How can we know that God is?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Correct. Nowhere did I say that the enquiry was dispassionate or forensic. "Dispassionate" came from you, and when you introduced the concept you modified it with "some sort of." As a counter to "an uncritical enquiry," "some sort of dispassionate enquiry" is valid. It can hardly be expected that a first century author would have engaged in the modern concept of scientific enquiry.

I am glad we are agreed that you never employed that specific phrase to me.

However, you did respond to my post wherein I used the terms dispassionate research with the comment:

That is what Luke claimed to have done.

Perhaps you should have phrased your reply more carefully?

[tabibito]

I am glad we are agreed that you never employed that specific phrase to me.

However, you did respond to my post wherein I used the terms dispassionate research with the comment:



Perhaps you should have phrased your reply more carefully?

I don't remember responding to a post with the concept of (paraphrasing) "Luke engaged in dispassionate research." I do remember responding to a post with the concept of (paraphrasing) "Luke engaged in some kind of dispassionate research."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I don't remember responding to a post with the concept of (paraphrasing) "Luke engaged in dispassionate research." I do remember responding to a post with the concept of (paraphrasing) "Luke engaged in some kind of dispassionate research."

Once again, perhaps a more judicious phrasing of your replies might be something you would wish to consider in the future.

[rogue06]

The skeleton found in the UK is not conclusive evidence of crucifixion, although it does appear that the individual might have been crucified. However, given the later date of this burial, there is also the possibility [which cannot be entirely discounted] that the corpse had been "nailed" to prevent it walking. .

Is this just your conjecture? Can you cite an academical source saying that this could be the case with this corpse?

[tabibito]

Is this just your conjecture? Can you cite an academical source saying that this could be the case with this corpse?

I had thought that was a medieval thing (around the 1000 mark, give or take a century or two). Maybe there's something earlier, but it seems kind of doubtful.

[tabibito]

Once again, perhaps a more judicious phrasing of your replies might be something you would wish to consider in the future.

So it's my fault that I responded to what you said instead of responding to what you intended to say? OK - guilty as charged.

[Mountain Man]

I don't remember responding to a post with the concept of (paraphrasing) "Luke engaged in dispassionate research." I do remember responding to a post with the concept of (paraphrasing) "Luke engaged in some kind of dispassionate research."

I think the bottom line is this: there is no reason outside of rampant skepticism to deny that Luke made a careful investigation of the facts before writing his gospel, or that the other gospel writers were not fully convinced of the truth of their words before putting quill to parchment.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Is this just your conjecture? Can you cite an academical source saying that this could be the case with this corpse?

Comments on skeleton 4926 from https://www.archaeologyuk.org/resour...enstanton.html

The body had been laid extended on its back, and orientated northwest/south-east with arms folded at the elbow so that the hands crossed over the pelvis. Twelve iron nails surrounded the skeleton in the grave: one at the head, one at the foot, five forming a straight line on the north side, four forming a curved line on the south side, and one between the ankles. It is possible to imagine that the latter had been displaced and was once part of the south-side line, but even allowing for some other displacement the nails do not form the clearly rectangular, three-dimensional shape of a coffin. Traces of oak on four of them, however, show that some wooden structure, perhaps a bier, had been present

It was usual practice to remove any nails after crucifixion for re-use, discard or as amulets, but in this case the nail had bent and become fixed in the bone.

[...]

There is again only a remote possibility that a nail could have entered the foot, let alone penetrated the whole thickness of the calcaneum, without the foot moving or the operators stopping. Just possibly the nailing was ritual anchoring of the corpse to prevent “walking”, but a more efficient anchoring might be expected than this single nail inefficiently placed.

Given the alignment of the nails around the corpse it could also be possible that this was indeed a crucifixion and those nails were there as amulets - whether to protect the corpse or the community from the corpse - cannot, of course, be known.

As the article also states:

This case will be discussed in detail in a forthcoming publication, but we suggest that it is likely to be an instance of crucifixion, the only one known from the British Isles and the fourth reported worldwide – and the best preserved.

We therefore await that future discussion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So it's my fault that I responded to what you said instead of responding to what you intended to say? OK - guilty as charged.

I wrote this.

Which suggests he was undertaking some form of dispassionate research and then writing up his findings.

You replied with this:

That is what Luke claimed to have done.

Hence my question.

[tabibito]

I wrote this.

Which suggests he was undertaking some form of dispassionate research and then writing up his findings.

You replied with this:

That is what Luke claimed to have done.

Hence my question.

So I'll try to make it simple enough for you to understand -
Did Luke undertake some form of dispassionate research? The answer is "yes."
Did Luke undertake dispassionate research? The answer is "no."

[rogue06]

Comments on skeleton 4926 from https://www.archaeologyuk.org/resour...enstanton.html

The body had been laid extended on its back, and orientated northwest/south-east with arms folded at the elbow so that the hands crossed over the pelvis. Twelve iron nails surrounded the skeleton in the grave: one at the head, one at the foot, five forming a straight line on the north side, four forming a curved line on the south side, and one between the ankles. It is possible to imagine that the latter had been displaced and was once part of the south-side line, but even allowing for some other displacement the nails do not form the clearly rectangular, three-dimensional shape of a coffin. Traces of oak on four of them, however, show that some wooden structure, perhaps a bier, had been present

It was usual practice to remove any nails after crucifixion for re-use, discard or as amulets, but in this case the nail had bent and become fixed in the bone.

[...]

There is again only a remote possibility that a nail could have entered the foot, let alone penetrated the whole thickness of the calcaneum, without the foot moving or the operators stopping. Just possibly the nailing was ritual anchoring of the corpse to prevent “walking”, but a more efficient anchoring might be expected than this single nail inefficiently placed.

Given the alignment of the nails around the corpse it could also be possible that this was indeed a crucifixion and those nails were there as amulets - whether to protect the corpse or the community from the corpse - cannot, of course, be known.

As the article also states:

This case will be discussed in detail in a forthcoming publication, but we suggest that it is likely to be an instance of crucifixion, the only one known from the British Isles and the fourth reported worldwide – and the best preserved.

We therefore await that future discussion.

All of science is provisional, meaning that any conclusion is open to reanalysis resulting in a different result if new facts come to light. IOW, every discovery awaits "future discussion."

But, as we see, nothing you presented contradicted that the body was of someone crucified by the Romans. You are left with merely hoping for something to come up at some future date to show that it wasn't.

So, the fact remains, that in spite of the opinions of some, we have solid evidence that the Romans would allow burials for those crucified. Not that they permitted it all the time, but that it did happen.

[tabibito]

All of science is provisional, meaning that any conclusion is open to reanalysis resulting in a different result if new facts come to light. IOW, every discovery awaits "future discussion."

But, as we see, nothing you presented contradicted that the body was of someone crucified by the Romans. You are left with merely hoping for something to come up at some future date to show that it wasn't.

So, the fact remains, that in spite of the opinions of some, we have solid evidence that the Romans would allow burials for those crucified. Not that they permitted it all the time, but that it did happen.

Philo records that the Romans would allow burial of crucified persons. Josephus records that even during the first Jewish war, the Jews would bury crucified persons: presumably where and when occasion permitted. Would it matter how many witnesses attested to the burial of people who had been crucified? It seems that the fact that the witnesses' testimony made the Biblical record viable would do no more than render that testimony invalid. There is nothing approaching a dispassionate evaluation of evidence apparent in H_A's posts.

[rogue06]

Philo records that the Romans would allow burial of crucified persons. Josephus records that even during the first Jewish war, the Jews would bury crucified persons: presumably where and when occasion permitted. Would it matter how many witnesses attested to the burial of people who had been crucified? It seems that the fact that the witnesses' testimony made the Biblical record viable would do no more than render that testimony invalid. There is nothing approaching a dispassionate evaluation of evidence apparent in H_A's posts.

H_A has a propensity for simply finding excuses to derisively dismiss written sources that don't match up with her conclusions, but its really hard to do that with physical evidence as we've seen.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

On the contrary from the actual archaeologists "but we suggest that it is likely to be an instance of crucifixion". Note the qualifications.[/quote]


These are exactly the sort of things that supporters of various pseudoscience latch on to in order to try to create a doubt where there isn't any.

I mean, what part of this weren't you able to understand?

All of science is provisional, meaning that any conclusion is open to reanalysis resulting in a different result if new facts come to light. IOW, every discovery awaits "future discussion."

Hence, words like "may," "likely" and "suggests" are still frequently used even when something is virtually open and shut.


Btw, where did you get the portion you cited because it is not at where you linked to. So where did it come from and who wrote it?

Moderator Notice

My apologies H_A. I edited your post rather than quoted and while usually I can restore the original this time I couldn't

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[tabibito]

H_A has a propensity for simply finding excuses to derisively dismiss written sources that don't match up with her conclusions, but its really hard to do that with physical evidence as we've seen.

It doesn't stop her from trying.

Sometime in the last 15 minutes, it occurred to me that Tassman's posts point to an interesting phenomenon.
Paul doesn't know anything of the gospels (so 'tis said), so how do we account for his comments about Jesus appearing to Cephas and the twelve etc. That would have to be either a reference to the gospels, or to a source common to Paul and the gospel authors.