MAD Poster: DCP Delivers Talk that is not "Relevant"

[_Gazelam]

If Daniel came to my region, I'd drive an hour or more to see this presentation. I'd like to see how he goes about proving something that has no historical foundation, but is simply a matter of faith.

The Bible is not the only ancient manuscript to mention Jesus; two first-century historians also wrote about him.

Historian Flavius Josephus (AD 38-100) described Jesus as "a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wonderous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120) is considered the greatest historian of ancient Rome. His history confirms the existence of Jesus, saying that the Roman emperor Nero tortured "the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus (Christ), the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition (about Jesus' resurrection), repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also."

Sources: Jewish Antiquities, 18.63-64; Annals XV, 44

[_Mister Scratch]

I apologize for derailing this thread. I don't want to turn it into a topical discussion of any sort.

You're not derailing---don't worry, it already *was* "topical." In fact, I've noticed that you frequently mis-use the word "topical." Often, it seems like you actually mean "academic," "scholarly," "analytical," "interpretive," or something like that, rather than "topical," which simply means, "relating to a topic".

[_Jersey Girl]

If Daniel came to my region, I'd drive an hour or more to see this presentation. I'd like to see how he goes about proving something that has no historical foundation, but is simply a matter of faith.

The Bible is not the only ancient manuscript to mention Jesus; two first-century historians also wrote about him.

Historian Flavius Josephus (AD 38-100) described Jesus as "a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wonderous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120) is considered the greatest historian of ancient Rome. His history confirms the existence of Jesus, saying that the Roman emperor Nero tortured "the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus (Christ), the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition (about Jesus' resurrection), repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also."

Sources: Jewish Antiquities, 18.63-64; Annals XV, 44

Gaz,

Skeptics have a field day with Josephus and Tacitus, at minimum, based on the dates of their writings.

[_Gazelam]

Jersey,

Gaz,

Skeptics have a field day with Josephus and Tacitus, at minimum, based on the dates of their writings.

By the very nature of their title, skeptics have a hard time with everything. I'd hate to have dinner with one at a restraunt. It must take them forever to order. Not to mention I'd have to watch them eat food that's been spit on, because you know they'd send it back two or three times.

dumbasses.

[_Mister Scratch]

I took Gad's post as very tongue-in-cheek.

It was, wasn't it?

Surely?
x
x
x
x
x

Let me ask you this. What do you think makes more sense.

A) The apologists would write a book on the resurrection written and marketed to an atheistic audience when there are probably years of data showing that atheists are not avid purchasers of McDowell and Craig books?

B) The apologists would write a book on the resurrection written (as if) to athiests but marketed to Christians, where there is clearly already a demand for the material?

I think, Dr. Robbers, that you are making a very important point here. Who, at base, is the audience for this "project"? Secular skeptics? EVs? Doubting LDS? Or, faithful TBMs and apologists who are angry/bitter/annoyed/distraught over being made fun of for their beliefs---i.e., people who feel a very deep need to prove to others that their beliefs are "rational"?

I see further problems with DCP's project. BKP once warned that accurate history could be a "faith destroyer." Well, it seems to me that this "project" and others like it (the attempt to find empirical evidence for the Book of Mormon, e.g.) are "faith-destroyers" insofar as they attempt to render faith irrelevant. If you can prove that believing in the resurrection is "rational," then there is no need to simply have faith in the face of doubt and ridicule.

Finally, if the basis of the argument that belief in the resurrection is rational is based primarily on the historical and/or eyewitness accounts, does that therefore mean that other such beliefs in things---alien abductions, say---are also "rational" on the basis of historical and/or eyewitness accounts?

[_Droopy]

Will it ever, ever end?

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey,

Gaz,

Skeptics have a field day with Josephus and Tacitus, at minimum, based on the dates of their writings.

By the very nature of their title, skeptics have a hard time with everything. I'd hate to have dinner with one at a restraunt. It must take them forever to order. Not to mention I'd have to watch them eat food that's been spit on, because you know they'd send it back two or three times.

dumbasses.

So...what's your defense of the dates, Gaz?

[_EAllusion]

It's funny you should mention that Gad. When responding to the standard resurrection arguments, I've on occasion gone into detail pointing out that they work just as well for the Mormon story. In fact, the form of the arguments work little better for that case due to the more solid historical record from the 1800's. It's especially useful when they focus in on the strident belief of the followers, the people who died for their beliefs, and the eventual success of the religion. For evangelicals, that functions as a reductio ad absurdum. But I wouldn't be surprised if DCP agreed with me if I pointed out that WLC's arguments are easily adapted for Mormonism.

[_EAllusion]

But I wouldn't be surprised if DCP agreed with me if I pointed out that WLC's arguments are easily adapted for Mormonism.

Catching up with the thread, it appears I was right there.

[_Gazelam]

Jersey,

So...what's your defense of the dates, Gaz?

Josephus, writing in the 90s of the 1st century, could possibly have known one or more survivors of the 30s.

Tacitus is obviosly stating a history of the problems they were dealing with. He was stating the history as he understood it.