The Rise of Gender-Neutral Names Isn’t What It Seems

[+Paranoid Android]

24 minutes ago, Piney said:

Historical fact? 

Adam and Eve were fictional,, Moses was fictional, Daniel was a patriotic novel giving Joshua Messiah props in his fight against Antiochus Epiphanes and written after the fact, David was a raider and Solomon a petty warlord who controlled some copper pits.

Agreed on all,  even when I was a Christian these guys were seen as mythical (though Daniel was thought of as real by many, though academia suggests otherwise)

 

24 minutes ago, Piney said:

Then we have that Jesus fella who's actual biography is unknown and never taught what's in the Synoptic Gospels and was never crucified....

 

 

Actually,  that Jesus was crucified is about one of the only things that almost all historians (regardless of religious or secular views)  can agree did happen to the historical Jesus of Nazareth. 

 

Edited March 24 by Paranoid Android
Grammar

[Piney]

22 minutes ago, HandsomeGorilla said:

Spicy! Where can I learn about this?

Watch @eight bits and I work over in the religious subforum. 

[Piney]

20 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Agreed on all,  even when I was a Christian these guys were seen as mythical (though Daniel was thought of as real by many, though academia suggests otherwise)

 

Actually,  that Jesus was crucified is about one of the only things that almost all historians (regardless of religious or secular views)  can agree did happen to the historical Jesus of Nazareth. 

 

I lean towards Jesus Ben Ananias or Jesus Pandira and neither were crucified, but my opinion is the minority. 

[HandsomeGorilla]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

Watch @eight bits and I work over in the religious subforum. 

Cool, thanks

[Myles]

I named my daughters with "family names".  

[Arbenol]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

Historical fact? 

Adam and Eve were fictional,, Moses was fictional, Daniel was a patriotic novel giving Joshua Messiah props in his fight against Antiochus Epiphanes and written after the fact, David was a raider and Solomon a petty warlord who controlled some copper pits.

Then we have that Jesus fella who's actual biography is unknown and never taught what's in the Synoptic Gospels and was never crucified....

 

 

My point was only that many of the people, places and events were real and happened. Not that they haven't been embellished and sanitised. 

[darkmoonlady]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm not trying to argue it's a new thing.  I'm pushing against the attempt to normalise surgery and chemical castration, and one of the ways this happens is for activists like that instagram vlogger to paint a saccharine image of trans people living in harmony and even holding positions of power and authority.  

But scratching the surface makes the reality more stark in contrast.  That's my goal - to question the narrative that is being pushed down or throats and accepted by others without critical thought!

Most of the articles I posted were from decades ago, so how you think historical articles from 30 years ago are being shoved down your throat is exactly like I called it. You do not like trans as do a lot on the right and part of that is trying to forbid any historical references to show there is nothing new under the sun. Having historical examples gives credence to this always being a part of human existence and for anti trans folks that just cannot be and they'll ban learning about it to bury it. 

It is NOT chemical castration or a saccharin image and your wording drips with disdain. 

[Arbenol]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm not trying to argue it's a new thing.  I'm pushing against the attempt to normalise surgery and chemical castration, and one of the ways this happens is for activists like that instagram vlogger to paint a saccharine image of trans people living in harmony and even holding positions of power and authority.  

But scratching the surface makes the reality more stark in contrast.  That's my goal - to question the narrative that is being pushed down or throats and accepted by others without critical thought!

It still seems irrelevant to me. 

I don't see how pushing that narrative normalises "surgery and chemical castration". I doubt there was an awful lot of that going on in ancient times. But it is part of our society today. A society that is just starting to work out how to accommodate it. There are far more important issues like transition treatments for minors (I assume you meant minors when you mentioned surgery - surely an adult can do as they please), and that women feel safe in female-only areas.

Attacks on the historicity of trans people feels like an attempt to discredit the experiences of trans people and to wave it off as a mental disorder. I don't see what else it can accomplish.

[el midgetron]

21 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I didn't lie.  You and your fabled post 71 had links to the current data.  You posted figures that were almost a decade old

Really? A revolutionary historical site had the “current data” about modern day slavery? 

 https://revolution.chnm.org/exhibits/show/liberty--equality--fraternity/slavery-and-the-haitian-revolu
 

[Golden Duck]

12 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Really? A revolutionary historical site had the “current data” about modern day slavery? 

 https://revolution.chnm.org/exhibits/show/liberty--equality--fraternity/slavery-and-the-haitian-revolu
 

This...

Quote

 Slavery is still widespread in Haiti today. According to the 2014 Global Slavery Index, Haiti has an estimated 237,700 enslaved persons[101] making it the country with the second-highest prevalence of slavery in the world, behind only Mauritania.[102] 
     
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Haiti

 https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/364961-san-francisco-board-open-to-reparations-with-5m-payouts/?do=findComment&comment=7549087

According to the Global Slavery Index the ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN MODERN SLAVERY for:

Haiti - 59,000

France - 129,000

UK - 136,000

USA - 403,000

You posted figures that were wildly inaccurate. Yet you want to go around calling others liars, while it obvious you are the one telling "porkies".

 

[el midgetron]

10 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

This...

According to the Global Slavery Index the ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN MODERN SLAVERY for:

Haiti - 59,000

France - 129,000

UK - 136,000

USA - 403,000

You posted figures that were wildly inaccurate. Yet you want to go around calling others liars, while it obvious you are the one telling "porkies".

You are a pathological BS a artist. Now you are not even referencing “fabled post #71”? Must not have been that “fabled”…

Here is an actual quote from the Wikipedia page -

“Haiti has an estimated 237,700 enslaved persons[101] making it the country with the second-highest prevalence of slavery in the world, behind only Mauritania.[102]“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Haiti#Modern_day

Child trafficking is a substantial part of the human trafficking crisis in Haiti.[105] One major form of child trafficking and child slavery, affecting an estimated 300,000 Haitian children, is called the restavek system, in which children are forced to work as domestic servants.[110]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Haiti#Children

Even by the numbers you want to cite Haiti still has the second highest prevalence of slavery in the world. 
https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/regional-analysis/americas/

Regardless, your point seems to be that Haiti has done more to end slavery even though it took them until after 2014 to have the numbers to support your claim. 

[Golden Duck]

6 hours ago, el midgetron said:

You are a pathological BS a artist. Now you are not even referencing “fabled post #71”? Must not have been that “fabled”…

Here is an actual quote from the Wikipedia page -

“Haiti has an estimated 237,700 enslaved persons[101] making it the country with the second-highest prevalence of slavery in the world, behind only Mauritania.[102]“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Haiti#Modern_day

Child trafficking is a substantial part of the human trafficking crisis in Haiti.[105] One major form of child trafficking and child slavery, affecting an estimated 300,000 Haitian children, is called the restavek system, in which children are forced to work as domestic servants.[110]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Haiti#Children

Even by the numbers you want to cite Haiti still has the second highest prevalence of slavery in the world. 
https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/regional-analysis/americas/

Regardless, your point seems to be that Haiti has done more to end slavery even though it took them until after 2014 to have the numbers to support your claim. 

So I didn't remember the exact number of the post from a locked thread big deal.  

It doesn't change the fact you posted figures that were wrong and the three countries you are exalting all have more people in living in slavery than Haiti.  This is from GSI that YOU introduced.

Clearly, you and BS are fellow travellers.  Or as you have demonstrated by your limited vocabulary in this thread you have comprehension issues.

Edited March 24 by Saru
Typo

[eight bits]

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Agreed on all,  even when I was a Christian these guys were seen as mythical (though Daniel was thought of as real by many, though academia suggests otherwise)

 

Actually,  that Jesus was crucified is about one of the only things that almost all historians (regardless of religious or secular views)  can agree did happen to the historical Jesus of Nazareth. 

 

Just a few points arising. What proportion of "all historians" do you estimate have studied the particulars of the claim that a historical Jesus of Nazareth was crucified?

Closer to the current topic, and regarding your complaint that Christian oral tradition was disesteemed relative to the oral traditions of many pre-literate cultures. Apples and oranges. The Christian "oral tradition" (in the sense of an organized attempt to transmit reliable factual information across space and time) is a modern hypothesis proposed to bridge the decades between the 30's CE (when the gospel stories are set) and the late 60's to 90's CE (when the canonical gospels are written, if not a few decades later).

There is little or no evidence of such an "oral tradition" (which was the point of floating the hypothesis, to explain the rarity of primary evidence for Jesus or Nazareth). If it did exist, then it would have flourished in the midst of a literate culture, not one where writing was unknown, and then have instantly perished when the first canonical gospel appeared (since the canonical gospels rewrite Mark maybe supplemented with a written generic wisdom sayings collection).

There are few shared traits, then, with the oral traditions of other societies, starting with evidence that those traditions actually exist or existed. Clearly, the modern theorists modeled their hypothesis on modern anthroplogical studies of pre-literate cultures, hoping for an analogy between a culture where at least something like 3% of the population actually practiced literacy and a culture where the very idea of literacy was unknown.

Now, I don't know who hectored you about your erstwhile enthusiam for the reliability of ancient Christian orality. Maybe they were unfair to you. But somebody ought to have questioned you about it, because it is unevidenced and has the look, feel, and odor of a just-so story.

Regardless, any analogy between the two uses of the term oral tradition is strained.

 

Edited March 24 by eight bits

[el midgetron]

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

So I didn't remember the exact number of the post from a locked thread big deal.  

It doesn't change the fact you posted figures that were wrong and the three countries you are exalting all have more people in living in slavery than Haiti.  This is from GSI that YOU introduced.

Clearly, you and BS are fellow travellers.  Or as you have demonstrated by your limited vocabulary in this thread you have comprehension issues.

Not understanding vocabulary like what “prevalence” means? All your other BS aside, your entire argument is that you believe the country that has done the most to stop slavery still to this day has the second highest prevalence of slavery in the entire world. 

[Golden Duck]

7 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Not understanding vocabulary like what “prevalence” means? All your other BS aside, your entire argument is that you believe the country that has done the most to stop slavery still to this day has the second highest prevalence of slavery in the entire world. 

Prevalence, precedence, precedents?  You don't know the difference? 

I posted the figures from the GSI - a site YOU introduced.  UK, USA, and France all have more people living slavery than Haiti.  It is but ONE metric you tried to propose and you got it wrong.

How can they have the second highest prevalence when the data introduce show at least countries with more people living in slavery?

Sounds like you are lying again.

Edited March 24 by Golden Duck

[el midgetron]

26 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Prevalence, precedence, precedents?  You don't know the difference? 

Yes, “prevelence”.  You should have known just by the context in which it was used ********

15 hours ago, el midgetron said:

“Haiti has an estimated 237,700 enslaved persons[101] making it the country with the second-highest prevalence of slavery in the world, behind only Mauritania.[102]“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Haiti#Modern_day

 

[Golden Duck]

10 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

 

Yes, “prevelence”.  You should have known just by the context in which it was used ********

 

If you mean "precedents" don't use the word "precedence".  You should at least put in an effort to communicate if you want to be understood.

"Prevelence" [sic]?    Go back to school before trying to advise others.

Your still wedded to mistruths.  The number is actually 59,000.  It looks like choose to use out of date figures.  It looks like you choose to be dishonest.

You literally do not know what you are talking about.  Why should anyone bother with your ignorance?

Edited March 24 by Golden Duck

[+Paranoid Android]

20 hours ago, darkmoonlady said:

Most of the articles I posted were from decades ago, so how you think historical articles from 30 years ago are being shoved down your throat is exactly like I called it. You do not like trans as do a lot on the right and part of that is trying to forbid any historical references to show there is nothing new under the sun. Having historical examples gives credence to this always being a part of human existence and for anti trans folks that just cannot be and they'll ban learning about it to bury it. 

It is NOT chemical castration or a saccharin image and your wording drips with disdain. 

You're conflating my comments and getting them mixed up. I wasn't talking about those articles from the 80's. Those are actually pretty interesting. But they don't say as much as you think they do. For example, your article that you sent me about wintke people in the Lakota tribes (the only article that wasn't behind a paywall, I will pay for them eventually, when I have the time to read them) seems like the issue is not as clear as you make it out. While I agree that it appears trans individuals could be seen as wintke, the term itself is far broader and encompasses any person within the Lakota tribe who performs a duty traditionally associated with women. As such, a male midwife would also be a "wintke" even if they were heterosexual and identified as a male. A male who didn't want to be a warrior and chose another life path was a wintke. The article made some interesting points, otherwise.  

Rather than being aimed at your articles from 30 years ago, my comments were aimed at the Instagram video on page 1 (and all other saccharine sources like it). That simply made a bunch of sourceless claims that are not backed up by historians. I'm still waiting on responses from ancient Egyptian historians (the emails were sent on Friday night, my local time, so I'm not expecting a reply until at least next week), but as I looked more into sekhet, I found a wikipedia comment about it. Not in a topic on Ancient Egypt (that would make too much sense), but in an article on "Third gender" - which is a huge red flag. I took a screenshot to show you just exactly what I mean: 

"Better source needed". "Unreliable source". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender

If you guys (pro trans activists) didn't use suspect sources to try and prove your point, maybe pro-trans activists would be trusted more by people like me! 

When an article is filled with unreliable sources, no sources, and paints the rosiest possible picture without any kind of nuance about how the situation was treated in ancient times, "saccharine" is a rather perfect descriptor, if you ask my opinion  

Edited March 24 by Paranoid Android

[+Paranoid Android]

20 hours ago, Arbenol said:

It still seems irrelevant to me. 

I don't see how pushing that narrative normalises "surgery and chemical castration". I doubt there was an awful lot of that going on in ancient times. But it is part of our society today. A society that is just starting to work out how to accommodate it. There are far more important issues like transition treatments for minors (I assume you meant minors when you mentioned surgery - surely an adult can do as they please), and that women feel safe in female-only areas.

Attacks on the historicity of trans people feels like an attempt to discredit the experiences of trans people and to wave it off as a mental disorder. I don't see what else it can accomplish.

Yes, I thought I had clarified that my limit on surgery was for under 18s. If not in that particular post, then certainly multiple other times throughout this thread and others similar to it. 

For the rest, it's about truth. To use an example/analogy, I was watching a panel of conservaitive and liberal black Americans (I think it was put out by The Cut) and one of the liberal black members of the panel was talking about "The Master Bedroom" and how this term had a terrible history - that black slaves would be taken to their master's bedroom and forced into sexual servitude. But the etymology of the phrase "master bedroom" proves that slavery had nothing to do with it, so a lie is being promoted as truth to try and promote racial equity. 

Does pointing this out make me a pro-slavery douche? Or a racist who doesn't want black people to have rights? No! Yet this is the argument you are trying to lay out to me. Because I am sceptical of many claims, particularly those in videos that are essentially pro-trans activists offering rosy views of history without any care for nuance or reality.  

 

Edited March 24 by Paranoid Android

[+Paranoid Android]

15 hours ago, eight bits said:

Just a few points arising. What proportion of "all historians" do you estimate have studied the particulars of the claim that a historical Jesus of Nazareth was crucified?

I don't see the relevance.  Of those who do study it,  regardless of their religious views virtually everyone accepts the historicity of his crucifixion. If you factor in historians employed by universities,  the number basically shrinks to zero! 

 

15 hours ago, eight bits said:

Closer to the current topic, and regarding your complaint that Christian oral tradition was disesteemed relative to the oral traditions of many pre-literate cultures. Apples and oranges. The Christian "oral tradition" (in the sense of an organized attempt to transmit reliable factual information across space and time) is a modern hypothesis proposed to bridge the decades between the 30's CE (when the gospel stories are set) and the late 60's to 90's CE (when the canonical gospels are written, if not a few decades later).

There is little or no evidence of such an "oral tradition" (which was the point of floating the hypothesis, to explain the rarity of primary evidence for Jesus or Nazareth). If it did exist, then it would have flourished in the midst of a literate culture, not one where writing was unknown, and then have instantly perished when the first canonical gospel appeared (since the canonical gospels rewrite Mark maybe supplemented with a written generic wisdom sayings collection).

There are few shared traits, then, with the oral traditions of other societies, starting with evidence that those traditions actually exist or existed. Clearly, the modern theorists modeled their hypothesis on modern anthroplogical studies of pre-literate cultures, hoping for an analogy between a culture where at least something like 3% of the population actually practiced literacy and a culture where the very idea of literacy was unknown.

Now, I don't know who hectored you about your erstwhile enthusiam for the reliability of ancient Christian orality. Maybe they were unfair to you. But somebody ought to have questioned you about it, because it is unevidenced and has the look, feel, and odor of a just-so story.

Regardless, any analogy between the two uses of the term oral tradition is strained.

 

The Old Testament had its fair share of oral tradition. I don't remember any nuance between Jewish oral tradition and Christian oral history. 

I watched a news program just a few months ago,  with an indigenous Australian telling us about aboriginal oral tradition,  including how the First Fleet tried to murder them with dynamite,  despite the fact dynamite wasn't even invented (and wouldn't be invented for something like 80 years) when the First Fleet arrived in Australia!

We have no written evidence of this,  we just have to accept this person's word,  and if I question it I'm racist (yes,  I was accused if racism in the comments section of that article).  Does that remind you of any current discussions about trans folk? 

Why did trans folk exist so abundantly in these oral societies,  but as soon as writing was invented the transes all somehow disappear? 

And in cultures that already had writing,  like the Egyptians,  the written souces are unreliable (when Wikipedia declares it an unreliable source you KNOW you're scraping the bottom of the barrel). So I'm not expecting much from the Egyptian historians when they reply.  

And yet I'm somehow "transphobic" for raising these issues (not saying you are calling me this)??

Edited March 24 by Paranoid Android

[eight bits]

13 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't see the relevance.  Of those who do study it,  regardless of their religious views virtually everyone accepts the historicity of his crucifixion. If you factor in historians employed by universities,  the number basically shrinks to zero! 

So a community which is a niche specialty within a vast profession shares the view that their specialty is well-founded. OK, thank you for clarifying. You made it sound as if maybe belief that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified was nearly universal among the larger professsion.

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The Old Testament had its fair share of oral tradition. I don't remember any nuance between Jewish oral tradition and Christian oral history. 

I don't remember our discussing Jewish oral tradition, at least not in this thread. If you think it is on-topic, could you point to any factual matter in the Jewish Bible that was transmitted by the Jewish oral tradition that you might wish to discuss?

33 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

And yet I'm somehow "transphobic" for raising these issues????

I never called you transphobic nor racist. Back when you were a Christian, however, there is a good chance that I would have criticized your views about a hypothetical reliable pre-gospel oral tradition about Jesus, and maybe some analogous Jewish oral tradition, too (I don't remember, but it wouldn't surprise me). So, if you say such criticism was unfair, then I might have something to answer for. But calling you transphobic or racist? You need to take that up with somebody who's said such things about you. Mistakenly I have no doubt.

[+Paranoid Android]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

So a community which is a niche specialty within a vast profession shares the view that their specialty is well-founded. OK, thank you for clarifying. You made it sound as if maybe belief that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified was nearly universal among the larger professsion.

I did say almost all historians! Period full stop. You asked about historians within the field! I simply confirmed that historians in the field see it the same way as those outside,  except those within the field are experts. 

So basically all historians accept the crucifixion,  regardless of their religious belief.  Glad we agree

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

I don't remember our discussing Jewish oral tradition, at least not in this thread. If you think it is on-topic, could you point to any factual matter in the Jewish Bible that was transmitted by the Jewish oral tradition that you might wish to discuss?

I was talking about biblical oral history,  you intentionally limited that to specifically Christian (aka, New Testament) history when I did no such thing!

 

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

I never called you transphobic nor racist. Back when you were a Christian, however, there is a good chance that I would have criticized your views about a hypothetical reliable pre-gospel oral tradition about Jesus, and maybe some analogous Jewish oral tradition, too (I don't remember, but it wouldn't surprise me). So, if you say such criticism was unfair, then I might have something to answer for. But calling you transphobic or racist? You need to take that up with somebody who's said such things about you. Mistakenly I have no doubt.

I know you didn't call me those things.  But if you haven't noticed,  I'm in discussion with someone who is saying that, using the exact same reasoning you are! I guess I'm saying what I'm saying nexus they're are likely others reading along who have seen the discussion,  and I'm laying them know more about my position and why my views are not racist or transphobic!

Edited March 25 by Paranoid Android

[eight bits]

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I did say almost all historians! Period full stop. You asked about historians within the field! I simply confirmed that historians in the field see it the same way as those outside,  except those within the 

Well that was my objection in the first place. So, we don't agree. Further, I suspect you know that we don't agree since this is not our first discussion on the point (just as we both know that specialists are indeed nearly unanimous, the agreement between us to which I referred, and which I am only too happy to acknowledge, as you know from those same earlier discussions).

Apparently, it is possible to take the apologist out of the faith, but  it's harder to take the faith-based reasoning out of the apologist.

18 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I was talking about biblical oral history,  you intentionally limited that to specifically Christian (aka, New Testament) history when I did no such thing!

Well, no, actually you brought up that you were criticized when you were a Christian, and it is the hypothetical Christian oral tradition to which that affiliation would be relevant. I also renew my request for an example of a factual matter in the Jewish Bible that was transmitted there by whatever Jewish (or Israelite) oral tradition you were criticized for (if you feel that any of this is on-topic).

42 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I know you didn't call me those things.  But if you haven't noticed,  I'm in discussion with someone who is saying that, using the exact same reasoning you are! I guess I'm saying what I'm saying nexus they're are likely others reading along who have seen the discussion,  and I'm laying them know more about my position and why my views are not racist or transphobic!

OK. I imagine that their reasoning isn't quite exactly the same as mine if we're reaching different conclusions.

But by all means, defend yourself against false accusations - just please take some care where you aim.

[Arbenol]

54 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I know you didn't call me those things.  But if you haven't noticed,  I'm in discussion with someone who is saying that,

I don't know if you're referring to me but, if you haven't noticed, I haven't called you transphobic - and I don't think you are. It's a meaningless word that often gets thrown about to shut someone up. (Although I'm not claiming I've never used it - sometimes the cap fits).

Our discussion reminds me of many times we spoke in the past when you were a very conservative Christian. I used to believe you were quite virulently homophobic but discussions with you on the issue disabused me of that notion. I concluded you were basically a kind person who was the victim of a toxic ideology. 

But to get back to our discussion. I just have a question. You say you don't reject the idea that gender fluidity has been present throughout human history. Do you know of any historical sources (acceptable to you as good evidence) that shows this to be true?

[+Paranoid Android]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Well that was my objection in the first place. So, we don't agree. Further, I suspect you know that we don't agree since this is not our first discussion on the point (just as we both know that specialists are indeed nearly unanimous, the agreement between us to which I referred, and which I am only too happy to acknowledge, as you know from those same earlier discussions).

Most historians (regardless of specialty) accept Jesus was crucified.  Most historians in the specific fields studying the ancient Near East (doesn't have to be New Testament scholars only) also accept Jesus was crucified.  There's nothing nefarious in that,  you chose to frame this as "So a community which is a niche specialty within a vast profession shares the view that their specialty is well-founded".

From where I sit, that is an extremely dishonest way of framing the matter,  and basically makes expertise in a field a handicap to offering an opinion - oh, you're an expert,  you can't be trusted because you have skin in the game!!!! 

What's the point in messaging Egyptian historians, to get info on sekhet,  if then being experts doesn't matter?

 

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Apparently, it is possible to take the apologist out of the faith, but  it's harder to take the faith-based reasoning out of the apologist.

The existence of a historical Jesus is not a matter of faith! 

 

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Well, no, actually you brought up that you were criticized when you were a Christian, and it is the hypothetical Christian oral tradition to which that affiliation would be relevant. I also renew my request for an example of a factual matter in the Jewish Bible that was transmitted there by whatever Jewish (or Israelite) oral tradition you were criticized for (if you feel that any of this is on-topic).

Christians use the entire Bible, correct? Old Testament as well as New? 

 

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

OK. I imagine that their reasoning isn't quite exactly the same as mine if we're reaching different conclusions.

But by all means, defend yourself against false accusations - just please take some care where you aim.

I did edit my post to clarify I wasn't aiming it at you, but it was too late.  Ah well, such is life

Edited March 25 by Paranoid Android