Layman

Another Toto honker! James the Brother of Jesus as High Priest in Jerusalem!

Toto, if one is not serious unless they learn Greek, then I guess I don't take this issue any more seriously than you do.

I never claimed it would.

Umm, Toto. As I explained before. Nothing in my faith requires that I or anyone be able to prove that Acts is true.

And my reading list is much more diverse then yours, I'm quite sure. Afterall, I've actually read John Knox, Kummel, Wilson, Crossan, Borg and many others. You on the other hand told me that you had no need to read any conservative scholars because you read my posts!

Can you just say cop-out? And hypocrite?

Unless you can make your point it is unproven. The fact that one scholar wrote a book disagreeing with an overwhelming majority opinion does not make him right. And it does not make him right because you can't bring yourself (or are perhaps unable) to argue his points.

So until you prove the author of Acts used Josephus as a source, it is unproven. You can appeal to an authority you refuse to discuss if you want, but that's not particularly compelling.

How do you know the principles carry over if you haven't read it? And you are wrong, the article focused on the Gospels, not Paul's letters.

Oohhhh, I get it. Then we have no reason to believe anything about history do we Toto? Josephus is wortheless. Tacitus is wortheless. How do we even know there was a Paul? Right Toto?

Spare me the historical nhilism. It's a sure sign of your retreat in the face of undisputed evidence and argument to the contrary.

If your argument is going to be that we cannot learn anything about the past, then I really see no point in discussing anything with you.

You sure invest a lot of time, resources, and energy into an issue that is of no consequence to you Toto.

Toto

Vork entertained the theory a while back. There was a thread on it. Peter Kirby rejected the idea, but I thought there might be something to it, although it would be impossible to prove.

Your faith does seem to require some believe in a historical Jesus, or you wouldn't be so upset about the issue.

ANd you distort what I said. I might have said that about some narrow issue, but I have read some conservative scholars, and find them generally unpersuasive.

Very funny. You are the one appealing to authority all the time (in the form of an alleged "scholarly consensus.")

You are the one asserting that scholars continue to reject Mason's thesis. I have only asked you for one of those scholars who has read Mason's theory and continued to reject it.

But I've been throught this before with you and Nomad. You refuse to read the original work, demand that someone give you the arguments so you can "refute" them, continually misunderstand the issues, and we never get anywhere.

Quote:

How do you know the principles carry over if you haven't read it? And you are wrong, the article focused on the Gospels, not Paul's letters.

I said I read the article. It did focus on the Gospels, but it did not rule out other documents or communications.

We have no reason to think that we can know history with any sort of certainty. That doesn't make the sources "worthless" but it does make certainty about history the mark of an ideologue.

In fact, we don't "know" that there was a Paul. There probably was, but you can't prove anything about him. If you think that his letters were transmitted without forged additions, editorial corrections, and other "improvements", if not wholesale rewriting or forgeries, you really do believe in miracles.

Quote:

If your argument is going to be that we cannot learn anything about the past, then I really see no point in discussing anything with you. You sure invest a lot of time, resources, and energy into an issue that is of no consequence to you Toto.

We can learn a small amount about the past, but we can learn more about ourselves by studying the past. I am actually more interested in historiography than in history, in the study of how people use history in their present lives.

A while back I heard a debate by William Laine Craig and read some material he had written. He misused history, much as you do, with phony appeals to consensus and bogus arguments. History is an ideological weapon, and I have to be prepared to defend myself.

Layman

Very amusing.

And how am I any more upset than you?

Actually, no. You were quite unequivocal and unapologetic.

I do often refer to scholarly majorities and consensus. What you have done is refered to one scholar who has disagreed with a strong majority to the contrary. And you have refused to even try and argue his points here.

What they reject is the idea that the author of Acts used Josephus as a source. If Mason has startlig new evidence please feel free to post it.

Hypocrite. You are the one that told me you did not read conservative scholars because you relied on Nomad and me to give them to you.

Try and be practical. Are we going to come here just to throw reading lists at each other? Of course not. If an argument is to be made, then make it. If you cannot, then shut up about the issue and just don't participate. But appealing to one scholar challenging a strong majority to the contrary gains you nothing.

You read Bauckham? Good for you. If the best you can say is that the article "did not rule out other documents" then I suggest you keep searching for sources.


Like I said. The only reason you retreat into this is because you were shown to be as uninformed as usual. The evidence of Jewish persecution of Christians in the first century is very strong. It is confirmed by primary and secondary sources. There is no evidence against it. But you can't bring yourself to admit this simple fact so you retreat into convenient nhilism.

Very sad.

I see now. You and Iron Monkey have a similar historical methodlogy. If there is anything inconvenient for you in the writings at issue, simply assume that it is an interpolation! Very convenient. And sad. If you have evidence or argument that shows that all of Paul's references to Jewish persecution are interpolations, please present it. Otherwise, go argue about somthing you "care" about.

Funny how you rarely post about that.

At least you aren't being dramatic! Let's add some mood to Toto's frightening plight of having to "defend" himself on such obviously pro-Christian territory as the Infidels.org discussion forums!

:boohoo:

We all admire your bravery Toto. :notworthy

Sauron

That wasn't what "we were focusing on". That was what *you* wanted to toss out, to create a distraction from the fact that you've made a batch of claims and backpedaled when it came time to support them.

Ah. Still recycling that event over and over again, are you? Any time that you get cornered by your lack of facts, I guess you'll pull that example out of your back pocket to use as a "get out of jail free" card - is that it?

Hoping against hope that nobody notices that you are ducking whatever the current question happens to be, of course.

By the way: I'm still waiting for your proof that:

1. proof, by concrete example, how the benefits of citizenship would have helped Paul in his missionary journeys;

2. that those same privileges would have been routinely denied to non-citizens;

3. there is a linkage between loss of forest canopy and extinction of venomous snakes, taking into account the counter-examples I provided;

4. you claim the forest canopy on Malta was lost between the 1st century AD and modern times, as opposed to during the Bronze Age or Neolithic, or any other time period;


Twisting my position again, Strawman? Show evidence that I "completely write off anyting" that S-W says. I simply do not accept his musings on sociology or anthropology, The question of legendary development falls into those two disciplines. S-w is neither a sociologist or anthropologist.

And within that context, and considering his mistakes, I asked *you* to show evidence why he is a good source for your arguments on it (it = legendary development). You failed to even attempt to do so.

1. Except that you've now changed your position - naturally. Let's see now, your original statement ws:

Most historians place Jesus' birth -- and therefore the disputed census -- in 7 or 6 BCE.

So now you've tried to expand that range by another year, to sweep in a few more scholars for your position?

2. But as to the core of your claim - The vast majority of scholars support your date. Really? Says you. But you've yet to prove it.

Layman

Ohhhh ahhhhh, one year!

Toto

Layman, you old hypocrite you -

Let me explain why I do not want to get into a discussion of whether Luke used Josephus with you. I assume you were around when Nomad started a thread in which he intended to refute the idea that Luke used Josephus, by going through Carrier's article Luke and Josephus, which summarizes Mason's arguments. But Nomad did not or would not read Mason's book. So he started going through Carrier paragraph by paragraph. I followed along, pointing out where he had missed the point. After a while, it got boring, no one else was following the thread, and Nomad dropped out.

More recently, I gave a longer excerpt from Mason that I though explained his point of view, and you did not respond.

I'm not going to repeat that with you. If you want to read a summary of Mason's arguments, click on the link above. Then if you see a flaw in his argument, start a separate thread.

But since you are the one asserting that scholars continue to reject Mason's arguments, I think you could come up with at least one name who has published something recently. Since you haven't, I am going to assume that there is no such scholarly consensus among contemporary scholarsin the year 2003, and that Mason's book raised enough questions to at least get the idea of Lukan dependence on the table, if not shift the burden of proof to those denying any dependence.

Now let's just pick up on the alleged Jewish persecution of Christians in the first century, although this probably deserves a thread of its own.

From what I can find on a quick search, I would recommend this excellent article on the persecution of Christians and its place in their theology: Violence in Matthew: The Question of Text and Reality by Shelly Matthews.

Matthews states that there is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that there was Jewish persecution of Christians before 70 CE, but that there is no good basis for this consensus. She notes that it took a long time and much soul searching for Christians to recognize that the Jews did not kill Jesus. She suggests that "this sort of scholarly awareness concerning the persecution and crucifixion of Jesus, seems not to have translated into much work on the persecution, and murder of early Jewish Christians," and that there is no real evidence of such persecution. Scholars claiming such persecution can only point to verses in the Bible, but have no reasons for taking these at face value. Indeed, there were aspects of Christian theology that seem to require suffering.

She then brings up the example of Josephus's story of James, the so called brother of Jesus, which she describes as "the only written record of a first century killing of a Christian Jew by a non-Christian Jew outside of the New Testament." (And I would argue that James is not even clearly identified as a Christian.) Even this death was lamented by "those inhabitants of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict in the observance of the law (most likely, the Pharisees)." This is no evidence at all of a general Jewish persecution of Christians.

Layman

Please explain.

You can hardly blame Nomad if Carrier's article failed to get across Mason's argument.

If you will link me to this, I would be happy to start from there.

I read through Carrier's article a while back. And I recently did offer some reasons I doubt the theory.

Actually, what I have said is that scholars have rejected the idea that Acts is dependent on Josephus as a source. Why do you keep misrepresenting this?

Repeat after me: "the last one to the presses does not always win."

Please provide a list of scholars who have changed their minds because of Mason's work? What is the basis for this assumption?

Simply making up things without any basis for doing so doesn't exactly make your argument compelling. Or persuasive. Or meritourious. Or serious.

In the end we are left where we began. You will not argue this point. Instead you rely on one book you refuse to discuss and simply insist its made the point. That's a very weak argument form authority isn't it Toto?

Here, try this. Colin Hemer's "The Book of Acts in its Hellenistic Setting" and Stanely Porter's "Paul in Acts" make great cases for strong historicity in Acts.

Now you read and refute them. Until you do and can refute them I consider the point proven.

How about that Toto?

Ahh, yet another appeal to authority.

Since Matthew does not even discuss Paul's epistles and only discusses one reference from Acts (and even that only blithely in a footnote), why should I conclude that she is correct on this point? Or perhaps to be more fair to Ms. Matthews, why should I think that her discussion of the Matthean community is applicable to all of the early church all the time prior to 70 CE?

Layman

Here we go again.

You are once again trying to waste my time with arguments you must know are completely inaccurate.

I have never used SW to argue any point related to legendary development.

I do not recall ever making any argument about the supposed "time" necessary for legendary development to occur. It's possible I did this a while back, but certainly not recently nor with reference to SW, nor in any argument with you.

And you know this because I told this to you quite clearly:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=2

So obviously, after I had already informed you that I had not ever relied on SW for any argument related to "legendary development," you pressed ahead and made it quite clear that the argument you were making was that we should not trust "anything" he says and that you were shocked I would "ever" rely on him for my arguments (which were clearly not related to legendary development).

Quit wasting my time. And quit lying.

Toto

If I don't cite anything, it's unsupported, but if I do, it's an appeal to authority. Gotcha. Do you really need to ask why I throw the term hypocrite back at you?

You said
Let's focus on "continues to be rejected." How do you know this? That's all I'm asking. Mason himself noted that most scholars tended towards assuming that Acts (if I refer to Luke, I am referring the author of Acts, sorry) and Josephus drew on some of the same sources. He then proceeded to demolish this argument. If you say that scholars continue to reject the argument after this, you must be claiming that someone has read Mason's arguments and found a flaw. Who is it?

And, yes, I can blame Nomad for not being able to read Carrier's article, and for being arrogant enough to assume he could argue against something without reading the source.

Layman

I like citations, especially regarding factual issues. You like to cite to one source that admits its a minority viewpoint and claim victory.

If Mason himself agrees with me, why do you doubt what the majority opinion is?

I'm not willing to take your word for that Toto.

Are you willing to take Hemer and Porter's word for the historicity of Acts?

There is no "must be claiming." I told you what I am claiming. And Mason agrees with me. The majority of scholars reject the proposition that Acts used Josephus as a source.

So you accept that Hemer and Porter show that Acts has strong historicity?

Fine.