Radorth

I have. But only enough to know he's grinding a rather large axe and tells us miracles and resurrections are rather ordinary events when shoved in a logical corner (by Evans I believe it was). I prefer to read agnostics who don't waste my time, and I carefuly choose agnostics when deciding what to read of history. You know who to read when you hear them talk in the same chapter about the very good and very evil things Catholics did, (for example).

There is no reason for even ONE historian to argue about it unless it was fairly widely reported. And even so, the crucifixion was hardly witnessed by thousands or known first hand to have been on the day of an eclipse. Far as I can tell JM'ers are here forced to argue with a skeptic's report. How ironic.

No. What seems strange to me is the number of skeptics (usually JM'ers) questions which begin with "Doesn't it seem strange to you that...."

In this case, it's an argument from silence where you don't even have silence! I doubt the choir sees anything hypocritical in such an "argument," so the double standard will doubtless be kept in place.

So there were clouds and an eclipse on the day of crucifixion? It could be attributed to circumstance by skeptics (like Thallus) and a sign by Christians. You do not have to spend your integrity arguing about it.

Oh wait. The real reason it is argued is because it means Jesus-mythers are full of crap. I forget. Ah yes, I see the problem then. Of course, they have so little integrity to begin with, there is no great surprise or loss here I suppose. It's a marvel how many pages you have to read and what you have to believe by faith in order to disprove the existence of Jesus. I'm sure that's why Schonfield's and Durant's swoon theories are so widely accepted. You don't have to go around accusing hundred's of people of lying, torturing the scriptures and making up your own credulous and wordy stories to explain every detail.

Rad

orac

You gave their years of birth as significantly after the crucifixion - I assume if you were going to lie you'ld at least do so in a way to boost your case, so I'll assume you're telling the truth.

We're trying to determine whether or not the sky went dark when Jesus died. I assumed you'ld keep to this topic, not go off on a tangent about the existance of Jesus. That still seems a fairly reasonable assumption.

You claimed that historians were probably too busy writing about other things, not writing it down because they believed the Bible was sufficient documentation, or didn't write down anything that they couldn't explain.

Then you presented, as evidence, two people who didn't mention the unexplained darkness, and wouldn't have known about it unless they had been told by a reliable source. Josephus seems familier with Christian teachings - this isn't quite proof that everything in the Bible is true, but it does demonstrate that the beliefs are roughly 2000 years old.

I'm still wondering about the historians of the day, who didn't notice anything unusual happening. People writing decades later who only have the Bible as their source of information aren't helping. They certainly don't explain the lack of first hand evidence.

To counter a popular complaint (such as "then how do you know Hitler was real?") we have a large number of independant sources of information, as well as physical evidence that actions attributed to him actually happened. In a thousand years, enough of these will have survived to allow people to trace what Hitler did. We have similar records for other historical figures, such as the Roman emperors.

You, on the other hand, do not have evidence that a physically impossible event occured. If there had been an unexplained darkness, it would be unprecedented - noone would have experienced an eclipse at this time of the year before. Someone would have noticed, but your only sources of information are three believers (the Gospel writers), and people who wern't alive at the time the event supposedly occured.

You haven't answered the question "why did historians of the day not write down what happened, when it was so out of the ordinary?"

You have answered the question "did historians know about the existance of a new religion?"

Btw, "crucifiction" is not the correct spelling. You need to watch that

Biff the unclean

So Rad just who do you think you are fooling?

If you get a short reference you discount it as being too little. If you get a reference that is large you are too lazy to even look at it. I say that there are track ways on every layer and that gets changed to everywhere. You demand thousands of photos of all the track sites in the world because you know that that is more material than I could possibly have here. I send you to where the material can be found and you won't go. You won't read the books, you won't go to the museums ---"gives him an excuse to sat you aren't interested in truth." How interested in it can you possibly be?

"It's a marvel how many pages you have to read and what you have to believe by faith in order to disprove the existence of Jesus." There is a lot of material, I'll give you that. But none of it requires that you take anything on faith. Have you read all the books of the bible or is that too much trouble too? Why would you expect the books that recount other people's religions to be shorter than the ones that recount yours?

"torturing the scriptures and making up your own credulous and wordy stories to explain every detail." An eclipse during a full moon, a major earthquake that no one notices and zombies? You don't need a credulous and wordy story to explain every detail. You can explain all the details in only two words-bull shite.
Zombies…give me a break. Paw prints in dried mud he can't believe, zombies he swallows because it's in his magic book.
:banghead:

lpetrich

Magus55:
Go read the topic under Biblical Criticism about the flood. The flood is quite feasible, and there is evidence for it, that evolutionists dismiss ( claiming massive groups of unrelated fossil being found together are just all family members). ...

Except that rocks have formed at different times, times that span over 4 billion years. This has been determined by radioisotope dating with different isotopes (potassium-argon, uranium-lead, etc.). Uranium-lead and thorium-lead are limited by some alpha decays, and potassium-argon works by the beta-related mechanism of electron capture, which are very different mechanisms. Meaning that it would be remarkable if all the radioactive-decay rates varied in exact lockstep.

Furthermore, the ages are in the order inferred for different rock strata in the early 19th cy. -- the inference being made with the help of the Principle of Superposition. Which is that younger rocks are always above older rocks except when there is some evidence of disturbance, like older rocks being thrust above younger rocks.

Early 19th. cy. geologists also showed that fossil sequences in different places correlate remarkably well -- well enough to be able to reconstruct a universal "geological column". And this was totally independent of hypotheses of the origins of the fossils -- stratigraphic sequence and correlation methods could work if fossils were nothing but god's doodling on the rocks.

Furthermore, rock ordering can be tested by checking on the orientation of gravity-oriented features -- footprints and mud cracks have the right "down" direction.

... There is tons of studying done on it, and its been found to be quite feasible, especially if God had a part in it.

Goddidit can explain ANYTHING. Including a Universe that is only 5 minutes old, but with the appearance of being much older -- including our memories of being around for longer than 5 minutes.

And I wonder if Magus55 can refute THAT.

Magus55

Ah yes, good old radioactive iostopes. Such a useful tool, especially when they date the eruption of Mount St. Helens at 2 million years ago. . .

Babylon Sister

Citation please?

Do you have any concept of how a volcano works? I mean, other than the baking soda model from the science fair?

Radorth

I'm not interested in trackways, especially since it is not the topic. I'm just telling people not to waste their time asking you for references. You are telling people to go to museums and read entire books to find out if a certain assertion has merit, then telling them they are too lazy if they don't. It's absurd.

Rad

Radorth

Re: orac

Huh? Thallus noticed something unusual, and may well have been an eyewitness, as he is writing mid first century. (Goguel) He was impressed enough to try to explain it and certainly takes the existence of Christ for granted.

Rad

-RRH-

I think you are vastly underestimating the human ability to cloud information.

Check out Snopes.com. See how many of these urban myths are alleged to have taken place within one generation.

I could provide you with a whole bunch of phone numbers of people who you could ask, "Can Sri Chinmoy lift over 7000 pounds?" Sri Chinmoy is still alive and kicking, and has around 2000 followers, most of whom will tell you that, yes, he can lift 7000 pounds.

I am very skeptical of this claim, though. Do you think it is reasonable for me to be skeptical? Can that many people all be wrong? And it's been less than a generation since he's allegedly lifted this weight, so there hasn't been the time for the information to become clouded, right?

lpetrich

Here is Richard Carrier's article on Thallus -- I invite you people to see who is more rational: RC or Radorth.

Radorth:
(on reading Richard Carrier...)
I have. But only enough to know he's grinding a rather large axe and tells us miracles and resurrections are rather ordinary events when shoved in a logical corner (by Evans I believe it was).

Except that there were lots of accounts of miracles back then.

I prefer to read agnostics who don't waste my time, and I carefuly choose agnostics when deciding what to read of history.

How? The ones who tell what Radorth what Radorth wants to hear?

You know who to read when you hear them talk in the same chapter about the very good and very evil things Catholics did, (for example).



LP:
Doesn't it seem strange that only one or two outside historians seem to have known about this alleged darkness? And not all the others living at the time?

There is no reason for even ONE historian to argue about it unless it was fairly widely reported. ...

And why is that supposed to be the case?

Did all the historians of the Roman Empire get together and nominate Thallus as their official chronicler of that event?

In this case, it's an argument from silence where you don't even have silence!

It's an argument from the silence of every other historian of that time. And given the sorts of things that Pliny the Elder, for example, had written about, several others would have written about this alleged event -- if it had happened.

Oh wait. The real reason it is argued is because it means Jesus-mythers are full of crap. .... It's a marvel how many pages you have to read and what you have to believe by faith in order to disprove the existence of Jesus.

What's wrong with having a well-documented case for one's position?

I'm sure that's why Schonfield's and Durant's swoon theories are so widely accepted. You don't have to go around accusing hundred's of people of lying, torturing the scriptures and making up your own credulous and wordy stories to explain every detail.

Like how is that supposed to be the case?