jakejonesiv

Hi Earl,

I don't think it is fair for Rick and Roger to dismiss your book without even reading it.

Best,
Jake

Roger Pearse

??

This is rather odd use of quotation. It confuses two different points made by me at different times and in different contexts. A reread of what I said would probably clarify this.

As, indeed, we might expect Earl to do, since he must refute them for his argument to have any chance of success.

But *my* argument does not require me to do so anyway. To refute Earl's argument, which requires certainty that Minucius dates to ca. 150 (iirc), I only have to show that the date of Minucius is uncertain. I did read through the arguments once, and heavy going it was. But I'd have to do it again to discuss the subject; and I feel no urge to translate them into English so that Earl can sound as if he has read more than he has!

Earl consistently seems to miss the point here. *I* do not have to establish a certain date for Minucius. I only have to show that his date is not certain, for his argument to collapse. It is rather unfortunate for him, that he chose as a key element in his argument the date of a text whose date has been the subject of centuries of wrangling! But this fatal flaw will not go away simply because he wishes it would. The argument is dead. It isn't true. Junk it and find a better one.

I would have thought, in my humble way, that if someone makes a theory on any historical subject whatsoever, they must make a case that this is correct, examining the data that makes for or against it, and convincing us that the overall analysis best fits the data. No-one is obliged to prove them wrong. They have to establish a case first, to the rest of us, before we can even consider whether they might be right.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

This genre of argument is one we have seen before, and we need to get into the habit of squashing it. In it's generic form, doesn't every scumbag shyster hype his movie by tricks like publicising widely "this refutes your religion" and then tries to stifle criticism of whatever daftness it contains (and which he has told us) by "you can't criticise it unless you pay me money to see it." It's a tedious fallacy, and if someone hypes their own material, others are entitled to disagree with it based on what they say.

Of course I can't disagree with his new edition, since it hasn't been released (is that right?). The argument of his old edition I read years ago; indeed it was online! I have a feeling that I wrote stuff about it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

DCHindley

aa,

Now this is a good post!

Jesus is nowhere mentioned, nor is the title "Christ," only the label "Christian" is used. However, Caecilius does say

"I know not whether these things are false; certainly suspicion is applicable to secret and nocturnal rites; and he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve."

This certainly indicates that Jesus of Christian fame is the subject of this reference, and that this Jesus, and the manner of his death, seemed objectionable to Caecilius in a way that assumes it was a justifiable, thus historical, death. Municius Felix however chose not to deal with the implication of the death of the man Jesus on a "cross of wood" but on the truth value of the charges leveled against Christians, his followers.

DCH

Rick Sumner

I wasn't aware I had dismissed it. Though it's curious that Earl puts words in my mouth, and you extend condolences based on them.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

You'll forgive me for not having time at present to search for it, I'll see what I can do later if you can't recall from the description. It dealt, perhaps most notably, with RT France. There was a long exchange between you and Jeffrey Gibson about whether or not you had read a Bousett paper you cited therein.

Given that I have never bothered to endorse RT France, I was a little puzzled by your scorn at my not having responded to what you described at length as a paper of near epic proportions.

This is encouraging news. Those are the types of arguments I am more inclined to see addressed. I'm considerably less interested in what you have to say to R T France.

Perfectly reasonable. Encouraging again, even. Not many books can profess to have 50% of their content never covered in papers or other dialogue before. I suspect that might be an optimistic number, but I'd be happy with 25%, given the amount of other resources you've already penned.

This is either empty rhetoric or a persecution complex. I'm not sure which, and it really doesn't matter. It is unlikely that you will be receptive to Meier's fourth volume. That doesn't mean you won't gain anything by reading it.

We all have our predilections. That you thinly imply that mine lead to closed-mindedness might say more about the strength of your case than the closure of my mind.

I find it a bit strange that you think I said anything of the sort. Perhaps, we could restrict our dialogue to the contents of my posts, rather than any inferences you care to make from them.

It would indeed. Which is why I asked if you deal with them in a manner or in greater detail than you already have. If you weren't offering anything new to the individual, like myself, who has both read your book and your dialogues online, there wouldn't be much point to it. A bit like reading Cliff Notes ahead of the book and then expecting to be surprised by the contents.

So if, as you suggest, there is something new to be found, then of course there is a point to reading it, whether I'm likely to be persuaded or not.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Littlejohn

Absolutely amazing! .. I thought that Earl Doherty had begun to think seriously about what I explained in posts I wrote here in the forums Infidels.org or FRDB. But actually I was wrong.

Too bad, I thought that he at least had begun to take me seriously and that non-Christian evidence, such as those of the rabbinical and Mandaeans (who have always lived outside the action-range of the Catholic clergy), who speak of Jesus, they was worth anything. However I was wrong ...

I can not fail to note once again that never in the history of the Jewish diaspora, there was someone of the Jews who has complained of being persecuted by the Catholics because of a non-historical caracter, invented by the 'church fathers'.

Also advancing the objection that the Jews could not do so for fear of Catholic reprisals, but today, in memory of their fallen, no impediment to do so, if it were true, that is that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed invented a character! As you all know, this has yet to happen ...

Greetings


Littlejohn

.

mountainman

Hi aa5874 and DCH,

Thankyou for bringing the above contended matter of Minucius Felix to the surface in a little more detail. On the basis that he wrote between 150-270 the reference to a crucifixion certainly does not indicate that Jesus of Christian fame is the subject of this reference since there is record of mass crucifixions during this period.

For example one cite reveals that in the early second century Trajan crucified 2000 Jews of the town of Emmaus. Strangely enough, this town is where Jesus first reappears after resurrecting through the clouds. Who were these crucified Jews and could Minucius Felix be making reference to an entirely different crucifixion event, since there were obviously a great deal of these going down immediately before he writes.

I should also like to know what is the earliest documentary evidence for this literature, who preserrved it, and what is the possibility that the label "christians" in the text has become confused with the label "chrestians".

aa5874

But, you would have noticed that Octavius the Christian does not appear to be a follower of "the man who suffered extreme punishment for his wickedness". Octavius the Christian did not tell Caecilius who the man was or why he died, he just told Caecilius to believe in God.

And it would also be noted that Octavius did not believe that sacrifices to Gods was necessary at all, so would have NOT entertained the idea that someone was sacrificed to God.

Octavius thought the sacrifice of a human was intolerable wickedness tantamount to murder.

This is Octavius in Municius Felix
Octavius did not worship the supposed murdered man as a God, he worshiped only God and he introduced Caecilius to God alone, not to the supposed homicide.

There were Christians who had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus of the NT. The mention of the name Christians therefore does not inherently mean Jesus believers or followers.

jakejonesiv

Hi Roger,

What you say has some merit, but Earl Doherty certainly does not fit the category of "scumbag shyster." I just learned something new about Earl's work from Rick today, so pay the man his money--you might learn something.

beste Grüße,
Jake Jones IV