Littlefoot

[quote]
.

Littlefoot: So you don't know which of my assertations are off, provide no evidence that they are off, state that they don't give the full picture, when the full is not neither necesary to make my point nor helpfull in refuting it,and yet blow the ahistorical whistle. Afterwhich you critique the presention of my post. Perhaps your critique would carry more weight had you managed to include some of the most important element: substance.







:

Justin

[QUOTE=Littlefoot]Oh, I know which of your assertions are off. I gave you some of the information, a good place to start your research, and enough substance to seee what the differences are between your presentation and historical reality. You didn't like it. :shrug: If all you're going to do is argue with me, you're more than welcome to do the research yourself.

Have fun.

Justin

Littlefoot

Littlefoot: Its not a matter of like, its a matter of you applying conditions centuries after the book was writen to the time when the book was written. Its a matter of you not understanding the time when the book was written and assuming that all medieval organizations were static and unchanging. Its amatter of you selectively ignoring the evidence i present in the form of translation of the original document and quotes from christian theologians of the time and dismissing that all because some website says "its not so"

You answered NONE of my points. When i brought up the bull or quotes from theologians you ignored them, deleted them, or just continued to reassert your opinion that i was wrong. You then assert yourself as an expert on what makes someone listen to your argument... if you have some ability at that (it doesn't look like it) it must be from demogogary because you supply little if any reasoning or evidence. You show no signs of having actualy listened to my point or considered my evidence: in short you argue like the worst stereotype of a christian, assume that you're right, close your ears to anything that doesn't fit your preconceived paradim of a kumbaya 17th+ century catholic church, and completely ignore very good evidence to the contrary.

Put up or shut up. Answer the bull, answer the theoligians talking about witchcraft and THEN tell me that the catholic church did not support the idea that witches existed or that they should be hunted down EVER. Dont try to feed me some pap about how enlightned the church was 150 years latter. The church has changed its mind about a lot of things, from the existance of ST georges dragon (i think that one was on the books till the 13th century) to a geocentric universe. (they didn't recind the excomunication on galileo till abouot 1990 )

Justin

And at this point, I'm not going to. You accuse me of closing my mind to any alternative evidence ... from where I sit, so are you. Like I said, I gave you a starting point to tighten up the flaws in your thesis. I'm not your research assistant. Do your own work.

Have fun.

Justin

Epictetus

Justin and Littlefoot,
You two seem to have descended into an argument that is quite beside the original thesis that the resurrection account of Jesus in the NT is ahistorical. Why don't we start afresh? Is it historic based on commonly accepted criteria or is it fallacious or mythological? Let's deal with the fundamentalist position and set aside other more liberal Christian views. After all, if you want to accept it allegorically, great. Historicity is not really necessary.

Justin

To Littlefoot's credit, he was arguing that the same standards that Christians use to "validate" the Gospel account of the resurrection can be used to "validate" belief in witches and magic, with the correlated arguments that if Christians accept the first but reject the second, they're engaging in a double standard, but if they accept both, then they have to acknowledge the possibility that Jesus's putative resurrection was magical in origin, not divine. Great thesis: my only critique was with some of the supporting points, and with the methodology.

But yeah, "thread drift" was pretty bad on this one.

Justin

Littlefoot

I would have to ask a historian whether the criterea were sufficient.. i think it is good enough to establish most events as having occured but not something as outside our experiences as a genuinely dead person getting up and living.

I haven't seen anyone show me a signifigant difference the evidence for events described in the malleus and the bible that didn't wind up in the malleus's favor.


As i've said, there are different standards that must be met for different events. Small changes, such as finding the name of a particular blacksmith in the name of a certain town, would require fairly little evidence. The bible is enough to convince me that there was a jewish reformer preacher named Jesus (however the name was mangled through translations) during the first century c.e.


Large changes, such as extraterrestrial influence on mayan archetecture or violation of the laws of conservation of energy a'la miricles would require a lot more evidence.

Epictetus

Though I understand Littlefoot's original intent, the kernel of this issue has almost been lost...and it is a good subject to discuss. But let's try to discuss the thing at hand; i.e. Is the resurrection historical or ahistorical. The present content of this thread has switched to discussing methodology of debate. I am in agreement with Justin that one must be careful how one goes about forming one's argument so that its premise is accepted for what it is and not rejected out of hand due to technique. And using the example of witch hunting is a bit arcane, in spite of the intent of it serving as a simple example.

I think that most of the proponents here are in agreement on the historicity of the resurrection. Arguments are flying back and forth over how to best convey this to the Christian audience - or fundie audience, whichever you choose.

I would suggest that when you are discussing this issue with Christians, particularly fundamentalists, it matters not one whit how logical or rational your argument. Their belief system is based in the realm of emotion. It is almost as if you were speaking a different language to them. They WILL NOT change their view no matter how brilliant your argument might be. It is threatening to their worldview and they are not about to have it come crashing down upon their heads. They will perform the most intense mental gymnastics to avoid this catastrophe. I know because I used to be one of them.

How else does one explain the thousands of intelligent, rational, scholarly people who are Christians who are absolutely convinced that the resurrection is both historical and logically necessary for God's plan? They have compartmentalized their religion from that part of their brain that tells them to beware of used car salesmen and snake oil.

spin

Oh, but they've got shelves full of snake oil. And take note of the cars.

How can we advance in this forum dedicated to biblical criticism and history on this subject?


spin

Vorkosigan

My fingers are wearing out using the Thread tools tonight....another one for GRD.