Om:

Since you accused me of lying about my request for information indicating which scholars endorsed the position that the Arabic version of the Josephus reference to Jesus was more original than the redacted
version, I take the matter seriously. I have again reviewed the provided link and the three scholars you list do NOT say what you imply they say, and one even explicitly REJECTS the very idea that you imply he
endorses.

So. I ask you to retract your accusation OR demonstrate where in the provided article Eisler, Pines, and Charlesworth endorse the view that the Arabic version of Josephus is the most original (especially in preference to the redacted version).

As a reminder:
http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f.../000238-4.html

You claimed that I misrepresented them, yes. But then you claim a great many things, don't you? However, no proof was offered.



The webpage listing the individuals in question (Eisler, Pines, and Charlesworth) was a web page offering, among other things, an explanation of the alternative view that the Arabic version may be closer to the original.

So let me get this straight: it is your contention that individual publishing the web page has knowingly quoted people who contradicted or disagreed with that idea??


Don't be silly. There is nothing to retract here.

But as long as you are going to mix topics from other thread, I remind you that you have totally failed to address my other points in that thread.

"You also made claims about what I have said ("many" scholars vs. "some" scholars). In that situation, you were also flat wrong."

How shocking. I. Am. So. Sorry.

And so far you have been flat wrong about those scholars and the Josephus/Arabic version thread. Not only that, you have completely misrepresented the positions of the scholars on that site and continue to refuse to fess up to it or retract your accusation that I lied about it.

I think a better question would be the following: since Dennis started the thread topic by comparing the quality of evidence between:
(a) the life and key events surrounding Caesar, vs.
(b) the life and key events surrounding Christ.

why doesn't EgoNomad address that key point of the thread? Which is, of course, the central thrust of Dennis' argument? Have you asked EgoNomad why he has failed to address this? Wonder what his answer would be....

Why should Dennis discuss what Nomad wants - Dennis opened the discussion, and laid the topic on the table. But then in classic EgoNomad behavior, EgoNomad tried to change that topic, and narrow it down. But why should Dennis tolerate or permit that?


Nonsense, deLayman. Dennis was explicit about a great many things - he compared and contrasted:

1. Sources from the time Caesar and Jesus lived.
2. Sources from writings written after their subject's death, but by people who were alive at the of their subject's life.
3. Later historians
4. Archeology

He also discussed the number of sources for Caesar's life as well as the characteristics of those sources (i.e., collected from both sympathetic and non-sympathetic sources).

You're whining again - SingleDad has you pegged to a "T" on that.


Again with the misquotes, deLayman? That is not what Dennis said about you.


Now having been forced to focus on what Dennis actually said, do you disagree with it?


Of course he did; in the busted "Miracle Worker" thread that you've been so negligent about revising. Dennis simply didn't see any point in repeating the same arguments here, since they are readily available in the other thread:

Dennis set this up as an "A vs. B" comparison, deLayman. And by comparison to the greater sources for Caesar, the sources for Jesus are weak. I fail to see what your problem is here.


You're lying again, Liarman. You objected to it, yes. But Dennis most certainly has defended it, by contrasting the number, characteristics and quality of the evidence. For example:

Oh, so you are a mind-reader now? It was painfully apparent to me, to SingleDad, and to others watching the debate that the reason Dennis gave you & EgoNomad the last word is because no one was going to address his points. And again, you seem to have this reversed. Since Dennis opened the thread, why shouldn't EgoNomad address the thread's original topic instead of trying to change or narrow it?


True, but irrelevant. The question is not who raised the topic of McDowell. The question is whether or not there continues to be unfinished business on the table. There does.


No, you just mischaracterized it in your own way. Funny how I seem to know what Dennis' point was, and you continue to miss it. Could that be deliberate on your part, deLayman?

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Jesus fucking christ, deLayman. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING about you or EgoNomad relying on McDowell. Why in the world do you persist in creating total fucking strawmen and then asking other people to make them dance for you?

You'll get your McDowell quotes when you deal with the other material on the table, and not before. But I will tell you this: McDowell makes no less than two such statements.



[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
"There is no requirement that gods cannot die; Roman mythology, Greek mythology, other mythologies are all replete with gods that die. Norse mythology is obsessed with the idea of preventing the death of the gods. Your condition is flawed."

Your condition is irrelevant. The religions themselves decide what is, or is not, a god in their pantheon. Your attitude is the mirror image of what you fault the skeptic for - trying to put limits on what God is, or should be, and then rejecting God when He doesn't fit that preconceived notion.

But as to your "condition" that a god doesn't die - two points:

1. explain your belief that Christ died;
2. I did not say that these gods remain dead. I merely said that they die.


And what about the claims for Caesar's divine nature?

The Roman historian Suetonius, for example, recorded as a fact that while Roman magistrates publicly argued about where to take the body of Julius Caesar to be cremated, two "divine forms" came down with torches and set fire to the bier on which Caesar's body was lying in state (The Twelve Caesars, Penguin, 1979, p. 52). He reported that Caesar's "soul" was seen as a comet for seven consecutive days about an hour before sunset (Ibid., p. 53). He reported that some had seen the spirit of Augustus Caesar ascending to heaven in the crematory flames (Ibid., 111).

Also see the above about mirror image attitude - if we as mere mortals are not to presume to tell God what to do, or what He should be like, then it is inconsistent to take that liberty with another religion. And by taking that liberty, to reject the claims for godhood therein.




[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 13, 2001).]

Hey, let's remember - it was you who was bitching about he said, she said. I merely pointed out that you brought it on yourself.

Funny you've never been able to prove that.


If I have misrepresented their positions, then it should be a snap for you to demonstrate that.

You have convinced me Omnedon. You are a liar. I've held back on levelling this charge. But, you have clearly, flat out, LIED about the Josephus/Arabic version link.

But the sad, pathetic part of your tactics is that it takes forever, surfing through many different threads and post after post to gather the evidence and prove it. And even when I do you just ignore it and steamroll right on through, pretending that it never happened.

But, once again:

You claimed that the website offered support for the claim that "some" scholars believed that the Arabic version of Josephus' reference to Jesus was most likely original.

I checked the website and I asked you WHICH scholars the website relied on and sought to clarify if they indicated that it the Arabic version was superior to the redacted version.

After much wrangling, I again asked you WHICH scholars the website cited for the above mentioned propositions.

You accused me of lying and claimed that the website "mentioned" three scholars: Eisler, Pines, and Charlesworth.

I AGAIN visited the website. I rechecked a fourth, perhaps fifth time, and I quoted the website's language that Eisler was the one who PROPOSED THE RECONSTRUCTED version. NOWHERE in the article does it even suggest that Eisler endorsed the opinions you implied he accepted.

Moreover, neither Pines nor Charlesworth are mentioned as supporters of the view you implied they had. They were only listed as TRANSLATORS of the Arabic version!

So. Prove me wrong. Show me where the article lists Eisler, Pines, and Charlseworth as the one's who adopted the theory you implied they did: That the Arabic version is most likely the original one and to be prefered to the redacted version.

You sir, are a coward and a liar. You engage in the most vicious personal assaults and avoid actually discussing history at all costs. Rather than admit what could have been a simple error, your response is to launch yet another personal assault on my character.

Goodnight. And Happy Easter.

First all I had to do was respond to Dennis' point. I did. Now, I have to jump through some more hoops.

Do your fellow skeptics even take you seriously anymore?

[QUOTE] Your condition is irrelevant. The religions themselves decide what is, or is not, a god in their pantheon. Your attitude is the mirror image of what you fault the skeptic for - trying to put limits on what God is, or should be, and then rejecting God when He doesn't fit that preconceived notion.

But as to your "condition" that a god doesn't die - two points:

1. explain your belief that Christ died;
2. I did not say that these gods remain dead. I merely said that they die."

Actually, I think my point was that Ceasar *remained* dead. Not that he died in the first place. Chrsitainity is very clear on the fact that Jesus, God incarnate, died on the Cross as an atonement for my sins and yours.

Where have I faulted skeptics for trying to put limits on what God is?

"Your "Miracle Worker" thread is totally busted. You have completely failed to address the points that turtonm, SingleDad and I made about the flaws in your so-called "tools" of textual criticism. So I am not sure where you get off demanding that other people address your points."

Conclusory BS. As usual.

No, you did not. You mischaracterized it and then you backed off.


Why shouldn't you? You haven't satisfied the initial condition.

And to make matters worse, you created that giant strawman above. Oh, by the way: I notice that in your cowardice, you did not retract it.