maklelan wrote:guy sajer wrote:Or, alterntively it might mean that the person who wrote the resurrection story understood the cultural context of the times.
Well, that's exactly the point. During that time period women were not considered valid witnesses of anything, so a person during that time period would never have chosen a woman as an eyewitness if they were making it up. You're making assumptions again that are far outside the scope of your knowledge.
Since this point is so obvious, I assume then that all Biblican scholars agree that this proves that the New Testament narrative of the resurrection story is accurate history?
HOLD THE PRESSES: Daniel Peterson of Brigham Young University and his sidekick Makelan have determined irrefutably that the New Testament is factual history. A woman saw Jesus first after the resurrection. Incredible!! What more proof does anyone need that the New Testament is factual history? Perterson and Makelan's paper on this topic is forthcoming in the top scholarly journal on Bible studies "Journal of Irrefutatable Biblical Evidences." Remember, you read it here first.
This is nonsensical reasoning. If a person making this story up understood the cultural norms of the time, he/she could very easily write the narrative with woman as the eyewitness. That the narrative identifies a woman as the eyewitness is necessarily evidence that it is factual history is ludicrous.
maklelan wrote:guy sajer wrote:Mark Twain's novels accurately reflected the cultural mileau of his time, but this hardly means that Huck Finn is accurate history.
I hardly find this a compelling argument.maklelan wrote:As unfamiliar as you are with biblical scholarship, this doesn't surprise me.
Being familiar with Biblical scholarship is irrelevant. I've critiqued the logic implied in your argument that a narrative that accurately reflects the cultural norms of the time must necessarily be historically factual. I've pointed out that Mark Twain (and countless other authors of fiction) accurately capture the cultural norms of their times in their works, but that the works are still fiction, nonetheless.maklelan wrote:guy sajer wrote:Moreover, is it possible that Harmony remembers correctly and DCP does not? Your response assumes that DCP has, a priori, a more reliable memory than Harmony. From where I sit, I have no basis to believe one is inherently more reliable than the other.maklelan wrote:One is an accomplished scholar who has taught around the world, the other is an angry chick who has blatantly lied to my face, and continually lies to others about her testimony.
One is a Mormon apologist who has a very public record of taking almost any position, however internally inconsistent, morally offensive, or unreasonable, in order to defend pre-determined conclusions, not reached via processes of reasoning or evidence, but authoritatively via "divine" channels.
I have no reason to believe DCP liar, nor Harmony, but I do know from experience that people remember or do not remember events differently for a whole hosts of reasons. Believe it or not, Makelan, your hero is human, and like all humans, does not possess perfect recall on every convesation, discussion board exchange, etc.
I am not saying who is right and wrong here, just that I have no a priori reason to believe one right and the other wrong, and your hero worship of DCP and antipathy towards Harmony hardly constitute evidence in either cse.