Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cheerful Charlie · 08-01-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

I have seen Roger play games with atheist bashing for a long, long time on alt.atheism. What he does is avoid openly saying what his position is in detail to avoid being caught out in errors et al. He likes to play gotchya when atheists would make errors about ancient documents et al. But tries to merely criticize, he refuses to state his position

I can only be sympathetic with Roger here. I've been accused of similar on other boards, when I point out the problems in the position of the "Christ copycat" mythers. They often will come back with "But what are your beliefs?", even though it isn't relevent to the topic. If I don't answer, I'm accused of ducking the question. But I'm just not interested in that topic.

But Roger went off on bizarre tangents, bitter little rants about atheists that likewise, had little to do with mythicists errors. And got repeated with variations again and again, systemaically.

That is the point.

Atheist makes stupid error. Roger pounces on error. Roger then posts bitter rant having nothing to do with facts. Tres amyusement. pounce on rant,watch Roger slip back to denouncing sloppy errors which has noting to do with the rant he made at all.

Why am I an atheist? Not for the stupid reasons Roger sneered about.That is convenient for example to ignore God, or its some sort of modern day conformism, nasty stuff empty minded conformism! Repeated several times.

And errors about Mithra do not matter reallyas regards his rants. The contradictions of the gospels do matter and that is why I do not believe in them. More rants about my empty headed atheist conformism. Not the issue at hand, God's exitence, and the Bible's lack of credibility.

And I would twit Roger with gospel contradictions, stupidities, impossibilities, false prophecies on and on. He would not reply to these posts on the facts. Tres amusement. This was not a mere misunderstanding and hasty judgment. This was a years long chronic situation.

Not like your bad experience but something far beyond that sort of net squabble. I knew he would not answer me, but my counter-posts pretty much were an embarressment to him, he just sat there and took my punches. Which was the point. He knew I would hit him that way and yet, he went on and on asking to have the gospels problem points rubbed in his face in glorious detail. A real glutton for punishment.

It was a regular Punch and Judy show.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Ah, so you are saying that you refuse to criticize atheists who are wrong on points about old docs and manuscripts. What are you hiding???

No, I regularly did so and correct such errrors to this day often enough.
I have my pet peeves here, atheists that think that somehow the Bible canon was settled at the Council of Nicea. Roger and I actually agree on many things here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

And Roger will not touch issue that with a 20 foot burlap wrapped pole.
He tries to avoid the issue, I try to point out it is THE issue. The game goes on and on. It has been going on between me and Rog' for years now.

What if it isn't THE issue for Roger? What do you suggest that he should do, esp if someone has been bringing the topic up for years now? What would you do if someone kept bringing up an issue you weren't interested in for years?

Ohhh, it WAS the issue. One of those 'You had to be there' things to see his anti-atheist rants repeated again and again. Again I was not an atheist for the ludicrous reasons Rog' said we were atheists. Nor as Roger stated, we did NOT have good reason to think the Matthew of Papias was the Matthew of our present gospel, and even if it was, this Gospel is nonsense,for example the failed prophecy of the end of the world and judgement day 1930 years ago, in the life span of the high priest at Jerusalem. (Matthew 24:30, 26:64) Issues like that, repeatedly. Which Roger would answer by reposting one of his peevish, pointless rants when backed in to a corner.

Setting himself up for more swats.

Bop! Bop! Bop!

I never figured out why he did this thing, it didn't win him friends or arguments. Apparently just frustration with atheists as far as I can see.
But it wasn't one of those things that went on a few days or weeks either. Alt.atheism was to Roger Pearse what a candle is to a moth for at least two years. We went at it Itchy and Scratchy style the entire time.

CC

CC

driver8 · 08-01-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The same methodology historians use to determine the historicity of any purported historical event:

(1) The existence of texts that narrate the events.
(2) The purported temporal proximity of those texts to the events narrated.
(3) The temporal proximity of the mss of those texts to the events narrated.
(4) The genre of those texts and the biases of the authors.
(5) The consistency of the historical matrix in those texts with anxillary texts.
(6) The consistency of those texts with archeological evidence.
(7) The consistency of subsequent historical events to the events narrated.

Applying these criteria it appears that what we mean by "historicity" includes one Jesus Christ being crucified under the rule of one Pontius Pilate.

Now, perhaps our standards and methodologies are flawed. In which case, do you have some other methodology and standards you want to propose? If so, do so, so that we can apply them to what we mean by historicity to see if your methodology and standards are useful, or if they essentially efface history as we know it. I fear the latter is the case.

You have failed to address the next events, the resurrection and ascension, which, by your standards and methodologies would show a mythical figure.

The crucifixion, the resurrection and ascension are all historical events, according to the authors of the NT. These events are multiple attested to internally, that is, according to the authors, the very same body that died on the cross, raised itself and this being, a revived figure of history, bodily ascended, in the view of all the contemporary historians and writers within eyesight.

In the NT, the ascension is just as important historically as the resurrection or the crucifixion, they are presented as fundamental historical events and are the final core acts to complete his role of salvation and victory over death and sin.

Now if the authors of the NT believed the ascension occurred, even though it didn't and also believed the resurrection occurred, but it didn't happen, then there is a likely hood that the authors were misguided in their belief about the crucifixion and about Jesus.

Nothing is known of the Gospel writers, in terms of who they were and when they wrote, but it is known that they wrote about events with respect to Jesus that clearly could not have occurred and yet these improbable events were witnessed.

It appears to me that the authors could not differentiate their beliefs from reality. They believed the ascension occured, so it did and they have witnesses.

What else did they believe but never happened even though they had witnesses?

How about this by Clement of Rome:

http://www.carm.org/lost/1clement.htm

Quote:

1 Clem. 25:1 Let us consider the marvelous sign which is seen in the regions of the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia.
1 Clem. 25:2 There is a bird, which is named the phoenix. This, being the only one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years; and when it hath now reached the time of its dissolution that it should die, it maketh for itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and the other spices, into the which in the fullness of time it entereth, and so it dieth.
1 Clem. 25:3 But, as the flesh rotteth, a certain worm is engendered, which is nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and putteth forth wings. Then, when it is grown lusty, it taketh up that coffin where are the bones of its parent, and carrying them journeyeth from the country of Arabia even unto Egypt, to the place called the City of the Sun;
1 Clem. 25:4 and in the daytime in the sight of all, flying to the altar of the Sun, it layeth them thereupon; and this done, it setteth forth to return.
1 Clem. 25:5 So the priests examine the registers of the times, and they find that it hath come when the five hundredth year is completed.
1 Clem. 26:1 Do we then think it to be a great and marvelous thing, if the Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of them that have served Him with holiness in the assurance of a good faith, seeing that He showeth to us even by a bird the magnificence of His promise?

Also attested here by St. Ambrose of Milan:

http://www.monachos.net/pascha/commo...rrection.shtml

Quote:

59. That bird in the country of Arabia, which is called the Phoenix, restored by the renovating juices of its flesh, after being dead comes to life again: shall we believe that men alone are not raised up again? Yet we know this by common report and the authority of writings, 50 namely, that the bird referred to has a fixed period of life of five hundred years, and when by some warning of nature it knows that the end of its life is at hand, it furnishes for itself a casket of frankincense and myrrh and other perfumes, and its work and the time being together ended, it enters the casket and dies. Then from its juices a worm comes forth, and grows by degrees into the fashion of the same bird, and its former habits are restored, and borne up by the oarage of its wings it commences once more the course of its renewed life, and discharges a debt of gratitude. For it conveys that casket, whether the tomb of its body or the cradle of its resurrection, in which quitting life it died, and dying it rose again, from Ethiopia to Lycaonia; and so by the resurrection of this bird the people of those regions understand that a period of five hundred years is accomplished. So to that bird the five hundredth is the year of resurrection, but to us the thousandth:51 it has its resurrection in this world, we have ours at the end of the world. Many think also that this bird kindles its own funeral pile, and comes to life again from its own ashes.

Does this "historical tradition" qualify as evidence? If not, why not?

Chris Weimer · 08-01-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driver8

Does this "historical tradition" qualify as evidence? If not, why not?

It qualifies as something. Are you sure you understand what it's qualifying?

andrewcriddle · 08-01-2007, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have failed to address the next events, the resurrection and ascension, which, by your standards and methodologies would show a mythical figure.

The crucifixion, the resurrection and ascension are all historical events, according to the authors of the NT. These events are multiple attested to internally, that is, according to the authors, the very same body that died on the cross, raised itself and this being, a revived figure of history, bodily ascended, in the view of all the contemporary historians and writers within eyesight.

In the NT, the ascension is just as important historically as the resurrection or the crucifixion, they are presented as fundamental historical events and are the final core acts to complete his role of salvation and victory over death and sin.

Now if the authors of the NT believed the ascension occurred, even though it didn't and also believed the resurrection occurred, but it didn't happen, then there is a likely hood that the authors were misguided in their belief about the crucifixion and about Jesus.

Nothing is known of the Gospel writers, in terms of who they were and when they wrote, but it is known that they wrote about events with respect to Jesus that clearly could not have occurred and yet these improbable events were witnessed.

It appears to me that the authors could not differentiate their beliefs from reality. They believed the ascension occured, so it did and they have witnesses.

What else did they believe but never happened even though they had witnesses?

Actually the ascension, in the sense of Jesus being seen to rise up towards the heavens, occurs only in the writings of Luke, (Acts and arguably the Gospel of Luke), it is not multiply attested within the New Testament in the sense that the crucifixion and resurrection are.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 08-01-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have failed to address the next events, the resurrection and ascension, which, by your standards and methodologies would show a mythical figure.

The crucifixion, the resurrection and ascension are all historical events, according to the authors of the NT. These events are multiple attested to internally, that is, according to the authors, the very same body that died on the cross, raised itself and this being, a revived figure of history, bodily ascended, in the view of all the contemporary historians and writers within eyesight.

In the NT, the ascension is just as important historically as the resurrection or the crucifixion, they are presented as fundamental historical events and are the final core acts to complete his role of salvation and victory over death and sin.

Now if the authors of the NT believed the ascension occurred, even though it didn't and also believed the resurrection occurred, but it didn't happen, then there is a likely hood that the authors were misguided in their belief about the crucifixion and about Jesus.

Nothing is known of the Gospel writers, in terms of who they were and when they wrote, but it is known that they wrote about events with respect to Jesus that clearly could not have occurred and yet these improbable events were witnessed.

It appears to me that the authors could not differentiate their beliefs from reality. They believed the ascension occured, so it did and they have witnesses.

What else did they believe but never happened even though they had witnesses?

Actually the ascension, in the sense of Jesus being seen to rise up towards the heavens, occurs only in the writings of Luke, (Acts and arguably the Gospel of Luke), it is not multiply attested within the New Testament in the sense that the crucifixion and resurrection are.

Andrew Criddle

Also see Mark 16:19 for an ascension witnessed by the eleven.

The NT authors have witnesses for every improbability with respect to Jesus.

Gamera · 08-01-2007, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The same methodology historians use to determine the historicity of any purported historical event:

Certainly. But...

Quote:

...
(3) The temporal proximity of the mss of those texts to the events narrated.
...

Ah, not this one.

Our manuscripts of most ancient texts are so late as to make this 'test' meaningless. Most Syriac texts are extant in manuscripts of the 19th century or later; the same is true of texts like the Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes.

Even if we have papyri, these may be uncorrected private copies rather than from the main stream, and preserve an inferior text to that of a parchment manuscript from 8 centuries later.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Roger. Codex Vaticanus, the earliest of the great parchment manuscripts, is dated at about 300 AD, Codex Sinaiticus dates to about 350 AD. Codex Alexandrinus is dated to circa 450 AD.

Thus, all these mss are within 300-400 years of the Jesus event.

That's remarkable in comparison to other mss from antiquity.

Chris Weimer · 08-01-2007, 02:07 PM

Roger's talking about in general. For example, all Catullan manuscripts post-date the thirteenth century. That doesn't really mean anything, though. What's better is when we can date the works themselves to a close proximity to the events, or that they used sources with a close proximity (and not just temporal, mind you) to the events.

Gamera · 08-01-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The same methodology historians use to determine the historicity of any purported historical event:

(1) The existence of texts that narrate the events.
(2) The purported temporal proximity of those texts to the events narrated.
(3) The temporal proximity of the mss of those texts to the events narrated.
(4) The genre of those texts and the biases of the authors.
(5) The consistency of the historical matrix in those texts with anxillary texts.
(6) The consistency of those texts with archeological evidence.
(7) The consistency of subsequent historical events to the events narrated.

Applying these criteria it appears that what we mean by "historicity" includes one Jesus Christ being crucified under the rule of one Pontius Pilate.

Now, perhaps our standards and methodologies are flawed. In which case, do you have some other methodology and standards you want to propose? If so, do so, so that we can apply them to what we mean by historicity to see if your methodology and standards are useful, or if they essentially efface history as we know it. I fear the latter is the case.

You have failed to address the next events, the resurrection and ascension, which, by your standards and methodologies would show a mythical figure.

The crucifixion, the resurrection and ascension are all historical events, according to the authors of the NT. These events are multiple attested to internally, that is, according to the authors, the very same body that died on the cross, raised itself and this being, a revived figure of history, bodily ascended, in the view of all the contemporary historians and writers within eyesight.

In the NT, the ascension is just as important historically as the resurrection or the crucifixion, they are presented as fundamental historical events and are the final core acts to complete his role of salvation and victory over death and sin.

Now if the authors of the NT believed the ascension occurred, even though it didn't and also believed the resurrection occurred, but it didn't happen, then there is a likely hood that the authors were misguided in their belief about the crucifixion and about Jesus.

Nothing is known of the Gospel writers, in terms of who they were and when they wrote, but it is known that they wrote about events with respect to Jesus that clearly could not have occurred and yet these improbable events were witnessed.

It appears to me that the authors could not differentiate their beliefs from reality. They believed the ascension occured, so it did and they have witnesses.

What else did they believe but never happened even though they had witnesses?

Again, you have invented a new standard, which if applied effaces history.

The issue is the historicity of Jesus in relation to Pilate. The texts seem to meet all the criteria for historicity that we use to evaluate other narratives.

That doesn't mean that the narratives don't include inaccurate or mythical material. Most of the "authorized" histories do too. Thus, Washington and the cherry tree. Lincoln and the arduous walk to return library books. Famous people attract legendary material like magnets.

Thus, Tacitus goes on and on about the phoenix, though to his credit he seems skeptical. Heroditus has gods intervening in battles.

I take it you don't doubt the historicity of the figures Tacitus and Heroditus wrote about just because they wandered into the realm of the legendary.

If your standard is that any text with arguably legendary material results in the rejection of the historicity of any character in the narrative, then you've just effaced 99% of ancient history.

Gamera · 08-01-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Roger's talking about in general. For example, all Catullan manuscripts post-date the thirteenth century. That doesn't really mean anything, though. What's better is when we can date the works themselves to a close proximity to the events, or that they used sources with a close proximity (and not just temporal, mind you) to the events.

It does mean something. The greater the distance between the purported event and the preparation of the mss, the greater the possibility that the narrative was altered, redacted, utterly made up, or passed through the hands of officious scribes with their own agenda.

The shorter the time, the less opportunity for all this to happen.

It's by no means dispositive, but it is a factor.

The Christian scriptures are notable in the realm of historiography from antiquity for the short time that passed between the purported event and the ms preparation.

Gamera · 08-01-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

[
Well, no. Applying those criteria, we have texts, but they were written well after the events described; the genre is unique, but the texts are not presented as neutral histories; the biases of the authors shriek to high heaven; the texts have no historical matrix to fit into; there is no supporting archeological evidence, and subsequent historical events do not flow from the events narrated. (There is no record of a Christian church until well after the time described in these documents.)

Well, you are now arguing the facts and not the standard, so at least we've made progress.

I disagree with your factual argument for a variety of reasons (the texts are written very close in time in comparison with "authorized" histories I presume you accept; all authors are biased and at least these had no decernable political bias, like Tacitus and Seneca and Heroditus, etc. etc. etc.; most scholars place the gospels squarely within Graeco-Roman biography -- there is no substantive difference; the historical matrix is clearly first century Judea under Roman rule; and Christianity in fact exists and has existed since shortly after the Jesus event). But this is too full a plate to discuss here.

Quote:

You can only accept these as history if you ignore most of the common sense criteria that anyone would use to judge historical accuracy.

Now you've switched and seem to be invoking some new, unnamed standards. Please list those "common sense" criteria you claim anybody would use, and let's apply them to, say, Pericles.

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

08-01-2007, 02:07 PM	#107
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Roger's talking about in general. For example, all Catullan manuscripts post-date the thirteenth century. That doesn't really mean anything, though. What's better is when we can date the works themselves to a close proximity to the events, or that they used sources with a close proximity (and not just temporal, mind you) to the events.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.