tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post4619849475961622391..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Another Response to David, Part 3: The Usual Pagan SuspectsBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-72828802002608940922008-08-30T17:13:00.000-04:002008-08-30T17:13:00.000-04:00Does anyone know why the heck blogger.com doesn't ...Does anyone know why the heck blogger.com doesn't like certain kinds of links in these comments? It seems like they sometimes append blogger.com to the beginning of the link.<BR/><BR/>I am using the a href="http.." method, maybe there is new html I'm not aware of (I'm pretty old school when it comes to html).davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-50968340393566154842008-08-29T10:35:00.000-04:002008-08-29T10:35:00.000-04:001. Dawson said: Luke 3:1 is about probably the cl...1. Dawson said: <I> Luke 3:1 is <BR/>about probably the closest (and only) reference in the gospels themselves which can be used to date any of the events they speak of.</I><BR/><BR/>The very link you provided refutes your own claims, go read it again. Also might want to check out the response given by Metacrock, www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Jesus_pages/refute_kirby.html<BR/>Isn't Peter Kirby the guy who sits around and monitors Wikipedia articles so his views remain intact…impressive. But that’s the kind of espousal I’ve come to expect from atheist apologists ;) Oh wait didn’t Kirby convert to a Catholic a year ago? (http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/04/atheist-peter-kirby-is-now-catholic.html)<BR/><BR/>2. Dawson said: <I> (I Timothy, which offers the New Testament’s sole reference to Pilate outside of the gospels and Acts, is pseudonymous) </I><BR/><BR/>Well since you simply asserted it, I can do the same (I Timothy which offers the New Testament’s sole reference to pilate outside of the gospels and Acts, is <B>not </B> pseudonymous). <BR/><BR/>3. Dawson said: <I> The earliest known tradition of Jesus has him crucified at some unspecified time in the past, treated by Paul as if it were not at all recent, without any indication of the circumstances or place of his crucifixion. The earthly life of Paul’s Jesus is as hazy as a wispy vapor. But as interest in Jesus grew, it would be natural for enthusiasts to wonder about Jesus’ earthly life. </I><BR/><BR/>Wow I feel like we’ve been round these tracks before, umm perhaps the James, the brother of the Lord, or maybe all there references I provided about Jesus’ earthly ministry in Paul. Its fun to make assertions and feel we’ve accomplished something, but as someone who loves the truth I am not attracted very much to a position that must defend itself in such a manner. Have you considered that this whole Wells legend argument was started for totally invalid reasons? I wrote a response to your original article and I assumed you were aware that G/T were not addressing the legend theory. Your immediate response was to talk about what “your position” was compatible with. I’m just saying, the whole reason we’re even on this conversation is completely misdirected given the nature of the original post.<BR/><BR/>Dawson said:<I> If he bases this dating on what we read in the gospels, then claiming that I Cor. 15:3-8 is too early to be legend simply begs the question against the legend theory (which is what Geisler and Turek were seeking to dismiss in the section of their book that I quoted in my blog).</I><BR/><BR/>Clear evidence of importing your legend theory into a strawman internal critique.<BR/><BR/>4. Dawson: <I> Even if we did have this in the case of the gospels, this would not seal the case for the historicity of the resurrection.</I><BR/><BR/>Did I claim that it did? No<BR/><BR/>5. Dawson: <I> Matthew and Luke were obviously using Mark's narrative as a model for their own (so they are not "independent sources")</I><BR/><BR/>Now you’re just being stubborn. Remember <B>you </B>were the one that brought up the fact that the Q source is easy to construct and clearly shows a separate source than Mark.<BR/><BR/>6. “Further confirmation of the Petrine authority behind Mark was supplied in a series of acute linguistic studies by C.H. Turner, entitled ‘Marcan Usage’, in the <I>Journal of Theological Studies</I>…showing, among other things, how Mark’s use of pronouns in narratives involving Peter seems time after time to reflect a reminiscence by that apostle in the first person. The reader can received from such passages ‘a vivid impression of the testimony that lies behind the Gospel: thus in 1:20, “we came into our house with James and John: and my wife’s mother was ill in bed with a fever, and at once we tell him about her.” (F.F. Bruce, <I>The New Testament Documents</I>, pg 33)<BR/>In addition Turner lists the following passages in which Mark demonstrates this: Mk 1:21, 29; 5:1, 38; 6:53, 54; 8:22; 9:14, 30 , 33; 10:32, 46; 11:1, 12, 15, 20, 27; 14:18, 22, 26, 32davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-46442045778796774982008-08-27T19:10:00.000-04:002008-08-27T19:10:00.000-04:00Besides, would it really make any difference if We...<I>Besides, would it really make any difference if Wells did have a Ph.D in New Testament Studies? Would this suddenly bestow his arguments with a gleam that would capture your attention and make you say, "Hey, this guy's onto something!"? My suspicion is that, even if Wells had 10 doctorates in fields ranging from ancient history, New Testament studies, theology, patristic literature, etc., believers would still find ways to dismiss his verdicts, in spite of the artificial requirement to possess such certifications.</I><BR/><BR/>This coming from the guy who said Geisler can't be a professional philosopher because his religious views are "anti-philosophical"...still waiting on that one.davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-73361322277520752872008-08-27T19:09:00.000-04:002008-08-27T19:09:00.000-04:00Dawson: Meanwhile, referring to Wells' case as "a ...Dawson: <I>Meanwhile, referring to Wells' case as "a tall order" simply because he does not have, say, a Ph.D in New Testament Studies, ignores his heavy reliance on scholars who do</I><BR/><BR/>Add up the number of scholars he cites who predate 1930 and you'll get my drift.davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-55133974574622414402008-08-27T19:07:00.000-04:002008-08-27T19:07:00.000-04:00Dawson:Of course, we can dismiss Wells because he’...Dawson:<I>Of course, we can dismiss Wells because he’s not a professor of New Testament Greek if you like.</I><BR/><BR/>I would do no such thing, but I will be more skeptical of his unsupported/uncited claims given his lack of formal education in the subject.<BR/><BR/>Contrary to your perception, a doctoral degree in Biblical theology , history, or languages requires intense study and academic critique by peers and professors....more than just a "certificate of completion."davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-17110836251225646892008-08-27T18:59:00.000-04:002008-08-27T18:59:00.000-04:00The Wells quote about Tacitus shows me 3 things:1....The Wells quote about Tacitus shows me 3 things:<BR/><BR/>1. Apparently he thinks he can date the document to 120 AD without a shred of evidence. <BR/><BR/>2. The evidence he does marshall mainly relies on Elmer Merrill's essay written in 1925. <BR/><BR/>3. The instances of unsupported speculation outnumber the arguments from secondary source material<BR/><BR/><BR/>Not very convincing.davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-14021215844657371212008-08-27T18:45:00.001-04:002008-08-27T18:45:00.001-04:00Dawson said: I did not find this quote on p. 47 of...Dawson said: <I>I did not find this quote on p. 47 of Wells’ Did Jesus exist? (I saw a full-page chart instead), nevertheless it reads like something he would write and describes his position. It may be that you have a different edition from mine? Or, you’re paraphrasing Wells? </I><BR/><BR/>I cited multiple sources spanning multiple pages, so this isn’t a direct quote.davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-40582285942178333152008-08-27T18:45:00.000-04:002008-08-27T18:45:00.000-04:00Robert_B: Until you respond to what Drew has writt...Robert_B: <BR/>Until you respond to what Drew has written over at DC I will not interact with you. I consider this cowardly, especially in light of the fact that you retitled your blog post and disabled comments.davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-51351607610975253592008-08-27T17:24:00.000-04:002008-08-27T17:24:00.000-04:00David: Jesus is a myth.Regarding the alleged pagan...David: <BR/><BR/>Jesus is a myth.Regarding the alleged pagan witness' to historicity of Jesus, interested parties may wish to read Jeffery J. Lowder's <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html" REL="nofollow">Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus - Is It Reliable?</A><BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm" REL="nofollow">Argument from Silence</A> is quite strong. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/seneca.html" REL="nofollow">Seneca</A> should have known about Jesus or Paul.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct04/Salisbury1012.htm" REL="nofollow"> History's Troubling Silence About Jesus</A> is deafening.<BR/><BR/>On Flavius Josephus, <A HREF="http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10.htm" REL="nofollow">Earl Doherty strongly and convincingly details why the ancient Jewish historian did not write anything about JC.</A><BR/><BR/>To assume the alleged Christians tortured by <A HREF="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html" REL="nofollow">Pliny</A> were evidence of a historical Jesus is to beg the question. See <A HREF="http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm" REL="nofollow">D.M. Murdock's article on Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius.</A><BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html" REL="nofollow">Richard Carrier</A> on Julius Africanus quotes Thallus.<BR/><BR/>If David thinks The Babylonian Talmud can rescue Christianities chestnuts, he should read "The Jesus the Jews Never Knew" by Frank Zindler. The most oft cited bit of Talmud used to trick people into believing Jesus was real is Sanh. 43a. It, however, is a known interpolation into the text made by scribes in response to Christian anti-Jewish Polemic. The passage in context is about Ben Stada's execution in Lydda not Jerusalem. Zindler p. 238-239<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/567" REL="nofollow">Lucian</A> was NOT a contemporary or eye-witness. Lucian does NOT mention Jesus OR the cult this man who was crucified in Palestine started. No one contest that Christians practiced their religion. The question is was there a historical founder named Yeshua. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.htmlmara%20Mara%20Bar-Serapion" REL="nofollow">Mara Bar-Serapion</A> is worthless as a witness to the historicity of Jesus. <BR/><BR/>There was no town or village of Nazareth in the first century. See <A HREF="http://www.nazarethmyth.info/" REL="nofollow">The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus by Rene Salm</A> <BR/><BR/>Jesus is almost the same as many other ancient pagan dying resurrecting savior gods. The spiritualists who made up the Jesus story had to sell something the credulous hordes would believe. All the elements of Jesus were in the air at the time. That is the expectations of the people for a demi-god savior demanded a character with the attributes of Jesus. See <A HREF="http://www.pocm.info/" REL="nofollow">Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth</A><BR/><BR/>But more importantly, gods are impossible. <A HREF="http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/" REL="nofollow">They really are impossible.</A> God cannot<A HREF="http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/materialist_apologetics/" REL="nofollow">exist.</A>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-65780826962537643252008-08-27T16:17:00.000-04:002008-08-27T16:17:00.000-04:00David wrote: As I have pointed out to Robert, i...David wrote:<BR/><BR/> As I have pointed out to Robert, if the early Christian community was pumping out lies left and right to build their case for Christ, why not put Peter at the pen on this document instead of Mark who was not an eyewitness? Especially at the time Papias was writing, when the apostolic pedestal found its high point.<BR/><BR/>I completely answered this in the prior thread. If David doesn't understand my explanation, then he just doesn't get it.<BR/><BR/>There were many competing Christian cults and many gospels about in the second century. But there was no central authority that could be regarded as "Christianity" per se. Any idea of a authoritative canon was far in the future after Irenaeus. <BR/><BR/>Papias' report of what Presbyter John (a likely con-man false prophet) said about the alleged documents, Mark and Matthew, is completely unreliable. <BR/><BR/>The notion you have that Peter was an eyewitness and Mark his student is viciously circular question begging.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html" REL="nofollow">There was a Gospel attributed to Peter (circa 70-160), but its docetic character rendered it unpalatable to the Catholics.</A><BR/><BR/>Hegesippus, one of the earliest chroniclers of the church, knew nothing of the canonical gospels. This is consistent with the late dating of the CG.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.com