Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes the same group. I did not say the same source. I said filtered by the same group. A single group filtered all the different writing and chose what goes in and what doesn't. That means that stuff they didn't like (Gnostic documents for instance) got left out.

Simply not true. Canon wasn't decided by the Catholic Church until Trent in response to the Protestants who set their Canon shortly before. The RCC and the Protestant canons are different. I'm not sure when the Orthodox Church set their Canon but theirs is different from both the RCC and the Protestant churches. Coptic Christianity has still yet another Canon.

So, as you can see, canon was a pretty late development and was not filtered by one group.

Originally posted by Ethelred
The christian churches all used the same version of the Bible that was put together by a single group.

Totally untrue and even more so, today.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Thats not a valid test. It can at best show give a limit on the worth. An upper limit not a lower limit. For instance millions of people believe in homopathic medicine. That does lend some credibility to it. But it only suggests a possibility. Real science however shows it to have ZERO credibility in the actual chemistry involved.

You are using specious reasoning. You are still saying that a whole bunch of people believe it so you do. You main sources for the people you are regarding as the important believers is from an era of a mytical thinking and LOTS of fraudulent claims. Eusebious was not the only known liar of that time but he is the man that put together the 50 copies of the Bible, that became the standard, for Constantine.

You don't understand my argument and you have fallacious counter-arguments in light of that fact.

Originally posted by Ethelred
It is the same thing and yo are dismissive because you have no responce that can show any flaw in what I said.

Think what you will.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Four gospels vs. four tobaconists do not make for evidence either way. You need physical evidence to support the claims. Eyewitnesses are notoriously poor sources of information in court. Without physical evidence people cannot be trusted because of the way human memory works. If enough people make a claim about what happened that effects the thinking of the others. One persuasive person can sway many to misremember.

Then we can say goodbye to most of human history as we know it since considerable amounts of it are based solely on the writings of other humans.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You expected to surprise me with stuff that I allready knew and had found to be less than what you claim it is.

No surprises. You responded to the information exactly as I expected you would do. I had hoped for more but it wasn't forthcoming. I have seen much better argumentation against the resurrection than yours. Much, much better! Oh well . . .

As for the rest of your post . . . you have less of an understanding of the issues than you believe. Those who are informed on these things will recognize it when they see your posts. But, I have made my points. You are not persuaded. Fair enough. My job is done. Aufwiedersehn.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Simply not true. Canon wasn't decided by the Catholic Church until Trent in response to the Protestants who set their Canon shortly before.

Do try reading. I didn't say one word about the Canon. I was talking about the Bible.

Totally untrue and even more so, today.

Totally true. You are talking about translation differences. I am talking about the actual choices of what to put in and what to leave out. The only difference between major Christion versions is wether the Apochrypha are in or not.

You are just trying very hard to not get the point.

You don't understand my argument and you have fallacious counter-arguments in light of that fact.

You don't know what you are talking about there. I understood your arguement a long time ago. I have been showing the falicies involved and you are just in denial.

Think what you will.

Try reading what I write and try thinking some.

Then we can say goodbye to most of human history as we know it since considerable amounts of it are based solely on the writings of other humans.

Which can usually be checked by other INDEPENDENT sources and actual physical evidence.

You are simply evading the point again. The question is wether the Bible is accurate. You cannot claim it as proof that it is accurate. You MUST have corroboration to claim accuracy. You still have none. WHEN you prove the Bible to be a reliable source for supernatural claims then you can claim its a reliable source. Since ALL of the supernatural claims that can be checked fail those checks I see no reason to consider it reliable on those that cannot be checked.

You have consistently evaded this obvious need.

No surprises. You responded to the information exactly as I expected you would do.

That is because you do know how reason works. You simply refuse to use it yourself.

I had hoped for more but it wasn't forthcoming. I have seen much better argumentation against the resurrection than yours. Much, much better! Oh well . . .

I doubt that since you still believe it. I don't have to argue against it in any case. YOU must support it as its a truly extraordinary claim. You cannot use the source of your belief of the event to prove that the same exact source is true. The Bible remains a single source. That it has multiple authors does not change that. They are still without outside corroboration.

As for the rest of your post . . . you have less of an understanding of the issues than you believe. Those who are informed on these things will recognize it when they see your posts. But, I have made my points. You are not persuaded. Fair enough. My job is done. Aufwiedersehn.

That I have not persuaded you is not a surprise. You intend to make your living at being a believer. Not accepting anything that could seriously change your mind IS your job. Your points are based on belief in the Bible and a belief in beleivers. I asked for real evidence and I got believers instead. I asked for the Roman sources you claimed existed and now you are going to scarper instead. Thank you for retreating under pressure. It happens a lot when believers are confronted by a request for evidence that is independent of the Bible.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Do try reading. I didn't say one word about the Canon. I was talking about the Bible.

Totally true. You are talking about translation differences. I am talking about the actual choices of what to put in and what to leave out. The only difference between major Christion versions is wether the Apochrypha are in or not.

You are just trying very hard to not get the point.

You don't know what you are talking about there. I understood your arguement a long time ago. I have been showing the falicies involved and you are just in denial.

Try reading what I write and try thinking some.

Which can usually be checked by other INDEPENDENT sources and actual physical evidence.

You are simply evading the point again. The question is wether the Bible is accurate. You cannot claim it as proof that it is accurate. You MUST have corroboration to claim accuracy. You still have none. WHEN you prove the Bible to be a reliable source for supernatural claims then you can claim its a reliable source. Since ALL of the supernatural claims that can be checked fail those checks I see no reason to consider it reliable on those that cannot be checked.

You have consistently evaded this obvious need.

That is because you do know how reason works. You simply refuse to use it yourself.

I doubt that since you still believe it. I don't have to argue against it in any case. YOU must support it as its a truly extraordinary claim. You cannot use the source of your belief of the event to prove that the same exact source is true. The Bible remains a single source. That it has multiple authors does not change that. They are still without outside corroboration.

That I have not persuaded you is not a surprise. You intend to make your living at being a believer. Not accepting anything that could seriously change your mind IS your job. Your points are based on belief in the Bible and a belief in beleivers. I asked for real evidence and I got believers instead. I asked for the Roman sources you claimed existed and now you are going to scarper instead. Thank you for retreating under pressure. It happens a lot when believers are confronted by a request for evidence that is independent of the Bible.

I offered the proof that is to a large degree self-evident: the sociological phenomenon of early Christianity. Rather than engage me on this basis, you did a virtual line by line (rather than thought by thought) response to my post. You have attempted to disprove claims by assuming a claim I did not make. And, all the while, failing to take into acount the thrust of my argument; that is, the argument my points were intended to support. You have then taken it upon yourself to continue to misrepresent me in multiple posts by arguing as if I had argued for the claim you made on my behalf. I have lost interest because I don't see that you understand the nature of my argument and I have also grown tired of the simple lack of knowledge about the Bible and early Christianity that many of your posts reveal (and the unwillingness to cede a point, or at least cede that you do know something conclusively, when that is so obviously the case). Your knowledge in this field is cursory at best and yet you are not willing to admit as such. As I said, I had hoped for more . . . you are at times a skillful debater (and there have been times that skill has artificially given you the appearance of having thwarted me on some points); I have learned a few things from you; but all in all, you are too proud, making this less of a debate than an opportunity for you to have fun with people you have pre-judged. You also lack a great deal of basic knowledge in the fields of Hebrew Bible, New Testament, and early Christianity and yet you presume to know and understand these fields more than you actually do, passing off artificial so-called "facts" to support your argument when in real point of fact, an introductory textbook in these fields of knowledge would point out your errors. Nevertheless, I applaud your willingness to at least engage in the discussion in the first place and I appreciate the time you have taken to read and respond to my posts. Some of these posts have been exceedingly long and I think that comment (made by Lincoln?) that we are writing books in this thread is not far off the mark. Unfortunately, I have spent an inordinate amount of time in this forum over the past few days and am even finding it difficult to extricate myself now. But, I really must. I have a great deal of work to do. So, thank-you.

BTW, my eventual line of work hardly requires me to believe. Many in my field do not believe. And, yes, those in the field that do not believe have given articulate, highly reasoned, and even insightful arguments against the historical natural of Sinai and the resurrection. In the case of Sinai, Lemche and Van Seters are two examples. I find their work fascinating and many of their points extremely interesting. But, ultimately they are overly reductionistic and they fail to satisfactorily overcome the problems their counter-proposals create. In the case of the resurrection, I find people like Marcus Borg (who I believe actually claims to believes but at the same time seems to deny the basis for belief; not as badly as Spong but still) and John D. Crossan fascinating in their analysis. But, the ideological presuppositions driving their Jesus Seminar have been severely undermined several times by even non-believing scholars.

I firmly believe that the onus is upon non-believers to provide a suitable explanation for the sociological, anthropological, cultural, and historical realities of Christianity and Judaism if the precipitating causes of these realities (namely, the historical nature of Sinai and the resurrection) are denied. This has not been done by any of these scholars in a satisfactory way nor any other scholars that I have read or studied. If you would like to suggest a source, please do not hesitate (but do make sure it is reputable).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
I offered the proof that is to a large degree self-evident: the sociological phenomenon of early Christianity.

Which does even remotely constitute proof. Its pure bandwagon. Adolf Hitler created a socialogical phenomana also but that didn't make what he said right.

I said it was indicative that it COULD be true but that is as far as it can go without outside corroboration.

Rather than engage me on this basis, you did a virtual line by line (rather than thought by thought) response to my post.

I did engage you on that just as I did now. You didn't want to accept the obvious truth in what I just now said yet again.

I took it thought by thought. My thougth by thought by thought. Its how I reply. It makes it clear exactly what I am responding to at any point. Think of it as marginal glossing. It is as close as I can get to that in an online forum. I only edit for space.

You have attempted to disprove claims by assuming a claim I did not make. And, all the while, failing to take into acount the thrust of my argument; that is, the argument my points were intended to support.

I pointed out that you WERE making an assumption that you had hidden from yourself. I took the thrust of your arguement into account. There was more than one of them. Above I have repeated the reply to this basic arguement of yours. Its not proof not even a very good reason. Its just a bandwagon.

You have then taken it upon yourself to continue to misrepresent me in multiple posts by arguing as if I had argued for the claim you made on my behalf. I have lost interest because I don't see that you understand the nature of my argument and I have also grown tired of the simple lack of knowledge about the Bible and early Christianity that many of your posts reveal (and the unwillingness to cede a point, or at least cede that you do know something conclusively, when that is so obviously the case).

That is false on two points. Three really. I did not misrepresent you. You have not shown a lack of knowledge for the simple reason that you haven't dealt much with the Bible says. I do have a knowledge of early christianity. You simply have chosen not to deal with the clear importance of Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Not once did you touch on the Trinity for instance even though I presented it several times. You just plain ignored it.

Your knowledge in this field is cursory at best and yet you are not willing to admit as such.

I am not going to acknowledge something so patently short on reality. You have a difference of opinion on some things and that is what you seem to think involves a lack of knowledge. I am not pretending to be a theological scholor though. I don't see how a non-beleiver could be one. Claiming knowledge that you have not presented is not a sign that you know more than me. You probably do but that does not make what I do know irrelevant.

As I said, I had hoped for more . . . you are at times a skillful debater (and there have been times that skill has artificially given you the appearance of having thwarted me on some points); I have learned a few things from you; but all in all, you are too proud, making this less of a debate than an opportunity for you to have fun with people you have pre-judged.

I didn't prejudge you. You think this because you simply haven't addressed my points. You didn't like my responses so you have decided that they I was not listening to you. I read what you said. I fully understood it. I didn't agree. I said why I didn't agree. I pointed out the hidden assumption you are making.

You also lack a great deal of basic knowledge in the fields of Hebrew Bible, New Testament, and early Christianity and yet you presume to know and understand these fields more than you actually do, passing off artificial so-called "facts" to support your argument when in real point of fact, an introductory textbook in these fields of knowledge would point out your errors.

I am still waiting for you to point them out. I really don't care about the Hebrew Bible except on specific points in any case because it really isn't relevant to most peoples belief. They base their thinking on what they have read in English or whatever their native toungue is. I used no artificial facts. Constantine and the Council of Nicea were real things. They did indeed make choices about what Christianity would become. Prior to Constantine Chrisitianity was a relatively minor religion. He was the key to its present strength. You have evaded this point.

Nevertheless, I applaud your willingness to at least engage in the discussion in the first place and I appreciate the time you have taken to read and respond to my posts. Some of these posts have been exceedingly long and I think that comment (made by Lincoln?) that we are writing books in this thread is not far off the mark.

Lincoln wrote long posts as well upon occasion plus links to VERY long article, one was thirty-eight pages which I fully responded to. He ignored the response. He also engaged in back and forth bickering. He now likes to make allusions like that whenever he enters a thread I am in. He refuses to directly deal with me anymore. He can't handle it I guess.

Unfortunately, I have spent an inordinate amount of time in this forum over the past few days and am even finding it difficult to extricate myself now. But, I really must. I have a great deal of work to do. So, thank-you.

Time considerations I understand. Evasion is something else.

BTW, my eventual line of work hardly requires me to believe. Many in my field do not believe.

They are odd. Most likely they began as believers.

And, yes, those in the field that do not believe have given articulate, highly reasoned, and even insightful arguments against the historical natural of Sinai and the resurrection. In the case of Sinai, Lemche and Van Seters are two examples. I find their work fascinating and many of their points extremely interesting. But, ultimately they are overly reductionistic and they fail to satisfactorily overcome the problems their counter-proposals create.

The only evidence for that remains biblical and purely Jewish sources that came later. I see no reason to assume it is a real event without outside corroboration. This is something you clearly are failing to understand. The corroboration for the Bible must come from the outside and not from the sources that are actually based on the original claim.

In the case of the resurrection, I find people like Marcus Borg (who I believe actually claims to believes but at the same time seems to deny the basis for belief; not as badly as Spong but still) and John D. Crossan fascinating in their analysis. But, the ideological presuppositions driving their Jesus Seminar have been severely undermined several times by even non-believing scholars.

Don't drop names. Drop actual information. The name is less important than the facts.

I firmly believe that the onus is upon non-believers to provide a suitable explanation for the sociological, anthropological, cultural, and historical realities of Christianity and Judaism if the precipitating causes of these realities (namely, the historical nature of Sinai and the resurrection) are denied.

Belief generates those things. Factuality is not needed as can be seen many times in history. The South Sea Bubble and the Florida Land Boom both involved things that people believed so strongly they invested money. The land was never there anyway.

This has not been done by any of these scholars in a satisfactory way nor any other scholars that I have read or studied. If you would like to suggest a source, please do not hesitate (but do make sure it is reputable).

There isn't going to be one since its was just a matter of belief. That is all that is needed. The belief need not be founded on reality. Why you can't see this is hard to understand. I can only think that you believe so strongly that you think belief is a significant sign of a reality behind that belief. It is not which has been my point all along here.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Mere numbers of believers does not consitute proof. The Bible itself does not constitute proof since it the veracity of the Bible that is in question. Large numbers of people believe many things that are just plain wrong. That was what I was showing with the Grassy Knoll point. Hordes of people believe in Astrology and its a verifiably a crock.

[ckweb]

With each post you only show again how you don't understand my argument and are misusing it on several fronts.

"Bandwagon Approach" does not equal "Sociological Phenomenon of Christianity": This is exactly what I mean by misusing my argument (and is only the most serious example of many more you use). You have changed the nature of my argument and refuted the new argument you have alleged I made. I made one bandwagon argument a long time ago and recognized it as one from the get go; it was basically a throw-away comment anyways. The sociological phenomenon of Christianity is not a bandwagon argument. By casting it as such, you make it easier for yourself to refute it and you attempt to make me look bad in the process. It is a cheap tactic that you use often, intentionally or unintentionally I am not sure.

About the Council of Nicea and Constantine and the Trinity. . . how is this relevant? As I've stated, Christianity was already firmly established throughout the Roman world before this time. By becoming a Christian, Constantine is only recognizing the reality that his citizenry is increasingly moving to Christianity. One might say, he was being a clever politician by seeing how the "winds of change" were blowing. The Council of Nicea represents a move by the major churches of the period to dogmatize an official stance on the Trinity against heresies that were circulating. I have attached a .jpeg image from Dowley's Introduction to the History of Christianity. As you can see from the .jpeg, there are many, many churches already founded in the 2nd century. It is important to note also that the major centers of Christianity were already well established in Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Rome. Although still a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire, Christianity already had a sufficient foothold to ensure its survival with or without the help of Constantine. Certainly, there is no question that Constantine's conversion represented a major advance for Christianity in that it no longer had to contend with persecution (at least not in Constantine's empire) and it could hold international councils, such as Nicea, under the patronage of the Empire. It also has the endorsement of the Emperor and therefore expands exponentially in the 3rd century (as the .jpeg also shows). But, my original point stands, . . . anyways I could do similar with other statements you have made but as I've stated, I don't enjoy having to prove introductory points against someone who is not willing to accept when his knowledge is insufficient.

BTW, you'd be surprised how many non-believers study in my field. I'm guessing you really have little conception of my field and the people in it. At least, you give little sign of being familiar with it but yet, as in so many areas, you state your opinions about it as fact.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
With each post you only show again how you don't understand my argument and are misusing it on several fronts.

Then you have failed to express yourself very well. I can only understand what you actually write.

"Bandwagon Approach" does not equal "Sociological Phenomenon of Christianity": This is exactly what I mean by misusing my argument (and is only the most serious example of many more you use).

Actualy it does. Not so much equal it but is a large part of it. You are impressed by the numbers of people involved.

You have changed the nature of my argument and refuted the new argument you have alleged I made. I made one bandwagon argument a long time ago and recognized it as one from the get go; it was basically a throw-away comment anyways. The sociological phenomenon of Christianity is not a bandwagon argument. By casting it as such, you make it easier for yourself to refute it and you attempt to make me look bad in the process. It is a cheap tactic that you use often, intentionally or unintentionally I am not sure.

I see it as a bandwagon arguement. I see it that way because the main point is that lot of people believed that Jesus rose from death. Socialogical phenoma inherently entail numbers. I understand culture from a anthropological and historical point of view. Not perfectly of course, no one does as it is not a quatifiable area of study. Sometimes its amenable to statistical study but there is two much variation to claim that the quantification means something from one field to another.

About the Council of Nicea and Constantine and the Trinity. . . how is this relevant? As I've stated, Christianity was already firmly established throughout the Roman world before this time.

I thought that was what you were claiming. Its not true though. For one thing its hard to call it firmly established when there was so much variation. Gnostics, Nestorians and more that I am sure you know that I don't. The various sects were hardly established as a major religion in Empire. It was significant of course but not major. Without Constantine it never would have been the universal religion of the whole Empire.

If that isn't relevant just what the heck is?

By becoming a Christian, Constantine is only recognizing the reality that his citizenry is increasingly moving to Christianity.

Actually he didn't do that till he was a very old man. Converted when he was dying not when he made the religion the state religion. What he recognized was the political advantage of a State religion that was uniform throughout the Empire.

One might say, he was being a clever politician by seeing how the "winds of change" were blowing. The Council of Nicea represents a move by the major churches of the period to dogmatize an official stance on the Trinity against heresies that were circulating.

Hard to have real heresies when the religion was still so fragmented. Even the Council of Nicea did not make the Trinity official Dogma. That came later. I forget exactly when. Before 400 and it was a different Emperor.

I have attached a .jpeg image from Dowley's Introduction to the History of Christianity. As you can see from the .jpeg, there are many, many churches already founded in the 2nd century. It is important to note also that the major centers of Christianity were already well established in Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Rome.

Yes that was Paul's doing. He was really very important. Without him christianity would be a Jewish sect assuming that it survived.

Large numbers of churches is not the same as large numbers of people. There were a lot of people in Roman cities and many religions were in most of them. Got a map of Jewish temples for instance. Or temples to Isis or Zuess. Greeks were all over all the Empire. Rome had lots of religions that were in many cities.

Although still a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire, Christianity already had a sufficient foothold to ensure its survival with or without the help of Constantine. Certainly, there is no question that Constantine's conversion represented a major advance for Christianity in that it no longer had to contend with persecution (at least not in Constantine's empire) and it could hold international councils, such as Nicea, under the patronage of the Empire.

As I said he did not convert till much later. Thus making it more likely that politics was a major reason for his actions rather than belief. As for patronage. That was control as much as anything else. There is a difference between mere survival and becoming the sole allowed relgion. Samaritans still exist for instance. So do Zorastrians and they made some very specific predictions that failed without the religion dying out (kind of like the JWs I guess only less dense).

It also has the endorsement of the Emperor and therefore expands exponentially in the 3rd century (as the .jpeg also shows). But, my original point stands, . . . anyways I could do similar with other statements you have made but as I've stated, I don't enjoy having to prove introductory points against someone who is not willing to accept when his knowledge is insufficient.

Ah yes that ploy. You fail to support yourself and its all my fault. Mea culpa. My knowledge is not insuficient. You ability to back yourself up is. I asked for those Roman sources you claimed and all you managed was Tacitus who did not actually support you. Its well known that Tacitus statements were clearly based on what Christians said and not some Roman records which can easily be seen in his wording.

Nevertheless its all my fault because I don't know everything.

BTW, you'd be surprised how many non-believers study in my field. I'm guessing you really have little conception of my field and the people in it.

You make a lot of bad guesses don't you?

At least, you give little sign of being familiar with it but yet, as in so many areas, you state your opinions about it as fact.

I state my opinions and a present facts to back them when needed. You have been short on facts and long on opinion. The opinions may be popular in some areas of study but that does not make them either valid or supported by facts.

When you stop trying to browbeat me with some knowledge that you fail to actualy express here you might actually get somewhere. You know how to do it. Post some details. Give me a link or two that I can check you on. I am not about to take your word solely on your say so and that is what you doing here in nearly every case. The map is the very first attempt to show evidence that you have done and it doesn't show anything that shows error on my part. I never ever said that the Christians weren't in many places. I simply said it was a minor religion till Constantine and this something you have not refuted. You complain about my saying it but you don't refute it.

A socialogical phenomana cannot prove the existance of the alleged miracles that lay behind it. It can only indicate that there may be something real there. You of course have ignored my saying this and instead claimed that I won't yield. Yield to what? Unsupported opinions and a claim that a socialogical phenomana proves things. Noway. You have to give evidence. Not evidence that entails assuming the things that are in question are true.

I have given examples of other socialogical phenomena that I am sure you don't agree were based on reality. The most you have done when I do that is to claim without ANY reason whatsoever that its not relevant. It is relevant. You claim miracles you must show real evidence for them not evidence that a lot of people believed in them. That is what you are doing with your talk about a socialogical phenomena( I am getting tired of typing that phrase).

Now if you just don't want to back yourself thats fine. Just admit it or quit pretending that I must bow to your alledgedly superiour knowledge. This is the internet. I don't know who you are. Your web site is not evidence that you are what you say. On the this sort of forum its facts that count. You must support yourself to make a point with others.

You may indeed be all you say. However you have been remarkably unable to give any support. Even Lincoln can do better than you have in that regard. Krazyhorse and Rogan Josh can support themselves in their claims about physics but they do have the advatage of having an area of study that is less dependent on opinion than yours does.

Here is a link please learn to use to find sites that I can look at to check on what you say:

http://www.google.com/

I here this is good search site as well.

http://www.alltheweb.com/

Another

http://www.about.com/

Sites that I use frequently

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

http://bible.gospelcom.net/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

For literalists

http://www.noahsarksearch.com/

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html

You have this one allready but I might as well put it here too.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Reasons for being unimpressed by your socialogical arguement.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

A sample from the above site regarding Tacitus

Scholarly debate surrounding this passage has been mainly concerned with Tacitus' sources and not with the authorship of the passage (e.g., whether it is an interpolation) or its reliability.[83] Various scenarios have been proposed to explain how Tacitus got his information. One possibility is that Tacitus learned the information from another historian he trusted (e.g., Josephus). Another possibility (suggested by Harris) is that he obtained the information from Pliny the Younger. According to Harris, "Tacitus was an intimate friend and correspondent of the younger Pliny and was therefore probably acquainted with the problems Pliny encountered with the Christians during his governorship in Bithynia - Pontus (c. A.D. 110-112)."[84] (Defenders of this position may note that Tacitus was also governing in Asia in the very same years as Pliny's encounters with Christians [112-113], making communication between them on the event very likely.)[85] Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling mention a related possibility; they state that Tacitus' information "is probably based on the police interrogation of Christians."[86] Yet another possibility (suggested by Habermas and defended by McDowell and Wilson) is that Tacitus obtained the information from official documents.[87] (I shall say more about this possibility below.) It is also possible that the information was common knowledge. Finally, there is the view (defended by Wells, France, and Sanders) that Tacitus simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying.[88] The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don't know how Tacitus obtained his information. Holding himself admits, "Truthfully, there is no way to tell" where Tacitus obtained his information about Jesus.[89] Therefore, we can't use Annals XV.47 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

OK its a big sample. So yes I have seen the Roman stuff you think supports you. It doesn't unless you some that I have not found out about. I asked for such. Do not claim I won't change my mind when you refuse to support yourself.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Then you have failed to express yourself very well. I can only understand what you actually write.

Perhaps I have. But, let me give you an example of how you misread. You dismiss Tacitus saying, "Tacitus statements were clearly based on what Christians said and not some Roman records which can easily be seen in his wording." You support this statement (at least in part) by appealing to the following URL (which incidentally I have read before):

Originally posted by Ethelred

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

A sample from the above site regarding Tacitus

Scholarly debate surrounding this passage has been mainly concerned with Tacitus' sources and not with the authorship of the passage (e.g., whether it is an interpolation) or its reliability.[83] Various scenarios have been proposed to explain how Tacitus got his information. One possibility is that Tacitus learned the information from another historian he trusted (e.g., Josephus). Another possibility (suggested by Harris) is that he obtained the information from Pliny the Younger. According to Harris, "Tacitus was an intimate friend and correspondent of the younger Pliny and was therefore probably acquainted with the problems Pliny encountered with the Christians during his governorship in Bithynia - Pontus (c. A.D. 110-112)."[84] (Defenders of this position may note that Tacitus was also governing in Asia in the very same years as Pliny's encounters with Christians [112-113], making communication between them on the event very likely.)[85] Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling mention a related possibility; they state that Tacitus' information "is probably based on the police interrogation of Christians."[86] Yet another possibility (suggested by Habermas and defended by McDowell and Wilson) is that Tacitus obtained the information from official documents.[87] (I shall say more about this possibility below.) It is also possible that the information was common knowledge. Finally, there is the view (defended by Wells, France, and Sanders) that Tacitus simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying.[88] The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don't know how Tacitus obtained his information. Holding himself admits, "Truthfully, there is no way to tell" where Tacitus obtained his information about Jesus.[89] Therefore, we can't use Annals XV.47 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

Yet, notice, where this individual (who clearly has a polemical agenda) writes, "The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don't know how Tacitus obtained his information." This is exactly my point!!! I have been saying this all along. But, despite this individual's opinion being the basis of your argument, you leap from his statement to declare, "Tacitus statements were clearly based on what Christians said and not some Roman records which can easily be seen in his wording." What am I supposed to do against these kind of leaps? What am I supposed to do when you do the same thing to my arguments? I can't reasonably debate with someone who doesn't carefully read his own sources let alone my posts. Please explain.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Yet, notice, where this individual (who clearly has a polemical agenda) writes, "The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don't know how Tacitus obtained his information." This is exactly my point!!!

It wasn't your point to start with. You claimed Tacitus as support for you position. Oh lets just go on the actual conclusion as well

Therefore, we can't use Annals XV.47 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

Which is what YOU are refusing to aknowledge. That you were wrong in claiming Tacititus as support.

I have been saying this all along. But, despite this individual's opinion being the basis of your argument, you leap from his statement to declare, "Tacitus statements were clearly based on what Christians said and not some Roman records which can easily be seen in his wording." What am I supposed to do against these kind of leaps? What am I supposed to do when you do the same thing to my arguments? I can't reasonably debate with someone who doesn't carefully read his own sources let alone my posts. Please explain.

You can't reasonably debate. That was never your point UNTILL I actually delivered the real quotes of Tacitus. I did not make a massive leap. Based on the wording of Tacitus I don't see how it can be construed as comeing from original witnesses of the Crucifiction and Resurection. Whether I can show his source or not is irrelevant to what I said. You are the one that needs that.

Frankly I find it odd that you are attacking me on this. You are the one that brought up Tacitus. You made a claim for him that was wrong.

Instead of just admiting to it you are going off on this tangent that I can't know his source. IT DOESN'T MATTER that I can't. I didn't claim him as support. YOU CLAIMED HIM as support. The lack of knowledge of his source goes against YOUR CLAIM not mine.

I only went on the way it was written. It still looks to me like Tacitus used common knowledge about the what the Christians thought had happened. I don't see any sign in what he wrote that he got the information from possible contemporary Roman records of the Crucifiction.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
It wasn't your point to start with. You claimed Tacitus as support for you position. Oh lets just go on the actual conclusion as well.

Here is what I wrote when I first brought up Tacitus:
"There are Roman sources of varying reliability, including Tacitus, which is contemporary. It is possible, particularly in the case of Tacitus, that some of these Roman sources provide independent corroboration based on "court" records (though it is not conclusive)." Seems like it was my point to start with!

Since your many and varied posts on this topic, I will concede one mistake in this post. I should have qualified contemporary but saying something of the ilk "relatively contemporary" or perhaps, "within the same general time period." But, as you can see, I made the statement that Tacitus is not conclusive. I only said it was possible that "some of these Roman sources provide independent corroboration." You have made a leap in suggesting that they definitely do not. Your own source doesn't even agree with you on this leap. I do not know how much more plain I can make this point.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Which is what YOU are refusing to aknowledge. That you were wrong in claiming Tacititus as support.

Frankly I find it odd that you are attacking me on this. You are the one that brought up Tacitus. You made a claim for him that was wrong.

Instead of just admiting to it you are going off on this tangent that I can't know his source. IT DOESN'T MATTER that I can't. I didn't claim him as support. YOU CLAIMED HIM as support. The lack of knowledge of his source goes against YOUR CLAIM not mine.

I only went on the way it was written. It still looks to me like Tacitus used common knowledge about the what the Christians thought had happened. I don't see any sign in what he wrote that he got the information from possible contemporary Roman records of the Crucifiction.

You are misunderstanding in what manner the sources were listed and to what ends. First, when I initially made the post that then precipitated your request for sources, I was responding to a different line of questioning where sources were not at issue. When you made your request for sources, you already denied the existence of any (except the Bible, which you dismiss) and stated unequivocally that they were useless. There were many inaccuracies about the nature of the sources, especially the biblical ones. So, I posted and provide the different types of sources that exist and there varying degrees of importance to the issue of the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus. As you can see clearly in my post my reason for listing the sources was to dispute your knowledge of the sources, it was not to prove my argument (though it is not irrelevant to my argument).

My argument for the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection has always been based on the sociological phenomenon of Christianity. The sources are a part of the sociological proofs but they are not its entirety. You have placed the inordinate emphasis on sources, I have not. My argument is sociological. I will repeat again: my argument is sociological. Perhaps, you do not understand what I mean by sociological (and this is what I mean by you not possessing the basic knowledge of the issue to make this a worthwhile discussion). But, I'll humour you a little longer.

Sociology is "the systematic study of human society" (Macionis and Gerber 2001:3). Sociology attempts to understand why people act in a certain way; what is the underlying cause for their behaviour. A sociological approach to early Christian origins, therefore, would ask questions such as why did people convert to Christianity? why did they die for those convictions? how do we explain their conduct in light of how we know people normally act? From your own point of view, humans are self-interested so this leads to more questions: why would people convert to a religious movement that moved them down the social ladder to the bottom of the rung? why would they willingly place themselves under the threat of martyrdom? One theory that explains the change in these people is an historical resurrection. And I've found in my journeys that Sherlock Holmes' observation can apply to this issue, "Improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still." Can you provide another, more probable theory? Another theory must adequately address several issues including (but necessarily limited to):

(1) The fact that conversions were not limited to particular segments of society, rather a cross-section of people converted. From slaves to masters, from men to women, from Jews to Egyptians to Romans to Greeks, from the rich to the poor, from all age groups, from all lines of work, the spectrum of conversions is not limited to any identifiable category of people. While this very fact might in part explain point #2, it still needs its own explanation.

(2) The rate of conversion while under the threat of persecution. In less than two centuries, Christianity firmly established itself (in a variety of different forms and expressions) throughout much of the known world. This despite the fact that conversion provided no easily identifiable, extrinsic benefits to these individuals. On the contrary, conversion invited the distinct possibility of discrimination, lower standing in society, and even death.

(3) People generally resist change (you are a good example), why didn't they in this case?

(4) Depending on your historical reconstruction of the historical Jesus, he does not appear to have been a very distinct individual from many of his contemporaries apart from his "apparent" resurrection and miracles? So, if these did not occur, what set him apart that he became the "amalgam" (as Jack put it) of such myths?

There are more points to make but I can think of any at this particular moment. And they are going to be essentially dismissed anyways so I'm not too motivated to continue writing. Besides, I'm meeting a couple of friends this evening. I await your misunderstandings . . .

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Here is what I wrote when I first brought up Tacitus:
"There are Roman sources of varying reliability, including Tacitus, which is contemporary. It is possible, particularly in the case of Tacitus, that some of these Roman sources provide independent corroboration based on "court" records (though it is not conclusive)." Seems like it was my point to start with!

Yes it is as I said. It was your point from the start the Tacitus supported you. You are saying possibly rather than certainly but even that is specious. You ASSUME that he used sources that MIGHT support you. You now know that Tacitus in no way whatsoever hints at using court sources. Nor any other sources so it was nothing but a bluff to claim that he even could possibly support you. Possible only if you could show his sources. You cannot so there is no possibility of his constituting support.

You need to learn how to think more critically. You are entirely too certain that vague claims of possible support done enough makes it add to equal real support.

Is it clear now that Tacitus in no way deserved to be in that original statement of yours? It sure is to me. Now since he does not fit your claim of even possible support since that would require known sources and they are unknown I am still waiting for those alleged Roman sources. One down and so far, zero to go.

Since your many and varied posts on this topic, I will concede one mistake in this post. I should have qualified contemporary but saying something of the ilk "relatively contemporary" or perhaps, "within the same general time period."

Which would still have been wrong. A century after the crucifiction does not qualify as the same general time. That is the same as saying Lincoln and Washington were Presidents in the same general time. In fact they were a bit closer than Tacitus was.

But, as you can see, I made the statement that Tacitus is not conclusive.

You also claimed he was a possible source and he is not. Even you now admit that you don't know his sources, thus it was a bogus claim. Possibly you simply didn't know it as well as you thought but the result was a bogus claim.

I only said it was possible that "some of these Roman sources provide independent corroboration."

And gave NOT POSSIBLE example. I am still waiting for a real one. You didn't put one in here to replace the one that has been found wanting. I think you don't want to see the others shot down so you are not mentioning them. I know of five more Romans that are popular for Christians to claim as support and, like Tacitus, none of them are.

You have made a leap in suggesting that they definitely do not. Your own source doesn't even agree with you on this leap. I do not know how much more plain I can make this point.

Not they since you refuse to risk another. Tacitus. Tacitus does not and it is definite. You would have to know his source in your own words. You don't. So he isn't even remotely possible. There is a tiny chance that he did use some Roman records for a century before but that cannot be claimed as possible support since you can't even show that he looked at any sources at all.

I think you managed a phrase that exactly fits my position. "I do not know how much more plain I can make this point". It is not possible that he is a source of support. If someone can find his notes THOSE would a source. What we have is not.

You are misunderstanding in what manner the sources were listed and to what ends. First, when I initially made the post that then precipitated your request for sources, I was responding to a different line of questioning where sources were not at issue.

They have always been at issue. You need outside sources. That is the issue of credibilty.

When you made your request for sources, you already denied the existence of any (except the Bible, which you dismiss) and stated unequivocally that they were useless.

I said there were none for the simple reason that are none. You haven't shown a one. You dropped ONE NAME and you were wrong on that one. You didn't even post what Tacitus said. I had to do that. I suspect you knew it was not even close to support or outside corroboration. The best you can say is that no one can say for sure where he got the information. Which is not a sign that its corroboration its a sign that it isn't.

What I have stated unequivocably about the Bible in this discusion is that it must have outside corroboration since it the veracity of the Bible that is in question. You cannot prove its reliable on its own. You must show another OUTSIDE source. Independent of the believers.

I am not pretending that such a thing should be easy. I am saying it must be done to lend credence to the extraordinary claims of the New Testament.

There were many inaccuracies about the nature of the sources, especially the biblical ones. So, I posted and provide the different types of sources that exist and there varying degrees of importance to the issue of the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus. As you can see clearly in my post my reason for listing the sources was to dispute your knowledge of the sources, it was not to prove my argument (though it is not irrelevant to my argument).

Listing sources? ONE source does not constitute a plural. Tacitus doesn't even constitute one. What you did with him was show that I did know about the alleged source not that I didn't.

That was nothing but a personal attack. You did nothing to show me wrong. You did nothing to support your position. You are simply trying to pretend that 'Ethelred is a ignoramus on this so I may ignore the facts he posts'. That is what you are doing. Thats little short of an ad-hominym attack.

My argument for the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection has always been based on the sociological phenomenon of Christianity. The sources are a part of the sociological proofs but they are not its entirety. You have placed the inordinate emphasis on sources, I have not.

Nothing inordinate about it. You need them. I have asked for them. You even claimed they existed. You dropped one name. I picked it up found the actual quotes and showed that it did not support you. So you pretended that not knowing a thing about Tacitus sources somehow magically constitutes a possible source. That is the first time I seen anyone call ignorance about something a positive rather than negative support. I hope never to see anything so silly again but I suppose I will since critical thinking is in short supply on the believer side.

My argument is sociological. I will repeat again: my argument is sociological. Perhaps, you do not understand what I mean by sociological (and this is what I mean by you not possessing the basic knowledge of the issue to make this a worthwhile discussion). But, I'll humour you a little longer.

Bloody hell, I understood it the first time. I have been exposed to cultural anthropology and comparative religions longer than you have been alive. Quit being condensending.

Sociology is "the systematic study of human society" (Macionis and Gerber 2001:3). Sociology attempts to understand why people act in a certain way; what is the underlying cause for their behaviour. A sociological approach to early Christian origins, therefore, would ask questions such as why did people convert to Christianity? why did they die for those convictions? how do we explain their conduct in light of how we know people normally act?

Which why I posted the analogies that I did. You preteded without cause that they were irrelevant. You don't even understand your own position if you claim the analogies were nonsense.

From your own point of view, humans are self-interested so this leads to more questions: why would people convert to a religious movement that moved them down the social ladder to the bottom of the rung? why would they willingly place themselves under the threat of martyrdom? One theory that explains the change in these people is an historical resurrection.

Another is a belief in it. People do all kinds of things based on beliefs. Often beliefs that are wrong. Like killing 6 millions Jews. On a completely false belief in Aryan superiority. Right now people are being persecuted in China and even dying in some cases over a non-Christian religion. If you are right then they must be wrong so its the belief that causes that causes this sort of behaviour and it a sign of belief not a sign that the belief is justified.

And I've found in my journeys that Sherlock Holmes' observation can apply to this issue, "Improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still." Can you provide another, more probable theory? Another theory must adequately address several issues including (but necessarily limited to):

I gave one. You dismissed it out hand and just plain dodged a valid explanation complete with examples.

(1) The fact that conversions were not limited to particular segments of society, rather a cross-section of people converted. From slaves to masters, from men to women, from Jews to Egyptians to Romans to Greeks, from the rich to the poor, from all age groups, from all lines of work, the spectrum of conversions is not limited to any identifiable category of people. While this very fact might in part explain point #2, it still needs its own explanation.

It happens even without a true belief. There are other religions that have has the same thing happen. Budhism was persecuted and it was taken up by people at all levels of society where it took hold. If Chrisianity is true than Budhism is false as they are very different. Yet both did exactly what you have above.

Just because people believe that doesn't mean the belief is based on something real. Only that they strongly hold that belief.

(2) The rate of conversion while under the threat of persecution. In less than two centuries, Christianity firmly established itself (in a variety of different forms and expressions) throughout much of the known world. This despite the fact that conversion provided no easily identifiable, extrinsic benefits to these individuals. On the contrary, conversion invited the distinct possibility of discrimination, lower standing in society, and even death.

And a promise that they would have everlasting life after death if they died that way. Islam makes the same promise and they get the same results upon occasion. They just prefer a bit more to do the killing instead being the killed but they did indeed die for their beliefs.

Just because someone thinks they will have an afterlife that does mean that they will. Its the belief that generates the behaviour and not a reality whether there is one or not.

(3) People generally resist change (you are a good example), why didn't they in this case?

I am a lousy example. I have changed. I was raised Catholic. I failed to resist learning about the real world.

Most people did resist change of course. Some didn't. They then resisted changeing back. The believers accumulated because they resisted the Romans.

(4) Depending on your historical reconstruction of the historical Jesus, he does not appear to have been a very distinct individual from many of his contemporaries apart from his "apparent" resurrection and miracles? So, if these did not occur, what set him apart that he became the "amalgam" (as Jack put it) of such myths?

He looks pretty darn distinct to me. How many people give religious lectures as a kid? Marjo Gortner only gave canned speeches from his parents when he was boy preacher (started at four).

Legendary figures tend to absorb the actions of others into their story. It happens with many such figures so why I don't anything that sets Jesus apart there. The stories need not be true stories either.

There are more points to make but I can think of any at this particular moment. And they are going to be essentially dismissed anyways so I'm not too motivated to continue writing. Besides, I'm meeting a couple of friends this evening. I await your misunderstandings . . .

Its my job in this discussion to show where you are wrong or at least could be. I have never merely dismissed what you have said. Perhaps you think that because YOU HAVE merely dismissed what I have said. Often. Frequently. Without so much as a smidgen of justification. Well I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that you would accuse me of doing the same things you do, even though I didn't.

Oh and thank you for actually addressing your own issue for the first time. Prior to this you have tried to browbeat me by repeating "socialogical phenomana" without a hint of effort to support yourself. Didn't actually help you much since I allready understood the concept. I got it the first time. I simply don't see it as evidence of the Resurection. Its evidence of a strongly belief which is something often does not need to be based on reality. However this gave me the opportunity to deal with it on a more detailed basis.

Now since you have expected me to dismiss you out of hand just like you did me and I, as usual, actually addresed what you said are you going to pull that same garbage you pulled the last time or will you actually address what I said. You impoved in this post. Lets see you do some more of that and less of the pretense that I am ignorant.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Yes it is as I said. It was your point from the start the Tacitus supported you. You are saying possibly rather than certainly but even that is specious. You ASSUME that he used sources that MIGHT support you. You now know that Tacitus in no way whatsoever hints at using court sources. Nor any other sources so it was nothing but a bluff to claim that he even could possibly support you. Possible only if you could show his sources. You cannot so there is no possibility of his constituting support.

You need to learn how to think more critically. You are entirely too certain that vague claims of possible support done enough makes it add to equal real support.

Is it clear now that Tacitus in no way deserved to be in that original statement of yours? It sure is to me. Now since he does not fit your claim of even possible support since that would require known sources and they are unknown I am still waiting for those alleged Roman sources. One down and so far, zero to go.



Which would still have been wrong. A century after the crucifiction does not qualify as the same general time. That is the same as saying Lincoln and Washington were Presidents in the same general time. In fact they were a bit closer than Tacitus was.



You also claimed he was a possible source and he is not. Even you now admit that you don't know his sources, thus it was a bogus claim. Possibly you simply didn't know it as well as you thought but the result was a bogus claim.



And gave NOT POSSIBLE example. I am still waiting for a real one. You didn't put one in here to replace the one that has been found wanting. I think you don't want to see the others shot down so you are not mentioning them. I know of five more Romans that are popular for Christians to claim as support and, like Tacitus, none of them are.



Not they since you refuse to risk another. Tacitus. Tacitus does not and it is definite. You would have to know his source in your own words. You don't. So he isn't even remotely possible. There is a tiny chance that he did use some Roman records for a century before but that cannot be claimed as possible support since you can't even show that he looked at any sources at all.

I think you managed a phrase that exactly fits my position. "I do not know how much more plain I can make this point". It is not possible that he is a source of support. If someone can find his notes THOSE would a source. What we have is not.



They have always been at issue. You need outside sources. That is the issue of credibilty.



I said there were none for the simple reason that are none. You haven't shown a one. You dropped ONE NAME and you were wrong on that one. You didn't even post what Tacitus said. I had to do that. I suspect you knew it was not even close to support or outside corroboration. The best you can say is that no one can say for sure where he got the information. Which is not a sign that its corroboration its a sign that it isn't.

What I have stated unequivocably about the Bible in this discusion is that it must have outside corroboration since it the veracity of the Bible that is in question. You cannot prove its reliable on its own. You must show another OUTSIDE source. Independent of the believers.

I am not pretending that such a thing should be easy. I am saying it must be done to lend credence to the extraordinary claims of the New Testament.



Listing sources? ONE source does not constitute a plural. Tacitus doesn't even constitute one. What you did with him was show that I did know about the alleged source not that I didn't.

That was nothing but a personal attack. You did nothing to show me wrong. You did nothing to support your position. You are simply trying to pretend that 'Ethelred is a ignoramus on this so I may ignore the facts he posts'. That is what you are doing. Thats little short of an ad-hominym attack.



Nothing inordinate about it. You need them. I have asked for them. You even claimed they existed. You dropped one name. I picked it up found the actual quotes and showed that it did not support you. So you pretended that not knowing a thing about Tacitus sources somehow magically constitutes a possible source. That is the first time I seen anyone call ignorance about something a positive rather than negative support. I hope never to see anything so silly again but I suppose I will since critical thinking is in short supply on the believer side.



Bloody hell, I understood it the first time. I have been exposed to cultural anthropology and comparative religions longer than you have been alive. Quit being condensending.



Which why I posted the analogies that I did. You preteded without cause that they were irrelevant. You don't even understand your own position if you claim the analogies were nonsense.



Another is a belief in it. People do all kinds of things based on beliefs. Often beliefs that are wrong. Like killing 6 millions Jews. On a completely false belief in Aryan superiority. Right now people are being persecuted in China and even dying in some cases over a non-Christian religion. If you are right then they must be wrong so its the belief that causes that causes this sort of behaviour and it a sign of belief not a sign that the belief is justified.



I gave one. You dismissed it out hand and just plain dodged a valid explanation complete with examples.



It happens even without a true belief. There are other religions that have has the same thing happen. Budhism was persecuted and it was taken up by people at all levels of society where it took hold. If Chrisianity is true than Budhism is false as they are very different. Yet both did exactly what you have above.

Just because people believe that doesn't mean the belief is based on something real. Only that they strongly hold that belief.



And a promise that they would have everlasting life after death if they died that way. Islam makes the same promise and they get the same results upon occasion. They just prefer a bit more to do the killing instead being the killed but they did indeed die for their beliefs.

Just because someone thinks they will have an afterlife that does mean that they will. Its the belief that generates the behaviour and not a reality whether there is one or not.



I am a lousy example. I have changed. I was raised Catholic. I failed to resist learning about the real world.

Most people did resist change of course. Some didn't. They then resisted changeing back. The believers accumulated because they resisted the Romans.



He looks pretty darn distinct to me. How many people give religious lectures as a kid? Marjo Gortner only gave canned speeches from his parents when he was boy preacher (started at four).

Legendary figures tend to absorb the actions of others into their story. It happens with many such figures so why I don't anything that sets Jesus apart there. The stories need not be true stories either.



Its my job in this discussion to show where you are wrong or at least could be. I have never merely dismissed what you have said. Perhaps you think that because YOU HAVE merely dismissed what I have said. Often. Frequently. Without so much as a smidgen of justification. Well I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that you would accuse me of doing the same things you do, even though I didn't.

Oh and thank you for actually addressing your own issue for the first time. Prior to this you have tried to browbeat me by repeating "socialogical phenomana" without a hint of effort to support yourself. Didn't actually help you much since I allready understood the concept. I got it the first time. I simply don't see it as evidence of the Resurection. Its evidence of a strongly belief which is something often does not need to be based on reality. However this gave me the opportunity to deal with it on a more detailed basis.

Now since you have expected me to dismiss you out of hand just like you did me and I, as usual, actually addresed what you said are you going to pull that same garbage you pulled the last time or will you actually address what I said. You impoved in this post. Lets see you do some more of that and less of the pretense that I am ignorant.

Your not interested in discussion. Your interested in monologue. Bye bye.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


Your not interested in discussion. Your interested in monologue. Bye bye.

Interesting claim considering that I actully addressed what you said and you have been the one that was often responding with mere dismissals.

I ask for sources you drop ONE name. You finally explain your self in a little detail and when I reply you give me this bogus reply.

YOU don't want to discuss this. You started the thread. I guess you thought you were going to blow me out of the water. Apparently simply by declaring that you were better educated in the field than I am. Thats not enough. You need to explain yourself. You have made one attempt to do so. You reply to my reply shows that it is YOU that did want a discussion.

I have tried to have one with you. You have cosistently, sneered, dismissed, evaded, used bizzare logic, called legatimate analogies absurd, argued against what I said to other people in other threads and now you want to retreat while being disengenuous at best regarding me.

Typical of many in this kind of discussion. Either declare victory and then retreat or cast aspersions and then retreat.

[ckweb]

[Ethelred]

A smilely does not constitute a rebuttal.

You are the one that wanted a discussion. .

You got it.

I do not start these threads. I have NEVER started a religious thread

I tried to get you to discuss it. To all intents and purposes you have refused.

It was a plain lie to claim I was trying to engage in monologue. Nothing but. You were the one that refused to deal with my replies. I dealt with what you said. I did not merely make a few statements and then repeat them. I gave sources, links reason and analogies. You gave your opinion. You refused to support it. You only went into any detail once. I replied to it. I did not evade what you said. Instead of showing where you think I was wrong you insulted me.

That is not dialogue. Thats just plain insulting.

Thank you for your tastefull and polite surrender. It was illuminating in the deft and generous way you did so.

[ckweb]

You are right. I have been dismissive on some points. Why? Because I see no point to making an extensive reply. You prove the maxim, "A little education is a dangerous thing." An extensive reply on my part, as I've done on some issues, would only meet with an uneducated, opinion-based reply on your part or alternatively a misrepresentation of my statements so that you can more easily disagree with it (i.e. "straw man" representations of my argument) as has happened several times already. I've given up on trying to argue my point because you make it mean what you want (i.e. the "sources" issue) not what I mean.

If you are actually interested in the scholarly debate on the history of Israel, a good starting point would be to read Israel's Past in Present Research, edited by V. Phillips Long. It contains the best research in this area from all the varied and opposing viewpoints. Also available, an article supporting your basic views but much better argued is written by Niels Peter Lemche:

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_13.htm

On Christianity, you really need to start with some introductory history books. There are alot of good ones out there. I've found Christianity: A Social and Cultural History well done. But, there are literally hundreds of competent books on this topic.

On the historical Jesus, there are many competing scholarly voices. Leading scholars (of varying different takes on the issue, including against) include J.D. Crossan (esp. Birth of Christianity and The Historical Jesus), Marcus Borg, N.T. Wright (esp. Jesus and the Victory of God), J.P. Meier (esp. A Marginal Jew), E.P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus), Raymond Brown (The Birth of the Messiah and The Death of the Messiah), Paula Fredriksen (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), etc. etc.

Personally, I recommend Paula Fredriksen, N.T. Wright, and Raymond Brown as scholars largely representative of my views. Actually Fredriksen I haven't read but I have heard her speak so I assume I would agree with her book. Wright and Brown are sometimes too conservative for me but their scholarship is impeccable. They are extremely well respected.

Now, if you actually read these books and then interacted with me on your readings, we might be able to have a fruitful discussion. But, otherwise, I'm just speaking to someone who has no interest in learning, only justifying themself (which to me is monologue). And, that, is a waste of my time.