Martyrdom 2

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

At 11:25 PM 2/5/99 -0500, you wrote:

>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. 


CARTER
Basic historical textbooks are generally not 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. 


Obviously, an eyewitness account from a non-christian, known to be
reliable, WOULD be best, but since we have virtually nothing from that time
period, this is simply saying "I want more, and I don't want to deal with
the evidence presented."

"Decades after the fact"...examine that Archilles. Am I not allowed to
relate to what happened in the 80's because it is "decades" after the fact?
Am I not allowed to relate what happened in the late 1800's, because it is
a CENTURY AFTER THE FACT? 

How much have you researched the "conflicting christian sources"? Have you
ever read an authority's view on the subject? Did you know that it is
possible to distinguish between competing traditions? Did you know that
people have done so? 
Instead of just saying, "Well gosh darn, we have competing Christian
traditions, should you not examine them as you would any history, and see
if they are reliable?" A few starters: Earlier references are generally
more reliable, how adept as a historian was the writer, etc..


>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. 


CARTER
The Moslem claim for faith does not rest upon the miraculous. 


>> 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. 


CARTER
Again, believe it or not, it is possible to distinguish between traditions.
The whole process of textual criticism involves distinguishing original
text from mistranslation, typists errors, different strains, etc. to get
the purest form. 
Textual critics do not just say, "Well gosh darn, we have two varient
readings, therefore the text is completely incorrect, and we must give up."


>> 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? 


The common appeal has been, "show us a NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCE", who is
unbiased (no such thing BTW) and disinterested. The reason given is the
absurd, "Every church historian has motivies to make up what he wants about
the martyrdom of the apostles." I beg to differ. 


>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. 


CARTER
Hearsay is the means by which most of history is written. 


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



>Achilles

>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! 


CARTER
Yes, I realize that, however, the burden of proof is on you when you
challenge an authority in his or her respective field. 


>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? 


CARTER
No, it means I haven't had time yet. I promise I will get to it.

Cheers,
-Jason

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