Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ancient Sources: History and Theology.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
    I don't like seeing people gang up on Hypatia.

    Pay Pay you need help here?
    She started this thread in response to something I wrote, so I believe I'm entitled to respond.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      As you've been informed, nobody is playing your little games any more.

      The things that you demand citations for are such common knowledge, that have been repeatedly verified, that your continual insistence for citations has served to expose your abysmal understanding of yet another topic you sought to pontificate upon
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      You simply cannot help but falling back to your usual games whenever it starts to dawn on you that you have once again pontificated on things that you actually know very little about.
      When remarks are made that allege academics have made certain comments in their works it is generally accepted that necessary citations will be provided from those texts in support of those remarks. Hence I asked you for detailed citations from Carter, Brandon, Feldman, and Twelftree in support of the comments you made concerning what you contended they had each written.

      Likewise, vague references to the views of “scholars” or “these scholars” also requires, at the very least, the name[s] of the author[s] and the title of the work[s] which provide the source[s] for those observations.

      That you have, instead, resorted to bluster and antagonistic remarks leads me to the conclusion that you do not have direct access to any of the works you have mentioned and most likely have never even read them.

      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
        I don't like seeing people gang up on Hypatia.

        Pay Pay you need help here?
        You are kind. I think I have got this one though!
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          I think the more important question here is why does it upset you so much when someone demonstrates that many of these supposed contradictions are anything but? You appear to have an awful lot invested in the examples being contradictions to the point of being unwilling to even entertain other very plausible explanations.

          And as I've repeatedly noted that when you have different people who witnessed the same thing describing it, you are bound to have different versions including both apparent contradictions and actual ones. The latter is often due to one of the sources being privy to information that the others were not. That's why I brought up asking an attorney or judge about such testimony. And I'll say your reaction, calling such a suggestion "prattling" and "feeble" says far more about you than anything. It appeared to do more than just upset you.

          One thing you appear to have confused is that for Christians we don't put our faith in the historical exactitude of Scripture but in the historical reality of the Resurrection which is what Paul meant in I Corinthians 15 when he wrote "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (v.14) and "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins" (v.17). But even so, many of your objections and "contradictions" have the solidity of vapor.


          Compared to the other accounts, Mathew's is short and to the point, skipping over many details that the others covered. He did appear to want to deal with the stolen body claim but then rushes along to the Great Commission.

          And an earthquake in a region prone to seismic activity. Obviously impossible. And even more impossible to have one take place around the time of Jesus' crucifixion[1].

          Moreover, several scholars have noted that the word σεισμος and translated as "earthquake" here actually signifying any kind of shaking, whether in the earth, air, or sea (for instance in Matthew 8:24 it is translated as meaning "tempest" or "storm." IOW, the word here might be better understood to be a large storm.

          Finally, IMHO, Matthew described not something that was witnessed but rather inferred it from what they saw as the various translations such as the NASB make clearer by stating

          Scripture Verse: Matthew 28:2

          And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it

          © Copyright Original Source



          [*Bolding added by rogue06*] and please note how this would also indicate that the women inferred that the angel descended from Heaven, not that they witnessed it.


          Did you actually bother to think this snark through before writing it? Aside from the fact that Mark was already published and that Matthew makes use of it as a framework for his own account, given that this was largely a society that heavily relied on oral accounts, it is safe to presume there were a number of those circulating as well.

          Moreover, it is further safe to surmise that the one thing that any Christian had heard about Jesus was the resurrection account (again, I Cor. 15), since without it there is no Christianity.

          So, yes, others had already covered it.


          Aside from the fact that one should have first cited an instance of "unsupported speculation" before whining about "more unsupported speculation," it is a reasonable explanation. After all, you are the one who wants everyone to believe that these things are unexplainable contradictions, so it is only natural to provide what you claim doesn't exist.


          At the very least by reputation. It was still a small community and it would be irrational to suppose otherwise. I mean, have you noticed how in Paul's letters he personally addresses various members of the community? When it came to the leaders and most prominent members, yes, they would have been familiar with one another.


          Again, when someone proclaims that these are contradictions that can't be explained, all one has to do is provide a potential logical answer. Since you're the one insisting that they are contradicting each other it is incumbent on you to show why this could not be the case rather than just... dare I say, scoffing.


          Are you serious or are you finally dropping your "historian" charade? Folks wee able to determine the likely original audiences for the various Gospels centuries before either you or I were even a thought, and current scholarship has only reinforced those conclusions.

          Google either Matthew or Mark along with "audience" and I'm sure you can get enough confirmation of this to satisfy someone even as jaded as yourself.


          So... "likely a Jewish Christian one living within or close to Judea." So then what are you going on about?

          Complaining just to hear yourself complain?


          So... "likely a Jewish Christian one living within or close to Judea." So then what are you going on about?

          Complaining just to hear yourself complain?


          *Snort* An odd conclusion given that the above verified what I said.


          What makes you think that I said gospels? Go back and read what I wrote again. And maybe you might actually catch where I provided brief corroboration as well.

          You know, for someone who proclaims to be a historian -- especially one who goes around boasting of how "with regard to the discipline of history I know a great more than most of the contributors to these boards" -- you really have no clue about any of this do you? The ignorance you keep displaying, such as here, would likely result in your being snickered at by adolescents in a Sunday School class since they're likely far more familiar with the basics than you have revealed yourself to be.

          This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, this one from the noted paleontologist Per Ahlberg: "First understand, then criticize; not the other way round!" It really is good advice.


          Once again, when someone proclaims that these are contradictions that can't be explained, all one has to do is provide a potential logical answer. Since you're the one insisting that they are contradicting each other it is incumbent on you to show why this could not be the case rather than just... dare I say, scoffing.


          Please pay attention to the bolded part. So which end of the economic spectrum do you think that the overwhelming majority of these early Christians belonged to?

          I would say that it is common knowledge that most were poor and even slaves, with leaders being fishermen (Peter), tent makers (Paul) and the like, but that would like result in your incredulously demanding a list of scholars and therefore yet again expose just how little of the elementary basics you know.


          Again, when someone proclaims that these are contradictions that can't be explained, all one has to do is provide a potential logical answer. Since you're the one insisting that they are contradicting each other it is incumbent on you to show why this could not be the case rather than just... dare I say, scoffing.


          Very telling that you would "[snip] for irrelevancy" this, as we shall see:

          And while John only mentions Mary Magdalene, it is clear she was not alone because she uses the term "we" when describing events. So for whatever reason John wanted the spotlight on her. And even if he wasn't specifically trying to emphasize her role, it is hardly unusual to mention only the leader of the group when they do something. for instance, it is not uncommon to talk about how Caesar conquered Gaul, or Hannibal crossed the Alps. Obviously they did not do it alone and saying it that way is not contradicting the facts that they did so at the head of armies.



          This was all explained in detail in the post as well as the portion you proclaimed "irrelevant." And now we can see why you wanted to ignore it.


          Mein Gott you really are ignorant! Then how do you explain Luke 24:12? And apparently you forgot that Mark has a rather abrupt ending so it would hardly be possible for him to be mentioned in it. Further, you conveniently omitted the Fourth Gospel, where the role of Peter is spotlighted. Was that deliberate or just more ignorance?




          The one you refused to discuss, hysterically dismissing it as "prattling" and "feeble"?

          No. I think the judge will see if they are indeed contradictions or if there are reasonable, logical explanations for most of these supposed contradictions.

          Unfortunately, being this isn't a court, there is no cross-examination that could clarify these matters. Without it we must then see if there are reasonable explanations. Things like how common it is to describe a large group by the person leading them (see the Caesar and Hannibal examples that disturbed you so much. Or how they might only mention one person by name but indicate there were others be the use of "we" in the next sentence. And just the simple fact that different people naturally recollect events they witnessed differently, such as stressing or minimizing various factors (or even omitting things that they think are irrelevant), and may be privy to something others weren't and therefore able to expand on what others saw.

          Or you could just chuck all that out the window and declare that they simply must, Must, MUST be irreconcilable contradictions because you need them to be so in order to rationalize your position


          I was kind of hoping you would have gotten into the men/angels "contradictions" as well because I want to delve into that one as well. If you do want to discuss them then please first at the very least read the pertinent chapters of the relevant texts so you don't keep making such silly mistakes as you repeatedly did here. Maybe they have a Bible for Dummies or an Idiot's Guide to the Bible that you could use to help you bone up.






          1. to be clear neither I nor the study's authors say that they found evidence of Matthew's earthquake, but they certainly drive an ocean liner-sized hole through your ridiculing it.
          Good grief! You are really desperate, aren't you?
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

            Dangnabbit!

            I accidentally left a portion out wrt the number of men/angels at the tomb.

            Essentially it was an expansion on what I said about the number of women that H_A "snipped for irrelevancy," namely about spotlighting one person to the exclusion of others, and applying it here as well.

            And while John only mentions Mary Magdalene, it is clear she was not alone because she uses the term "we" when describing events. So for whatever reason John wanted the spotlight on her. And even if he wasn't specifically trying to emphasize her role, it is hardly unusual to mention only the leader of the group when they do something. for instance, it is not uncommon to talk about how Caesar conquered Gaul, or Hannibal crossed the Alps. Obviously they did not do it alone and saying it that way is not contradicting the facts that they did so at the head of armies.


            FWIU, this technique was utilized by Plutarch, and is in fact fairly common in ancient literature. And there are examples of it in the Gospels as well.

            Elsewhere I noted how John only mentions Mary Magdalene as going to the tomb whereas the other Gospel writers mention others. As I noted then it was evident that John was focusing on Mary to the exclusion of others, and not suggesting that Mary went alone, because in the very next verse he records her saying "we" when talking about going to the tomb.

            Another example can be found in Luke, where he mentions only Peter as running to the tomb after receiving the news from Mary Magdalene, while the parallel account in John says that it was both Peter and the beloved disciple who ran to the tomb.

            Contradiction?

            Nope. Another instance of spotlighting as we can clearly see not much later in Luke's account when in 24:24 it makes clear Peter hadn't been alone when Cleopas, one of two apostles on the road to Emmaus, is recorded as saying

            Scripture Verse: Luke 24:24

            Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said

            © Copyright Original Source


            Please note the use of the plural. Other translations read "some of our companions," and "certain of those who were with us" or a variation thereof.

            So Luke obviously knew that Peter did not go to the tomb alone (v.12) as the later remark (v.24) makes evident. This was a clear case of Luke shining his literary spotlight on Peter in 24:12.

            And spotlighting could very well explain why Mark and Matthew mention one angel, while Luke and John refer to two. The former may be focusing on the one who’s doing the talking -- the one who's announcing that Jesus rose from the dead. They are shining their literary spotlight on the angel making the announcement.
            Ever more desperation.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              I've already covered the first one in another post which I'll elaborate on just a bit here

              As I noted, the region is prone to seismic activity thanks to the proximity of the Dead Sea Rift Valley. In his Patterns of Seismic Sequences in the Levant -- Interpretation of Historical Seismicity Amos Salamon reveals that the area experiences tremors there on a virtually yearly basis. And many are large scale. IIRC, Josephus, in his Jewish War, even mentioned one which hit Judea resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. In fact, the late anthropologist and archaeologist Kenneth Russell examined the evidence for roughly a hundred major earthquakes in the region and reported in The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd Through the Mid-8th Century A. D that 71 of them were centered in the Judea-Samaria region.

              So the idea of an earthquake taking place is far from preposterous.

              Further, it appears that core samples of earth near Ein Gedi, just to the west of the Dead Sea a decade ago revealed that an earthquake did indeed took place around the estimated time of Jesus' crucifixion

              Moreover, several scholars have noted that the word σεισμος and translated as "earthquake" here actually signifying any kind of shaking, whether in the earth, air, or sea (for instance in Matthew 8:24 it is translated as meaning "tempest" or "storm.") IOW, the word here might be better understood to signify a large storm.

              Finally, IMHO, Matthew described not something that was witnessed but rather inferred it from what they saw as the various translations such as the NASB make clearer by stating

              Scripture Verse: Matthew 28:2

              And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it

              © Copyright Original Source



              [*Bolding added by rogue06*]

              Weymouth New Testament translates the passage as

              Scripture Verse: Matthew 28:2

              But to their amazement there had been a great earthquake

              © Copyright Original Source



              Please note how this would also indicate that the women inferred that the angel descended from Heaven, not that they witnessed it.

              It should be noted that in his Gospel Matthew appears to largely emphasize what happened and tends to group his information by theme (topical arrangement) and isn't too concerned with exact chronological order. For example, he mentioned the women coming to the tomb in the first verse, but then makes these comments as an aside -- this is what had happened prior to women arriving.


              Now, as to whether there were men or angels there and just how many of them were there (one or two)...

              To start, as New Testament historian Michael Licona explains in his The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach that this problem is "easily resolved when one considers that an angel was sometimes referred to as a man." In fact we can see numerous instances where in the New Testament, angels are called "men" though where, in context, they are clearly angels (Luke 24:4; Acts 1:10; Acts 10:30. See also Tobit chapter 5 where the angel is addressed as "young man").

              And in the Luke 24:4 example he first speaks of "two men" at the tomb, and yet a mere nineteen verses later at 24:23 they are referred to as angels. And even back at v.4 when they were described as "men" they were aid to be dressed in "dazzling apparel" (or shining or radiant garments) foreshadowing their identity since such clothing is typically the mark of a heavenly visitation (Matthew 28:3; Mark 9:3; John 20:12; Acts 1:10; 10:30)[1].

              It is also possible that the authors, particularly Mark and Luke, wanted to portray the discovery of the empty tomb from the women's immediate perspectives. In this case, the women very well may have first thought the angels were men. The Bible is full of such initial misidentifications. Jacob thought it was a man that he wrestled with. The mob that demanded that Lot turn over his guests to them surely thought they were men. In Tobit 5 (held as canonical by Catholic and Orthodox Christians), Tobias "went to look for a man; and he found Raphael, who was an angel, but Tobias did not know it."

              As for the number present, as Licona has observed: A simple tip to remember when reading the Gospels through a historical lens is that an author’s omission does not equal rejection. IOW, an author could upon occasion and for various reasons, simply choose to omit what another chose to include -- something I have explained to you multiple times.

              So, with that in mind, let's return to the Gospel accounts.

              Many different theories have been posited for this including the observation that Matthew only mentions the presence of an angel outside the tomb whereas the other gospels clearly are only concerned with angels inside the tomb. Personally, I find this solution very unsatisfactory.

              The presence of discrepancies between accounts does not justify a conclusion that of the accounts are therefore historically unreliable. For example, the survivors of the sinking of the Titanic were interviewed almost immediately after the ship's sinking they provided contradictory testimonies as to whether it went down intact or broke in two just prior to sinking. How could they have been mistaken on this point? It was the most terrifying night of their lives with the details freshly etched into their memories. So, how could so many of them make such a mistake? We'll likely never know, but one thing is certain. Absolutely nobody has ever cited these contradicting testimonies on such a basic unmistakable detail, and concluded that the Titanic didn’t sink.

              Likewise, look at all the contradictions in the accounts concerning the burning of Rome. Suetonius, Dio Cassius and Tacitus differed over a number of details but no sane person argues that Rome didn't burn in Nero's day.

              Or as the Richard J. Dearborn Professor of New Testament Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary, Dale C. Allison, Jr., once quipped

              myths about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy abound, but Kennedy was in fact shot by somebody


              Finally, as Raymond Brown once suggested, it is conceivable that the mentioning of the angels was intended primarily as literary devices meant to indicate the Gospel writer's belief that a divine activity had taken place. If this was indeed the case, then it would be the fact of the angelic presence, rather than the fine details of their presence, that the author's were specifically concerned with.

              If this were indeed the case, such a move would be consistent with what we observe in ancient biographies like Plutarch's Lives and the such.

              And with that note, I'll point out that we should keep in mind that the genre that the Gospels belong in is not History but rather Greco-Roman biographies[2] -- something that New Testament scholars have only come to recognize relatively recently.



              In conclusion, GotQuestions.org hits the nail squarely on the head when they accurately observe:

              In the battle with skeptics regarding Jesus’ resurrection, Christians are in a "no-win" situation. If the resurrection accounts harmonize perfectly, skeptics will claim that the writers of the Gospels conspired together. If the resurrection accounts have some differences, skeptics will claim that the Gospels contradict each other and therefore cannot be trusted.


              As Licona observes in his The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach:

              It is important to note that all of the discrepancies between the Gospels usually appear in the peripheral details rather than at the core of the stories






              1. As the Jerome Biblical Commentary explains: "the description of their white garb and their luminous appearance is the same, and no doubt is left that celestial messengers are meant."

              2. At this point in time there really was no such thing as a Jewish biography to be used as a role model.
              And still more!
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • rogue06

                Now perhaps you would like to tell me what point you are trying to make with these recent outpourings?

                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post



                  When remarks are made that allege academics have made certain comments in their works it is generally accepted that necessary citations will be provided from those texts in support of those remarks. Hence I asked you for detailed citations from Carter, Brandon, Feldman, and Twelftree in support of the comments you made concerning what you contended they had each written.

                  Likewise, vague references to the views of “scholars” or “these scholars” also requires, at the very least, the name[s] of the author[s] and the title of the work[s] which provide the source[s] for those observations.

                  That you have, instead, resorted to bluster and antagonistic remarks leads me to the conclusion that you do not have direct access to any of the works you have mentioned and most likely have never even read them.
                  Bull. You are doing nothing but your usual game of trying to bog everything down that you typically fall back on whenever you start getting your clock cleaned.

                  If I say "scholars" you demand names.

                  When I give you names you then demand the names of the works where they said this.

                  When I provide the name of the person and where they said it you then demand exact quotes.

                  When I provide the person and where they said it along with a quote you then demand page numbers.

                  What's next? A demand for ISBNs?

                  It is nothing but a stalling tactic on your part and has gotten old.

                  I'm currently reading Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ A New Transdisciplinary Approach by Andrew Loke and just like nearly every scholarly book, you come across things like

                  In reply, many of the apparent contradictions can be explained by literary devices which were also employed by other ancient historians such as Plutarch (Licona 2016). Utilizing the work of Vincent Taylor (1953), Wright (2003), and recent work on memory and the historical Jesus by Le Donne (2009), I have argued that each of the authors of the Gospels chose from the pool of early traditions those details which fitted the needs of his audience, and told the stories according to his own style. I have noted that first-century writers (e.g. Josephus) who intended to tell others what actually happened took for granted that they were not obliged to mention every event...


                  Do you see that? Just the author and the work (which you have to go to the back to look up). No quote. No page numbers Although those are often given elsewhere in other instances.

                  So you're demands are illegitimate and as many others have also realized nothing but a game.


                  I strongly recommend Loke's book and will be citing from it extensively in the future which you can currently download from Amazon for free, or if you prefer, download as a free PDF.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                • You both have encyclopedic knowledge of the subject matter here. I wish I had more time to read through all this. It's really fascinating.

                  As a Christian, why is it necessary to prove the historical Jesus. As a skeptic, why is it necessary to disprove the historical Jesus?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                    You both have encyclopedic knowledge of the subject matter here. I wish I had more time to read through all this. It's really fascinating.

                    As a Christian, why is it necessary to prove the historical Jesus. As a skeptic, why is it necessary to disprove the historical Jesus?
                    If there was no historical Jesus there could not have been a Resurrection.

                    If there was no Resurrection there would be no Christianity (see I Corinthians 15:13-17)

                    Scripture Verse: I Cor. 15:13-17

                    But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    And be sure to get a free copy of Loke's Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ A New Transdisciplinary Approach

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • H_A asks specific questions to which she gets very specific answers. And how does this so-called historian respond? Does she address even one single point raised? By now you should no better.

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      Good grief! You are really desperate, aren't you?
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      Ever more desperation.
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      And still more!



                      Given the weapons grade level of ignorance she has displayed regarding what are considered universally agreed upon details (such as the likely intended audiences of the gospels and questioning whether they might have known of each other for just two examples) it probably should come as no surprise that this was the entirety of what she could muster in defense of her claims.

                      What a fraudulent poser

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        rogue06

                        Now perhaps you would like to tell me what point you are trying to make with these recent outpourings?
                        See post #116 directly above.

                        You expressly asked these questions and demanded answers. But when you get them you panic and feign confusion after you received exactly what you requested.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                          If I say "scholars" you demand names.
                          Why do you assume that everyone should take your word for these things?

                          You need to support your comments by specifying which scholars are offering those opinions and, as I noted, at the very least give the name of the author and the work to which you are referring.

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          I'm currently reading Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ A New Transdisciplinary Approach by Andrew Loke and just like nearly every scholarly book, you come across things like

                          In reply, many of the apparent contradictions can be explained by literary devices which were also employed by other ancient historians such as Plutarch (Licona 2016). Utilizing the work of Vincent Taylor (1953), Wright (2003), and recent work on memory and the historical Jesus by Le Donne (2009), I have argued that each of the authors of the Gospels chose from the pool of early traditions those details which fitted the needs of his audience, and told the stories according to his own style. I have noted that first-century writers (e.g. Josephus) who intended to tell others what actually happened took for granted that they were not obliged to mention every event...


                          Do you see that? Just the author and the work (which you have to go to the back to look up). No quote. No page numbers Although those are often given elsewhere in other instances.

                          So you're demands are illegitimate and as many others have also realized nothing but a game.
                          Judging from what you have written above you do not appear overly familiar with academic works.
                          Loke has adopted one of the standard procedures. These are:
                          • Footnotes at the end of each page,
                          • Notes at the end of each chapter, or
                          • Chapter notes at the end of the work.

                          You could also just as easily have copied and pasted Loke’s references on Licona, Taylor, Wright, and Le Donne as you have the section from his text. So why didn’t you?

                          It is also noticeable that in all our exchanges I have never once known you provide a citation [i.e. an actual quote] from any work that is not freely available online.

                          Re the Testomonia Flaviana:

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          And one of those who rejects it, Graham Twelftree, oddly enough accepts most of the Testimonium as being authentic.
                          Which specific text by Twelftree are you referencing here? Or don't you know?

                          I also have Brandon’s paper on Pilate that first appeared in History Today, Vol. 18 [7] 1968 as well as Feldman’s 1984 Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980).

                          That you were unable to provide any detailed citations [i.e. quotes] from either work makes it quite apparent that you do not have direct access to either. And I repeat my earlier observation that I doubt you have ever even read them.

                          In short you did a trawl of the net found some comments and tried to pass them off as your own.

                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                            You both have encyclopedic knowledge of the subject matter here. I wish I had more time to read through all this. It's really fascinating.

                            As a Christian, why is it necessary to prove the historical Jesus. As a skeptic, why is it necessary to disprove the historical Jesus?
                            I think my correspondent is better experienced in trawling the net and copy and pasting Unfortunately he has been rumbled!
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                              See post #116 directly above.

                              You expressly asked these questions and demanded answers. But when you get them you panic and feign confusion after you received exactly what you requested.
                              I pointed out the contradictions in these texts and asked the relevant questions. You have produced three posts with a great deal of irrelevant comment. However, I suspect your ego was bruised after the embarrassment of being unable to actually quote Carter, Brandon, Feldman, or Twelftree.

                              So what is your premise and what conclusion do you arrive at re these four literary accounts?
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 11-27-2021, 06:29 AM
                              99 responses
                              698 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 11-01-2021, 08:51 PM
                              68 responses
                              359 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 07:32 PM
                              460 responses
                              2,872 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Working...
                              X