Layman

No they are not.

All you are showing is that you are not above lying to promote your agenda. Paul is conmdening those that would make this justification.

Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say--as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.


Paul is not saying he lied here. My read is that he's actually mocking himself, noting that he's not that great a speaker or clever a fellow. He speaks of "boasting in his weaknesses" and that "I am nothing." The particular passage you speak of has Paul noting that he's not been a "burden" to them and actually "spent" on them when he's been there.

Please, please. A little context.

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

I could have saved myself some time. Thanks. Nice to see someone dispassionately address such an issue.

Family Man

Reading 101 for Layman:

When one reads, it is normally the case for the reader to make inferences. If someone keeps telling us, these guys are eyewitnesses and you can't consider the source, then he is clearly telling us to take the Bible at face value. Sometimes it is called reading between the lines. So, no, I'm not changing my argument and I responded quite pertinently to all your points. I can't help it if you need to distort the discussion to even present a case. Nomad clearly wants us to take the Bible at face value, that's not how ancient documents are evaluated, and that is clearly a double standard. Gee, that sounds exactly like my first post. Imagine that.

In other words, when you say "Nomad never said we have to take the Bible at face value" you are simply giving us a non-point. His meaning is very clear and any sensible reader would detect it. So, yes, I understood your point perfectly, though it is clear you didn't grasp the ripost. Your argument is simply silly and hardly worth the bandwidth it took to post it.

However, if it makes you feel better if I say "Nomad clearly implies that the Bible should be taken at face value", I see no problem with that. Except if you insist on taking my original point at an absurdly literal level, it says exactly the same thing.

As for "taking Nomad out of context", I am not requiring anyone to take my word for it. The relevant exchanges are available <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000939" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000939</A> As I said, I've been very careful to keep Nomad's meaning. If you think I've taken him out of context, then reference the thread and tell me how. I'm quite confident you won't come up with anything that would indicate I've twisted Nomad's words at all.

As for a single quote, how many more do you need? The following are all from the same thread, and if necessary I could go back to Nomad's "What Happened" thread to find more. But let Nomad speak for himself:

My note: actually, it is not arbitrary, but Nomad needs it to be arbitrary to make his point

Whether people checked this out at the time is not known to us, is a naive argument, and certainly would not be accepted by historians. It is a valueless argument.

Again the same eyewitnesses plainly stated, without any qualification at all. Yet we're supposed to accept this?

And those are only from the first two pages of that thread. Need more?

Yes, they are non-evidence. That's the whole point of this thread, and what I was claiming that thread. You can't accept self-serving, second hand claims at face value. All of the above quotes shows that Nomad does. That quote supports me completely. Your quibbles aren't helping Nomad much.

Actually, no difference. It is irrelevant whether Paul thought it true or not. Paul is passing along second-hand, self-serving information. Not exactly the type of evidence historians think is useful.

Oh, at this point it would be nice if you addressed my point. In your original post, you claimed:

As I said, I understood fully what Paul was claiming. My point is, and always has been, that Paul was passing along second-hand information. If you'd actually read Nomad, you'll see he directly implies that all these people are known to be eyewitnesses. By any standard of historical analysis, they are not. So, first you attribute an attitude to me that isn't true, then you fail to acknowledge that point when you respond to me. Just between you and me, I don't think I'm the one coming off as petty.

And while your definition of a double standard is valid it as far as it goes, it is also a double standard to apply one standard to one thing -- in this case the Bible -- and another to similar thing, such as other ancient documents. If Nomad says (or implies, if it makes a difference to you) otherwise, he is holding a double standard.

Yes, Layman, but that's hardly the point. Paul was a salesman for Christianity. That alone leads us to suspect his testimony because he is unlikely to give us an opposing view. I'm sure Paul was giving us the truth as he saw it; whether his views are accurate is very dubious.

If that were the only consideration, you'd have a point. But since sincerity doesn't ensure truthfulness, and as people have been know to lie to advance a cause they sincerely believe in, I don't think Paul's sincerity helps you very much. You're still stuck with the fact that Paul's evidence is highly questionable.

No, I did see the distinction. You failed to understand that it is a meaningless one. Paul wanted to promote his religion. Caesar wanted to defend his reputation. I could, with no change in meaning, say that Caesar wanted to promote his reputation. They are doing exactly the same thing, just in a different context. I realize that this is the only way you can separate Paul from Caesar, but it is so lame I'm amazed you'd even broach it.

As I've pointed out above, it is exactly the same situation. And since when does arguments from authority carry any weight? I quoted Grant about Caesar because his argument was clear and made sense. I disagree with him about the empty tomb because it doesn't make sense and he doesn't spell out why it meets the standards for judging historical events. Perhaps if he explained it, I would have to change my mind. But given the reasons I gave you, I see no reason to do that. Surely, you don't believe that, because you accept one thing a person says that you're bound to accept everything they say? If so, I'm afraid you're the one holding the double standard.

And yes, MOST of history isn't verifiable. But quite a bit of it is. And when you read history books, they usually tell you when things aren't verifiable. Sanders, for example, goes to great length to point this out with respect to the bible (which is why he says that early Christians had "resurrection experiences", and why he wouldn't say what they were). The resurrection, however, is not. And what, pray tell, is realible?

Yes, but my impression is verifiable. You can read exactly what I said and he said at <a href="http://ii-f.ws/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000939&p=3" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000939&p=3</A> . And, for good measure, here are his exact words here.

Now, as I have shown that my views of evaluating evidence are perfectly in accord with how historians actually practice (see my first post), I'd say I'm perfectly justified in pointing out that Nomad doesn't know what he's talking about.

Nomad was wrong or Nomad has a double standard. Gee, ok, you've convinced me. Nomad doesn't have a double-standard, he is simply ill-informed about historical standards and is wrong to present these eyewitnesses as something we ought to consider as evidence. I'll change the name of this thread forthwith.

As far as my "self-serving" statements go, I realize I need to be careful that I don't let my biases let me claim things that aren't true. All of the claims I've made on this thread is verifiable and backed up with relevant quotes. As for the context of the quotes, if you're concerned with possible tampering on my part (which I certainly understand) all you need to do is to reference the relevant thread. You haven't. Personally, I think that's because you know I'm being honest in my portrayal here. I've certainly backed up what I've said, which is more than either you or Nomad have done.

As for who is being petty here, I think I'll leave the readers a few choice quotes from yourself and let them decide who's being petty.

So, please, Layman post again. For someone you consider a "petty annoyance", you sure spend a lot of time trying to refute what I have to say. And you should, as Christianity depends quite heavily on the historical argument, your case is considerably weakened if you lose it. And since I have a strong case here, and considering the considerable invective you've spent on discrediting me, I think you realize it. It'll be interesting to see if you can actually come up with a case, since the non-points you've presented so far isn't going to cut it.

MortalWombat

I don't have any agenda. Those quotes were taken from skepticsannotatedbible.com. Perhaps I should have researched a little better before posting them. The one with the agenda, who admitted to using any means necessary (even deception) to win converts, was Paul:

1 Corinthians
9:19
For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
9:21
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
9:22
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by &gt;ALL MEANS&lt; save some.
9:23
And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Layman

I'm quite accomplished at reading and, in fact, get paid quite a lot to read and write for my employer.

I've never once seen Nomad claim that you "can't consider the source." Never. Please show me where he said that.

1. Nomad has never insisted that anyone take the Bible at face value. 2. He generally backs up his arguments for the authenticity of certain passages with in depth arguments common to New Testament scholars.

So you are just plain wrong. And you have changed your argument. First, Nomad "insisted" that everyone take the Bible at face value. Then, Nomad himself was just the one taking it at face value. Now, I know he's never said it, but I know that's what he really means.

I hope you have a day job.

Yes, its clear. Nomad has never asked anyone to take the Bible at face value. Ever. And he doesn't do so himself. And he commonly uses arguments for specific passages common among New Testament scholars. So his meaning is clear. You just have it wrong.

Yes, yes, I know. These theists are just not worth responding to. Nevermind that you do keep responding to my posts. Or, you keep responding. You aren't responding to my posts or else you would have demonstrated by now where Nomad is using this illusive doublestandard.

You can say it any way you want. This statement is very different than Nomad insisting everyone take it at face value. Why? Because this new statement clearly involves many assumptions and subjective value judgments on your part. The "problem with that" is that you haven't proved it at all. Your whole post is just another "get Nomad" thread with no evidence as to his actions.

As for "taking Nomad out of context", I am not requiring anyone to take my word for it. The relevant exchanges are available <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000939" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000939</a> As I said, I've been very careful to keep Nomad's meaning. If you think I've taken him out of context, then reference the thread and tell me how. I'm quite confident you won't come up with anything that would indicate I've twisted Nomad's words at all. [/QUOTE]

I know you are wrong because Nomad has often engaged in lengthy and in-depth discussions refering to leading New Testament scholars arguing for the authenticity of specific passages.

Sure, lets.

"The eye witness testimony is found in the New Testament. John's is found in the Gospel of John..."

Here we go. Perfect example. Nomad doesn't expect anyone to just take this as true because he says so (or the Bible says so). Nomad has provide arguments about the authorship of John. But, as any of us would, he doesn't repeat every argument every time he raises a point. Nor could he, nor should we expect him to.

"while Peter's is found in the Synoptics...."

I'm fairly certain that Nomad is quite willing and able to offer his argument about Mark's authorship of the Gospel of Mark. I don't recall whether he has or not on this thread, but I believe I've seen him make the argument on a discussion board. Again, he'd be happy to explain his reasons why, as many have done on this board.

"Paul's is in his own letters."

I know Nomad has discussed the legitimacy of Paul's conversion and the authorship of many of his letters. I've joined in him in such discussions. Again, he doesn't just say, "the Bible said it so it must be true," he's gotten in the trenches on these issues.

[quote]Whether people checked this out at the time is not known to us, is a naive argument, and certainly would not be accepted by historians. It is a valueless argument. [/QOUTE]

It's not naive at all, most historians believe that the early Christians actually experienced resurrection accounts. This includes Grant--whom you otherwise speak so highly of. So does E.P. Sanders--who believes that miracles are impossible. So does Will Durant--a secular humanist who abandoned the Catholic Church. You are the naive one.

Well, I've known Nomad to discuss many aspects of the resurrection accounts that lead him to believe they are trustworthy. I've actually discussed the issue with him myself. These include the fact that there are independent sources attesting to them, that the accounts are early, that they rely heavily on the testimony of women, and others. As I discussed above, he need not do this in everypost in which he refers to the testimony, but I know he's perfectly happy to go into depth about each one. Your implication that he just repeats these things and is unwilling to give any explanation for them is just plain wrong. But it does suit your bias very well.

Not really, because I've seen--and participated in--too many threads that prove you completely wrong. I've seen Nomad defend the Josephus refernces in detail, the authorship of the Gospel of John, the authenticity of the Baptistm of Jesus references, and many other Biblical statements that you just ignore. Nomad's arguments are generally comprehensive and well-researched. He often refers to and adopts the research of the finest New Testament scholars available. But you quote a few statements by Nomad and pretend that he never supports anything he says. It's just a lie. You are simply lying.

Then it is you who has a double-standard. Most historians DO accept the resurrection accounts as genuinely experienced. The evidence that Jesus' followers experienced appearances of Jesus after his death is widely regarded among historians as true. But you wave your hand and say that its all "non-evidence." Why should anyone pay attention to you? When they can rely on great scholars like Grant, White, Brown, Meier, Durant, and so many othres? You are against the tide of scholarly inquiry here my friend.

But you didn't launch this thread to respond to a saying or two of Paul. Clearly. Because you really haven't even gotten into any historical inquiry about those specific passages. This was just another one of your whining attacks on Nomad. Notice how few of your friends have dropped by to help? Normally they flood the threads with "atta boys," but I would hope that their silence so far is a recognition that while they may disagree with Nomad and even think him to be seriously wrong in conclusions and methodology, that he's not the "the Bible is true because it says it is true" type of fundy you make him out to be.

What is irrelevant is the "self-serving argument" you seem fixated on. It's irrelevant. Whether or not Paul even existed, the tradition did. It is the authenticity of the tradition that is important. Whether or not it servs Paul's interests is beside the point. He didn't come up with the thing.

Umm. Why this has been your point then is beyond my ability to understand. We all know that Paul is passing along a tradition. Of course, its very possible that Paul has some knowledge about those who witnessed the resurrection since he had been to Jerusalem, but no one is suggesting that Paul was there.

Then why do so many take this particular verse as an indication that there were many resurrection appearances after Jesus' death? Do you think Sanders just fails to apply "any standard of historical analysis"? Or Grant? Or Brown and Meier? Or do you just disagree with their conclusion?

First, your argument (the whole self-serving crap) seems tragetted at whether Paul was with the 500 and witnessed the event himself. Second, your opinion is suspect because--as your own tests reveal--it is based on a biased perpsective with no desire to be fair.

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear what those "scholarly attributes" that you referred to but never explained actually are. How about it? Care to at least explain what your oringal post meant? Or do you have any idea?

You have completely failed to show that Nomad takes the Bible at face-value. So the double-standard label continues to lack evidentiary support.

Wait a minute. That IS the point. You are claiming that Paul is uncredible. Well, certainly his attitude towards the true IS an important factor to be considered in evaluating the credibility of his claims. Now it is you who is imposing a double-standard.

So if Paul was an honest guy, and he was claiming that James and Peter and a lot of other people besides in Jerusalem had seen Jesus again after Jesus' death, AND, we know that Paul met with Peter and James, and many others in Jerusalem to talk about their experiences, THEN isn't it obvious that their is some credibility to his claim? The ground is more firm for Peter and James--whom he mentions by name and met--, but there sitations suggests that there's some credence to the rest of the claims.


You haven't shown why its questionable other than to trot out some broad labels "bias" and "scholarly attributes" that you really haven't backed up. You have now conceded that Paul was sincere and honest. Yet you still claim that his statement that James, Peter, and 500 others claimed to see Jesus is "non-evidence."

It's far from lame. Ceasar is defending himself from personal attacks. Paul is doing no such thing. Ceasar has no choice but to live with his reputation. Paul had a choice whether to be a Christian or not and whether ot missionize the Gentiles or not. He chose Christianity at great personal loss to himself. Paul also thought that Christians who lied to promote Christianity were "condemned" by God. Ceasar certainly had no such moral code against saving his reputation.

Besides, much of history is "self-serving." That's why you have to analyze it. Just to something is "self-serving" is just the begnining of the analysis, not the end--as you treat it.

Since forever. Grant is a much better historian than you, as you've admitted.

As I remember he does explain why he accepts the early tomb story. The fact that you disagree with him is of no consequence. The point is one of histrorical analysis. You've claimed that no historical analysis would view such evidence as persuasive. It is "non-evidence" to you. But a preemininent historian who you quote time and again DID accept such evidence to come to a conclusion shared by many other historians.

My how you like that "double standard" sword. Too bad you don't know how to use it. I didn't say you are "bound" to accept Grant's conclusions. But I do think that to label our arguments as "non-evidence" or lacking any historical analysis is tricky business when a historian you keep throwing around agrees with US and not YOU. See the difference?

Quite a bit of it is? How so? Explain yourself for once. History is not a chemistry experiment you can do over and over agin. History can't be "verifiable" in that way. There is certainly complimintary evidence for the resurrection. Is that what you mean by verifiable?

No, you are making a value judgment that I don't share. I've participated in enough of Nomad's threads and discussions--and he in mine--to know you are lying about his argument style.

You've shown us no such thing. You've put of three tests which you can't even--or refuse to--explain. And no historian takes the tact you do: its biased so it can't be true and is non-evidence. That's just absurd. And Nomad is right. If you DID view history consistenly you wouldn't believe in any history. Nothing Josephus wrote. Nothing Tacitus wrote. So on and so forth.

I've seen much more evidence from Nomad that he is widely read historically than you are. The reality is that most historians DO accept Paul's statements as evidence that many early Christians experienced resurrection experiences. Nomad is right about that.

Actually, knowing Nomad a lot better than you and having read a lot more of his posts--including other discussion boards--I know you are misreprsenting his attitude about the Bible. Even if you think he is wrong about the trustworthiness of Paul's statements, to claim that he insists that everyone take every statement in the Bible at face value is a lie. Nomad--to my knowledge--isn't even an inerrantist.

So know, I don't secretly believe you are being honest. I think you are a liar.

I love it when you guys preach to your own choir. I'm perfectly willing to admit that if you apply those three tests to me you would never believe anything I say. The point is that those three tests are useless if you use them to categorically excuse any "evidence" that falls within their orbit.

Actually, you haven't really argued about the text of Paul's statements. You've taken three "tests" and applied them, and concluded that is the end of the story. That's just absurd. Most of your post was devoted to arguing that Nomad is applying a double-standard. If you really wanted to post about how there is no evidence for the resurrection, I trust you will do a little research on what actual New Testament commentators or historians have to say about the matter.

Layman

Yes, I figured that is where you got the information. The SAB, as you have amply demonstrated, is a complete joke. But very insightful into the mind of the objective skeptic who just looks for the truth. Again, as you have demonstrated.

And there is nothing in your post that says that Paul was a liar and wiling to lie to spread the gospel. Why do you add "even deception" when NOTHING IN THE TEXT SUGGESTS THAT HE WOULD DO SO?????

Being "all things to all people" suggests no such thing. And saying "by all means"--especially when Paul has made it clear that lying to promote Christianity is immoral and that those who do so will be condemned by God--does nothing to confirm your point.

I know you very badly want this to be true, and that it is probably this is a long-cherished belief of many skeptics who rely on the SAB for their biblical knowledge, but give it up man.

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

CX

I agree with you that SAB is an abysmal example of both skeptical thought and biblical criticism the atheological axe ginding there is an embarassment. I recommend that anyone who want's an in depth analysis of current biblical scholarship read "The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings" by Udo Schnelle. Schnelle is consider by many to be the best young continental scholar today. His text supplants the heretofore paragon of biblical scholarship by Raymond E. Brown of the same title. It is a lengthy and tough read, but it is essential to have any reasonable discussion about the NT.

That being said it seems clear that Paul was under fire and was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to demonstrate his apostolic authority. I am of the opinion (and this is only an opinion) that Paulin Xianity would not have survived were it not for Paul's shift in focus from Jewish Xians to Gentiles and his amazing theological genius. He transformed Xianity into something never imagined by Jesus and it's success as a dominant world religion is largely due to Paul's influence. For more on this I recommend Dr. Michael Goulder's "A Tale of Two Missions: St. Peter vs. St. Paul" (published only under the subtitle in England and Europe).

MortalWombat

The text to me looks like Paul did whatever he could (with the exception of outright lying, I will admit that) to try to get people over to his side. I don't think that *he* believed what he did was deception. But that's the whole point. People who have such a strong idea that what they believe is right often will do things that to people outside their sphere of beliefs look deceptive and wrong, but seem perfectly OK to them.

CX

Ultimately we can't know for sure, but I think his report of the 1st apostolic convention is dubious at best. More likely is that Peter and the others said, "This guy is a kook, let him go convert the gentiles, they'll never buy it anyway what with the circumcision and no false idols and dietary restrictions and all." But again this is just pure speculation. We have no record of what the Jersualem Xians did and said for the most part.

In addition, it is pretty clear that Paul's school of thought had no problem attributing letters to him that he didn't actually write (nearly all scholars except the most conservative conclude that the pastorals are pseudepigraphal). This isn't strictly speaking dishonest in the context of the Hellenistic world in the first and second century, many schools attributed texts to their founders. There are a zillion such from the Platonic school, but it IS adapting the facts to push an agenda.

Here's the thing that I find so intriguing about Paul. It seems pretty clear that he was pretty much an extremist and prone to believer thinking. He starts out, by his own admission, as a vicious persecuter of Xians and strict pharasaic Jew, then he has this conversion experience (he doesn't describe it in much detail but ALk talks about it in Acts so we kind of have to guess if his report is reliable or not) and suddenly becomes an obsessive proponent of the very movement which he had heretofore tried to brutally repress.

This is not a dispassionate individual concerned purely and only with the truth. Plus in the beginning he was pretty much one of those street preachers with the megaphone and a big sign preaching the eschaton (end of time). He expected the return of Jesus in very short order. When that didn't happen and people who were supposed to be saved started croaking he changed his tune and modified his theology in very clever ways. That is pretty much the heart of Paul's genius.

That and going after the Gentiles by creating a more Gentile-friendly version of Xianity (which we need to remember was originally just a small reformed sect of Judaism). In fact the early Jewish Xians that objected to Paul's program were referred to as "judaizers" which cracks me up because how do you "judaize" something that is ostensibly Jewish to begin with.

A lot of this is speculation and not really worthy of any kind of debate, but I think it bears noting regardless.

MortalWombat

You know, Cowboy, I have learned a lot from you in the past few posts, and thanks. My first post in this thread had some misinformation that I am embarrassed to have posted without checking its accuracy first, and you tactfully called me on it. On the other hand, the second sentence addressed to me by Layman, who doesn't know me from Adam, was:
"All you are showing is that you are not above lying to promote your agenda."
What a wonderful witness to his religion.