Toto

WILLOWTREE: I will let Amaleq13 speak for himself, but if you had actually broken a rule, your comment would have been [deleted].

However, describing Celsus as an atheist and claiming that he is biased in his selection of mainstream authorities is an ad hominem argument, not conducive to a rational discussion of the issues.

Does that help you in formulating an answer to Celsus?

[edit - I see we cross posted.]

Celsus

Here we go again...
I did nothing of the sort, and nor did Julian. In fact, I gave a brief description of where each of the books sit within the scholarly spectrum.
Which isn't saying much.
Absolutely not. Bill Dever, who coined the term "minimalist" as disparaging the likes of Davies, Thompson and Lemche, is in fact an agnostic. Other "maximalists" include Amihai Mazar (already cited). None of them give any weight to Velikovsky or Rohl, all of them reject the Biblical exodus and conquest. Maximalists and minimalists argue about the period of the United Monarchy. A conservative (who thinks even higher of the Bible than the "maximalists") like Kenneth Kitchen spends plenty of his time telling people why Rohl is a load of crock.
Rubbish. Mazar is a Jew as stated before. So is Nahum Sarna. Yigael Yadin and Yohanan Aharoni were Jews too. Mark S. Smith, Frank Moore Cross, and James Charlesworth are Christians to name just a few. Obviously you haven't got a clue that the vast majority of archaeologists working on Israel/Palestine are either Jews or Christians. Their interpretation isn't a hamfisted literalism like most Christians or Orthodox Jews hold, is all. You think the Q hypothesis has something to do with discounting the supernatural parts of the NT, you haven't got a clue what the minimalist/maximalist debate is about, and your favourite argument is an ad hominem, so why am I even bothering to explain all this to you?

Joel

WILLOWTREE

I am a theist.

This fact explains the insult made by atheist above.


All your posts reveal atheistic positions.

You CLAIM agnosticism in order to try and stake out a perceived state of objectivity.

This is done to validate atheist friendly conclusions as objective fact.

True agnostics question doubt and minimalism as much as they do faith and maximalism. Where are your posts confirming true agnosticism ?

The real reason opponent insults the Ceram book is because of its Schliemann content.

Minimalists hate what Schliemann accomplished.

He simply assumed a writer of ancient antiquity was reporting facts CONTRARY to all 19th century scholarship which assumed/PRESUPPOSED Homer was writing fiction/myth.

IOW, their worldview bias and ignorance was assumed true (mythical Troy).

IF Schleimann was right (and his success proves he was) THEN the hatred for the Ceram source is because it objectively reports how ancient text is true.

This becomes a basis to assume the Bible true and prove the Bible true - this is why my opponent slams the Ceram source.

We know from history that Brutus, descendant of Darda, descendant of Zarah, son of Judah who founded Troy AND New Troy/London. [source: Geoffrey of Monmouth, History of the British Kings.]

Brutus/British.

LonDAN

DANmark

scanDANavia

DANube

ZARAgossa, Spain

The Danites were expert seamen as they delivered Brutus to found London.


Two militant atheists.

Their conclusions reflect that fact.

No objective person takes them seriously.

The fact that the secular media (uneducated) promotes them proves how wrong they are.

WT

Toto

This thread may not be intact for long in this forum. Please stick to the topic in the OP and avoid personalities, or the mods will be forced to take drastic action.

Celsus

Willow, Willow,
:rolling: :rolling:

Where do you get these claims? Schliemann is rightly regarded as a giant of archaeology, and his understanding of tells was invaluable for use in Palestine. He certainly inspired the art of Biblical topography, and many of those conventions are still used today. But that doesn't mean that every last geographical description in the Bible is accurate or that we can apply it literally to every scenario (certainly Albright's topographical identification of Beit Mirsim as ancient Debir was wrong). People are still searching for Atlantis, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. to this day. Furthermore, Schliemann, like everyone else in the 19th century, used, well, 19th century methods. Nobody today, minimalist, maximalist, Christian, atheist, agnostic, Jew, or Velikovskian, would use the methods he used on his famous dig of Troy. Name me one "minimalist" who "hates what Schliemann accomplished."

Joel

WILLOWTREE

Fine.

Whats your point ?

Where did I ever get behind Rohl ?

Anyone knows they can refute Rohl with Rohl.

Everyone knows Velikovsky is not mainstream - never claimed he was.

Vel is hated by the the status quo because he proved them ALL wrong.

Shishak is Thutmose III do you want to deny/ argue this ?

I predict total evasion.

BTW, in the Bible the majority/mainstream is always wrong = claim that the world is as such.

No Joel.

Where did I claim mainstream ?

I said YOU claim mainstream because you associate that with correctness.

IOW, the crowd is right just like the 19th century against Schliemann ?

Surley you are not arguing numerics = determination of truth and facts ?

Joel:

I am sorry IF you are upset.

sincerely,

Ray/WT

WILLOWTREE

I prefer to leave the thread if this will prevent derailment ?

WT

Celsus

You forgot your claim, "Therefore he casts persons with the same worldview as him to be mainstream" already? The only two I cited as "mainstream" were Mazar and Stern. Everyone else I noted were not. Both are Jews, not atheists. You don't understand my point yet?
No, this is called a red herring. I see you're still up to your old tricks. You can't just make claims, switch to different claims, and then accuse your opponents of "total evasion"
Er, no I didn't. And you asked me what my point in mentioning that I disagree with them was?
No, I was backing up my point that they were, in fact, mainstream. It said nothing about the truth or falsity of their ideas.

Joel

Celsus

Just to be clear, I'm not the least bit upset, just somewhat amused at your rather, erm ... extreme claims, and fundamental inability to employ the normal standards of logic.

Joel

Duke Leto

It's fun, like watching a train wreck...