Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SingleDad · 08-10-2001, 11:39 AM

I've tried to compile a summary of the alleged errors. I am not in any way an NT scholar, so I am relying on the comments of the authors here with a bit of logic common sense thrown in.

Error: The names of Evangelists are not given to the Gospels until late 2nd century.

Status: Not an error. Papias gives the names of some of the evangelists. However, Papias does not actually give the names to the gospels.

Error: No-one quotes the Gospels, or refer (sic) to them in the first century.

Status: Not an error. I understand this statement to mean that no quotations exist in the first century that refer to the gospels. This statement does not in itself claim that the gospels did not exist in the first century, but rather that quotational evidence from the first century does not exist. Indeed, no actual evidence is shown to refute this statement.

Error: The key other papyri are a few pages dated c.200 with only 2 whole chapters known before the manuscripts of c.300 and later.

Status: Substantive error. The author of the website has acknowleged that this statement understates the quality and quantity of third century manuscripts and appears to be in the process of correcting this error.

Error: Ignatius wrote eight letters showing no knowledge of the Gospels, but mentioning some of the Gospel events.

Status: Minor Error. We have [i]seven letters from Ignatius, not eight. Minor semantic error. In a document listing the quality of the evidence, it is poorly phrased to refer to Ignatius' knowledge (which is a conclusion). However the evidentiary substance of this conclusion appears valid: Ignatius does not appear to quote any texts, but rather refers to specific events without context or attribution.

Error: there are no extrabiblical references to Jesus in the first century CE, but this must be wrong because Jesus is mentioned by Josephus.

Status: Minor semantic error. The statement that "No historical evidence for Jesus exists [emphasis added]," slightly overstates the case. This statement should probably read no reliable or uncontroversial evidence exists. However, the author does explicitly mention Josephus, so one cannot term this error a misrepresentation.

Error: Well for openers they start by saying that the oldest texts are gnostic.

Status: Not an error. The side does not claim that the oldest texts are gnostic.

Error: The writer seemingly believes Paul wrote Ephesians.

Status: Uncertain but trivial. The substance of this objection rests on a single cryptic parenthetical aside in the website.

Error: P45 and P75 are the only two manuscripts before 300 CE with even one entire Gospel chapter.

Status: Already addressed.

Error: No historical evidence for the Evangelists or Jesus' followers exists. (in the first century)

Note: the qualifier "in the first century" is obviously meant as a qualifier to the evidence (i.e. there is no first-century historical evidence for the Evangelists), not to the events.

Status: Possibly a minor semantic error. However it is not obvious to me whether Paul qualifies as historical evidence. Also, without a more detailed examination of Corinthians and Galatians, it is not substantiated that this statement is actually in error.

Since the author does explicitly mention both Corinthians and Galatians, we cannot term this statement either as a misrepresentation or misinformation unless it can be shown that the author is exluding specific material that would strongly undermine his claim.

Error: No historical evidence for the events in the Gospel (sic) exists. (in the first century)

Status: Possibly a minor semantic error. See above.

Error: In this period Jesus Christos is seen as a spiritual being or Principle. (in the first century)

Status: Unsubstantiated. It is not clear that this is an error, merely an interpretation with which the critic disagrees.

turtonm, I think that your admission, "You have found a plethora of errors," is not yet warranted. Given that the author was attempting to survey a large amount of material in a short amount of space, a few semantic quibbles does not seem to justify Polycarps intial allegations of "gross misrepresentations and outright misinformation."

Apikorus · 08-10-2001, 11:39 AM

rodahi: "So you say."

Hilarious! Ironic! (And very telling.) This is an attitude worthy of the most rabid evangelical fundamentalists - to question the "weak faith" of one of their brethren.

Finally, rodahi (...Apikorus implants tongue firmly in cheek...), it's not "knit-pick" - it's "nitpick".

SingleDad · 08-10-2001, 11:47 AM

Apikorus

{{ Administrator Hat ON }}

If you wish to complain about the behavior of one of our Moderators, please do so in the Secular Web Bugs, Problems & Complaints forum. Otherwise I would prefer you to confine your your bickering to email or Usenet.

{{ Administrator Hat OFF }}

Nomad · 08-10-2001, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rodahi:
Apikorus: rodahi, I am an atheist.

rodahi: So you say.

I agree with EVERYTHING SingleDad said. You have no idea how much irreparable harm you have done here. IN MY OPINION, you are an arrogant, know-it-all. You have advanced the cause of theism and hurt SecWeb atheists with your commentary.

Given the chastisement handed out to Apikorus by SingleDad and rodahi (his sin being that he has apparently strayed from atheist orthodoxy here on the SecWeb, plus the unforgivable crime of arrogance), am I now to understand that there is some sort of party line for atheists to follow here?

Nomad

Toto · 08-10-2001, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:
<STRONG>
. . . am I now to understand that there is some sort of party line for atheists to follow here?
</STRONG>

If you read that exchange and saw a party line, your reading skills are even worse than I thought.

Polycarp · 08-10-2001, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rodahi:
Apikorus: rodahi, I am an atheist.

So you say.

I agree with EVERYTHING SingleDad said. You have no idea how much irreparable harm you have done here. IN MY OPINION, you are an arrogant, know-it-all. You have advanced the cause of theism and hurt SecWeb atheists with your commentary.

This is my last posting.

Due to the commentary of Apikorus I have renounced Christ and am fully committed to the cause of atheism and its advancement throughout all humanity. Where do I sign in ? Anyone ??? Anyone??? I thought I needed to make this official...

Irreparable harm !?! I'm sure Apikorus had no idea of the power he wields.

Peace,

Polycarp

penatis · 08-10-2001, 05:44 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Apikorus: rodahi, I am an atheist.
So you say.

I agree with EVERYTHING SingleDad said. You have no idea how much irreparable harm you have done here. IN MY OPINION, you are an arrogant, know-it-all. You have advanced the cause of theism and hurt SecWeb atheists with your commentary.

This is my last posting.

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

Polycarp: Due to the commentary of Apikorus I have renounced Christ and am fully committed to the cause of atheism and its advancement throughout all humanity. Where do I sign in ? Anyone ??? Anyone??? I thought I needed to make this official...

You are much better at sarcasm than you are at backing up your assertions. Deal with SingleDad's posting.

Polycarp: Irreparable harm !?! I'm sure Apikorus had no idea of the power he wields.

Apikorus' commentary has caused problems for SecWeb atheists. One of them remains unevident.

penatis

Polycarp · 08-10-2001, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by penatis:
You are much better at sarcasm than you are at backing up your assertions. Deal with SingleDad's posting.

Polycarp: Irreparable harm !?! I'm sure Apikorus had no idea of the power he wields.

Apikorus' commentary has caused problems for SecWeb atheists. One of them remains unevident.

"Go Turton!! Go SingleDad!! Save us from the bad Christians who criticize our sacred relics"

This room is full of cheerleaders, but none of you are very good-looking; nothing like how the cheerleaders at my high school looked. Yeah, baby...

I have a lot of respect for Turton and SingleDad, but it's funny to see some others hiding behind them.

I have a question for penatis... If I say that Kurt Warner is the quarterback of the Minnesota Vikings, am I making an error? If so, then I imagine it would only be a minor, semantic error, right? After all, Kurt Warner is a quarterback. Quarterbacks play football, and the Minnesota Vikings are a football team. Yeah, now it all makes sense.

Michael was the one who recommended the site. Yes, I may have overstated my case in my opening comments (but I didn't inhale). The use of overstatement is perhaps one of my lesser faults as a person. However, as Michael and Bede have said, it's time to move on. If, after reading the critiques of the site from myself, Apikorus, and Meta, a person wishes to believe the site to be of great value, then that's fine.

Since Michael was the one who first recommended the site, and has listened to criticism, acknowledged it, and moved on, I'm more than willing to do likewise. I could have saved everyone a lot of energy if I'd not "lobbed the hand grenade" at the beginning of this whole ordeal. (That was a good line. Thanks to whoever said it.)

And, last but not least, I call a motion that Apikorus change his moniker and be forever dubbed, "Bringer of Irreparable Harm to Atheism".

Peace,

Polycarp

James Still · 08-10-2001, 06:59 PM

Quote:

And, last but not least, I call a motion that Apikorus change his moniker and be forever dubbed, "Bringer of Irreparable Harm to Atheism".

Damn, I'm jealous. That would be a cool nickname.

Apikorus · 08-10-2001, 08:00 PM

It's all in the cologne (my wife bought me a bottle of Calvin Klein's "Arrogance").

Polycarp, go ask a rabbi (or any knowledgeable Jew, really) what an apikorus is. You should be able to guess the etymology.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-10-2001, 11:39 AM	#81
SingleDad Banned Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Littleton, CO, USA Posts: 1,477	I've tried to compile a summary of the alleged errors. I am not in any way an NT scholar, so I am relying on the comments of the authors here with a bit of logic common sense thrown in. Error: The names of Evangelists are not given to the Gospels until late 2nd century. Status: Not an error. Papias gives the names of some of the evangelists. However, Papias does not actually give the names to the gospels. Error: No-one quotes the Gospels, or refer (sic) to them in the first century. Status: Not an error. I understand this statement to mean that no quotations exist in the first century that refer to the gospels. This statement does not in itself claim that the gospels did not exist in the first century, but rather that quotational evidence from the first century does not exist. Indeed, no actual evidence is shown to refute this statement. Error: The key other papyri are a few pages dated c.200 with only 2 whole chapters known before the manuscripts of c.300 and later. Status: Substantive error. The author of the website has acknowleged that this statement understates the quality and quantity of third century manuscripts and appears to be in the process of correcting this error. Error: Ignatius wrote eight letters showing no knowledge of the Gospels, but mentioning some of the Gospel events. Status: Minor Error. We have [i]seven letters from Ignatius, not eight. Minor semantic error. In a document listing the quality of the evidence, it is poorly phrased to refer to Ignatius' knowledge (which is a conclusion). However the evidentiary substance of this conclusion appears valid: Ignatius does not appear to quote any texts, but rather refers to specific events without context or attribution. Error: there are no extrabiblical references to Jesus in the first century CE, but this must be wrong because Jesus is mentioned by Josephus. Status: Minor semantic error. The statement that "No historical evidence for Jesus exists [emphasis added]," slightly overstates the case. This statement should probably read no reliable or uncontroversial evidence exists. However, the author does explicitly mention Josephus, so one cannot term this error a misrepresentation. Error: Well for openers they start by saying that the oldest texts are gnostic. Status: Not an error. The side does not claim that the oldest texts are gnostic. Error: The writer seemingly believes Paul wrote Ephesians. Status: Uncertain but trivial. The substance of this objection rests on a single cryptic parenthetical aside in the website. Error: P45 and P75 are the only two manuscripts before 300 CE with even one entire Gospel chapter. Status: Already addressed. Error: No historical evidence for the Evangelists or Jesus' followers exists. (in the first century) Note: the qualifier "in the first century" is obviously meant as a qualifier to the evidence (i.e. there is no first-century historical evidence for the Evangelists), not to the events. Status: Possibly a minor semantic error. However it is not obvious to me whether Paul qualifies as historical evidence. Also, without a more detailed examination of Corinthians and Galatians, it is not substantiated that this statement is actually in error. Since the author does explicitly mention both Corinthians and Galatians, we cannot term this statement either as a misrepresentation or misinformation unless it can be shown that the author is exluding specific material that would strongly undermine his claim. Error: No historical evidence for the events in the Gospel (sic) exists. (in the first century) Status: Possibly a minor semantic error. See above. Error: In this period Jesus Christos is seen as a spiritual being or Principle. (in the first century) Status: Unsubstantiated. It is not clear that this is an error, merely an interpretation with which the critic disagrees. turtonm, I think that your admission, "You have found a plethora of errors," is not yet warranted. Given that the author was attempting to survey a large amount of material in a short amount of space, a few semantic quibbles does not seem to justify Polycarps intial allegations of "gross misrepresentations and outright misinformation."

08-10-2001, 11:39 AM	#82
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	rodahi: "So you say." Hilarious! Ironic! (And very telling.) This is an attitude worthy of the most rabid evangelical fundamentalists - to question the "weak faith" of one of their brethren. Finally, rodahi (...Apikorus implants tongue firmly in cheek...), it's not "knit-pick" - it's "nitpick".

08-10-2001, 11:47 AM	#83
SingleDad Banned Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Littleton, CO, USA Posts: 1,477	Apikorus {{ Administrator Hat ON }} If you wish to complain about the behavior of one of our Moderators, please do so in the Secular Web Bugs, Problems & Complaints forum. Otherwise I would prefer you to confine your your bickering to email or Usenet. {{ Administrator Hat OFF }}

08-10-2001, 05:44 PM	#87
penatis Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Weslaco, TX,, USA Posts: 10	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rodahi: Apikorus: rodahi, I am an atheist. So you say. I agree with EVERYTHING SingleDad said. You have no idea how much irreparable harm you have done here. IN MY OPINION, you are an arrogant, know-it-all. You have advanced the cause of theism and hurt SecWeb atheists with your commentary. This is my last posting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polycarp: Due to the commentary of Apikorus I have renounced Christ and am fully committed to the cause of atheism and its advancement throughout all humanity. Where do I sign in ? Anyone ??? Anyone??? I thought I needed to make this official... You are much better at sarcasm than you are at backing up your assertions. Deal with SingleDad's posting. Polycarp: Irreparable harm !?! I'm sure Apikorus had no idea of the power he wields. Apikorus' commentary has caused problems for SecWeb atheists. One of them remains unevident. penatis

08-10-2001, 08:00 PM	#90
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	It's all in the cologne (my wife bought me a bottle of Calvin Klein's "Arrogance"). Polycarp, go ask a rabbi (or any knowledgeable Jew, really) what an apikorus is. You should be able to guess the etymology.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.