Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-27-2006, 05:08 AM | #101 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
|
Does this help?
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Thr...edUniverse.htm Now, where was God, the angels and satan in this? |
12-27-2006, 07:02 AM | #102 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
|
An effective rebuttal would demonstrate:
1. At least one of the alleged facts on which his argument depends is not actually true; 2. He has omitted from his analysis a crucial fact that is inconsistent with his conclusion; or 3. His argument is fallacious. |
12-27-2006, 06:57 PM | #103 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
IMO the term "alleged" or "purported" facts, in the first place need expanding, so as to be thorough. I have accordingly renumbered the final two items ... I perceive the need to separately address those things which are presented as "purported facts" from those things which are presented in the structure of the argument, as postulates, unexamined or otherwise. Examples of these postulates include the following, some of which may be applicable in specific theories (whether they are HJ or MJ) others more general ... ia) Epicenter: the existence of an HJ is viewed as an unexamined postulate. ib) Epicenter: the existence of an HP is viewed as an unexamined postulate. ii) Source Language: that the New Testament was written in Greek iii) Apostlic lineage: that apostle Paul wrote something preserved to us iv) Transmission: that the critical Westcott-Hort transmission is correct v) Eusebius: that the historiology written c.314-324 is true and correct Therefore, I'd refine your original series as follows: 1. At least one of the postulates on which his argument depends is not actually true. 2. At least one of the alleged [historical] facts on which his argument depends is not actually true Quote:
Is this a reasonable refinement? |
||
12-28-2006, 12:12 AM | #104 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
|
|
12-28-2006, 12:51 AM | #105 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
* Usage of "born of a woman" (lots of examples where it applies to mortals, no examples where it applies to non-mortals) * Usage of "born a little lower than the angels (one example applying to mankind, no examples where it applies to non-mortals) * Justin Martyr's Trypho declaring that the Christ had not come * Tatian as a non-HJ writer * His comment that there was a “telling silence on the reputed founder” of Christianity in the second century * The "kata sarka" debate (though I wasn't involved in this myself since I don't have the knowledge to do so) For (2), I can think of several examples: * his lack of analysis of the Jewish literature of the time for comparisons to Paul's Jesus (e.g. Philo's Moses) * his lack of analysis of the Christian literature of the time for comparisons to the silence in Paul (the "silence" can be found over the first 3 or 4 centuries, well beyond the time that the gospels were known) For (3), well, that is part of this thread. Doherty has said things like there was a sublunar realm where savior gods like Mithras could slay a bull, and Attis could be castrated; also that his own ideas about early Christianity "makes a good fit with the philosophy and cosmology of the time, and is supported by close parallels with mystery cult mythology". I would say that he is wrong about these things. But even if I'm right, maybe they aren't crucial to his thesis? Maybe early Christianity was unique in its views? If so, then Doherty's comments can't be falsified, thus it can't be said that it isn't true. These are just off the top of my head. Are any of these crucial to Doherty's argument? If not, can you tell me which facts are crucial to his argument? |
|
12-28-2006, 01:27 AM | #106 | ||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
Other apologists wrote similarly. Here is Tertullian: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian01.html We do not worship your gods, because we know that there are no such beings. This, therefore, is what you should do: you should call on us to demonstrate their non-existence, and thereby prove that they have no claim to adoration; for only if your gods were truly so, would there be any obligation to render divine homage to them. And punishment even were due to Christians, if it were made plain that those to whom they refused all worship were indeed divine. But you say, They are gods.Tertullian doesn't even hint here that the myths took place in a sublunar realm. Did people die in a sublunar realm, according to Doherty? Yes -- but Tertullian plainly places the gods' deaths on earth. The obvious pagan rejoinder -- "hey, our gods acted and died in a sublunar realm, turkey!" -- doesn't appear to have occurred to any Christian apologist. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have no problem with "sublunar", as long as it is understood to mean that part of the world under the moon, rather than a "separate fleshly dimension". I've also used Doherty's "world of myth", which Doherty places in the "sublunar realm", though most people just think I mean "myth" when using it so it can also cause confusion. So if it is okay, let's use "sublunar realm". |
||||||
12-28-2006, 09:43 AM | #107 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
|
Quote:
Just wondering; I haven't been following the debate closely. Stephen |
|
12-28-2006, 10:00 AM | #108 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
|
|
12-28-2006, 10:06 AM | #109 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
|
Quote:
Jeffrey |
|
12-28-2006, 10:17 AM | #110 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|