It's not much of a point, MC, and you got blasted on the other thread. Why do you keep making it?

Even if Luke got all his history correct, it would not mean that Jesus rose from the dead or walked on water.

BTW, Do you have a copy of Brown's Intro to the NT? I believe there is some discussion of the historical errors in Luke-Acts.

Michael

Meta =>Yea, school is out. Lots of time. Real board. Have to mess with you guys for amuzment. Just kidding. But, none of those are historical novles. Just because they make allusions to things in history doesn't mean they are doing historical novels. Even Jospehus and Tacistus did not understand history as an academic subject the way we do today, and novels didn't exist until about the 16th century.

There is a difference in histoircal novels and stories with historical things in them. None of those works stack up to the histoircal environment of the NT. And since historically we know that there was a network of social contact between the principle players it is absurd to think that it was just fabricated for the purposes of a story.

The whole concept that these 12 guys, or even four our whatever would sit around and make up a religion and than wirte out a big fictional work to fool pepole and then go out to the very people they are putting in the story and try to convence them that such things happened when everyone knew they didn't is stupid. And to top all that off, the fact that there are no alternate versions proves it. The pbulic knew the facts becasue they saw it happen.

Waiting for what? You haven't said anything yet. There's nothing to add to that thread but more of your childish banter. you are far too stupid for me to waste my time on. Why argue with idiots. But if you will debate me on the speicial board I will slauter you as an example to idioits everywhere.

Blasted? ahahahah by your ignorant assertion that the Gosples are historical novels? ahahahahahahha, first you say myth, than you don't don't know what myth is so when called on that you switch to a literary genre that didn't exist for another thousand years! You don't know what you are talking about. But you never said anything to uproot the fac that Papias knew the Apostles! That is direct documentary proof that the events happened. We have writings of those who knew eye witnesses to Jesus' life and death and resurrection! You say nothing to dispute that.

As for the Brown thing that is just empiricially disproven by the docs in the census thread and even Van Harnack agreed that all of those attacks were stupid. It's all been confrimed by Archaeology! It's not just Ramsey that says, Cornfeld says it!

And the point that getting the history right doesn't prove anything is foolish. It proves a great deal. First, it proves that Jesus really existed, was Cricified and that early followers cliamed to see him risen. That's all we have to prove. That's all that coudl be expected. Nothing in history is "proven' all of history is assumption. To prove the basic situation is the best anyone could do. The rest is faith. That's ok, that's what we want. We want people to have faith, if you choose not to that's your problem.

sucker.

Not surprised you can't take the heat. That was, after all, the original accusation.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:
[b] Blasted? ahahahah by your ignorant assertion that the Gosples are historical novels? ahahahahahahha, first you say myth, than you don't don't know what myth is so when called on that you switch to a literary genre that didn't exist for another thousand years!

<sigh> So it's back to Evil Meta. I never said they were "historical novels" -- that was your strawman -- but complex writing blending myth, history, tradition, inventiveness, theology and whatnot into a story about Jesus. It doesn't matter what the terminology we use to describe them is. To me, and many other writers, they are labelled "myth." If you want to call them "folklore" or "widgets" or "poems" it is up to you. They remain, however, without any historical truth as far as Jesus is concerned, save for the echo of a tradition.

You don't know what you are talking about. But you never said anything to uproot the fac that Papias knew the Apostles!

What does that have to do with anything? In any case, Papias knew only elders who had talked to apostles. This is discussed in a fine site at Rutgers:

http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/papias.html

But I am curious why you suddenly diverge into Papias, although his name has never come up in our discussions....

That is direct documentary proof that the events happened. We have writings of those who knew eye witnesses to Jesus' life and death and resurrection! You say nothing to dispute that.

A few days after meeting Wovoka, the Paiute Messiah, the chiefs of the Sioux came back reporting that Wovoka had flown over their heads on magic horse. This is indeed direct documentary proof that the event occurred.

The Maji Maji followers attested to their captors, who wrote it down, that the magic water protected them from bullets. This is direct documentary proof that it actually worked, their slaughter by colonial troops notwithstanding.

The followers of Sai Baba have videos showing his many miracles. That beats Jesus' pitiful gospels hands down. Why aren't you worshipping Sai Baba?

Do I need witnesses to disprove impossibilities? If you report to me that a woman had given birth to a cow, am I to require witnesses to disprove it? You report that Jesus walked on water. People cannot walk on water. Therefore, Jesus did not. Doesn't matter what documents it is in, or who said it. Can't happen.

As for the Brown thing that is just empiricially disproven by the docs in the census thread and even Van Harnack agreed that all of those attacks were stupid. It's all been confrimed by Archaeology! It's not just Ramsey that says, Cornfeld says it!

"The Brown thing?" Do you have any idea what you are talking about? As the thread showed, you didn't demonstrate anything.

And the point that getting the history right doesn't prove anything is foolish. It proves a great deal. First, it proves that Jesus really existed, was Cricified and that early followers cliamed to see him risen

Someone under the stories probably existed and got executed. And his followers claimed to have seen him risen. The third is demonstrated by the existence of the religion, the first two are at issue. We do not need the gospels to infer them in any case, an oral tradition would be enough.

Michael

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:
[b]Meta =&gt;That was Toto, sorry.


Meta =&gt;That's just an assertion you have no right to make.It's directly contradicted by Clement and Papias so there is no basis in fact for that assertion. that's just what you distroiting the facts.YOu are merely gainsaying the evidence.

You don't know what you are talking about. But you never said anything to uproot the fac that Papias knew the Apostles!

What does that have to do with anything? In any case, Papias knew only elders who had talked to apostles. This is discussed in a fine site at Rutgers:

Meta =&gt;On the page you link to there is a link to another page by STeven Carlson. he says:

"And the Papias being explained now admits that he had received the words of the apostles from those who followed them, and declares that he was an ear-witness of Aristion and the presbyter John. At any rate, he hands down their traditions in his treatises, often mentioning them by name."

Arision and the Elder John were also eye-witnesses to Jesus' ministry. The Eler is probably the author of 1-3 John and maybe even the Gospel of John. They don't have to be Apostles to have hard Jesus teach and seen his works. So that's still just one step removed, enough to demonstate that he was a real guy.

Now even if you are right and it's 3 levels removed that means that that second level, the "elders" who heard the Apostles understood Jesus as an historical figure. So why did they do that if the Apostles were teaching it as myth? Or do you guy the hoax theory. It was just a big plot?


http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/papias.html

But I am curious why you suddenly diverge into Papias, although his name has never come up in our discussions....

Meta =&gt;I have actually mentioned this before but everyone ignored it.

That is direct documentary proof that the events happened. We have writings of those who knew eye witnesses to Jesus' life and death and resurrection! You say nothing to dispute that.

A few days after meeting Wovoka, the Paiute Messiah, the chiefs of the Sioux came back reporting that Wovoka had flown over their heads on magic horse. This is indeed direct documentary proof that the event occurred.


Meta =&gt;Yea so? Maybe he did.That's just your cultural imperialsm that says it couldn't happen.

The Maji Maji followers attested to their captors, who wrote it down, that the magic water protected them from bullets. This is direct documentary proof that it actually worked, their slaughter by colonial troops notwithstanding.

Meta =&gt;It's direct documentary proof that they beleived it.NO historian says "O they didn't exist,that was just made up, no one could really do that so therefore the people reportedly saying it were made up based upon accounts of other tribes that all share similar characteristics." than they go off and write books about it and put up message boards trying to persuade a lagre autidence about their useless specuations.

The followers of Sai Baba have videos showing his many miracles. That beats Jesus' pitiful gospels hands down. Why aren't you worshipping Sai Baba?

Meta =&gt;Maybe he did work miracles. I'm not ruling that merely because I have an ideological bias agaisnt miralces. I dont' worship him because he didn't come when I called. Jesus did.

Do I need witnesses to disprove impossibilities?

Meta =&gt;You ideological programatic nature is really working overtime here and you have abanonded all attempts at being subtle. You seem to be equating beleif that Jesus existed with the argument that he rose form the dead. So that to merely beleive he existed is to beleive he rose form the dead. I have said all along that the former is all I'm arguing. That is all we could reasonably be expected to prove,that if the situation which would allow for it is in place the rest has to be faith; that is what I've said all along. It's absurd to confusse that with arguing that I can prove he rose form the dead. But apparently you are so afrid of God and of the truth that you can't see the distinction. Don't eve slip and admit he might have existed --ok on the other thread you did, but the fact that confusee the issues just means that you are really thinking "if i admit that Jesus really existed than he's a step closer to really rising form the dead." That is not logical..I can't see anyother reason you would confusse the two issues.


If you report to me that a woman had given birth to a cow, am I to require witnesses to disprove it? You report that Jesus walked on water. People cannot walk on water. Therefore, Jesus did not. Doesn't matter what documents it is in, or who said it. Can't happen.

Meta =&gt;AGain, why are you confussing Jesus historical existence with his working miracles?

As for the Brown thing that is just empiricially disproven by the docs in the census thread and even Van Harnack agreed that all of those attacks were stupid. It's all been confrimed by Archaeology! It's not just Ramsey that says, Cornfeld says it!

"The Brown thing?" Do you have any idea what you are talking about? As the thread showed, you didn't demonstrate anything.

MEta =&gt;ahahahaahhaa, you guys can't understand the evidence when it is in front of you faces! did you even read it? NO! Becasue he says we have the records we know there was a census, Now just how did I "creamed" on it when you guys have not one peice of evidence that says "there was no census" and I have evidence that says 'here are the records."???

And the point that getting the history right doesn't prove anything is foolish. It proves a great deal. First, it proves that Jesus really existed, was Cricified and that early followers cliamed to see him risen

Someone under the stories probably existed and got executed. And his followers claimed to have seen him risen. The third is demonstrated by the existence of the religion, the first two are at issue. We do not need the gospels to infer them in any case, an oral tradition would be enough.

MEta =&gt; than why are you still arguing? You must be really scared silly by the prospect of Christianity being true, becasue all I've argued is that Jeus existed in history!




[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited June 03, 2001).]

CAn't take heart? So you actually think that your blathering is bothering me? I think you are an idiot. And I dont' give a shit what you say becasue I know I know more than you. I know my motives are good, and that I am smarter and that you are an idiot. So whatever you say is just chatter.

ahahahahahaha, take heart?? you really think your inane blathering is somehow bothering me? Listen man I've taken idiots like you apart intellectually all my life. There is always some moron who doens't understand documetation or doesn't get the drift, can't think abstractly, has no backround in the wrold of thought, thinks all the popular misconceptions and is afarid to think deeply. These people dont' bother me. I've been used to that ignorant intolerant prejudice agaisnt dyslexia and against thinking all my life. blathering nay sayers are just par for the course. I'm a Texas intellectual, like the defenders at the Alamo I'm in it for the long haul.