Donnerkeil replies:
One problem Faded Glory... this practice and style of citation in science is kept to a minimum for a number of reasons. First is space constraints... peer reviewed correspondence is usually limited to a few pages (anywhere from 3 to 4 pages up to 10 to 12 depending on the journal). Extensive quoting would detract from the overall ability of the correspondence to exhibit new data.

Second is that the authors of such letters base their writing on the assumption that those who will read and examine their data are either already fluent with the previous findings and/or they have access to the journals where the data has been deposited.

Third, the scientific community is much different from the internet. We may or may not have access to the data that other people are talking about, and quite frankly... some of the Jesus Myther data is so obscure that some things can't even be found through interlibrary loan! So, asking for quotes and citations to prove context and authenticity is quite the norm and is the hallmark of a studious and honest person.

If people are confident about their position, they should have no problem providing citations... matter of fact, they should already have them handy.

Donnerkeil replies:
Why didn't they recognize the darkness? Because an eclipse seen in Israel would not have been seen in China. That's why.

I'm looking forward to an examination of the evidence. That's E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E!

It is not incumbent upon either Earl or Brian to do anything but examine the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E and argue conclusions directly relating to the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E! Any argument from authority should be strictly avoided.

I wish they would limit their exchanges to specifically interpreting E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, and not commentary on the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E!

I find it disappointing that Brian/Nomad has avoided analyzing Earl Doherty's arguments in detail, preferring to make strong, sweeping claims about ED's methodology. Instead of quarreling over such issues as ED's competence in NT Greek, he ought to be arguing over whether ED's translations make sense.

Ipetrich, ED's proficiency in Koine Greek (among other things that Brian brought up) is important if he is going to use his own translations and interpretations as the basis of his theory.

Personally, I was disappointed that ED decided to play the martyr in his most recent post and complain about how hard it is to post here. I was particularly amused by his "dating" analogy.

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 13, 2001).]

Rather than wait for Brian, I decided to get the show on the road with my own posting devoted to argument from the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.

Earl Doherty

Since when are we seeing a different moon ? Whenever Israel sees an eclipse we here at Asia saw it too !

Toto

Thanks, Earl. The meta-discussion was getting to me.

I have read your book, and I think it is intriguing. I think you make a good case that Paul did not depend on any historical Jesus, and acted as if Jesus could have been a spiritual being. (We all know that Paul never met Jesus, if the rest of the Bible is to be believed at all.) But it is still possible that there was a real person behind the spirit, although it may be impossible to know anything about him?

I think the best argument for the existence of Jesus is the existence of Christians before Paul, although I think this is a weak argument, since we know so little about them.

On procedural matters, I myself don't like the message board format for this debate. The message board works best for short questions and answers. It has occurred to me that the format used in the secularist-versus-secularist debates would be more productive. It has also occured to me that this debate might be more productive if you debated a secularist who believes that there was a historical Jesus. Just a thought to keep in mind.

Is this a solar or lunar eclipse? If it is a solar eclipse, it will indeed only be seen on a specific portion of the earth (the sun being much bigger than both the earth and the moon, and the moon being much smaller than the earth). If it is a lunar eclipse, and since the earth is larger than the moon, it is only dependant on being on the right side of the earth, and Isreal and Asia can certainly qualify.

I've actually attempted to answer this eclipse question in a thread that I've started in this forum. And I conclude that there was no solar eclipse that had been visible in Jerusalem in March or April in the years from 25 to 40. And if there had been an afternoon one, then it would not have been visible in China (too late in the day).

Lunar eclipses cannot cause daytime darkness because they are only visible at night.