Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 11-01-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
I think we need to accept that what Monty said can be challenged but is a valid interpretation. I don't much like his attitude but given the tone of Steven's email, it does't surprise me.

And what was wrong with it?

Quote:

It is now clear that Monty takes the view, in common with some others of respectable and learned background, that the first three Gospels are Mark, Matthew and John. Papias vouches for Mark and Matthew - you may not believe him but he does. He also was a disciple of John the Elder that Monty believes, again incommon with some learned and respectable opinion, is one and same as John the Apostle. Monty takes the view that as Papias knew John the Apostle, and also accepts the traditional authorship of Mark and Matthew then it is likely he recieved this from John.

Something Papias never claims!

Presumably the learned and respectable opinion does not include Eusebius, who tells us they were different people.

And Papias never calls this presbyter an apostle. Never even implies it.

Quote:

Incidently, Steve, as you suggest Philo is a pagan, I expect Monty thought you were an ignoramus - or should that be liar?

Oh, so Monty was engaging in careful word games by putting 'pagan' in front of historians, just so he could pretend there were no non-Christian historian's mentions of Pilate, in a quite independent, non-Christian context.

What was the point of his 'pagan' if not to suggest non-Christian?

Laying careful word traps is the tactic of lawyers.

Oh, Monty was a lawyer.

A lawyer and a Christian apologist.....

If Bede really thinks it is the mark of a serious scholar to exclude Philo from a discussion of the historicity of Pilate, by putting in careful qualifiers so as to create 'plausible deniability' , then I suggest he starts writing his Big Golden Book of Christian Apologetics now.

Montgomery wrote 'The documents at issue are not (pace the man on the Clapham omnibus) Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, or other pagan references to Jesus,.....'

So was Montgomery implying Josephus was a pagan.....?

In one sentence, 'pagan references' includes a reference to Josephus, and when Monty refers to 'pagan historians' who mention Philo, we are supposed to suddenly realise that this excludes Jews.....

And why would it exclude Jews? Why would a scholar like Montgomery want to exclude independent , non-Christian, Jewish references to Pilate from a discussion of his historicity?

Just so he can make the straw man innuendo that sceptics say all references to Pilate are forged Christian references, as they are all only in connection with Jesus? Possibly......

-----------------------

PILATE

Personally, I think there probably was one 19th-century nutcase , who denied Pilate existed, yet Montgomery wrote as though this was typical of sceptical thought, and he clearly did not want to name him. Perhaps he doesn't actually know of any.

Even Montgomery's readers might wonder why he chose an obscure 19th century fruitcake as a worthy representative of sceptical thought.

But perhaps not. Montgomery does write about Van Daniken as a sceptic, implying sceptics are no more rational than Van Daniken.

Layman · 11-01-2003, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
On the contrary, Richard asks for errors.

Hmm. When I challenged him directly and in depth on his argument that Paul believed in a bodily resurrection, he popped in, whined a little bit, and claimed that we should all wait for a new book that was due to come out.

Quote:

On the contrary, Doherty stormed off when he decided that Nomad was too amateurish to waste his time over.

Doherty agreed to the debate then fled when he realized that Nomad was not going to give him an inch in his assumptions. No one told Nomad he could not argue about Josephus or from the criterion of embarassment.

Even the SecWeb moderators at the time admitted they had failed to properly inform the participants of the ground rules.

Toto · 11-01-2003, 02:48 PM

Carrier is working on a PhD thesis. Perhaps you should wait for the book. The exact nature of Paul's beliefs is not such a burning issue with most people.

The
Jesus Puzzle debate is still there for all to read. There were some problems in the initial assumptions, so I would not necessarily blame anyone, but you can see why Doherty left in his post which starts:

Quote:

When I skimmed over Brian's latest post, I realized (if I didn't know it already) that a properly structured and reasoned debate with him is impossible, so I'll spend some time dealing with some of the things he raises, then if I have space go back to his earlier post and start a reply to his second 'pillar proof' for Jesus' existence, the crucifixion. . .

but then near the end:

Quote:

Brian goes so far as to DECLARE he won�t debate these passages (like 1 Cor. 15) with me. Why? He can read!! He has already decided he knows what they mean. He already knows that my "talk" is "meaningless"! Save your breath, Doherty. It�s all hot air. I won�t let it enter my brain, let alone discuss it. Why then did he challenge me to a debate? What does a debate consist of for him? Getting the opponent into the ring, berating his motives, his methods, refusing to listen, let alone address his arguments? Declaring the victory is already his because he�s decided his are the only standards that will be accepted? What�s left for him to do in this debate? What�s left for me to do? Stand there and meekly accept his tirades and intellectual slander? Serve as his foil so he can evangelize? What are his responsibilities now that the decision has been declared? Cheer? Give a speech? (He�s already been doing that all along.) Accept the accolades of the crowd?

Will someone please tell Brian that this sort of thing is not debate? That it is not counter-argument? It is not even intelligent. It is not adult. It is not acceptable. In a formal debate he would be laughed off the stage, probably pelted with fruit. This sort of thing is so abysmal, so laughable, that I can no longer bring myself to treat this exercise with any degree of respect. How can one debate techniques like this? How can I answer them without having recourse to ridicule, since there is nothing left to do? Am I going to try to give serious rebuttal to them, as though they are to be respected, as though they belong here?

I have said it before, and I will say it again. This is a farce. It was a farce from Day One, everyone with any sense could see that this is what it would turn into (or become right from the start, which it did)�except of course me, because I hadn�t had any experience with Brian before. I was invited to a debate. I assumed at least the basics of debating procedure, technique and facility (let alone understanding) of the process would be operating. I assumed, naively, a certain degree of honesty, of competence, of accessibility to the opponent�s mind and reasoning powers. How foolish. Perhaps Brian�s talents have only come to their fullest revelation with me. I am glad to be able to bring out the best in someone.

Well, there we are. To be quite honest, when I began this post, I was not consciously headed in this direction. But as I got further and further into it and realized the full extent of the abysmal nature of how he operates, there seemed no other response possible. This thing has gone far enough. I absolutely refuse to waste any more of my valuable time on him. There is no doubt in my mind that he will understand none of this, as neither will some of his supporters. I�ll be dumped on, and they�ll march away in triumph, holding him high on their shoulders. Quite frankly, I don�t give a damn. I do hope that those who canunderstand and sympathize with my reaction will at least support me in this decision to walk away. At the very least, I�ve learned a lesson.

Thanks, good night, and best wishes to those who encouraged me in this�debate.

Earl Doherty

Haran · 11-01-2003, 03:26 PM

Yeah... Doherty was pretty good with rhetoric anyway. He had some pretty good damage control going at that point!

Steven Carr · 11-01-2003, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
Yeah... Doherty was pretty good with rhetoric anyway. He had some pretty good damage control going at that point!

Yeah, when Doherty said Q had no baptism of Jesus, and Trafford sneered that Doherty believed the baptism of Jesus was in Q, rather than Mark.

What do you think of Trafford's claim 'After all, if all we were to read of John�s Gospel was the hymn of verses 1-18 we might not think that he thought Jesus really existed as a human being either.'?

I remind you of part of John 1'10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.'

Where do you think Trafford got the idea that 'The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us', lets you conclude that Jesus never really existed as a human being, and we need the rest of John to tell us that?

Layman · 11-01-2003, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Carrier is working on a PhD thesis. Perhaps you should wait for the book. The exact nature of Paul's beliefs is not such a burning issue with most people.

Yeah, and I work every day at a very busy place.

His offering to respond to criticism is pretty meaningless if he never makes the time to respond. Especially if his moderators are so willing to make excuses for him. And if you know he's too busy to respond to detailed criticism, why represent to the board that he's ready and willing to respond to it?

"Burning issue" or not, he's the one who decided to write about it. This board is devoted to just this kind of subject. I posted a detailed response to his theory.

I don't care if Carrier responds or not. I'm sure he is busy. But don't pretend he will when he doesn't.

Metacrock · 11-01-2003, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
At some point I might check up on some of his other references. I do know however, that 100-year old works like Zahn's are still used because no one has bothered to update particular information or because there is nothing to update... I have seen Zahn's name in the books of many modern Bible scholars.

Meta: Yea, these are not drugs. They get old and expire. If something hasn't been updated it's still good. A lot of old works are still good. Ramsay is still worth quoting. but it's good to have to updates.

As for the rest of it, I don't like Montgomery, but he's at least a scholar. What I don't like is the peusdo-scholarly subculture of the internet where anyone with a website is automatically an authority. wait a minute, I have a website. Hmmmm, I'll have to work that one out.

Metacrock · 11-01-2003, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
I told you all this guy was a monkey!!!! You just don't wanna listen to me

Was the response in all caps like that? Seriously? This isn't a spoof?

Vinnie

Meta: At least he has a degree. It's begining to look to me like your concept of schlarship is anyone in the Jesus seminar is a scholar and anyone who isn't is isn't.

Metacrock · 11-01-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr
And what was wrong with it?

Something Papias never claims!

Presumably the learned and respectable opinion does not include Eusebius, who tells us they were different people.

And Papias never calls this presbyter an apostle. Never even implies it.

Oh, so Monty was engaging in careful word games by putting 'pagan' in front of historians, just so he could pretend there were no non-Christian historian's mentions of Pilate, in a quite independent, non-Christian context.

What was the point of his 'pagan' if not to suggest non-Christian?

Laying careful word traps is the tactic of lawyers.

Oh, Monty was a lawyer.

A lawyer and a Christian apologist.....

If Bede really thinks it is the mark of a serious scholar to exclude Philo from a discussion of the historicity of Pilate, by putting in careful qualifiers so as to create 'plausible deniability' , then I suggest he starts writing his Big Golden Book of Christian Apologetics now.

Montgomery wrote 'The documents at issue are not (pace the man on the Clapham omnibus) Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, or other pagan references to Jesus,.....'

So was Montgomery implying Josephus was a pagan.....?

In one sentence, 'pagan references' includes a reference to Josephus, and when Monty refers to 'pagan historians' who mention Philo, we are supposed to suddenly realise that this excludes Jews.....

And why would it exclude Jews? Why would a scholar like Montgomery want to exclude independent , non-Christian, Jewish references to Pilate from a discussion of his historicity?

Just so he can make the straw man innuendo that sceptics say all references to Pilate are forged Christian references, as they are all only in connection with Jesus? Possibly......

-----------------------

PILATE

Personally, I think there probably was one 19th-century nutcase , who denied Pilate existed, yet Montgomery wrote as though this was typical of sceptical thought, and he clearly did not want to name him. Perhaps he doesn't actually know of any.

Even Montgomery's readers might wonder why he chose an obscure 19th century fruitcake as a worthy representative of sceptical thought.

But perhaps not. Montgomery does write about Van Daniken as a sceptic, implying sceptics are no more rational than Van Daniken.

Meta: If the US air force ran on as little iformation as you know about this stuff they would never get off the ground. The 19th century was the time of liberal doubt. Almost everyone expressed dobut about things like Pilate's existence. You call him a "fruitcake" because he did that, that shows how little you know about the history of Biblical scholaship, and yet you deem to make pronouncements about it as though you are yourself qualified to be thought of as a scholar.

Toto · 11-01-2003, 07:27 PM

Metacrock: find us a name of someone who thought that Pilate was a myth, and save the reputation of your fellow believers.

The nineteenth century may have been a time of "liberal doubt" as you call it, but it was not a period of doubting history in general. It was a period when scholars noticed the similarities between mythologies of various cultures, and concluded that Jesus was a myth because of these similarities. Similar observations were made about St. Peter and John the Baptist, but Pilate does not fit any mythic patterns. There is no reason for any scholar to think that Pilate was a myth.

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

11-01-2003, 03:26 PM	#14
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	Yeah... Doherty was pretty good with rhetoric anyway. He had some pretty good damage control going at that point!

11-01-2003, 07:27 PM	#20
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Metacrock: find us a name of someone who thought that Pilate was a myth, and save the reputation of your fellow believers. The nineteenth century may have been a time of "liberal doubt" as you call it, but it was not a period of doubting history in general. It was a period when scholars noticed the similarities between mythologies of various cultures, and concluded that Jesus was a myth because of these similarities. Similar observations were made about St. Peter and John the Baptist, but Pilate does not fit any mythic patterns. There is no reason for any scholar to think that Pilate was a myth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.