CX

Ah well 'twas ever thus. I'm glad my longwinded rambling is of benefit to someone. Most people who have known me awhile find it tedious and just roll their eyes. No one can understand why an atheist would have any interest in studying Xianity or the New Testament. As far as Lameman is concerned I shouldn't worry about it too much. Recrimination and ad hominem are the last efforts of a losing argument. I also wouldn't right off an entire group of people, religious or otherwise, on the basis of one or even several members. There dicks in pretty much every group (though I like to think fewer of them among my atheological brethren )

MortalWombat

Yeah, I know that. Heck, I used to be Christian myself, and most of my family still is, and I don't consider myself to be a better person now than I used to be (just more informed about certain things), and I don't think any less of my family now. I look at them and think, "There but by the grace of circumstance and learning go I."

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: MortalWombat ]</p>

CX

Yeah, I usually think, "What a bunch of ignorant religious fuckheads". (kidding)

Family Man

One does not have to directly say something in order to communicate his meaning. I'm simply making the very simple inference from the quotes I provided that Nomad insists that we take the Bible at face value. I haven't changed my position one whit. All you've done is to show your inability to grasp a simple point and respond to it. The quotes I provided are very clear.

BTW: I keep responding because every time you post you hurt your cause.

Not in this case he hasn't. Please, why are you so afraid to reference the thread. If Nomad references scholars and made a sound historical argument, it should be easy to refute what I say. But he didn't, so you can't, and we get unsupported bluster instead. Accuse me of lying all you want, Nomad's words speak for himself.

How does that people today (including myself) believe that the early Christians had resurrection experiences have anything to do with validating historical references through people we don't even know exist?

And please try to understand this, Layman. We are not discussing Josephus references, or the authorship of the Gospel of John, or the authenticity of the Baptism of Jesus. Being able to quote scholars and maintaining a naive view of the text are not mutually exclusive. If you can show me that he takes a proper, critical attitude towards ancient texts on other threads, please do so. If you produce such evidence while Nomad was quoting a scholar, you'll get an extra brownie point. The question will merely become, why doesn't he do that when discussing the resurrection?

For that's what we are discussing here: how Nomad presents historical arguments on threads relating to the resurrection. On those threads, he has never supported any of his arguments. You haven't produced any evidence that demonstrates he supports his arguments. I've produced five statements that imply bald-facedly that we must take these the Bible at face value. If you have evidence, produce it. Why should I respond to irrelevancies that you don't even support?

If you think these scholars support your opinion, then provide the passages where they state the resurrection is an established, historical fact. I've read Sanders, who you recommended and who unequivicably stated that he was unwilling to state what the nature of those resurrection experiences were. And I've read Grant, and he stated no such thing (unless it was in a work other than his biography of Jesus) which strongly suggests to me that you are overstating the position of the other scholars mentioned. Unless you support your assertions, why should anyone take your claims seriously?

BTW: Brown's book on the Bible is in my local library. I think I go look for myself to see what he has to say. If his scholarly reputation is as strong as I've heard, I strongly suspect you're overstating your case -- again.

Would it make a difference if Fred passed it on? Or George? Maybe Ringo? For someone who allegedly makes a lot of money reading, you sure have trouble seeing the obvious. The tradition is self-serving. We don't know how it got started, and we can't verify it. It is worthless as evidence.

(BTW: I'm quite sure you understand exactly what I'm saying. It's not your lack of intelligence or your inability to read that are producing these extraordinary laspes. It is that to presents my arguments and evidence honestly you'd have to admit your position is in shambles. And you can't have that, can you?)


Yes, Paul wasn't there, and I wasn't suggesting he was either (more evidence of your reading problem). He passed along information he heard from others. That is how second-hand information is defined. Are there other vocabulary items you need help with?

Of course Paul wasn't there. That is the definition of second-hand information.

It's pretty clear you don't. When judging sources, scholars have to consider the biases of the authors. For example, when Caesar blames subordinates for his own failure, Caesar's own self-interest combined with the fact that the claim is unverifiable means we can not say this is true. When Christians claim that Jesus appeared before 500 witnesses, it is in their self-interest to promote such a story. This is also unverifiable. Therefore, we also can't claim this to be a historical fact. When you and Nomad imply that it is, you are employing a clear double standard. Really, Layman, pretending not to understand the obvious isn't helping you.

Untrue. I have completely supported it. All you have done is to make unsupported claims that I haven't. Reference the thread and prove me wrong.

And exactly how to you propose to show Paul's attitude towards the "true". Paul has a clear pro-Christian bias. He doesn't provide any balancing information or anything that would allow us to judge the truthfulness of his position. He could have believed he was relating was true, it could even be true, but there is no way for us to make the judgement you want us to make.

No. We don't know if Paul was honest or not. And even if he was, he simply could have been mistaken. His meetings with other Christians with similar biases don't help because we don't have their testimony, and they could be under the same mistaken impression as Paul was. This isn't any help to you at all.

I have completely supported my position. I demonstrated in my first post how history is properly done with supporting evidence. You have done nothing to even begin to challenge my analysis.

I've said nothing about Paul's honesty. Sincerity doesn't imply a person is honest; sincere people lie all the time.

A self-serving second-hand tradition, passed along by people whose self-interest calls their judgement into question, is not evidence. Paul could be as sincere and as honest as any man alive (for he could have honestly believed the information to be true, even though, unbeknownest to him, it wasn't) and it wouldn't change that. Your argument is a non-starter.

Paul is defending a deeply held belief, and believing a foolish story at his own expense only demonstrates his foolishness. You have no case here. He still chose to be Christian, the information is still self-serving however noble his intentions.

Since never. Arguments from authority are a logical fallacy, and even the best historians make mistakes.

Then I suggest you go back and reread what he says. All he says is that it meets the standards, he doesn't explain why.

And historical analysis suggests that we reject the empty tomb story. No one is impressed with your argument from authority.

As for Grant, your implication is clear. Somehow, because I agree with him on one point, and disagree with him on another, I hold a double standard. How that doesn't "bind" me to whatever Grant says is beyond me. Tell me, Layman, what if I took another look at Grant's book and found something in Grant that I know you'd disagree with. I posted it, and you indeed disagreed with it. Would it be fair for me to accuse you of a double standard because, hey, you agree with Grant on the empty tomb. Of course not. In short, I'm not the one who's having a hard time understanding what a double standard is. You are.

But, hey, lets play this game. In the last chapter of his biography of Jesus, Grant lays out the case that the gospels (including John) are not independent sources and can be used to verify each other. Do you accept or reject Grant's analysis? If you reject it, then are you taking on a double standard because you accept his analysis of the empty tomb? If you're not taking on a double standard, then why are you spewing nonsense of my having a double standard in this case?

No, Nomad isn't an inerrantist. One can accept contradictions in the bible on the one hand and still present biblical evidence at face value. The two are not mutually exclusive.

But if Nomad doesn't think we need to take the Bible at face value, then he needs to at least be more consistent about it. I provided evidence that he did, indeed, insist we take certain passages at face value. You haven't addressed that issue. All you've done is to make claims that, even if true, doesn't effect the current discussion at all. Even if he has been more circumspect in other threads, he certainly wasn't in the ones we're discussing. His presentation of that evidence was completely disingenuous and totally contrary to the principles of how historical documents are normally analyzed.

Yeah, and I've never seen you do any theistic cheerleading, have I Layman? There's another one of your double standards.

But, once again, you've missed the point. It isn't just the three standards; it's whether or not you can verify it also. Go back at look what Grant had to say about Caesar. It wasn't just that that Caesar's statements were self-serving, it was also because we can't verify it. Same with these 500 witnesses. The story is self-serving and there is no way to verify it. So yes, the case is closed and the judgement is against you and Nomad.

Oh, and regarding your grasp of New Testament scholars, there was a time you thought E.P. Sanders was a great scholar. Recommended him to me highly, as a matter of fact. But now, I discover that Sanders claims that we can't trust much of what the NT writers tell us. He tells us we can't make definite claims about the resurrection. He never claims that there were any eyewitnesses to the resurrection (by the way, neither does Grant). All of the sudden, you don't like to talk about Sanders much (though Grant is a big hit because he agrees with you on one point). You know, your record for describing the views of NT scholars isn't that hot. So I'm going to check out Brown. I strongly suspect that his views are far more nuanced than you're letting on, and I'll bet you won't be too fond of him either in a few days.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: DennisM ]</p>

Family Man

Cowboy X and Mortal Wombat --

Thank you for your contributions to this thread. I've never made a claim to be a great NT scholar, but it is obvious how naive Layman's approach to the text in general, and Paul's character in particular, is. No self-respecting scholar would be caught dead spewing such nonsense.

It's nice to see some rational discussion of the topic.

Photocrat

That is only one standard, by my count. To whom does he apply the other?

Photocrat

1. It is entirely self-serving. If you're going to claim your hero has been resurrected, an empty tomb is a natural extension of the story.
-----

If the Res. were true, it would be there. If the Res. were not true, it would be made up. I don't see how it makes much difference. All you seem to be saying is that it's something that probably would've happened had it been true and made up had it not been true. Umm, so how does this help us tell between fact & legend again?

-----
2. It is unverifiable. The only claims we have for the story are Christian ones, and they have borrowed from each other. (And I hope you're aware of Grant's position is that the gospels are not independent sources, if you're going to depend on him).
-----

A great many things in all of history are unverifiable. We have a long lot of greek historians who all borrowed from one another, as well. Some of our only sources should properly be considered biased. I should rib you--c'mon, you don't *seriously* think that Hannibal had elephants, do you? The whole, silly story of that "dangerous foe" was just made up to make their victories seem grander & excuse themselves for how long it took and the painful defeats along the way, no? Isn't that what a true skeptic should say?

Why do scholars still believe it, then, when they ought not by the reasons you give me here? If you use some other standard for Hannibal, is that not a double-standard? Is that not the charge you are defending yourself against?

-----
3. It appeared very late. Paul, the earliest writer, makes no mention of it. It certainly suggests to me that this story was a later development.
-----

Quite early for events in antiquity, actually. Pity they didn't have the internet back then... :]

You may remember that Paul was not a disciple of Jesus--he converted after Jesus was crucified [according to Luke's account as well as 2 Cor 12:1-7, 1 Cor 15:8 & Gal 1:16, visions are supposedly involved, though the details vary]. Why would he talk about something he didn't know first hand? He was always more concerned with day-to-day matters & philosophy--they already had enough traditions, as even he says that he had to recieve them... [1 Cor 15, again]

Why they would expect him to preach what they apparently knew better from the apostles themselves, I do not know.

-----
4. The story shows signs of legendization. I mean, with angels, earthquakes, soldiers falling asleep, and so on.
-----

What of Hannibal's elephants! C'mon! Those must be legend, too, right? :] But there are a great many things that get embellished, I know. Infancy gospels and all that sort of thing of which there are quite a few. I note, however, that you appear to be referring to Matthew (as that is the only earthquake I know of) -- but even he doesn't have it all. I seem to recall another [non-canonical] gospel which embellishes even that...

-----
As for poisoning the well, you are right.
-----

You admit succumbing to and being under the influence of a particularly insidious logical fallacy, yet you come to us preaching about credibility? My word, man! Do you have any idea what you are saying?

You *do* know what poisoning the well is, do you not? You'd best reread your own words, because I'm not convinced that's what you thought you were saying... That can be very easily taken as accusing yourself of hypocracy, in this particular context :[

-----
Personally, I am more than just a little annoyed to have my arguments constantly being twisted into something they are not.
-----

It helps to read your own posts with different emphasis. The very same words can mean a great many things. Since I just watched Lord of the Rings, I can give you quite a good example of that--in The Hobbit, in the very beginning, you can find out just how many different things the two words "good day" can mean... :]

-----
I will try not to let my annoyances get the better of me in the future.
-----

Good advice.

HRGruemm

Maybe you should better look for another example for your line of argument. Hannibal's last elephant died before he really trounced the Romans (Lacus Trasimenus and Cannae (217/216 BC)). However, at Zama (202 BC), when he had resupplied himself elephant-wise, he was defeated.

And of course, the application of elephants in battle, and several anti-elephant measures are discussed by Greek military writers.So where's the double standard ?

Leaving the historical details aside, I had the impression that the previous post used a combination of four indicators to explain why the extraordinary claims of the Bible are treated differently. Thus an attack on a single indicator (as you do it above as to 2.) doesn't attack the combination.

Regards,
HRG.

Family Man

Photocrat --

It isn't toward whom, it is towards what that Nomad holds a double standard. Nomad wishes us to think that the evidence in the NT is as soundly rooted in fact as the evidence for the events in the lives of other famous contemporaries of Jesus (and please note that Hannibal wasn't a contemporary). However, he is unwilling to apply the critical standards that historians use in making judgements, presenting his arguments as if the NT has to be taken at face value. That is a clear double standard and contradicted by scholars like Grant, Sanders, and Brown (among others). Now, I just got done with one theist with a reading problem; please read more carefully in the future.

And, no, I am not defending myself against a charge of a double standard. True, Nomad made the accusation, but he never specified what the double standard supposively was or provide any evidence it was true. He charge would be been more substantial if he had accused me of being a fat, middle-aged, communist transvestite named Frieda.

In this case, you can't, and that's been the point all along. I'm not arguing it is legend; I'm arguing that it is not a historical fact. As Raymond Brown said, it is a matter of faith, not knowledge. It shows evidence of legendarization, but that is not the same as saying it is a legend.

And how do you know what my position is on Hannibal's elephants? I'm aware that historians believe he used elephants, but on what grounds I don't know. So how do I have a double standard on an issue I don't have a position on. If you think historians hold their opinion on grounds that would make the evidence for the empty tomb look better, then present it. All I see here is a naive argument that makes little sense.

It doesn't make sense because you are not applying skeptical thinking correctly. The elephant story is indeed extraordinary, but it is also likely. Hannibal had access to elephants, he had the means to transport them, and he had the motivation to use them given their usefulness in war. The empty tomb, however, have angels, who are only known for to exist for sure on television; earthquakes that no one else seemed to have noticed; darkness, that also went unnoticed by everyone else; and soldiers who cheerfully committed suicide by admitting to their superiors that they fell asleep. Of the two stories, the first is much more credible.

In short, if you think that the evidence historians use to evaluate Hannibal's elephants is comparable to the evidence for the empty tomb, do your research and present a reasonable argument. If convincing, you might change my mind on the subject. Your weak claims here, however, are not very convincing.

BTW: from Jesus's time, we often have contemporary accounts. As E.P. Sanders noted, the famous events and people of that time period were frequently discussed and written about. We have many of those contemporary accounts. For example, we have the Commentaries of Julius Caesar and many letters from Cicero. Compared to contemporary historical events, the evidence we have presented to us in the NT is quite poor. Any NT scholar worth his salt would tell you that.

As for admitting that I made a mistake, how does that harm my credibility? I've never claimed to be perfect, and Layman had a valid point. It may have been his only one. In my opinion, one of the things that hurt Layman's and Nomad's credibility is their unwillingness to admit when they are wrong. Look at all the arguments Layman drops in this thread. He claimed I took Nomad out of context. I provided him a link and dared him to demonstrate it. I never heard another word about it. Or how about his inane insistence that because Nomad never directly said that we must take the bible at face value that he couldn't have meant it. He totally ignored the fact that his position can be clearly inferred from what he said. That's what causes people to lose credibility, not making mistakes.

So here's hoping that you learned from Nomad and Layman's example of what not to do.

Amen-Moses

Let me see ... Learn ... Theist ... Nah you couldn't really have written that could you Frieda?

Amen-Moses