Layman

Ah, you read one blurb and conclude that France agrees with Wells? Egad!

Yes, France agrees with much of Wells arguments regarding the nonChristian evidences -- with the important except of "thrashing" him re: the Josephus references -- but he is quite clear that "his position as a whole is fanciful." R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus, at 12.

France responds directly and effectively to Wells' argument re: Josephus, the Pauline evidence, and the worth of the Gospels.

Layman

Since Paul lived in Jerusalem for some time before converting, it's very unlikely that he needed to spend much time there as a Pilgram to see Jesus' famous sites. He was already familiar with Christian claims and the stories about Jesus before he converted.

Nevertheless, Paul did stay in Peter's home with Peter for more than two weeks -- and visited with James for some unknown duration of time. But to Paul the important part of being a Christian was not sitting on one's butt taking in the sites, but with spreading the word of God as a missionary.

Skeptical

But, is it not at least plausible that Paul had not visited these sites before his conversion and that _after_ his conversion he would have wanted to visit them? I'm not saying he absolutely would have, I'm just asking is it plausible to think that he might want to?

I hardly think visting the spot of your saviors birth and resurrection would be called "sitting on one's butt taking in the sites". In any case, are you honestly saying that it is not plausible in the least to think that Paul might have been interested in visting these places? You seem to think the idea is completely ludicrous which I think is clearly overstating it's implausibility. You obviously don't agree with Doherty's central thesis, but that doesn't mean that everything he says is complete rubbish which can be dismissed out of hand.

Layman

Lives were on the line, Jesus was coming back soon, the Kingdom of God was at hand, and you expect Paul to take a Pilgrimige to Bethlehem? Maybe he could have gotten a big foam finger that said, "People of the Way are No. 1."

This a pathetically weak argument.

Even if it was "plausible" to think that Paul would have been interested in "visiting" any of these sites how on earth does this support Doherty's theory? Unless it was probable or certain or very likely it's just another weak argument for silence.

Oh come now. Please be intellectually honest. With yourself if not with me. I didn't say everything that Doherty says is Rubbish because he's a Jesus-Myther. I picked out this one specific argument as being funny.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Skeptical

Paul took a pilgramage to Jeruselem. He went to visit the apostles presumably because he thought they had information for him that was important. Paul visited numerous places throughout the Roman empire. He certainly seems to have had plenty of time to visit those places. I don't know why he couldn't have had the time to visit Calgary while he was with Peter and James, and Bethlehem was only a few days travel. It seems you are simply refusing to acknowledge the possibility because you have an a priori assumption that it "just couldn't have happened". In my view, it is clearly plausible that Paul would have wanted to visit at least Calgary. You disagree. You can call it pathetic all you want, it doesn't make it less plausible and your bias is clearly showing.

My response wasn't about Doherty's general argument, only that you seem to find ludicrous a particular argument that clearly seems at least plausible. However, since you brought it up, it is true that in general a single argument from silence is not compelling. In order to argue from silence you need a lot of data. Doherty attempts to do this, each one can judge for themselves if he is successful or not. As I said before, I personally did not find it completely convincing, I just don't like to see hyperbole used about a particular argument just because you happen to disagree with the overall conclusions of someone.

This particular argument is not as ludicrous as you have implied. If you cannot admit that this single argument is at least plausible, it seems clear that your bias would not permit you to think _any_ of Doherty's arguments are plausible, but I might be wrong.

I'd be interested in seeing one of Doherty's arguments that you think _is_ plausible, since you seem to find this one so funny and easily refutable. If you don't think it's all rubbish, that is.

Layman

This was not a "Pilgrimige." Paul went to meet the leaders of Christainity in Jerusalem. He did not consider them "icons" but a leadership structure that he would have to work with.

Egad! Paul was not just "visiting" Corinth and Ephesus and Galatia for the fun of it. He was not seeing the sites. He was on missionary journeys. And since he was the apostle to the GENTILES it's very logical that he would go to where the GENTILES were -- instead of visiting the Garden of Gethsemane and buying a visor that said, "The Son is the Light of My Life."

We do not know that he did not. We just know that he did not refer to any such visit in the letters that have survived to date. Heck, if the letter to the Galatians had not survived to the present day, we would have no had no indication from Paul that he had spent any time with Peter and Jesus' brother in Jerusalem.

No, I agreed that it was plausible that Paul might have visisted some of those sites. But to jump from there to claiming that Paul did not because Jesus was a myth is a hugh leap that is extraordinarily unlikely. Showing that it was plausible that Paul would said, "to heck with the parousia, I'm going to JesusWorld" is not the same as showing that he did. Or tha the must have.

And if its' only plausible, but not "likely," that Paul would have visisted those places, his failure to mention them is hardly an important fact. Firstly, because his failure to mention those places could very well be caused by the simple fact that he never did what some hardcore skeptics thought was "plausible." Secondly, because even if he did what was plausible -- but not likely -- there is no reason to think that those visits would have made their way into Paul's letters. Thirdly, even if we might have expected Paul to write a letter about visiting JesusWorld, the fact that he did not do so does not strong evidence that such places do not exist.

Doherty's argument jumps from it being "plausible" that Paul would have visited JesusWorld to it being unexplainable that he did not write a travelouge about JesusWorld in the few letters that survived Paul's ministry. That is a hughe leap and estalblishing the "plausibility" of something is a far cry from establishing necessity of yet another point.

Attacking my motives and my obvious bias is not the same thing as showing Doherty makes a valid point here. It's a weak, weak argument.

No thank you. I'm not here to beef up Doherty's arguments. What I said was that I do not reject all of Doherty's arguments as "rubbish" simply because he is a Jesus-Myther.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Skeptical

I don't see how that's relevant.


You mischarcterization of the argument is vaguely amusing but hardly relevant. If Paul went to visit Calgary, he would hardly have been "taking in the sights". It would no doubt have been a very power, spiritual experience for him. You make it sound as if the thousands who visit Jeruselem every year do so because they want a t-shirt.

Ok, fine. We might not know, that's possible. You didn't argue this to begin with though, you simply tried to dismiss the argument out of hand, which was my point in responding. Saying "we might not have evidence of it" is not the same as saying the entire premise is ridiculous.

[qoute]<strong>No, I agreed that it was plausible that Paul might have visisted some of those sites. But to jump from there to claiming that Paul did not because Jesus was a myth is a hugh leap that is extraordinarily unlikely.</strong>[/quote]

I didn't see where you agreed it was plausible, so I must have missed it. Again, my comments were not about Doherty's entire argument, so it's not relevant to this _particular_ argument.

If you agree its at least plausible, then the evidence can be examined. Your first post that I responded to seemed to indicate that you simply dismissed the argument out of hand, which is what I took issue with.

Whether someone is a "hard core skeptic" or not is irrelevant. The question is only whether the argument is sound or not. What has to be asked is based on what we know of Paul, is it plausible or even likely that he would have wanted to visit places like Calgary and if he did, would he have have written about it. One has to make an argument as to why or why not and not simply dismiss it as ridiculous.

So you think there is no reason that Paul, had he visited Calgary, would have mentioned this? I find it likely that he would have mentioned it since it would no doubt have been a very emotional experience.

This alone is not strong evidence and that was not the point of my post. You have now presented some valid arguments instead of just dismissing the argument which _was_ my point.

Again, you are now presenting arguments instead of a simple dismissal. That was my point. One can argue about the liklihood of Paul wanting to visit Calgary and the liklihood of Paul writing about it, but one must present an argument, not just a casual dismissal.


That Paul would plausibly have wanted to visit Calgary is not weak. That Paul would probably have written about it is also not weak. Granted, it is conceivable that even had Paul written about it, it would not have survived. You are overstating your case.

Nice hand-wave. I didn't ask you to "beef up" his argument. You said you don't dismiss all of them because he is a JM, I asked for a single example of one of his arguments you _don't_ simply dismiss. You have chosen not to present any. I don't really care, I was just making a point that based on your casual dismissal in your earlier post, it certainly looked like your attitude was simply to dismiss his arguments entirely.

Incidentally, I'm curious about your constant referal to visiting Calgary as visiting "Jesusworld". Do you think that the many people who visit Jeruselem sights every year are there simply to gawk, take pictures and take home some keepsakes? I was always under the impression that visiting the birth and death places of Jesus would be important to a Christian, but apparently you think its worth caricaturing as ridiculous?

Layman

It's a refutation of your silly characterization of Paul's missionary journeys as "visits" or "pilgrimiges."

Ah, but there is doubt. Paul was focused on the risen Christ. He was busy spreading the gospel before Jesus came back. He had work to do and that was his obsession, not visiting "holy sites" that he already had seen. He lived in Jerusalem before his conversion.

Is there a refutation in there somewhere? Nope. But you whine real well. I think the point is so obvious it's an insult to your intelligence to point it out. Since we only have some of Paul's letters (a small amount actually) how do you know where he went or what he did while in Jerusalem?

Umm, THIS particular argument IS part of his Jesus Myth idea. If it doesn't tend to support the Jesus Myth why does he make it?

The argument is facially silly. I have faced it a thousand times. "Paul's silence" is no novelty.

Not really.

I've made these arguments. Which is why I have concluded its a ridiculous argument. C'mon. Do you think this was the first time I heard it?

And its not just 1) if Paul would have visited these places, and 2) whether Paul would have written about it, but also 3) would he have written about it in a writing that survived 2000 years. We do not have Paul's diary. Or an autobiogrphy. Or his personal travelouge. We have a few letters (we know he wrote others) he wrote to a few churches.

Actually, I doubt Paul visited Calgary after his conversion. And since all that has survived are his letters he wrote to others, no, I'm not surpised at all that even if he visisted Calgary that he did not go on about what a personal, emotional experience it was for him. He was not writing self-portraits in his letters, but writing about whatever local crisis he had learned of.

This is an argument from silence. And it is pathetically weak one. There is compelling argument telling us that Paul 1) definitely visited any "holy sites", 2) definitely would have wrote about them if he had, or 3) that we have all of Paul's writings so if he had written about it we would have known of it.

This is all patently obvious stuff. Stuff I've written about on this very site on a number of occasions. Rest assured, I knew why the argument was silly.

What are you? The procedure police? The argument is silly whether I have to connect the dots for you or not.

Hey, at least I've bothered to respond to you by making a case. Why is it a compelling argument that Paul would have visited Calgary? He was focused on Jesus' resurrection and glory. Why is it a compelling argument to say that Paul certainly would have written about it? How could you possibly know that? And why is it a compelling argument to say that if Paul had written about it we definitely would have receieved the manuscript? Hmm? Do you know even how many letters Paul wrote in all? Do you know what he wrote about?

It's an argument from silence three parts removed.

I see you are found of unsupported logical leaps. I only dismissed one of his arguments. I have previously spent much time and effort attacking his second-century dating of Acts. Yet you are safe in assuming that I dismiss all of his arguments as "rubbish" only because he is a Jesus-Myther. Hmmm. No wonder we are not making much progress.

I dismissed the argument I quoted because its pathetically weak on its face.

Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch -- not to far from Jerusalem. In his seven authentic letters, does he recount his own personal visit to Calgary or Bethlehem?

Probably many of them are, yes.

I do think it it somewhat humorous. Like Hal Lindsey's groups who go to see where the final battle will be fought and such. I also think that its very touristy.

But comparing what middle-class American tourists want to do is a far cry from establishing what Paul MUST have wanted to do. I've never been to Israel. I think a trip there would help give me much better context as to what happened. Paul, however, lived in Jerusalem. He most likely already knew where Jesus died and where the other events took place. He did not need to visit those places to give him context and immediacy to Jesus.

Additionally, Paul was a man with a mission. He was out spreading the Gospel, being beaten, being imprisoned. He was not a welcome figure in Jerusalem and any siteseeing might very well gotten him arrested or spurred a riot. Moreover, he probably thought the Kingdom of God was coming soon and very much wanted to focus on spreading the word of God -- not touring a place he'd lived for several years, possibly at threat to his -- and the Jerusalem Church's -- security.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Skeptical

I'm not sure what you find "silly" about the characterization of Paul's journey to Jeruselem as a "visit" or a "pilgrimage". Perhaps your definition of pilgrimage is different from mine. In any case your nitpicking on an irrelevant point, let's move on.

The fact that Paul was in Jeruselem is completely irrelevant. When Paul was in Jeruselem, he a) wasn't a Christian and b) Jesus had not been crucified. He had neither motivation nor any "holy sites" to visit.


Ah, the personal retort, always the mark of an intelligent reply. Again, you miss the point. _You_ responded to Radorth stating the you couldn't believe that Doherty actually used an argument that Paul would likely have wanted to visit Calgary. You didn't provide any further context and acted as if this was the first time you had heard such an argument. I don't see how you could have previously refuted an argument you acted as if you had never heard.


Again, you miss the point. I'm not arguing that Doherty's entire argument is correct or even that this _particular_ argument is correct. My point is that it can not simply be dismissed out of hand the way you did in the post I originally responded to.

It is not "silly". A silly argument would be that Jesus couldn't have existed because God would obviously have chosen the white race for his son. A silly argument is one that requires no evidence to address at all, and I would not characterize this argument as such.

You certainly gave that impression since you seemed incredulous that Doherty used this argument.

Yes, I understand perfectly well your argument. Of course, the fact is we _do_ have some letters by Paul and we also have Acts, none of which mentions Paul having any interest in Calgary or any other of Jesus' earthly background. However, again I'm not really interested in making Doherty's argument for him.


And in those letters he mentions many personal things, some of which would have given him ample opportunity to mention such a visit had he done so. Again, its plausible that he would have wanted to visit Calgary and plausible that he would have mentioned this in his letters.

I don't think Doherty bases his entire argument on this single silence, but tries to build a cumulative case. In any case, like I said my problem was the casual dismissal without argument. I really don't have much interest in the JM position I just follow these threads out of "academic" interest.


You acted as if this was the first time you had seen the argument and promptly dismissed it as ludicrous. That was what I responded to.

How quaint that you would deem to connect the dots for me. I'm quite aware of the arguments for and against, but thanks for your offer. It's common practice that if you see an argument for the first time you actually present an argument before dismissing it. Otherwise your just blowing smoke. You say now that you had seen it before but that was decidedly not obvious from the post I responded to.


We don't "know" what Paul would have done, and I never said it was "compelling", I said it was plausible, quite a difference. I also never said we definitely would have his letter if he did. And yes, I'm aware of the 8 letters that are generally considered to by genuine. Gosh jee wilikers, I'm even read'em, although it was a little tough without the pictures. Thanks so much by golly though for ya'll question.

And this is not a dodge how? You initially dismiss Doherty's point with no argument whatsoever, despite acting as if you had not seen it before. Then, you say you don't dismiss him because he is a JM yet you cannot provide a single one of his arguments that you don't dismiss out of hand and _I_ am the one jumping to conclusions. Yes, of course, how silly of me.


I think if most Christians were given the chance to visit Calgary in 50 CE, they would jump at the chance, whether they had previously been to Jeruselem or not. And I don't think they would be there for the t-shirt.

This speculation is no different from speculating that Paul would have wanted to visit Calgary. Also, as I noted above when Paul was in Jeruselem previously, Calgary would have had no special significance for him. Many people were in Dallas prior to Kennedy's assasination and probably drove by the infamous bookstore, this would hardly keep them from visting it after the events.

In any case, I am not intent on trying to make Doherty's argument for him and it wasn't my point in replying.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Layman

Try and keep up. I was not talking about his visits to Jerusalem. I was talking about your comparison of his trips to Greek cities to missionize as "pilgrimiges." That is silly.

Umm. How did you determine that Paul had not been in Jerusalem since Jesus' crucifixion? It seems likely that he was.

Hey, if you want to try either an informed or intelligent reply (or preferabbly both) then go ahead.

Like I said. This is a repackaged argument from silence in Paul's letters. Except its even sillier than most because it seeks to judge what Paul would have wanted to do 2000 years ago on something fairly trivial. The specifics were new in their absurdity, but the general argument from silence is old news and suffers from the same objections.

I understand you are playing 'net nanny. Why not bother all the leaps in logic and conclusory statements made by skeptic after skeptic on this site? Sheesh. It's like you guys want to pester us theists do death so you don't have to worry about us.

Besides, what you misunderstand is that Doherty's argument is intended to show that Jesus did not exist. Please keep up. I was responding to your claim that his argument did not go that far.

No, that would be an absurd argument. And where did you come up with that particular definition of "silly argument"? Seriously. If that is true, then Christianity must be chock full of serious, nonsilly arguments because so much efforts is put into refuting it. Ditto YECS for that matter. Don't you think that the idea of a 10,000 year old earth is rather silly? Nevertheless, I've seen detailed rebuttals filling up chapters and periodicals of books.

If you are not interested in making Doherty's argument then please stop. You are wasting my time. The fact is that none of Paul's letters or Acts mentions him taking a wizz either, but I'm sure he did. Neither mentions whether Paul was even married, or had children, or a thousand other things. The idea that Paul or Acts (which Doherty writes off as fiction anyway) must have listed everything you can think of that Paul might have done is not scholarship, it's silliness.

It accomplishes nothing tos ay it's "plausible" that Paul would have written about his visit to Calgary if he had done so. All that means is that if such an appearance appeared, it would not be strange. What you must show is that it was implausible for Paul NOT to have visisted Calgary. And then that it was implausible for Paul NOT to have written about it. And then that it is implausible that the reference to Calgary could have been written in a letter or other writing that did not survive.

That's quite a job. Get cracking.

I never said that was his only point. I said this was a pathetically weak point. Now, perhaps conjoined with other pathetically weak points, you might think he makes a compelling case. But I was not talking about all of his points, but this one point.

Geeze, for someone who doesn't even want to discuss this one point you sure want to expand the scope of the discussion.

If you are going to be 'net nanny about "casual dismissals" should I email you all the ones I see? Then will you pop out of the woodworks and save us all from this horrible occurrences?

To make anything out of an argument from silence you have to make a pretty strong case. Not just claim it was plausible that Paul might visit Calgary, and plausible that he might mention it in one of his few letters, and plausible that that one letter might survive 2000 years. That is a pathetically weak argument from silence.

It's not a dodge because I'm not willing to make Doherty's arguments for him. Heck, you don't even want to do that but you demand that I do it? What I said was that I don't consider all of his arguments rubbish simply because he's a JMer. I could still think all his arguments are rubbish simply on their merits. I could think some are and some are not. Some require more of a response and some don't. For you to assume based on my response to one particularly weak argument that I dismiss all of his claims as rubbish only because he's a JMer is without foundation.

And this "think" of yours is based on what?

And you missed this one: Did you find any reference in Ignatius' letters that he had visited Calgary?

I guess you missed that one, eh?

You keep comparing Paul to tourists. Can't you see how silly that is?

And no my discussion of Paul's fears of persecution are not the same as yours. You are pulling yours out of thin air and anachronistic comparisons to American tourists. We know that Paul was beaten and persecuted by Jews. We know that on one of his visits to Jerusalem he nearly caused a riot and was arrested. There are reasons backing up my reasons for explaining why Paul would not go touring Jerusalem.

And Paul did know of the significance of those places to Christains, which is why he was persecuting them.

Well that's a relief. Because for a minute there it looked like you were arguing his point. Wonder how I got that impression?