Lowder). Parsons appears passionate, but in itself that fact doesn't undermine his arguments. It lets us know he's human and not just a philosophical technician or logic-chopper.

              P.S. I think this post needs a title. :-)

              I do agree that the Secular Outposters represent atheism much better than most, and that Bowen seems more driven by ideology than Lowder or Parsons (especially Lowder). Parsons appears passionate, but in itself that fact doesn't undermine his arguments. It lets us know he's human and not just a philosophical technician or logic-chopper.


              --agreed

              Use of Content

              The contents of this blog may be reproduced or forwarded via e-mail without change and in its entirety for non-commercial purposes without prior permission from the Christian CADRE provided that the copyright information is included. We would appreciate notification of the use of our content. Please e-mail us at christiancadre@yahoo.com.