Doug Shaver

We do not know that. It's just an apologetic myth.

TedM

Nope. It isn't fact. Ask the Iranian Jerk that says the Holocaust never happened. You actually BELIEVE those writings, and the people who claim they were there? Come on... dont' point to film either, we know it can be edited. EVERYTHING requires faith.

Toto

Richard Carrier: Did No One Trust Women?Much more there on this question.

On the Holocaust (remember Godwin's law - by bringing it up you lose!) Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman in Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, Updated and Expanded (or via: amazon.co.uk) demonstrate that you can know something about history. Someone please come up with some new, fresh material? This is getting old.

TedM

The fact that some did not shows that women were not respected the same, thus the cultural bias against them is evident, so there is some basis for the idea that early Jewish Christians were embarrassed to discuss the role of women in the resurrection appearances. Why else does the 'creed' Paul references only mention men by name, and completely exclude the women--who later authors said were the first to see Jesus?



I know I"m speaking tongue in cheek on this issue, but really, you cannot KNOW history. All you can do is BELIEVE it on the basis of evidence that YOU SUBJECTIVELY VALUE AS TRUSTWORTHY.

In the end, it's all subjective Toto.

Same could be said for science too. ALL that our brains process and conclude is filtered through our brains.

So, as far as history is concerned, the value of methodologies is something that depends on consensus viewpoints, and people can choose to accept or reject the consensus on the basis of their own filters.

This is the FreeThought and Rationalism discussion board, but it only exists because people subjectively think that it is worthy of existing. Others may think it is a dead end road, and perhaps they are right. Perhaps forces outside our conscious abilities are the real sources of truth and knowledge.

spin

People can deny whatever they want. Will it change what can be demonstrated? Question demonstrability and one ends up talking to someone who cannot know anything. You are engaged in this conversation, indicating that you think one can know things.

Then you need a meaningful definition of faith to make sense of what you just wrote (oh, and of knowledge). I fear that you're just falling into Berkeleyism for want of substance.

spin

This is irrelevant. Women didn't get the vote until the 20th century, but does that mean their testimony was never used in courts of law before that. Your common sense confuses you.

You have no way of knowing that.

Toto

There is no basis for the idea that early Jewish Christians were embarrassed to discuss the role of women except in your imagination. There are women throughout the NT. They were part of society, they had a role, and the church evangelized to them and depended on their financial and work contributions.

The scientific method works. There's nothing subjective about that. You can't just claim that everything is subjective, so everything is up for grabs, so you have the option of picking what makes you feel good.

I bet when you get sick, you want the best of modern medicine, and you don't read the Bible for medical advice. You probably travel on roads using a car that was built by modern engineers, and I know that you use the internet, based on quantum mechanics. If you want to be consistent, try living with 1st century technology and see how far it gets you.

spin

Thus dies embarrassment.

TedM

I"m talking about being embarrassed to discuss the role of women? What gave you that idea? I simply pointed out why there is a basis for being embarrassed at wild stories women told. There is a general shunning from being treated with equal respect that was in your quote, and the creed mentions no women. It is also in Paul's comments regarding how women are to be treated--they aren't to speak when men are.

This isn't complicated. But, it isn't science. I can't prove it to you. It's historical analysis with all of its shortcomings..


If it makes you feel good, then it works. Science has its shortcomings, but I agree that for all practical purposes it is the most effective way to truth with regard to observable phenomenon using our senses. That leaves a lot that it fails to validate, including history. The time factor keeps science a few steps away.

JonA

This is not at all true. It is not simply a matter of writing out distasteful elements of the story. It is not the case that multiply attested traditions are necessarily ones of which the gospel writers would have been proud.

Remember, these people are telling the 'story of Jesus'. They could no more convince their audience that they were talking about Jesus if they left out/changed certain important elements than a modern parent could convince their children they were talking about Santa Claus if they left out/changed the fact that he was fat, wore red, lived at the North Pole, had flying reindeer, etc.

Just because you're the person putting it into writing doesn't mean you have free rein over how the story is told.

Some elements of the story find themselves ingrained in the early tradition despite being incompatible with a later theology. The criterion of embarrassment is by no means a clear-cut answer to all questions of authenticity, but that does not mean it is not a tool useful in its own right and within its proper limitations.

Jon