Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 06-06-2005, 07:57 PM

Check it out:

http://www.tektonics.org/tomb/emptytomb.html

Does anyone have comments?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr · 06-06-2005, 10:09 PM

Will it actually be readable? Holding's articles tend to be incoherent.

And will he start accusing his own sources of talking 'politically correct bulldada', as he has been know to do, when they write emails correcting his interpretation of what they write?

Toto · 06-06-2005, 10:24 PM

At first glance, it looks like it will be difficult to read the review unless you have read the book first.

Vorkosigan · 06-06-2005, 10:44 PM

The book's on the way, Peter. So I'll have to wait. But it looks like the same bullshit game he always plays:

"Kirby has, however, not considered two critical aspects of ancient reportage that come into play here. The first is that the similarities between accounts are just as likely to be attributed -- if not more likely, in a world where 95% of people were illiterate -- to oral tradition carried alike by independent witnesses."

As if no one had ever done any research on oral literature that proves that this is overwhelmingly wrong. Holding has mastered a tiny set of arguments that hinge on the fact that his audience does not know anything...

Steven Avery · 06-06-2005, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Will it actually be readable? Holding's articles tend to be incoherent.

The article in response to Peter II looked to me reasonably well done, and sans burps.

Vork makes a reasonable complaint about Holding's view of the oral / synoptic issues, but I will pass on that for now since it is not my baliwick, and I am not sure the oral option propounded by Holding is necessary or significant.

Apparently Peter works out arguments based on improbabilities, and I think Holding might have taken a different approach on that, as my gut sense is that such arguments based on improbabilities are innately weak. To me that may be the most interesting part of the dialog.

I haven't really looked at the other articles, although I may have browsed a couple of them en passant in other researches.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-06-2005, 11:20 PM

I read the review of Peter's piece and was immediately put off by Holding's polemic and hostile style but persevered. It did not seem to me that he made any particularly strong or new rebuttals and that he relied a lot on selective and self-serving interpretations of Paul.

Steven Carr · 06-06-2005, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The book's on the way, Peter. So I'll have to wait. But it looks like the same bullshit game he always plays:

"Kirby has, however, not considered two critical aspects of ancient reportage that come into play here. The first is that the similarities between accounts are just as likely to be attributed -- if not more likely, in a world where 95% of people were illiterate -- to oral tradition carried alike by independent witnesses."

This does not stop Holding producing similarities in words from the women caught in adultery and words in Luke's Gospel and Acts to conclude that Luke might well have written the story, but left it out for reasons of space.

Killer Mike · 06-07-2005, 02:28 AM

There was no "empty tomb" in history. This story is part of Christian mythology. Jesus was never buried there in the first place. It was common practice for the Romans to let the bodies of those crucified to hang on crosses for days following these kinds of executions. To let the body slowly rot away. This was done to intimidate and remind people of the penalty for not following Roman authority.

Its like taking a story of Superman and debating whether he really did all those things you read about in Superman stories. Dont we have "eyewitnesses" who have seen Superman? :Cheeky:

06-06-2005, 07:57 PM	#1
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Tektonics Critiques The Empty Tomb Check it out: http://www.tektonics.org/tomb/emptytomb.html Does anyone have comments? best wishes, Peter Kirby

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

06-06-2005, 10:09 PM	#2
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Will it actually be readable? Holding's articles tend to be incoherent. And will he start accusing his own sources of talking 'politically correct bulldada', as he has been know to do, when they write emails correcting his interpretation of what they write?

06-06-2005, 10:24 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	At first glance, it looks like it will be difficult to read the review unless you have read the book first.

06-06-2005, 10:44 PM	#4
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	The book's on the way, Peter. So I'll have to wait. But it looks like the same bullshit game he always plays: "Kirby has, however, not considered two critical aspects of ancient reportage that come into play here. The first is that the similarities between accounts are just as likely to be attributed -- if not more likely, in a world where 95% of people were illiterate -- to oral tradition carried alike by independent witnesses." As if no one had ever done any research on oral literature that proves that this is overwhelmingly wrong. Holding has mastered a tiny set of arguments that hinge on the fact that his audience does not know anything...

06-06-2005, 11:20 PM	#6
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I read the review of Peter's piece and was immediately put off by Holding's polemic and hostile style but persevered. It did not seem to me that he made any particularly strong or new rebuttals and that he relied a lot on selective and self-serving interpretations of Paul.

06-07-2005, 02:28 AM	#8
Killer Mike Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,033	There was no "empty tomb" in history. This story is part of Christian mythology. Jesus was never buried there in the first place. It was common practice for the Romans to let the bodies of those crucified to hang on crosses for days following these kinds of executions. To let the body slowly rot away. This was done to intimidate and remind people of the penalty for not following Roman authority. Its like taking a story of Superman and debating whether he really did all those things you read about in Superman stories. Dont we have "eyewitnesses" who have seen Superman? :Cheeky:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.