"Man" (Ish) thank you thank you thank you!

<- Meta (his likeness)

What is this reading comprehesion problem that Sketpics seem to have? There are two articles that I quote form. One offers two soolutions which are possilbe, the other sticks to one which over laps. That one (Ramsay) proves that the census was held. It just wasn't a one time thing, it was an on going mechinism. It just happened to be Joe's time to go reprot that was the deal. I don't see what that is so hard.


http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue

Meta, no problem.

Evidence-To-Go
Ish

I read that article whle researching the matter. I think you will find that Harrison demonstrates that his evidence puts Luke's date for Jesus at 6BC also which is in agreement with Matt. Carrier assigned the date 6AD because he purposely biased the answer toward the one time controversial poll in 6AD which was not the one Luke had in mind. Luke is speaking of an on going apparatus not a one time thing.

It's as if Carrier was speaking of some special one time tax and Luke was speaking of the oridinary annual income tax we pay every year. Only this was every 14 years.

Of course the world has forgotten about him! Social science fame is the most fleeting. Major historians of the 19th and early 20th centuries are totally fogotten except by guys like me, one of my hobbies is the hsitory of historians.

Have you ever heard of Leslie Stephen? he was a major histoiran of the 19th century, no one ever talks about him now, though is daughter is still known (Virigina Wolf).

Or Becker? Even I forget his name now. There are tons of them. Very few people ever talk about Kenyon or Lightfoot or lots of them.

The reason he's remembered by apologetics websites is because he confirmed virtually every detail of ACTS and Luke as being historical.So his fame is lasting in apologetics but his work has been updated in secular archaeology.

He also gave the last years of his like to doing Christian apologetics. He was converted by his own archaeological finds and became an Evangelical. That caused a lot of people to dismiss him. But it was the strength of what he found before that that led him to that desicion.

Okay, I'm going to loose my cool on this one. I try to be nice, I try to be civil, but to no avail. I ask legitimate questions and only get attacked for it.

Meta: ahahahahaha, so you think they just made that up hu? Man, what dishonesty!

Rather than being so damn sanctimonious and fucking arrogant, why don't you just make the point that this guy is NOT all that well known these days. Is this too hard or does the mocking laughter help to bolster your precious religious beliefs and weak appeals to authority?

You have major people saying theses things about him; F.F. Bruce, Stephen Neil, ect, than obviously its true.

What may be true? That he existed or did what you claim he did? Part of "honest" investigation is to actually check out stuff that someone claims or uses as an appeal to authority. You guys use LOTS of appeals to authority and appear to believe they're strong arguments. (Which is weird in itself) Is this too fundamental point a point for you to comprehend or do you just feel threatened because I happen to be questioning your appeal to authority?

The reason you can't find him on the internet, I hate to break to you, but the real knolwledge is still in books! Yea, sorry. Those funny paper things that people put their faces in. YOu know those buildings they call, what is that word, Ooo, Library. Yea go to a library and look for books on Biblical archaeology.

Uh-huh. Come down from your self-created pedestal oh great one and use some common sense. For me not to get a single hit on any archeology site or in any encyclopedia is very strange for one of the supposedly "great" archeologists of 19th century. If you can't at least admit that much YOU are the one whose being dishonest here.

He was one of the greats at a time when the school of academic archaeology was still in its infancy.

So great Britannica, MSN Encarta, and dozens of archeological sites fail to even mention the man's name, let alone any of his works.

He retired at the begining of the 20th century so naturally there isn't a big project to put his stuff on the net. His evidence is old, but it hasn't been disproven.

It hasn't been corroborated either that I've seen. He's old - no problem. You could have just said that and have been done with it. Its an attempt at an explanation at least. (But it doesn't explain why his name doesn't even come up.)

And I wasn't even to the point of looking for a "big project". I hadn't gotten that far. I was just trying to find ANY mention of the man in archeological circles.

And this is doging the issue.

This is dishonest of you. The "issue" is that you made an appeal to authority to back up your claims. (and thus your religious beliefs) Appeals to authority are weak arguments, even in the best of circumstances. In this case its extremely weak, as I can't verify anything you've claimed. I also can't find anywhere that his work has been peer reviewed, which leaves it even more suspicious. Or is the concept of peer review to touchy a subject for me to bring up as well?

BTW it really shows how little you know about it that you have not heard of him.

And this pitiful attempt at insult only shows your arrogance and your ignorance (purposeful?) of how an honest person would proceed when presented with a claim such as you made. He checks out the sources (I've tried - not much there and our town library isn't very good.) He looks for peer review of the person's work (nothing at all). He looks for a concensus among other scholars in his field(nothing so far). He looks to see if the person is as "noted" in his field as the claimant makes him out to be.(So far I've only got the word of Christian apologists on this matter)

I understand you guys all want to hold on your beliefs and thats just fine with me. But to attack me when I'm just trying to verify sources and claims that are made is just plain ludicrous. It leads me to believe your just threatened when someone questions your claims and questions your appeals to this or that authority as support for those claims. Lighten up.

First, Luke getting so many details of history correct is hardly a surprise given his initial words in his Gospel:
Luke 1:1-3
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;"
Clearly he researched the subject quite a bit, therefore it is likely that he would have got many historical details right.

Second, Luke is nevertheless an awful historian in certain areas. There is no evidence for a census which supposedly mandated that everyone must return to their place of birth (the quoted Egyptian census merely said that those who were not at the living places they owned in the towns where they currently lived were to return there, a far cry from everyone in a huge land region being required to make a perilous trek back to their very birthplace no matter how far away they were or how difficult it was) and indeed such a census would be virtually impossible to enforce, and pretty useless, anyway. There is no evidence that Pilate would have ignored the will of the most powerful Jews at that time, much less his own love affair with cruelty, and refused to execute Jesus, indeed such a concept is quite absurd from a historical perspective. There is no evidence for the darkness that supposedly happened after Jesus' death (Phlegon is a hoax, and Thallus is also dubious; implying Thallus to be an idiot who didn't know facts about astronomy that even then were rudimentary. More likely, Thallus was merely describing the eclipse that happened shortly before Jesus' death in 29 A.D., and later Christian apologists mistook this as "evidence" for the darkness that supposedly happened after Jesus' death). There is little evidence that Jesus' tomb would have been sealed with a round stone, since such was an uncommon occurence at his time, as the Biblical Archeology article by Amos Kloner; a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?", discusses:
"more than 98 percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the Second Temple period (c. first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones. Of the more than 900 burial caves from the Second Temple period found in and around Jerusalem, only four are known to have used round (disk-shaped) blocking stones.". He goes on to describe how the very few round stones known are from very elaborate tombs, the majority from very rich and infuential people (kings, queens, governors, etc.), which neither Jesus nor Joseph of Aramathea was (and the tomb was primitive and simple as judged by the Gospels. See the article for further details. One could note that the angel sitting on the tomb on the Gospel of Matthew means it was probably square (again, see the article for further details), but we are talking about Luke here, who mentioned no such incident and was independent of Matthew. Its more likely that Jesus' tomb would be sealed with additional stones in front of the main blocking stone, since Joseph of Aramathea could afford such a thing and would probably want it (he was wealthy). But curiously, there is no mention of this in Luke, adding further weight to the idea that a round stone was what the author had in mind.

Third, the point about Sir William Ramsay remains valid. Anybody with half a brain in their head knows a "great" academic will almost surely be mentioned someplace even if he lived over a century ago. If you are not aware of this fact, or are going to dispute it, then you are are probably not even worth being reasoned with, but suffice to say his not being mentioned anywhere outside of Christian apologetics is quite perplexing if one wishes to call him "great". Indeed, I only found [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879832363/qid%3D991377499/103-6457261-8950262]one book[/ulr] written by him (and its out of print) - "great" historians usually write multiple works, not just one.

Fourth, Metracrock should stop being an asshole. He presents himself as the end-all be-all of cyber-Christian apologetics, to the point where he almost seems to have a small cult following. He is a Christian, and thus supposed to be guided by some divine being (God) who supposeldy reached out its holy hand, touched his heart and made him a better person. Fine, just be sure to act like it, you fucking hypocrite. You have a positive image to keep up (unlike many others here, myself included), so keep it. Practice what you preach! There was no reason to be such a bitch to madmax for his fair and legitimate coment about Ramsey.

[This message has been edited by Cute Little Baby (edited June 01, 2001).]

Ok, madmax, I know you are a thinker because I've read your mostly thoughtful posts on other threads, but you are flat wrong about Ramsay. Have you read any archaeological books from that era? It really bothers me when people assume things without doing the investigation.

I think that the ridicule you see coming from Meta (which I don't completely aprove of), is more than likely due to his annoyance at your assertions. To me it is not very thinking to assume that if you can't find information on someone or something on the internet that it must not be true or reputable. I have discovered many things in my trips to the library that I have never found on the internet. It is frustrating to me, but what can you do? Go to the library and read some books from that era and you'll begin to see what Meta is talking about (and possibly why he's ridiculing you).

Also, did you even read the website Nomad linked to about Ramsay? If you "poopoo" Ramsay's credentials, I'll begin to question your seriousness in questing for the "truth". His books obviously have influence even today.

Secondly, to CLB, you have made it obvious from previous postings that you are not questing for "truth", only that you are intent on attempting to destroy Christianity (possibly with AK-47s ). It therefore does not surprise me that you would reject the edict that I posted. However, your assumptions about it are incorrect. Read the books in the bibliography at the bottom of his website and try again.

I know you like to ignore evidence, so I'll give some more. Both Justin Martyr and Tatian mention the necessity of returning to the land of your tribe for the census. Now, are you going to tell me that you, 2000 years later, know exactly how the Roman government operated a census back then? I think I'll throw my trust on those who lived under the Roman government.

Finally, this "appeal to athority" thing is getting silly. Quoting the works of authority as a backing for your points is a scholarly practice. It just makes it a little rough on the ones that the majority of scholars don't support... (Perhaps this topics needs its own thread if it is so important to the atheists on this board.)

Ish

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Ok, madmax, I know you are a thinker because I've read your mostly thoughtful posts on other threads, but you are flat wrong about Ramsay. Have you read any archaeological books from that era? It really bothers me when people assume things without doing the investigation.

Um...Ish, I'm trying to do some investigation. Thats the whole point. What is it that have I assumed? What is it that I'm wrong about? I haven't been able to find anything to make any judgements or conclusions or assumptions or whatever.

All I have so far is the word of Christian apologists and frankly thats not good enough for me. Not by a long shot.

I think that the ridicule you see coming from Meta (which I don't completely aprove of), is more than likely due to his annoyance at your assertions.

Which assertions? All I've done is state the progress of my search so far. The name only pops up - so far - on bibilical apologetic websites. No archeological sites, no encyclopedias, no historical sites (even dealing specifically with middle east history and archeology) My town library is really pitiful when it comes to this stuff so I'm screwed there.

I suppose I could just be gullible and accept all of Meta's assumptions without question, but I'll have to decline that option.

To me it is not very thinking to assume that if you can't find information on someone or something on the internet that it must not be true or reputable.

Sorry but to me its just gullibility to accept a claim from someone without verifying the source. Then I have to verify the conclusions of that source. I'm not about to take the opinion of one or even a few experts on these matters without some way of validating them. This is where peer review steps in and plays an important role. I can't find any of that either.

I have discovered many things in my trips to the library that I have never found on the internet. It is frustrating to me, but what can you do? Go to the library and read some books from that era and you'll begin to see what Meta is talking about (and possibly why he's ridiculing you).

Like I said, my town library pretty much sucks in this regard. As far as his "ridicule" is concerned, its been my observation that he uses it as a weapon. Perhaps sometimes its warranted, - I don't know, but he ought to be more judicious and think a little about the other guys perspective before he trots it out.

Also, did you even read the website Nomad linked to about Ramsay? If you "poopoo" Ramsay's credentials, I'll begin to question your seriousness in questing for the "truth". His books obviously have influence even today.

As my post indicated I did go to the site. Interestingly enough it was another biblical apologetic site, complete with a bible verse at the bottom and "Go Ye Preach" at the top.

His credentials are just fine. I have no problem with them. But certainly I'm not going to let that convince me that his conclusions are necessarily correct.

As for the "influence" of his books, well, thats what I'm looking for. Signs of his influence in his field. So far - nada. Once I find some, then I can move on to see if his works have any significant corroboration for them.

Finally, this "appeal to athority" thing is getting silly. Quoting the works of authority as a backing for your points is a scholarly practice. It just makes it a little rough on the ones that the majority of scholars don't support... (Perhaps this topics needs its own thread if it is so important to the atheists on this board.)

Appeals to authority are okay, but I don't consider them very strong arguments, particularly in this field.

In the hard sciences I can validate a lot of scientific findings for myself, (And do so everyday just by normal activities), so thats something at least. Its very hard, if not impossible, to that in this field, which makes them significantly weaker tools in my opinion.

Appeals to authority can even be fallacious.
See:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Look under appeal to authority. It has a good explanation of this argument and how it should/should not be used.