Martyrdom 2
Achilles achillesz@usa.net
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:58:59 -0500 (00918561539, 05573884176538@unifour.com)
On 8 Feb 99, at 23:54, Jason Carter wrote:
> >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."
Achilles
No, this is not the problem. All the "evidence" you have presented has been
dealt with, and good reasons have been given not to trust them. You can either
a)try to find better sources b)try to rebut the impeachments that were dealt
your sources or c)simply ignore the rebuttals and cry foul. It seems you have
chosen option c. That is a very poor choice IMHOP.
> "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?
Achilles
If you want to relate particular events from the 80s, or the 1800s, that *in
and of itself* is fine. But a critical audience will still ask the basic
question, "how do you know?" and you should be ready to answer it.
A critical audience is not going to believe that this and that miracle
occurred, either in the 1800s or the 1980s, simply because you say it did. They
will want to know more about you, where you were at the time, what your sources
are in the case of events you didn't witness yourself... it is on the basis of
this sort of critical thinking that the sources you provided were impeached.
Either rebut the impeachments, or accept that your sources are not demonstrably
reliable.
> How much have you researched the "conflicting christian sources"?
Achilles
Apparently much more than you have.
> Have you
> ever read an authority's view on the subject?
Achilles
Many. Have you?
> Did you know that it is
> possible to distinguish between competing traditions? Did you know that
> people have done so?
Achilles
Of course! If you think this line of argument will rebut the objections raised
regarding your sources, by all means present them!
> 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?"
Achilles
That is precisely what I and several others here have done.
> >> 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."
Achilles
I am quite familiar with what textual critics do. Again, if you think this will
help you rebut the objections raised against your sources, by all means present
the evidence!
> >> 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
No, I don't remember anyone saying that. You have admitted that a non-christian
source would be preferable, were any available to you. You have said "examine
them as you would any history, and see if they are reliable" which is what we
have already done. The rest of your reply is a straw man.
Church historians certainly have a vested interest in defending church
tradition, that goes without saying. It does not render their testimony
worthless, it is one of many things to consider. A more important point,
however, is *on what basis* does a particular church historian make a
particular claim. If he does it simply on the basis of a doctrine such as papal
infallibility or biblical inerrancy then it rests on a basis reasonable people
will not accept. In the first case, of course, I imagine you would agree, since
you are not a catholic.
> 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.
Achilles
I am glad you realize that. Sometimes you don't seem to.
As to the burden of proof, YOU are the one who made the claim that all the
apostles were martyred for THEIR belief, as evidence that YOUR belief was true.
An assertion which begs so many questions I won't even attempt to list them.
/Achilles achillesz@usa.net
All rights reserved.
Random thought for the moment:
Goodness without wisdom always accomplished evil.
-- Valentine Michael Smith in Stranger in a Strange Land