--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: Sadly, you don't have the job (as an omnipotent God), so we will just have to live with the choices the only one we have made.

penatis: It is indeed sad. I would make some drastic changes and I would make them immediately.


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

Nomad: Fascinating. And no doubt you have the omniscience to foresee all possible outcomes of the changes you would make don't you?

It doesn't take omniscience to see problems on this planet. Also, it does not take omniscience to see what the benefits of having no hate and violence would be.

{snip}most of us regular humans just don't have that kind of wisdom and foreknowledge penatis.

How many people have taken the time to actually think about it? You presume that a certain uproven god has more wisdom and foreknowledge than human beings. That is a major presumption.

Perhaps a little humility is in order on your part.

You have a right to your opinion, regardless of how unjustified it may be.

Hello Bob

Allow me to show how you are making an argument from silence. I will use a simple illustration to help make the point.

Five people testify to an event, I will lable these individuals as A, B, C, D, and E (I know, not very clever, but what the hey).

A: He went for lunch.
B: He met his family for lunch.
C: He met his wife for lunch.
D: He met some people for lunch.
E: He met his wife and children.

Now, from the above accounts, it is very reasonable to synthesize the accounts, and come to the conclusion that this man met his wife and children for lunch. None of the accounts contradict this theory, and to find out why some of the details were ommitted, by the witnesses, we would need to ask them. Some may have had limited information about the event in question, others may have thought the details unimportant to the listeners. What we cannot argue is that any of them are lying, or contradicting the other witnesses.

No, Matthew is giving us a detail that is either not known to the other authors, or was not considered to be important to them, or for some other reason was not reported by the other authors. Of course the event may not have happened, but silence in and of itself is not evidence that the event did not take place.

This is a common error amongst modern readers. What we forget is that the authors of the various Gospels were writing for specific audiences. In Matthew's case, his community was Jewish, and as a result, Jesus had to fulfill a certain set of Messianic prophecies that would have been unknown to Mark's Roman (as well as Luke's Gentile) communities. R.E. Brown goes into this in considerable detail in his seminal work, Death of the Messiah (which is at home, so I have to wait until I get there to post his comments. The apocalyptic images of Matthew (earthquakes, rising of the dead, ect.) were direct references to specific Messianic prophecies in Isaiah and Ezekial for example, and would have had special significance to Matt's audience.

This is a very real possibility of course, but we must also consider that in Mark's case, he had no interest in explaining or appealing to Hebrew Scripture to support his Gospel, so to offer these stories to people that would not have understood their theological importance would have overly complicated his own Gospel. Matthew, on the other hand, was writing to people that knew these stories by heart, and would have expected the references.

In modern times, consider the differences between how a similar story is conveyed to an American vs. British audience (eventhough both speak English). The audience often dictates the needs of the story, and just because important details are sometimes left out, does not necessarily equate to their non-historicity.

Nomad

Hello lpetrich

As I said in my reply to Bob, Matthew was writing for a Jewish community that knew the various prophecies (both written in the OT, and recorded in oral histories) that needed to be fulfilled by the Messiah. The Star, and the birth in Bethlehem are both references to such prophecies, and would have required in depth instruction to the Gentile audiences of Mark and Luke's community. John's purposes, of course, we far different, and his appeals to OT prophecies of the Messiah played virtually no role in his Gospel.

Aside from marduck's reference to the fact that oral traditions could be preserved verbatum for generations, your comparison here fails on a number of levels. On the most important level, Homer was writing about 800 years after the Trojan War, while the Gospels were written within the lifetime of living witnesses and apostles who could easily refute their claims. This difference is critical, and the great majority of historians of the ancients will confirm that mythological developement took much longer than the 20-60 years typically ascribed to the gap between the death of Jesus, and the writing of most of the New Testament.

No. But archeology has helped to prove many of his claims, just as archeology, papyrology, paleology and other sciences help to prove the historicity of much of the Gospels.

Umm... do you mean the aggressive Christian cult of 30AD-300AD that stamped out all religious competition in the Roman Empire by submitting to persecution? Please study your history before trying to draw comparisons.

Nomad

[Me:] I agree with that point; the same can be said of other features of Matthew, such as the Star of Bethlehem and Herod's ordering the mass murder of baby boys. The rest of the New Testament is a total blank on these "events". Not to mention Josephus.

[Nomad:]
As I said in my reply to Bob, Matthew was writing for a Jewish community that knew the various prophecies (both written in the OT, and recorded in oral histories) that needed to be fulfilled by the Messiah.

[Me:]
So Nomad *admits* that this supposed prophecy fulfillment is nothing more than propaganda?

[Me on Homer...]
Aside from marduck's reference to the fact that oral traditions could be preserved verbatum for generations, your comparison here fails on a number of levels. On the most important level, Homer was writing about 800 years after the Trojan War,

[Me:] 400 years more like it. But if oral tradition is super-reliable, then one has to consider the possibility of the existence of the Gods of Olympus, simply because Homer's works describe their activities.

[Nomad:]
while the Gospels were written within the lifetime of living witnesses and apostles who could easily refute their claims.

[Me:]
Like well after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?

[Nomad:]
This difference is critical, and the great majority of historians of the ancients will confirm that mythological developement took much longer than the 20-60 years typically ascribed to the gap between the death of Jesus, and the writing of most of the New Testament.

[Me:]
And what brings you to that conclusion?

[Me:]
Furthermore, Homer's works have been in continuous circulation for nearly 3000 years; does that also demonstrate their historicity?

[Nomad:]
No. But archeology has helped to prove many of his claims, just as archeology, papyrology, paleology and other sciences help to prove the historicity of much of the Gospels.

[Me:]
So that proves that the Olympian Gods not only existed, but ought to be worshipped, right? I wonder when Nomad will sacrifice an ox to Zeus.

[Me:]
And Homer's works did not have some aggressive cult behind it that was determined to stamp out all competition.

[Nomad:]
Umm... do you mean the aggressive Christian cult of 30AD-300AD that stamped out all religious competition in the Roman Empire by submitting to persecution? Please study your history before trying to draw comparisons.

[Me:]
What happened *after* it had been made the official state religion. Christian persecution of other religions has been *much* worse than anything that the Roman Empire had done to it. The Roman authorities had managed to put up with all sorts of weird cults, as long as participation in them did not mean refusal to worship the official Gods. And many early Christians had managed to find ways of weaseling out of participating in official religious festivals. In fact, if Christianity had been as persecuted as some have claimed, it might not have survived except as an extremely marginal cult, and possibly not even then.

No. The stories related by Matthew had special meaning to the Jews, but would have had no meaning to the Gentile audiences that Mark and Luke wrote for. I thought I had been clear on this point. My apologies.

This is a silly argument. I am not arguing for the theology of the Gospel accounts here, only their historicity. We cannot "prove" that anything in history actually happened as related to us in either written or oral form, but that does not mean we simply reject the claim because it is incredible. On such a basis, we would have to remain agnostically sceptical of all historical claims.

Experts that examine the historicity of the NT Gospels without theological blinders (like the atheist Robin Lane Fox) for example, admit that the empty tomb was historical. R.E. Brown, a priest in the Catholic Church, at the same time, admits that Matthew may have been reporting theological embellishments in his Gospel, but that we cannot "prove" that he was doing so any more than we can "prove" that he was not.

My purpose here was to demonstrate the argument from the silence of Mark is not an argument at all, and the argument against the claim since it is miraculous is also not a legitmate argument. Finally, we cannot say that oral histories are unreliable, since we have proven scientifically that they are reliable.

Also, I note that you did not reply to my point that the Gospels were created when witnesses were still alive, while in Homer's case, they were long dead (as in centuries). Again, this point is essential when testing the historicity of ancient documents.

In the case of John, yes. His Gospel is generally dated as late as 90AD, but the author is a witness himself, so it is not a great concern. In the case of Mark, Luke/Acts and Matthew's Gospels, the case is very good that they were written before this event. So what is the point of your question?

That the historicity of the Gospels are at least as reliable as any other documents we have about history, moreso I would argue since we do not have anything approaching so many differing accounts of the same events from ancient history (meaning anything that happened more than about 500 years ago).

Are you reading my posts or remaining deliberately dense? Let me help you again. Archelogy has helped to prove many of the things that Homer reported were based on history. Archeology has helped to prove that many of the things in the Gospels also happened.

Once again you are making the same mistake that penatis made numerous times in his posts. I asked you a direct question. Your question is not an answer to my own. Please answer my question.

Yes, the Romans were notoriously ineffective persecutors weren't they?

Good thing the Christians taught them how to finally get it right, eh?

Please try to remain serious in your posts lpetrich. Propaganda may play to the crowds, but it doesn't help your case much with the thinking classes. Try this, prove your points, and stop with the mindless assertions.

Thanks,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited January 09, 2001).]

Nomad: Once again you are making the same mistake that penatis made numerous times in his posts.

1. Notice that Nomad does not answer the question and attempts to draw the reader away from this fact.
2. Furthermore, in many of his posts, he makes assertions as if they were fact, when it can be demonstrated they are not.
3. He also calls people names, saying they are "dense" or "stupid" or "daft" or " a rookie," etc.
4. He says he doesn't give a "rat's ass" what they believe.
5. He says they should get down off their "fucking high horse."
6. He contradicts himself.
7. He misrepresents what people say and attacks that misrepresentation.
8. He uses science only when it supports his biases. Otherwise, he ignores or ridicules it.
9. He is arrogant.

It is no wonder why only a few posters (Pompous Bastard and others?) take him and his arguments seriously.

penatis

[This message has been edited by penatis (edited January 09, 2001).]

Regarding 1. thru 9. by penatis in the previous post, I must agree that Nomad is not addressing penatis' replies on merit, he is ducking penatis' replies by repeating himself under this topic and elsewhere, like if the replies didn't exist -after Nomad started indeed to rationalize them, but was overpowered in the debate-.
From the Engineer's standard of logic I want to have, I think penatis won so far the debate on merit, and there is no point for Nomad to insert the same arguments -already disqualified by penatis here- into other topics: it's a matter of integrity in keeping the debate fair, as Montagne -a French philosopher from the 17th. century- wrote in 'De l'art de la conversation'.

Nomad,

I feel this sick compulsion to throw "Yeah, but..." after everything you say.

Allow me to show how you are making an argument from silence.

Note that the AFS is not always a fallacy. It is only fallacious in cases where silence is to be expected.

I will use a simple illustration to help make the point.

And I'll use the same example to make the counter-point.

Five people testify to an event, I will lable these individuals as A, B, C, D, and E (I know, not very clever, but what the hey)

Displaying an even greater measure of creativity, I'm adding individual F for the purposes of my counter-point.

A: He went for lunch.
B: He met his family for lunch.
C: He met his wife for lunch.
D: He met some people for lunch.
E: He met his wife and children.

F: On his way to lunch, he happened upon several walking dead men.

Now, from the above accounts, it is very reasonable to synthesize the accounts, and come to the conclusion that this man met his wife and children for lunch.

Agreed.

None of the accounts contradict this theory, and to find out why some of the details were ommitted, by the witnesses, we would need to ask them. Some may have had limited information about the event in question, others may have thought the details unimportant to the listeners. What we cannot argue is that any of them are lying, or contradicting the other witnesses.

Until you add testimony F, the encounter with the walking dead, which is an extraordinary event. As Nomad notes, there is a human tendency to gloss over the details when telling a story, but the extraordinary bits are almost never glossed over. Telling the story of the lunch meeting and leaving out the bit about the walking dead is a lot like summing up the plot of Star Wars by saying, "Oh, it's about this guy who has some problems with his father and then they reconcile." I gurantee that if Nomad were to encounter the walking dead on his way to a lunch meeting and you were to ask him later how lunch went, he would not respond, "It was nice. I met my wife and children."

-Pompous Bastard

Penatis, just glad you didn’t resort to the same, because I‘ve learned a great deal by you staying on course. I wouldn't have had as much patience. I hope we get more like you around here that are this knowledgeable. You’ve renewed my interest in these papyrus texts.

I have been going to those sites you listed. Very fascinating. Quite an impressive display of papyrus texts still around for those early centuries. I know I’m grateful for the material you offered up. The best research I’ve seen around here. Thanks a million.

John

Ah yes.... the inalienable Right to Stupidity. I love that one. Should have been in the Bill of Rights. It's up there with the little known, but frequently invoked logical fallacy -- the Arugment from Invincible Ignorance.

(The above was intended humor I do not remember who made the quotes above, so I am not directly calling anyone in particular stupid....)

Andrew