Celsus

Now that the message has been up for a while and Metacrock has responded graciously, I don't think further action needs to be taken.

Metacrock, Thank you for responding graciously and bringing the tone of the discussion back up. This is something we like to see!

Joel

P.S. Haran, watch yourself

Clutch

Being a scholar myself, I can answer that I do know how much time might be involved in someone else's trying to justify Montgomery's claims for him. If you can't be bothered, that's fine by me.

"I can't be bothered to find support for Montgomery's claim" is not difficult to type. It would have the virtues of relevance, honesty and directness.

Unlike, say,

Metacrock

Meta: I see your point. But let me put it this way; who hasn't had the brush off from some big named guy whose too busy to respond to people? That doesn't make him a bad scholar, it makes him a bit of a jerk; although he is a big name guy in his circle so he probably is real busy. Theology people are terribly busy. I never had a prof in seminary who wasn't doing a superhuman amount of work.

But now why is this an issue? Why is it important wheather or not anyone ever questoined the historicity of Pilate?

why is it hard for you to believe that anyone would question the historicity of Pilate?

It really is true that in the 19th the historicity of almost everything in the Gosples was questoined. Read that Neil book and you will see.

Another place you might find someone is on Holding's site. He defeends the historcity of Pilate, so I think he mentioned critics who questioned it. See his essay on Tacitus.

Metacrock

Meta: Thanks. I really do actually hate responding that way. I get like that when at times because I get frustrated.

While we are on the subject, I also apologize to Steve for the Air Force comment. That was rude and uncalled for. In the future I'll try to just say what is I feel his persective lacks and not try to charactorize it.

sorry.

Toto

The importance is whether Christian apologists lie or fail to check their facts.

Christian apologists claim that

1. Skeptics once doubted that Pilate existed

2. Later archeology proved that he did

3. Therefore archeology always proves the Bible and if you doubt anything, the next archeological find will prove the doubters wrong.

(I did find this argument on a page devoted to the ossuary.)

The logic here is obviously incorrect The question is whether there is any shred of factual basis to point 1.

The real question is whether Christians have the intellectual integrity to admit an obvious error. There seems to be a strange reluctance to own up.

On the other thread, I hinted at a possible defense. Some facts that might have been once doubted have been confirmed by archeology - but they are relatively minor facts, titles of officials in the Roman Empire. I suspect that some apologist read that skeptics originally doubted that Pilate's title was prefect as recorded in the NT, but archeology later showed the NT to be correct - but this was not dramatic enough to make the point, so consciously or subconsciously, this morphed into "skeptics doubted Pilate's existence."

So how about it, Meta. Are you big enough to admit that some apologists can make mistakes? Why isn't Montgomery?

Metacrock

Meta:There certainly is, history does confirm that Pilate existed. So it looks like at least at worst they are making up half of their claim, but not the important half. Even if a critic never questioned Pilate, that is sitll one more fact that achaeology proves.

Now their real fallacy to argue that way is argument form sign. Proving Pilate in no way lends credence to the ossuary.

On the other hand your mistake is guilt by association. You can't label all Christian apologists as liars even if Monty lied about sketpics caliming that (which he didn't). But I wish you guys would learn to qualify youur attacsk! "some apologists" "fudie apologists" something like that






Meta: What's wrong with Crosson and Spong? You doubt their integrity?


why are all Chrisitians on trial for the actions one reactionary element?








Meta: The titles thing is not minor. See this is why I made the air force insult. you guys haven't read enough Biblcal schoalrship to know what goes on! You think you know so, so much and know so, so little. One of the biggest failings you have as researchers is the biased lunacy that anything old is automatically outdated and not worth reading. You could learn vast amounts by reading old scholarship. the history of scholarship is facinating and valuable for understanding why the current guys approach things as they do.

the titles are important because they are so hard to get right. It realy had to be someone living in the time and the place, and that helps to establish Lukan authorship. It doesnt' cinch it, but it adds credence to it.






Meta: I can show you mistakes they make that blow them away. I once caught a mistake in McDowell and phoned it into his researchers and they changed it in the next edition. That was a long time ago, it invovled the position of Bernett Hillman Streeter who they quoted on dating the Gosples or something. Long time ago.

But you are casting your net wide and yet you only have one tiny segement of the chruch in mind. You say "christian apologists" "the question is wheather Christians have the intellectual integrity..." as though all christians do this. Yet most of your evidence comes form Christians.

It is unfair and dishonest of you to do this. It is guilt by association and false accusation. You make tons of milage off of people like Crosson who actually have faith and are believers, but you speak as though the only believers are peple like Montgomary. That's unfair and dishonest.

Clutch

I agree. Whether here or in Haran's unqualified allusion to what "you guys" -- ie, we guys, I suppose -- don't know, this is unwarranted.

Haran

Some people have a serious problem owning up to mistakes, especially if cornered in a mean and vindictive way. Some people just never own up to mistakes, period...(think Altman).

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether a person is a Christian or an atheist or any other faith. I have little respect for those who cannot understand this fact... Surely you did not mean exactly what you said, Toto.

Regardless of your answer, I'd like you to point out the obvious error. Personally, I don't find it very honest to call someone a liar without investigating their claims farther than has been done in this case. "The guy must be a liar because, even though I'm no scholar and am not as well read on the subject, I've never heard of nor read a scholar that has assumed the non-historicity of Pilate." Good grief... I just find it utterly ludicrous that he made up the stuff about Pilate or was lying in general. The guy just had a questionable attitude. I think I need to take a break...

Haran

'You guys' was in reference to those who seemed to be saying that we (at least the Christians in this thread) should go find references to those who doubted Pilate's existence, so that we could prove that Christians aren't liars. Sorry, I thought it was more obvious than that.

Toto

I'm sorry, I should have qualified that. Obviously not all Christians are apologists, and not even all Christian apologists claim that "skpetics think Pilate never existed."

But how about the Christians on the board arguing about this? Why is Roger Pearse so dug in on it?