(August 24, 2015 at 10:58 pm)Thena323 Wrote: No? That's it...Just no? Randy, I know you can do better than this.  I could explain this little 'misconception' if I cared to. You explained it to the Baptists.  So, why not break it down for these fine people?

Meh... In Randy's case brevity is much appreciated, since on virtually all issues sooner or later he will have to fall back on dogmatism. The way I see it - the sooner, the better.

Of course, I know what his explanation is/would be - something about there being a difference between devotion to Mary and adoration of Jesus/god/holy spirit, as stated in Catholic Catechism. The thing is - he might want to start explaining this to his fellow catholics, because half of them, when asked to name the 3 persons of the Trinity - says "Jesus, Mary and Joseph", or something to that effect...

(August 25, 2015 at 7:35 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Why do you say "so-called"? It IS evidence, and it IS indirect or circumstantial...so why the scare quotes?

Do you agree with the California judicial system that there is no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence"?

And what, specifically, do you find "incredibly shallow"?

I didn't add scare quotes... lol that was all you. In sum, I meant so-called with regards to your claim of miraculous occurrences. Circumstantial evidence, in this case, isn't an appropriate designation. I simply don't see a small collection of panegyrics and theologically-driven biographies as adequate, granted the nature of the claim Christians want to make, and considering all of the resources available, for establishing anything beyond that which most historians already acknowledge. In fact, the universal silence from the ancient world about Jesus' life on earth for the first thirty years following his public ministry and death, and outside of church politics for at least another century with a few exceptions of debatable significance, almost certainly attests to the fictional status of his resurrection and more substantial miracles that the three largely contradictory Gospel accounts must already lead one to conclude when read on their face.

The miracles were all so miraculous everyone got stunned and forgot how to write.

Stick with that.

(August 25, 2015 at 7:53 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 10:58 pm)Thena323 Wrote: No? That's it...Just no? Randy, I know you can do better than this.  I could explain this little 'misconception' if I cared to. You explained it to the Baptists.  So, why not break it down for these fine people?

Meh... In Randy's case brevity is much appreciated, since on virtually all issues sooner or later he will have to fall back on dogmatism. The way I see it - the sooner, the better.

Of course, I know what his explanation is/would be - something about there being a difference between devotion to Mary and adoration of Jesus/god/holy spirit, as stated in Catholic Catechism. The thing is - he might want to start explaining this to his fellow catholics, because half of them, when asked to name the 3 persons of the Trinity - says "Jesus, Mary and Joseph", or something to that effect...

Why would anyone take you seriously when you post stupid stuff like this?

(August 25, 2015 at 7:35 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Do you agree with the California judicial system that there is "no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence"?

No, I don't. Finding your DNA on a woman's panties after she alleges you've raped her is qualitatively far more conclusive as evidence that you did in fact do so than is her neighbour saying he thought he saw your car parked on the street that day.

(August 25, 2015 at 7:35 am)Randy Carson Wrote: What are you even considering as evidence for Christianity's claims? A brief list would be helpful here, if you could put something together.

All of the writings from the first one hundred years. Christian, Jewish, and pagan. I would also consider some that predate Christianity to acquaint myself with the culture and philosophy in which the authors of the new faith were deriving their inspiration and to understand how they were interpreting what they considered spiritual events.

(August 25, 2015 at 8:04 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Why would anyone take you seriously when you post stupid stuff like this?

Because your evasions lend his and others' arguments credibility.

(August 25, 2015 at 8:04 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Why would anyone take you seriously when you post stupid stuff like this?

Hmmm... I don't know. Maybe because next to your "efforts" - anything seems sensible?

(August 25, 2015 at 7:55 am)Nestor Wrote:

(August 25, 2015 at 7:35 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Why do you say "so-called"? It IS evidence, and it IS indirect or circumstantial...so why the scare quotes?

Do you agree with the California judicial system that there is no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence"?

And what, specifically, do you find "incredibly shallow"?

I didn't add scare quotes... lol that was all you. In sum, I meant so-called with regards to your claim of miraculous occurrences. Circumstantial evidence, in this case, isn't an appropriate designation. I simply don't see a small collection of panegyrics and theologically-driven biographies as adequate, granted the nature of the claim Christians want to make, and considering all of the resources available, for establishing anything beyond that which most historians already acknowledge. In fact, the universal silence from the ancient world about Jesus' life on earth for the first thirty years following his public ministry and death, and outside of church politics for at least another century with a few exceptions of debatable significance, almost certainly attests to the fictional status of his resurrection and more substantial miracles that the three largely contradictory Gospel accounts must already lead one to conclude when read on their face.

Who bothers to write a contemporaneous biography about someone who hasn't achieved anything yet?

There were a lot of neighbors who thought (Bill Gates, Alvin Edison, Henry Ford, Orville Wright, Steve Jobs...) was a bit of an odd-duck...working at all hours in his garage on some danged contraption...he didn't get famous until much later.

So, the biographies we do have were written retrospectively because AFTER these types of folks made it big, THEN people want to go back and learn about them.

Are the Gospels any different? Did Luke interview Mary, for example, to get the background story about the Annunciation from her?

But why would we expect there to be much written about Jesus in a largely illiterate age when even more famous people got scant mention in the ancient histories? Even Pontius Pilate was long-thought to be a mythical figure until an inscription bearing his name was finally discovered on a stone tablet a few years ago.

Jimmy Akin addresses this one point in "The Procurator and the Peasant" here, Nestor, and it would be worth reading.

I do appreciate your objections - you're clearly thinking which is refreshing in this forum - but you need to appreciate that they are easily overcome.

(August 25, 2015 at 8:16 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Who bothers to write a contemporaneous biography about someone who hasn't achieved anything yet?

One question, giving you one concrete example: Do you consider the vita Karoli as a 100 percent accurate account of the life of Charles Lemagne by todays standards?

There are of course many such accounts about different persons before and after. I only picked one of the more popular ones. But they all fall into the same category. Biographies. Same as the gospels.

(August 25, 2015 at 8:09 am)Nestor Wrote:

(August 25, 2015 at 7:35 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Do you agree with the California judicial system that there is "no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence"?

No, I don't. Finding your DNA on a woman's panties after she alleges you've raped her is qualitatively far more conclusive as evidence that you did in fact do so than is her neighbour saying he thought he saw your car parked on the street that day.

Are professional historians able to rely on that type of direct evidence, Nestor?

If not, are they unable to learn anything about the past?

(August 25, 2015 at 7:35 am)Randy Carson Wrote: d

Quote:What are you even considering as evidence for Christianity's claims? A brief list would be helpful here, if you could put something together.

All of the writings from the first one hundred years.

Christian, Jewish, and pagan.

I would also consider some that predate Christianity to acquaint myself with the culture and philosophy in which the authors of the new faith were deriving their inspiration and to understand how they were interpreting what they considered spiritual events.

That sounds good. I assume this means that you'll be reading the NT books as first-century Christian sources.

"Consider an analogy. We don't dismiss early American accounts of the Revolutionary War simply because they were written by Americans. We take their biases into consideration and sometimes their descriptions of events with a pound of salt. But we do not refuse to use them as historical sources. Contemporary accounts of George Washington, even by his devoted followers, are still valuable as historical sources. To refuse to use them as sources is to sacrifice the most important avenues to the past we have, and on purely ideological, not historical, grounds. So, too, the Gospels. Whatever one thinks of them as inspired scripture, they can be seen and used as significant historical sources." (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 74)