Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes the same group. I did not say the same source. I said filtered by the same group. A single group filtered all the different writing and chose what goes in and what doesn't. That means that stuff they didn't like (Gnostic documents for instance) got left out.

Simply not true. Canon wasn't decided by the Catholic Church until Trent in response to the Protestants who set their Canon shortly before. The RCC and the Protestant canons are different. I'm not sure when the Orthodox Church set their Canon but theirs is different from both the RCC and the Protestant churches. Coptic Christianity has still yet another Canon.

So, as you can see, canon was a pretty late development and was not filtered by one group.

Originally posted by Ethelred
The christian churches all used the same version of the Bible that was put together by a single group.

Totally untrue and even more so, today.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Thats not a valid test. It can at best show give a limit on the worth. An upper limit not a lower limit. For instance millions of people believe in homopathic medicine. That does lend some credibility to it. But it only suggests a possibility. Real science however shows it to have ZERO credibility in the actual chemistry involved.

You are using specious reasoning. You are still saying that a whole bunch of people believe it so you do. You main sources for the people you are regarding as the important believers is from an era of a mytical thinking and LOTS of fraudulent claims. Eusebious was not the only known liar of that time but he is the man that put together the 50 copies of the Bible, that became the standard, for Constantine.

You don't understand my argument and you have fallacious counter-arguments in light of that fact.

Originally posted by Ethelred
It is the same thing and yo are dismissive because you have no responce that can show any flaw in what I said.

Think what you will.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Four gospels vs. four tobaconists do not make for evidence either way. You need physical evidence to support the claims. Eyewitnesses are notoriously poor sources of information in court. Without physical evidence people cannot be trusted because of the way human memory works. If enough people make a claim about what happened that effects the thinking of the others. One persuasive person can sway many to misremember.

Then we can say goodbye to most of human history as we know it since considerable amounts of it are based solely on the writings of other humans.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You expected to surprise me with stuff that I allready knew and had found to be less than what you claim it is.

No surprises. You responded to the information exactly as I expected you would do. I had hoped for more but it wasn't forthcoming. I have seen much better argumentation against the resurrection than yours. Much, much better! Oh well . . .

As for the rest of your post . . . you have less of an understanding of the issues than you believe. Those who are informed on these things will recognize it when they see your posts. But, I have made my points. You are not persuaded. Fair enough. My job is done. Aufwiedersehn.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Simply not true. Canon wasn't decided by the Catholic Church until Trent in response to the Protestants who set their Canon shortly before.

Do try reading. I didn't say one word about the Canon. I was talking about the Bible.

Totally untrue and even more so, today.

Totally true. You are talking about translation differences. I am talking about the actual choices of what to put in and what to leave out. The only difference between major Christion versions is wether the Apochrypha are in or not.

You are just trying very hard to not get the point.

You don't understand my argument and you have fallacious counter-arguments in light of that fact.

You don't know what you are talking about there. I understood your arguement a long time ago. I have been showing the falicies involved and you are just in denial.

Think what you will.

Try reading what I write and try thinking some.

Then we can say goodbye to most of human history as we know it since considerable amounts of it are based solely on the writings of other humans.

Which can usually be checked by other INDEPENDENT sources and actual physical evidence.

You are simply evading the point again. The question is wether the Bible is accurate. You cannot claim it as proof that it is accurate. You MUST have corroboration to claim accuracy. You still have none. WHEN you prove the Bible to be a reliable source for supernatural claims then you can claim its a reliable source. Since ALL of the supernatural claims that can be checked fail those checks I see no reason to consider it reliable on those that cannot be checked.

You have consistently evaded this obvious need.

No surprises. You responded to the information exactly as I expected you would do.

That is because you do know how reason works. You simply refuse to use it yourself.

I had hoped for more but it wasn't forthcoming. I have seen much better argumentation against the resurrection than yours. Much, much better! Oh well . . .

I doubt that since you still believe it. I don't have to argue against it in any case. YOU must support it as its a truly extraordinary claim. You cannot use the source of your belief of the event to prove that the same exact source is true. The Bible remains a single source. That it has multiple authors does not change that. They are still without outside corroboration.

As for the rest of your post . . . you have less of an understanding of the issues than you believe. Those who are informed on these things will recognize it when they see your posts. But, I have made my points. You are not persuaded. Fair enough. My job is done. Aufwiedersehn.

That I have not persuaded you is not a surprise. You intend to make your living at being a believer. Not accepting anything that could seriously change your mind IS your job. Your points are based on belief in the Bible and a belief in beleivers. I asked for real evidence and I got believers instead. I asked for the Roman sources you claimed existed and now you are going to scarper instead. Thank you for retreating under pressure. It happens a lot when believers are confronted by a request for evidence that is independent of the Bible.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Do try reading. I didn't say one word about the Canon. I was talking about the Bible.

Totally true. You are talking about translation differences. I am talking about the actual choices of what to put in and what to leave out. The only difference between major Christion versions is wether the Apochrypha are in or not.

You are just trying very hard to not get the point.

You don't know what you are talking about there. I understood your arguement a long time ago. I have been showing the falicies involved and you are just in denial.

Try reading what I write and try thinking some.

Which can usually be checked by other INDEPENDENT sources and actual physical evidence.

You are simply evading the point again. The question is wether the Bible is accurate. You cannot claim it as proof that it is accurate. You MUST have corroboration to claim accuracy. You still have none. WHEN you prove the Bible to be a reliable source for supernatural claims then you can claim its a reliable source. Since ALL of the supernatural claims that can be checked fail those checks I see no reason to consider it reliable on those that cannot be checked.

You have consistently evaded this obvious need.

That is because you do know how reason works. You simply refuse to use it yourself.

I doubt that since you still believe it. I don't have to argue against it in any case. YOU must support it as its a truly extraordinary claim. You cannot use the source of your belief of the event to prove that the same exact source is true. The Bible remains a single source. That it has multiple authors does not change that. They are still without outside corroboration.

That I have not persuaded you is not a surprise. You intend to make your living at being a believer. Not accepting anything that could seriously change your mind IS your job. Your points are based on belief in the Bible and a belief in beleivers. I asked for real evidence and I got believers instead. I asked for the Roman sources you claimed existed and now you are going to scarper instead. Thank you for retreating under pressure. It happens a lot when believers are confronted by a request for evidence that is independent of the Bible.

I offered the proof that is to a large degree self-evident: the sociological phenomenon of early Christianity. Rather than engage me on this basis, you did a virtual line by line (rather than thought by thought) response to my post. You have attempted to disprove claims by assuming a claim I did not make. And, all the while, failing to take into acount the thrust of my argument; that is, the argument my points were intended to support. You have then taken it upon yourself to continue to misrepresent me in multiple posts by arguing as if I had argued for the claim you made on my behalf. I have lost interest because I don't see that you understand the nature of my argument and I have also grown tired of the simple lack of knowledge about the Bible and early Christianity that many of your posts reveal (and the unwillingness to cede a point, or at least cede that you do know something conclusively, when that is so obviously the case). Your knowledge in this field is cursory at best and yet you are not willing to admit as such. As I said, I had hoped for more . . . you are at times a skillful debater (and there have been times that skill has artificially given you the appearance of having thwarted me on some points); I have learned a few things from you; but all in all, you are too proud, making this less of a debate than an opportunity for you to have fun with people you have pre-judged. You also lack a great deal of basic knowledge in the fields of Hebrew Bible, New Testament, and early Christianity and yet you presume to know and understand these fields more than you actually do, passing off artificial so-called "facts" to support your argument when in real point of fact, an introductory textbook in these fields of knowledge would point out your errors. Nevertheless, I applaud your willingness to at least engage in the discussion in the first place and I appreciate the time you have taken to read and respond to my posts. Some of these posts have been exceedingly long and I think that comment (made by Lincoln?) that we are writing books in this thread is not far off the mark. Unfortunately, I have spent an inordinate amount of time in this forum over the past few days and am even finding it difficult to extricate myself now. But, I really must. I have a great deal of work to do. So, thank-you.

BTW, my eventual line of work hardly requires me to believe. Many in my field do not believe. And, yes, those in the field that do not believe have given articulate, highly reasoned, and even insightful arguments against the historical natural of Sinai and the resurrection. In the case of Sinai, Lemche and Van Seters are two examples. I find their work fascinating and many of their points extremely interesting. But, ultimately they are overly reductionistic and they fail to satisfactorily overcome the problems their counter-proposals create. In the case of the resurrection, I find people like Marcus Borg (who I believe actually claims to believes but at the same time seems to deny the basis for belief; not as badly as Spong but still) and John D. Crossan fascinating in their analysis. But, the ideological presuppositions driving their Jesus Seminar have been severely undermined several times by even non-believing scholars.

I firmly believe that the onus is upon non-believers to provide a suitable explanation for the sociological, anthropological, cultural, and historical realities of Christianity and Judaism if the precipitating causes of these realities (namely, the historical nature of Sinai and the resurrection) are denied. This has not been done by any of these scholars in a satisfactory way nor any other scholars that I have read or studied. If you would like to suggest a source, please do not hesitate (but do make sure it is reputable).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
I offered the proof that is to a large degree self-evident: the sociological phenomenon of early Christianity.

Which does even remotely constitute proof. Its pure bandwagon. Adolf Hitler created a socialogical phenomana also but that didn't make what he said right.

I said it was indicative that it COULD be true but that is as far as it can go without outside corroboration.

Rather than engage me on this basis, you did a virtual line by line (rather than thought by thought) response to my post.

I did engage you on that just as I did now. You didn't want to accept the obvious truth in what I just now said yet again.

I took it thought by thought. My thougth by thought by thought. Its how I reply. It makes it clear exactly what I am responding to at any point. Think of it as marginal glossing. It is as close as I can get to that in an online forum. I only edit for space.

You have attempted to disprove claims by assuming a claim I did not make. And, all the while, failing to take into acount the thrust of my argument; that is, the argument my points were intended to support.

I pointed out that you WERE making an assumption that you had hidden from yourself. I took the thrust of your arguement into account. There was more than one of them. Above I have repeated the reply to this basic arguement of yours. Its not proof not even a very good reason. Its just a bandwagon.

You have then taken it upon yourself to continue to misrepresent me in multiple posts by arguing as if I had argued for the claim you made on my behalf. I have lost interest because I don't see that you understand the nature of my argument and I have also grown tired of the simple lack of knowledge about the Bible and early Christianity that many of your posts reveal (and the unwillingness to cede a point, or at least cede that you do know something conclusively, when that is so obviously the case).

That is false on two points. Three really. I did not misrepresent you. You have not shown a lack of knowledge for the simple reason that you haven't dealt much with the Bible says. I do have a knowledge of early christianity. You simply have chosen not to deal with the clear importance of Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Not once did you touch on the Trinity for instance even though I presented it several times. You just plain ignored it.

Your knowledge in this field is cursory at best and yet you are not willing to admit as such.

I am not going to acknowledge something so patently short on reality. You have a difference of opinion on some things and that is what you seem to think involves a lack of knowledge. I am not pretending to be a theological scholor though. I don't see how a non-beleiver could be one. Claiming knowledge that you have not presented is not a sign that you know more than me. You probably do but that does not make what I do know irrelevant.

As I said, I had hoped for more . . . you are at times a skillful debater (and there have been times that skill has artificially given you the appearance of having thwarted me on some points); I have learned a few things from you; but all in all, you are too proud, making this less of a debate than an opportunity for you to have fun with people you have pre-judged.

I didn't prejudge you. You think this because you simply haven't addressed my points. You didn't like my responses so you have decided that they I was not listening to you. I read what you said. I fully understood it. I didn't agree. I said why I didn't agree. I pointed out the hidden assumption you are making.

You also lack a great deal of basic knowledge in the fields of Hebrew Bible, New Testament, and early Christianity and yet you presume to know and understand these fields more than you actually do, passing off artificial so-called "facts" to support your argument when in real point of fact, an introductory textbook in these fields of knowledge would point out your errors.

I am still waiting for you to point them out. I really don't care about the Hebrew Bible except on specific points in any case because it really isn't relevant to most peoples belief. They base their thinking on what they have read in English or whatever their native toungue is. I used no artificial facts. Constantine and the Council of Nicea were real things. They did indeed make choices about what Christianity would become. Prior to Constantine Chrisitianity was a relatively minor religion. He was the key to its present strength. You have evaded this point.

Nevertheless, I applaud your willingness to at least engage in the discussion in the first place and I appreciate the time you have taken to read and respond to my posts. Some of these posts have been exceedingly long and I think that comment (made by Lincoln?) that we are writing books in this thread is not far off the mark.

Lincoln wrote long posts as well upon occasion plus links to VERY long article, one was thirty-eight pages which I fully responded to. He ignored the response. He also engaged in back and forth bickering. He now likes to make allusions like that whenever he enters a thread I am in. He refuses to directly deal with me anymore. He can't handle it I guess.

Unfortunately, I have spent an inordinate amount of time in this forum over the past few days and am even finding it difficult to extricate myself now. But, I really must. I have a great deal of work to do. So, thank-you.

Time considerations I understand. Evasion is something else.

BTW, my eventual line of work hardly requires me to believe. Many in my field do not believe.

They are odd. Most likely they began as believers.

And, yes, those in the field that do not believe have given articulate, highly reasoned, and even insightful arguments against the historical natural of Sinai and the resurrection. In the case of Sinai, Lemche and Van Seters are two examples. I find their work fascinating and many of their points extremely interesting. But, ultimately they are overly reductionistic and they fail to satisfactorily overcome the problems their counter-proposals create.

The only evidence for that remains biblical and purely Jewish sources that came later. I see no reason to assume it is a real event without outside corroboration. This is something you clearly are failing to understand. The corroboration for the Bible must come from the outside and not from the sources that are actually based on the original claim.

In the case of the resurrection, I find people like Marcus Borg (who I believe actually claims to believes but at the same time seems to deny the basis for belief; not as badly as Spong but still) and John D. Crossan fascinating in their analysis. But, the ideological presuppositions driving their Jesus Seminar have been severely undermined several times by even non-believing scholars.

Don't drop names. Drop actual information. The name is less important than the facts.

I firmly believe that the onus is upon non-believers to provide a suitable explanation for the sociological, anthropological, cultural, and historical realities of Christianity and Judaism if the precipitating causes of these realities (namely, the historical nature of Sinai and the resurrection) are denied.

Belief generates those things. Factuality is not needed as can be seen many times in history. The South Sea Bubble and the Florida Land Boom both involved things that people believed so strongly they invested money. The land was never there anyway.

This has not been done by any of these scholars in a satisfactory way nor any other scholars that I have read or studied. If you would like to suggest a source, please do not hesitate (but do make sure it is reputable).

There isn't going to be one since its was just a matter of belief. That is all that is needed. The belief need not be founded on reality. Why you can't see this is hard to understand. I can only think that you believe so strongly that you think belief is a significant sign of a reality behind that belief. It is not which has been my point all along here.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Mere numbers of believers does not consitute proof. The Bible itself does not constitute proof since it the veracity of the Bible that is in question. Large numbers of people believe many things that are just plain wrong. That was what I was showing with the Grassy Knoll point. Hordes of people believe in Astrology and its a verifiably a crock.

[ckweb]

With each post you only show again how you don't understand my argument and are misusing it on several fronts.

"Bandwagon Approach" does not equal "Sociological Phenomenon of Christianity": This is exactly what I mean by misusing my argument (and is only the most serious example of many more you use). You have changed the nature of my argument and refuted the new argument you have alleged I made. I made one bandwagon argument a long time ago and recognized it as one from the get go; it was basically a throw-away comment anyways. The sociological phenomenon of Christianity is not a bandwagon argument. By casting it as such, you make it easier for yourself to refute it and you attempt to make me look bad in the process. It is a cheap tactic that you use often, intentionally or unintentionally I am not sure.

About the Council of Nicea and Constantine and the Trinity. . . how is this relevant? As I've stated, Christianity was already firmly established throughout the Roman world before this time. By becoming a Christian, Constantine is only recognizing the reality that his citizenry is increasingly moving to Christianity. One might say, he was being a clever politician by seeing how the "winds of change" were blowing. The Council of Nicea represents a move by the major churches of the period to dogmatize an official stance on the Trinity against heresies that were circulating. I have attached a .jpeg image from Dowley's Introduction to the History of Christianity. As you can see from the .jpeg, there are many, many churches already founded in the 2nd century. It is important to note also that the major centers of Christianity were already well established in Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Rome. Although still a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire, Christianity already had a sufficient foothold to ensure its survival with or without the help of Constantine. Certainly, there is no question that Constantine's conversion represented a major advance for Christianity in that it no longer had to contend with persecution (at least not in Constantine's empire) and it could hold international councils, such as Nicea, under the patronage of the Empire. It also has the endorsement of the Emperor and therefore expands exponentially in the 3rd century (as the .jpeg also shows). But, my original point stands, . . . anyways I could do similar with other statements you have made but as I've stated, I don't enjoy having to prove introductory points against someone who is not willing to accept when his knowledge is insufficient.

BTW, you'd be surprised how many non-believers study in my field. I'm guessing you really have little conception of my field and the people in it. At least, you give little sign of being familiar with it but yet, as in so many areas, you state your opinions about it as fact.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
With each post you only show again how you don't understand my argument and are misusing it on several fronts.

Then you have failed to express yourself very well. I can only understand what you actually write.

"Bandwagon Approach" does not equal "Sociological Phenomenon of Christianity": This is exactly what I mean by misusing my argument (and is only the most serious example of many more you use).

Actualy it does. Not so much equal it but is a large part of it. You are impressed by the numbers of people involved.

You have changed the nature of my argument and refuted the new argument you have alleged I made. I made one bandwagon argument a long time ago and recognized it as one from the get go; it was basically a throw-away comment anyways. The sociological phenomenon of Christianity is not a bandwagon argument. By casting it as such, you make it easier for yourself to refute it and you attempt to make me look bad in the process. It is a cheap tactic that you use often, intentionally or unintentionally I am not sure.

I see it as a bandwagon arguement. I see it that way because the main point is that lot of people believed that Jesus rose from death. Socialogical phenoma inherently entail numbers. I understand culture from a anthropological and historical point of view. Not perfectly of course, no one does as it is not a quatifiable area of study. Sometimes its amenable to statistical study but there is two much variation to claim that the quantification means something from one field to another.

About the Council of Nicea and Constantine and the Trinity. . . how is this relevant? As I've stated, Christianity was already firmly established throughout the Roman world before this time.

I thought that was what you were claiming. Its not true though. For one thing its hard to call it firmly established when there was so much variation. Gnostics, Nestorians and more that I am sure you know that I don't. The various sects were hardly established as a major religion in Empire. It was significant of course but not major. Without Constantine it never would have been the universal religion of the whole Empire.

If that isn't relevant just what the heck is?

By becoming a Christian, Constantine is only recognizing the reality that his citizenry is increasingly moving to Christianity.

Actually he didn't do that till he was a very old man. Converted when he was dying not when he made the religion the state religion. What he recognized was the political advantage of a State religion that was uniform throughout the Empire.

One might say, he was being a clever politician by seeing how the "winds of change" were blowing. The Council of Nicea represents a move by the major churches of the period to dogmatize an official stance on the Trinity against heresies that were circulating.

Hard to have real heresies when the religion was still so fragmented. Even the Council of Nicea did not make the Trinity official Dogma. That came later. I forget exactly when. Before 400 and it was a different Emperor.

I have attached a .jpeg image from Dowley's Introduction to the History of Christianity. As you can see from the .jpeg, there are many, many churches already founded in the 2nd century. It is important to note also that the major centers of Christianity were already well established in Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Rome.

Yes that was Paul's doing. He was really very important. Without him christianity would be a Jewish sect assuming that it survived.

Large numbers of churches is not the same as large numbers of people. There were a lot of people in Roman cities and many religions were in most of them. Got a map of Jewish temples for instance. Or temples to Isis or Zuess. Greeks were all over all the Empire. Rome had lots of religions that were in many cities.

Although still a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire, Christianity already had a sufficient foothold to ensure its survival with or without the help of Constantine. Certainly, there is no question that Constantine's conversion represented a major advance for Christianity in that it no longer had to contend with persecution (at least not in Constantine's empire) and it could hold international councils, such as Nicea, under the patronage of the Empire.

As I said he did not convert till much later. Thus making it more likely that politics was a major reason for his actions rather than belief. As for patronage. That was control as much as anything else. There is a difference between mere survival and becoming the sole allowed relgion. Samaritans still exist for instance. So do Zorastrians and they made some very specific predictions that failed without the religion dying out (kind of like the JWs I guess only less dense).

It also has the endorsement of the Emperor and therefore expands exponentially in the 3rd century (as the .jpeg also shows). But, my original point stands, . . . anyways I could do similar with other statements you have made but as I've stated, I don't enjoy having to prove introductory points against someone who is not willing to accept when his knowledge is insufficient.

Ah yes that ploy. You fail to support yourself and its all my fault. Mea culpa. My knowledge is not insuficient. You ability to back yourself up is. I asked for those Roman sources you claimed and all you managed was Tacitus who did not actually support you. Its well known that Tacitus statements were clearly based on what Christians said and not some Roman records which can easily be seen in his wording.

Nevertheless its all my fault because I don't know everything.

BTW, you'd be surprised how many non-believers study in my field. I'm guessing you really have little conception of my field and the people in it.

You make a lot of bad guesses don't you?

At least, you give little sign of being familiar with it but yet, as in so many areas, you state your opinions about it as fact.

I state my opinions and a present facts to back them when needed. You have been short on facts and long on opinion. The opinions may be popular in some areas of study but that does not make them either valid or supported by facts.

When you stop trying to browbeat me with some knowledge that you fail to actualy express here you might actually get somewhere. You know how to do it. Post some details. Give me a link or two that I can check you on. I am not about to take your word solely on your say so and that is what you doing here in nearly every case. The map is the very first attempt to show evidence that you have done and it doesn't show anything that shows error on my part. I never ever said that the Christians weren't in many places. I simply said it was a minor religion till Constantine and this something you have not refuted. You complain about my saying it but you don't refute it.

A socialogical phenomana cannot prove the existance of the alleged miracles that lay behind it. It can only indicate that there may be something real there. You of course have ignored my saying this and instead claimed that I won't yield. Yield to what? Unsupported opinions and a claim that a socialogical phenomana proves things. Noway. You have to give evidence. Not evidence that entails assuming the things that are in question are true.

I have given examples of other socialogical phenomena that I am sure you don't agree were based on reality. The most you have done when I do that is to claim without ANY reason whatsoever that its not relevant. It is relevant. You claim miracles you must show real evidence for them not evidence that a lot of people believed in them. That is what you are doing with your talk about a socialogical phenomena( I am getting tired of typing that phrase).

Now if you just don't want to back yourself thats fine. Just admit it or quit pretending that I must bow to your alledgedly superiour knowledge. This is the internet. I don't know who you are. Your web site is not evidence that you are what you say. On the this sort of forum its facts that count. You must support yourself to make a point with others.

You may indeed be all you say. However you have been remarkably unable to give any support. Even Lincoln can do better than you have in that regard. Krazyhorse and Rogan Josh can support themselves in their claims about physics but they do have the advatage of having an area of study that is less dependent on opinion than yours does.

Here is a link please learn to use to find sites that I can look at to check on what you say:

http://www.google.com/

I here this is good search site as well.

http://www.alltheweb.com/

Another

http://www.about.com/

Sites that I use frequently

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

http://bible.gospelcom.net/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

For literalists

http://www.noahsarksearch.com/

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html

You have this one allready but I might as well put it here too.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Reasons for being unimpressed by your socialogical arguement.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ier/kooks.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ury/chap5.html

A sample from the above site regarding Tacitus

Scholarly debate surrounding this passage has been mainly concerned with Tacitus' sources and not with the authorship of the passage (e.g., whether it is an interpolation) or its reliability.[83] Various scenarios have been proposed to explain how Tacitus got his information. One possibility is that Tacitus learned the information from another historian he trusted (e.g., Josephus). Another possibility (suggested by Harris) is that he obtained the information from Pliny the Younger. According to Harris, "Tacitus was an intimate friend and correspondent of the younger Pliny and was therefore probably acquainted with the problems Pliny encountered with the Christians during his governorship in Bithynia - Pontus (c. A.D. 110-112)."[84] (Defenders of this position may note that Tacitus was also governing in Asia in the very same years as Pliny's encounters with Christians [112-113], making communication between them on the event very likely.)[85] Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling mention a related possibility; they state that Tacitus' information "is probably based on the police interrogation of Christians."[86] Yet another possibility (suggested by Habermas and defended by McDowell and Wilson) is that Tacitus obtained the information from official documents.[87] (I shall say more about this possibility below.) It is also possible that the information was common knowledge. Finally, there is the view (defended by Wells, France, and Sanders) that Tacitus simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying.[88] The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don't know how Tacitus obtained his information. Holding himself admits, "Truthfully, there is no way to tell" where Tacitus obtained his information about Jesus.[89] Therefore, we can't use Annals XV.47 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

OK its a big sample. So yes I have seen the Roman stuff you think supports you. It doesn't unless you some that I have not found out about. I asked for such. Do not claim I won't change my mind when you refuse to support yourself.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Then you have failed to express yourself very well. I can only understand what you actually write.

Perhaps I have. But, let me give you an example of how you misread. You dismiss Tacitus saying, "Tacitus statements were clearly based on what Christians said and not some Roman records which can easily be seen in his wording." You support this statement (at least in part) by appealing to the following URL (which incidentally I have read before):

Originally posted by Ethelred
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ury/chap5.html

A sample from the above site regarding Tacitus

Quote:

Scholarly debate surrounding this passage has been mainly concerned with Tacitus' sources and not with the authorship of the passage (e.g., whether it is an interpolation) or its reliability.[83] Various scenarios have been proposed to explain how Tacitus got his information. One possibility is that Tacitus learned the information from another historian he trusted (e.g., Josephus). Another possibility (suggested by Harris) is that he obtained the information from Pliny the Younger. According to Harris, "Tacitus was an intimate friend and correspondent of the younger Pliny and was therefore probably acquainted with the problems Pliny encountered with the Christians during his governorship in Bithynia - Pontus (c. A.D. 110-112)."[84] (Defenders of this position may note that Tacitus was also governing in Asia in the very same years as Pliny's encounters with Christians [112-113], making communication between them on the event very likely.)[85] Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling mention a related possibility; they state that Tacitus' information "is probably based on the police interrogation of Christians."[86] Yet another possibility (suggested by Habermas and defended by McDowell and Wilson) is that Tacitus obtained the information from official documents.[87] (I shall say more about this possibility below.) It is also possible that the information was common knowledge. Finally, there is the view (defended by Wells, France, and Sanders) that Tacitus simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying.[88] The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don't know how Tacitus obtained his information. Holding himself admits, "Truthfully, there is no way to tell" where Tacitus obtained his information about Jesus.[89] Therefore, we can't use Annals XV.47 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

Yet, notice, where this individual (who clearly has a polemical agenda) writes, "The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don't know how Tacitus obtained his information." This is exactly my point!!! I have been saying this all along. But, despite this individual's opinion being the basis of your argument, you leap from his statement to declare, "Tacitus statements were clearly based on what Christians said and not some Roman records which can easily be seen in his wording." What am I supposed to do against these kind of leaps? What am I supposed to do when you do the same thing to my arguments? I can't reasonably debate with someone who doesn't carefully read his own sources let alone my posts. Please explain.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Yet, notice, where this individual (who clearly has a polemical agenda) writes, "The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don't know how Tacitus obtained his information." This is exactly my point!!!

It wasn't your point to start with. You claimed Tacitus as support for you position. Oh lets just go on the actual conclusion as well

Therefore, we can't use Annals XV.47 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

Which is what YOU are refusing to aknowledge. That you were wrong in claiming Tacititus as support.

I have been saying this all along. But, despite this individual's opinion being the basis of your argument, you leap from his statement to declare, "Tacitus statements were clearly based on what Christians said and not some Roman records which can easily be seen in his wording." What am I supposed to do against these kind of leaps? What am I supposed to do when you do the same thing to my arguments? I can't reasonably debate with someone who doesn't carefully read his own sources let alone my posts. Please explain.

You can't reasonably debate. That was never your point UNTILL I actually delivered the real quotes of Tacitus. I did not make a massive leap. Based on the wording of Tacitus I don't see how it can be construed as comeing from original witnesses of the Crucifiction and Resurection. Whether I can show his source or not is irrelevant to what I said. You are the one that needs that.

Frankly I find it odd that you are attacking me on this. You are the one that brought up Tacitus. You made a claim for him that was wrong.

Instead of just admiting to it you are going off on this tangent that I can't know his source. IT DOESN'T MATTER that I can't. I didn't claim him as support. YOU CLAIMED HIM as support. The lack of knowledge of his source goes against YOUR CLAIM not mine.

I only went on the way it was written. It still looks to me like Tacitus used common knowledge about the what the Christians thought had happened. I don't see any sign in what he wrote that he got the information from possible contemporary Roman records of the Crucifiction.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
It wasn't your point to start with. You claimed Tacitus as support for you position. Oh lets just go on the actual conclusion as well.

Here is what I wrote when I first brought up Tacitus:
"There are Roman sources of varying reliability, including Tacitus, which is contemporary. It is possible, particularly in the case of Tacitus, that some of these Roman sources provide independent corroboration based on "court" records (though it is not conclusive)." Seems like it was my point to start with!

Since your many and varied posts on this topic, I will concede one mistake in this post. I should have qualified contemporary but saying something of the ilk "relatively contemporary" or perhaps, "within the same general time period." But, as you can see, I made the statement that Tacitus is not conclusive. I only said it was possible that "some of these Roman sources provide independent corroboration." You have made a leap in suggesting that they definitely do not. Your own source doesn't even agree with you on this leap. I do not know how much more plain I can make this point.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Which is what YOU are refusing to aknowledge. That you were wrong in claiming Tacititus as support.

Frankly I find it odd that you are attacking me on this. You are the one that brought up Tacitus. You made a claim for him that was wrong.

Instead of just admiting to it you are going off on this tangent that I can't know his source. IT DOESN'T MATTER that I can't. I didn't claim him as support. YOU CLAIMED HIM as support. The lack of knowledge of his source goes against YOUR CLAIM not mine.

I only went on the way it was written. It still looks to me like Tacitus used common knowledge about the what the Christians thought had happened. I don't see any sign in what he wrote that he got the information from possible contemporary Roman records of the Crucifiction.

You are misunderstanding in what manner the sources were listed and to what ends. First, when I initially made the post that then precipitated your request for sources, I was responding to a different line of questioning where sources were not at issue. When you made your request for sources, you already denied the existence of any (except the Bible, which you dismiss) and stated unequivocally that they were useless. There were many inaccuracies about the nature of the sources, especially the biblical ones. So, I posted and provide the different types of sources that exist and there varying degrees of importance to the issue of the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus. As you can see clearly in my post my reason for listing the sources was to dispute your knowledge of the sources, it was not to prove my argument (though it is not irrelevant to my argument).

My argument for the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection has always been based on the sociological phenomenon of Christianity. The sources are a part of the sociological proofs but they are not its entirety. You have placed the inordinate emphasis on sources, I have not. My argument is sociological. I will repeat again: my argument is sociological. Perhaps, you do not understand what I mean by sociological (and this is what I mean by you not possessing the basic knowledge of the issue to make this a worthwhile discussion). But, I'll humour you a little longer.

Sociology is "the systematic study of human society" (Macionis and Gerber 2001:3). Sociology attempts to understand why people act in a certain way; what is the underlying cause for their behaviour. A sociological approach to early Christian origins, therefore, would ask questions such as why did people convert to Christianity? why did they die for those convictions? how do we explain their conduct in light of how we know people normally act? From your own point of view, humans are self-interested so this leads to more questions: why would people convert to a religious movement that moved them down the social ladder to the bottom of the rung? why would they willingly place themselves under the threat of martyrdom? One theory that explains the change in these people is an historical resurrection. And I've found in my journeys that Sherlock Holmes' observation can apply to this issue, "Improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still." Can you provide another, more probable theory? Another theory must adequately address several issues including (but necessarily limited to):

(1) The fact that conversions were not limited to particular segments of society, rather a cross-section of people converted. From slaves to masters, from men to women, from Jews to Egyptians to Romans to Greeks, from the rich to the poor, from all age groups, from all lines of work, the spectrum of conversions is not limited to any identifiable category of people. While this very fact might in part explain point #2, it still needs its own explanation.

(2) The rate of conversion while under the threat of persecution. In less than two centuries, Christianity firmly established itself (in a variety of different forms and expressions) throughout much of the known world. This despite the fact that conversion provided no easily identifiable, extrinsic benefits to these individuals. On the contrary, conversion invited the distinct possibility of discrimination, lower standing in society, and even death.

(3) People generally resist change (you are a good example), why didn't they in this case?

(4) Depending on your historical reconstruction of the historical Jesus, he does not appear to have been a very distinct individual from many of his contemporaries apart from his "apparent" resurrection and miracles? So, if these did not occur, what set him apart that he became the "amalgam" (as Jack put it) of such myths?

There are more points to make but I can think of any at this particular moment. And they are going to be essentially dismissed anyways so I'm not too motivated to continue writing. Besides, I'm meeting a couple of friends this evening. I await your misunderstandings . . .

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Here is what I wrote when I first brought up Tacitus:
"There are Roman sources of varying reliability, including Tacitus, which is contemporary. It is possible, particularly in the case of Tacitus, that some of these Roman sources provide independent corroboration based on "court" records (though it is not conclusive)." Seems like it was my point to start with!

Yes it is as I said. It was your point from the start the Tacitus supported you. You are saying possibly rather than certainly but even that is specious. You ASSUME that he used sources that MIGHT support you. You now know that Tacitus in no way whatsoever hints at using court sources. Nor any other sources so it was nothing but a bluff to claim that he even could possibly support you. Possible only if you could show his sources. You cannot so there is no possibility of his constituting support.

You need to learn how to think more critically. You are entirely too certain that vague claims of possible support done enough makes it add to equal real support.

Is it clear now that Tacitus in no way deserved to be in that original statement of yours? It sure is to me. Now since he does not fit your claim of even possible support since that would require known sources and they are unknown I am still waiting for those alleged Roman sources. One down and so far, zero to go.

Since your many and varied posts on this topic, I will concede one mistake in this post. I should have qualified contemporary but saying something of the ilk "relatively contemporary" or perhaps, "within the same general time period."

Which would still have been wrong. A century after the crucifiction does not qualify as the same general time. That is the same as saying Lincoln and Washington were Presidents in the same general time. In fact they were a bit closer than Tacitus was.

But, as you can see, I made the statement that Tacitus is not conclusive.

You also claimed he was a possible source and he is not. Even you now admit that you don't know his sources, thus it was a bogus claim. Possibly you simply didn't know it as well as you thought but the result was a bogus claim.

I only said it was possible that "some of these Roman sources provide independent corroboration."

And gave NOT POSSIBLE example. I am still waiting for a real one. You didn't put one in here to replace the one that has been found wanting. I think you don't want to see the others shot down so you are not mentioning them. I know of five more Romans that are popular for Christians to claim as support and, like Tacitus, none of them are.

You have made a leap in suggesting that they definitely do not. Your own source doesn't even agree with you on this leap. I do not know how much more plain I can make this point.

Not they since you refuse to risk another. Tacitus. Tacitus does not and it is definite. You would have to know his source in your own words. You don't. So he isn't even remotely possible. There is a tiny chance that he did use some Roman records for a century before but that cannot be claimed as possible support since you can't even show that he looked at any sources at all.

I think you managed a phrase that exactly fits my position. "I do not know how much more plain I can make this point". It is not possible that he is a source of support. If someone can find his notes THOSE would a source. What we have is not.

You are misunderstanding in what manner the sources were listed and to what ends. First, when I initially made the post that then precipitated your request for sources, I was responding to a different line of questioning where sources were not at issue.

They have always been at issue. You need outside sources. That is the issue of credibilty.

When you made your request for sources, you already denied the existence of any (except the Bible, which you dismiss) and stated unequivocally that they were useless.

I said there were none for the simple reason that are none. You haven't shown a one. You dropped ONE NAME and you were wrong on that one. You didn't even post what Tacitus said. I had to do that. I suspect you knew it was not even close to support or outside corroboration. The best you can say is that no one can say for sure where he got the information. Which is not a sign that its corroboration its a sign that it isn't.

What I have stated unequivocably about the Bible in this discusion is that it must have outside corroboration since it the veracity of the Bible that is in question. You cannot prove its reliable on its own. You must show another OUTSIDE source. Independent of the believers.

I am not pretending that such a thing should be easy. I am saying it must be done to lend credence to the extraordinary claims of the New Testament.

There were many inaccuracies about the nature of the sources, especially the biblical ones. So, I posted and provide the different types of sources that exist and there varying degrees of importance to the issue of the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus. As you can see clearly in my post my reason for listing the sources was to dispute your knowledge of the sources, it was not to prove my argument (though it is not irrelevant to my argument).

Listing sources? ONE source does not constitute a plural. Tacitus doesn't even constitute one. What you did with him was show that I did know about the alleged source not that I didn't.

That was nothing but a personal attack. You did nothing to show me wrong. You did nothing to support your position. You are simply trying to pretend that 'Ethelred is a ignoramus on this so I may ignore the facts he posts'. That is what you are doing. Thats little short of an ad-hominym attack.

My argument for the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection has always been based on the sociological phenomenon of Christianity. The sources are a part of the sociological proofs but they are not its entirety. You have placed the inordinate emphasis on sources, I have not.

Nothing inordinate about it. You need them. I have asked for them. You even claimed they existed. You dropped one name. I picked it up found the actual quotes and showed that it did not support you. So you pretended that not knowing a thing about Tacitus sources somehow magically constitutes a possible source. That is the first time I seen anyone call ignorance about something a positive rather than negative support. I hope never to see anything so silly again but I suppose I will since critical thinking is in short supply on the believer side.

My argument is sociological. I will repeat again: my argument is sociological. Perhaps, you do not understand what I mean by sociological (and this is what I mean by you not possessing the basic knowledge of the issue to make this a worthwhile discussion). But, I'll humour you a little longer.

Bloody hell, I understood it the first time. I have been exposed to cultural anthropology and comparative religions longer than you have been alive. Quit being condensending.

Sociology is "the systematic study of human society" (Macionis and Gerber 2001:3). Sociology attempts to understand why people act in a certain way; what is the underlying cause for their behaviour. A sociological approach to early Christian origins, therefore, would ask questions such as why did people convert to Christianity? why did they die for those convictions? how do we explain their conduct in light of how we know people normally act?

Which why I posted the analogies that I did. You preteded without cause that they were irrelevant. You don't even understand your own position if you claim the analogies were nonsense.

From your own point of view, humans are self-interested so this leads to more questions: why would people convert to a religious movement that moved them down the social ladder to the bottom of the rung? why would they willingly place themselves under the threat of martyrdom? One theory that explains the change in these people is an historical resurrection.

Another is a belief in it. People do all kinds of things based on beliefs. Often beliefs that are wrong. Like killing 6 millions Jews. On a completely false belief in Aryan superiority. Right now people are being persecuted in China and even dying in some cases over a non-Christian religion. If you are right then they must be wrong so its the belief that causes that causes this sort of behaviour and it a sign of belief not a sign that the belief is justified.

And I've found in my journeys that Sherlock Holmes' observation can apply to this issue, "Improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still." Can you provide another, more probable theory? Another theory must adequately address several issues including (but necessarily limited to):

I gave one. You dismissed it out hand and just plain dodged a valid explanation complete with examples.

(1) The fact that conversions were not limited to particular segments of society, rather a cross-section of people converted. From slaves to masters, from men to women, from Jews to Egyptians to Romans to Greeks, from the rich to the poor, from all age groups, from all lines of work, the spectrum of conversions is not limited to any identifiable category of people. While this very fact might in part explain point #2, it still needs its own explanation.

It happens even without a true belief. There are other religions that have has the same thing happen. Budhism was persecuted and it was taken up by people at all levels of society where it took hold. If Chrisianity is true than Budhism is false as they are very different. Yet both did exactly what you have above.

Just because people believe that doesn't mean the belief is based on something real. Only that they strongly hold that belief.

(2) The rate of conversion while under the threat of persecution. In less than two centuries, Christianity firmly established itself (in a variety of different forms and expressions) throughout much of the known world. This despite the fact that conversion provided no easily identifiable, extrinsic benefits to these individuals. On the contrary, conversion invited the distinct possibility of discrimination, lower standing in society, and even death.

And a promise that they would have everlasting life after death if they died that way. Islam makes the same promise and they get the same results upon occasion. They just prefer a bit more to do the killing instead being the killed but they did indeed die for their beliefs.

Just because someone thinks they will have an afterlife that does mean that they will. Its the belief that generates the behaviour and not a reality whether there is one or not.

(3) People generally resist change (you are a good example), why didn't they in this case?

I am a lousy example. I have changed. I was raised Catholic. I failed to resist learning about the real world.

Most people did resist change of course. Some didn't. They then resisted changeing back. The believers accumulated because they resisted the Romans.

(4) Depending on your historical reconstruction of the historical Jesus, he does not appear to have been a very distinct individual from many of his contemporaries apart from his "apparent" resurrection and miracles? So, if these did not occur, what set him apart that he became the "amalgam" (as Jack put it) of such myths?

He looks pretty darn distinct to me. How many people give religious lectures as a kid? Marjo Gortner only gave canned speeches from his parents when he was boy preacher (started at four).

Legendary figures tend to absorb the actions of others into their story. It happens with many such figures so why I don't anything that sets Jesus apart there. The stories need not be true stories either.

There are more points to make but I can think of any at this particular moment. And they are going to be essentially dismissed anyways so I'm not too motivated to continue writing. Besides, I'm meeting a couple of friends this evening. I await your misunderstandings . . .

Its my job in this discussion to show where you are wrong or at least could be. I have never merely dismissed what you have said. Perhaps you think that because YOU HAVE merely dismissed what I have said. Often. Frequently. Without so much as a smidgen of justification. Well I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that you would accuse me of doing the same things you do, even though I didn't.

Oh and thank you for actually addressing your own issue for the first time. Prior to this you have tried to browbeat me by repeating "socialogical phenomana" without a hint of effort to support yourself. Didn't actually help you much since I allready understood the concept. I got it the first time. I simply don't see it as evidence of the Resurection. Its evidence of a strongly belief which is something often does not need to be based on reality. However this gave me the opportunity to deal with it on a more detailed basis.

Now since you have expected me to dismiss you out of hand just like you did me and I, as usual, actually addresed what you said are you going to pull that same garbage you pulled the last time or will you actually address what I said. You impoved in this post. Lets see you do some more of that and less of the pretense that I am ignorant.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Yes it is as I said. It was your point from the start the Tacitus supported you. You are saying possibly rather than certainly but even that is specious. You ASSUME that he used sources that MIGHT support you. You now know that Tacitus in no way whatsoever hints at using court sources. Nor any other sources so it was nothing but a bluff to claim that he even could possibly support you. Possible only if you could show his sources. You cannot so there is no possibility of his constituting support.

You need to learn how to think more critically. You are entirely too certain that vague claims of possible support done enough makes it add to equal real support.

Is it clear now that Tacitus in no way deserved to be in that original statement of yours? It sure is to me. Now since he does not fit your claim of even possible support since that would require known sources and they are unknown I am still waiting for those alleged Roman sources. One down and so far, zero to go.



Which would still have been wrong. A century after the crucifiction does not qualify as the same general time. That is the same as saying Lincoln and Washington were Presidents in the same general time. In fact they were a bit closer than Tacitus was.



You also claimed he was a possible source and he is not. Even you now admit that you don't know his sources, thus it was a bogus claim. Possibly you simply didn't know it as well as you thought but the result was a bogus claim.



And gave NOT POSSIBLE example. I am still waiting for a real one. You didn't put one in here to replace the one that has been found wanting. I think you don't want to see the others shot down so you are not mentioning them. I know of five more Romans that are popular for Christians to claim as support and, like Tacitus, none of them are.



Not they since you refuse to risk another. Tacitus. Tacitus does not and it is definite. You would have to know his source in your own words. You don't. So he isn't even remotely possible. There is a tiny chance that he did use some Roman records for a century before but that cannot be claimed as possible support since you can't even show that he looked at any sources at all.

I think you managed a phrase that exactly fits my position. "I do not know how much more plain I can make this point". It is not possible that he is a source of support. If someone can find his notes THOSE would a source. What we have is not.



They have always been at issue. You need outside sources. That is the issue of credibilty.



I said there were none for the simple reason that are none. You haven't shown a one. You dropped ONE NAME and you were wrong on that one. You didn't even post what Tacitus said. I had to do that. I suspect you knew it was not even close to support or outside corroboration. The best you can say is that no one can say for sure where he got the information. Which is not a sign that its corroboration its a sign that it isn't.

What I have stated unequivocably about the Bible in this discusion is that it must have outside corroboration since it the veracity of the Bible that is in question. You cannot prove its reliable on its own. You must show another OUTSIDE source. Independent of the believers.

I am not pretending that such a thing should be easy. I am saying it must be done to lend credence to the extraordinary claims of the New Testament.



Listing sources? ONE source does not constitute a plural. Tacitus doesn't even constitute one. What you did with him was show that I did know about the alleged source not that I didn't.

That was nothing but a personal attack. You did nothing to show me wrong. You did nothing to support your position. You are simply trying to pretend that 'Ethelred is a ignoramus on this so I may ignore the facts he posts'. That is what you are doing. Thats little short of an ad-hominym attack.



Nothing inordinate about it. You need them. I have asked for them. You even claimed they existed. You dropped one name. I picked it up found the actual quotes and showed that it did not support you. So you pretended that not knowing a thing about Tacitus sources somehow magically constitutes a possible source. That is the first time I seen anyone call ignorance about something a positive rather than negative support. I hope never to see anything so silly again but I suppose I will since critical thinking is in short supply on the believer side.



Bloody hell, I understood it the first time. I have been exposed to cultural anthropology and comparative religions longer than you have been alive. Quit being condensending.



Which why I posted the analogies that I did. You preteded without cause that they were irrelevant. You don't even understand your own position if you claim the analogies were nonsense.



Another is a belief in it. People do all kinds of things based on beliefs. Often beliefs that are wrong. Like killing 6 millions Jews. On a completely false belief in Aryan superiority. Right now people are being persecuted in China and even dying in some cases over a non-Christian religion. If you are right then they must be wrong so its the belief that causes that causes this sort of behaviour and it a sign of belief not a sign that the belief is justified.



I gave one. You dismissed it out hand and just plain dodged a valid explanation complete with examples.



It happens even without a true belief. There are other religions that have has the same thing happen. Budhism was persecuted and it was taken up by people at all levels of society where it took hold. If Chrisianity is true than Budhism is false as they are very different. Yet both did exactly what you have above.

Just because people believe that doesn't mean the belief is based on something real. Only that they strongly hold that belief.



And a promise that they would have everlasting life after death if they died that way. Islam makes the same promise and they get the same results upon occasion. They just prefer a bit more to do the killing instead being the killed but they did indeed die for their beliefs.

Just because someone thinks they will have an afterlife that does mean that they will. Its the belief that generates the behaviour and not a reality whether there is one or not.



I am a lousy example. I have changed. I was raised Catholic. I failed to resist learning about the real world.

Most people did resist change of course. Some didn't. They then resisted changeing back. The believers accumulated because they resisted the Romans.



He looks pretty darn distinct to me. How many people give religious lectures as a kid? Marjo Gortner only gave canned speeches from his parents when he was boy preacher (started at four).

Legendary figures tend to absorb the actions of others into their story. It happens with many such figures so why I don't anything that sets Jesus apart there. The stories need not be true stories either.



Its my job in this discussion to show where you are wrong or at least could be. I have never merely dismissed what you have said. Perhaps you think that because YOU HAVE merely dismissed what I have said. Often. Frequently. Without so much as a smidgen of justification. Well I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that you would accuse me of doing the same things you do, even though I didn't.

Oh and thank you for actually addressing your own issue for the first time. Prior to this you have tried to browbeat me by repeating "socialogical phenomana" without a hint of effort to support yourself. Didn't actually help you much since I allready understood the concept. I got it the first time. I simply don't see it as evidence of the Resurection. Its evidence of a strongly belief which is something often does not need to be based on reality. However this gave me the opportunity to deal with it on a more detailed basis.

Now since you have expected me to dismiss you out of hand just like you did me and I, as usual, actually addresed what you said are you going to pull that same garbage you pulled the last time or will you actually address what I said. You impoved in this post. Lets see you do some more of that and less of the pretense that I am ignorant.

Your not interested in discussion. Your interested in monologue. Bye bye.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


Your not interested in discussion. Your interested in monologue. Bye bye.

Interesting claim considering that I actully addressed what you said and you have been the one that was often responding with mere dismissals.

I ask for sources you drop ONE name. You finally explain your self in a little detail and when I reply you give me this bogus reply.

YOU don't want to discuss this. You started the thread. I guess you thought you were going to blow me out of the water. Apparently simply by declaring that you were better educated in the field than I am. Thats not enough. You need to explain yourself. You have made one attempt to do so. You reply to my reply shows that it is YOU that did want a discussion.

I have tried to have one with you. You have cosistently, sneered, dismissed, evaded, used bizzare logic, called legatimate analogies absurd, argued against what I said to other people in other threads and now you want to retreat while being disengenuous at best regarding me.

Typical of many in this kind of discussion. Either declare victory and then retreat or cast aspersions and then retreat.

[ckweb]

[Ethelred]

A smilely does not constitute a rebuttal.

You are the one that wanted a discussion. .

You got it.

I do not start these threads. I have NEVER started a religious thread

I tried to get you to discuss it. To all intents and purposes you have refused.

It was a plain lie to claim I was trying to engage in monologue. Nothing but. You were the one that refused to deal with my replies. I dealt with what you said. I did not merely make a few statements and then repeat them. I gave sources, links reason and analogies. You gave your opinion. You refused to support it. You only went into any detail once. I replied to it. I did not evade what you said. Instead of showing where you think I was wrong you insulted me.

That is not dialogue. Thats just plain insulting.

Thank you for your tastefull and polite surrender. It was illuminating in the deft and generous way you did so.

[ckweb]

You are right. I have been dismissive on some points. Why? Because I see no point to making an extensive reply. You prove the maxim, "A little education is a dangerous thing." An extensive reply on my part, as I've done on some issues, would only meet with an uneducated, opinion-based reply on your part or alternatively a misrepresentation of my statements so that you can more easily disagree with it (i.e. "straw man" representations of my argument) as has happened several times already. I've given up on trying to argue my point because you make it mean what you want (i.e. the "sources" issue) not what I mean.

If you are actually interested in the scholarly debate on the history of Israel, a good starting point would be to read Israel's Past in Present Research, edited by V. Phillips Long. It contains the best research in this area from all the varied and opposing viewpoints. Also available, an article supporting your basic views but much better argued is written by Niels Peter Lemche:

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_13.htm

On Christianity, you really need to start with some introductory history books. There are alot of good ones out there. I've found Christianity: A Social and Cultural History well done. But, there are literally hundreds of competent books on this topic.

On the historical Jesus, there are many competing scholarly voices. Leading scholars (of varying different takes on the issue, including against) include J.D. Crossan (esp. Birth of Christianity and The Historical Jesus), Marcus Borg, N.T. Wright (esp. Jesus and the Victory of God), J.P. Meier (esp. A Marginal Jew), E.P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus), Raymond Brown (The Birth of the Messiah and The Death of the Messiah), Paula Fredriksen (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), etc. etc.

Personally, I recommend Paula Fredriksen, N.T. Wright, and Raymond Brown as scholars largely representative of my views. Actually Fredriksen I haven't read but I have heard her speak so I assume I would agree with her book. Wright and Brown are sometimes too conservative for me but their scholarship is impeccable. They are extremely well respected.

Now, if you actually read these books and then interacted with me on your readings, we might be able to have a fruitful discussion. But, otherwise, I'm just speaking to someone who has no interest in learning, only justifying themself (which to me is monologue). And, that, is a waste of my time.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
You are right. I have been dismissive on some points. Why? Because I see no point to making an extensive reply. You prove the maxim, "A little education is a dangerous thing."

No wonder you think your dangerous in this discussion. So little eduction about non-religious things.

Ad-homimym attack supplied as t!t-for-tat. You just don't want to discuss issues at all do you? Yet another uncalled for personal attack.

An extensive reply on my part, as I've done on some issues, would only meet with an uneducated, opinion-based reply on your part or alternatively a misrepresentation of my statements so that you can more easily disagree with it (i.e. "straw man" representations of my argument) as has happened several times already. I've given up on trying to argue my point because you make it mean what you want (i.e. the "sources" issue) not what I mean.

You have given few extensive replies You have made some extensive posts but few that actualy were replies that dealt with what I said. You have no idea of my level of education yet you act as if I am some Junior High kid.

Most likely your education is by mail-order for the Universal Life Church.

Ad-homimym attack supplied as t!t-for-tat. You just don't want to discuss issues at all do you? Yet another uncalled for personal attack.

If you are actually interested in the scholarly debate on the history of Israel, a good starting point would be to read Israel's Past in Present Research, edited by V. Phillips Long. It contains the best research in this area from all the varied and opposing viewpoints. Also available, an article supporting your basic views but much better argued is written by Niels Peter Lemche:

That is reading not debating. You started the thread. Perhaps Lemche has done a better job. Perhaps he did not disturb you as much. You are not a good source of information considering the odd claims you have made about me and for that matter Tacitus.

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_13.htm

Nice link maybe but I will read it later. You have been mostly talking about the New Testament and that is pre-Hellenistic.

Not dismissed out of hand it just not what you have been talking about. I think you would agree on that. So I will read it later, a quick skim shows nothing the fits this discussion. Perhaps if you gave a clue assuming it was intended as more than background material.

On Christianity, you really need to start with some introductory history books. There are alot of good ones out there. I've found Christianity: A Social and Cultural History well done. But, there are literally hundreds of competent books on this topic.

I am sure there are. My point has been that a history of belief is not evidence of a reality behind the belief. I don't think this has penetrated you mind since you have NEVER even addressed it when I say it.

If you have something specific to say in this regard then say so. Suggesting that I read a load of books is condescending since you refuse to adress what I have said. I simply am not the ignoramus you are trying to paint me as. I havn't studied that area because frankly it doesn't interest me without some outside evidence for Jesus and the Resurection to support the field.

Point to a web site for instance that at least covers what you are thinking. Not just a front page but something that points to the specifics. Its annoying when someone gives a home page and the point is buried three layers deep.

On the historical Jesus, there are many competing scholarly voices. Leading scholars (of varying different takes on the issue, including against) include J.D. Crossan (esp. Birth of Christianity and The Historical Jesus), Marcus Borg, N.T. Wright (esp. Jesus and the Victory of God), J.P. Meier (esp. A Marginal Jew), E.P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus), Raymond Brown (The Birth of the Messiah and The Death of the Messiah), Paula Fredriksen (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), etc. etc.

Personally, I recommend Paula Fredriksen, N.T. Wright, and Raymond Brown as scholars largely representative of my views. Actually Fredriksen I haven't read but I have heard her speak so I assume I would agree with her book. Wright and Brown are sometimes too conservative for me but their scholarship is impeccable. They are extremely well respected.

I am sure if you wanted to you could present some of this yourself. You refusal to even try is indicative that you were never interested in an actual discussion.

Now, if you actually read these books and then interacted with me on your readings, we might be able to have a fruitful discussion. But, otherwise, I'm just speaking to someone who has no interest in learning, only justifying themself (which to me is monologue). And, that, is a waste of my time.

I am not going to read that much stuff that is based on little actual information. There is little at all about Jesus outside the Bible and all but one sentence is from believers in writings that were deliberatly left out of the Bible. Writing huge tomes based on non-existent information is a exercise in scholorly masturbation. Its a popular pastime but little actual information ever comes from it.

What I asked for was source material not more speculation on top of speculation. You did claim there was outside sources. I asked for you to present them. Instead you demand that I read a lot of inherently speculative material that has nothing to do with the request.

Frankly I think you know there is no such source material. You just are refusing to admit to me or yourself. I might be wrong on this but you have adamantly refused to deal with it. Instead you have engaged in personal attacks and a pretense that I must have the same sort of reading as you do to discuss this.

------------------------------------

Christianity: A Social and Cultural History

A comprehensive, chronological history with emphasis on how Christianity was shaped and influenced by the social and cultural world in which it flourished, and its impact on that world. Annotation copyright Book News, Inc. Portland, Or

Very nice. How does that show that the Resurection is real though?

-----------------------------------------

J.D. Crossan (esp. Birth of Christianity and The Historical Jesus

Crossan's book is a rigorous exploration of the anthropological, historical, and literary issues surrounding what we can know about Jesus of Nazareth. Though Crossan himself is not a Christian, this work is by no means an unfavorable portrait of the Galilean. In fact, reading this book may make you realize what it was about this peasant and his "ragtag followers" that has made a 2,000-year impact on Western Civilization.

Not a christian. I suppose that means the he too is unconvinced that the "socialogical phenomana" of early Christianity is not evidence of a Resurection. Which after all is what you have been claiming.

Crossan's conclusions don't come from newly discovered documents; they come from freshly-minted academic methodologies. He uses anthropology, history, and archaeology to construct his arguments about the essential nature of both Jesus' religion and Paul's. The 25-cent summary of his conclusion is that Jesus did not recognize the dualism between spirit and flesh that formed the basis of Paul's apocalyptic Christianity. In other words, Jesus was more Jewish than Paul.

That last I believe. I thought it was kind of obvious though. If nothing else Jesus was raised in a Jewish land and Paul was a Roman citizen even though he was Jewish.

-------------------------

Jesus and the Victory of God

Odd, Amazon only has Volume Two.

In any case I don't see any mention of outside support for the Resurection. I know you don't want to deal with this but it is second of the three keys to your belief. The third being your thinking that a "socialogical phenomana" somehow does more than merely indicate a possibility that the second key is a real event.

If I have this wrong PLEASE DO NOT attack me or ignore me again. Just explain the mistake. That is a what a dialogue entails. Not the dismissal out of hand of things you don't want to hear.

--------------------------------

A Marginal Jew

Dear Ethelred

Please read this multi-volume series or I shall ignore you again.

Yes that has been your attitude.

Meier (Religion/Catholic Univ. of America), a Catholic priest, offers a vigorously honest, skeptical, and scholarly attempt to discover the historical Jesus. The author poses an intriguing hypothetical: ``suppose that a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic...hammered out a consensus document on who Jesus of Nazareth was.'' Meier tries to create such a ``consensus document'' by examining the fundamental facts of Jesus' life (while excluding those aspects of Jesus' biography that are premised on tenets of Christian belief, like the Resurrection). In this, the first volume of a two-part work, Meier carefully conducts an exegesis of the ``Roots of the Problem'' (the New Testament texts, which are not primarily historical works; the apocryphal gospels; and the fleeting references in the works of Josephus, Tacitus, and other pagan and Jewish writers that constitute the entire historical record of Jesus), and an analysis of the ``Roots of the Person'' (in which Meier brings hermeneutic tools to bear on the birth, development, and early years of Jesus). Meier points out Jesus' historical ``marginality''--his peripheral involvement in the society, history, and culture of his age--that ironically underscores the central position he has occupied in Western culture in the centuries since he died. Rife with scholarly terminology, and thus slow going for the nonspecialist--but, still, a superb examination of a fascinating historical problem.

Well that is sort of your view. He was margininal and therefor there must have been a resurection for him to be remembered. I don't see it that way. He wasn't necissarily all that marginal in the first place. If he preached to the vast mobs claimed in the Bible he was in no way marginal. He simply wasn't recorded by people that weren't eventually Christians. Barring that one note in Josephus anyway. Buddah while he started out a Prince (Jesus was the House of David himself) he was also on the margin of history. Mohammed of course does not fit that since he went out and MADE history. Savage SOB.

---------------------------------------------

Historical Figure of Jesus

The book covers are beginning to blend. They are much alike.

His discussion of the miracles attributed to the man is set against a backdrop of acceptance of magic and miracles generally in the ancient world.

Which has been mentioned allready. People were willing to believe all kinds that really weren't true. Checking for omens was endemic for instance.

Fr. Brown taks an honest hard look at the infancy narrative of Matthew and Luke. It is a struggle to find the truth in these narrative amid all the mythic lore and revisionist speculations. He digs deep down into the mountain of rubble that has accumulated, bringing out the sparkling truth that is contained within. He brings them out into the light of the day, where all speculation and myth are shown for what they are.

Well that one is hardly relevant. Lets look at the death. Volume one hmm. 928 pages isn't enough? Sure is a lot for so little actual evidence. That is what I mean by speculation on top of speculation. Sure there is some real history but the question here is the extraordinary stuff.

Brown breaks down the walls of theological density to recapture the full drama and meaning of Jesus' final days from his arrest to his execution and burial. While scholars may be staggered by Brown's exhaustively comprehensive bibliography and assured grasp of its contents, his introductory division of the passion's unfolding into four ``Acts'' and several ``Scenes'' will especially appeal to pastors and devout lay readers.

I have read that part of all four gospels. Its amazingly short on information. I would suppose he is trying to flesh it out with a knowledge of the culture of the time. However what I am looking for from YOU is some sort of outside evidence. Not two thousand pages of speculation no matter how well written or researched. Its an extraordinary claim. I want extraordinary evidence not speculation that the Bible might be right.

As I said I know its not an easy thing. You however have not made the slightest effort. Modern books of scholorly Angel dancing is not what I have in mind as proof. If Tacitus for instance had clearly had something that could at least give the appearance of his knowing that a man realy did rise from the dead that would exceptionly good evidence. Halfway there as I never believe anything without two sources. Thats normal in the sciences by the way. One is not enough. All kinds of crap gets done that can't be verified by others.

In case your curious I a writing this while ripping some of my CD collection. I am converting it to MP3Pro. Save a lot of space this way.

----------------------------------

Paula Fredriksen

Well her book is on why Jesus was executed and his followers weren't. A claim is made his death is the most solid thing we know about him. Well its really his attempted execution that is fairly certain. Really dead people don't get up and walk around barring a miracle but not quite dead but looks really really dead people do that sort of thing upon occasion.

In fact we know a lot more about him to the same exact degree. What we know is in the Bible. What we know about him outside the Bible is that he existed. I am fairly certain he existed and that the Romans got really annoyed and crucified him. I am also aware that a few hours on the cross is not the normal time for death at all.

In any case I don't see any claim of new evidence there and that is what is needed.

Now your claim that I am unwilling to learn is just false. I have asked you many times for some sort of evidence. Those books do not constitute evidence. Tacitus could have but he isn't. There are several others that get claimed as evidence but as I recall Tacitus was closer than the others. If you have something in mind please give me a clue not another set of massive tomes that are in the end mostly useing the Bible as a source for specific information about Jesus. There simply is no other source.

[ckweb]

See, this is exactly what I mean. You went through all the sources I listed and made infantile comments about them (interspersed with a few tidbits that might be worth responding to) . You also didn't take into consideration what I said about the sources themselves or the manner in which they were offered or the purpose behind the suggestion. Here's just a couple of the specific problems I have with your response: I indicated that people like Crossan and Borg don't support my view. I also indicated that Christianity: A Social and Cultural History is a book to give you basic knowledge that is a prerequisite for our discussion. I never indicated the books "on the historical Jesus" were limited to discussion of the resurrection; in fact, I indicated they were books relevant to the discussion "on the historical Jesus." And so on and so on.

Universal Life Church . . . . It just so happens I've been accepted at Harvard (GSAS and HDS), among a few other schools, for my graduate studies.

You are right that I have no idea of your level of education but I can tell from your posts that you have next to no education in the field of religion and theology, classics, or history. Furthermore, while you might have an undergraduate degree (possibly) in a field other than those I've mentioned, I would make a guess that you probably do not have graduate or post-graduate degrees of any kind. I base my guess on your use of sources (such as infidels.org) and your analytical skills, neither of which are consistent with the manner in which they should be employed by the majority of people possessing degrees above the undergraduate level. But, perhaps I am wrong and you are a PhD. Whatever education you have, it does not matter to me because what I wrote still remains true:

An extensive reply on my part, as I've done on some issues, would only meet with an uneducated, opinion-based reply on your part or alternatively a misrepresentation of my statements so that you can more easily disagree with it (i.e. "straw man" representations of my argument) as has happened several times already. I've given up on trying to argue my point because you make it mean what you want (i.e. the "sources" issue) not what I mean.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
See, this is exactly what I mean. You went through all the sources I listed and made infantile comments about them (interspersed with a few tidbits that might be worth responding to) .

Yes exactly you again respond with puerile comments like that. There was nothing infintile in what I said. You are doing little but ignore what I say and make ad-hominym attacks. If that isn't puerile than nothing is.

You also didn't take into consideration what I said about the sources themselves or the manner in which they were offered or the purpose behind the suggestion.

I most certainly did, you comments had nothing to do with it though. I was not commenting on what you said but the books themselves and there relevence and the lack thereof to my questions.

Here's just a couple of the specific problems I have with your response: I indicated that people like Crossan and Borg don't support my view.

Yes. So what of that. I was dealing with the books since you are reluctant to say anything yourself.

I also indicated that Christianity: A Social and Cultural History is a book to give you basic knowledge that is a prerequisite for our discussion.

Its not. In fact the original discussion if you just look at the top of the page was Genisis. The prerequisite for discussing the Bible as fact is evidence to support it as fact. Outside evidence. If it exists you should be able to point me to something that does not entail a trip to bookstore, the expenditure of a lot of money and a great deal of reading time just to find something that is two pages that may or may not support you.

I never indicated the books "on the historical Jesus" were limited to discussion of the resurrection; in fact, I indicated they were books relevant to the discussion "on the historical Jesus." And so on and so on.

There is no historical Jesus without some evidence for his existence. NOR was that the discusion. I have never ever claimed that Jesus did not exist. I am not in the least interested in discussing the details of the more mundane aspects of his existence. The key wether you like it or not is the alleged supernatural events. You are the one that claimed the Resurection is one of the keys to your belief. So that seemed a good thing to discuss to me.

Universal Life Church . . . . It just so happens I've been accepted at Harvard (GSAS and HDS), among a few other schools, for my graduate studies.

Congratulations.

I have no evidence to support that but I will accept as true. However I have had people just plain lie about their education in these discusions. I am not saying you are. Just that it does happen. The guy I knew was lying claimed to be both a Creationist and working on a Masters in Anthropology. Considering the number of easly exposed lies he told it was not hard to figure that his alleged education was another. He tried to bluff me on Anthropology. Big mistake.

As a consequence you education and mine is quite imaterial. What you say here is. What you can show is. I am not impressed by degree in theology in any case. I put it on the level of politcal science. What you say means far more than what you think you know.

Oh the Universal Life Church comment was inspired by Anthony at the Maximum PC forum. He was a certified priest in the organization. Also a ex-Catholic Agnositic. Why he applied for it I don't know. I guess he thought it was funny.

You are right that I have no idea of your level of education but I can tell from your posts that you have next to no education in the field of religion and theology, classics, or history.

I have studied history a lot. Not the same periods as you though. I certainly haven't had any formal eduction in religion or theology since elementary school. Nevertheless that in no way is an indication of the level of ignorance you are pretending.

Furthermore, while you might have an undergraduate degree (possibly) in a field other than those I've mentioned, I would make a guess that you probably do not have graduate or post-graduate degrees of any kind.

I never claimed to. I have 92 units. That a year short of a degree at best. That was in the 70s. It really doesn't matter here however. Its the facts that count and I am waiting for some. This is just another of your efforts to pretend I am not able to discuss things with your magnificence rather than actually engage in a discussion. That is the usuall reason for people engaging in personal attack like you keep doing. You are not doing well in the discussion so you try to change the subject to your opponent rather than deal with what I have said.

I base my guess on your use of sources (such as infidels.org) and your analytical skills, neither of which are consistent with the manner in which they should be employed by the majority of people possessing degrees above the undergraduate level. But, perhaps I am wrong and you are a PhD. Whatever education you have, it does not matter to me because what I wrote still remains true:

What you have written remains without sources. You have claimed them and you still refuse to give an example. A large book is not the same thing. I want the originals so I can decide for myself. Its really not that hard to supply if they exist. The only thing wrong with my analytical skills is you don't like the results.

An extensive reply on my part, as I've done on some issues, would only meet with an uneducated, opinion-based reply on your part or alternatively a misrepresentation of my statements so that you can more easily disagree with it (i.e. "straw man" representations of my argument) as has happened several times already. I've given up on trying to argue my point because you make it mean what you want (i.e. the "sources" issue) not what I mean.

Your extensive replies have been opinion based. You constant attacks are beneath contempt. I have never engaged in straw man representations at least intentionaly. You have always had the opportunity to show any errors and you have usually instead engaged personal attacks just as you did this time. The source issue is important. If you can't see that you are not the thinker you believe you are.

You obviously prefer to continue in these unwaranted personal attacks rather than to discuss anything. Hence I dub thee Troll.

Growup childish one.

This ad-hominym attack was brought to you by T!t-For-Tat Incorporated.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by ckweb
You are right that I have no idea of your level of education but I can tell from your posts that you have next to no education in the field of religion and theology, classics, or history

You forgot about philosophy or any other logic-oriented subject.
Unless you managed to find a reply from him with a bit of logic (wich I never found).

[Ethelred]

Hey you broke your promise.

You said you had me on ignore.

You are a Fundamentalist Creationist. You have no concept of what constitutes logic. Not so far anyway. Perhaps someday but I have more hope for Lincoln. Not so sure about Ckweb since he is immersed in academia and thinks an online discussion is the same thing. Perhaps Harvard can help.

Oh do you think that Ckweb used a pentacle to summon me. I am pretty sure that if he did he failed to close it. He certainly hasn't managed to gain any controll over me.

[SpencerH]

Accepted for graduate studies at Harvard, or anywhere else, doesnt mean you'll finish. If I was the non-departmental member of your thesis defense commitee (and theoretically I could be) and these were your arguments and methods you'd fail. Ethelred can be exasperating sometimes, but you started the discussion. You didnt stick to your point and you didnt prove it.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Hey you broke your promise.

You said you had me on ignore.

I never made any promise regarding you. And you're still in my ignore list. It's just that I can see at what time you posted in the thread and see your light bulb on or off. I just felt into the mood to give poor Ckweb a little tip.
Trust me, this is my first "read this post" of yours in many many months!
And you'll still be on my ignore list, trust me on that one too.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You are a Fundamentalist Creationist. You have no concept of what constitutes logic. Not so far anyway. Perhaps someday but I have more hope for Lincoln. Not so sure about Ckweb since he is immersed in academia and thinks an online discussion is the same thing. Perhaps Harvard can help.

Oh do you think that Ckweb used a pentacle to summon me. I am pretty sure that if he did he failed to close it. He certainly hasn't managed to gain any controll over me.

I think what?!?!?!?
Gain control over you?!?!?
Dude, get a grip. You're so wacked!

Bye... :waving:

[SpencerH]

Ethelred, you do seem to stir up the most 'colourful' people

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Zealot

And you'll still be on my ignore list, trust me on that one too.

I don't trust you on anything. You flew off the handle just before you anounced that you putting me on ignore.

I think what?!?!?!?
Gain control over you?!?!?
Dude, get a grip. You're so wacked!

Bye... :waving:

It didn't say you think it. I asked what you thought.

It was a joke. Magic isn't real. A pentacle is only good for decoration and annoying those that don't get the joke.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Ethelred, you do seem to stir up the most 'colourful' people

Its a talent. I didn't ask for the talent but it would be wrong for me to waste it.

I try to add my own color but sometimes it just all mixes together into a grey mess like my Easter Eggs often did as a kid. I didn't understand the subtractive nature of dyes then.

I don't know if you saw some of my first posts here. I took on Zylka for trolling with his Lutherian numbered complaints about Civ III. Three people got banned. Not me or Zylka though.

I later came to the conclusion that I was shooting fish in a barrel and should cut back on that.

[SpencerH]

Yeah I saw that one it was very funny. I'm still not sure why Zylka didnt get banned though.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Accepted for graduate studies at Harvard, or anywhere else, doesnt mean you'll finish. If I was the non-departmental member of your thesis defense commitee (and theoretically I could be) and these were your arguments and methods you'd fail. You didnt stick to your point and you didnt prove it.

Really? Who are you, besides "SpencerH" of course? My area is Hebrew Bible. What is your department? Do you have a link to your faculty profile?

If this was my thesis, these wouldn't be my arguments and methods. This is a forum not a thesis. Also, I didn't stick to my point because it was being derailed by nonsensical rebuttals, which I'm relatively certain I would not receive from a Harvard non-departmental thesis advisor (i.e. his comment about "Canon" and "Bible"; or, Christian oral tradition being preserved in the Talmud; or, analogies with modern events; etc. etc.). My argument has also been waylaid by misconstruals of my position that require too much time and effort to rectify. It may be true that at times I have inadequately expressed my point (for lack of time and interest) but most of the time, it appears to me that the misconstruals result from Ethel's ignorance of the field and an ignorance he was not willing to admit to having let alone changing. Also, in my opinion, a good conversation or debate on an issue must at least share an implicit (and sometimes explicit) agreement on the goal. This is clearly not the case in the recent discussions in this thread. Ethel seems to think that I am attempting to prove the resurrection, which I am not. I was attempting (before I decided to give up) to show that it was exceedingly likely, defensible, and reasonable that a resurrection occurred. This is a considerably different goal. He also seems to think that I believe there are independent sources to corroborate the resurrection as an historical fact when I have never said so. When sources became an issue in our debate, I only discussed them for the purposes of clarifying their nature (not as a support to my argument as Ethel keeps allegeding--although I did toss in a few throw-away comments about them, which are easily identifiable). I should hope if you were my non-departmental thesis advisor, I would not have these problems with you.

You are right that I may not finish my studies, although I consider that exceedingly unlikely. I am already in a position where my papers and comments are interacting with the professionals in my field. As I've indicated, I'm presenting at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Toronto, 2002. This is the largest and most significant professional society in my field. My paper is one of six (I believe) that got accepted, after peer review, for presentation in the Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah section. This section is presently one of the "hottest" of the sections that deal with biblical books. So, I think if I am already at a level such as this, graduating from Harvard (while challenging and difficult) will not be beyond my abilities.

BTW, if you actually care to read a draft of the paper I'm presenting at SBL, it's online:

http://anduril.ca/PDFs/In%20the%20ho...%20my%20father's%20house.pdf [I can't get this link to work properly. Sorry.]

This paper is a much better representation of my ability to formulate arguments and apply method.

Also, I thought you disappeared so I didn't bother responding to a criticism you made about me. You wrote a while back:

You refute the arguments that deny the scientific accuracy of the bible by asserting that it must be judged as a theological (literary) text without taking into account science as a basis for judging its accuracy or significance.

Then you deride other theological texts using the same scientific arguments that you assert cant be used to judge the bible.

How typical.

I think your criticism derives from a misunderstanding of how I believe science can function with respect to theological texts. My point back then was all types of texts make particular claims for themselves. Some claim to be historical. Some do not. Some are representative of particular genres and must be dealt with on that basis. In the case of the Genesis narratives, I pointed out that the claim of the Creation and Flood stories was not one of communicating history and so if the authors did not intend to communicate history, why read as such. And why impose that standard upon the text. When I criticized BoM, I did so under the belief that BoM and the Mormons claimed the stories were historical. I have since accepted some criticism in this respect and ceded on points where my understanding of BoM was clearly inadequate (something incidentally Ethel does not do). Historical-scientific approaches can be applied to theological texts because there are texts that do claim (at least in some respect) the telling of history. For instance, I believe it is entirely appropriate to apply appropriate historical-scientific approaches to Ancient Israelite Historiography (bearing in my mind of course that "historiography" is not the same as "history") in order to determine the credibility of the bible in the reconstruction of Ancient Israel. Does this resolve your criticism or do you still feel that I am being inconsistent in my application?

[Ethelred]

I think its because Ming knows he has real problem. He made some odd posts on a thread about someone elses drug problems.

Someone got banned for quoting him though. Ming said it was because the post was off topic. Which it was as it was directed at the quesion of why Zylka was not in Mingapulco. Kind of a dumb thing to do as Ming was on the warpath allready. I was being very carefull in what I said there but I was stirring things up with someone that realy had control issues. I just didn't know it at the time. If I had been the least bit careless I would have been banned in my first week on the forum. Got warned as it was.

[ckweb]

Ethel:

Can you explain some things?

(1) You wrote:

Jesus was the House of David himself

In another place, you wrote:

He was of the line of David

Where did you get this information? You reject the Bible as a credible source, correct? So, it wasn't from the Bible was it? Perhaps, it was Gnostic literature from which you derived this information because you write:

Gnostics claim he was the legitmate King of Israel which he very well could have been if he was in David's line.

If the Gnostics are your source, what makes Gnostic literature more reliable than the Bible?

(2) You made those statements about Jesus in the line of David in part to support your point that Jesus was not an insignificant person as I indicated Crossan and Borg believed him to be. Here is what I wrote:

If you take the picture of Jesus drawn up by Borg and Crossan (two leading secular scholars on Jesus), you have a very insignificant man wandering through a very insignificant province doing what as many as hundreds before him had done. What made him different?

You replied:

Not being that way in the first place. He was of the line of David. Gnostics claim he was the legitmate King of Israel which he very well could have been if he was in David's line. Herod certainly wasn't. The province was not insignifcant. It was just as now the crossroads between Europe and both Africa and India. Hardly insignificant.

Yes there were others. They didn't get lucky. Perhaps they and their followers weren't as good at deliberatly doing things that matched a prophecy. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on an ass was no accident. It was done to fit a prophecy. HE CHOSE to go in on ass. Even said to take one without asking according to the Bible.

That kind of manipulation of oppinion makes a difference.

Now, here's what I don't understand. If Jesus wasn't insignificant, why isn't he mentioned in contemporary Roman sources of the period (as you so repeatedly point out)?

Also, you deny Ant 18.3.3 S63-64 contains anything that can be attributed to Josephus, declaring that Ant 20.9.1 S200-201 is the only reference to Jesus in the writings of Josephus. This latter reference mentions him only by association to his brother, James, who is actually the focus of the passage. From your standpoint then, if Jesus wasn't insignificant, why doesn't Josephus mention him?

(3) Here's a problem I have that exhibits the problems of #1 and #2 in the same argument. You wrote:

Perhaps they and their followers weren't as good at deliberatly doing things that matched a prophecy. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on an ass was no accident. It was done to fit a prophecy. HE CHOSE to go in on ass. Even said to take one without asking according to the Bible.

Now, you do have the qualifier "Perhaps" so perhaps you do not believe this actually happened but it would seem you do as you are using it as proof that Jesus wasn't insignificant. If I get the gist of your argument, Jesus became popular because he deliberately did "things that matched a prophecy." According to the quote, you received this information from "the Bible" but I thought the Bible wasn't a credible witness? Why are you allowed to use it to prove your point?

(4) Based on your use of the Bible to corroborate certain statements, perhaps you will find this article interesting:

http://www.cga94.com/contributors/stuff/crucifixion/

This article makes rather literal use of the Bible, which I might even have cause to dispute but you appeared to have shown a willingness to use the Bible to prove certain things in your argument so I guess I should have no qualms about using it here. Irregardless of its high view of the Bible as an historical witness (obviously derived from the Pastors who unfortunately co-wrote the article), its medical findings about crucifixion would seem to strongly contradict your claim that Jesus swooned.

[ckweb]

Speaking about the Bible, you wrote:

Its one book. Multiple sources. All filtered by the same group.

Yes the same group. I did not say the same source. I said filtered by the same group. A single group filtered all the different writing and chose what goes in and what doesn't. That means that stuff they didn't like (Gnostic documents for instance) got left out.

I responded by saying,

Simply not true. Canon wasn't decided by the Catholic Church until Trent in response to the Protestants who set their Canon shortly before. The RCC and the Protestant canons are different. I'm not sure when the Orthodox Church set their Canon but theirs is different from both the RCC and the Protestant churches. Coptic Christianity has still yet another Canon.

So, as you can see, canon was a pretty late development and was not filtered by one group.

You then replied:

Do try reading. I didn't say one word about the Canon. I was talking about the Bible.

Britannica World Language Dictionary gives the contextually-relevant of definition of "canon" that I used as "The books of the Bible that are recognized by the Church as inspired." As you were talking about a "filtered" Bible whereby certain documents "got left out," weren't we talking about "Canon"? In fact, isn't my choice of words more exact?

You also add:

The only difference between major Christion versions is wether the Apochrypha are in or not.

First of all, you make it seem as if that is an inconsequential difference. The Apocrypha of the RCC, which they call the deutero-canonical books, adds seven other books and exapnds the books of Daniel and Esther. The Greek Orthodox Church is more drastic in its differences: First, the GOC uses the LXX (rather than the MT or a critical text) as its official OT text; Second, they add everything the RCC does plus 1 & 2 Edras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees.

Second of all, while these are the major differences in the versions since the text was canonized by their respective churches (there are more minor ones, i.e. the RCC accepts the longer ending of Mark and John 7:53-8:11, while Protestants typically do not), before that time, there was considerable variation in the accepted texts as evidenced by codices and manuscripts that exist. In the case of the NT, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas are found in the Codex Sinaiticus (mid-4th Century). The Muratorian Fragment (late-2nd Century C.E.) suggests that the Apocalypse of St. Peter and again the Shepherd of Hermas were accepted by some churches. The Marcion Canon consisted only of a bastardized form of Luke and ten Pauline Epistles. At various times and places, the Acts of Paul, the Didache, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and I Clement were used as Scripture. And so on and so on.

Third of all, I'd like to contend with your statement that the Bible is "filtered." I'm not sure how you mean this term but it seems to carry the conviction that the books were chosen on the basis of whether they were agreeable or not to the doctrine of the church. Yet, if that was the case, we would not have four gospels as canonical, we would have the Diatessaron as canonical or another edited version of the gospels. The gospels themselves contain many obstacles to harmonization and in that respect have often been criticized past and present. So, why would the church preserve four gospels with "apparently" uncomplimentary accounts of Jesus Christ? The tendency of most early Christian churches was to possess and use only one gospel. So, why wasn't just one gospel chosen?

The core biblical books were not filtered by one group with one view. Instead, they represent the texts that over the course of history were regarded as the most reliable and authentic of the ancient witnesses by a consensus of Christians from disparate communities of faith. These ancient witnesses were repeatedly debated as I've indicated by way of a few examples and still are today. But, even if you opened the canon today, the end result would probably still be a consensus that the 27 books of the NT are the best, most reliable, and authentic witnesses to Jesus and early Christianity. Modern scholarship supports this view:

The fallout in noncanonical tradition from the historic career of Jesus was enormous: gospels (mainly Jewish-Christian and gnostic), homilies, testimonies, liturgies, acts, apocalypses, rabbinic and Islamic traditions, texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Greek, Latin, Coptic, and other languages. Though this tradition is voluminous even in the fragmentary state in which it has survived, only a few short narratives and perhaps a dozen sayings have a serious claim to historical value. David Noel Freedman (editor), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), Vol. 3, Page 775.