FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-01-2001, 07:27 PM   #31
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cute Little Baby:

What you failed to read and understand the significance of was my statement:
"One could note that the angel sitting on the tomb on the Gospel of Matthew means it was probably square (again, see the article for further details),
</font>
Wooooaahhh there! You can't conclude that
the stone was square simply because someone
was sitting on it! Get real! Back in my
rock climbing days, I got plenty of pictures
of me sitting on big round rocks. Sure,
the square ones are easier to climb up
on, but hey, if a thousand angels can dance
on the head of a pin.... :-)



[This message has been edited by Kosh (edited June 01, 2001).]
 
Old 06-01-2001, 10:50 PM   #32
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Here is a statement from a definitely non-apologetic website: Biblical Archaeological Society.

[Snip quote]

That glowing element from an Archaeological journal. Do you believe us yet? What kind of proof do you demand? This gets tiresome. I understand skepticism, but there is a point where it becomes detrimental.


Thanks for finding a mention of this great historian of the 19th century in other than an apologetic site.

Do I believe what? That Ramsay existed? Never doubted it. That he was a "great" archeologist? Still not sure about that one, but I wasn't overly concerned about it either. That his opinions are actually correct? Haven't even gotten close to being able to determine that yet.

Now if you could please provide any corroboration for his views this would be helpful as well. Any peer reviews? Or do you just accept his findings because he said so? I understand Christian faith, but there often comes a point where its detrimental in the search for truth.

Oh, I agree this is tiring, but then I didn't make the claim, Meta did. Finding out the probabilities of things in history is tiring work.

As far as the "appeal to authority" goes, I understand that this can be a falacy. However, it is a falacy if you claim something is "true" simply because someone else said it is "true". This is not what is being done.

Unless I can actually see "why" it should be considered true this is exactly what's being done. Corroboration would help to some degree.

What do you want? You sure wouldn't accept a claim he just stuck out there... I don't think you would just make a statement and expect us to take it without extra corroboration. You require proof, yet you seem to say that in this field there is no solid proof. If, then, there are only possibilities, then Meta is perfectly within his right to present the scholars who have spent decades studying the issues in order to bolster the probability of what he says. Again, it is the scholarly way of doing things and even atheist scholars use agreements in others' works to bolster their own conclusions...look at the works on this website. So, let's drop the "appeal to authority" thing. It's a misrepresentation of what is happening here.

Suffice it to say you place much more value in appeals to authority than I do. Oh well.


 
Old 06-02-2001, 05:52 AM   #33
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

so I'll give some more. Both Justin Martyr and Tatian mention the necessity of returning to the land of your tribe for the census. Now, are you going to tell me that you, 2000 years later, know exactly how the Roman government operated a census back then? I think I'll throw my trust on those who lived under the Roman government.

I agree. Unfortunately, the requirement for "returning to the land" was only for Roman citizens. All who became citizens were required to join a tribe, which were used for assessing and censing purposes. Joseph and Mary were not Roman citizens, as far as anyone knows. The story, whether or not the census occurred, is obviously an invented device used to get J&M back to Bethlehem.


Michael
 
Old 06-02-2001, 06:57 AM   #34
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

In my interpretation of dreams (pesher) there are two
Jerusalems, two Galilees, and two Bethlehem's. I have
often given my sources for multiple locations so I feel
it is redundant to repeat.

Here is what Robert Eisenman writes James the Brother
of Jesus
, page 105, " ... This is perhaps the
original for the intervening interview in the Gospels
between Jesus and Herod the Tetrarch (Luke 23:7-12), who
really would have had no business in Jerusalem, his
Tetrarchy - literally his 'fourth' of the kingdom -
being in Galilee across the Jordan in Perea where John
the Baptist was executed."

The above is what Eisenman writes and this man has
possibilities if he ever cleans his glasses (he reads
in ideal language instead of pesher).
The point is, Jesus did not get crucified in the
ideal Jerusalem, he was crucified at the pesher
Jerusalem known today as Qumran. This was in the jurisdiction
of the pesher Galilee (where Josephus served as general
of an army and hid in a cave) and also known as the pesher
area called the land of Damascus.

thanks, offa
 
Old 06-02-2001, 07:51 AM   #35
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:
I agree, to a point, but there is nothing about Dyslexia that prevents him from typing in a word processor and using the spellcheck.

Michael
</font>
1)I've been posting on boards like this for a couple of years now, and I know from experince, when they stat attacking the spelling, that's as good as saying "I cannot answer the arguments, I've been totally out gunned and have nothing left to say."

2) I do occasionally try to spell check my posts. When I do I find one of two things; either they go on talking about it as though I have not spell checkeced, which confirms my suspician that many atheists don't even read the posts. Or they just shift to cursing.

3) It takes all night when I spell check. I don't have all night.
 
Old 06-02-2001, 07:54 AM   #36
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by madmax2976:
Okay, I'm going to loose my cool on this one. I try to be nice, I try to be civil, but to no avail. I ask legitimate questions and only get attacked for it.

Meta: ahahahahaha, so you think they just made that up hu? Man, what dishonesty!

Rather than being so damn sanctimonious and fucking arrogant, why don't you just make the point that this guy is NOT all that well known these days. Is this too hard or does the mocking laughter help to bolster your precious religious beliefs and weak appeals to authority?

You have major people saying theses things about him; F.F. Bruce, Stephen Neil, ect, than obviously its true.

What may be true? That he existed or did what you claim he did? Part of "honest" investigation is to actually check out stuff that someone claims or uses as an appeal to authority. You guys use LOTS of appeals to authority and appear to believe they're strong arguments. (Which is weird in itself) Is this too fundamental point a point for you to comprehend or do you just feel threatened because I happen to be questioning your appeal to authority?

The reason you can't find him on the internet, I hate to break to you, but the real knolwledge is still in books! Yea, sorry. Those funny paper things that people put their faces in. YOu know those buildings they call, what is that word, Ooo, Library. Yea go to a library and look for books on Biblical archaeology.

Uh-huh. Come down from your self-created pedestal oh great one and use some common sense. For me not to get a single hit on any archeology site or in any encyclopedia is very strange for one of the supposedly "great" archeologists of 19th century. If you can't at least admit that much YOU are the one whose being dishonest here.

He was one of the greats at a time when the school of academic archaeology was still in its infancy.

So great Britannica, MSN Encarta, and dozens of archeological sites fail to even mention the man's name, let alone any of his works.

He retired at the begining of the 20th century so naturally there isn't a big project to put his stuff on the net. His evidence is old, but it hasn't been disproven.

It hasn't been corroborated either that I've seen. He's old - no problem. You could have just said that and have been done with it. Its an attempt at an explanation at least. (But it doesn't explain why his name doesn't even come up.)

And I wasn't even to the point of looking for a "big project". I hadn't gotten that far. I was just trying to find ANY mention of the man in archeological circles.

And this is doging the issue.

This is dishonest of you. The "issue" is that you made an appeal to authority to back up your claims. (and thus your religious beliefs) Appeals to authority are weak arguments, even in the best of circumstances. In this case its extremely weak, as I can't verify anything you've claimed. I also can't find anywhere that his work has been peer reviewed, which leaves it even more suspicious. Or is the concept of peer review to touchy a subject for me to bring up as well?

BTW it really shows how little you know about it that you have not heard of him.

And this pitiful attempt at insult only shows your arrogance and your ignorance (purposeful?) of how an honest person would proceed when presented with a claim such as you made. He checks out the sources (I've tried - not much there and our town library isn't very good.) He looks for peer review of the person's work (nothing at all). He looks for a concensus among other scholars in his field(nothing so far). He looks to see if the person is as "noted" in his field as the claimant makes him out to be.(So far I've only got the word of Christian apologists on this matter)

I understand you guys all want to hold on your beliefs and thats just fine with me. But to attack me when I'm just trying to verify sources and claims that are made is just plain ludicrous. It leads me to believe your just threatened when someone questions your claims and questions your appeals to this or that authority as support for those claims. Lighten up.

</font>
Expert testimony is never an appeal to authority. He made the disoveries and the evidence exist. Talking about his work is documenation of that fact. We can't go look at the finds so we have to use documentation.

If I misunderstood your point I apologize. It did sound like you doubted that he existed. But I guess that was my own misunderstanding.
 
Old 06-02-2001, 07:58 AM   #37
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JubalH:
Right, dislexia only explains some of it, and ultimately none of it. For one thing, most of his typos arise simply fromt the fact that he types too fast and not very well. And rather than review his work and run it through a spell checker, he just dumps it. You'll note he doesn't have nearly so much trouble with the stuff posted on his site.</font>

So what accounts for the fac that you are not disucssing the issues, but my personality? That you cannot answer the arguments and you know you can't.


What makes you think your writting is anything but drivel? You dont' say anything and you say it badly. Your sentences are run on and you have no topic sentences. It's the mark of a poor intellect to have to resort to BS like the opponent's spellling!

I bet you don't have a good sense of color and your living room is probably decorated badly.

 
Old 06-02-2001, 08:10 AM   #38
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cute Little Baby:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ish:
Secondly, to CLB, you have made it obvious from previous postings that you are not questing for "truth", only that you are intent on attempting to destroy Christianity (possibly with AK-47s ). It therefore does not surprise me that you would reject the edict that I posted.</font>
And Christians are interested in destroying any and all who oppose them, just like a bunch of fucking Nazis, so what is the problem with me wanting to destroy their insane philosophy?

Meta =&gt; groundless and idiotic charge that results from ignronace of history.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">However, your assumptions about it are incorrect. Read the books in the bibliography at the bottom of his website and try again.

I know you like to ignore evidence,</font>
Bullshit, I have done no such thing in this discussion or any recent ones (I abandoned one a while back though because I made too many flawed claims).

MEta =&gt;You haven't overtuned the evidence and you aren't even talking about it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">so I'll give some more. Both Justin Martyr and Tatian mention the necessity of returning to the land of your tribe for the census. Now, are you going to tell me that you, 2000 years later, know exactly how the Roman government operated a census back then? I think I'll throw my trust on those who lived under the Roman government.</font>

I think I'll throw my trust in the utterly simple and easy to understand reasoning behind the opinion I have just invented, as opposed to your exageration. My opinion is this:
1.Of course you would have to return to the land of your tribe, since most people lived with the tribes they originated from, and registration whilst on a trip or temporary stay somewhere else would complicate matters (it would be more difficult to track down citizens if innacurate info about the place where they lived was given).
2.The "land" of their tribe is a far cry from everyone returning to the specific little town where they were born, obviously.

Meta =&gt;No it's not, they lived in tribes. Each tribe had its own area. But the evidence indcidates they did have to go their birth place.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I just wanted to point out that CLB left a rather important detail out of his story of Luke's supposed inaccuracy about the "rolling stone" of Jesus' tomb.
What CLB didn't read or chose to ignore is this:

" But in Jesus' time, round blocking stones were extremely rare and appeared only in the tombs of the wealthiest Jews. Nevertheless, the Gospels seem to indicate that Jesus' tomb was sealed with a rolling stone. As quoted in the sidebar, all four canonical Gospels refer to Jesus' tomb. Matthew, Mark and Luke all describe the stone being "rolled" (in John it is "taken away"), and thus it is only natural to assume that the stone was round. But we must remember that "rolled" is a translation of the Greek word kulio, which can also mean "dislodge," "move back" or simply "move." This ambiguity in the text, combined with the archaeological evidence, leads me to agree with the scholar Gustave Dalman, who, as early as 1935, suggested that Matthew 27 does not refer to a round blocking stone."

So, if this particular archaeologists theory is even correct, he obviously thinks that all four gospels got it right but we didn't get our english translation right... I'm not sure if I agree with him or not, but his idea sounds plausible and does not incriminate Luke.</font>
What you failed to read and understand the significance of was my statement:
"One could note that the angel sitting on the tomb on the Gospel of Matthew means it was probably square (again, see the article for further details), but we are talking about Luke here, who mentioned no such incident and was independent of Matthew. Its more likely that Jesus' tomb would be sealed with additional stones in front of the main blocking stone, since Joseph of Aramathea could afford such a thing and would probably want it (he was wealthy). But curiously, there is no mention of this in Luke, adding further weight to the idea that a round stone was what the author had in mind."
The article says that sometimes multiple stones were used to further blockade the main stone. Mark is earlier than Luke, yet says:
Mark 16:3-4
"They were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?"


Meta =&gt;But that's quoting the English Translation. How does this prove that the Greek doesn't say "who will move the stone?" (some translations do say that).


Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large."


Meta =&gt;"moved"


If it was so damn large, and was square or rectangular, it is probable that multiple stones would be used to reinforce the blockage instead of one big stone.

MEta =&gt;No necessarily. Why would they need to reinforce it if it big and heavy?


If it was round, and thus not contemporary with the multiple stones practice, then one big stone would be expected. And that is what is described. Furthermore, Mark 15:46 says:
"Joseph bought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb"
A square/rectangular stone would probably take more than one person to move it accurately and with such ease. A round stone would be easier for one person to move, as Joseph is described as doing.

Meta =&gt;That sentence doesn't have to be taken to mean that Jo himself did the 'moving' all alone.

Since Mark is earlier than Luke, and shows evidence pointing towards a round stone, it is reasonable to conclude that if it was written after the destruction of Jeruselem, then so was the later Luke.

From all this, IMHO it makes sense to assume that the stone being described by Luke was probably a round one.
None of that proves anything. None of the Gospels say point blank what shape the stone was and all the referecnes to "rolling" could be read as 'moving.'
 
Old 06-02-2001, 08:20 AM   #39
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by madmax2976:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ish:
Here is a statement from a definitely non-apologetic website: Biblical Archaeological Society.

[Snip quote]

That glowing element from an Archaeological journal. Do you believe us yet? What kind of proof do you demand? This gets tiresome. I understand skepticism, but there is a point where it becomes detrimental.


Thanks for finding a mention of this great historian of the 19th century in other than an apologetic site.

Do I believe what? That Ramsay existed? Never doubted it. That he was a "great" archeologist? Still not sure about that one, but I wasn't overly concerned about it either. That his opinions are actually correct? Haven't even gotten close to being able to determine that yet.

Now if you could please provide any corroboration for his views this would be helpful as well. Any peer reviews? Or do you just accept his findings because he said so? I understand Christian faith, but there often comes a point where its detrimental in the search for truth.

Oh, I agree this is tiring, but then I didn't make the claim, Meta did. Finding out the probabilities of things in history is tiring work.

As far as the "appeal to authority" goes, I understand that this can be a falacy. However, it is a falacy if you claim something is "true" simply because someone else said it is "true". This is not what is being done.

Unless I can actually see "why" it should be considered true this is exactly what's being done. Corroboration would help to some degree.

What do you want? You sure wouldn't accept a claim he just stuck out there... I don't think you would just make a statement and expect us to take it without extra corroboration. You require proof, yet you seem to say that in this field there is no solid proof. If, then, there are only possibilities, then Meta is perfectly within his right to present the scholars who have spent decades studying the issues in order to bolster the probability of what he says. Again, it is the scholarly way of doing things and even atheist scholars use agreements in others' works to bolster their own conclusions...look at the works on this website. So, let's drop the "appeal to authority" thing. It's a misrepresentation of what is happening here.

Suffice it to say you place much more value in appeals to authority than I do. Oh well.
Quote:
</font>
Will you please get a logic text book and look up the defition of the infomral fallacy "appeal to authroity?" It is not a fallacy to quote an expert who is speaking of his work. Appeal to authority is when you appeal to someone who is not a proper authority and you expect whatever authority that person has to maean something in an area where he/she has no expertise. So if I quoted the local police cheif on this it would be an appeal to authority. But to quote a major archaeologist who made the discoveries that prove the point it is in no way an appeal to authority in the fallacious sense!!! No! it is not!

2) The evidence is clear and if you read the original post it would be clear. Ramsay found the evidence through his digs which proved that there was an ongoing census in 6BC. YOu also ignore the other evidence, Harrison shows other finds that also prove it, and the NEw Advent article also gives still more evidence, and it says that Luke has been confimred in every point!

3) Ramsay excavated all the cities where Luke/Acts action happned. There he found physical evidence corroborating the whole of Luke/Acts.For example when Pual mentions an acscure adminstrater in some town, Ramsay found the guys name on a colum which connected him to that office. It dated to the same time period of which Luke speaks in ACTS.

And he made a buch of other finds of a similar nature. Hard physical atrifacts that prove the point; histoiral accuracy for Luke/Acts. IT's physical artifacts, they exist! It's not opinon, its documentation for the evidence. REad the original post agian.
 
Old 06-02-2001, 08:29 AM   #40
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:
so I'll give some more. Both Justin Martyr and Tatian mention the necessity of returning to the land of your tribe for the census. Now, are you going to tell me that you, 2000 years later, know exactly how the Roman government operated a census back then? I think I'll throw my trust on those who lived under the Roman government.

I agree. Unfortunately, the requirement for "returning to the land" was only for Roman citizens. All who became citizens were required to join a tribe, which were used for assessing and censing purposes. Joseph and Mary were not Roman citizens, as far as anyone knows. The story, whether or not the census occurred, is obviously an invented device used to get J&M back to Bethlehem.


Michael
</font>
Meta=&gt;Nowhere above does the evidence say that it was only for Roman citizens. The Jospehus quote in the New Advent article says that Cesar ordered Herod to include his own people, presumably the Jews, so why can't we assume that they would be in the same machinery and follow the same rules. Moreover, the Egiptian who shows up in the records Ramsay found was not a Roman, but he followed the same rules. So there is no reason to think that was limited just to Roman citizens.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:42 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.