Jesus thread continues.

No it doesn't. At least not for a day or two.

Things are getting a little too hot, and everyone needs to calm down. I'll re-enable posting on Monday.

This topic is again open for posting.

Question: Does this board qualify as the Second Coming? If a third one ensues, will that make it a Trinity?

Zarm Rkeeg: I'm not asking about flood eyewitnesses… but why is it inconceivable that multiple stories based on an historical event would pop up from descendants of the witnesses of that event? (A.k.a. Is it so inconceivable that all of these are parallel stories that grew out of one event, instead of simply being re-tellings of each-other?)
Luigi Novi: If they all grew out of the same event, then why is Gilgamesh the central character of one, but Noah the character in the other? Why does the Bible, if the inerrant word of God, say that Noah was not only the central character, but that he and his families were the only human survivors, if other stories indicate that there were others, like Gilgamesh? If it was a global flood, then why are the only cultures who tell it the ones that either lived near major river bodies of water, or in areas otherwise subject to flash-flooding, but ones that do not live in such areas lacking in flood myths?

Zarm Rkeeg: That is based on your assumption that the Biblical account is based on earlier accounts, not an actual event. This is conjecture- you have no proof of this. Neither does Michael Shermer.
Luigi Novi: Let me ask you a question, Zarm:

Isn't that an “assumption”?

Why do you assume that the dating of different materials from different ancient cultures is based entirely on assumption? You're saying that you don't accept the sciences of archaeology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, early human history, comparative literary analysis, and all the other disciplines by which researchers do this? If so, then on what basis have you concluded that such conclusions are simply “conjecture”? Shermer has no proof? Really? How do you know this? You're saying that he has not read and studied the Bible, both as a believer (he used to be a born-again Christian), and critically? He hasn't studied the history behind it and its writing? He hasn't studied the various sciences by which aspects of it are analyzed? He hasn't written numerous books in which he presents his arguments and cites his sources? Really? How do you figure this? Have you ever read anything by him or listened to his arguments? If so, where do you dispute his material? If not, then what is your basis for your assertion that his statements are simply “conjecture”?

One piece evidence, for example, is the aforementioned fact that cultures in locations subject to flooding have flood myths, but ones that are not do not. Is this the one-and-only conclusive bit of evidence that in and of itself, somehow “proves” that the Noachian story was a creative narrative rather than an actual event? No, not in and of itself. All data from different fields must be examined to see what conclusions, if any, they converge upon. But to say that people like Shermer have “no proof” at all of their conclusion about the Bible's nature, while simultaneously claiming that you do for yours, when all you can provide are forged artifacts, false statements about peer review, and rhetoric, is to be kind, specious. Shermer, at least, researches what he talks about for a living, backs up his conclusions, illustrates his sources, and does not argue on an a priori basis. Can you say the same?

Zarm Rkeeg: By dating what? The writings that we have of them?
Luigi Novi: Yes. There are extant samples of the ancient cuneiform of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which you can see here.

Zarm Rkeeg: Unless you have a way to confirm that these are both original manuscripts in which the story was recounted for the first time, you can prove nothing more than the first physical instance of their appearance- but with the heavy oral traditions of most ancient cultures, there's no definitive way to prove the origin of the story itself.
Luigi Novi: If we are able to date, through archaeology and other means, the dates of various cultures and the locations in which they flourished, and determine when the societies did so in different locations, then it is reasonable to determine that a story that appeared in one society long before another one even existed is the one from which the latter one was copied. We don't merely date the manuscripts or the copies; we can date when the texts themselves were written. The Torah, for example, was written from mid to late 15th century BCE, according to both the Bible itself and fundamentalist scholars, so even the most conservative believers do not argue it was written earlier than that. (Biblical minimalists and centrists put it much later. Academics tend to place it between the 10th and 6th century BCE.) By contrast, scholars believe that if Gilgamesh was historical, that he reigned in the 26th century BCE, with the earliest Sumerian versions of The Epic of Gilgamesh appearing between 600-400 years after his reign.

Zarm Rkeeg No. Your polite suggestions aside, you continue to assume that my question implies a lack of knowledge about the concept- not a lack of conviction that the concept works.
Luigi Novi: It is not an assumption. It's something you have already proved on that prior board.

Zarm Rkeeg: Did you ever consider that the information I researched didn't satisfy me as to the objectivity of Peer Review Process, and I wanted your opinion on the subject?
Luigi Novi: No, I don't consider the idea that you wanted my “opinion” on the subject, and I reject the notion entirely, since it's not a question of opinion. The Peer Review Process is a process with a specified description/definition. So why would I have an “opinion” on what it is that's any different from what any objective source would have?

Zarm Rkeeg: As for your previous response- I'm a bit embarrassed to admit I'd forgotten which board it was on… I'll research that sort of thing better in the future.
Luigi Novi: You'd forgotten which board it was on? Despite the fact that I flat-out stated here in my Saturday, June 18, 4:32 am post that it was “on the PM evolution v. creationism boards in October of 2004”? Was that not detailed enough for you? Just how much in the way of directions do I have to give you, Zarm?

Zarm Rkeeg: But your continued implications are unwarranted and unfair- is it lacking in intellectual curiosity that I want to hear your views on the subject rather than Wikipedia's?
Luigi Novi: Yes. If you were really interested in understanding the concept, you'd seek out primary sources on it to learn about it, since that's what informs my “view” on it in the first place. Do you think I invented the concept of Peer Review myself, and not that I learned about it by reading up on it? Why not go to the horse's mouth? Even if we were to indulge your idea that the definition of the PRP was somehow subject to individual “opinion” or “view,” then at the very least, why not research both? Why not ask me my “view” on it, while simultaneously doing at least a cursory search on it using online reference? Simple. Because you and I both know that you're not in the habit of researching ideas and arguments that might potentially refute your own (contrary to how the Scientific Method works), and since the definition of the PRP is not something that can be manipulated in order to support your position, you are simply employing this new tactic of “I was just asking your opinion” to cover up the fact that you did not read up about it yourself.

Zarm Rkeeg: WHAT? I haven't gone anywhere- I've wasted most of my week on this board! And yes, I probably did drop off after that post- so what? I was extremely tired of the debate and very busy at the time- what do you want from me? I'm back now, for all the good it does me, and rapidly remembering why I left in the first place! I'm sorry if you felt that I picked a poor time to leave the debate, but I don't see why you insist on categorizing it as an excuse.
Luigi Novi: Because A. your absence came right after someone refuted a false statement you made, and B. you continue not to respond to that refutation even now, two things that serve to insulate you from having to take responsibility for that false statement, and are therefore, quite convenient for you. The one could be chalked up to incidence. The fact of the latter along with it makes the real reason clear.

You remember why you left in the first place? And why is that? Because you realize that you couldn't peddle your fallacies without being called on them? Because you found that there were people here that weren't fooled by your Astroturf Logic, and knew how to point out the flaws in your arguments? Because you were held accountable for your words and deeds? Are you implying by this refrain that you were somehow a victim of this, as if you have some entitlement to get away with promoting canards?

Zarm Rkeeg: First off, my poor choice of examples does nothing to mitigate bias on behalf of other individuals except my some twisted, ad hominim logic.
Luigi Novi: By itself, perhaps not. Taken in conjunction with your failure to prove your own accusation of bias against others, which makes it clear that that accusation is just rhetorical, it does show you to be operating on a clear double-standard. In short, when a person whose bias and poor research/discussion skills are so blatantly obvious accuses someone operating with a far greater modicum of objectivity, fairness and care in research of bias, without even trying to illustrate that charge, while his opponent has actually done so for him, it grants the accuser a low level of credibility in the discussion.

Zarm Rkeeg: Secondarily, what are you looking for, Luigi? I let the matter drop- I was signaling my concession.
Luigi Novi: Really? Not responding is the same as signaling a concession? How do you figure this? And to whom were you signaling your concession? Josh Gould, who pointed out that the paper was discredited? Or me, who pointed out, in response to your defiant insistence that the paper was indeed both peer reviewed and approved, and that the process was merely our “stoopid qualification”, the more fundamental point that Peer Review, in and of itself, doesn't constitute peer approval? On which point were you conceding? And how would a casual observer know that merely not responding constituted a concession? And if you were conceding what Peer Review actually meant, then why did you again make an unsupported assertion about Peer Review on this board?

As you can see, it's a bit simplistic to say that merely not responding in an issue of some complexity constitutes a “concession.” At best, a casual observer might take such lack of response as concession, or as stonewalling. It's specious to argue that it is obviously the one and not the other.

Zarm Rkeeg: Yes, I fell into the trap of accepting it's credibility without enough research- so what are you looking for? A public apology? I was wrong, okay? I was in error, and I made an incorrect statement. Now can you drop the matter, or do I have to get an engraved plaque and a megaphone?!?
Luigi Novi: I don't recall saying I was “looking for” anything. I generally do not make demands of others' with regard to how they conduct themselves. I merely allow them to behave according to their own tendencies, and react by making observations of their statements, noting that their position is either internally consistent, or not internally consistent.

But if you want some common sense suggestions on how to conduct oneself in a discussion such as this-

-I would not presume that something is true just because I state that it is. Bold Statements do not make something factual.
-I would use some degree of care in choosing my words insofar as proper meaning, usage, and context, and in reacting to someone else's.
-I'd do a bit of research and double-checking. Asking someone else for something I can find out with a nearby reference source, simply because I'm afraid of what that reference source might tell me, or because I'm too lazy to do so, shows a poor set of research skills, and a lack of care with the facts. Yes, I might not have all the time needed to do so. But I would respond that A. I can do some amount of it, and B. The lack of time I have to do the necessary research does not mitigate the necessity of it, or how the lack of it will hurt my arguments and counterarguments. The fact that I haven't learned how to fix cars won't change the fact that if I set myself up as a mechanic, I'm going to do poorly, not matter how good an reason I have for my lack of prerequisite knowledge. Discussion, debate and investigation are no different.
-If someone proves me to be wrong on something, particularly a large fundamental point of my position, or one of the major lines of reasoning or argument I use in illustrating it, I'd say so. I wouldn't fail to respond, and then do it again months later, and pretend not to be able to double-check that prior exchange even after they've pointed it out to me.
-I wouldn't make accusations regarding the other person's attempt, such as bias, unless I can illustrate it.
-If someone presents a conclusion on an idea that is at odds with my own, I wouldn't automatically assume that he/she hasn't done the necessary research on the subject. Granted, I might present my view that conflicts with his/hers, but I'm not going to arbitrarily deem by mere fiat that his/her statements are nothing more than “conjecture,” unless I've read their material on the subject, particularly if I myself haven't studied it from a critical approach myself.
-If I claim to adhere to a certain principle, then I had better do so, and if I criticize others for a certain failing, then I'd better avoid that behavior myself, or at least come clean when I fail to do so. If I don't, then I'm operating on a double-standard.
-If I want to approach a given idea or claim with the appearance of empirical objectivity and fairness, then it would behoove me to actually be objective and fair, which means, for example, that even if I may have a pre-existing belief or view of it, that I not only look for evidence or reasoning that may prove it, it but that which may disprove it as well, and revise my position when necessary, since this is part of the Scientific Method.
-Similarly, I would acknowledge the existence of Logical Fallacies, and other Ways in Which Thinking Goes Wrong, and attempt to avoid employing them.
-I wouldn't deliberately misquote someone out of context, pretending that single sentence or question that I've isolated from the greater context of the entire passage is “exactly” what they've said, particularly when removing that sentence and not providing that greater context changes the intended meaning behind it, especially to casual observers.
-I would recognize the important distinction between matters of faith/opinion/emotion, and matters of empiricism/science/fact/reason.

Zarm Rkeeg: The tense usages in Genesis 2:8-9 are a little confusing at first, but the creation order is not contradictory. The Lord made Heavens/Earth, the lord made man- but he had already planted the vegetation and created the animals- they just aren't referenced in chronological order within the chapter- but they are referenced as having occurred in chronological order.
Luigi Novi: My Bible clearly states that no shrub or plant of the field had sprung up by the time he created man, and that after a stream came up, the Lord formed man from the dust of the ground, and then planted gardens and made trees grow out of the ground.

Genesis; Chapter 2
⁴This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens-⁵and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not yet sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, ⁶but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-⁷the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

⁸Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. ⁹And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.

As it states, he made man, and then gardens and trees. I found nothing confusing about it.

Zarm Rkeeg: SO WHAT? You continue, along with your citing of other cultural myths, to imply that the fact that there are knock-offs implies that the original can't be true either.

Luigi Novi: I said no such thing. As far as Apollonius, some believe he may actually have been the basis for Christ. You'd know that if you read the link. The Wikipedia entry isn't even that big.

Zarm Rkeeg: Precisely. 'Some believe,' but isn't arguing any of the points based solely on beliefs what you've been arguing against, here? What does Apollonius have to do with anything?
Luigi Novi: I'm not arguing any point based solely on belief, or for that matter, on belief at all. My point is that Apollonius could have been the basis, or part of the basis, for Jesus Christ.

Zarm Rkeeg: Oh, right. You mean like healing the blind, curing a crippled man, and raising someone back to life. I'd like to see that Penn & Teller show.

Luigi Novi: Read James Randi's The Faith Healers, which details his expose of preachers like Peter Popoff as frauds. Popoff too claimed to heal people. Randi showed that he actually didn't.”

Zarm Rkeeg: So what? You're continuing with the “knockoffs are fake” line of thought, as if that has some basis on the original.
Luigi Novi: What does the above statement by me have to do with “knockoffs”? Where in that statement do I even mention any knockoffs? The point is that it is easy for conjurors to create the illusion of things we may think are impossible.

Zarm Rkeeg: BTW- the individuals in the Bible are often described as having been well-known as injured/disabled for years- and I doubt that Penn and Teller could have brought a man dead for four days…
Luigi Novi: Yeah. “Described” as injured/disabled or dead. That doesn't mean that they were. Even if Christ existed, and these events occurred, there is no way to confirm that they actually were injured or dead, and not simply confederates of Christ, who might've been a magician. In a factual approach to these stories, conventional explanations have to be first excluded before you can explain it with non-conventional ones. We cannot exclude the conventional explanation that Christ was just a charlatan who packed the audience with confederates.

Zarm Rkeeg: Once again, these 'debunkings' from Shermer are not only full of holes, they prove nothing more than the Biblical arguments that he claims are based on personal opinion!

Luigi Novi: No, they're based on evidence, reason, and adherence to the Scientific Method, which he always illustrates.”

Zarm Rkeeg: Not any of the examples you posted.
Luigi Novi: Again, Bold Statements do not make facts. Merely stating that Shermer does not provide reasoning for his position, or bases it on evidence, does not make it true, nor does merely stating that the examples I provided don't allude to it. Just because you reject the argumentation he provided-which in itself, was merely the portions that could be fit into a half-hour where he was one of the people consulted-does mean that he did not provide it. He made the point that retaining two of 10 billion species on a single boat and distributing them in such a way that would account for current-day geozoology (marsupials in Australia, for example), which is a valid point. He pointed out that there is no archaeological evidence that indicates the presence of 600,000 people wandering around in the desert for 40 years. He pointed out that there were many Messiahs in 1st century Palestine, which might've been the basis for Christ. He pointed out that if you want to insist that you have evidence of a claim, then you'd better provide it, or else stop saying that it's more than a matter of faith, but a matter of empiricism as well. These are all examples of the evidence or reasoning he offered in that program that I quoted.

Moreover, you are attempting to shift the point of bringing up Shermer away from the one you originally made to which my mention of him was a response. Your original point was that Jesus' historicity is a peer-reviewed accepted fact. This was untrue, as there is no such consensus in the scholarly community on this point, and hence, all I had to do was show that there is dispute among scholars on the subject. I did that. Whether you disagree with the reasoning and evidence provided one by one of them (let alone the pretense that he doesn't base his position on any), is an entirely separate point. The original one is one you have not answered.

Zarm Rkeeg: Ah, one of those good old objective 'facts?' Face it, Luigi- this guy is using terms even more loosely than I do!

Luigi Novi: How so? Again, this is a conclusion that he has come to from reading and researching the topic critically.”

Zarm Rkeeg: No. Like the passage I noted beforehand, Shermer states the 'fact' that the Bible is “human-edited, socially-constructed collection of books, put together by people over many, many centuries.” What fact? Based on what?
Luigi Novi: Based on his study of it, and the history and culture behind how and when it was written and put together. Another source that reflects this view is here. It's not like he's the only one saying this, Zarm. It's almost as if you're shocked to hear an academic say this. Should I gather that this is your first encounter with a critical, non-apologist view of the Bible by an academic?

But even if you think it's premature of him to use the word “fact,” that particular use of it could be thought to have been more along the lines of the casual way people use the word in everyday speech, as people sometimes do with words in general. (My personal pet peeve is when people misuse the word “literally.”) In any case, you still haven't shown how this example is more loose than your own looseness with language. Is his vocabulary habitually as bad as yours?

Again, Bold Statements are of little value when you do not back them up.

Zarm Rkeeg: Shermer is looking at the Bible as critically as you say I am… just from the other side.
Luigi Novi: Again, looking critically at something means looking at it in an objective, unbiased manner, looking for information that might confirm or contradict given ideas, even if it means challenging widely-held beliefs or the status quo. Shermer does this, and explains how this is done in his books. By contrast, I have already shown that you do not. Saying that you look that the Bible as critically as Shermer does is specious.

Zarm Rkeeg: Certainly, you could claim that all of these were fakes, frauds, or populations of a cultural myth. But as I was trying to suggest above, why do other historical figures like Ceaser not bear this kind of doubt and scrutiny?

Luigi Novi: Because of the fact that he left multiple lines of contemporaneous evidence that all converges upon the same conclusion. Caesar, for example, wrote two books. Where are the books that Jesus wrote? Caesar wrote letters to people, and others wrote letters mentioning him, which were contemporaneous with his life. Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?

Zarm Rkeeg: Um, that would be called the New Testament. :-)

Luigi Novi: The New Testament does not contain any letters written by anyone claiming to have been Christ, nor anyone claiming to have met him, and therefore, is not equivalent to the letters written by, to, or about Caesar. Hence the Caesar comparison, which is often used by Christian apologists in arguing Christ's historicity, is just flat-out wrong.”

Zarm Rkeeg: I've already agreed that Caesar was a bad example. However, that's not what you asked. You asked “Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?” which is EXACTLY what the New Testament (except for the first few gospels and account books) IS.

Luigi Novi: No. That is not what I asked. You are now engaging in a deliberate and knowing LIE, and I'm going to expose it. That is not what the exchange was. You deliberately edited out the rest of the passage to remove the context-the second time you have done this with regard to that exchange. I restored the full context in my last post, and you again removed it. Observe the five-part exchange I've quoted just above in red. Your original question was about CAESAR. You asked why historians treat Caesar differently from Christ. That was your original question. I answered it by pointing out that contrary to the notions advanced by Christian apologists, Caesar left much contemporaneous evidence, all of which is authenticated, and all of which converges upon the factual nature of his existence. As an example, I mentioned, among other things, the books he wrote, and the letters written to, from, and about him. My question with regard to Christ, therefore, was to ask you where are the EQUIVALENT letters-that is, the equivalent letters written by Christ, about Christ, and to Christ, and in his lifetime. The Gospels are not this. Yes, you admitted that the Caesar argument is a bad one, but you continued on with the New Testament comment, except that now you're attempting to take out away from the original context of the Caesar line of argument, pretending that my original question about Jesus' ministry was not in actuality made in reference to your original comparison with Caesar. You first did this bit of selective quoting in your June 17th post, but I didn't make an issue out of it, because you didn't explicitly attempt to argue it out of context (though I wondered if that was your intention). I simply responded to it by restoring the entire exchange, and now, you're again attempting to decontextualize it, except that now you're being a bit more bold and shameless in doing so EXPLICITLY.

Zarm Rkeeg: No, those were your exact words. You asked “Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?” (exact quote.) You never stated that you were asking for “letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus written by Him, to Him, or contemporaneously to Him, just like Caesar.
Luigi Novi: Your continued insistence on this lie will not work. Keep attempting to omit the context of the entire exchange, and I'll continue to provide it to expose your mendacity. Again, as seen in the large red statement by me just above, the letters in question (not to mention books, busts, coins, etc.) were written by Caesar, about Caesar, and in Caesar's lifetime. The Gospels do not possess these characteristics. Of these three characteristics, the Gospels only possess one, namely, the second one. This is why they are not analogous to Caesar, which you yourself admitted.

Zarm Rkeeg: You never stated that you were asking for “letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus written by Him, to Him, or contemporaneously to Him, just like Caesar.
Luigi Novi: Yes I did. Observe:

Caesar wrote letters to people, and others wrote letters mentioning him, which were contemporaneous with his life. Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?

Chopping out the first sentence, when you knew full well that the second sentence was a continuing reference to it, and pretending that that first sentence was not contextually related to the second, was a deliberate lie of omission on your part. Pretending that it's not will not work.

Zarm Rkeeg: In fact, one of the qualification you wrote about the 'Caesar letters' is “Caesar wrote letters to people, and OTHERS WROTE LETTERS MENTIONING HIM, which were contemporaneous with his life.” (Emphasis mine.) That is exactly what the New Testament is- a set of letters that fit into the second catergory.
Luigi Novi: We're not talking about one of the qualifications. Do you not understand how proper sentence and paragraph structure works? Each sentence builds from the one before it. My question about the equivalent letters regarding Christ obviously pertained to the preceding sentence that mentioned all three qualifications: letters from him, of him, AND that were contemporaneous with his life. Pretending to pick and choose one from the three so that your non sequitur can be portrayed as a relevant and direct answer to my question will not work.

Second, the Gospels are not contemporaneous with the alleged Christ's life.

Your continued insistence that “all I asked” was that chopped-out sentence remains a lie, and your lack of honesty, including your feigned innocence (to say nothing of your portrayal of yourself as the one “under attack”), reveals a dearth of character on your part.

Zarm Rkeeg: It is precisely because I don't have a valid counter-argument- In the required archeological or historical 'playing field' that I don't respond- even if your reasoning is flawed based on common sense, I don't try to contest it because you won't accept that kind of argument anyway.
Luigi Novi: Oh really? You know what I will and won't accept? How do you figure this? You have a common sense refutation of an argument, but you'd refuse to provide it because I have somehow demonstrated a tendency to reject common sense arguments? How so? Where and when was this? If you had an argument based on “common sense,” you'd use it. Since so much of what you have deemed to post is totally lacking in it, it is ridiculous to assert that you're sitting on one that's characterized by it. Spare me the impotent rationalizations about me not accepting common sense, when that's pretty much what informs my approach to this discussion.

It remains that if you don't have a basis for an empirical conclusion or counterargument, then you don't have a conclusion or counterargument, period.

Zarm Rkeeg: And yes, I waste too much time here already- so I don't care to elaborate on why I disagree with you in issues that I drop- that would be a waste of both of our time!
Luigi Novi: You don't care to elaborate on why you disagree because you can't. You can't elaborate on why you hold the position you do if it's without any basis. You've already established yourself as a shoddy researcher, a poor debater and dishonest. Spare me the pretense that there's some “elaborate”, “common sense” counterargument that you're just sitting on. If you truly felt you wasted too much time here, you wouldn't keep coming here. Why, after all, would you come here to make arguments that utilize the most fallacious reasoning, but not much stronger arguments that would do your position much better? You don't have to time to present the refutation that'll show everyone here what a house of cards my position is, but you have time to make the statement about why you don't do so? How can you have time for the other, and not the one?

Zarm Rkeeg: Time spent researching does not have any bearing on the validity of an argument-
Luigi Novi: Of course it does. An idea or conclusion that is borne out of genuine intellectual curiosity, and based on research, facts, evidence, double-checking, and critical analysis, is obviously a more solid one than one that isn't.

Zarm Rkeeg: if it's just opinion, it's just opinion- no matter how long it took to come up with it.
Luigi Novi: It is if it's regarding an empirical matter, and utilizes the methodology of empiricism as a basis for it. Your intellectually nihilistic assertion that an opinion is just an opinion-as if one's reaction to a movie after coming out of a theater or on a flavor of ice cream is somehow the same as a finding in a matter of fact that is borne out of research-as if all opinions are somehow “equal,” regardless of their nature-is simply intellectual relativism, and it's bunk.

Luigi Novi: The problem is not that you don't have all day. It's that you don't have any basis for your statements, as you yourself admit, and that your capacity for critical thinking and intellectually honest debate is poor, leaving said statements nothing more than rhetorical.”

Zarm Rkeeg: Honestly, Luigi, I'd thank you to keep your speculations about why I respond/don't respond to something to yourself instead of resorting to insults on my character.
Luigi Novi: In the first place, the above statement by me that you quoted doesn't contain any speculations about why you respond/don't respond to something. The only thing that comes close is the statement that you don't have any basis for your statements, which you've pretty much admitted. Second, consider your request denied. I will continue to expose your dishonesty and your hypocrisy for as long as you insist on utilizing it. If your character attracts criticism, you have only yourself to blame for that.

Zarm Rkeeg: You said it yourself- if 'Messiahs' were a dime a dozen, the scribes would probably wait for something major to occur (like the crucifixion) before recording yet another one in the annals of history, the priests considered Him a heretic, and Jesus' fame was limited mostly to Israel, even if the Romans would have had inclination to write each other about a Jewish religious figure.
Luigi Novi: But to people of your position, Jesus was not a dime a dozen, because he actually performed miracles. You're saying raising someone from the dead isn't “something major”?

Zarm Rkeeg: Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not claiming a moral superiority there, just the fact that your sources' reasoning is no better than mine.
Luigi Novi: So you admit that your position is based on conjecture? Didn't you say that it was peer-reviewed fact?

Zarm Rkeeg: Precisely how it reads to you. Again, where does an opinion based on observation prove anything?
Luigi Novi: In the realm of science, where all hypotheses and facts begin with observation. On what else would you base an opinion pertaining to an empirical matter? Ouija boards and tarot cards?

Zarm Rkeeg: Especially when it contradicts what the writings themselves claim? (that they were written as historical recordings of true events.)
Luigi Novi: Yes.

What difference does it make what the writings claim? If a narrative claims to be describing actual events, that makes it so? Again, do you utilize this reasoning only for the Bible, or with all other ancient religious texts that describe the supernatural events and deities around which they are centered? Of course they “claim” to be describing real events. All fiction reads thus. They're designed as religious indoctrinational material to attract followers. What else are they going to say? Have one passage written as part of its agenda, and then in the margins, a line that goes, “Psst…..it's all hogwash!”?

Besides, modern historiography as we know it today didn't even exist back then. So what would even a claim by them that they were written as historical recordings mean by our current standards of scholarship?

Zarm Rkeeg: …“clearly written as mythological/religious narratives” to you, but unless you have a way to prove the authors intent, then is merely an educated guess.
Luigi Novi: When the author describes what Jesus was thinking or doing when he was all alone, that is typical of creative narratives, and not historiography.

Zarm Rkeeg: Obvious to whom? You? Not me. So why does something being obvious to you or Walker or Shermer make something true?
Luigi Novi: It doesn't. An objective and critical look at the material does.

Zarm Rkeeg: surely you don't think some of the passages in the “Zarm Under Attack” (Yeah, I know… bias…) post were civil and fair, do you? (Well, maybe fair…) Or do statements like “When you deliberately take someone's words out of context, lie, edit manipulatively, and generally behave the way Zarm has,” constitute civility?
Luigi Novi: My statements have been perfectly fair, given your egregious behavior. When you attack me by deliberately quoting me out of context, and pretend I said one thing rather than another, my pointing it out is entirely called for and justified. If it does not seem to be evocative of civility, that would be because that is inherent to the nature responding to such an attack, which is the fault of the person who initiated it, not the person defending himself. If you don't want me to point out your less-than-cheerful behavior, then I'd suggest you not exhibit it.

Zarm Rkeeg: Come on, Luigi, that's just falling back onto a party line-
Luigi Novi: No, that's me thanking Mike for clarifying a point about Thallus and Phlegon.

Zarm Rkeeg: …that doesn't deal ata all with their challenge to Walker's statements.
Luigi Novi: I didn't say it did.

MikeC: Can't I just assume that the ancient cultures had a myth account derived from some inkling of real life events and that the writer of the Noah story got the real deal?
Luigi Novi: To your heart's content.

But then it's not history.

MikeC: I don't understand your point about my apparent usage of the "makes it seem" Straw Man. I did respond to Shermer's points.
Luigi Novi: Your statement was that Shermer makes it seem that Christians have no answer for his criticisms of Genesis. He did no such thing. He responded to those answers by asserting why they don't hold-which isn't the same thing.

MikeC: The third was in a response from a misquote from Zarm that you eloquently defended; I do not think you needed to classify it as a "deliberate and knowing lie" because you have no proof to show it was a KNOWING lie.
Luigi Novi: Of course I do. It's not like one's posts are “accidental,” are they? He had to deliberately read that passage, and deliberately chop out that one sentence from the contextual material in which it was couched it in order to change its qualified meaning, and assert that that essentially different question was the one I was actually asking. And then, rather than admitting he did this, he continued to insist that only that one isolated question was “exactly” what I said.

A lie.

MikeC: Thallus wrote his history in A.D. 52, a few scant years after Jesus' life. His history was apparently thought well enough of to be quoted all the way in A.D. 221…
Luigi Novi: That doesn't mean that it's not hearsay. Again, what does what someone else thinks-or even what a majority thinks-have to do with whether something is hearsay, or with matters of empirical fact in general?

MikeC: I'm also ASSuming that he actually did some history work and interviewed witnesses/looked at records that are probably now lost.
Luigi Novi: History isn't based on assumptions.

MikeC: Because Gore Vidal never met Abraham Lincoln, should we assume that all of his historical account of Lincoln is just hearsay fiction? Take it with a grain of salt, sure (and we have the luxury of looking at his sources), but it's still a secondhand source.
Luigi Novi: Right. He has sources. We can check those sources. We can even interview Gore Vidal. The same does not hold true for Thallus.

MikeC: Your final paragraph illustrates the vast gulf again between people of faith and people without faith. To me, I have plenty of evidence that is not "empirical."
Luigi Novi: Then it's not evidence.

Let me know where to send the book.

Zarm, it is true that the bulk of the New Testament is letters, but they are not letters of the type: "My friend Jesus the carpenter has decided to become a traveling preacher today," or "Pilate ordered three executions today, two terrorists and a rabble-rousing itinerent preacher from one of the northen provinces." Letters of this type would be objective evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

The letters in the New Testament, on the other hand were written well after the Crucifixion (and after the Ressurection and Ascension as well). They focus on contemporary concerns, and almost all mentions of Jesus are of the Ressurected Lord in Heaven, not about his eartly ministry. Only six of them claim to have been written by eyewitnesses to that ministry, Paul coming on the scene much later.

Are they evidence for Jesus' existence? Yes. Are they objective evidence? No. While they serve to strengthen the conviction of someone who already believes, they do not even come close to converting the unbeliever, nor are they meant to.

Of course I do. It's not like one's posts are “accidental,” are they? He had to deliberately read that passage, and deliberately chop out that one sentence from the contextual material in which it was couched it in order to change its qualified meaning, and assert that that essentially different question was the one I was actually asking. And then, rather than admitting he did this, he continued to insist that only that one isolated question was “exactly” what I said.

A lie.

Luigi, even under the conditions you describe, it is still possible that might not be a "knowing and deliberate lie. I remember an argument I had once with a co-worker. I am, as I am fairly certain you are, a "Thinker" in the Myers-Briggs/Jungian sense. She was a "Feeler." I was making a certain point. In making the point, I said something to the effect that "If such-and-such a condition is true, then such-and-so a conclusion must be made." (I forget the exact details) She kept responding, "I can see why you would feel that way, but it is not true for me." It took about three times before I realized that she apparently did not hear the "if" clause. I tried emphasizing it and rephrasing it, but it still didn't register with her. To her it was nothing but a meaningless introductory phrase. Finally I asked her point blank about the point in the "if" clause, and it was to her as if it was the first time I brought the subject up. Once we got that out of the way, we were finally able to come to a meaningful conclusion.

Yes, this is typical of a small handful of posters who have visited Nit-C, who don't seem to read posts carefully enough when you first mention it. I was just looking through the Bowling for Columbine boards (the sections following my posting of the 17 major criticisms of it), and one poster seemed to constantly claim that I said things I didn't, and I had to constantly point out the actual original passage. When I did this, he would often ignore the clarification, his responses often bearing little relationship to the actual words exchanged previously.

But this is more than just not reading something. Zarm had to deliberately chop out the rest of the passage, and did this twice now. That's deliberate. At what point do we begin to hold someone responisble for deliberately ignoring an important piece of material that provides context for something they quote, particularly after multiple instances?

Zarm had to deliberately chop out the rest of the passage

Well, it's not like we have a "Quote" button here that copies the entire passage, thus requiring him to "deliberately chop out" sections. If it was a passage in the middle of the quote, then yes, it was deliberate.

There have been times I wanted to respond to a certain message and whether intentional or not, did not re-read or copy the entire post.

"But then it's not history."

I didn't say it was! I am saying my assumption is frankly, an equally good assumption as yours that both were myths.

Re: Shermer
I'm still not convinced. In one of Shermer's examples, he cites the "errors" in the Creation story and Noah's story while only listing some mild, limp rebuttals from Meyer. This has the effect of making it seem (there I go again) that most Christians are unaware of these things and that these are grievous errors that destroy the Bible, when in effect, good apologetics do indeed have other rebuttals. That is what I was referring to about Shermer.

Re: "Knowing" lie
Certainly Zarm was inaccurate and I guess he lied. But was it knowing? My feeling is that you definitely hold him accountable. Take him to task for misquoting you. But calling him a deliberate and knowing liar? Hey, I've misquoted people before--sometimes chopping down sentences to what I personally perceive to be their main point. Was I inaccurate? Yeah, but I don't think I was knowingly "lying." Your wonderfully entertaining, Robert Jackson-esque list of analytical offenses perpetuated by Zarm is, honestly, a much more effective way of getting your point across--in that section, I felt you made your point without vitriol or (much) sarcasm and you did not accuse Zarm of lying, but rather faulty arguments, which are easier to show.

Re: Thallus
I am not holding Thallus up as a paragon of empirical fact. I am merely suggesting that everything he says should not be thrown out because he was not a direct witness and did not bother to use MLA documentation of his sources. My only point in listing Thallus was to challenge your point that no contemporary mentions the "vast darkness," when Thallus (who is basically a contemporary, coming only 20 years after Christ) does indeed mention it.

Re: Evidence
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, then are dreamed of in your philosophy."
The dictionary defines evidence as "a thing or things, helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment" and "something indicative, an outward sign." From my perspective, my evidence is all of those things. From your perspective, probably not so much.

Re: Book
I'll let you know when I nail down that pesky matter of an address, which will depend on where I will be living after this year.

You know, I have to admit that I’m a little jealous that Luigi hasn’t responded to my post. . I even cited a skeptic who accepts Jesus was an actual historical figure (even though he obviously wouldn’t believe the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection from the dead, etc.):

By Mike D. on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 06:40 am:


Tim Callahan wrote: “If Jesus was made up out of whole cloth, as many skeptics assert, then the Nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke wouldn’t have had to deal with the embarrassing fact that in order to fulfill the prophecy of Micah 5:2 Jesus was supposed to come from Bethlehem, the home of David (at least according to legend), when he actually came from Galilee. Thus, both Matthew and Luke have to invent elaborate and rather unbelievable reasons to explain why this man from Galilee really did come from Bethlehem. If Jesus had been entirely made up there wouldn’t be any problem of him coming from Galilee: he would have been born and raised in Bethlehem. Of course accepting Jesus as historical and accepting him as God are two entirely separate issues.”

Skeptic magazine Vol. 11 No. # 2 2004 (page 33)

By this same “criterion of embarrassment”, my understanding of skeptic author Callahan is that the execution of Jesus by the Romans would also be understood to probably be an actual historical event. At that time, would-be Messiahs were a dime a dozen and it would be doubtful that the Roman government would pay any more notice to Jesus than any other “rebel” that was executed. Obviously, they thought his death would end his movement and scatter his followers. They had no way of knowing that his movement after his death would actually grow instead of diminish or that Jesus after his death would become more well known throughout the Roman Empire than he ever was during his life. As a modern day example, it has been said that Elvis has achieved more fame (and made more money) after his death than he did during his lifetime.


It would seem to me that non-Christians would only have two possible theories for Christianity:

(1) The religion is a total myth and there was no actual person of Jesus. – Luigi’s position.

(2) Jesus was a real person and later Christians tacked on various myths to him. – Callahan’s position.

IMHO, I feel theory # 2 is the more likely and simplest explanation.

I'll go with #2. As can be seen with many larger than life historical figures the longer they have been dead or the more useful it is to heroize them the bigger and better they become.

Luigi, to attempt to clarify one more time: I was not lying. I was not claiming that the New Testament constituted Caesar-ical proof. You stated above: "Again, as seen in the large red statement by me just above, the letters in question (not to mention books, busts, coins, etc.) were written by Caesar, about Caesar, and in Caesar's lifetime. The Gospels do not possess these characteristics. Of these three characteristics, the Gospels only possess one, namely, the second one. This is why they are not analogous to Caesar, which you yourself admitted."

You got in in one. They posses one of the three characteristics. Which is why I referenced it. How is this a lie? You never said "Where a the equivalent letters for Jesus (and don't respond unless you do so with examples from all three!)"
Not only was I only responding to one of the three categories, "about Jesus," the question "Where are the letters sparked by the life-changing ministry of Jesus" seems to reference mainly letters in the second, and maybe third catergory. (Abot Him, and during his lifetime.) I took the question, literaly, as a reference to the second qualifier, and answered it as such.
I was not trying to be deceptive... answering the question stand-alone, which I was doing, may not be a method you aprove of, but even in context it is not a lie... I was answering the middle portion of your question.
Beyond that, it was not even intended to 'prove' anything. It was a humorous statement with an edge of satire. Believe it or not, people do that on these boards. I've seen people responding to a partial quote with their own humorous/ironic answer. The question about letters sparked by Jesus' ministry seemed ironic to me, seeing as that's exactly what the New Testament is. So I made the same style of pseudo-ironic joke that I see on the boards all over the place. I thought you'd recognize it as such, having frequented many of the other boards here.

So please, stop calling me a liar.

MikeC: I didn't say it was! I am saying my assumption is frankly, an equally good assumption as yours that both were myths.
Luigi Novi: I didn't make an assumption. It's an observation based on an examination of the material. And pardon me for not knowing that you weren't referring to history, but since this thread has largely been about the historicity of such material, I thought that's what you meant. Sorry about that.

MikeC: Re: Shermer I'm still not convinced. In one of Shermer's examples, he cites the "errors" in the Creation story and Noah's story while only listing some mild, limp rebuttals from Meyer.
Luigi Novi: He pointed out the contradictions in the Creation story, the impossible aspects of the Noah story, and the lack of evidence for such stories. Not “errors.” The rebuttals by Maier are the ones he gave. It's not Shermer's fault if they're “limp.” And again, you're forgetting the context of mentioning Shermer, which was to point out that Zarm's statement that historicity of Jesus is not a peer-reviewed fact.

MikeC: Certainly Zarm was inaccurate and I guess he lied. But was it knowing?
Luigi Novi: How can a lie not be knowing?

MikeC: I am not holding Thallus up as a paragon of empirical fact. I am merely suggesting that everything he says should not be thrown out because he was not a direct witness and did not bother to use MLA documentation of his sources. My only point in listing Thallus was to challenge your point that no contemporary mentions the "vast darkness," when Thallus (who is basically a contemporary, coming only 20 years after Christ) does indeed mention it.
Luigi Novi: I never said Thallus material should be “thrown out,” only that it is hearsay. And 20 years after Christ doesn't make him a contemporary.

MikeC: Re: Evidence There are more things in Heaven and Earth, then are dreamed of in your philosophy."
The dictionary defines evidence as "a thing or things, helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment" and "something indicative, an outward sign." From my perspective, my evidence is all of those things. From your perspective, probably not so much.
Luigi Novi: I acknowledge what the dictionary definition. Similarly, the dictionary defines “fact” with similar looseness. For the purposes of discussions issues of empiricism rather than individual subjective perception, we should agree on a definition that matches the context of this discussion, that is consistent from poster to poster.

MikeC: You know, I have to admit that I'm a little jealous that Luigi hasn't responded to my post. . I even cited a skeptic who accepts Jesus was an actual historical figure (even though he obviously wouldn't believe the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection from the dead, etc.)
Luigi Novi: Sorry, Mike. I didn't read anything in your post that sparked my feeling that a response was needed. No offense intended.

Me, I'm an agnostic on the issue, rather than the atheist. It would seem to me tha the atheist position on the issue, that he did not exist, is a negative that itself would require evidence, and negatives are often impossible to prove, because they lack evidence. It is for this reason that I feel it is more reasonable to agnostic on the issue: That he could've existed, but we don't know. I would say that any “skeptic” who asserts that he was “made up out of whole cloth” are placing themselves in a position that they cannot support, much as those who claim that he definitely did exist. I also think that using unprovoked invective like “embarrassing” lowers the credibility of such people as debaters. So allow me to reiterate-as I did on the previous board, that the idea that there was “no actual person of Jesus” is NOT my position, as you claim. It's possible he did not exist. It's possible he did, but in a form that bears no resemblance to the modern persona worshipped today. I made this clear on board 1.

Zarm Rkeeg: Luigi, to attempt to clarify one more time: I was not lying.
Luigi Novi: Zarm, attempt me to clarify one more time: I'm not buying it.

To some other person who is easily impressed by Astroturf Logic, argumentative smoke 'n mirrors, and so forth, it might be easy to be fooled.

I'm not.

Anyone who capable of following the original train of the conversation will remember (or see when reviewing the relevant portions of the thread) that your original question to me was what was the difference between Christ and Caesar that caused historians to treat them differently. I answered you, listing the evidence left behind by Caesar, and why it is different from evidence claimed for Jesus in many ways. These multiple differences is why, as I answered you, that they are treated differently. There is no “got in in one.” The differences were the ones I listed. Pointing out that the Gospels share one misses the point of the original question and answer. No reasonable, intelligent observer would conclude that the question was a reference only to the second qualifier, which has nothing to do with my “approval.” This is just more mendacity on your part used to cover up the initial one, and it's not working. Even if there was an edge of humor to the NT statement you made, it is made moot by your continued assertion of your position with regards to the relevance of the answer to the original question. You even conceded at one point that the Caesar analogy was a bad one, but you continued to respond to that one question separately, even though any honest reading of the exchange and the passage in question shows that it was made in that context. These are matters of indisputable fact and reasoning that are visible on the previous board for all to see. Neither you nor anyone else has presented any reasoning that shows why my illustration of it does not lead to the conclusion that I point out it has. Just blind denial and excuse-making, which I am not fooled by.

Lastly, I didn't call you a liar. I merely pointed out that you lied. Slight difference. Don't want me to point out that you lied. Very well, then. I will inform you of a way you can prevent me from doing so:

Don't do so in the first place.

Ack. MikeD, I accidentally referred to above as MikeC. Sorry about that.

Luigi Novi: So allow me to reiterate-as I did on the previous board, that the idea that there was “no actual person of Jesus” is NOT my position, as you claim. It's possible he did not exist. It's possible he did, but in a form that bears no resemblance to the modern persona worshipped today. I made this clear on board 1.

My bad. I guess I read something into some of your posts that wasn’t really there. Good thing I haven’t done that before – oops I have. .

Seriously, if you had to choose between theory 1 & 2, wouldn’t you say that # 2 is the more likely and simplest explanation?

Luigi Novi: Ack. MikeD, I accidentally referred to above as MikeC. Sorry about that.

No problem.

I don't know if one is simpler than the other, or if one has more evidence for it than the other.

Re: Observation, not Assumption
How about calling it a conclusion, then? As it stands, it still comes down to the fact that you assume/conclude that one was inspired by the other. Also, you expressed surprise earlier that I was not referring to "historicity"; let me state clearly that I am not always (and in fact, am rarely) referring to things in terms of "historicity."

Re: Shermer
Your comment actually helped me to realize that a fuller discussion of Shermer is actually quite off topic. Maybe we can move it to another thread?

Re: Lie, Knowing
Sorry, very bad typo on my part. I meant to say that Zarm made a mistake in representing you, not that he lied.

Re: Thallus
So how should we, working through an empirical viewpoint, address the hearsay accounts? Also, 20 years after still makes him a contemporary to the situation. If a historian were to write a book about World War II in 1961, he would have acccess to firsthand witnesses, and more importantly, people could dispute any inaccuracies as they could remember the situation.

Re: Definition of evidence
Ah, but there's the difficulty. My definition of evidence will be INHERENTLY different than yours.

Re: Mendacity
Everytime I read the word "mendacity," I keep hearing Burl Ives in my head: "I SMELL THE POWERFUL ODOR OF MENDACITY!"

Quote: “The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!”

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Once again, I claim the Worf's Crocket syllogism.

To each his own, Matt.

Worf: If you belive Davy Crocket was a great hero, then of course he died honorably in battle, if you belive he was not a great man, then it does not matter how he died.

"Once more into the breech." DS9

Unto the Breach. Not Into.

Sorry.

An Italian court will this week ponder the existence of Christ after an atheist accused a priest of misleading the public by presenting Jesus as an historical character.


The atheist, 72-year-old Luigi Cascioli, first filed a complaint against 75-year-old Father Enrico Righi, a parish priest in Bagnoregno, central Italy, in September 2002.

.......

The trial, beginning Friday morning, will consider article 661 of the Italian penal code which, under the term "abuse of popular gullibility", sanctions people who mislead others.

Luigi is being unreasonable.

(That'll look interesting to casual browsers looking at the Last Day Page! )

Seriously, I don't see how this could work legally. If Cascioli is successful, then will people not be able, under the law, to assert their own opinion, even to fellow believers of their same religion, who may already believe the same thing?

While the distinction between Jesus as a mythological figure whose existence is a matter of faith and the question of whether Jesus was a historical figure whose existence can be empirically established may be a subject on which both believers and non-believers should be educated, I don't see how referring to him as such in a parish newsletter is any of this guy's business. I mean, how, if this guy's an atheist, how did he even get a parish newsletter? What does he care what they say to one another? Aren’t such things fundamental to their faith? Me, I am far more disturbed when the media does not make mention of the debate over Jesus’ historicity, or the problems with the assertion that he was historical, because they are ostensibly fulfilling a service to public, have massive and instantaneous influence on that public, and are ostensibly supposed to be reporting or speaking about such matters objectively. But this is a private organization. I mean, if an archaeologist spoke about his belief in the existence of the city of Troy in an archaeology magazine or newsletter prior to that city’s discovery in the 1870’s, would Cascioli believe him to be “abusing popular gullibility”?

The issue of the historicity of Jesus is an issue for which people on both sides have arguments that they put forward, and right now, I don't think non-believers like Cascioli can say anything beyond "We don't know one way or the other if he was historical. There is no extra-Biblical, contemporary evidence for his historicity, so he may have existed, or may not have, or may have been a construct based in part on someone real." I don't see, therefore, what Cascioli's problem is with someone who takes one position because of his faith, and refers to it to his fellow parishioners.

And even if Cascioli believes that Christians are "gullible," then wouldn't he agree that their "gullibility" existed long before they read the newsletter, since they're presumably full-fledged members of the parish? Haven’t they pretty much made they own choice in the matter, by not only choosing their own belief system, but by joining an organization for that belief? I mean, if the law/Cascioli concede that their gullibility is “popular”, then how is that the parish’s fault? Really now, by the time a newsletter is sent to a parishioner who presumably already has a strong belief in Jesus’ historicity, hasn’t the Gullibility Ship already sailed?

I guess this is just one of the bizarre aspects of the Italian government/legal system about which I’ve come to learn.

Tom, don’t you think this thread would be better placed on the Jesus boards, especially since a discussion took place there on the question of his historicity?

I guess this is just one of the bizarre aspects of the Italian government/legal system about which I?ve come to learn.

I'm half expecting the court to throw it out because it's outside their jurisdiction (as one european or US court did years and years ago, when one guy accused God for everything, and the court said that they couldn't call God to trial. Heh.)

Otherwise, with the Catholic Church still strong in Italy, and the rightwing religious slant of Belosconis media, it's going to be a wild circus.

Right-wing? I know Berlusconi is conservative, but my understanding (through my father) is that conservatism in Italy is not what it is here in the States, and that in countries like Italy, many of the religiously-divise issues we fight over in the U.S. are not really brought up.

Of course, I'm not very knowledgeable about Berlusconi or Italy outside of sporadic conversations with my Dad, so in what way is he right-wing, constanze?

I'm not that knowledgeable about Berlusconi, but to me, though he calls himself "conservative", his actual political issues are right-wing. (Though most of the conservative in Europe have wandered to the right-wing anyway in the last decades, since the right-wing parties suddenly won double-digits - 10 to 20% in the german local elections, similar in Austria with Haider and France with Le Pen - in the 80s and 90s, so the main conservative parties adopted some of the extremists standpoints to win the voters back.)

Also, when Haider got part-power in Austria (my, how long ago that seems, now!), there was long discussion here what the EU should do to protect democracy, and a quasi-boycott was called for. Then, Berlusconi got power in Italy, and the Austrians (and other critics) said "Foul Play! Why doesn't the EU discuss and boycot this right winger? Because Italy is bigger then Austria?"

Kind of what many people say about the US boycotting Cuba: it doesn't hurt the US, the rich still get their cigars, only Cuba is damaged. But rich countries like China, which has much more serious human rights violations, is courted by everybody because it's a good market opportunity. So the forces of the market are more important then issues of human rights or democracy.

that in countries like Italy, many of the religiously-divise issues we fight over in the U.S. are not really brought up

It may not be the same problems, and certainly there isn't that public prayer in the white house stuff, playing your religion as openly as Bush did. But nevertheless, the majority of the Italians are still Catholic, so if a politican says he's for family values and all that stuff, he will win with the voters.

In the last months, Berlusconi seems to have dropped out of the current press - there was some trouble in the summer of 2004 over nasty remarks by some Italian minister, and Schröder cancelled his holidays, but since then...

Of course, most of the coverage was when Berlusconi got to power in the first place, because it showed that being a crimelord does pay: first, you become a criminal to get money, and kill all the state attorneys, policemen and similar who try to get you. Then, you use the money to buy the media, which portrays you in a good light, so you can win the election. Then, once you are President, you can declare a pardon for criminals, including yourself.

But that's several years ago, so with my bad memory... I'd have to ask somebody else.

---

Quote:

Kind of what many people say about the US boycotting Cuba: it doesn't hurt the US, the rich still get their cigars, only Cuba is damaged. But rich countries like China, which has much more serious human rights violations, is courted by everybody because it's a good market opportunity. So the forces of the market are more important then issues of human rights or democracy.

---

The Cuban people are damaged either way, because Castro controls everything coming into the country. When ignorant celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio vacation in Cuba, their money doesn't go to the Cuban people. Hell, from what I've heard, the average Cuban citizen can't barely afford to eat steak once a week, if that.

Luigi there are americans who cannot afford to eat a steak once a month let alone once a week. In many ways there are quite a few american people who are just as bad off as the cuban people.

Tom, don’t you think this thread would be better placed on the Jesus boards, especially since a discussion took place there on the question of his historicity? Luigi

I guess I was under the mistaken impression that the board titled "Religious Figures --> Jesus Christ --> Jesus Part II" was the "Jesus Boards."

However, considering that the topic has now drifted to the topics of political right-wing radicalism, and foreign policy it might be time to take it to PM

The Cuban people are damaged either way, because Castro controls everything coming into the country.

And this justifies the boycott or is different from the situation in China how exactly?

When ignorant celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio vacation in Cuba, their money doesn't go to the Cuban people.

So just like the average Club Holiday in exotic locations, where the vacationers live in a nice enclosed village with a pool and the money goes to the company who owns it, not the local people around it.

Hell, from what I've heard, the average Cuban citizen can't barely afford to eat steak once a week, if that.

Well, all reports I've heard blame this directly on the bad state of economy due to the embargo by the US on everything (and the lack of funds now that the UdSSR has collapsed, which helped out a bit before).

I've also heard that in many things Cuba is way ahead of the US and most of "free" (= non-communist, but capitalist/military dictatorships/ run by US business cartels) countries: Things like quality education free for everybody, free health care, ....

I think the boycott is a bad idea. Castro's legacy is a predominantly mixed one. There are educational advancements and health care, but let's not fudge things: Castro is a dictator. The country survived for a long time on help from the USSR and the Soviet bloc. The advancements were achieved through what some would call rather extreme measures. But this is all off-topic.

... but let's not fudge things: Castro is a dictator.

I'm not disputing this. But why is he an Evil Guy (TM) because he's a communist dictator, but Pinochet in Chile, or Noreiga in Nicaragua etc. were good guys as right-wing/military dictators?

But this is all off-topic.

Yes, let's get back to how that trial in Italy plays out. I glanced at an article on this in my major hometown newspaper (it was on the "Curious/Humouros" page), and they compared it Don Camillo and Peppone (a famous pair of a catholic priest and a communist mayor in a small village in the middle of Italy, who always fought with each other over politics, but respected and liked each other as persons, and helped when things got too hot. Written by Guareschi, and made into movies with the wonderful Fernandel playing Don Camillo in the 50s.)

Those weren't good guys either. And Noriega was in Panama. And we arrested him.

If Pinochet wasn't a good guy, why did the CIA assist him in his overthrow of a democratically elected President Allende? And why did every major politican praise Pinochet during his dictatorship?

And I meant the ex-CIA operative who worked not-so-covertyl in Nicaragua, but I messed up the names.

Because the CIA perceived Allende as a Communist threat. They probably were incorrect on the matter. But it's a non-sequitur. Because the US made mistakes in its foreign policy in supporting right-wing dictators, that means it cannot denounce left-wing dictators like Castro?

Do you mean Somoza in Nicaragua? I read that book by Nick Cullather describing the CIA's operations.

Luigi Novi: Concerning the paralles between the Story of Noah and the Epic of Gilgamesh, the flood does not actually take place in his legend. He meets "Noah," who now has immortality, and tells Gilgamesh of his legend. Much like how Beowulf goes on a Tangent about noble Siegfried, or how Aragon goes on about Beren in the LOTR. In historical-critical circles, The Noah legend is belived to share an orgin with the Sumerian Flood legedn, either by common ancestory (The Hebrews came from Shinar, where Sumer was, and would have the same stories) or by adaptation (Jewish Scribes researching the history of the world found the legend in Babylon, and found in it an early example of God's Judgement and Mercy, and put it into Genesis to give a more complete account of the beginning, although the Flood legend has two different rewrites, namely dealing with the number of animals.)

Because the CIA perceived Allende as a Communist threat. They probably were incorrect on the matter. But it's a non-sequitur. Because the US made mistakes in its foreign policy in supporting right-wing dictators, that means it cannot denounce left-wing dictators like Castro?

No, they didn't make "mistakes". They followed a continuous line of being hysterically afraid of everything that smelled socialist (not even real communist) and using that as an excuse, as well as really working for the interests of the American business companies. Similar for Cuba, where the US meddled before in the interests of business. Last example of business interfering: Afghanistan and Iraq. So as long as the US foreign policy continues - only with hysterical fear of socialism replaced with hysterical fear of "terrorists" as an excuse-for-all - and as long as only some dicators are denounced, I call it hypocrisy to do so. If there were real concern about human rights, all dictators would have to be denounced, instead of cooperating with some as long as it's convenient.

Matt Pesti: the flood does not actually take place in his legend. He meets "Noah," who now has immortality, and tells Gilgamesh of his legend.
Luigi Novi: Whose legend? Who "met" Noah? Gilgamesh? In what story did this happen?

And as far as them sharing a common origin, if true, then it would refute the idea that Moses was the only survivor of the flood in question. As for Genesis, if the Jewish scribes just "put" it in there to make a more complete account then it wasn't written/inspired by God, but by human scribes. The Genesis accounts differ in ways other than just the number of animals, which I mentioned prior.

Well, I don't think anyone is saying that Moses was the survivor of the flood.

In the epic of gilgamesh Gilly meets a man named Utnapishtim who had acheived immortality after ahving survied a great flood in an ark that he god Ea had told him to build to protect his family and animals. It is this story that the biblical authors ripped off or plagarized for noah as this one came first. But some christians think that Noah was the person referred to in the story of gilgamesh ignoring the historical timeline of the writings and cutlures of the region.

Ack. I meant Noah.

And I think "ripped off" and "plagarized" is a bit harsh. I mean, c'mon, do you know how hard it is to carve that little circled "c" in cuneiform?

I mean, c'mon, do you know how hard it is to carve that little circled "c" in cuneiform?


[]Not all that hard. In cuneiform everthing is done with wedge-shaped symbols. © is simply .[/]*

*Disclaimer: I do not really know cuneiform. This is meant as a joke.

Yes, I'm sure it wasn't plagarized. After all, we know God dictated every single letter of the Bible, and surely He could invent his stories himself?

But it does make me wonder why God didn't give the Israelites the real story first, but rather, after the other cultures, so that archaelogists would think that the AT had copied other people's legend. Why did He make them look bad?

Or did God dictate his story first to the Gilgamesh people, but because they mis-wrote the names (Ea instead of El, Utnapishtim instead of Noah), he stopped and went to the Isrealites instead? (Sort of like changing your copy shop after they messed up?)

TomM, nice cuneiform you've got. But I think you forgot to translate it from English into the original language.

I don't think that's really what God had in mind, what modern archaeologists would think.

No, He probably thought the world would end in the first century AD, since that would've put Jesus prophecies right. It's not as if God could've foreseen that archaelogists and Bible scientists would discover other editions.

Note: this was meant sarcastic.

Luigi will not have his day in court, after all.

On Thursday, Luigi Cascioli's case was thrown out of court. The court will not be ruling on the historical existence of Jesus

Luigi Cascioli, 72, had argued his hometown priest and former schoolmate had effectively broken an Italian law meant to protect the public from being conned.

But instead of granting Cascioli his request to bring the case to court, the judge recommended magistrates investigate him for slandering priest Enrico Righi, Righi's lawyer, Bruno Severo said.

.......

Cascioli, author of a book called "The Fable of Christ", said the court had not yet informed him of the ruling. But he was not surprised, and said he would appeal to Italy's highest court, and then to The Hague.

Ack. You beat me to it, TomM.

Ah...Luigi, the only wise human on the planet. (roll eyes)

Has anyone ever heard of the Oneness doctrine, Oneness Pentecostals, Sometimes referred to as "Jesus Only" doctrine
I'm Trinitarian myself, but do we agree that Trinitarians have the superior Biblical arguments and Interpretation ?