Freethought & Rationalism Archive

patcleaver · 12-01-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

If you are speaking of the feeding of the multitudes, only 12 people witnessed the "miracle". The 9000 (not 10000) who were fed by Jesus only experienced the consequences of what, according to the Gospels, only the disciples knew was a miraculous event. There's nothing in the gospel accounts that says those who were fed saw Jesus multiply the loaves and fishes or, more importantly, recognized anything miraculous in their being fed. (note the absence in the stories of the feedings of any element of wonder and astonishment on the part of those who benefited from Jesus' action by Jesus, an element which is typical in miracle stories where the miracle is presented as having been witnessed).
Jeffrey

Wow. You are claiming that the gospels never described large numbers of witnesses of Jesus magic tricks.

Why do you assume that all 12 apostles were aware of Jesus' magic multiplication of loaves and fish - it could have only been a couple of them.

spin · 12-01-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I was wrong trying to point NoRobots to texts about historiography.

Well, you were wrong only in the sense that once you are engaged in an open discussion of historiography, your position's vulnerability becomes all too apparent.

I was wrong, because you showed that you weren't going to make the effort to learn anything about historiography. You were too busy shuffling around your a priori beliefs.

spin

No Robots · 12-01-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I was wrong, because you showed that you weren't going to make the effort to learn anything about historiography. You were too busy shuffling around your a priori beliefs.

I'm still looking for a single reference or quotation from any historiographer that would back up your claim that without some kind of epigraphic corroboration it is unreasonable to assert that Christ ever lived.

aa5874 · 12-01-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I was wrong, because you showed that you weren't going to make the effort to learn anything about historiography. You were too busy shuffling around your a priori beliefs.

I'm still looking for a single reference or quotation from any historiographer that would back up your claim that without some kind of epigraphic corroboration it is unreasonable to assert that Christ ever lived.

Which Christ? You mean the one from the NT?

spin · 12-01-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I was wrong, because you showed that you weren't going to make the effort to learn anything about historiography. You were too busy shuffling around your a priori beliefs.

I'm still looking for a single reference or quotation from any historiographer that would back up your claim that without some kind of epigraphic corroboration it is unreasonable to assert that Christ ever lived.

Epigraphy is one good source of evidence for doing history. I've mentioned others. You are not responding to what I've said.

spin

No Robots · 12-01-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Epigraphy is one good source of evidence for doing history. I've mentioned others. You are not responding to what I've said.

The point is that you haven't supported your position with any references from any of the historiography that you purport to espouse. Honestly, it's like you're waiting to find a piece of the True Cross, or a feather from the Holy Spirit.

spin · 12-01-2008, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Epigraphy is one good source of evidence for doing history. I've mentioned others. You are not responding to what I've said.

The point is that you haven't supported your position with any references from any of the historiography that you purport to espouse. Honestly, it's like you're waiting to find a piece of the True Cross, or a feather from the Holy Spirit.

If you won't look for yourself, so be it.

spin

Huon · 12-02-2008, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Honestly, it's like you're waiting to find a piece of the True Cross, or a feather from the Holy Spirit.

Everybody should know that a great part of the True Cross was installed by Saint Louis in the Sainte Chapelle in Paris. It stayed there until 1794, when the revolutionists destroyed it. Some other fragments are in St Sernin (Saturnine) of Toulouse and in a village of Brittany, called La Vraie Croix.

Roger Pearse · 12-02-2008, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Over 99% of pagan literature was lost

Leaving aside the matter that "over 99%" is equivalent to 100%, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell us what the basis of this statistic (and your claim) is?

I think it's probably a comment by me in this forum, actually, although what I wrote was not "over 99%" but 99%.

This number is given by N.G.Wilson (of Scribes and Scholars fame). I saw it on the Archimedes Project pages. I asked him where it came from, and he said the estimate was originally done by Pietro Bembo, during the renaissance.

The number has to be an estimate, of course. But when we consider the limited number of works now extant from the 30-100 AD -- just 43, as far as I know, or on average one every two years --, when every educated Roman was scribbling away, it seems reasonable to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 12-02-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Yes, in the enlightenment, secularists had to get it from the Moslems who got it from Philosophers who fled the Roman Empire with their literature.

I think you are confusing the recovery of Aristotle and other philosophers from Moslems during the high middle ages, with the recovery of a much wider range of pagan texts from Constantinople and from obscure Western monasteries by humanists during the renaissance.

In 1423 Aurispa brought back to Venice 238 Greek codices from Constantinople, all non-Christian works. He had earlier collected patristic texts and sent them to Sicily, in such numbers that Greeks complained to the emperor that he was stripping the city of books. Unfortunately the volumes sent to Sicily seem to have vanished.

Greek texts were translated extensively into Syriac during the 5th-7th centuries, especially technical works and books on medicine such as Galen. When the Arabs conquered this area, eventually Arabic took over and the texts were translated into Arabic from Syriac, especially in the 10th century. Greek texts were still available in the Moslem empire at that time, and were sought out and translated, first into Syriac and then into Arabic.

I think that the idea that the humanists were "secularists" is a misunderstanding. They were, of course, almost all good Catholics. Even Pomponio Leto, who was arrested on suspicion of trying to restore paganism, was not a "secularist."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.