Originally posted by twhitehead"Your ignorance of..." is bad manners.
But pointing out that someone is ignorant of a certain topic or field is not.
[b]Not being an expert in a field is not the same as being ignorant.
Actually, it is being ignorant of, or at least partially ignorant of, that field.
No the Wikipedia page doesn't. It gives approximate dates for burial mounds for some characters mentioned in the ...[text shortened]... say 'I'm not including women'?
Must I find a mythological figure whose name starts with a 'J'?
No, I'm not assuming that anyone whose dates are precise must be historical. My claim was simply that it's unusual for a completely ficticious entity to be so accurately rooted in time. I'm not making a claim that it's high quality evidence, it was just an observation. You latched onto it in this mad attempt to refute something you don't particularly need to refute.
I was basing it on the date of the Census of Quirinus, which is when the Bible said he was born. The reference to Herod the Great is as follows:
(5) There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judæa, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.Which appears to just be saying when he was a priest. One would assume the Bible is refering to Herod the Great, but it could also be refering to Herod Archelaus. The narrative then talks about him being in conversation with the Archangel Gabriel and him being struck dumb. At some point before Luke 24 the narrative skips 10 years.
Luke 1:5
Authorised King James Version
(1)And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (2) (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) (3) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. (4) And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judæa, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David.) (5) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.I think it's just that there is a problem of time in Chaper 1 and the narrative skips ten years between the Archangel Gabriel appearing to Zachariah (John the Baptist's father) and the births of the children. The tax was levied in 6 AD. The bible is quite specific that that is when he was born.
(6) And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. (7) And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
Luke 2:1-7
AKJV
Saints aren't automatically supernatural, I don't know where you got that from.
25 Feb 16
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo when was Beowulf born and when did he die? Give the dates to within 5 years.
Yes you can. Beowulf's poem references specific historical events.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygelac
It is precisely Hygelac's presence in the poem [Beowulf] which has allowed scholars to tentatively date the setting of the poem as well as to infer that it contains at least some points of historical fact.
Romulus and Remus founded Rome on April 21, 753 BCE.
That was the official date they settled on during the Empire. Under the republic a variety of dates were given between 753 and 728. It's still fairly tight, I agree. Romulus seems to fit the requirements I asked for.
Socrates was born in 469 BCE. He dies in 399 BCE.
Socrates is not a mythological figure.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIn your culture, maybe. Not in mine. And its definitely not an insult.
"Your ignorance of..." is bad manners.
No, I'm not assuming that anyone whose dates are precise must be historical. My claim was simply that it's unusual for a completely ficticious entity to be so accurately rooted in time.
But when I suggest someone else you say that they must be historical because they are accurately rooted in time. Clearly circular logic.
You latched onto it in this mad attempt to refute something you don't particularly need to refute.
I don't need to refute anything. I do tend to try to refute things that I believe are not correct. I have no desire to prove Jesus is a mythical figure. I believe Carrier makes a good case that he was but its of no real consequence to me.
I was basing it on the date of the Census of Quirinus, which is when the Bible said he was born.
When one book of the Bible says he was born. Other books suggest otherwise. My point is that the uncertainty is clearly greater than your specified 5 years.
Saints aren't automatically supernatural, I don't know where you got that from.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-are-the-requirements-for-sainthood.html
edit: don't take offence at the name of the website, its just the first site that came up when I did a google search on the requirements for sainthood.
From Wikipedia on St Catherine:
St. Joan of Arc identified Catherine as one of the Saints who appeared to her and counselled her.
In the Catholic Church she is traditionally revered as one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers.
The furious emperor condemned Catherine to death on a spiked breaking wheel, but, at her touch, it shattered.
A tradition dating to about 800 states that angels carried her corpse to Mount Sinai. Her body was discovered around the year 800 at Mount Sinai, with hair still growing and a constant stream of healing oil issuing from her body.
Must I go on?
Sounds pretty supernatural to me.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Feb 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn your culture, maybe. Not in mine. And its definitely not an insult.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the most part, South Africans want to maintain harmonious working relationships, so they avoid confrontations.
From South Africa - Language, Culture, Customs and Etiquette
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/south-africa-country-profile.html
25 Feb 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe Gospels of Mark and John do not include the nativity. That leaves Matthew. Matthew is concerned with fulfilling old testament prophecy.
In your culture, maybe. Not in mine. And its definitely not an insult.
[b]No, I'm not assuming that anyone whose dates are precise must be historical. My claim was simply that it's unusual for a completely ficticious entity to be so accurately rooted in time.
But when I suggest someone else you say that they must be historical because they are a ...[text shortened]... healing oil issuing from her body.
[/quote]
Must I go on?
Sounds pretty supernatural to me.[/b]
Why didn't you just look up Saint on Wikipedia?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Feb 16
1 edit
What is a saint according to the Apostle Paul.
" Paul, a called apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Sosthenes the brother,
To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, the called saints, with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, who is theirs and ours." (1 Cor. 1:1,2)
Men and women who in every place have been set apart to be holy by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, are saints.
By trusting in Christ, indicated by calling on Him, they are set apart by God in a standing and position that is holy. They are positionally sanctified and called saints .
They do not ATTAIN to somekind of Sainthood latter after being super pious or super spiritual successes. Saints are not spiritual giants of any kind. Saints are people set aside by and unto God - sanctified in position in virtue of the fact that they have called upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (for salvation) and own Him as their Lord.
Does this mean a person should only call on Jesus and not seek dispositional sanctification in character through transformation ? Of course not. The Corinthian letter is written to the saints in the church in Corinth. Obviously, from reading the letter, there were those who were immature, those more mature, those abnormal in daily spiritual living, and those more normal in daily spiritual living.
Originally posted by sonshipActually I am Zambian and my parents were originally British. I see nothing wrong with saying "I am ignorant of Greek Mythology", or someone else saying to me "You are ignorant of advanced surgical procedure best practice." The phrase 'ignorant of' simply means 'you lack knowledge of'. The only time 'ignorant' becomes an insult is when used generally as in 'you are ignorant' as it means a general lack of knowledge which people consider a bad thing and thus insulting.For the most part, South Africans want to maintain harmonious working relationships, so they avoid confrontations.
I would describe my culture as a British - Zambian blend with a bit of international culture thrown in from watching too much tv/movies and having friends from various different cultures.
26 Feb 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBecause I didn't see it in the list of results. I checked again and it is there but titled "Canonization" which threw me off.
Why didn't you just look up Saint on Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization
I would appear procedures have changed over time and the requirements for miracles may be a recent one. Nevertheless, it is clear that in the Catholic tradition a canonized saint is a supernatural being that you can pray to and will perform miracles for you. I am not sure if Catherine was canonized, but I already listed some supernatural events related to her that should meet your requirements.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Actually I am Zambian and my parents were originally British. I see nothing wrong with saying "I am ignorant of Greek Mythology", or someone else saying to me "You are ignorant of advanced surgical procedure best practice."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if you are Zambian and your parents are British and have some international influence too, by your "culture," I guess you mean a moving target flexible enough, that nobody can pen you down.
In all cultures some folks rationalize their course behavior.
The people of strong British backround I have worked with, would be aiming to belittle someone by saying - "All you're doing is telling us about your ignorance of thus and such."
And I kind of suspect it would come over as a mean spirited remark in Zambia also.
The phrase 'ignorant of' simply means 'you lack knowledge of'. The only time 'ignorant' becomes an insult is when used generally as in 'you are ignorant' as it means a general lack of knowledge which people consider a bad thing and thus insulting.
I would describe my culture as a British - Zambian blend with a bit of international culture thrown in from watching too much tv/movies and having friends from various different cultures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you told DeepThought that there was no need for insults, did you have as much consideration for what his blending mix of cultures might be ? Maybe you could have asked about his parents and his birthplace correspondingly.
IE. " This tells us of your ignorance .... etc." is a bit rude. Of course switching hats between Zambian and British "with a bit of international" and whatever else, I am sure you can rationalize the mean spirited remark away somehow.
Originally posted by sonshipWhy would you need to pen me down? So you can find more silly quotes such as the one about South Africans not desiring conflict?
Well, if you are Zambian and your parents are British and have some international influence too, by your "culture," I guess you mean a moving target flexible enough, that nobody can pen you down.
When you told DeepThought that there was no need for insults, did you have as much consideration for what his blending mix of cultures might be ? Maybe you could have asked about his parents and his birthplace correspondingly.
He already admitted that calling me a donkey was a deliberate insult as retaliation for the perceived insult.
IE. " This tells us of your ignorance .... etc." is a bit rude. Of course switching hats between Zambian and British "with a bit of international" and whatever else, I am sure you can rationalize the mean spirited remark away somehow.
And now you are dishonestly implying that I brought up my origins in an attempt to rationalize away a mean spirited remark. I did no such thing. I brought it up in response to your silly quote about South Africans wanting to avoid conflict. And yes, I am now being mean spirited because you are being dishonest and mischaracterizing what I said.
It remains the case that if someone in a debate states that the do not know of examples of something a reasonable response is to suggest that that is merely because they are ignorant of said examples rather than that such examples do not exist. It is not insulting to do so unless the person in question claims to have knowledge in the field in which the examples lie and even then it is less insulting and more an accusation that the person is not as knowledgeable as they claim. It is not automatically 'mean spirited' to use such counter arguments.
My original comment about culture was because I realise that some words are much more offensive in some cultures than in others. But it is actually up to the person taking offence to determine whether or not offence was intended rather than using his culture as an excuse to take offence.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Why would you need to pen me down?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently you need to squirm. Donkey is somewhat better than slimy eel.
I might have called you a squirmy slimy eel based on my conversations with you.
So you can find more silly quotes such as the one about South Africans not desiring conflict?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly, I think lack of "confrontation" is what you studiously avoid.
Especially with Christians, you frantically avoid any possible concord.
Above you said Carrier's presentation of a mythic nature to Jesus Christ was persuasive.
But, no commitment to it definitely.
That's kind of squirmy. That's kind of hard to pen down.
I think you very much rely on taking unassailable positions. And even you do with manners.
He already admitted that calling me a donkey was a deliberate insult as retaliation for the perceived insult.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I saw just what occurred.
Okay Mr. Zambian, international, too much TV, British parents, not really all that South African, we understand. You're the only normal one. Everybody else is skewed.
26 Feb 16
Originally posted by sonshipNo, it isn't. Its just a factual representation of my views on the subject. The problem is entirely in your desire to pen my down on topic I have no particularly strong opinion on.
Above you said Carrier's presentation of a mythic nature to Jesus Christ was persuasive.
But, no commitment to it definitely.
That's kind of squirmy. That's kind of hard to pen down.
Its as stupid as saying that if I can't decide whether I like pink shoes better than purple ones then I am 'squirmy' and worthy of being called an eel.
I think you very much rely on taking unassailable positions.
I would agree that most of my positions are unassailable, but that's because they are correct, not because I am squirmy. There are times when I refuse to be put in the box you want me in but again, that's entirely on you. You frequently make up a whole edifice of what you think my position is based on your mind reading skills and then refuse to accept that my position is not what you demand it to be despite my repeatedly pointing out that it is not. That is called a strawman argument, and you like them very much.
Okay Mr. Zambian, international, too much TV, British parents, not really all that South African, we understand. You're the only normal one. Everybody else is skewed.
Again, you are deliberately and maliciously mischaracterizing what I have said. You are skewed, thats for sure, but I have not accused anyone else of being so, at least not in this thread. And no, you cannot claim that I am being squirmy by refusing to accuse everyone of being skewed.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I would agree that most of my positions are unassailable, but that's because they are correct
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. More often it is because you are tentative and make sure you don't commit to them.
Then you can always says, "I never said ...".
What Richard Carrier shows is that the most rational explanation (and in some cases, the only rational explanation) is that fiction is being written.
In which cases. Give TWO that there is no other explanation except fiction is being written in the Gospels.
If you back off now and rationalize that I don't understand what you wrote, I will probably point out that you don't want to commit to what you wrote.
TWO cases in the Gospels - IT CAN ONLY be fictional writing -
But what you appear to be missing is that Richard Carrier does not require for his argument that you accept that it is DEFINITELY fiction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So then, if I don't accept his argument and refute it .... well, it doesn't matter because acceptance is not required. Another unassailable posture.
The debate was all about whether or not the documents, when viewed from a non-theistic stand point support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Clearly they do not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the better explanation is that a miracle occurred.
This spread of the church life did not grow like wild fire off in Galilee. It occurred right in the very city where Jesus was condemned and executed, Jerusalem.
Richard Carrier is a historian and is viewing the documents from a historical perspective and asking what the best interpretation is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This argument is something like saying "We know God could not have created the world because that would interfere with the separation of church and state."
Richard Carrier is a historian. He is also an Atheist who has a metaphysical bias that not miracle could occur in human history. Or naturalistic explanation should be sought before supernatural explanations.
Historians, exhausting naturalistic explanations, include the possibility that a miracle of resurrection occurred which turned Jerusalem on its head - the very place where Jesus was definitely buried.
And he was buried not by one of the twelve disciples but by a member of the opposing body - the Sanhedrin court. Historians also account for information that is likely NOT fiction. It is unlikely that the disciples proclaiming that Jesus rose from the dead, would include in thier "fiction" that the opposing body of critics buried their Master.
Joseph of Arimethia was a member of the Sanhedrin who were all to eager to see Jesus killed. It would be of no profit to the disciples of Jesus to record in their Gospels that the entombment of Jesus they were too scared to see to. A somewhat more sympathetic member, or at least considerate member, took care of the burial.
And another thing, while I think of it. The contraversy over exactly WHERE this tomb is argues, I think, that the disciples down through the subsequent years were more occupied with the fact that He was not buried but was alive.
Had there been so clear a knowledge of where Jesus was buried, that would indicate that was something to take much closer note to. The reason it is argued over by religious profiteers to this day is probably because the first century Christians cared more for the fact that He wasn't in the grave.
So far you have given me no reason to disagree with him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit to explaning why the powerful enemies of Jesus either among the Jews or the Romans, simply did not produce the corpse of Jesus in Jerusalem to shut down the new "cult." Take a position without obscurity or fog or a handy back door to argue latter - "I never said ... " .
Originally posted by sonshipYou mean I don't commit to what you thought you mind read me thinking. When I say "I never said" its because I never said, and you are attributing to me stuff I do not hold nor have claimed to hold. Its not that I 'don't commit to them' its that I don't hold them at all. The problem is you keep wanting me to commit to stuff you made up about me. Sorry, but I am not interested in playing that game.
No. More often it is because you are tentative and make sure you don't commit to them.
Then you can always says, "I never said ...".
What Richard Carrier shows is that the most rational explanation (and in some cases, the only rational explanation) is that fiction is being written.
In which cases. Give TWO that there is no other explanation except fiction is being written in the Gospels.
If you back off now and rationalize that I don't understand what you wrote, I will probably point out that you don't want to commit to what you wrote.
TWO cases in the Gospels - IT CAN ONLY be fictional writing -
Go watch the debate again, Carrier lists several.
So then, if I don't accept his argument and refute it .... well, it doesn't matter because acceptance is not required. Another unassailable posture.
No, you have misunderstood. You are free to try and refute his argument. You didn't. You misunderstood his argument.
Clearly, the better explanation is that a miracle occurred.
No, that is most definitely not the better explanation.
This argument is something like saying "We know God could not have created the world because that would interfere with the separation of church and state."
No, not at all.
Its like saying: We know that Last Thursdayism is a perfectly valid philosophy, but if you want anyone else to buy into it, you have to provide evidence.
Richard Carrier is a historian. He is also an Atheist who has a metaphysical bias that not miracle could occur in human history. Or naturalistic explanation should be sought before supernatural explanations.
Correct.
It is unlikely that the disciples proclaiming that Jesus rose from the dead, would include in thier "fiction" that the opposing body of critics buried their Master.
And how do you know that? It seems perfectly likely to me.
And another thing, while I think of it. The contraversy over exactly WHERE this tomb is argues, I think, that the disciples down through the subsequent years were more occupied with the fact that He was not buried but was alive.
Or they knew he was entirely fictional. Note Carriers argument that if Jesus were a real convicted convict they would not have been so eager to announce to the world that he was walking free.
Commit to explaning why the powerful enemies of Jesus either among the Jews or the Romans, simply did not produce the corpse of Jesus in Jerusalem to shut down the new "cult." Take a position without obscurity or fog or a handy back door to argue latter - "I never said ... " .
It is Carriers position that no such 'powerful enemies of Jesus' existed because neither did Jesus. The authorities of the time seemed remarkably unconcerned about the new cult claiming that an escaped convict was on the loose.
But I must note here that I do not need to 'commit' to explaining this to you. Its not as if I have any strong opinions on the matter. I think Carrier makes some very good points. It is not up to me to defend him or commit to anything. I would be interested in anyone who can show that he has made serious errors or can show that his general argument has flaws, but so far you have utterly failed to do either and seem more interested in finding a way to attack me personally by assigning to me views I do not hold or deliberately and maliciously suggesting I have said things I have not.