A little response to "How Did the Apostles Die?"
Jack Corbin errancy@infidels.org
Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:34:10 -0500 (00932880850, 379A5B82.10985397@execpc.com)
TILL
> This shows how very little you know about historiography. Historians do not
> automatically assume that an ancient document is telling the truth unless
> there are reasons to suspect otherwise. The information in ancient
> documents is subjected to very rigorous methods of evaluation to try to
> determine if there are sufficient reasons to accept the information as
> historical fact. What serious historiography would accept as historical fact
> that the emperor Vespasian healed a blind man and a man with a withered
> hand, just because both Tacitus and Vespasian reported that he did in their
> historical writings? I'm afraid you have been reading too many Josh
> McDowellian apologetic works.
THEO2217
> Mr. Till, in your debate against Norman Geisler, you seemed to insinuate
> that we were to evaluate the evidence in the NT by the laws of jurisprudence
> used in the courtroom. You claimed that since the NT testimonies of the
> Resurrection of Christ are not (sic) eyewitness testimonies, then we are to
> reject them as hearsay. You claimed that this was a rudimentary fact even
> used by Judge Wapner on People's Court. Are you going to use this courtroom
> scenario only in the area of hearsay and not in the the area of proving these
> men to be liars "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
ATTORNEY REVEREND FLUFFY
Uh-uh, my anonymous friend. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is for criminal
proceedings ONLY. "Preponderance of the evidence" is used in civil
proceedings. (While it's true that I consider Christianity to be an ancient
conspiracy to commit large-scale fraud, I nonetheless concede that all
matters related to Christianity are substantially civil court proceedings by
their nature.)
One possible synonym for "preponderance" would be "weight." The "weight of
the evidence." If you give disinterested first person testimony weight to
the statements of the gospel and epistle authors, Till will bury you. Don't
say that no one warned you.
THEO2217
> As for the claim about Emperor Vespasian, I do not know whether he healed
> a blind man with a withered hand. I have never looked at those historical
> documents. However, I must point out that you quoted this portion in
> response to my claim that we should more or less accept what documents say
> about non-supernatural events until we can prove the documents to be
> inaccurate. Hence, your statement about Vespasian has nothing to do with
> that particular argument I had made.
> The New Testament writers had no earthly thing to gain (except martyrdom)
> by describing the miracles of Christ; Vespasian, on the other hand, could
> gain political power and prestige. Also, the New Testament descriptions of
> events correspond to a large extent to the same events as mentioned in
> Josephus' "Antiquities" (e.g. the famine mentioned in Acts 11:28 is also told
> of in Antiquities 20:51-3, 101; Herod's death in Acts 12:23, Antiquities
> 19:343-52.)
ATTORNEY REVEREND FLUFFY
I don't understand why unremarkable events such as famines and deaths add
credibility to the scriptures if those scriptures agree with non-biblical
sources. If contemporary meteorologists, the bible, and Antiquities all
agree that Herod was married on a sunny day, what of it? If you wade through
the Book of Mormon, it's a near certainty that you'll find SOMETHING that's
true. And whatever you find in the Book of Mormon that's true, it's almost
certain that it will unremarkable -- as unremarkable as famines, and Herod's
death.
> There is also evidence that Luke's two volume work was written early:
> 1.) Acts never mentions destruction of Jerusalem--circa 70. (even though it
> is predicted in Luke 21:20-4!) 2.) Paul's and Peter's deaths not recorded.
> (prob. 64-70) 3.) The death of James, Christ's brother, is not
> recorded.--circa 62 (c.f. Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 9 Section 1 in
> William Whiston's translation) 4.) The massacre of Christians in Rome not
> mentioned (circa 64.) Also, the first person plural throughout Acts
> indicates that it was written by someone who travelled with the Apostles and
> could have easily been in a position to interview eyewitnesses. The Book of
> John claims to be written by an eyewitness, (John 21:24 c.f. references to
> the "disciple that Jesus loved, no doubt a modest self-reference) and the
> skeptic will usually hide behind the veil of contemporary scholarship and
> dismiss this statement a priori.
>
> More later....
> theo2217@aol.com (Rev. 22:17)
>
--
Love is an old man planting a tree he will never sit under