Martyrdom 2

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On 5 Feb 99, at 22:52, Jason Carter wrote:


> CARTER

> 

> Once again, I am amused (and saddened) at the total inability of those on

> the list to accept basic historical information. For those of you lurkers

> who do not want to sift through a long series of posts which score high in

> the verbiage department but have little substance contained within, I have

> summarized the entirety of the main skeptical arguments for you:

> 

> 1.  "Yes, we want extra-biblical (hearsay) evidence to prove the

> historical validity of the martyrdom accounts."


Achilles
We want anything that is not obviously unreliable. Obviously, an eyewitness 
account from a non-christian, known to be reliable, would be the best, but just 
about anything would be better than what we've seen so far - conflicting 
hearsay from christian sources decades or even centuries after the fact. 

What sort of evidence would you want before you would accept similar claims by 
a Moslem for his faith? That's the sort of evidence we want to see. You seem to 
have little to nothing of this calibre. 


> 2.  "Uh, ok, you've given us extra-biblical evidence, but it's all

> hearsay!"


Achilles
Conflicting hearsay from sources far removed from the supposed events. 


> 3.  "Well, [insert person] actually believed in Jesus, therefore (logical

> fallacy) he made up his historical report, and it is not admissible."


Achilles
And who has said that? In reference to whom? 


> 4.  "If the account was not witnessed PERSONALLY, even if it was written

> within a few YEARS of the event, (Ex. Clement(s)), it should not be

> considered as evidence."


Achilles
Hearsay is substantially less valuable than eyewitness reporting, that is for 
certain. I would not rule out the possibility of making a reasonable case on it 
though, if the fact that it's hearsay is the *only* problem with it. 

What precisely did Clement say? 


> (We can toss out all ancient historians on this matter to even further our

> ignorance!)


Achilles
You can if you insist, I suppose, but I certainly will not. 


> 5.  "We demand someone who was "disinterested" in the apostles to write an

> interested account of their death."


A disinterested source is more credible than a convert, for sure. How much 
credence do you give Mormon sources when you want to know what really happened 
to Joseph Smith? 


> 6.  "Conflicting accounts means we can't be sure of anything!"


Achilles
Well, if you have several traditions, which conflict, then obviously they can't 
all be right, now can they? 

Can the same apostle have been killed by spear, also killed by sword, and also 
died of natural causes? If so, could you please explain how? 


> 7.  "If any historian agrees that the majority of the apostles were

> martyred (which is pretty much ALL OF THEM, BTW), I will simply disagree

> with them, ask them to "trot out" pictures and video's of the occurance,

> and when they cannot, we will do a little jig and declare that we have

> shown that they were not martyred, or at least, we can wallow in our

> ignorance without a sense of guilt."



Achilles
And who said that? 

If a writer, "historian" or not, makes a pronouncement based on uncritical 
acceptance of untrustworthy evidence, that doesn't make the evidence any 
better. Surely you realize that! 

Btw, did you ever read the emails that I wrote in response to your request for 
my reaction to Turkels latest? Shall I take your silence to mean that you agree 
with my assessment? 

/Achilles     achillesz@usa.net

All rights reserved.

Random thought for the moment:

    I was there to see beautiful naked women. So was everybody else.
    It's a common failing.
           -- Edison Hill in They Do It With Mirrors

• Previous message: Martyrdom 2
• Next message: Martyrdom 2
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]