Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 10-31-2002, 04:20 AM

But there is death and then there is.....death.
Capital punishment in this case. How many of our
own death row prisoners survive their execution?
If the first electric jolt, volley of fire, lethal
injection etc. doesn't do the trick the process is
repeated until the person is dead. That's a 100 per cent mortality rate. At least I've NEVER heard
of survival: the TASK of the prison authorities is
to bring about a legal homicide.
The Romans performed enough crucifixions so as to
be reasonably proficient in the practice. Even
surer than the old break-their-legs-to-bring-on-
death trick was the run-them-through-with-a-lance/
spear technique and that is what John's G reports
for Jesus. If you are betting on a botched execution by the Romans to explain things, you might want to think it over again...

Cheers!

Radorth · 10-31-2002, 06:41 AM

Quote:

I've long since given up thinking you could follow even your own line of reasoning on these threads.

Kind words.

Quote:

Richard Carrier was merely suggesting that the appearance of resurrection was not a big deal, since that does sometimes happen in the form of passing out for a while.

2-3 days is passing out for awhile? Criminy. So now we have to say "well yes, he may have feinted for a couple hours but everybody lied about how long it was."

That is not a response, and it is quite obvious what a mess Carrier is in when you simply substitute another of Jesus' miracles for the resurrection, which is why there is no response at all to my other questions.

Rad

Ion · 10-31-2002, 07:21 AM

Radorth,
Leonarde and yourself, you have plenty of food for thought in this thread about the difference in evidence between Jesus and Iulius Caesar.
Catch up on this topic with the rest of history, like it or not.

Also, when you write "Kind words." about Leonarde's attack on my postings, consider Leonarde's unability to address the post I am reprinting below while going instead into an attack tangent to the discussion:

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion:

Leonarde,
<a href="http://www.shroud.com" target="_blank">www.shroud.com</a> writes:
"The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man.".

I asked, and I ask again:
So?

When it is just "...a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man.", what do you prove with "...a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man."?

In contrast with my question, have you read and learned from this post below?
...............................
Originally posted by Family Man:
Let's see --
Julius Caesar wrote volumes about his own life, much of which still exists.

Accounts of many other contemporaries of Caesar, including Cicero -- a sometime ally, and sometime enemy who was murdered by Caesar's partisans -- provide independent accounts of Caesar's actions.

Numerous biographies written in ancient times, including some whose authors were alive at the time.

Numerous artifacts specifically connected to Caesar.

Against that we have the fantastic stories of the NT written decades after the alleged events and the Shroud of Turin, which "probably" was his -- not.

Christian wishful thinking indeed is alive and well.
...............................

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

lpetrich · 10-31-2002, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:

2-3 days is passing out for awhile? Criminy. So now we have to say "well yes, he may have feinted for a couple hours but everybody lied about how long it was."

Except that there have been cases of people passing out / being in a coma for longer than that, as Richard Carrier had noticed.

Quote:

That is not a response, and it is quite obvious what a mess Carrier is in when you simply substitute another of Jesus' miracles for the resurrection, which is why there is no response at all to my other questions.

Richard Carrier has indeed discussed the question of the miracles in the Gospels: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html" target="_blank">Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire</a>. He concludes that the Gospels' miracles are mostly nothing special. Did Apollonius of Tyana raise a little girl from the dead? Did he also rise up into heaven and then return to make a special appearance before a skeptical follower? Did Vespasian cure some people with spit therapy, as Jesus Christ had allegedly done? And more broadly, was Rome founded by the son of a god and a virgin?

And, O Radorth, has seeing accounts of the miracles of medieval saints made you want to convert to Catholicism?

Radorth · 10-31-2002, 10:08 AM

Quote:

He concludes that the Gospels' miracles are mostly nothing special.

OK I get it now. There is no event "bodacious" or "recalcitrant" enough to qualify anyway. Well that bodacious definition certainly comes in handy.

Criminy.

Rad

leonarde · 10-31-2002, 12:05 PM

Partial post by Family Man:

Quote:

And you're ignoring the many ANCIENT HISTORIANS, like Michael Grant, E.P. Sanders, Dominic Crossan, Raymond Brown, and others associated with the Jesus Seminar[...]

Well, I hate to be "picky" and technical but that
is just not correct:

1)the people in the "Jesus Seminar" are mostly NOT
professional historians (ie people whose primary
background/degrees are in ancient history).

2)MOSTLY they are theologians and theologians of the most liberal (ie in some cases
most un-orthodox) stripe.

3)even the most casual reading of their credentials (available online here:
<a href="http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/fellows.html" target="_blank">http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/fellows.html</a>

indicates that they graduated from "Schools of
Divinity" "Theological Seminaries" etc. In most
cases where their full degree titles are given
they are in theological specialties.

4)Now it is true that they have to know ancient
languages of the Bible in order to study it but
their study is directed by a priori theological
and philosophical positions. (Such theological
straining of the NT by the NT authors seemed to be your "proof" that Luke and the other NT writers were not even historians; make up your mind: does theology "contaminate" history or not???

5)Certainly there is overlap between the studies/
concerns/activities of scholars of ancient history
and theologians who are trying to "interpret" the Bible.

6)I find the work of the Jesus Seminar to be useful and intellectually stimulating but I don't
think for a moment that it is either typical of
historical judgements (historians just don't take
votes among themselves)or typical of mainline orthodox scholars.

7)I don't think that I, to the extent I can claim
to have studied these matters, have "ignored" the
Jesus Seminar. I respect their efforts but they
have only existed as a "Seminar" since 1985 and
their twice a year debate/vote is as likely as not
to be overturned next year (or the year after that)by ANOTHER vote.

8)I guess we all find the Oracle at Delphi which
pleases us.

Cheers!

leonarde · 10-31-2002, 12:22 PM

In my previous post about the Jesus Seminar I neglected to mention that their "product" is a color-coded list of Jesus-sayings: a certain color
(red?)may represent the highest probability of
the saying being that of Jesus (the historical person); another (say orange) may represent the
second highest probability; etc. And all this is
determined by a vote of the members.
Implicit in all this is: the historical existence
of Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st Century. So even
this ultra-liberal group of theologians accepts
the historical Jesus' existence.
Cheers!

Ion · 11-01-2002, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:

...
So even this ultra-liberal group of theologians accepts the historical Jesus' existence.
Cheers!

However, historians don't accept Biblical Jesus' existence and miracles.

leonarde · 11-01-2002, 12:25 PM

Posted by Ion:

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
...So even this ultra-liberal group of theologians accepts the historical Jesus' existence.
Cheers!

However, historians don't accept Biblical Jesus' existence and miracles.

Great. So now you and Family Man can argue til
Kingdom come about whether the Jesus Seminar scholars are "historians". Good luck to you both!

Cheers!

Ion · 11-01-2002, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:

...
Great. So now you and Family Man can argue til
Kingdom come about whether the Jesus Seminar scholars are "historians". Good luck to you both!

Cheers!

I posted this October 23, regarding the lack of historical proofs on Biblical Jesus:

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion:

In US, William Dever, professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, Bryant Wood, director of the Associates for Biblical Research in Maryland, Carol Meyers a professor specializing in Biblical studies and archaeology at Duke University, Joseph Fitzmayer professor emeritus of New Testament studies at Catholic University in Washington, which I already mentioned in my earlier post here about this question.

Their methods are, like I mentioned before, internal inconsistencies in the Bible, possible bias by who wrote the Bible (in the case of the New Testament, these are the unknown writers after the time of the 'apostles') and external inconsistencies with independent texts like Egyptian manuscripts, with medicine, archaeology like excavations in Kadesh Barnea in the east Sinai desert, and physics.

These US historians -establishing the US position with regards to history- like I wrote earlier follow the same scientific standards that are being used by historians across the world, no matter the credulity in reminiscent ancient beliefs by the masses.

I add to the list of US historians I read about, Ron Hendel, a professor of Hebrew Bible at UC Berkley.
He wrote: "...some of the story's features are mythic motifs found in other Near Eastern legends.".

"Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently." is stated by William Dever.

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-31-2002, 04:20 AM	#201
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	But there is death and then there is.....death. Capital punishment in this case. How many of our own death row prisoners survive their execution? If the first electric jolt, volley of fire, lethal injection etc. doesn't do the trick the process is repeated until the person is dead. That's a 100 per cent mortality rate. At least I've NEVER heard of survival: the TASK of the prison authorities is to bring about a legal homicide. The Romans performed enough crucifixions so as to be reasonably proficient in the practice. Even surer than the old break-their-legs-to-bring-on- death trick was the run-them-through-with-a-lance/ spear technique and that is what John's G reports for Jesus. If you are betting on a botched execution by the Romans to explain things, you might want to think it over again... Cheers!

10-31-2002, 12:22 PM	#207
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	In my previous post about the Jesus Seminar I neglected to mention that their "product" is a color-coded list of Jesus-sayings: a certain color (red?)may represent the highest probability of the saying being that of Jesus (the historical person); another (say orange) may represent the second highest probability; etc. And all this is determined by a vote of the members. Implicit in all this is: the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st Century. So even this ultra-liberal group of theologians accepts the historical Jesus' existence. Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.