Exactly what part of "I suspect that Nomad is lying to us" don't you understand, Layman? Of course I could be wrong. If I thought I had proof positive I would have stated "Nomad is a liar" as baldly as you had me do it. For someone so quick to jump upon the nuances of those who agree with you, you seem totally incapable of noting the nuances of your opponents. Odd that.

It must be hard on you, to be shown to be consistently wrong so often. Maybe if you were as circumspect as myself, you'd save yourself much embarrassment.

As for Bede's quotes, I suggest you check them again. Nothing there suggests that that "revolution" occurred in the first century (didn't Nomad say first or second generation)? As I've shown, Grant doubts it would have happened without the assistance of Constantine -- which is not what Nomad has been claiming. That is what makes me suspect Nomad as overstating his case in the first place.

And I'm very glad you have Grant's book and I'm not surprised that you're backing away from him. Very little of what he says supports how you propose to do history, and much of it supports mine. At any rate, you can check what I have to say, for I propose to quote liberally from his book. I happen to like what he says a whole lot.

So. Tell me. What are you claiming Nomad to have claimed? I asked you this several times and you just ignored it.

You first claimed this:

Where did Nomad claim this? Are you revising your assertions as to what Nomad said? If so, then do you admit that the quote you supplied was irrelevant to what Nomad actually said?

You don't have any proof at all, much less "proof positive." What is the basis for your statement? You don't even seem to know what Nomad was claiming.

Personal, and pointless ad hominen attack noted and deemed as irrelevant.

Personal, and pointless ad hominen attack noted and deemed as irrelevant. Again.

The issue is whether Nomad lied about Grant's position. Whether Grant agrees with every point Nomad has ever argued is an absurd way to approach this issue. You have submitted/implied/suggested/ that Nomad has lied about what he claimed Grant did.

This is why I asked you again and again just what it is you think that Nomad claimed. Your story seems to be changing.

You first said this:

Now what are you saying? You have yet to make this clear. Please be specific.

I'm not "backing away" from Grant. Until you raised this issue, I don't remember that I have ever relied on him. In fact, I only got his book a week ago and consider it to be somewhat dated and naive about source and literary criticism. He does make some good points, but I disagree with him on many points.

As for him agreeing with you, I'm suprised to hear you say that. You recently claimed that we could could not know much of anything about Jesus' life. The evidence was just too slim.

Does Grant agree with that?

Grant, Jesus, at 198.

Apparently not. Moreover, throughout the book he refers to "facts" being established about Jesus' life.

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
Jesus has been worshipped for two thousand years by billions of people. Undoubtedly millions have expressed their worship in writing, painting, charity, architecture, prayer, self sacrifice, martyrdom, singing and music, and good oldfashioned church attendance.

Yet you find Grant's statement somehow unsupported?

Certainly. Grant never showed that any of these people ever knew Jesus or anything of "his life". What they knew of was Christianity. If he wants to say that people have been moved by Christian beliefs, that's another matter. (And of course many may have been "moved" negatively as well as positively, and with good reason.)



[This message has been edited by madmax2976 (edited April 13, 2001).]

If so, then Nomad and Grant are wrong about it being unique. Islam followed a similar path of early development among its followers.

Layman, how exactly does the following quote imply that Nomad was talking the past two thousand years?

Your inability to grasp reality is absolutely breathtaking. Your denials of what has been splashed all over this board are probably the single most futile thing I've seen in a long time.

And if you've read Grant's book, then you know that his view of the historicity of Jesus is far more sophisticated than that one single quote you and Bede are so fond of. I don't deny a historical person named Jesus; I deny that the facts of his life are so well founded that a religion can be safely rested upon it. I suggest you see my How a Historian Views Jesus's Historicity before you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

OmJr,

I keep asking you what you THINK Nomad said for a reason. Your failure to answer continues to frustrate the dialouge.

So. Let me try and spell it out. Whatever else he made have said, NOTHING in the following quote indicates that Nomad is referring to the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.

Nomad did not claim that Christianity conquered the Roman Empire in the first or second generation of its believers. He does not appear to be even suggesting, in this quote, that Christianity had grown to significance. What he appears to be saying is that the formation of the Christian BELIEF SYSTEM ITSELF ("formation of all of Christian mythology") witin the first two generatoions was significant.

Again, what is your understanding of Nomad's claim? Please? Pretty please?

As for Grant, I've offered more than "one single quote." But you seem to be having trouble with even the few that we have provided. I'll repeat it:

He is talking about much more than demonstrating Jesus' existence Dennis. He is talking about recreating a historically trustworthy "life of Jesus!" Now I don't agree with Grant on many of his conclusions or methods, but he clearly has more confidence in the available evidence than you do?

Why does this even matter? I don't even consider Grant to be a major player in the search for the historical Jesus. I suspect that Nomad likes to rely on him because he tends to be a skeptic but ridicules the "Jesus myth" concept. He's invulnerable to charges of "Christian bias."

The whole point of Nomad's thread was to discuss the rise of Christianity in the first 300 years. In fact, he was using Grant to promote his "uniqueness" theory, as if that somehow makes Christianity more plausible.

From Nomad's What Happened thread:

His intial post:
What's really funny is Layman said this in the same thread:


Since the whole discussion of that thread was about the first 300 years, as you and Nomad defined the thread, of course he was using Grant in support of that theory. Say, do we need to define "is" for you too?

You could do this the easy way. Instead of asserting that Nomad wasn't using this to support his theories about the rise of Christianity, you might do something -- yes, I know you're not used to doing this -- like actually provide some support. It's tiring to supply all the facts myself.


As for the relevance of Grant, I keep hearing claims like this from Nomad:

Grant, a professional historian of ancient events, disputed that notion. As I have shown elsewhere, the sources for the resurrection are not independent. It is significant that a historian of his stature agrees with me. He is certainly qualified to pass judgement of the quality of the sources of information we have for Jesus.

"Since the whole discussion of that thread was about the first 300 years, as you and Nomad defined the thread, of course he was using Grant in support of that theory. Say, do we need to define "is" for you too?"

Thank you for clarifying.

But surely, as an ex-English teacher, you are not so naive to think that because Nomad argued X, and then referred to Grant somewhere in a thread full of dozens of posts, that he by necessity used Grant to directly support X. Please show me where Nomad referred to Grant for the proposition you are claiming.

And I am surprised to see you raise this quote from Nomad: "The crucifixion of Jesus alone is considered to be the best attested event in the ancient world (no less than 5 sources from four different people written within 20-70 years of the events)."

LOL. So now you DO want to talk about the execution of Jesus?

Then you said this: "Grant, a professional historian of ancient events, disputed that notion. As I have shown elsewhere, the sources for the resurrection are not independent. It is significant that a historian of his stature agrees with me. He is certainly qualified to pass judgement of the quality of the sources of information we have for Jesus."

Don't you mean that you agree with Grant?

Besides, I did not see where Nomad claimed that Grant agreed with him on this one. Since you are trying to show that Nomad somehow misrepresented Grant's opinion, of what relevance is this to your point? Please provide a quote where Nomad said that Grant supported this claim.

As for Grant's thoughts on the crucifixion, he asserts categorically that it "must be true."

Unfortunately for you Dennis, I had entirely too much time on my hands this afternoon.

I think I have found a source for some of the confusion. You are confusing two different threads started by Nomad.

Nomad started a thread entitled, "What Really Happened."

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000329.html

The focus of this thread was Christianity's rapid rise and spread in its first 300 years. However, nowhere that I could find did Nomad refer to Grant for time limited proposition. It appears, rather, that he was responding to accusations that the Christian stories were mere myths and legends.

He was asked:

He responded with the quote that you have selectively parsed:

It is clear, therefore, from both the full quote and the statement that Nomad was responding to that he was not claiming that Grant stated that Christianity took over the empire without the assistance of Constantine. In fact, what Nomad clearly was referring to was not an increase in Christian adherents or influence, but rather the formation of the Christian belief system within the first two generations of its existence.

But Nomad also started a thread entitled, "Taking History Seriously."

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000329.html

The focus of this thread was the overall success of Christianity, throughout time.

Nomad:

When he was challenged on this, and asked by Koy ("Name one non-Christian historian who thinks that the success of Christianity is unusual") to name any nonChristian historians who found the success of Christianity so unusual, Nomad responded thus:

Again, Nomad was discussing he success of Christianity throughout history, not just the first 300 years. Perhaps this confused you?

However, I did limit my discussion in that thread to the first 300 years:

Layman:

In sum. We have two threads. The first was about the spread of Christianity in its first 300 years. However, Nomad clearly relied on Grant to respond to the accusation that Christian beliefs developed as myths and legends. His point was that the formation of the Christian belief system within two generations was unique.

In the second, Nomad did cite Grant for the proposition that Christianity's overall success is amazing. No limit to the first 300 years. Now that we have the full understanding of Nomad's use of Grant, this quote does emphatically support his reliance on Grant for Christianity's success:

So now that we have gone through the entire mess, please show me where Nomad claimed what you said he claimed:

Dennis

Can you? Will you? And if you can't does that mean you lied? No, I think the most reasonable explanation would be that you were mistaken.

First, I must say, it is good to be back.

Second, I find myself once again the target of one of Dennis' infamous drive by shootings in which not only does he fail to understand my original arguments, but he then take his misunderstanding and build on it a slanderous accusation against my character. My suggestion, the next time that Dennis (or anyone else for that matter) does not understand something that I say, that he actually ask me about it first. My email is available in my profile, and I do tend to respond to posts when I am not away.

Finally, I would like to thank Bede and especially Layman for defending me in my absense. Hopefully by now most of those who read these posts understand the issues sufficiently to draw their own conclusions, and as for Dennis, perhaps he will be more circumspect in the future.

Peace,

Nomad