Martyrdom 2.1

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

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:

POOBAH
Mr. Carter, the fact that you consider the evidence for George Washington to
be equivalent to the evidence for Jesus speaks volumes for your ability to
accept basic historical information.

CARTER
1.  "Yes, we want extra-biblical (hearsay) evidence to prove the historical
validity of the martyrdom accounts."

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

3.  "Well, [insert person] actually believed in Jesus, therefore (logical
fallacy) he made up his historical report, and it is not admissible."

POOBAH
Mr. Carter, if I attempted to prove evolution to you by quoting Stephen
Gould, or attempted to prove the validity of the Book of Mormon by showing
you the testimony of Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, & Martin Harris, I am
certain you would talk of the former's "evolutionary bias" and the latters'
unreliability. We do no more with your Christian sources. Is there something
about this position that is unclear, contradictory, biased or
anti-Christian? If so, please explain it. Please explain why your texts
should be given special consideration, or how we are treating them
differently than any other ancient text.

What have you given as evidence? AFAIK, you mention Clement & Eusubius.
Clement wrote two generations after the supposed events, and Eusubius
hundreds of years after. In what way does this constitute evidence? If I
point you to a modern book that explains the miracles of Mohammed, would you
accept that as evidence? Would you accept a modern apologist text as proof
of the claims of Joseph Smith? Why should we treat Clement & Eusubius any
differently, especially in the case of Eusubius when scholars believe that
Eusubius played fast & loose with the truth?

Finally, on what criteria do you accept these extra-canonical texts as valid
other than that they agree with your point of view?

• Previous message: Martyrdom 2
• Next message: Martyrdom 2.1
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]