Meta =>I bet its from that Aussie idiot Thearin isn't it? She's a moron, she is not respected, real scholars call her work "comic books." In fact I was speaking on the Phone with Luke Timothy Johnson and refurred to her and he alluded to something about Batman comics. She establishes no basis for understanding one thing from another. It's no better than just saying "I feel that this is saying this>" Anyone can just make up a meaning that they want to have there and say that's the answer.

The double place thing has no basis at all. it's just her subjective wish.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Here is what Robert Eisenman writes James the Brother of Jesus, page 105, " ... This is perhaps the original for the intervening interview in the Gospels between Jesus and Herod the Tetrarch (Luke 23:7-12), who really would have had no business in Jerusalem, his Tetrarchy - literally his 'fourth' of the kingdom - being in Galilee across the Jordan in Perea where John the Baptist was executed." The above is what Eisenman writes and this man has possibilities if he ever cleans his glasses (he reads in ideal language instead of pesher). The point is, Jesus did not get crucified in the ideal Jerusalem, he was crucified at the pesher Jerusalem known today as Qumran.</font>

ahahahahahahahahahhahahaha, there aren't two serious scholars on earth who take that seriously. What's more pathetic, her whole reason for thinking that is based entirely on her subjective overlay of a cave in Qumran that has a floor plan that she thinks mirrors the directions on map between the real places. For example, if you go from Nazerath to Jerusalem you take a right turn at Capurnium, so if you go from cave 2 to cave 4 you take a right turn at Cave 3, therefore, when it says Jerusalem they mean cave 4 becasue when they say Nazerath they mean cave 2. And all of that is based upon the following circular reasoning:

A pesher is a puzzell, and this is a pesher so it must be a puzzell. So how do we know it's a pesher? Becasue x,y, z difficulties exist so it's a puzzell. Pesher = puzzell, so any kind of puzzell = Pesher! And her ultiamte answer to get out of any difficulty wiht the theory is "It's a pesher, so nothing is literal so it can mean whatever I want to read into it." It's insanity.

This was in the jurisdiction
of the pesher Galilee (where Josephus served as general
of an army and hid in a cave) and also known as the pesher
area called the land of Damascus.

thanks, offa[/QUOTE]

Meta =>She also thinks that the cricifiction was ceremony that Jesus had them put him thorugh, not the real Romans, but the guys at Qumran. So in other words, he wasn't really crucified but they had a pretend crucifiction at Qumran for some stupid reason. And all of that is based upon the idiotic assumption that
1) Qumran guys used Peshers
2) Jesus was heterodox
3) Sons of light were heterodox
4)Therefore Jesus must have been with the Sons of light
5) Therefore Jesus spoke in Pshers'
6) therefore the Gosples are all one big pesher made up of tons of little peshers.


Scholarship by schitzopherina--mentally ill people have delusion too.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:
[b] Will you please get a logic text book and look up the defition of the infomral fallacy "appeal to authroity?" It is not a fallacy to quote an expert who is speaking of his work.

Will you please learn to read before you go on ridiculous tirades that have nothing to do with anything.

I never said your appeal to authority was indeed fallacious. I only mentioned that they - appeals to authority - could be. (In a side conversation with someone else)

As to your appeal to authority the VERY THING I was attempting to do was validate the thing. Sheesh. I am quite sure you would like me to just throw my hands up and agree with all your claims (Or Ramsay's) and be done with it. Perhaps YOU are naive enough to think this is how research is done.

Appeal to authority is when you appeal to someone who is not a proper authority and you expect whatever authority that person has to maean something in an area where he/she has no expertise.

Oh Jeez. Who the hell is the one that needs to go pick up a logic book? Appeals to authority can be legitimate or can not be legitimate. They are NOT automatically fallacious.

Indeed if the quoted person is not an expert in the field, THEN this would make it a fallacious appeal to authority. IF the appeal to authority can meet certain commonly accepted criteria, then its a legitimate appeal to authority.

(See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ for more information on this)

So if I quoted the local police cheif on this it would be an appeal to authority. But to quote a major archaeologist who made the discoveries that prove the point it is in no way an appeal to authority in the fallacious sense!!! No! it is not!

Well at least here you seem to understand it. Do you understand that that's not the ONLY criteria that makes an appeal to authority fallacious?

2) The evidence is clear and if you read the original post it would be clear. Ramsay found the evidence through his digs which proved that there was an ongoing census in 6BC. YOu also ignore the other evidence, Harrison shows other finds that also prove it, and the NEw Advent article also gives still more evidence, and it says that Luke has been confimred in every point!

NOTHING is clear yet. I'm sure you would like me to just accept Ramsay's interpretation of this "evidence", and perhaps you are naive enough again to believe this is how research is done.

In order for ME to accept all this stuff, I want corroboration. I want to see this evidence peer reviewed. I want to see Ramsay's conclusions critiqued. Anything less is nothing but dishonesty and displays sheer GULLIBILITY.

IT's physical artifacts, they exist! It's not opinon, its documentation for the evidence.

Are you truly so naive? Its the INTERPRETATION of the "evidence" that is relevant. Is Ramsay's interpretation warrranted? I've yet to see a single critique's of Ramsay's evidence and his conclusions. I've yet to see a single peer review of this data.

Understand that in the grand scheme of things I don't care if Ramsay is right or wrong. If the writer of Luke go it right and there was an ongoing census - big deal. Other writers also got it right that Rome was an empire and that the Jews were under Roman occupation.

BUT this doesn't mean that claims can just be thrown out there willy nilly without question. Its the PROCEDURE here that is far more important to me than the actual details. Historical science is weak science, but it should still follow some kind of scientific method regardless.

Your tone seemed to indicate that he was either a nobody or a Christian apologist (guilty by association). If that is not what your post was intended to reflect, then I guess I read it wrong. Obviously, the "Great" Ramsay is a matter of opinion. However, I think that at least the glowing mention of him, his discoveries and writings, and his influence on history shouuld help you come to a conclusion. You don't have to accept his conclusions, I guess, but at least you know we aren't making things up (which the tone of your posts seemed to indicate).

What? Corroboration of Ramsays views? How far does this go? Will you require corroboration of the corroboration of Ramsay's views? I don't understand this line of thinking. Ramsay "pioneered" (the word used in the BR article) the archaeology of Asia Minor during his time. You won't accept his claims or our claims about him, but you'll accept someone else's claims about him?

Granted, but I'm not the one rejecting the influence of an influencial and pioneering archaeologist.

However, you seem to be questioning his honesty in his choice of supporting scholars. If you don't believe Ramsay was "great", then prove it. I promise that if you travel to the right libraries, you'll find plenty of information on him. Meta is simply providing good sources that agree with his statements. Why don't you accept them (other than the fact that you haven't studied this area enough)? This is my point in using the word "tiring", that Meta provides sources but you seem to disbelieve them only because you haven't studied this particular area enough to know better. Do you think he's lying to you?

Again, I don't understand what kind of corroboration you're looking for. What would make up your mind?

Suffice it to say that if you believe he is using an "appeal to authority" as you suggest, then we each have our own opinions for sure. I do not believe it supporting one's ideas with an expert and reputable scholar's work is a falacious "appeal to authority". Look in any scholar's book and you will see their ideas and statements supported with like-minded scholars (in every field). If Meta had no support you wouldn't believe him either. Please...

Ish

Can you provide some backing for the statements that "all who became citizens were required to join a tribe"? I haven't heard this before.

Anyway, Mary and Joseph already belonged to a tribe within their own people - Benjamin (I believe).

Jeruslem was conquered by the Roman Pompey in 63 B.C. and became a Roman province, but they were not made an official part of the Roman empire until the year 6 A.D. (in which another census was apparently taking of the area). Since they became a Roman province in 63 B.C., I see no reason that they wouldn't have been subjected to an ongoing census sometime after that.

Finally, I think this is far from "obvious" that this is an "invented device".

Ish

Regarding Meta, dyslexia and spell checkers. All quotes from him.

Transparent rationalization.

Indeed, once you get a reputation, it takes time to overcome it. This surprises you, why? And you do almost all the cursing and name calling.

Pure bullshit. A spell check on even your longest posts might take thirty seconds. And all modern word processors (e.g., MS Word) spell check on the fly. What takes time is reading your draft and thinking about it. Obviously you can't be bothered to do that. If you can't be bothered, why should we?

I did post on topic. You're just too busy looking for mana a mano fights to notice.

ROTFLMAO.

Not likely you'll be invited over to find out.


BTW, let's bear in mind that I've raised much more important issues about your debate skills. In fact, I didn't even put this issue on the list.

[This message has been edited by JubalH (edited June 02, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:
Now this time please read all the words.

Tutornm says the census in Luke 2 didn't take place.

According to Robin Lane Fox, Michael is correct. Fox states, "The scale of the Gospel's error is now clear. The first census did occur under Quirinius, but it belonged in A.D. 6 when Herod the Great was long dead; it was a local census in Roman Judaea and there was no decree from Caesar Augustus to all the world; in A.D. 6 Joseph of Nazareth would not have registered at Bethlehem: as a Galilean he was under direct Roman rule and was exempt from Judaea's registration; his wife had no legal need to leave home. Luke's story is historically impossible and internally incoherent. It clashes with his own date for the Annuciation (which he places under Herod) and with Mathew's long story of the Nativity which also presupposes Herod the Great as king. It is, therefore, false." The Unauthorized Version, P. 31.

Metacrock: In fact there is a ludicrous page on the infidels site that also asserts this.

What makes the site "ludicrous?"

Metacrock: This is real 19th century stuff. It was way back in the 19th century that people tired to pick on Luke's historicity, in fact so long ago that even the 19th century Scholar Von Harnnack said it was shameful.

Wait a minute. William Mitchell Ramsay wrote the first edition of St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen in 1895!! You disparage the critics of “the 19th century,“ and yet, the authority you have chosen to believe wrote his commentary in the 1800’s.

BTW, Robin Lane Fox is not from the "19th century." He is a modern historian.

rodahi

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by offa:
In my interpretation of dreams (pesher) there are two
Jerusalems, two Galilees, and two Bethlehem's. I have
often given my sources for multiple locations so I feel
it is redundant to repeat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metacrock: I bet its from that Aussie idiot Thearin isn't it? She's a moron, she is not respected, real scholars call her work "comic books."

Barbara Thiering is a legitimate biblical scholar. Her academic credentials are far superior to yours, Metacrock. See http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fello.../thiering.html

Since you say she is an "idiot" and a "moron," what does that make you?

rodahi






[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 02, 2001).]

It's just that we've already spanked you
on the arguments.

You may not think spelling is important,
but you have to admit that's damned hard
to come up with any kind of a respect
for a "grad student" apparently specializing
in this stuff (you never did answer what
your area of study is) who can't even
spell the word "EGYPTIAN" correctly!
(The "I" you used instead of "Y" isn't
close enough to have been fat fingered)

A quote from your site:
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your tone seemed to indicate that he was either a nobody or a Christian apologist (guilty by association). If that is not what your post was intended to reflect, then I guess I read it wrong.

Initially I was concerned that such a touted archeologist didn't pop up anywhere other than apologetic web sites. I'm still not impressed by his supposed greatness given the extreme lack of mention there is for him in encyclopedia's and archeological sites.

Obviously, the "Great" Ramsay is a matter of opinion. However, I think that at least the glowing mention of him, his discoveries and writings, and his influence on history shouuld help you come to a conclusion. You don't have to accept his conclusions, I guess, but at least you know we aren't making things up (which the tone of your posts seemed to indicate).

The "glowing" mentions are almost totally from apologetic websites.

I had no belief that Meta was making things up, but the honest thing to do was check out the source. When only apologetic web sites mentioned him, this quite naturally raised some suspicion in my mind about just how "
great" this guy was supposed to have been.

What? Corroboration of Ramsays views? How far does this go? Will you require corroboration of the corroboration of Ramsay's views? I don't understand this line of thinking. Ramsay "pioneered" (the word used in the BR article) the archaeology of Asia Minor during his time. You won't accept his claims or our claims about him, but you'll accept someone else's claims about him?

At this point I'm no longer concerned with the claims about "him". I concerned with the claims about his research.

Perhaps the opinion of one is enough to satisfy you in this weak field of historical science, but it certainly isn't enough to satify me. I find it strange that you would consider it in keeping with honest research to just blindly accept the conclusions of a single authority on this subject.

Are you unaware of the stronger argument that can be made from a concensus of professional opinions than can be made from the opinion of one? Apparently not since you say, "I don't understand this line of thinking." Its seems your approach is to be presented with an opinion and to take it at face value without question. I wonder if you do the same with all opinions of authority. For some reason I expect that your not consistent in this type of reasoning.

Granted, but I'm not the one rejecting the influence of an influencial and pioneering archaeologist.

Just how "influential" he was, remains to be seen. Just how correct he was ALSO remains to be seen and is far more important a question.

However, you seem to be questioning his honesty in his choice of supporting scholars. If you don't believe Ramsay was "great", then prove it.

I see, so now I have to prove a negative rather than have Meta support the positive claim that was made?

In any case, as you said, "greatness" is a matter of opinion and irrelevant at this point. I'm more concerned now with the correctness of his conclusions.

I promise that if you travel to the right libraries, you'll find plenty of information on him.

Yes, but until such time as I can find the vast time required to do that, I'll have to remain skeptical of any claims regarding the conclusions of his research. Claims that I can't critique are useless for me (or against me.)

An easier approach (and far more practical) would be to find the opinions of other experts who have looked at his research and critiqued it.

The opinion of simply providing good sources that agree with his statements. Why don't you accept them (other than the fact that you haven't studied this area enough)? This is my point in using the word "tiring", that Meta provides sources but you seem to disbelieve them only because you haven't studied this particular area enough to know better. Do you think he's lying to you?

Meta has provided ONE source that agrees with his own beliefs and interpreted the evidence just as he wants to see it. Not impressive, particularly in this field of study.

The reason I don't blindly accept them is because I don't consider gullibility a virtue.

As for my own inexperience in this area, if I am not able to critique or verify particular claims, then those claims are useless for me or against me. The only alternative would be blind acceptance and that is not honesty in my opinion.

As for "lying", this is too strong a word. I believe Meta, just like other apologists, presents the "evidence" that will support his claim (and thus his beliefs) and ignores evidence that would shed doubt on it. There are undeniable ulterior motives that rumble around underneath all this stuff. Ignoring the reality of that would be dishonest as well. (Not to mention stupid)

Again, I don't understand what kind of corroboration you're looking for.

At this point - any professional corroboration from an expert in archeology would be a start. Are you totally unaware of how important peer review is in regard to honest research?

What would make up your mind?

Well thats an interesting question. I'm a pessimist in regards to what we can find out about history. We believe things about history and we believe them in varying degrees. The question you're really asking as I see it is: How much evidence would convince you and how much could you be convinced? (More colloquially put - how much would I bet that such and such a historical claim is actually true?)

From the extremely sparse information we have about this particular period of history I doubt very much I would ever have strong confidence in such detailed conclusions. Moderate confidence is probably the most I could ever expect. Right now the confidence is almost non-existent.

Suffice it to say that if you believe he is using an "appeal to authority" as you suggest, then we each have our own opinions for sure.

Huh? Meta IS using an appeal to authority. That is an undeniable fact. The question is whether that appeal is fallacious or not.

I do not believe it supporting one's ideas with an expert and reputable scholar's work is a falacious "appeal to authority".

Thats good, I don't think its automatically fallacious either. You guys don't really seem to have an understanding of what an appeal to authority is.

Look in any scholar's book and you will see their ideas and statements supported with like-minded scholars (in every field). If Meta had no support you wouldn't believe him either. Please...

Please go read up on appeals to authority because its clear you don't understand them. Appeals to authority can be fallacious or not fallacious. There are commonly accepted criteria that are used to make the determination one way or the other. The site I posted lists 6 determining factors. I'll leave it up to you to determine if Meta's appeal meets those criteria.

I just gave you a very reputable archeological website. The article talks about Ramsay's influence. It is a modern article. Someone in a non-apologetic archeological journal is speaking of his influence. Did you read the article? I'm sure there are others, but it is pointless for me to continue pointing out things when all you have to do (if you are serious) is look (possibly at a major library when you get the chance).

The websites that you found and you don't even mention any books...not a very in depth search IMHO, especially since you didn't even find the BAS article which was nearly the first thing I found when searching. I'm sure there's more stuff out there.

Good grief. Are you going to become a scholar in Ramsay's area of expertise so that you can understand his claims enough to refute them? I don't automatically dismiss a scholar's work... Obviously I look into their claims like anyone else, duh, but there is only so far that you can take it if you are not a scholar in their field as well. If an expert in snakes told you not to go near a particular snake because it is poisonous, would you say I don't believe you and approach the snake anyway? Perhaps that's not the best analogy, but it should drive the point home somewhat. You don't have enough time in your life to get to the level of expertise in every field of study in order to check every scholar's claim. That's naive. At what point do you stop saying, I disbelieve, and say, Ok maybe they know what they're talking about?

Again, duh, of course, but I have been told a number of times on this website that a consensus of scholars doesn't mean anything. As a matter of fact, I've gotten into debates where I've presented a list of agreeing scholars and have still been dismissed. What gives? I'm sure that Meta can present other scholars who believe the same things. As a matter of fact, I think he did. Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't he mention F.F. Bruce and another?

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. What I see in your line of thinking is that the word of one good scholar doesn't mean anything unless another scholar says it does. Though a consensus is great, a respectable scholar can stand alone (though I don't think Ramsay necessarily does on this issue).

Again, I gave you a non-apologetic article in a reputable archeological journal that speaks of his influence. Heck, the fact that he was just recently mentioned (even though his stuff is 19th century) is pretty conclusive of his influence in itself.

Meta (and I) have produced evidence for the positive, but you seem to ignore all of it. So, yes, since you seem to think that he wasn't so influential, then find us a quote that says so... It might change our opinions if you can do that... We've presented our evidence, can you?

This seems to say to me that you believe absolutely nothing and no one until you have been able to research the material for yourself. So does that mean that until you can research everything, you'll just continue to deny disbelieve anything we say because you don't like it? What kind of a debate is that, boy? Get out and learn something...

Ok, fair enough, but there is something that I don't think many here understand. Just because a scholar's work dates back to the 19th century, this does not necessarily mean that it is outdated. In many cases, scholar's still use older works (the BR article I quoted above) because nothing better has come along yet. I believe this is at least partially the case with some of Ramsay's work. Good luck finding a critique, and please let us know when you do. By the way, are you looking for a refutation of his work to use against us? Or are you openly looking for any work concerning his scholarship?

Then why do scholars in every field do this? Think about it, Madmax, please... Perhaps it is especially needed in this field. The more "experts" who see things the same way, perhaps the better the probabilities. Heck, you mentioned this above... If it is not impressive, then please answer me why scholars waste their time quoting other scholars' works to back their data?

Funny, neither do I... But I also know that you can't be an expert in every field, so you have to trust someone's data to some degree or you'll never know anything...

It is not necessarily dishonesty. There are very reputable scholars today who have built upon other scholar's works. You do realize this don't you? It seems to me that you're simply trying to reinvent the wheel. Check out their data the best that you can, but remember that you're not an expert and at some point (as with Christianity) you're going to have to make a decision about whom to believe.

Personally, I think "ulterior motives" is a hair strong. Most of us here seem to present the data as we see it. Perhaps "bias" is the better word, but we Christians aren't the only ones with it... However, that doesn't mean that I am going to outright dismiss your claims. I will first look into your claims or quit debating it if I don't know enough about it to continue.

Ok, well, again I gave you one, but I guess you need corroboration of corroboration of Ramsay like I thought. I imagine you know how to use a library.

Then you seem to be a "minimalist". I'm not sure there is much in history that you will believe. Why do you bother? I personally believe we can know quite a bit through historical probabilities.

Finally to "appeals to authority". I think you eventually stated that you don't think Meta is using a falacious appeal to authority. Then, why did you even bring this up?? Hopefully, we can simply drop this issue. Sorry, this is an issue that really annoys me because, once again, scholars do the very same thing Meta did. There is no reason to even bring it up IMHO.

Ish