Layman

It continues to amuse me to see skeptics so defensive about Acharya S. Perhaps you got a lot out of her "Sex to Superconsciousness" article.

In any event, I'm not a fan of the slide show format either. But the point is that your attack on him as a liar or willfully blind is erroneous. He uses Ludeman for no more than Ludeman concedes--the disciples experienced resurrection appearances.

Vinnie

Oh la la. My goddess Acharya!!! I your humble servant am not worthy! :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Wait, whats that article about?

But yeah. "Liar" not the best term to use.

Example 1: Justin: I didn;t mean to do that to Janet. it was an accident.

Example 2: I believe the complete silence of HJ details in over 40 documents from the first century is persuasive evidence against the historicity of Jesus.

One is a lie and one isn't.

Vinnie

Toto

He misidentifies Lüdemann as an atheist. Lüdemann considered himself a Christian for most of his career teaching theology, and stopped using that label only after he decided that the resurrection did not occur - but does not use the label of atheist. He does not "concede" the resurrection experiences - he accepts a historical content for most of the New Testament, which is fairly natural given his background.

If Licoma listed the evidence in favor of the appearances, it would appear very flimsy. He disguises this by saying that even an atheist expert accepts the appearances, without delving into the background. This is not honest scholarship.

Layman

I do not know Ludeman well enough to know whether he would take offense at the term or not. Nor do I know Licoma well enough to know what his basis is for making the assertion.

If I thought the slide show was all the argument Licoma had I might agree with you. But such an assumption is unwarranted. You are obviously well-poisoning. And poorly at that. You've had to back off your first, obviously flawed attack, and now are nitpicking about whether Ludeman is an atheist and complaining that an apologist would dare cite a hostile authority.

In short, there has been nothing honest about your "scholarship" in this thread. So you are hardly one to complain.

Layman

Amazon.com also thinks Ludeman is an atheist:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetInfidels


Edited the link to make it IIDB friendly.

Toto

I attended a Veritas Forum debate between Craig and Lüdemann (note spelling: two n's). It was later than the one that book is based on. I think that at the time of the debate that is the subject of the book, Lüdemann was still describing himself as a Christian.

The Campus Crusade for Christ moderator introduced Lüdemann as an atheist and Lüdemann said that he was not an atheist, that he still believed in some sort of divine aspect to life. I think he may have used the term post-Christian.

Here's the old thread on that debate: The Craig – Luedemann Debate

I have not backed off from claiming that Licona takes a dishonest approach. But I thought the same thing abour Craig. It's not that he is daring to quote a hostile authority, it is that he is misusing authority.

I mean, if you want an atheist historian, try Frank Zindler, who thinks that Jesus and Peter were both myths. Try Robert Price who thinks that the passage in 1 Corinthians used to support the "appearances" is an interpolation. The only conclusion you can reach is that there is no real consensus among all historians about "appearances."

Layman

Well, if Ludemann now feel frees to publicize his books by describing himself as an atheist, I daresay it is unfair to criticize an apologist for sharing that opinion.

But I have shown that it is you who were misleading others in how Licona uses Ludemann. He qutoes him for the correct proposition. Nothing more.

Now I think that if Licona used Zindler and Price to argue that the disciples experienced resurrection appearances you would be correct in calling him a liar since they do no such thing. Quite a Catch 22. He can only use hostile authority if it completelydisagrees with every proposition? In which case he would be a liar.

Your entire line of attack has fallen in shambles, Toto. Now you are grasping at other straws.

Toto

I'm willing to bet that Lüdemann did not write that blurb, and it was the product of one of the Christian editors. I heard him say that he did not describe himself as an atheist, after the book had been published. His Christian opponents wanted to describe him as an atheist for their own purposes.

He incorrectly describes Lüdemann as an atheist, and misleadingly implies that even a typical atheist historian thinks that the disciples saw the resurrected Christ.

That's my point. There are historians who do not agree that the disciples experienced resurrection appearances.

He can only use hostile authority if it is in fact hostile.

I am not grasping at straws. I have the same criticism of Licona as I do of Craig. They both invoke pseudohistory the way creationists do pseudoscience. They misrepresent the quality of their evidence by hiding behind an alleged scholarly consensus that falls to pieces when examined.

Layman

Unless you can testify that Licona was there for that debate and heard the same comment, he can hardly be called a liar for relying on a description of Ludemann that's on a book authored by Ludemann.


I'm still not sure he was incorrect, however Ludemann may quibble with the term. In any event, there is no blame on Liconna for using the term. Nor does he imply anything other than what Ludemann himself admits.


Unless you can point me to a statement by Licona that all historians agree that the disciples experienced ressurection appearances, then it is you who are misrepresenting his system.

Since Ludemann denies the resurrection and is not a Christian, he's pretty hostile.

These are general characterizations that require little effort to spew. You started by claiming that Licona lied about Ludemann. That charge has been disproven and you have backflipped into these vague characterizations. It is you who have misrepresented Licona, not Licona who has misrepresented Ludemann.

Toto

This is being dragged out too long, and we are just repeating arguments. Licona is supposed to be a PhD candidate. He has an obligation to know more about a prominent scholar than what is contained in a casual blurb on Amazon. If he is an honest scholar, he has an obligation not to misrepresent the state of the scholarship. I will concede that he may be incompetant rather than outrightly dishonest, and you could probably get him acquitted on a charge of perjury with the right jury. That's all I will say on this. Readers may make their own decisions.

Lüdemann's homepage

Wash Post article on his beliefs