Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 11-06-2007, 06:35 AM

god + man (virgin Mary) = godman

David · 11-06-2007, 08:00 AM

I wanted to delurk for a moment and bump this post to ensure that it doesn't get missed on the bottom of page 2, and also add that I am very eagerly awaiting Mr. Gibson's response to spin. The analogy of sitting in the audience throwing tomatoes sums up Gibson's unbearably tedious participation here (e-mailing Mark Oppenheimer) perfectly.

I hope Jeffrey proves me wrong but I don't believe Jeffrey will ever get "on stage" in this format and put his own views out there to be challenged by people like Spin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Why should anyone, let alone NT scholars, do this when the writings in the NT are, at least prima facie evidence of "someone's" (and not just the texts' authors!) and when you haven't given any reason to think otherwise..

Show me one serious classical scholar who doesn't think so or who thinks that the attempt to show that the NT is prima facie evidence of someone's existence is in any way necessary.

Popularist appeals are rather weak, don't you think?

Show me one serious historian who has written a thesis arguing on primary evidence that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. See, it's easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

The writings of the NT may not be good evidence, they may not be sufficient evidence. But unless you want to take Peter Brown's ludicrous position that all NT writings are 4th century forgeries -- they are most definitely evidence.

When you cannot date them, what are they evidence of, other than for some unknown time when the texts were written?

Your fundamental problem in arguing here, is that you cannot even say what the nt writings are actually evidence for. You don't know what genre the texts are. You don't know who wrote them. You don't really know anything about what the writers were privy to. So, thrill us by saying what exactly they are evidence for. You can't simply take the cushy way all the time. You can't always just sit in the audience and throw tomatoes. You have your chance to get on stage. Do something. Show us what you can do.

The nt writings "are most definitely evidence", of what exactly?? (And naturally you'll supply all the epistemological necessities, won't you?)

spin

Ted Hoffman · 11-06-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The nt writings "are most definitely evidence", of what exactly??

I am also waiting for an answer for this. Yes, of course, with a good supply of the epistemological tools employed by the indefatigable and most thorough Dr. Gibson who we all know has an obsessive streak for absolute clarity and a thoroughgoing thirst for evidentiary primary and scholarly support for all that is said, thought and done.
<puts up feet and asks David to pass the popcorn. Looks around for Vork>

Toto · 11-06-2007, 11:57 AM

To clarify, Jeffrey Jay Lowder was, I think, either an undergraduate or a computer professional when he wrote that. He has since moved on to graduate school in Philosophy. He is not an NT scholar, but he is a serious debater and counter-apologist. He has said that the mythicist argument is too complex to explain in a live debate.

I can count on someone dragging that 10 year old essay out every time the going gets rough.

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-06-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The important thing in one's interaction with text is to formulate ideas about it, ideas that you can test and refine or rethink.
spin

Test against what?

Jeffrey

GakuseiDon · 11-06-2007, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

To clarify, Jeffrey Jay Lowder was, I think, either an undergraduate or a computer professional when he wrote that. He has since moved on to graduate school in Philosophy. He is not an NT scholar, but he is a serious debater and counter-apologist. He has said that the mythicist argument is too complex to explain in a live debate.

I can count on someone dragging that 10 year old essay out every time the going gets rough.

Yes, and probably by me. Lowder's essay is a good antidote to the sometimes made claim that believing that a HJ existed is the province of apologists or non-Christian scholars afraid of losing their academic positions. Lowder doesn't appear to have any axe to grind in coming to his conclusion.

spin · 11-06-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The important thing in one's interaction with text is to formulate ideas about it, ideas that you can test and refine or rethink.
spin

Test against what?

The content of the text.

And I thought you were ignoring that post.

spin

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-06-2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Test against what?

The content of the text.

The actual meaning of which you have no real or definitive means of determining or understanding, yes, since you have no person of that era or that culture available to consult with to see if your reading/understanding of the text (and context) is valid and not subjective, yes?

Quote:

And I thought you were ignoring that post.

Now, even given the circular claims made within it, why would I do that? I'm not "Philosopher" Jay or Pete Brown.

In fact, to see if my judgment that your position is circular (and commits you to an agnosticism about what ancient texts mean that entails admission on your part that any claims you might wish to make about what an ancient text does or does not mean have no weight because they are by definition subjective) had any merit, I decided to ask Classicists on the Classics List what they thought of your historiographical position.

You might be interested in the discussion it's generated.

It appears in here at thread # 18 ("denial of knowledge of the ancient world").

I do hope I haven't misrepresented your views.

Jeffrey

Toto · 11-06-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

without a native speaker to tell you what's going on, you'll have no way of getting the information but from the texts themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

What is the term for the historiographical position that denies that knowledge of the ancient world is really obtainable since all we have are ancient texts but no first hand acquaintance with, and no real ability to consult face to face with someone from the ancient world about, their contexts?

These are not equivalent statements. The pious hope that Jeffrey has not misrepresented spin's views does not help.

Don't make me split this thread again.

Toto · 11-06-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

.... Lowder's essay is a good antidote to the sometimes made claim that believing that a HJ existed is the province of apologists or non-Christian scholars afraid of losing their academic positions. Lowder doesn't appear to have any axe to grind in coming to his conclusion.

If you need to exercise your aim by whacking a straw man, just keep quoting it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-06-2007, 06:35 AM	#51
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	god + man (virgin Mary) = godman

11-06-2007, 11:57 AM	#54
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	To clarify, Jeffrey Jay Lowder was, I think, either an undergraduate or a computer professional when he wrote that. He has since moved on to graduate school in Philosophy. He is not an NT scholar, but he is a serious debater and counter-apologist. He has said that the mythicist argument is too complex to explain in a live debate. I can count on someone dragging that 10 year old essay out every time the going gets rough.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.