Bede

Vork, have you fallen so far? I'm staggered you can write this. Who are you calling nineteenth century apologists? Do you have details of this? After your admirable scepticism of the Ossuary, it seems you will believe anything that harms Christianity. I am honestly saddened by your attitude to this.

For the record, Jacob called my plea asking for the Greek "Grasping at straws...desperately hoping that there is an exit route in Greece" and he also defending Freke and Gandy in a vicious post a while back (far more vicious than my attack on Raskin, but of course as he was attacking me that was OK). Maglyn also thought F&G were brilliant. I did not compare JM to creationism - just the behavior of evolutionists (to my own); neither have I attacked Doherty; Kirby recently said he had lost interest in a critical review of Doherty's book; Tertullian was a Latin writer based in the West who had no chance to dominating the entire NT editorial process (though it seems he did write a bit of Greek). So I was right as usual and as usual every little slip is attacked by at least two posters while howlers on the other side are utterly ignored.

I really must be goiong now. This has turned into tag wrestling. I'm flattered by the attention, but it seems unfair to attack me when I was not nearly so rude about Raskin as Jacob was about me. I'm sorry I rose to the bait.

B

Ted Hoffman

So this is what this was all about

Ted Hoffman

deleted
Where have you been my friend? Kirby posted the following 9 days ago:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=95018

Vorkosigan

You and I will have to differ on the role and function of people like Zahn.

Bede! I never said the thing wasn't a fake (it is clear that it probably might be; as another poster pointed out, the lack of wearing is very telling. Add to that the general pattern of fakery in 19th century relics....). Rather, I was disputing your claim that you had demonstrated it to be so, when all you had done was cite an pre-war expert relying on the arguments of two 19th century apologist-scholars. The opinion of a single expert, unsupported by any arguments, can hardly be called decisive.

Wrong, as usual. Though it was nice of you to admit it, even in this graceless and backhanded way.

Did you review Raskin's TENT hypothesis before you were banned at JM? I'd be interested to see a serious review. I am skeptical myself.

It's not our job to make your case for you, and people would be less testy if your language was less provocative. For example, you complain about JA's comment about "grasping for Greek" but that was after you had twice accused him of having an "absurd" propensity for defending the JM hypothesis (later adding that it was pointless to argue with a Jesus Myther, another slap at JA and several others here). We left those unedited because we know that you are think the modding favors the atheists here, and didn't want to spark another complaint. If we have erred for not clamping down on you and JA sooner, we apologize.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Maglyn was new at the time and was making an enquiry. Nobody here represents the opinion IIDB holds on issues - people speak for themselves so your attempt to characterize this board as a battering ram for shattering Christians is misplaced.

I have never 'defended' Freke and Gandy anywhere at anytime. Please do not post falsities. I only ripped apart your polemical, content-free review.

With regard to 'grasping at straws', Bede does not understand Greek. But he wants to 'see the Greek - which he fears is beyond Raskin's expertise'.
For what exactly does Bede need the Greek? Is it so that he can run to a friend and ask: "what does this mean?". People who know Greek never ask to "see the Greek", they go straight to the Greek text and make their points.

I have seen this tactic in Physics discussions: one presents a theory, then a poster who hasn't even gone beyond elementary integral equations opines: "I'd like to see the math". When given the tensor equations, such posters generally make an additional demand, like: "I havent seen this kind of formulation before, have you checked [insert an irrelevant author here]?".

Its the same thing here - Bede asking whether Raskin checked this and that reference material, whether he has checked epistle to Hebrews, whether he can confirm dates, whether he knows Greek etc. etc. ad infinitum without explaining the relevance of these additional steps. If we indulge him further, he might even ask whether Raskin has taken breakfast!

Its just a matter of arbitrarily moving goalposts and raising the bar just to divert attention from the fact that there is no sensible objection available at their disposal.

I haven't been rude to you. Never called your arguments pathetic, or referred to them as a garbage heap - things you did to Raskin. Just gave you a stern little lecture - apparently, you dont take criticism very well. Hmmm...this colourful rhetoric and abrasive stance seems to be a defense mechanism for something very soft beneath...

You may be feeling banged up right now and feel you need some sympathy, but its no reason to paint everyone as bad and twist up everything so that you appear as the suffering, isolated victim. Just chill out. You will have your day someday.

Now. Lets proceed, shall we? I am interested in those parallels although I think only the first two are striking.

Lets start with my ignorance. A site relying on the Catholic Encyclopaedia indicates that "Zahn (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, II [1877-8], 288, and in Theol. Litteraturblatt [1893], 495) has shown that the work of Hegesippus was still extant in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in three Eastern libraries."

Now, could someone get the exact argument/reference in this Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte?

OTOH, given Bede's unbridled intolerance for 'old books' (his main weapon for hammering F & G's work), an given that the fate of this single factoid rests on a century old book. Maybe Bede can cut F & G some slack on this account?

Rick Sumner

Clever as you may find your wording, it's also inaccurate. What I said is that it's ultimately subjective. That doesn't make it a faith statement anymore than it's a faith statement to be a Repbulican.

Allow me to draw a parallel: Capitalism works. By some miracle of economics that rivals feeding five thousand with a few fish and loaves, capitalism creates money and jobs. Yet the answer to the question "What economic system works the best?" is still ultimately subjective. It can't be definitively proven one way or the other--too many subjective questions come into play.

So it is with the historicity of Jesus. We simply don't have the necessary evidence to establish an indisputably factual conclusion one way or the other. The question we are left with is "What is the best explanation for the origins of Christianity?" The answer, again, will ultimately be subjective. That doesn't mean there's no evidence, anymore than the previous example means there's no evidence that capitalism works. It's not a "faith statement" and to suggest that it is is nothing but a poisoned well.

I am, as I've noted before, aware of no branch of history outside of Biblical criticism where this ultimate subjectivity is viewed as something to be stomped out. Other fields seem to realize that we have no choice.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

deleted

Ted Hoffman

Hmmm...ultimately subjective. Is that why you are so loud about not wanting to "debate Jesus mythicism" but are keen on debating on HJ...Hmmm... ultimately subjective indeed. This is certainly a peculiar position

Bede

Vork,

OK. I've been bad. It would have been much better to have eviscarated Raskin politely and to have checked PLG (for ex) myself and presented the facts. Will try to do better next time (which will be a little while).

FWIW, I have a year of Greek classes under my belt and have just successfully completed a two week intensive course to consolidate it. I could certainly handle a sentence on Eusebius for analysis but I'm not going to be reading it on the plane for a while yet.

As for the amulet, I have always previously been careful to insert the word 'probably' before 'fake' which just goes to show that posting in anger is a bad idea as it makes one careless.

No more please!

B

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Bede.