Rameus

Greetings all,

My name is Rameus and I am a denizen of the ex-christian forum. I have had the pleasure of meeting several of your members and I must say that it is refreshing to discover such a large, freethinking community. Presumably this community and others like it will only grow in the future. One can hold out hope for such a future anyway.

I wanted to drop in, introduce myself, and inform you of my debate with J.P. Holding. I'm sure many of you have seen this topic debated four hundred thousand times, in forty thousand different ways. For those of you who are familiar with the notorious apologist J.P. Hominid then you probably realize that attempting to debate this man is akin to picking a lock with a rotten banana. However, I have watched this library scientist parade around as an expert for too long and I simply cannot remain silent any longer.

My approach to debating is twofold; I fence with a hammer, and I take a multidisciplinary approach (graduate work in Near Eastern archaeology, anthropology, and ancient history). J.P. Hominid has been embarrassed and eviscerated on many occasions, by many great minds; this is certainly nothing new. I merely intend to add another scar to that degenerates anthology of pain.

If any of you are bored (or twisted) enough to enjoy such a spectacle, it is taking place at Holding's exclusive debating forum of choice; FundeologyWeb.

Debate thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...353#post902353

Commentary thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...358#post902358

I would appreciate it if people would refrain from posting remarks supporting my position, as I'd like Holding's cult following to have something of a shock (as much as is possible with fundamentalist Christians) when I hand him his #@$ in round one. I am completing this essay in what little free time I have and I should have it posted (thus officially starting the debate) sometime in February.

I would welcome any comments or criticisms at that time. Have a great weekend.

Rameus

Toto

Welcome Rameus. Tacitus seems to be a hot topic here (also here) , but I don't know what else there is to say about Josephus.

Peter Kirby

This debate will sprawl because it concerns two writers and is in two parts (at least for Holding to make his case). The two writers are Tacitus and Josephus. The two parts are, first, whether they wrote on Jesus and what, and second, whether what they wrote provides sufficient evidence to make the conclusion. What consitutes sufficient evidence is a sticking point in any debate about history. It should be interesting to see which of these four parts (spuriousness of Tacitus, evidence from Tacitus, spuriousness of Josephus, evidence from Josephus) are emphasized. I make the prediction that there won't be time for the fourth part, unless Rameus makes a point of it.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Good point, Peter. How is sufficient evidence defined for the purposes of this debate? Does it mean "just a minimal amount of evidence that would tip the scales for someone who wanted to believe in a HJ?" or "sufficient to rebut the indications that Christianity did not start with a historical Jesus?"

But I suspect that Ramaeus will rebut the points in JPH's two essays and assume that will suffice.

Steven Carr

Tacitus mentions Christ.

I don't see how Tacitus could be used to show that this Christ was Jesus Christ rather than say, Samuel Christ.

As for Josephus calling a crucified person, a wise man, well, let JP Holding tell us how unlikely that was :-

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

Celsus describes Jesus as one who was "bound in the most ignominious fashion" and "executed in a shameful way." Josephus describes crucifixion as "the most wretched of deaths." An oracle of Apollo preserved by Augustine described Jesus as "a god who died in delusions...executed in the prime of life by the worst of deaths, a death bound with iron." And so the opinions go: Seneca, Lucian, Pseudo-Manetho, Plautus.

Discussing crucifixion was the worst sort of social faux pas; it was akin, in only the thinnest sense, to discussing sewage reclamation techniques over a fine meal....

"A crucified messiah...must have seemed a contradiction in terms to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish."

------------------------------------------
So how likely is it that Josephus wrote anything positive about Jesus?

rlogan

Tweeb gave me the boot long ago. I'm still in anguish. Holding is impervious to reason, and of course that is why he is there.

Sufficient evidence? On TWEEB? heh...

Rameus

My chief concern is to demonstrate that the man is far out of his field and almost entirely ignorant of proper historical and anthropological methods for reconstructing an understanding of the past. It absolutely horrifies me that a million people visit his website a month, many of which take that trash seriously.

Rameus

spin

Ah, but Rameus, you can't appreciate the faith of those million. There faith will make him win, say what you want. Remember the match in which the local team apparently loses, so everyone blames the umpire because their team obviously won.

To "demonstrate that the man is far out of his field", you need an audience which appreciates the field. If he is "almost entirely ignorant of proper historical and anthropological methods for reconstructing an understanding of the past", what about his audience?

You will very politely need to break his legs before the audience will notice anything they don't want.


spin

Rameus

It’s a simple master to break the legs of a man who is defending the wrong position. As far as his public being able to understand the matter, we shall see if my style and presentation are not accessible enough for them to grasp.

This is a lengthy treatise, so it will be a few weeks yet.

Rameus

Vorkosigan

Holding is NOT ignorant and if you go at him in that way you will be soundly spanked. Any post there should simply be regarded as an opportunity to reach people who are privately conflicted, of which there are many. Just take it for granted that he will defeat you in every department except taking the high moral ground; if you attempt to take his scalp he will hand you your head. He is experienced, witty, and furthermore, has an adoring following of fanbots there. He will be given far more leeway for nasty comments, so you can't ever make it personal. Holding has read narrowly but deeply, and knows many of the arguments, though in a superficial form. Take your time and carefully explain everything. Give a well-rounded presentation that shows that you are a balanced personality who works with mainstream sources. You can point out gently how unbalanced his sources are. Make sure that you have put up plenty of references so people can explore them, including links.

I think you can elaborate Peter and Toto's remarks into a whole post. It would really educate people.

Good Luck!

Vorkosigan